House Votes Down Term Limits, Deals Setback to GOP : Congress: Lawmakers, by 227-204, reject constitutional amendment that would have capped their time in office. It was centerpiece of Republicans’ ‘contract with America.’

The House voted Wednesday to reject a proposed consitutional amendment that would limit the terms of office that members of Congress could serve, dealing Republicans a major defeat on an issue that stirred American voters and helped propel the GOP to power last November.

The 227 to 204 count fell well short of the 290 needed to approve an amendment.

The debate marked the first time that Congress had voted on limiting the terms of its own members, a proposal that has become an emblem of the angry, anti-government sentiment that has led 22 states to adopt their own term limits.

Advocates of term limits are hoping to salvage from the debate political ammunition to use in the next election against members of Congress who voted against the amendment. Although many senior Republicans opposed the amendment, GOP leaders tried to pin blame for defeat of the amendment on the Democrats. “We could declare which party is anti-term limits and it won’t be Republican,” said House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). “Give us 60 more Republicans next year and we’ll pass term limits.”

Term limits have always been the most difficult feature of the GOP legislative agenda. While polls have shown that 80% of voters support term limits, the proposal has been considered the least likely element of the contract to win approval. It is the only provision of the contract that directly affects members of Congress and the one that has opened the widest divisions among Republicans.

At this point, the fate of the term limits movement may rest largely with the Supreme Court, which is expected to rule by summer on whether a state’s term limits can apply to its members of Congress.

Some term limits advocates are pushing Congress to vote on a statute to authorize states to set term limits but House leaders have said that they will wait until after the court rules to consider that approach--which could be approved by a simple majority in each chamber. The Senate has not scheduled a vote on either the proposed amendment or the statute.

The loss is the second major legislative defeat for Republicans since taking control of Congress this year. The first came early this month, when the Senate rejected a proposed constitutional amendment to balance the budget. The last remaining item on the GOP agenda--a far-reaching tax bill--is also facing trouble in the House, where many Republicans have asked the leadership to scale back the proposed tax cuts.

As Wednesday’s defeat loomed, Republicans tried to limit their political damage by emphasizing that the contract pledged to bring the issue to a vote--and did not guarantee that it would be approved.

While the House GOP has shown remarkable unity in support of other items on its agenda, from the balanced-budget amendment to the line-item veto to legal reform, term limits were opposed by many senior Republicans, including members of the leadership and several committee chairmen.

One of the most impassioned speeches in opposition to the amendment came from a top Republican, Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.), who argued that term limits would strip Congress of the experienced legislators it needs to handle the complex issues of the day.

“I won’t concede to the angry pessimistic populism that drives this movement because it is just dead wrong,” said Hyde. “America needs leaders, it needs statesmen and it needs giants--and you don’t get them out of the phone book.”

Term limits opponents disputed the notion that the amendment was needed to bring new blood into Congress. Noting that 203 new members have come to Congress in the last two elections, Rep. John J. (Jimmy) Duncan Jr. (R-Tenn.) said that term limits represented an effort to “correct a problem that doesn’t exist.”

But proponents said that the limits are needed to transform the culture of Congress from an institution dominated by career politicians to one populated by citizen legislators more responsive to voters.

“Congress has become too much like a permanent class of professional legislators,” said Rep. Charles T. Canady (R-Fla.). “Term limits will break the power of entrenched incumbency.”

The debate laid bare divisions among term limits proponents themselves, who have been at odds over details of the amendment. Advocates agreed that the proposed amendment should impose 12-year limits on senators. They disagreed about what cap to impose on House members and on whether states should be allowed to impose stricter limits.

Those differences were reflected in the four versions considered by the House on Wednesday.

The most drastic, sponsored by Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), would have limited House members to six years, or three terms. That is the version backed by U.S. Term Limits, a lobbying group that has attacked House Republican leaders for backing a 12-year limit. Critics said that the 12-year cap was a fig leaf for incumbents trying to protect their jobs.

The Inglis amendment was rejected, 316 to 114. Gingrich favored a 12-year limit for the House, a version that was in the final languauge of the proposed amendment. It was sponsored by Rep. Bill McCollum (R-Fla.), who argued that the House would be weakened as an institution if its members served shorter terms than the Senate. McCollum also argued that six years is too short a term for members to develop the expertise needed for leadership positions.

Many freshman Republicans who backed the idea of a 12-year House limit objected to McCollum’s version because it did not protect the right of states to set shorter terms. Nineteen states, including California, have adopted congressional term limits of less than 12 years. During the 1994 campaign, many freshmen pledged not to preempt states’ term limit laws by approving a more generous federal standard.

Critics charged that it would have resulted in a hodgepodge of state laws, sending members from different states to Congress for different periods of time. “It would become a nightmare,” said Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.). “Lack of uniformity means unequal rights.”

Rep. Van Hilleary (R-Tenn.) offered an alternative that would have allowed states to set stricter limits, but it was defeated, 265 to 164.