GOP Sees Dim Prospects for Term-Limit Amendment : Congress: Gingrich says mustering votes for a constitutional change will be tough. A plan for states to decide lawmakers’ tenures to be weighed.

House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) acknowledged Tuesday for the first time that prospects are dim for congressional approval of a constitutional amendment limiting the terms of federal lawmakers--one of the central promises of the GOP’s “contract with America.”

Confronted with the prospect of Republican defections and a potentially humiliating defeat on the House floor, Gingrich said that House Republicans are considering an alternative that would allow each state to set term limits for its federal lawmakers, rather than have Congress impose a national standard.

Such language, which mirrors a proposal made by Sen. Hank Brown (R-Colo.), would fall far short of the two term-limits measures outlined by Republicans in their 10-point campaign manifesto. Those would impose constitutional term limits on all federal lawmakers--a maximum of 12 years for senators and six to 12 years for House members.

The alternative Gingrich outlined Tuesday at a national town meeting sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce would leave to the 50 states the task of establishing limits on their federal lawmakers.

Such a law would adhere to the current vogue on Capitol Hill of devolving significant new powers, as well as some of Congress’ toughest decisions, to the states. It would also be much easier to pass than a constitutional amendment, which requires a two-thirds majority in each chamber for passage. The alternative that Gingrich described could be approved by simple majorities, which Republicans would be likely to achieve.

With powerful Republicans as well as many Democrats opposing a constitutional amendment, support for the measure originally favored by Gingrich appeared to fall well short of the necessary 290 votes--a number that could not be achieved without at least 60 Democrats.

“We have tough votes coming in the next 60 days,” Gingrich said. In addition to acknowledging the difficulties of the term-limits bill, Gingrich called a GOP promise of litigation reform the “toughest fight” Republicans face in coming months.

Gingrich said that “we’re going to be looking at” the term-limits bill Brown introduced for Senate consideration on Jan. 24. “We’re going to try to find a way there.”

Gingrich spokesman Tony Blankley cautioned that Gingrich was not endorsing Brown’s approach to term limits. But he added: “We want to figure out how to limit terms and what the best way to do that is. We are at the beginning of that process. It’s going to be hard to get the 290 votes--not necessarily impossible. . . . So it’s always worthwhile to assess the horizon to see what the possibilities are.”

Brown said Tuesday that his measure is an interim step that would ease the way to later passage of a constitutional amendment.

Twenty-two states have passed term limits, but their validity is unclear as the courts consider legal challenges to limits passed by Arkansas and Washington.

Passage of Brown’s bill would send a strong signal to judges that Congress believes states should have the right to determine how long their representatives should serve in Congress. Many believe that the courts would take note of the congressional action and allow state term-limits laws to stand.

Advocates of term limits on Tuesday acknowledged the political difficulties of pressing for a constitutional amendment, but they were critical of any measure that would stop short of the promise in the GOP contract.

Paul Jacob, executive director of U.S. Term Limits, which is lobbying Congress on the issue, was highly skeptical that a law granting states the authority to limit the terms of federal lawmakers would halt legal challenges.