Is Congress Headed for Big Turnover? : Anti-incumbent feeling, advancing age and burnout pointing way to a major upheaval.

Between the dropouts and the pushed-outs, Congress may have an unusually high turnover after the next election. As many as 100 fresh faces may dot the 435-member House chamber and the 100-seat Senate when the roll is called next January.

A combination of factors--advancing age, redistricting, an anti-incumbent mood and political burnout--appears to be driving one of the biggest changes on Capitol Hill since the post-Watergate election year of 1974.

From 41-year-old Dennis E. Eckart (D-Ohio) to 79-year-old Glenn M. Anderson (D-San Pedro), the number of House members departing voluntarily is growing rapidly. While incumbents’ reelection rates held at 96% in 1990, no lawmaker is unaware of voter resentment, even rage, at those in public office today.

“They don’t like being hated any more than anybody else,” said one Democratic aide in the House.

For whatever reason, many members of the House seem to be applying term limits to themselves. Seven of the 45 Californians in the House are leaving. Reps. Anderson, Edward R. Roybal (D-Los Angeles) and Mervyn M. Dymally (D-Compton) are planning to retire from lengthy careers. Four others--Reps. Mel Levine (D-Santa Monica), Barbara Boxer (D-Greenbrae), Tom Campbell (R-Palo Alto) and William E. Dannemeyer (R-Fullerton)--are quitting to run for the Senate.

A big inducement to go now is an option available to 166 senior House members. They can pocket unused campaign funds if they leave office before 1993. This could amount to “severance pay” ranging from a few thousand dollars for some to more than $1 million for others.

Redistricting according to the 1990 census also will change the makeup of the House. It already has forced several retirements. At least five pairs of incumbents are running against each other in the same congressional district, so five of those 10 will not be back.

There is no way to predict how many additional members of the House will join the 30 who have already said they will quit. Retirements alone--not counting defeats of incumbents--have varied, from a low of 21 in 1956 to a peak of 49 in 1978. Some analysts believe a record high number, 50 or 60 members, may retire at the end of this session.

In the Senate, where the reelection rate has been much lower than in the House recently, three members are not seeking another term: Alan Cranston (D-Calif.), Jake Garn (R-Utah) and Steve Symms (R-Ida.).

Many congressmen with secure seats, choice committee assignments and bright futures are among those leaving.

Eckart, for example, was hailed as one of the most promising Democrats, one who could look forward to being chairman of a powerful committee, even Speaker of the House, some day.

Eckart has compared his life to that of a man on a treadmill, sacrificing time with his wife and son, continually having to raise campaign funds and meet with demanding constituents.

“For 18 years, I have placed my passion for politics and public service above the rest of my family and friends,” Eckart said. “The right thing to do, for me and my family, is to step back and smell the flowers.”

Rep. Don J. Pease (D-Ohio) is stepping down at age 60 even though he holds a prized seat on the House Ways and Means Committee. After 30 years in public office, Pease said he wanted to live a more normal life, to include “just plain loafing.”

Similarly, Rep. Ed Jenkins (D-Ga.), 59, is leaving to return to his law practice, and Rep. John Miller (R-Wash.) is departing at age 53, saying he feels less creative than when he arrived 10 years ago.

Of course, not everyone believes in early retirement. The 80-year-old dean of the House, Rep. Jamie L. Whitten (D-Miss.), is running again after more than 50 years of service. Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez (D-Tex.), chairman of the House Banking Committee, at 75 shows no sign of quitting.

It is hard to say what the turnover will mean. Changes propelled by the “Watergate babies” elected in 1974 have checked the power of reigning House barons.

“Another large crop of new members could facilitate some useful reforms and pressure on senior members who have the most power and have sometimes used it arbitrarily,” one Democratic Party official said.