Congressmen Agree on Limits but Not Terms : Politics: The six county Republican representatives reflect national GOP split by backing the concept but clashing on the fundamental details.

Last summer, before the Republicans took control of Congress, Orange County’s congressmen eagerly joined other GOP House members in signing a pledge to limit the number of years they could stay in office.

Democrats saw it as a campaign ploy, but Republicans vowed to keep their “contract with America.”

Now, despite obtaining the power they had longed for, Republicans are finding that it is not so easy to change the laws that would make them give up their seats.

As the House prepares to vote this week on a term limits constitutional amendment, the Republican plank for a “Citizen Legislature” is on the verge of becoming a broken campaign promise.

All six members of the Orange County congressional delegation say they strongly support term limits--not a tough choice considering California voters in 1992 approved a law limiting congressional terms to six years. (The U.S. Supreme Court is now considering the legality of such laws.)

But differences among Orange County congressmen over the various plans facing the House--including one that would override lower caps passed by individual states--reflect some of the debate that has caused a split in the Republican ranks.

Yes, Orange County’s representatives favor term limits. But should the maximum time allowed be six years or 12? Should the proposed amendment apply retroactively or should the clock on members’ terms start ticking once it becomes law? And should federal caps supersede those in states that have lower limits?

With many variations likely to be offered, House members have an opportunity of voting for a plan that’s not likely to pass and still be able to boast they voted for a term limits constitutional amendment, said Mark P. Petracca, a UC Irvine political scientist.

“They will bring more than one amendment to the floor, knowing they have got to give Republicans something to go home with, and none will win,” he said. “And that’s exactly what everybody wants. They can go home and say they voted for it and still not have term limits.”

Patrick Burns, a spokesman for U.S. Term Limits, the main lobbying group that advocates limiting terms to six years in the House and 12 years in the Senate, bemoans the political maneuvering.

“Why (House Republicans) made this a difficult process is beyond me,” Burns said. “They had the opportunity to pass term limits, but they don’t want to do it. They went to bat for the balanced budget amendment, but you didn’t see them do it with this issue.”

Following a meeting Friday of GOP House members, Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach) estimated that Republicans are split 80% to 20% in favor of term limits.

Cox, a member of the House leadership team, downplayed any talk that his party is backing off its pledge.

“We will get a majority (for term limits), but you don’t get 290 votes without Democratic votes,” Cox said, referring to the number needed to pass a constitutional amendment in the House.

“You will hear some passionate (Republican) speakers against term limits,” Cox conceded, “but this (GOP) conference is comprised of 73 new members who ran on this issue and believe (in) it.”

Burns attributes what he believes to be sidestepping on the term limits issue to Republicans not wanting to give up power after having just grabbed it for the first time in four decades.

“When it came time to govern, the Republicans said, ‘Well, we said it in the election, but we are in the majority for the first time in 40 years, so maybe we don’t support term limits,’ ” he said.

Rep. Robert K. Dornan (R-Garden Grove), a co-sponsor of the plan favored by U.S. Term Limits, agreed.

“I call it the ’40 years in the desert hunger’ problem,” Dornan said. “It’s a very natural impulse for senior members not to want to give up their one shot at changing the nation for the good.”

In the days following the GOP election sweep last November, Dornan himself felt the pull of the new power and flirted with the possibility of running for a 10th term, even though he promised voters this would be his last. But as he prepares for a possible presidential run, Dornan said the odds are “100 to 1” against him running for reelection in 1996.

Rounding up the required two-thirds vote for the term limits amendment should not have been so difficult, said Rep. Jay C. Kim (R-Diamond Bar).

“It’s not complex like welfare reform . . ,” Kim said. “What’s so complicated about (term limits)? Six years and you’re out.”

But he need only look to his Orange County colleagues to see disagreement even on the basic point over length of service.

The most popular proposals headed for the House floor offer 12-year limits for House members--not the six-year plan favored in national public opinion polls--to equal the two six-year-term limit suggested for the Senate.

“There’s a symmetry about that,” said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach), who favors the 12-year limit. “It makes sense; it gives people time to learn the job.”

If California’s six-year limit for House members withstands legal muster, none of Orange County’s congressmen would be allowed to seek reelection in 1998.

Rohrabacher, who is now in his fourth term, said that even if the state law is knocked down by the courts, his next reelection campaign in 1996 for a fifth term may be his last.

“There’s no term limits plan I have seen that will affect me,” Rohrabacher said, removing any personal consideration from the upcoming vote.

While Kim said a “yes” or “no” vote on term limits should be simple enough, he conceded being stumped on the question of whether there should be uniform term limits laws in all states, effectively overruling states like California that may have lower limits.

Kim said he “heard the message” from California voters who want a three two-year-term cap. The downside, he added, is that congressional members from states with longer terms would have more time to gain seniority and powerful committee chairmanships.

“Other states will take the clout and we will not have the power, and it’s a power game here,” Kim said.

Despite strong resistance from what he called the “old bulls”--the senior Republican members--Rep. Ed Royce (R-Fullerton) said victory will be achieved just by bringing the issue to a vote on the House floor.

“We’re making more headway than we ever did in the past,” Royce said. “We got the vote out onto the floor. The old leadership had always bottled it up and not even let it out of committee.”

Knowing Their Limits

All Orange County congressmen support term limits, but their positions on strictness vary. Congressional term limits have been approved in 22 states, including California, which set a limit of three two-year terms in 1992. State term limits laws are before the U.S. Supreme Court. If California’s law is upheld, all county representatives would be eligible to run only once more.

* Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach), serving fourth term. Supports 12 years for House and Senate members. “For me, it’s important that we not give either the House or Senate an advantage.” Says it does not matter if law is made retroactive to those in office at the time it takes effect. Will vote for whatever plan can pick up the needed votes, even if it calls for overriding state laws with lower term limits.

* Rep. Robert K. Dornan (R-Garden Grove), serving ninth term. Favors three two-year terms. If the federal limit is higher than what is approved in some states, he would reluctantly support preempting lower state caps “if that’s the will of the House.” Says he would work for all states to adopt the six-year limit.

* Rep. Jay C. Kim (R-Diamond Bar), serving second term. Supports six-year cap, and eight-year plan as a backup. Says he does not believe law should be made retroactive. Is undecided over whether federal term limits should override states’ laws mandating shorter terms because House members from those states would have less time to build seniority and thus political clout.

* Rep. Ron Packard (R-Oceanside), serving seventh term. Unavailable for comment; previously supported 12-year limit for House members.

* Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach), serving fourth term. Favors limiting House service to 12 years. Says retroactivity is a “gimmick” advanced by Democrats attempting to defeat limits. Favors preserving lower limits set by states, but sees “validity” in maintaining a uniform national standard.

* Rep. Ed Royce (R-Fullerton), serving second term. Favors six-year limit but would support raising cap to 12 years if states are allowed to enforce lower limits. Undecided on retroactivity but says he could support it.

Source: Orange County congressional delegation

Researched by GEBE MARTINEZ / Los Angeles Times