Panel OKs Term Limit Measure : Congress: Constitutional amendment with 12-year cap on lawmakers’ service is approved by House Judiciary Committee. But GOP disagreements may doom it.

WASHINGTON —  Moving on one of the most divisive issues on the Republicans’ legislative agenda, the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday approved a constitutional amendment to set a 12-year limit on the terms of members of Congress, after rejecting more stringent alternatives.

But despite its approval, the committee’s debate on the issue provided a window on GOP disagreements that may help doom the amendment when it reaches the full House in a few weeks.

In an uncharacteristic breakdown of Republican Party unity, the panel unexpectedly refused to send to the House an alternative that would have limited House members to six years and also watered down the 12-year term limit plan outlined in the “contract with America.”

Instead of approving a lifetime limit of 12 years, the committee voted to allow lawmakers who had hit the 12-year cap to return to Congress after leaving office for as little as one term.

Unlike other elements of the Republicans’ campaign manifesto, the contract’s term limits are opposed by many senior GOP lawmakers including some members of the party leadership and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.).

Proponents face an uphill fight to win the 290 votes needed to approve the constitutional amendment and Hyde predicted a “battle royal” when the issue comes to the House floor.

“What little chance we have of prevailing is going to be contingent on getting every vote we can,” said Rep. Bill McCollum (R-Fla.), chief sponsor of the 12-year term limit measure.

The committee’s action thrust Hyde into the awkward position of leading committee debate on a measure he plans to oppose vigorously. Nonetheless, Hyde joined his GOP colleagues on the committee in voting, 21 to 14, to send the proposal to the House floor. But that vote, largely along party lines, came only after the panel approved the amendment softening the 12-year limit. Critics said that easing the lifetime ban undermines the purpose of limiting terms.

“We’re pretty well emasculating term limits,” said Rep. Howard Coble (R-N.C.).

On another issue that divided Republicans, the panel voted to impose the 12-year limit even in states that have adopted lower limits for their members of Congress.

McCollum said that without that clause preempting state laws, members of Congress would be subject to a hodgepodge of differing limits. But others argued that states should be free to set lower limits if they choose.

Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) said that the state preemption provision would “destroy the work of 21 states who have passed term limits by initiative.”

An alternative that would guarantee states the power to set their own term limits is expected to be offered with the GOP leadership’s blessing when the issue comes before the full House.

Although term limit supporters generally agree on a 12-year limit for senators, they have been at odds over how tight a limit to impose on House members.

Hoping to let the full House decide the question, Republican leaders had expected the Judiciary Committee to approve both the six-year and 12-year term limit measures. But the six-year bill was unexpectedly rejected by the committee when five Republicans joined all 15 of the committee’s Democrats in opposition.

Critics of the six-year limit say it would put the House at a disadvantage compared to the Senate, where lawmakers would be allowed to stay twice as long.

The panel also rejected a compromise measure that would have limited House members to eight-year terms, as well as a measure that would have linked the 12-year term limit to a proposal to extend House members’ terms from two to four years.

Most of these issues will be revisited when they come before the full House, where the GOP leadership is expected to allow votes on six- and eight-year versions of the amendment as well as other alternatives.