Off Base

Sunday, September 30, 2001; Page B06

LAST SUNDAY Sen. Trent Lott, the top Republican in the Senate, struck a note of patriotic comity; "it's been important that the leaders in Congress follow the lead that we've seen from the president," he said. By Tuesday, Mr. Lott thought differently. Presented with a request from the Bush administration for a study of potential military base closures, the senator went so far as to question the administration's regard for the armed services. "This is a great way to rally the troops," he jeered.

The administration wants to close bases that are obsolete and expensive. Since 1988 there have been four commissions that have recommended nearly 100 closures, to free money for more productive tasks. The defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff reckon that there is still a surplus base capacity of 23 percent, and that this drains around $3 billion annually from the defense budget. Even before the terrorist attacks, the need to update military equipment and take care of hardworking troops made saving money important. Since Sept. 11 the need to spend defense dollars effectively has grown all the more obvious.

It is also obvious, however, that it takes courage for a senator to support base closures. In Mr. Lott's home state of Mississippi, the nine main defense facilities employ more than 30,000 people and generate more than $1 billion a year in wages. The Mississippi Development Authority retains a base-saving consultant, and the state counts on its powerful congressional delegation to keep the bases open. You might think that, at a time of national unity, Mr. Lott would look beyond his state's parochial interests. But no.

In all, 47 senators opposed the administration's request for a new base-closing commission. Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) objected that the economic downturn made this a bad time to close bases; but the closures would only come two years from now, by which time the economy is likely to have recovered. Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) protested that the uncertainty following the terrorist attack made it impossible to know which bases need closing. But the Senate was not asked to say which bases should be shuttered, only to authorize a commission to study the question. Besides, most of the commission's critics, including Mr. Lott, had opposed it even before terrorism created new uncertainty. Yet Mr. Lott didn't hesitate to cite the attacks as a reason now to vote the wrong way again.

Thank goodness a narrow bipartisan majority gave the administration what it wanted. The battle now moves to a House-Senate conference committee. Let's hope the committee shows more courage than the Senate minority leader.