Editorial: Congress: Good, bad and the ugly

Wednesday, Dec. 26, 2001 | 8:46 a.m.

There should be no sorrow for the loss of an economic stimulus bill that was overloaded with expensive goodies that showed no promise to stimulate the economy. Congress and the White House should quit pointing fingers and return to work next month and produce a package that isn't stuffed with tax cuts for big business interests and do something for people needing work. The Bush administration has successfully, and for good reason, used our battle with terrorism to get much legislation passed in recent months.

A good example is the passage of additional presidential trade powers. These powers were denied President Bill Clinton by Republicans, and many Democrats, for the past seven years. This year, in the name of unity, they were passed by Congress and sent to the White House. The 107th Congress passed other bills that provided tax cuts, additional funds for education, use of force against nations and organizations supporting terrorism, airport security, airline bailout, expansion of government surveillance and detention powers and a $40 billion spending bill for domestic defense.

The members of Congress, both parties, responded well to the proposals of a president. The Republican-dominated House found reasons not to act on a reasonable campaign reform bill sent to it by the Senate. Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif., is working on methods to even reopen campaign loopholes that were plugged last year. Exactly where this badly needed Senate bill will end up is in the hands of the president's own party. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the president both know the cost of fighting a war at home and abroad. They wanted to close more unneeded military bases in 2003. A previous round of base closings ended in 1995. During the past 13 years, 95 large military bases have been closed for a savings of $14 billion. This allowed for the savings to be used for weapons and troops.

Closing unneeded military bases has always met congressional resistance because almost every member of Congress has one or more in their districts. The last time a request was made for closing surplus bases, Rep. Rob Simmons, R-Conn., remarked, "I have only one base, and I do need it." Our nation doesn't need its added expense but Simmons, for political purposes, needs it. This Congress, rather than say no to the president and Department of Defense, skirted the issue despite the unnecessary expense.

The smoothies in the House, against base closing at any time, changed the beginning of any closures to a year after the next presidential election. The request for a 2003 beginning date was changed, and passed, to 2005. Rumsfeld said, "What this delay means very simply, is that the United States will continue to have something like 20 percent to 25 percent more bases than we need." The secretary added, "Given the war on terror, we will be doing something even more egregious. We will be providing force protection on bases we do not need. The money and the people that are devoted to that task cannot be devoted to something truly important with respect to the war on terrorism."

Next month, in addition to passing a reasonable and workable stimulus package, the House should find time to pass the Senate campaign finance reform bill. On the other hand, the Senate shouldn't pass the House-approved energy bill with its drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This bill, like the stimulus package, must be cleaned up before it's allowed to do more damage than good. Congress has plenty to keep it busy during 2002 and a strong patient's bill of rights shouldn't die for lack of action.