MISSOURI COMMENTARY: MOMENT OF TRUTH FOR TRUE BELIEVERS

The polls tell us that the most popular provisions of Speaker Newt Gingrich's Contract With America are two constitutional amendments: one to balance the budget, the other to impose term limits on members of Congress. The former failed by one vote in the Senate, the latter is floundering in the House.

The contract promised a constitutional amendment to "replace career politicians with citizen legislators." The contract also promised, as with all other provisions of the contract, to get this voted on within the first 100 days of the new Congress. Passage was implied.

Freshman Republican House members campaigned vigorously for term limits. They promised not to get carried away with the lifestyle of Washington and to come home in a few years, as good citizen legislators rightfully should do.

Veteran Republicans like Gingrich, Majority Leader Dick Army, Majority Whip Tom DeLay, Conference Chairman John Boehmer, Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde and others were either lukewarm or downright opposed to term limits. All agreed that a term-limit plank without any details would be appealing to the voters.

According to the game plan, last week was to have been term-limit week. After two or three days of spirited debate, a constitutional amendment was to have passed the House. All well and good, but what specific term-limit proposal can be agreed upon and muster the two-thirds requisite votes? Answer: As of now, probably none.

The intense squabble over term limits is a classic example of being for something as a general proposition, but opposing something when it is reduced to specifics. Everyone is for balancing the budget in general, but opposed to cutting popular programs or popular home-district pork. Most Republicans were in favor of term limits as vaguely set forth in the Contract, but opposed to specific limitations when faced with the shortening of their own political careers.

Here's the hodge-podge of proposals before the House.

-- The House Judiciary Committee, under the guidance of the unenthusiastic Chairman Hyde, recommended a measure imposing a 12-year limit on House membership, after which you can give it up for one term (perhaps handing it to your spouse) and then come back for another 12 years ad infinitum. As long as you could produce a periodic one term stand-in, you could stay forever.

-- The Senate Judiciary Committee has proposed to limit service in both the Senate and the House to 12 years. This has the benefit of symmetry, but it doesn't please the purists.

-- The purists, a group called U.S. Term Limits, has been energized. Its position is that six years is enough. Anything beyond that dangerously converts one from amateur to professional. The last thing we need in public life is a bunch of experienced people making important decisions.

-- U.S. Term Limits would really prefer leaving it up to the states to decide how long they way. If a substantial majority of states were to enact term limits, there would then be a premium on the minority of states not enacting any. That way the minority could permanently pre-empt the committee chairmemberships. If New York and California, for example, did not enact term limits, they could, in time, have all the committee chairmanships and leadership posts. How's that for true blue reform?

The Supreme Court has before it cases dealing with congressional term limits imposed by the states. Most constitutional observers believe the court will have little difficulty in knocking out these statutes. if, however, the court were to uphold the statutes, then the battle might move out of Washington and to the state capitols.

-- The Democrats are sitting back and watching the Republicans argue with each other. While in their holding pattern, the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee offered their own plan to limit terms to 12 years and apply it retroactively. This proposal is cleaner than clean. If it's good to limit terms, let's limit them here and now, not 12 years from now. Why should Congress put off into the next century something so captivating and wonderful?

This is the toughest test of Gingrich's leadership. He must produce 290 votes in the House for one proposal. He must produce all or almost all of the Republicans and hope for help from 50 or so more Democrats. He must prove to the freshman House members that he can bring the Republican old guard, including himself, into line. It's the moment of truth for the true believers, both young and old.

~Tom Eagleton is a former U.S. senator from Missouri and a columnist for the Pulitzer Publishing Co.