A bill granting the District its first full-fledged seat in the House of Representatives passed the Judiciary Committee yesterday, clearing the final hurdle before a vote by the entire House, expected next week.

The House Democratic leadership has vowed to pass the legislation and send it to the Senate, where it faces an uphill battle. The House floor vote will mark the first time since 1993 that the chamber has considered a House seat for the District, and proponents hope that a victory there would create a wave of support.

"The key thing here is we're gaining great momentum, and we're going to build on it," Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) declared at yesterday's hearing.

The Judiciary Committee voted 21 to 13, largely along party lines, to approve the legislation. But in a dramatic move, a leading conservative Republican, Mike Pence (Ind.), who had been undecided, joined Democrats in voting yes.

"It's heartfelt," Pence later told D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) as she thanked him for his support. He added, "I want to be helpful next week," when the measure goes to the floor.

One other Republican on the Judiciary panel backed the measure: Chris Cannon (Utah). His Republican-leaning state would pick up a seat under the bill, which seeks to maintain partisan balance while adding the vote of the heavily Democratic District.

The bill, sponsored by Norton and Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), would increase the size of the House from 435 to 437 seats. Norton is currently allowed to vote only in committees, not on final passage of legislation. The bill would leave the District without voting representation in the Senate.

The District has not had a vote in Congress since 1801, when the federal legislature was established in the city. Previously, as the capital district was being planned, residents voted in Virginia or Maryland. The city has sought full representation in Congress for decades, with a variety of approaches that failed on Capitol Hill, in state legislatures or in the courts.

Opponents in Congress and some legal scholars have blasted the bill, noting that the Constitution says House members should come from states. Proponents point to the sweeping power given to Congress by the Constitution to regulate D.C. affairs.

Supporters were elated by yesterday's vote, which came two days after the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee passed the bill.

"It is simply undemocratic that taxpaying American citizens do not have representation in the House," House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said in a written statement. "Democrats will bring this bill to the floor next week and right this wrong."

Ilir Zherka, executive director of the advocacy group DC Vote, called yesterday's vote a "victory" but noted: "It was not without its struggles."

Indeed, the Judiciary Committee is known as the House's most politically polarized, and it lived up to its reputation yesterday as Republicans repeatedly sparred with Democrats. Opponents tried to attach numerous amendments to the bill as the session dragged on.

One Republican, Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (Wis.), assailed committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) for postponing votes on the amendments until the end of the hearing, allowing Democrats to leave the room for long periods without fear of consequence.

"I think it's a shocking indictment of how this committee is being run," he said.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) shot back that the Republican amendments were aimed at delaying a vote on a separate bill involving the Justice Department's firing of U.S. attorneys.

"If that's what's being done, I wish it would stop," she said.

At that point, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) took offense. He had attacked the constitutional arguments for the D.C. vote bill, arguing that the same logic could be used to grant House representatives to other enclaves.

To make his point, he introduced an amendment creating 44 congressional districts for U.S. military bases.

Unless Waters took back her comments, Gohmert threatened to create a real delay, by proposing 44 separate amendments. That would potentially allow him to tie up the committee for hours. Waters refused to backtrack.

After a lunch break, Conyers sought to mollify Gohmert by saying the congressman was a "cooperative" person who was not trying to drag out the proceedings. Gohmert agreed not to unleash the barrage of amendments. And, about four hours after the hearing began, the bill passed with no amendments.

"Free D.C.!" shouted a man in the audience.

With the bill likely to pass the House next Thursday or Friday, attention is shifting to the Senate. Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) is a strong supporter of the bill, as is Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), who heads the key Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

But few Republicans have embraced the legislation. And its backers don't appear to have enough votes to keep opponents from derailing the legislation through parliamentary maneuvers.

"We've been under the impression it's going to be a very big battle in the Senate," said one Republican staff member, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the senator he works for hasn't spoken publicly about the bill.

Supporters are pinning their hopes on the Utah senators, Orrin G. Hatch and Robert F. Bennett. They say the pair could persuade fellow Republicans to approve the bill by unanimous consent, a procedure that requires no debate or roll call vote if both political parties agree.

"That will not be easy," said a staff member at the Homeland Security committee, speaking on the condition of anonymity. But it will also be a challenge to pass the measure through the usual channels.

"Bringing a vote opens it up to all the procedural motions you see with the Iraq debate," the staffer said.