Beilenson, Gallegly See No Role for States in Setting Term Limits : Politics: Democrat opposes them, Republican says it should be a federal matter. High court prepares to rule.

Ventura County’s two representatives are divided over the issue of congressional term limits but agree that California voters made a mistake by passing a 1992 measure to restrict the state’s representatives to six consecutive years.

In the wake of this week’s announcement that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether states can impose term limits on members of Congress, Reps. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley) and Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Woodland Hills) expressed opposition to such action.

Gallegly would like to see a national 12-year cap on House members and has co-sponsored a bill to achieve this aim; Beilenson strongly opposes the concept of restricting tenure at all.

“People really ought to have a right to choose whom they want,” said Beilenson, who is seeking a 10th two-year term in a district that includes most of Thousand Oaks.

“We already have limits. Many of us are involved in close and difficult and expensive reelection campaigns now, as we have been all our lives. People have an opportunity every two years to pass judgment on us.”

Gallegly, on the other hand, said that, despite this argument, he backs across-the-board restrictions because “the overwhelming majority of the people in this country do support reasonable limitations. I think 12 years is reasonable.”

The Supreme Court will hear an appeal of a decision by the Arkansas Supreme Court. That court ruled in March that a term-limits amendment approved by the state’s voters in a 1992 referendum violated the federal Constitution, which stipulates the qualifications for federal lawmakers. The case will be argued this fall and is expected to be decided next spring.

California voters, like those in Arkansas, approved an initiative that restricts House members to three terms and U.S. senators to two six-year terms. If the measure is upheld by the court, House members elected in 1992 could not remain in office beyond 1998.

Twelve states besides California and Arkansas have placed restrictions on the number of terms that members of their congressional delegations can serve. The Arkansas appeal is the first to reach the Supreme Court.

Beilenson predicted that the court will rule that states do not have the authority to limit congressional terms. The Constitution requires only that a member of Congress be 25 years of age, a citizen of the United States for seven years and an inhabitant of the state from which he is elected.

Beilenson said he has become a better representative over time. He cited, in particular, the knowledge he accumulated during his stint on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, which he ultimately chaired. He contends that term limits would rob Congress of much wisdom and institutional memory.

“It’s just foolish on the face of it to force out people who are experienced and wise and have, over the years, accumulated a lot of important knowledge about the specific subjects over which they have jurisdiction,” said Beilenson, who was a state legislator before being elected to Congress in 1976.

“Although some people obviously outlive their usefulness, it’s not true of the majority of them.”

Gallegly, who is seeking his fifth term, said he opposed California’s Proposition 164 because it would greatly reduce the state’s clout in Congress and because the six-year time frame is too short.

“If you’re going to have term limits, the only way that it will work fairly between the states on the federal level is for it to be universal for all members of the House,” Gallegly said, noting that House leadership positions are largely based on seniority. “To impose limitations on one state and not another really is cutting off your nose to spite your face.”

He said he would prefer a 12-year limitation because of the time it takes simply to “get yourself up to speed on the dynamics of the job and represent the people at home. . . . Six years is too short a period of time.”

Gallegly, who maintains that campaign finance reform should be a higher priority than term limits, declined to commit himself to a 12-year limit unless such a law is passed.

“I never say never,” the former Simi Valley mayor said. “But I don’t foresee myself serving in the House more than 12 years.”