Incumbents Balk at Self-Imposed Checkout Times

They vowed to serve as citizen-legislators, immune to the blandishments of power. They promised to relinquish their House seats after just a handful of two-year terms. Their pledges seemed unequivocal.

But today, some are exhibiting symptoms of that dread disease: Potomac Fever. And its onset could have a significant impact on the 2000 election.

Of the eight House Republicans whose commitments to leave office come due next year, three are openly considering reneging. One other House Republican already did so in 1998 and may again run for reelection in 2000.

In each case, the lawmakers cited their increased clout and stature, along with a growing ability to deliver federal dollars and projects to their home districts, as reasons for rethinking their commitments.

“They’ve gotten a taste of power and they love it,” said Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia political analyst. “Now they realize that their states will be penalized--because seniority still rules the roost.”

Indeed, Rep. Tillie K. Fowler (R-Fla.), who set a four-term cap for herself when she first won election in 1992, said she began to have second thoughts after her election in January as vice chairwoman of the House GOP conference, a senior leadership post.

“I’m going to spend the next year learning about my role in leadership,” Fowler said. “Some say it’d take more than two years to be effective at it.”

Fowler and the other wavering Republicans know that, if they abandon their term-limit pledges, they may well alienate enough voters back home to endanger their reelection bids. In turn, it would be that much harder for the GOP to retain its narrow House majority, which it could lose with a net gain of only six seats by Democrats.

“It could be a problem for us,” conceded Rep. Thomas M. Davis of Virginia, head of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Fowler, echoing her fellow fence-sitters, said her decision will be made only after extensive dialogue with constituents. “It’s really more how they feel about it, what they think.”

Whatever she decides, Fowler insisted, “I’m still a supporter of term limits. I don’t intend to be a career politician.”

But such public agonizing gets no sympathy from activists pushing the term-limit cause.

“They made the pledge, not the voters. So they should honor it,” said Paul Jacob, national director of U.S. Term Limits, a grass-roots advocacy group.

Jacob’s group and other term-limit proponents have vowed to spend a combined $20 million between now and the 2000 election to promote their crusade and spotlight incumbents tempted to break promises to leave office.

The political scenario could worsen still more for House Republicans.

Upon capturing control of the chamber in 1994, they limited to six years the tenure of committee chairmen. As a result, some of these entrenched incumbents may retire rather than revert to the back benches--thus creating even more open seats for the GOP to defend in 2000.

It is, in short, the GOP’s very own Y2K political problem.

No one is feeling the heat more than Rep. George R. Nethercutt Jr. (R-Wash.), who ran on a pledge to serve only three terms and used the issue effectively to defeat Democrat Thomas S. Foley, the then-House speaker and a staunch term-limit foe.

Now Nethercutt is conspicuously keeping his options open--and is drawing withering attacks from term-limit backers. Just last week, Jacob’s group began airing ads in Nethercutt’s eastern Washington district reminding voters of his pledge. In February, the organization put up a billboard in Spokane that sardonically reads: “Congressman George Nethercutt: Thanks for keeping your word!”

A spokesman said that Nethercutt will not make a final decision until he has a stronger sense of his constituents’ views on the matter.

The same position was expressed by a top aide to Rep. J. C. Watts Jr. (R-Okla.), who, like Nethercutt, imposed a three-term limit on himself when he first won election in 1994.

Like Fowler, Watts’ situation is complicated by leadership considerations: He is the newly installed chairman of the House GOP Conference, making him the chamber’s fourth-ranking Republican.

Only one House Democrat, Martin T. Meehan of Massachusetts, has a term-limits pledge coming due in 2000. He, too, is wavering.

In the Senate, Conrad R. Burns (R-Mont.) abandoned his two-term pledge, recently announcing for a third term.

Term-limit proponents argued that career politicians too often put self-interests over those of their constituents.

“The fact is, people do cast their votes based on their political longevity. That’s what it’s all about,” said Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.), one of those honoring his commitment to leave after three terms.

Salmon added: “I think there are a lot of very, very high-minded people who have a strong philosophy and they came here for the right reasons. But the longer you stay, the easier it is to raise money, the better your committee assignments, the bigger your pension.”

Opponents argued that lawmakers who set a limit on their service ensure their own ineffectiveness. Recently retired Rep. Bob Livingston (R-La.) denounced the concept as “a stupid idea in search of a problem.”

Regardless, during this decade, 38 states have imposed term limits on governors, and 18 states, including California, have adopted them for state legislators.

The concept gained national visibility in 1994 when House Republican candidates embraced it in their campaign manifesto, the “contract with America.”

But subsequent efforts by the House to pass a term-limit constitutional amendment collapsed amid GOP dissent over its details. The drive suffered another blow when the U.S. Supreme Court voided an Arkansas law that limited congressional terms. That ruling, which effectively invalidated all similar state laws for those holding federal offices, caused many lawmakers to reassess their pledges.

Among them was Rep. Scott McInnis (R-Colo.), who vowed in 1992 to serve just six years.

“At the time, term limits was sweeping the country. Every state was going to be there,” recalled McInnis. “But then the Supreme Court ruling came down and no district had to abide by term limits.”

As a result, McInnis said, he decided that to adhere to his pledge--and give up his seniority--would put his constituents at a disadvantage.

“It would not be good for my district or the state if nobody else lives by those rules. How would Colorado fight California on water, on natural resources?” McInnis said.

Despite reneging on his pledge, McInnis won a fourth term in November, gaining 68% of the vote. And though he has not officially decided to run again in 2000, most political analysts assume he will.

McInnis said that, during the ’98 campaign, “people didn’t ask me: ‘How many years are you going to serve?’ They asked me: ‘During the years that you do serve, what are you going to do on water and natural resources, on growth, on providing for a strong military?’ ”

But such comments miff Rep. Marshall “Mark” Sanford (R-S.C.), another of those who set three-term limits for themselves in the 1994 election and is stepping down in 2000.

“The ultimate bedrock of representative government is trust. And we do much harm when we don’t keep our word,” he said.

But other House Republicans would not fault colleagues for breaking their term-limit pledges in 2000.

“People like Nethercutt, Watts and Fowler are just coming into positions of influence, and it may be better for them and the people in their districts to break that commitment,” said Rep. George P. Radanovich (R-Mariposa), who first won election in 1994 and has a self-imposed five-term limit.

Sabato, of the University of Virginia, is more blunt in assessing the dilemma faced by some term-limited lawmakers. “They were foolish to ever pledge a limit. They have only themselves to blame.”