Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SUNDAY, August 14, 1994                   TAG: 9409160007
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: D2   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

DEFEATS FOR THE COUNTRY

And so, to a point, they were - just as, to a point, the president bears a measure of blame for the stall.

But they are also defeats for the American people. And the blame for the no-star performance ultimately must go to the folks who staged it: members of the U.S. House who seem to think their duty is to worry about every special-interest group in their districts, rather than the general welfare of their constituents and the nation.

This category includes, unfortunately, all three Southwest Virginians in the House. Partakers of the bipartisan sell-out include:

Sixth District Republican Robert Goodlatte, who slavishly follows the anti-everything truculence of a GOP drooling at the thought of exploiting Democratic disarray for gain in the November elections.

Fifth District Democrat L. F. Payne, who voted against the crime bill because of its proposed ban on cop-threatening, kid-killing assault weapons - and who earlier had announced his opposition to meaningful health-care reform because it would include, of all things, a way to pay for it: employer mandates.

Ninth District Democrat Rick Boucher, as much a servant of the National Rifle Association as Goodlatte and Payne - and who earlier had announced his opposition to the health-care bill because it would raise the federal cigarette tax by 45 cents a pack, never mind the public-health benefits.

Neither the crime bill nor the House leadership's health-reform bill is perfect. What's disheartening, though, is that the reasons for congressional resistance are precisely the wrong ones.

The president's key failing has been too much rather than too little willingness to compromise. It began very early in his administration, when he didn't stand his deficit-cutting ground on the issue of charging Western ranchers market prices for grazing rights on public lands. Consequently, some Western lawmakers who had gone along with it, reluctantly, found themselves cut off at the knees when Clinton later agreed to drop the common-sense proposal.

The latest example is the Senate leadership's health-reform plan. It does not include employer mandates, but neither does it pretend to achieve universal coverage - a feature that Clinton said in January would be essential in any plan he'd be willing to sign. Yet now he says the Senate bill is acceptable.

Even so, this does not relieve Messrs. Goodlatte, Payne and Boucher, along with their congressional colleagues, of a duty to consider legislation on its merits, rather than special-interest squawking. Nor does it relieve them of a duty to consider the consequences of their non-actions.

If the stall proves permanent, they should start explaining. For example, to the uninsured and insecure of their districts why avoiding employer mandates is more important than guaranteeing that working people can get medical care without going bankrupt or becoming charity cases.

Republicans can explain to the parents of the next child killed in street violence why it is more important to punish crime than to prevent it in the first place. Democrats like Boucher and Payne can explain why the NRA's endorsement is more important than halting a trade in weapons whose only purpose is to kill other people.

Opponents of a higher cigarette tax can explain why placating tobacco interests is more important than funding health-care reform and saving tens of thousands of lives.