Next January the U.S. House will be so green that nearly half its members will have served under only one president - Bill Clinton.
Political analysts forecast that 70 to 90 new House members will join the 110 new members elected in 1992.In addition, by the time this year's elections are over, a third of the Senate will have been elected since 1990.
Thirty-seven House members and eight senators already have announced they will not seek re-election and more are expected. That pace is actually ahead of the 1992 retirement rush, when 65 House members left voluntarily, many propelled by reapportionment and the House bank scandal.
"It certainly undercuts the argument for term limits," said James Thurber, director of American University's Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies.
Senate Democratic leader George Mitchell's surprise decision not to seek re-election coupled with House Republican leader Bob Michel's retirement ensures that two of the four top party leaders next year will be new.
The retirement of Sen. Donald Riegle, D-Mich., opens up the chairmanship of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. Also retiring is Rep. William Ford, D-Mich., chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee.
"I think it makes leadership in both parties more difficult. It probably creates more vitality and at the same time more turmoil," said Rep. Vic Fazio, D-Calif., chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
The reasons behind the anticipated turnover vary. Frustration on the part of those who serve and public hostility toward Congress are factors, but so are ambition, age and competition.
Of the 37 House members who are not seeking re-election, nine are running for the Senate and six for governor. Most of those seeking higher office are Republican.
Rep. Bill Paxon, R-N.Y., chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, suggests the reason for the disparity between Democrats and Republicans seeking higher office is that more Democrats are in political trouble back home.
Democrats, however, say more Republicans are willing to gamble on a run for higher office because they are frustrated by their relative powerlessness in the House.
"Many of their members are moving on because they don't want to serve in the minority any more and they don't see any end to it," Fazio said.
Some House members are calling it quits because they are frustrated by Congress' seeming in-ability to resolve important problems or are fed up with burdens of an office increasingly held in low regard by the public.
Rep. Tim Penny, D-Minn., helped line up critical support for President Clinton's budget plan last year and then announced his retirement the day after it passed by one vote. He cited disappointment over Congress' failure to balance the budget as a key reason.
Rep. Phil Sharp, D-Ind., part of the 1974 Watergate reform class, said 20 years has taken its toll and he is no longer willing to sacrifice time with his family.
The growing number of complex and controversial issues that have to be dealt with each term, the greater time required for campaigning, and the increasingly negative nature of campaigns have "worn thin to me," Sharp said.
"The nature of the work, the demands and pressures of the job are such that fewer people are going to want to make it their entire life's work as some people have in the past," said Sharp, 51.
Eight of the House members who have announced retirement are over age 65, and at least another eight were expected to face tough re-election campaigns.
Of the eight senators who are retiring, three have been tarnished by scandal - Riegle and Dennis DeConcini, D-Ariz., who were scolded by the Senate in 1991 for intervening with federal regulators on behalf of savings and loan kingpin Charles Keating, and David Durenburger, R-Minn., indicted on charges of abusing his Senate expense account.
A fourth senator who is leaving, Howard Metzenbaum, D-Ohio, is 76 years old. Another senator, Harlan Mathews, D-Tenn., is an appointee who promised not to run for the office.
The large number of retirements combined with opinion polls showing deep public anger towards Congress have led political experts to forecast an equally large number of primary and general election losses by incumbents.
Paxon, who is predicting a turnover of as many as 100 seats in the House, claims the advantage is with Republicans because Democrats are defending more open seats - 21 compared with 16 for the GOP - and because the party out of power historically picks up seats during a midterm election. Also, more of the open seats held by Democrats are in swing districts receptive to Republican candidates than the other way around.
"The Democrats are defending the low ground, we're defending the high ground, in terms of open seats," Paxon said.
"We don't deny that it's a challenge," Fazio said. "We're going into this year knowing that we have our work cut out for us to hold on to our Democratic majority in the numbers that we currently have." The current House makeup is 257 Democrats, 176 Republicans, one independent and one vacancy.
In the Senate, it will be even more difficult for Democrats to maintain their 56 to 44 majority. Most analysts forecast a GOP pickup of three to four seats, which would make approval of Clinton's legislative agenda more difficult. Senate rules require 60 votes to cut off debate and force a vote on many issues.
Others believe the prospects for substantial election losses are overstated.