A congressional committee approved a bill yesterday granting the District a full vote in the House of Representatives, giving the measure its first victory in what will probably be weeks of fierce wrangling as it moves through Congress.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform voted 24 to 5 for the bill, an endorsement its supporters expected. But in a likely sign of things to come, there was feisty sparring, with opponents calling the measure unconstitutional and marshaling amendments to derail it.

One amendment, which was successfully attached to the bill, seeks to prevent the District from eventually getting voting representatives in the Senate.

But Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) said she expected that measure to be stripped because of its doubtful legality. She said she did not fight the amendment because she did not want to waste time on an unnecessary debate.

"We'll never give up on full citizenship rights," said Norton, co-sponsor of the D.C. vote bill. "That one is not going to make it."

The legislation now goes to the Judiciary Committee. Although it faces a fight there, members are expected to approve it tomorrow and send it to the House floor, where the Democratic leadership has pledged to pass it.

The voting rights bill, co-sponsored by Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), would expand the House from 435 to 437 seats. In a political compromise, one seat would go to the overwhelmingly Democratic District, which has sought full representation for decades. The other would go to the next state in line to expand its delegation based on census figures: Utah, which leans Republican.

Currently, Norton has a vote in committee but not in the full House.

Davis noted yesterday that despite a flurry of amendments offered by members opposed to the bill, it passed handily, with six Republicans joining 18 Democrats to approve it. The five opposing votes were cast by Republicans.

"It's a pretty strong vote. It's a majority of both parties," Davis said in an interview. "The key is: Is it going to get through the House? At this point, it looks like almost a certainty."

Even if it clears the House, though, the bill faces big hurdles. It would have to be approved by the Senate, where so far it has elicited little support from Republicans. It also would have to be signed by President Bush, whose staff has expressed doubts about its constitutionality. If it succeeds in becoming law, it will almost certainly face a court challenge.

In yesterday's committee session, several of the bill's opponents focused on the constitutionality of the measure. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) said he had an added worry: that the bill would merely be the start of an offensive by the District to secure Senate representation.

That is not contemplated in the voting rights bill. But Westmoreland attached an amendment saying that the District "shall not be considered a state for purposes of representation in the Senate."

Westmoreland's spokesman, Brian Robinson, acknowledged that if that language makes it into law, it can always be changed by another law. But he said the amendment could be important in any legal challenge to the voting rights bill.

"The judiciary can't read into this law congressional intent to treat the District as a state," he explained.

Several lawmakers said the amendment would fail to have any impact because Congress can't legally place such restrictions on future legislative action.

The Judiciary Committee opens its consideration of the bill today with a hearing expected to focus on whether it meets constitutional muster.

Opponents say it doesn't, because the Constitution limits representation in Congress to states. Proponents argue that another section of the Constitution, which gives Congress broad powers over the District, is sweeping enough to allow the creation of a D.C. seat in the House.

The legislation has the backing of the majority Democrats on the committee, led by Chairman John Conyers Jr. (Mich.). It is opposed by the committee's ranking Republican member, Lamar Smith (Tex.).

"The real fight is in Judiciary," said Ilir Zherka, executive director of DC Vote, the primary advocacy group supporting the legislation. "It's going to be closer there."