SPECIAL REPORT: 1996 ELECTION RESULTS

November 14, 1996

The 1996 presidential election defies easy explanation; it was not ideological, energizing or exciting. Indeed, the voters simply opted for the status quo. Although President Clinton managed to increase his winning margin over the 1992 election in this time of peace and prosperity, he was once again denied the illusive, absolute majority of popular votes. The electoral map was a replay of 1992: in this election, Clinton captured 31 states and the District of Columbia; four years ago, he claimed 32 states and the District of Columbia. Across the aisle, Republican standard bearer Bob Dole did succeed in pushing up the GOP popular vote to 42%, reversing a downward trend in evidence since 1984. And for the second straight election, a third party candidate received almost 10% of the vote; this has not occurred since the eve of the Civil War. By passing the five percent threshold, the Reform Party is guaranteed federal funding in 2000.

Democrats have now won two presidential elections in a row, a feat not performed since the era of Franklin D. Roosevelt; but this historical achievement occurred in an election of extreme voter disinterest -- there were ten million fewer ballots cast in 1996 than in 1992. This was no landslide election with long coattails like those of Ronald Reagan or Lyndon Johnson; Woodrow Wilson perhaps provides an appropriate analogy with his popular vote wins of 42% in 1912 and 49% in 1916. And like Wilson, the Clinton presidency may simply be an interlude in the sea of Republican White

Houses. Equally likely, the Clinton win may signal the beginning of Democratic executive dominance, or a transitional era where an essential parity exists between the two parties. It is too soon to make any comfortable predictions.

The big 1996 election story was the Congressional campaign. For the first time since the 1930s the GOP held the majority for a second election. Although the outcome was also the status quo, the Congressional races were ideological and exciting. Most pollsters in fact concluded that, had the election taken place two to three weeks before November 5, the Democrats would have recaptured the House. The Democrats did put together a powerful package, the cornerstay of which was that the GOP was too extreme -- too extreme on Medicare, too extreme on the environment, too extreme on education. This message resonated strongly, but its sharpness began to dull after the GOP switched gears just prior to the August recess, abandoning their revolution and embracing compromise with the Democrats; many commentators contend that at this point the Dole candidacy was dead. Then in the fall, the GOP unleashed a huge amount of money just as the Asian campaign contribution story broke, pointing yet another ethical finger at the White House. This "October surprise" may well have cost the Democrats the House.

The Democrats simply peaked too soon; they needed a wave at the end, and they lost it. The GOP managed to re-elect many of their 73 House freshmen. Working in favor of re-election was an environment not hostile to incumbents: approval of Congress was up, voter anger was not high, and the number of survey respondents who said "the country is on the wrong track" had diminished. Indeed, when incumbent Presidents are being re-elected, the mood of the country is not to "throw the rascals out"; the incumbency return rate of almost 94% reflected this.

The status quo of the 105th Congress, however, is one with a difference. There are contradictory forces evident, and it is not at all clear which direction the new Congress will take. The retirements from both parties in both houses represented a hemorrhage of the moderates; these open seats generally were not filled with members eager to compromise. There are fewer moderates than ever before in the modern Congress, marked from 1946; the parties are polarized. The ideological distribution, historically in the shape of a statistical bell curve, is now weighted at either end. This distribution is reflected in many committees as well -- generally, the Ranking Minority Members are the most liberal in history, and Republicans are the most conservative in history. Problems will be evident in forging majorities in both committee and on the floor.

The Republican majority has but a slim margin of 19 in the House and, although the margin increased in the Senate from seven to ten, the GOP still does not command the supermajority of 60 needed to break filibusters. For public policy to be made, the membership must move to the center. Superimposed on this polarization is the shark-feeding frenzy created by allegations of various scandals; if the Hill continues with partisan hearings, the environment will be poisoned and legislative compromise will be impossible at worst and arduous at best.

Overall the 1996 election, at first blush, looks like a mandate for divided government, the Madisonian concept of government where differing factions provide a balance for the common good. Divided government in fact is not new; 16 out of the last 26 elections resulted in divided government. Indeed, the majority of Americans do support the abstract notion of divided government, and credited it with the compromises that the 104th Congress and the President finally produced. However, there is no evidence for genuine, strategic voting in the country; the vast majority of voters are in one party or the other. Individual voters are not in the balance business. Further, no institution has a "mandate." The President fell short of an absolute majority, and the GOP reaped a net loss of members in Congress. Both the President and the Congress will operate under severe constraints: the people directed not too much expansion and not too much contraction.

The United States is a moderate country; the American people want balance and balance is what they got at the end of the 104th. During the four years prior to this election, the voters had said "No" three times: no in 1992 to George Bush who dismissed "the vision thing"; no in 1994 to big government Democrats; and no in 1995 to those Republicans who wanted to shut down the government. Now in 1996, the voters said yes. Thus, the divided government elected in 1994 was returned in 1996. But the balance, reasonableness and cooperation the voters sought may be illusive; partisan acrimony has not gone away, many Republicans resent the Democrats for forty years of autocratic rule; on the other hand, the Democrats believe that they have been treated far harsher in the minority than they treated the Republicans. Animosities over ethics investigations prevail even as some Members move to restore civility by creating a Civility Caucus and organizing a bipartisan retreat. Finally, the ideological polarization and lack of moderates could make the 105th Congress an extremely unpleasant place.

Although the restiveness of the public took a respite in this election, the political system is far from healthy: the distrust of government is still alarming; the disgust with money in politics is growing; and the disinterest is evident with an election turnout of an abysmal 49%.

INSTITUTIONAL IMPACT: AN OVERVIEW

Partisan Allignment

House
Party	104th	105th
Republicans	236	225
Democrats	198	206
Independents	1	1
To be decided		3
Senate
Party	104th	105th
Republicans	53	55
Democrats	47	45

The House will have a substantially large freshman class of at least 74 (42 Democrats and 31 Republicans); the three Texas runoff races in December could produce at least two additional freshmen. Despite the re-election of most incumbents who chose to run, a robust turnover in membership will characterize the 105th Congress, thanks to the many retirements. As the body continues to become more junior, the members have all but abandoned any respect for the once powerful norm of apprenticeship. In 1994, one third of the House membership was new since 1990; in 1996, a whopping two thirds will be new since the beginning of the decade. This is a post-Cold War Congress. The vast bulk of members have been elected since the fall of the Berlin Wall; they have not served in the military; they are protectionists, not necessarily isolationists -- the world is simply not on their radar. These members are more focused on domestic issues and find world events of little importance to their functions in Washington. Although some senior party and committee leaders may care about foreign affairs, the vast majority of the troops do not. This domestic myopia may cause trouble for President Clinton who like most second term presidents will increasingly focus on world events; relatedly, the international component of NASA's Space Station may not resonate as well with these homeward bound House members.

Also this House GOP freshman class has less allegiance to Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) than the previous class had. The vaunted unity seen in the 104th is unlikely to continue. Issues will not be framed by a specific agenda; the Contract with America will not be repeated. The House will be difficult to lead. The GOP leaders do not have the loyalty of their own party across-the-board, and they don't have the friendships across-the-aisle needed to forge agreements. During the entire 104th Congress, Speaker Gingrich and Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO) did not meet with each other.

The Senate will have fifteen new faces; like the House this cohort is more polarized than the group it will replace. The thirteen retiring Senators are putting together a book of farewell essays, many lofty in tone and resembling George Washington's farewell address; by all standards this is a quality group of people who valued the art of compromise. Commentators and scholars alike generally agree that the replacements bring less than their predecessors, in terms of knowledge, political savvy and experience. Yet Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) and Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) will have nothing like the problems beleaguering the House -- the lack of respect and comity so prevalent in the House is absent in the Senate; Lott and Daschle, both strong and confident leaders, deal with each other on a cordial basis. Further, the ongoing ethics investigation of Speaker Gingrich concerning the financing of his college course, combined with his narrowed majority in the House, likely will thrust Lott into the position of primary spokesperson for the Republican party.

The status quo election results conceal a singular change in governance. For years during Republican presidents, the GOP asked for the line item veto. They finally got it this year, but the effective date was made January 1997 in the hopes that a Republican would again reside in the White House. But Republican Presidential aspirations died on November 5 and now President Clinton has in his hand this very powerful tool. Make no mistake, this mechanism is not about budgets; it is about power. The line item veto is a dramatic transfer of power from the Congress to the executive branch; it will be used to create quid pro quo situations and it has the potential for tremendous leverage against individual members. This weapon may just be what the President needs to get House leaders to work together for bipartisan agreements. The line item veto may be able to at least force communication, but the establishment of strong interpersonal ties is unlikely.

With this Congress that is very much the same, and very much different, the President must move first and must move quickly to set a bipartisan tone and establish the framework and agenda; indeed, his nominations for Cabinet replacements are a critical signal. Any second term President has a certain staleness about him, but President Clinton must develop an excitement and momentum, a sense of newness for the public to see.

Although neither the President nor the GOP leadership has a scripted agenda, six issues likely will dominate the policy scene for the next two years. Pressure for a balanced federal budget by the year 2002 will continue; all programs, entitlements and discretionary, will be on the block. Taxes will be addressed, ranging from specific, marginal changes like a child tax credit, to overhaul of the tax code. St. Augustine once said, "Make me chaste, oh Lord, but not yet"; time for chasteness on campaign finance has arrived. Voter concern with quality and access to education has reached a crescendo; this is an issue on the top of the priority list. A serious national discussion will take place on entitlements; already there is talk of a prestigious commission to address medicare reform. And surprisingly, a new entitlement -- health care for children -- is likely to be explored. Finally, welfare will be back up and sooner than predicted if the country encounters a recession.

THE SENATE AND NASA
Leadership
Chairmanship Changes
Commerce Committee
Appropriations Committee

The Senate parties will have their organizational meeting in early December to elect their leadership, determine committee size and partisan ratios, and nominate committee chairs and ranking minority members. Both parties are expected to return their current leadership roster:

REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP

Trent Lott, MS, Majority Leader
Don Nickles, OK, Majority Whip

DEMOCRAT LEADERSHIP

Tom Daschle, SD, Minority Leader
Wendell Ford, TN, Minority Whip

Both Senate parties follow roughly the same guidelines in organizing their committees. First the party ratio and size of each committee are negotiated between the two party leaders.

The Republican assignments are made by their Committee on Committees; then the members of each committee selects their chairman who is approved by the full Republican Conference. The Democratic assignments are made by its Steering Committee which also nominates the Ranking Minority Member, subject to ratification by the full Democratic Conference. Later in January and February, the committees will organize themselves by establishing subcommittees and making subcommittee assignments.

Although only one Chairman was defeated for re-election (Senator Pressler who chaired the Commerce Committee), retirements have provoked substantial changes in Senate chairs. Altogether, eight of the Senate's 20 committees will welcome a new chairman.

The Senate has never violated the seniority principle in its choice of chairmen; however, there has been speculation that Senator Dan Coats, IN, a solid conservative, may challenge the presumed heir to Labor, Senator Jeffords, who is regarded as one of the most moderate of the GOP senators.

The Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee

The defeat of Chairman Pressler will bring a new chairman to the helm of Senate Commerce, the panel that oversees civilian space; however, the change in leadership to Senator McCain is not expected to adversely affect NASA. McCain will likely focus his attention on transportation issues and use the committee's jurisdiction over telecommunica- tions to forge campaign finance reform, which McCain has promoted and championed for several years. Although McCain has been a strong NASA supporter, space issues are expected to be handled by the Space, Technology and Science Subcommittee. Sen. Fritz Hollings, SC, a persistent foe of the Space Station, will remain as Ranking Minority Member (RMM). With only the defeat of Pressler and the retirement of Senator James Exon, NE, presume minimal changes in the composition of the full committee. More changes may be seen in the subcommittee, especially if current Chairman Conrad Burns, of Montana, opts to chair another subcommittee.

For the past four years, the Commerce Committee has been unable to reach agreement with the House Science Committee in the crafting of an annual NASA authorization bill. Now that House Science Committee Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA) is gone, along with his insistence on multi-agency and multi-year authorization bills, this may change. What is unlikely to change is the annual Bumpers (D-AR) floor amendment to terminate Space Station; this attempt has become somewhat of a signature of Bumpers even though the amendment has been repeatedly trounced.

The Appropriations Committee

The retirement of Chairman Hatfield will transfer the chairmanship to Senator Stevens; the only other member lost to this committee was Senator J. Bennett Johnston (D-LA) who also retired. Funding policy is not likely to change drastically under Stevens but he brings a confrontational approach, something that the mild-mannered and courtly Hatfield eschewed. However, Stevens, not adverse to legislative riders and earmarking, has a good relationship with RMM Robert Byrd, WV, a critical component if this panel is to run smoothly.

Unlike other Senate committees, the work of Senate Appropriations is done at the subcommittee level and ratified by the full committee. The VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Subcommittee, which appropriates NASA funding, should be almost identical to that of the 104th Congress, with Chairman Christopher Bond, MO, and RMM Barbara Mikulski, MD. All subcommittee members will return to the 105th; however, one or two rotations off may occur, creating vacant slots.

THE HOUSE
House Chair Changes
House Science Committee
House Appropriations Committee

The House Republican and Democratic parties will meet in late November to organize. The current leadership team for both parties is expected to be retained.

REPUBLICANS

Newt Gingrich, GA, Speaker
Dick Armey, TX, Majority Leader
Tom DeLay, TX, Majority Whip

DEMOCRATS

Richard Gephardt, MO, Minority Leader
David Bonior, MI, Minority Whip

The procedures for House committee organization are similar to those of the Senate. Once the committee sizes and partisan ratios are determined, the committee on committees of each party will nominate the chairs and RMM, subject to approval of the respective conferences, and make the committee assignments. Committee changes at the top are fewer than in the Senate; only four House committees will see new Chairs in the 105th.

Since the institutionalization of seniority in the 1930s, the House has rarely violated its dictates for the selection of committee chairs. The most ruthless assault on the seniority system occurred in the 94th Congress soon after the Watergate reform Congress had amended the procedures for chairman election; three sitting chairs were unceremoniously dumped. In the intervening time under Democratic leadership, never was this scenario repeated -- although on a very few

occasions the most senior member was denied the chairmanship, usually for reasons related to health. The 104th Congress decidedly altered this placid scene when Speaker Gingrich, husbanding control over the selection of chairs, denied the committee leadership to the most senior member in three committees. This violation of the seniority system is continuing in the 105th.

To coax former Representative Bob Smith to run for the seat vacated by ethically-impugned Wes Cooley (R-OR), the Speaker promised him the chairmanship of the House Agriculture Committee to which by virtue of seniority Larry Combest (TX) was entitled. To be sure, Smith had served previously on Agriculture, but his sitting out the 104th Congress stripped him of all committee seniority. Turning to House Government Reform, Dan Burton (R-IN) is considered an extremely partisan member; if the Speaker wants to work with the Administration on bipartisan policy, efforts may be stymied by the climate created by Government Reform oversight. This will be an interesting committee to follow in the selection of its chairman. Then, there is the Appropriations Committee; Speaker Gingrich has already stated that he will support the continued chairmanship of Bob Livingston, LA, who leapfrogged over four members in the 104th, including the second in line, Joseph McDade (R-PA), who was under indictment -- House Republican rules prevent any member who is under criminal indictment from chairing a committee. But McDade was acquitted, and he is now exploring the option of re-claiming his seniority right as Chairman of Appropriations. Again, stay tuned to watch the unfolding of this drama. The critical factor in these anecdotal situations is that Speaker Gingrich likely will not be shy in ignoring seniority.

There is some question, however, as to how long the Speaker's top-down management style can work without serious backlash among the Republican troops and the committees. During the 104th Congress, the Speaker made unprecedented use of leadership task forces which marginalized the committees; the sustainment of such an hierarchical system is very difficult and committees will likely be given more breathing room in the 105th as Gingrich seeks to maintain broad support in the Republican Conference. Indeed, this sharing of power seems inevitable; however, do not expect to see the reappearance of the so-called committee barons of the Democratic years.

The Science Committee

The biggest change here occurred before the elections -- the retirement of Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA). The baton is expected to pass to the next most senior member, F. James Sensenbrenner (WI), who in the 104th served as chairman of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. Also anticipated is talk about eliminating the panel altogether; Rep. David Dreier, chairman of the Speaker's task force on committee reform, is anxious to institute jurisdictional changes that were deferred in the 104th. More likely are jurisdictional changes at the margins.

Chairman Walker planned space policy in league with his close friend, Speaker Gingrich, and often neglected to involve the other committee Republicans and Democrats. Sensenbrenner, who does not possess the same entree to the party leadership, is expected to lead his committee rather than act for it. While Chairman Walker was a critic of the Mission to Planet Earth program, Sensenbrenner's opposition to MTPE has been less vocal. Generally he has been supportive of most NASA activities; however, he brooks little tolerance for cost overruns. Returning as RMM will be George Brown (D-CA) who was reelected in a squeaker.

The Science Committee is anticipated to retain its four subcommittees, including the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. It is unclear at this point who will serve as chair of this panel; possibilities include Reps. Morella (MD); Weldon (PA); Rohrabacher (CA); Schiff (NM), and Calvert (CA).

The Appropriations Committee

The full committee lost nine members to retirements but only one to electoral defeat (Jim Bunn, Republican of Oregon), once again proving that members of House Appropriations generally hail from safe districts. The VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee for the 105th will almost mirror its 104th structure: Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA) and Ranking Minority Member Louis Stokes (D-OH) will return along with all other panel members except Barbara Vucanovich (R-NV), who retired, and Jim Chapman (D-TX), who lost his Senate bid. Again organizational changes may result in less senior members opting to rotate off; expect a few new faces.

SUPPORT FOR SPACE STATION IN THE 105TH

During the 104th Congress, the House five times rejected floor amendments to NASA legislation to terminate or reduce the Space Station program; each amendment lost by a sizable margin. Certain factors predicted whether a 104th Member supported Space Station; for example, a Republican was more likely to back the program than a Democrat, even though the President is a Station advocate. In other words, while Democrats were fairly evenly divided between supporters and non-supporters, the Republicans were predominately in the Station camp. In a like manner, conservatives supported Station more consistently than did liberals (with ideological leanings measured by interest group ratings). And freshmen tend not to be as supportive as more senior classes.

Do the 1996 Congressional elections produce a dynamic that will shift House support of NASA and the Space Station? There may well be a marginal decrease in support since, of the 74 House departing members, a robust 50 voted to support Space Station on the most recent floor vote to terminate station. Freshmen status and Democratic party label are not good predictors of Station support; yet the Presidency carries special weight. The Senate voted twice during the 104th Congress on floor amendments to terminate Space Station -- in each case the Senate rejected the amendment by a healthy margin. Unlike the House, departing Senators were evenly split between NASA proponents (8) and opponents (7). Eight of the 15 incoming Senators are currently Members of the House and their Space Station support is split evenly at 4 to 4. Thus, if all other things remain equal, the Senate should continue to defeat efforts to cancel Station.

This report has been prepared by Dr. Dianne Lambert; please address queries to her at 202-358-1911. Or send E-mail to Dianne Lambert.