[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 3 (Thursday, January 29, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S209-S219]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




RENAMING WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT ``RONALD REAGAN NATIONAL AIRPORT''

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for bringing 
this issue forward in an expeditious fashion. I do believe President's 
Reagan's upcoming birthday is an important time for us to mark this 
occasion. I thank Senator Coverdell, whose original thought I believe 
this was, along with the encouragement of millions of Americans all 
across the country. I have a longer statement, I would say to the 
majority leader, that I would like to give after his remarks, but let 
me just say, briefly, I find this--I find this astounding, that we 
would block this. There have been many fallen leaders. There are many 
former Presidents we have had, and living Presidents, that--there has 
never been any problem with the naming of things. I have been told that 
there may be an effort to name the Justice Department after the late 
Robert F. Kennedy. I would strongly support such a thing and I believe 
most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would also. But 
for us to block this at this time, given President Reagan's condition--
which we all are very well aware of--I think is unfortunate and, even 
worse, if this blocks this well-intentioned proposal to honor one of 
the most decent and nonpartisan and kindly people that I have ever had 
the privilege of knowing in politics, I think it would be a terrible 
mistake.

  I yield back to the majority leader. I will have further remarks 
later on. I thank the majority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank the chairman of the committee, Senator McCain, for 
his comments. I know we will be interested in hearing the balance of 
his comments. I thank him for allowing me to explain a little bit about 
what is going on here, if I could.
  First of all I want to emphasize that the proposal is to name 
National Airport, which is commonly referred to as Washington National 
Airport, the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. Washington 
National Airport was not named after George Washington. It was named 
after the District of Columbia, to denote a location, a physical 
location. I think everybody would understand that that would be 
appropriate, the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
  This idea, as I understand it, originally came from the immediately-
past Governor of Virginia, the State where this airport is located. 
That was the first time I ever heard it was from former Governor George 
Allen.
  The principal sponsor, Senator Coverdell, has worked in previous 
Republican administrations, has been committed to this and has been 
doing very good work in the preparation for this to happen. As for my 
personal situation, I had the clear impression that this was something 
that was supported by the family and friends of the President.
  But I also want to emphasize again something I noted earlier. The 
reason why we want to do it early is not just because we are looking 
for work, not

[[Page S210]]

just because we want to ram it through--I really thought it would go 
through, you know, on a shouted unanimous vote. It's because it is a 
special time in the life of a man who has meant so much to this country 
and to so many of us.
  In my 29 years in political life, this man, former President Ronald 
Reagan, has meant more than any other single person. I think history 
will show clearly he is one of the two greatest Presidents of this 
century, and in my opinion, the greatest by far. So I was very 
comfortable with moving it quickly, because of the birthday 
consideration. Keep in mind, now, this is a President, as you would 
expect from Ronald Reagan, who is sort of riding off into the sunset. 
He has been a credit to our country in so many ways, and since he has 
been President he has gone back to his beloved California and he has 
been battling a terrible disease that millions of Americans have to 
deal with, Alzheimer's disease. It is one of the programs, one of the 
diseases where we really don't fund adequate research. We hear all of 
these other things that are really looked into at NIH, all these other 
research programs, all these other problems, yet this one probably gets 
the short end of the stick.
  So I have been proud, and saddened, by the fact that he is afflicted, 
now in an advancing way, with this terrible disease. So I want, in any 
way we can, to say to him how much we appreciate him, what he has done 
for our country, and to his family and the sacrifices they made. Every 
President makes sacrifices to be President, and their families probably 
even more. So that is what is the driving force here. Who he is, what 
he is going through, what he has meant to this country, what he has 
meant to so many of us, and the fact that it is a special time in his 
life.
  The point is made, this is not an appropriate edifice. It is really 
not that pretty. It is new.
  Or that, ``Gee, it may not even be here in 25 or 50 years. We need 
something, a monument, that will be there for 100 years, 200 years or 
1,000 years.'' I think there is some merit to that.
  Some people say, ``We have this building down on Pennsylvania Avenue 
that is going to be named after him,'' and that is fine. It is not as 
if we can only name one facility. I don't know how many Roosevelt 
monuments and memorials we have. That's OK, and I voted for memorials 
and monuments to a lot of Democrats. I don't think we vote on these 
things because they are Democrat or Republican. Once they become a 
former Secretary of State, like John Foster Dulles, or former President 
Kennedy, they are a former President or a former Secretary, and, in 
many instances, we owe them an awful lot.
  I even think somebody said, ``Usually we wait until they have passed 
on.'' I think it is a ridiculous idea. What good is it to them then? Do 
they have any idea how much they meant to us then? I don't think we 
ought to make it a practice to do it immediately or while they are 
still in office. But for special people and special occasions, I think 
it makes us a greater people.
  I would like to include some examples of memorials and monuments that 
in the past have been named for U.S. Presidents: John F. Kennedy Center 
for the Performing Arts, 1963; James Madison Building, 1965; Lyndon B. 
Johnson National Historic Site, 1969; Harry S. Truman Dam and 
Reservoir, 1970; Lyndon B. Johnson Memorial Grove, 1973; Lyndon B. 
Johnson Manned Spacecraft Center, 1973; Lyndon B. Johnson Civilian 
Conservation Corps Center, 1974; Gerald Ford Building, 1977; Herbert 
Hoover Building, 1981; Dwight D. Eisenhower Interstate System, 1990; 
Theodore Roosevelt Building, 1992; Ronald Reagan United States 
Courthouse, 1992; Woodrow Wilson Plaza, 1994; Ronald Reagan Federal 
Building and International Trade Center, 1995.
  I do believe that we want to do this in a bipartisan way. I know 
there are some in both parties in this country who are not all that 
excited about this--with good reason, I understand that. But I also 
know there are people on both sides of the aisle and all over the 
country who don't care about partisan politics who feel like this 
should be done.
  Maybe I am influenced in bringing this up by a speech I read just a 
couple weeks ago by Margaret Thatcher, another great leader in this 
century, a speech she made on December 10, 1997, at the Sheraton 
Washington Hotel.
  I ask unanimous consent that her entire speech be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                   [From Human Events, Jan. 16, 1998]

                 How Reagan's Courage Changed the World

       The following is the text of the speech delivered by former 
     British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher at the Heritage 
     Foundation's gala 25th anniversary dinner at the Sheraton 
     Washington Hotel, Dec. 10, 1997:
       It is a great honor to be asked to be the inaugural speaker 
     of this series of lectures on ``The Principles of 
     Conservatism'' organized to celebrate the 25th anniversary of 
     the Heritage Foundation. Heritage has flown the flag for 
     conservatism over this last quarter-century with pride and 
     distinction.
       I've always considered America fortunate in having an 
     apparently inexhaustible supply of conservative thinkers 
     prepared to challenge the fashionable liberal consensus. That 
     is a tribute to the intellectual energy and the taste for 
     debate which are so characteristic of this great country and 
     which sometimes seem distressingly absent in contemporary 
     Europe. But it is also a tribute to Heritage (and in 
     particular to Ed Feulner) that these conservative thinkers 
     have been motivated and sustained in their mission.
       It is no less an honor--and, dare I say, still more of a 
     pleasure--to be invited here on the occasion of the 
     presentation of the Clare Booth Luce award to my old friend 
     Ronald Reagan.
       President Reagan is one of the greatest men of our time, 
     and one of the greatest American Presidents of all time. If 
     that is not fully appreciated today, and sadly it is not, it 
     isn't really surprising. After all, so many people have been 
     proved wrong by Ronald Reagan that they simply daren't 
     acknowledge his achievement.
       Forests have already been pulped to print the revisionist 
     analyses of the '80s. Those who were once so confident of the 
     superiority of the Soviet system that they advocated 
     appeasement of it now pretend to believe that it was doomed 
     to inevitable collapse. Tell that to the Russians! The former 
     Soviet ministers didn't, and don't, doubt the seriousness of 
     the struggle, even if Western liberal commentators do.
       No one in the West appreciates all this better--and no one 
     served the President and this country more loyally--than Cap 
     Weinberger, here to receive the award on Ronald Reagan's 
     behalf. He was also a great friend to Britain, above all 
     during the Falklands War. It's nice to be among 
     conservatives. It's still nicer to be among friends.
       When the Heritage Foundation asked me to make the virtue of 
     courage the centerpiece of this lecture, I was not 
     displeased. Of the four cardinal virtues (courage, 
     temperance, justice and prudence) it is the last (prudence) 
     that the ancient philosophers traditionally placed at the 
     moral apex. They did so because they understood, quite 
     rightly, that without that practical, seemingly rather dull 
     virtue, none of the others could be correctly applied. You 
     have to know when and how to be brave, or self-controlled or 
     fair-minded, in particular situations. Prudence--or what I 
     would prefer to call a good, hearty helping of common sense--
     shows the way.


                   courage and charm of ronald reagan

       But in my political lifetime I believe that it is fortitude 
     or courage that we've most needed and often, I fear, most 
     lacked.
       Today we are particularly conscious of the courage of 
     Ronald Reagan. It was easy for his contemporaries to ignore 
     it: He always seemed so calm and relaxed, with natural charm, 
     unstudied self-assurance, and unquenchable good humor. He was 
     always ready with just the right quip--often self-
     deprecatory, though with a serious purpose--so as to lighten 
     the darkest moments and give all around him heart. The 
     excellent recent study by Dinesh D'Souza refreshed my memory 
     about some of these occasions and told me of others which I 
     didn't previously know.
       Right from the beginning, Ronald Reagan set out to 
     challenge everything that the liberal political elite of 
     America accepted and sought to propagate.
       They believed that America was doomed to decline. He 
     believed it was destined for further greatness.
       They imagined that sooner or later there would be 
     convergence between the free Western system and the socialist 
     Eastern system, and that some kind of social democratic 
     outcome was inevitable. He, by contrast, considered that 
     socialism was a patent failure which should be cast onto the 
     trash heap of history.
       They thought that the problem with America was the American 
     people, though they didn't quite put it like that. He thought 
     that the problem with America was the American government, 
     and he did put it just like that.
       The political elite were prepared to kowtow to the 
     counterculture that grew up on American campuses, fed by a 
     mixture of high-brow dogma and low-brow self-indulgence. Gov. 
     Reagan would have none of it and expressed his disdain in his 
     own inimitable fashion.
       On one occasion students, chanting outside the governor's 
     limousine, held up a placard bearing the modest inscription. 
     ``We Are the Future.'' The governor scribbled down his

[[Page S211]]

     reply and held it up to the car window. It read: ``I'll sell 
     my bonds.''
       In those days, of course, there were not many people buying 
     bonds in Ronald Reagan. But from the very first time I met 
     him I felt that I had to invest. I was leader of the 
     Opposition--one of the most tricky posts in British 
     politics--when Gov. Reagan paid me a visit. The impression is 
     still vivid in my mind--not so vivid that I can remember 
     exactly what he said, only the clarity with which he set 
     forth his beliefs and the way he put large truths and complex 
     ideas into simple language.
       As soon as I met Gov. Reagan, I knew that we were of like 
     mind, and manifestly so did he. We shared a rather unusual 
     philosophy, and we shared something else rather unusual as 
     well: We were in politics because we wanted to put our 
     philosophy into practice.


                      RONALD REAGAN'S ACHIEVEMENT

       Ronald Reagan has changed America and the world, but the 
     changes he made were to restore historic conservative values, 
     not to impose artificially constructed ones.
       Take his economic policy, for example. It was certainly a 
     very radical thing to do when he removed regulations and cut 
     taxes and left the Fed to squeeze out inflation by monetary 
     means. Supply-side economics, Reaganomics, Voodoo economics--
     all these descriptions and mis-descriptions testified to the 
     perception of what was proposed as something outlandish. But 
     it really wasn't and Ronald Reagan knew it wasn't.
       After all, if you believe that it's business success that 
     creates prosperity and jobs, you leave business as free as 
     you possibly can to succeed. If you thing that it's 
     governments--taxing, spending, regulating, and printing 
     money--that distort the business environment and penalize 
     success, you stop government doing these things.
       If, at the deepest level, you have confidence in the talent 
     and enterprise of your own people you express that 
     confidence, you give them faith and hope. Ronald Reagan did 
     all these things--and it worked.
       Today's American prosperity in the late 1990s is the 
     result, above all, of the fundamental shift of direction 
     President Reagan promoted in the 1980s.
       Perhaps it's something of an irony that it's an 
     administration of instinctive spenders and regulators that 
     now is reaping much of the political reward. But we 
     conservatives shouldn't really be that surprised, for it was 
     the departure from some of those conservative principles, 
     after Ronald Reagan and I left office, that left conservative 
     politicians in both our countries out in the cold. One of 
     Thatcher's iron laws is that conservative governments that 
     put up taxes lose elections.
       It is, however, for fighting and winning the Cold War that 
     Ronald Reagan deserves the most credit--and credit not just 
     from Americans, but from the rest of what we called in those 
     days the Free World, and from those in the former Communist 
     states who can now breathe the air of liberty.
       President Reagan's ``expert critics'' used to complain that 
     he didn't really understand communism. But he understood it a 
     great deal better than they did. He had seen at first hand 
     its malevolent influence, under various guises and through 
     various fronts, working by stealth for the West's 
     destruction.
       He had understood that it thrived on the fear, weakness and 
     spinelessness of the West's political class. Because that 
     class itself had so little belief in Western values, it could 
     hardly conceal a sneaking admiration for those of the Soviet 
     Union. For these people, the retreat of Western power--from 
     Asia, from Africa, from South America--was the natural way of 
     the world.
       Of course, there were always some honest men struggling to 
     arrest the decline, or at least to ameliorate its 
     consequences. The doctrine of ``containment'' was envisaged 
     as a way of conducting a strategic resistance to Communist 
     incursion. Similarly, the doctrine of ``detente'' also had 
     its honorable Western advocates--none more so than Henry 
     Kissinger. But the fact remains that it meant different 
     things to different sides.
       For the West, detente signified--as the word itself 
     literally means--an easing in tension between the two 
     superpowers and two blocs. This made a certain sense at the 
     time, because it reduced the risk of a nuclear confrontation 
     which Western unpreparedness had brought closer because we 
     had allowed our conventional defenses to run down.
       But it also threatened to lead us into a fatal trap. For to 
     the Soviets, detente signified merely the promotion of their 
     goal of world domination while minimizing the risk of direct 
     military confrontation.
       So under the cloak of wordy communiques about peace and 
     understanding, the Soviet Union expanded its nuclear arsenal 
     and its navy, engaged in continual doctrinal warfare, and 
     subverted states around the globe by means of its own 
     advisers and the armed forces of its surrogates. There was 
     only one destination to which this path could lead--that of 
     Western defeat. And that's where we were heading.
       This was a message which few newspapers and commentators 
     wanted to hear. It was at this time--the mid-1970s--that 
     after one such speech I was generously awarded by the Soviet 
     military newspaper Red Star the sobriquet of the ``Iron 
     Lady.''
       You might imagine that it would be easier to call for a 
     return to military strength and national greatness in the 
     United States, a superpower, than in the United Kingdom, a 
     middle-ranking power. But, oddly enough, I doubt it.
       America, as I found from my visits in the '70s and early 
     '80s, had suffered a terrible decline of confidence in its 
     role in the world. This was essentially a psychological 
     crisis, not a reflection of realities. We now know that the 
     arms build-up by the Soviets at that time was an act of 
     desperation. The Soviet Union was dangerous--deadly 
     dangerous--but the danger was that from a wounded predator, 
     not some proud beast of the jungle.
       The more intelligent Soviet apparatchiks had grasped that 
     the economic and social system of the USSR was crumbling. The 
     only chance for the state that had so recently pledged to 
     bury the West, but which was now being buried by its own 
     cumulative incompetence, was to win an arms race. It would 
     have to rely for its survival on the ability to terrify its 
     opponents with the same success as it had terrified its own 
     citizens.
       A totally planned society and economy has the ability to 
     concentrate productive capacity on some fixed objective with 
     a reasonable degree of success, and do it better than liberal 
     democracies. But totalitarianism can work like this only for 
     a relatively short time, after which the waste, distortions 
     and corruption increase intolerably.
       So the Soviet Union had to aim at global dominance, and 
     achieve it quickly, because given a free competition between 
     systems, no one would wish to choose that of the Soviets. 
     Their problem was that even though they diverted the best of 
     their talent and a huge share of their GDP to the military 
     complex, they lacked the moral and material resources to 
     achieve superiority. That would be apparent as soon as the 
     West found leaders determined to face them down.
       This was what Ronald Reagan, with my enthusiastic support 
     and that of a number of other leaders, set out as President 
     to do. And he did it on the basis of a well-considered and 
     elaborated doctrine.
       The world has, of course, seen many international 
     doctrines--Monroe, Truman, and Brezhnev have all made their 
     contributions, some more positive than others. But for my 
     money it is the Reagan doctrine, spelt out very clearly in 
     the speech he gave to British parliamentarians in the Palace 
     of Westminster in 1982, that has had the best and greatest 
     impact.
       This was a rejection of both containment and detente. It 
     proclaimed that the truce with communism was over. The West 
     would henceforth regard no area of the world as destined to 
     forgo its liberty simply because the Soviets claimed it to be 
     within their sphere of influence. We would fight a battle of 
     ideas against communism, and we would give material support 
     to those who fought to recover their nations from tyranny.
       President Reagan could have no illusion about the 
     opposition he would face at home in embarking on this course: 
     He had, after all, seen these forces weaken the West 
     throughout the '70s.
       But he used his inimitable ability to speak to the hearts 
     of the American people and to appeal over the heads of the 
     cynical, can't-do elite. He and Cap Weinberger made no secret 
     of the objective: military superiority. The Soviets 
     understood more quickly than his domestic critics the 
     seriousness of what was at stake. The Russian rhetoric grew 
     more violent; but an understanding that the game was up 
     gradually dawned in the recesses of the Politburo.
       It is well-known that I encouraged President Reagan to ``do 
     business'' with President Gorbachev. I also still give credit 
     to Mr. Gorbachev for introducing freedom of speech and of 
     religion into the Soviet Union.
       But let's be clear: The Soviet power brokers knew that they 
     had to choose a reformer because they understood that the old 
     strategy of intimidating and subverting would not work with 
     Ronald Reagan in the White House and--who knows?--even 
     Margaret Thatcher in 10 Downing Street.
       The final straw for the Evil Empire was the Strategic 
     Defense Initiative [SDI]. President Reagan was, I believe, 
     deliberately and cunningly tempted by the Soviets at 
     Reykjavik. They made ever more alluring offers to cut their 
     nuclear arsenals, and the President, who was a genuine 
     believer in a nuclear-weapons-free world (it was one of the 
     few things we disagreed about), thought he was making 
     progress.
       There was no mention of SDI, and it appeared that the 
     Soviets had tacitly accepted that its future was not for 
     negotiation. Then, at the very last moment, they insisted 
     that SDI be effectively abandoned. The President immediately 
     refused, the talks ended in acrimony, and in the media he was 
     heavily criticized.
       But it was on that day, when a lesser man would have 
     compromised, that he showed his mettle.
       As a result of his courage, work on the SDI program 
     continued and the Soviets understood that their last gambit 
     had failed. Three years later, when Mr. Gorbachev peacefully 
     allowed Eastern Europe to slide out of Soviet control, Ronald 
     Reagan's earlier decision to stand firm was vindicated. The 
     Soviets at last understood that the best they could hope for 
     was to be allowed to reform their system, not to impose it on 
     the rest of the world.
       And, of course, as soon as they embarked upon serious 
     reform, the artificial construct of the USSR, sustained by 
     lies and violence for more than half a century, imploded with 
     a whimper.
       The idea that such achievements were a matter of luck is 
     frankly laughable. Yes, the President had luck. But he 
     deserved the luck he enjoyed. Fortune favors the brave, the 
     saying runs.

[[Page S212]]

       As this hero of our times faces his final and most 
     merciless enemy, he shows the same quiet courage which 
     allowed him to break the world free of a monstrous creed 
     without a shot being fired. President Reagan: Your friends 
     salute you!


                      new challenges face the west

       Democracies, like human beings, have a tendency to relax 
     when the worst is over. Our Western democracies accordingly 
     relaxed--both at home and abroad--in the period after the 
     fall of the Berlin Wall.
       It was, of course, right that in this period there should 
     be a new look at priorities. The threat from the Soviet Union 
     was much diminished--both directly in Europe and indirectly 
     in regional conflicts that they had once exploited.
       At least the worst errors of the past were avoided--America 
     stayed militarily committed to Europe, NATO remained the 
     linchpin of Western security and, in spite of the 
     protectionist instincts of the European Union, progress 
     continued with reducing barriers to trade.
       These elements of continuity were crucial to the relative 
     security and (in spite of the turbulence in the Far East) the 
     considerable prosperity we enjoy today. These were the 
     positive aspects.
       But there are also worrying negative ones. Each will 
     require new acts of political courage to overcome.
       First, lower defense spending in America, Britain and 
     elsewhere was used not to cut taxes and so boost prosperity, 
     but rather the so-called Peace Dividend went principally to 
     pay for welfare. This in turn has harmed our countries both 
     socially and economically, worsening trends which had already 
     become manifest.
       Welfare dependency is bad for families and bad for the 
     taxpayer. It makes it less necessary and less worthwhile to 
     work. The promotion of idleness leads, as it always does, to 
     the growth of vice, irresponsibility and crime.
       The bonds which hold society together are weakened. The 
     bill--for single mothers, for delinquency, for vandalism--
     mounts. In some areas a generation grows up without solid 
     roots or sound role models, without self-esteem or hope.
       It is extraordinary what damage is sometimes done in the 
     name of compassion. The risk of reversing the growth of 
     welfare dependency and repairing the structure of the 
     traditional family is one of the most difficult we in the 
     West face.
       Secondly, the post-Cold War slackening of resolve has led 
     to a lack of military preparedness. Understandably, with the 
     end of the Cold War the sense of omnipresent danger receded. 
     Less excusably, the fact that the Soviet Union and its 
     successor states no longer challenged the West's very 
     survival led Western countries to behave as if other, new 
     threats could be ignored.
       Yet the truth is so obvious that surely only an expert 
     could miss it: There is never a lack of potential aggressors.
       We now have to reassess our defense spending, which has 
     been cut back too far. Still more significant has been the 
     failure to grasp the vital importance of investment in the 
     very latest defense technology. The crucial importance of 
     keeping up research and development in defense is the great 
     lesson of SDI. It is also the lesson--in two respects--of 
     today's confrontation with Iraq.
       The original defeat of Saddam's forces was so swift--though 
     sadly not complete--because of our overwhelming technical 
     superiority. The fact that we are still having to apply 
     constant pressure and the closest scrutiny to Iraq also bears 
     witness to the lethal capability which science and technology 
     can place in a dictator's hands and the enormous difficulty 
     of removing it. Chemical and biological weapons and the 
     components for nuclear weapons can be all too easily 
     concealed.
       The proliferation of ballistic missile technology also 
     greatly adds to the menace. According to the Defense Studies 
     Center at Lancaster University in Britain, 35 non-NATO 
     countries now have ballistic missiles. Of these, the five 
     ``rogue states''--Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria and North Korea--
     are a particular worry.
       North Korea has been supplying ballistic missiles to those 
     who can afford them, and it continues to develop more 
     advanced long-range missiles, with a range of 2,500 to 4,000 
     miles. According to U.S. sources, all of Northeast Asia, 
     Southeast Asia, much of the Pacific, and most of Russia could 
     soon be threatened by these latest North Korean missiles.
       Once they are available in the Middle East and North 
     Africa, all the capitals of Europe will be within target 
     range. And on present trends a direct threat to American 
     shores is likely to mature early in the next century.
       Diplomatic pressure to restrict proliferation, though it 
     may be useful, can never be a sufficient instrument in 
     itself. It is important that the West remain able and 
     willing--and is known to be able and willing--to take 
     preemptive action if that should ultimately become necessary.
       But it is also vital that progress be made towards the 
     construction of an effective global defense against missile 
     attack. This would be a large and costly venture to which 
     America's allies must be prepared to contribute. It would 
     require a rare degree of courageous statesmanship to carry it 
     through.
       But it is also difficult to overstate the terrible 
     consequences if we were to fail to take measures to protect 
     our populations while there is still time to do so.
       Thirdly, political courage will be required constantly to 
     restate the case for Western unity under American leadership. 
     America was left by the end of the Cold War as the effective 
     global power of last resort, the only superpower. But there 
     was also a widespread reluctance to face up to this reality.
       The same mentality which Ronald Reagan had had to overcome 
     was at work. Large numbers of intellectuals and commentators, 
     uneasy at the consequences of a victory whose causes they had 
     never properly understood, sought to submerge America and the 
     West in a new, muddled multilateralism.
       I suppose it's not surprising. As Irving Kristol once 
     noted, ``No modern nation has ever constructed a foreign 
     policy that was acceptable to its intellectuals.''
       In fact, it is as if some people take a perverse delight in 
     learning the wrong lessons from events. It was Western unity, 
     under inspiring American leadership, which changed the world. 
     But now that unity is at risk as the European Union, with 
     apparent encouragement from the United States, seems bent on 
     becoming a single state with a single defense--a fledgling 
     superpower. Such a development would not relieve America of 
     obligations; it would merely increase the obstacles to 
     American policy.


              policymakers succumbed to liberal contagion

       Today's international policymakers have succumbed to a 
     liberal contagion whose most alarming symptom is to view any 
     new and artificial structure as preferable to a traditional 
     and tested one. So they forget that it was powerful nation 
     states, drawing on national loyalties and national armies, 
     which enforced UN Security Council Resolutions and defeated 
     Iraq in 1991. Their short-term goal is to subordinate 
     American and other national sovereignties to multilateral 
     authorities; their long-term goal, one suspects, is to 
     establish the UN as a kind of embryo world government.
       Surely the crisis in the former Yugoslavia should have 
     shown the folly of these illusions. There the tragic farce of 
     European Union meddling only prolonged the aggression and the 
     United Nations proved incapable of agreeing on effective 
     action. We are still trying to make the flawed Dayton 
     Settlement--which neither the EU nor the UN could have 
     brought about--the basis of a lasting peace in that troubled 
     region.
       The future there is unpredictable, but one thing I do 
     venture to predict: The less America leads, and the more 
     authority slips back to unwieldy international committees and 
     their officials, the more difficulties will arise.
       International relations today are in a kind of limbo. Few 
     politicians and diplomats really believe that any power other 
     than the United States can guarantee the peace or punish 
     aggression. But neither is there sufficient cohesion in the 
     West to give America the moral and material support she must 
     have to fulfill that role.
       This has to change. America's duty is to lead. The other 
     Western countries' duty is to support its leadership.
       Different countries will contribute in different ways. 
     Britain is closer to the United States by culture, language 
     and history than is any other European country. British 
     public opinion is therefore readier to back American 
     initiatives. Moreover, Britain's highly professional armed 
     forces allow us to make a unique practical contribution when 
     the necessity arises.
       But the fundamental equation holds good for all of us: 
     Provided Western countries unite under American leadership, 
     the West will remain the dominant global influence. If we do 
     not, the opportunity for rogue states and new tyrannical 
     powers to exploit our divisions will increase, and so will 
     the danger to all.
       So the task for conservatives today is to revive a sense of 
     Western identity, unity and resolve. The West is after all 
     not just some ephemeral Cold War construct. It is the core of 
     a civilization which has carried all before it, transforming 
     the outlook and pattern of life of every continent.
       It is time to proclaim our beliefs in the wonderful 
     creativity of the human spirit, in the rights of property and 
     the rule of law, in the extraordinary fecundity of enterprise 
     and trade, and in the Western cultural heritage, without 
     which our liberty would long ago have degenerated into 
     license or collapsed into tyranny.
       These are as much the tasks of today as they were of 
     yesterday, as much the duty of conservative believers now as 
     they were when Ronald Reagan and I refused to accept the 
     decline of the West as our ineluctable destiny.
       As the poet said:
       ``That which thy fathers bequeathed thee Earn it anew if 
     thou would'st possess it.''

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I just want to read some brief, selective 
passages from what Margaret Thatcher, the former Prime Minister of 
Great Britain, had to say:

       President Reagan is one of the greatest men of our time, 
     and one of the greatest American Presidents of all time. If 
     that is not fully appreciated today, and sadly it is not, it 
     isn't really surprising. After all, so many people have been 
     proved wrong by Ronald Reagan that they simply daren't 
     acknowledge his achievement. . .
       But in my political lifetime I believe that it is fortitude 
     or courage that we've most needed and often, I fear, most 
     lacked.

[[Page S213]]

       Today we are particularly conscious of the courage of 
     Ronald Reagan. It was easy for his contemporaries to ignore 
     it: He always seemed so calm and relaxed, with natural charm, 
     unstudied self-assurance, and unquenchable good humor. He was 
     always ready with just the right quip--often self-
     deprecatory, though with a serious purpose--so as to lighten 
     the darkest moments and give all around him heart. . .
       Right from the beginning, Ronald Reagan set out to 
     challenge everything that the liberal political elite of 
     America accepted and sought [as gospel].
       They believed that America was doomed to decline. He 
     believed it was destined for further greatness.
       They imagined that sooner or later there would be 
     convergence between the free Western system and the socialist 
     Eastern system, and that some kind of social democratic 
     outcome was inevitable. He, by contrast, considered that 
     socialism was a patent failure which should be cast onto the 
     trash heap of history.
       They thought that the problem with America was the American 
     people, though they didn't quite put it [that way.] He 
     thought that the problem with America was the American 
     government, and he did put it just [that way.]

  In conclusion, and what I think is so beautiful a statement about our 
country and our world and about Ronald Reagan, she summed it up 
perfectly. She said:

       It is time to proclaim our beliefs in the wonderful 
     creativity of the human spirit, in the rights of property and 
     the rule of law, in the extraordinary fecundity of enterprise 
     and trade, and in the Western cultural heritage, without 
     which our liberty would long ago have degenerated into 
     license or collapsed into tyranny.
       These are as much the tasks of today as they were of 
     yesterday, as much the duty of our conservative believers now 
     as they were when Ronald Reagan and I refused to accept the 
     decline of the West as our ineluctable destiny.
       As the poet said: ``That which thy fathers bequeathed thee 
     Earn it anew if thou would'st possess it.''

  A great speech. I have just taken some portions from it. It meant a 
great deal to me.
  I hope we will honor former President Ronald Reagan in this way. I 
can think of a lot of Democrats I would be perfectly willing to name 
some building or some facility for. I think President Jimmy Carter has 
really been an example since he has been President. I don't know that 
we have named anything after him. I don't know that he sought it, or 
his family. I am not saying we should do it now. This is not partisan 
with me, but it is very emotional, and I hope that we will find a way, 
working together, to get this bill through in time for his birthday. I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I commend the majority leader for his 
remarks just now. No one, or few, I suppose, can match the eloquence of 
Margaret Thatcher, especially as she talks about one of those partners 
in leadership that she shared so much with in the time that she led 
Britain to the heights that it achieved during her tenure as Prime 
Minister.
  I am quite sure that with unanimity, this Senate wishes to honor our 
former President. So the majority leader's wish will come true; we will 
honor President Reagan. In fact, as he noted, we will honor him quite 
certainly, regardless of what happens to the airport. We will honor him 
by naming after him the largest nondefense building in the country, a 
Government building, a beautiful building, a building that will last 
for centuries, a building dedicated to permanence and a building with 
great meaning, I think, to all of us as we pass down Pennsylvania 
Avenue today.
  It is an extraordinary new accomplishment, architecturally and in 
many other ways. We have already made the decision to name that 
superior piece of architecture after our former President, Ronald 
Reagan.
  So let no one be misguided by the remarks today. We honor President 
Reagan. No one should also be misled with regard to our intentions. 
There was comment made that we are blocking this legislation. If we 
were blocking it, Mr. President, we would not have agreed for it to 
pass out of committee unanimously. If we were blocking it, we would 
have demanded hearings and we would have used whatever procedural 
devices at our disposal in the committee. We have not chosen to do 
that. We are not blocking it today. We have no reservations about 
bringing it up. We are simply not willing to support a unanimous 
consent request that limits us to one amendment.
  Finally, let me say the majority leader noted that we are not taking 
Washington's name off the airport. The only amendment our Republican 
colleagues wish to offer has as its stated purpose, and I will quote, 
``to rename the Washington National Airport located in the District of 
Columbia and Virginia as `Ronald Reagan National Airport.' ''
  So if that doesn't take Washington's name off the airport, I don't 
know what does. That is exactly what it does on line 5, page 1. It 
says:

       From here on after approved June 29, 1940, the airport 
     known as Washington National Airport shall hereafter be known 
     and designated as ``Ronald Reagan National Airport.''

  So, quite clearly, let no one, regardless of what one may think about 
honoring our former President Ronald Reagan, quite clearly we are doing 
it by removing the name of the first President of the United States, 
George Washington. Now, we may want to do that, but that clearly is the 
design, that is the intent of this legislation, and that is why we 
think it is in our interest to explore it, to talk about it.
  It isn't mutually exclusive. We can find ways to honor our former 
President, and we can find ways to ensure that we do it correctly and 
do it with all of the facts on the table. That is all we are asking. 
Let's do it with eyes wide open, knowing the ramifications, knowing 
exactly what it is we are doing and then pursuing the best course after 
that. I think we can do that. I pledge my assistance in working with 
the majority leader and our Republican colleagues to do it. But we are 
not ready yet. I am sure at some point soon we will be, but let's 
proceed in a positive way, not criticizing one another as we start out 
this effort, but finding the best way with which to resolve these 
questions. I am sure that can be done, and with that optimism, I yield 
the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield in a 
couple minutes to the Senator from Georgia, but I first feel compelled 
to answer a couple of comments the distinguished Democratic leader and 
good friend of mine made.
  First of all, I don't think any American identifies Washington 
National Airport with George Washington. They identify it with 
Washington, DC. So let's really be clear about that. To take the word 
``Washington'' out of it is not in any way demeaning or lessening the 
reputation of George Washington; it is because it was identified with 
Washington, DC.
  We named Idlewild Airport ``Kennedy Airport.'' I am sure whoever 
Idlewild was, or whatever location it was, didn't feel aggrieved when 
it wasn't called Kennedy-Idlewild Airport.

  Second of all, let's talk about the cost here one second. The bulk of 
the costs associated with the name change at National Airport are 
related to changing the signs and logos for the airport.
  I would like to enter into the Record a copy of a letter from a 
group, Americans for Tax Reform, which created and promoted the Reagan 
legacy project. The letter states:

       In order to ensure no expenses will be incurred by the 
     Federal Government as a result of this bill, we are willing 
     to coordinate fundraising efforts to fund the creation of 
     appropriate signs and logos for the Ronald Reagan National 
     Airport.

  The letter goes on to estimate these costs at $60,000. Let's put that 
in context. We just spent well over $1 billion in modernizing 
Washington National Airport. The cost of this would be $60,000. If 
there is a deep and abiding concern on the other side of the aisle 
about the costs associated with changing the name, I can assure you 
that Senator Coverdell, Senator Lott and I and everybody else will lead 
a fundraising effort and pay for this. I am deeply moved about their 
concern about the taxpayers' dollars.
  I don't like to start out the year this way, Mr. President. I really 
don't. We have enough problems. We have enough difficulties around here 
without our getting hung up on doing what is the right thing for one of 
the greatest men in the history of this Nation.

[[Page S214]]

  The interesting thing is, he doesn't want to be honored in any way 
because he doesn't think he deserves it, which is the mark of the 
greatness and humility of the man. But for us to somehow get hung up on 
cost, on logos, on whether the name ``Washington'' is out of it, this 
is not an appropriate way to start out this year.
  I want to tell my friends on the other side of the aisle, we feel 
very strongly about this issue--very strongly--and if we get hung up on 
this thing and we are not able to go ahead and honor Ronald Reagan on 
his birthday, it is going to start things off on a very bad note.
  I also want to point out, yes, thanks to Senator Hollings and the 
bipartisan spirit in which we run the Commerce Committee, it was 
discharged from the Commerce Committee, but we also had a markup 
scheduled today, and we would have marked up that bill and reported it 
out of committee today as well. So I appreciate the cooperation of my 
friends on the Commerce Committee, but we would have reported it out of 
the Commerce Committee today, I have no doubt about that.
  Again, I don't want to be repetitive, but I am astounded--I am 
astounded--that when Americans from all over this country would like to 
have this opportunity to honor Ronald Reagan on his birthday as he goes 
through this very difficult period, that we should somehow raise a 
straw man about costs and logos and Washington, DC.
  Mr. President, I would like to conclude by saying I first came to 
know Ronald Reagan during my years in Vietnam when President Reagan was 
Governor of California. The North Vietnamese had orchestrated an effort 
to demoralize their American prisoners by convincing us that our 
country opposed the war and that we had been forgotten and left behind.
  As new American prisoners were brought to Hanoi, however, they took 
advantage of our primitive communications abilities. They made sure 
that we knew about this Governor in California who was helping lead 
efforts to secure our release and take care of our families in the 
meantime. This Governor, Ronald Reagan, served as a very welcome 
reminder that our country had not forgotten us. I and many others will 
forever be indebted to him for that and for the friendship we developed 
after the war.

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bond). The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I see there are some other speakers. I 
have some extended remarks, but I will be brief now in deference to 
other people if they have a comment to make. But Mr. President, this is 
the definition of ``pettiness.'' This is demeaning. The concept that we 
would honor a former President, but we have to extract a price.
  A memorandum went out to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
that wanted an IRS reformation amendment tacked to this legislation. 
The idea that ``You can have this memorial, but only if we extract 
something from it, too.'' Maybe this is an indication of just how 
cynical this city has become from top to bottom.
  I have great respect for the minority leader. I consider him a very 
good friend. But who would counsel him to suggest ``We haven't heard 
from the Reagan family''? What are they supposed to do, buy tickets and 
fly over here and lobby outside the Chamber? Is that what you would ask 
of them to do?
  The other gentlemen on the list that I have heard that you perhaps 
would choose to honor, so be it. Honor them. Come forward with these 
ideas, but not as a quid pro quo to a memorial to this former 
President.
  Do you remember the memorial to the late President Franklin 
Roosevelt? Was there some skirmish over there? Did there have to be 
some ratification or some affidavit from their family as to whether or 
not it ought to be built and how? I, like Senator McCain, would not 
have been able to envision that we would be discussing Ronald Reagan in 
this manner.
  Are we removing the name of the airport? Has their family 
appropriately petitioned this Congress that only awards things to those 
that are on their knees asking?
  Can there not be an acceptance of fact that we are dealing with a 
great American figure who is wounded--who is wounded--who is near the 
end? And here we are piddling around with, was it named after the 
President or after the city or have we heard from them, the family, and 
how much will it cost, when everybody knows it is minimal?
  The only word that characterizes it is ``demeaning.''
  Mr. President, I will ask for time later on, but I yield the floor in 
deference to my colleague from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank my friend from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise for the simple purpose of simply 
informing the Senate of a very happy occasion in the very near future. 
It will be the dedication of the Ronald Reagan International Trade 
Building at 16th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, the largest Federal 
building, as it happens, in the city and the completion, after 60 or 70 
years--70 years of the Federal Triangle proposal which was begun by 
Andrew Mellon under the Presidency of Herbert Hoover for whom the 
Commerce Building across from 16th Street is named.
  The Ronald Reagan Building was--it should be noted that he signed the 
bill on August 21, 1987, the Federal Triangle Development Act. I had 
offered the measure here. It passed, very happily, and authorized the 
construction of an international, cultural and trade center on that 
site--a billion dollars worth of real estate. The site was cleared in 
1928 and remained a parking lot until now. I remember writing a 
proposal for President Kennedy on the redevelopment of Pennsylvania 
Avenue--a parking lot of surpassing ugliness.
  But then in 1995, with the building up and about to be running, 
Congresswoman Andrea Seastrand, who represented the District in which 
the President lives, introduced a bill to name it for him. Senator Dole 
cosponsored it here. It was passed unanimously, I should think, in both 
bodies. And on December 22, 1995, in a very fine ceremony in the Oval 
Office, President Clinton signed that bill. Speaker Gingrich, Mr. Dole, 
Mr. Daschle, the Vice President, and the Senator from New York were 
there. Alas, Representative Seastrand had a vote and could not come.
  The building is a 2-century building. It will be there for a very 
long while. We own the land. It will save money because we will move 
people from rented space to Government space in the same manner that 
the Judiciary Building now flanks Union Station but it is a 
congressional building. It is on Federal land. It is a lease-to-own 
project. In about 25 years we will have it. We are already paying less 
rent than we were paying in rented space because we own the land. It is 
a handsome building. It is a triumphal building.
  The architectural critic of the Washington Post, Benjamin Forgey, has 
given it his very warm endorsement. It has a great atrium. As you walk 
in it, you see the names, Ronald Reagan and International Trade 
Organization Building--the Ronald Reagan Building, and in it the 
National Trade Center. You know you are at a special place designed 
for, authorized, and built by a very special man, and now to be named 
for that man in a ceremony that I hope will be joyous, celebratory, and 
on the edge sad as we consider the condition of our former President, 
but proud that he was just that.

  I thank the Chair.
  I thank the Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. JOHNSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I want to thank the Senator from New York for calling 
our attention to this extraordinary event.
  Could you share with us again, one, what the timing is of the 
ceremony?
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. April 28 or May 5.
  Mr. JOHNSON. What will be involved in this ceremony?
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Well, there will be the formal dedication. There will 
be, I believe, the National Symphony. There will be a musical. It will 
be a day-long event. And I hope people will find time for it. There is 
nothing like it that will have happened in our city--well, for those 
who do not know the history, the Federal Triangle was moving along very 
well. The crash came, and they stopped--boom--they just stopped. Now

[[Page S215]]

we have finished it. President Kennedy envisioned it. President Reagan 
made it possible. And we are naming it for President Reagan.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I wonder if it isn't fair to say--there has been some 
harsh rhetoric here and knocking down of straw men as we have gone 
about discussions this afternoon in the United States Senate relative 
to memorializing former President Reagan. And I wonder if it isn't fair 
to say that the issues that have been raised are not questioning 
whether to suitably and appropriately memorialize President Reagan's 
administration. The questions are not partisan in nature. We have 
memorialized Presidents of both political parties, as we always will 
and always should. There is no opposition, certainly, to the largest 
building I believe on all of Pennsylvania Avenue, America's main 
street, the avenue that is used for our inaugural parades, the largest 
building, a very prominently located building--and it has yet even to 
have the ceremony for its opening, but it passed by unanimous vote, the 
Senator tells us, in both the House and Senate; bipartisan on both 
sides of the aisle--but there was no resistance to memorializing in a 
very prominent and very focal, high focal point of our Nation's most 
important street an enormous building named for President Reagan.
  So it would seem that the issues that have been raised here are not 
petty, are not meant to demean or in any way undermine the recognition 
of the contributions that President Reagan made--and he made very 
significant contributions to this Nation--but that there are legitimate 
points being raised, one, about the process, rather than the politics, 
of naming and especially renaming where the name George Washington has 
always been tied to National Airport--in fact National Airport, I 
believe, was designed with the terminal intended to be evocative of 
Mount Vernon and located in a community very near Mount Vernon and 
where he is very closely associated with the Arlington and Alexandria 
communities--and whether there ought to be a more systematic process 
for especially renaming institutions that have been previously named 
for other great Americans.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. JOHNSON. So the question is not one of whether President Reagan 
should be memorialized. Certainly he should be.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. JOHNSON. I will yield to the Senator.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I believe the time is on your side.
  Mr. JOHNSON. The Senator from New York controls the time.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I yield the floor and say I spent 35 years getting this 
building built. I leave it to others to describe how it should be 
named.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I assume you are yielding?
  Mr. JOHNSON. I certainly yield.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Is the Senator aware of the fact that your side has 
offered a proposal that, yes, go ahead; we can proceed with this, 
comma, but we have to have something for it. We have somebody else we 
want to have another building named after. I mean, I am getting 
confused signals here. Are we really getting into a discussion about 
changing the name of the Washington, DC, airport? We are going to 
invoke all this intellectual analysis of how that building was built. I 
mean, that is not what was being sent to us all morning long.
  We were not arguing over, you know, the dynamics of the process, 
whether or not we are going to name another building. I do not object 
to you all naming another building for somebody that you want to honor, 
but it ought to be done on its own. This should not be held up in this 
manner as a negotiating tool. And that is what has been going on all 
day.
  Is the Senator aware of that?
  Mr. JOHNSON. If the Senator will yield back.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I certainly will.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Obviously, I do not speak for my colleagues on either 
side of the aisle. I speak only as this Senator, expressing, one, my 
conviction that there ought to be a very significant memorial to Ronald 
Reagan. There is one that has been built. The doors, the ribbons have 
not yet been cut. They soon will be. And this is an extraordinary 
memorial in one of the most prominent locations of all of Washington. I 
applaud that.
  The only other question I raise is whether there ought to be yet 
another memorial before the ribbon has even been cut on the first large 
one, which would have an effect on the airport that memorialized George 
Washington and which has not gone through what seems to me, from this 
Senator's point of view, an orderly, thoughtful process.
  The Board of Trade in the Washington area, other groups think this is 
a poor idea, that perhaps there ought to be other memorials to Ronald 
Reagan. I would say probably that is true. The suggestion is there 
ought to be one in every State. Perhaps there ought to be. Perhaps 
there ought to be more in Washington, DC.

  However, I simply raise as this Senator's point of view that I think 
we are getting carried away in a nonsystematic and not terribly 
thoughtful process about how we name and pull names off of memorials to 
great Americans. So I have nothing but great respect to express for 
President Reagan and his family, and I regret that any of this debate 
that has been caught up in exactly how best to memorialize great 
Americans would by anyone be perceived as somehow negative or otherwise 
undermining respect for this past President.
  However, I think there are legitimate concerns expressed by some that 
have nothing to do with partisan politics, that have nothing to do with 
respect or lack of respect for past Presidents, particularly this past 
President. I simply want to raise that issue, that there are concerns 
among those who I think in good faith are expressing some concern not 
about memorialization but about a specific renaming. The issue, I 
think, in that sense is narrow.
  I personally feel that there is room for improvement in the process 
that we use for the naming of institutions. That isn't to say, however, 
that the naming of any particular institution wouldn't be approved by 
what I think ought to be a nonpartisan commission of some sort, which I 
think would greatly strengthen our current rather hodgepodge way of 
naming institutions and buildings and facilities that will be that way 
for hundreds of years--unless, of course, there are changes in power in 
Congress and we develop this precedent that whoever is in the majority 
comes in and changes the names of buildings. That would be a terrible 
mistake.
  I hope the Reagan building downtown stays that way virtually forever 
and that there is never a thought of renaming that. I simply raise this 
point to hopefully lend a bit of thoughtfulness and recognition that at 
stake here is not the honor of the Reagan family or President Reagan 
nor is it necessarily partisan politics.
  I do not necessarily join in with others who may see other political 
agendas here. This is an institution of 100 individuals, and there are 
probably 100 agendas on this floor on a given day, but I do want to 
share those observations with my friend and my colleague about the 
concerns that came to my mind on this issue.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I accept the convictions of my good 
colleague and his wish that this would not have the taint that it does. 
Unfortunately, that is what has happened here.
  Nor is there anything unique here. Just last year I voted for 
legislation to honor a colleague on your side of the aisle, one in my 
own State, a legislative process just like this, a fellow Congressman 
who is retired, John Rowland. We named a courthouse in our State for 
him and we were very glad to have been part of it. He deserves it.
  Mr. JOHNSON. And I add that I joined in the unanimous consent on the 
naming of the Reagan building downtown as a Member of the other body 
during that time, and I am proud of that.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I accept the statement of the Senator.
  Unfortunately, during the course of the last several hours, this has 
turned into a quid pro quo. From my own view, I would rather that it 
not be accepted than we get into, ``Well, we will do this if you do 
that,'' and we will name this that and this something else. I can only 
speak for myself. That is my view of it.
  I mentioned a little earlier, Mr. President, that there are some 
unique

[[Page S216]]

circumstances that we are confronting in this particular case with 
former President Reagan. I have been going through some of his legacy 
of late, and I will share one of the most profound letters an American 
leader has ever written to his country. It came to us on November 5, 
1994.

       My fellow Americans, I have recently been told that I am 
     one of the millions of Americans who will be afflicted with 
     Alzheimer's disease.
       Upon learning this news, Nancy and I had to decide whether 
     as private citizens we would keep this a private matter or 
     whether we would make this news known in a public way. In the 
     past, Nancy suffered from breast cancer and I had my cancer 
     surgeries. We found through our open disclosures we were able 
     to raise public awareness. We were happy that as a result, 
     many more people underwent testing. There were treated in 
     early stages and able to return to normal, healthy lives.
       So now we feel it is important to share it with you. In 
     opening our hearts, we hope this might promote greater 
     awareness of this condition. Perhaps it will encourage a 
     clearer understanding of the individuals and families who are 
     affected by it.
       At the moment I feel just fine. I intend to live the 
     remainder of the years God gives me on this Earth doing the 
     things I have always done. I will continue to share life's 
     journey with my beloved Nancy and my family. I plan to enjoy 
     the great outdoors and stay in touch with my friends and 
     supporters.
       Unfortunately, as Alzheimer's disease progresses, the 
     family often bears a heavy burden. I only wish there was some 
     way I could spare Nancy from this painful experience. When 
     the time comes, I am confident that with your help she will 
     face it with faith and courage.
       In closing, let me thank you, the American people, for 
     giving me the great honor of allowing me to serve as your 
     president. When the Lord calls me home, whenever that day may 
     be, I will leave with the greatest love for this country of 
     ours and eternal optimism for its future.
       I now begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset 
     of my life. I know that for America there will always be a 
     bright dawn ahead.
       Thank you, my friends. May God always bless you.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Ronald Reagan.

  Now, Ronald Reagan's birthday is next February 6, and we ought to do 
this. This ought to be a part of the sunset journey.
  I again say, it is absolutely beyond comprehension that a suggestion 
was made here this afternoon that somehow his family ought to have been 
more pronounced and more explicit about their desires with regard to 
this legislation. To have done so would have been entirely--I repeat, 
entirely--uncharacteristic for the man that wrote this letter to do. 
Nor would he in any way have condoned any member of his family making 
such a suggestion. The only way that something like this could happen 
on the eve of these final moments would be for it to be a spontaneous 
gesture from the American people.
  So, Mr. President, just for clarity, you never know what will happen 
in an institution like this, but again I would be prouder that this 
legislation suffered a defeat over the nuances from the other side than 
for there to be an asterisk on the legislation that suggested the only 
way that this body and this Congress could reach out at this moment was 
if we made some tradeoff; there have been others that got a little 
something here or there, like you do every day in this town. My own 
view is it would be diminishing and demeaning of what is being 
attempted and endeavored to be done here today in the name of a great 
American President, among others. But this one was a great American 
President who, as I said earlier, is wounded.
  There are moments in our lives and in the history of our country that 
require a spontaneous response and not some methodical appointing of a 
commission to measure and weigh every balance. Thank heavens nature 
doesn't function that way.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, to the subject that we have been 
debating, which is legislation to rename Washington National Airport 
``Ronald Reagan National Airport,'' we have had quite a discussion here 
this afternoon. As I said a little earlier, I have been going through, 
during the course of this exercise, the various things, of course, that 
have been said about our former President. I got to thinking, well, who 
knows him best? And, of course, that is the former First Lady, Nancy 
Reagan. I was reminded that I had the opportunity to hear her in one of 
the most heartfelt speeches I believe I have ever heard in San Diego at 
the national convention in that beautiful city. It was quite a task 
that she had to perform, to come forward before the Nation, given the 
situation that the Reagans had been facing, and try to bring a message 
to those gathered and to the American people.
  I think this is an appropriate time to revisit what she said about 
her husband, President Reagan, at that time. I will skip the 
introduction, the acknowledgement of the crowd, and move to the heart 
of the speech, which was undoubtedly difficult for her to deal with 
because she was moving to the moment in which she felt she had the 
responsibility to convey to the Nation a feeling about her husband's 
Presidency and her husband's views of America.
  She said this:

       Just 4 years ago, Ronnie stood before you and spoke for 
     what he said might be his last speech at a Republican 
     Convention. Sadly, his words were too prophetic. When we 
     learned of his illness, Alzheimer's, he made the decision to 
     write his letter to the American people.

  This is the letter I read a moment ago from the President himself.
  She says:

       And the people responded, as they always do. I can't tell 
     you what your cards and letters have meant to both of us. The 
     love and affection from thousands of Americans has been, and 
     continues to be, a strengthening force for Ronnie and me each 
     and every day.

  I want to reread that sentence because the other side has evoked that 
there is some family responsibility here that they should have 
fulfilled as a precedent before moving for congressional action on 
this, which as I have said repeatedly is just beyond my understanding. 
But I will read for them what she said to America:

       I cannot tell you what your cards and letters have meant to 
     both of us. The love and affection from thousands of 
     Americans has been, and continues to be, a strengthening 
     force for Ronnie and me each and every day.

  In other words, it was a source of encouragement and strength for 
them at that time to hear from our fellow countrymen about his work. 
That's what that means.

       We have learned, as too many other families have learned, 
     of the terrible pain and the loneliness that must be endured 
     as each day brings another reminder of this very long 
     goodbye. But Ronnie's spirit, his optimism, his never-failing 
     belief in the strength and goodness of America is still very 
     strong. If he were able to be here tonight, he would once 
     again remind us of the power of each individual--

  How many times had we heard that from President Reagan, about the 
power of each American?

       Urging us once again to fly as high as our wings will take 
     us and to never give up on America.

  The majority leader was here earlier and was talking about Margaret 
Thatcher and what she had said about the former President. I might 
revisit that in just a little bit. But that's the point that Margaret 
Thatcher always focused on--the never give up on America or never give 
up on Western civilization, and what she so admired in the former 
President. Here it is documented by Nancy Reagan when she said.

       . . . remind us of the power of each individual, urging us 
     once again to fly as high as our wings will take us and to 
     never give up on America. I can tell you with certainty that 
     he still sees the ``shining city on a hill,'' a place full of 
     hope and a promise for us all.
       As you all know, I am not the speechmaker in the family. So 
     let me close with Ronnie's words, not mine. In that last 
     speech 4 years ago, he said, ``Whatever else history may say 
     about me when I am gone, I hope it will report that I 
     appealed to your best hopes, not your worst fears, to your 
     confidence rather than your doubts, and may all of you as 
     Americans never forget your heroic origins, never fail to 
     seek divine guidance, and never, never lose your natural God-
     given optimism.''
       Ronnie's optimism, like America's, still shines very 
     brightly. May God bless him and, from both of us, God bless 
     America.

  You know, several weeks ago, I was in a discussion about American 
liberty.

[[Page S217]]

  I was talking about the fact that free people behave completely 
differently than people who are not free or oppressed. One of the key 
components of a free people is their optimism--optimism, the belief 
that they can accomplish, the belief that they can build, the belief 
that they cannot be vanquished. And there is no American in 
contemporary history who so fueled and energized that key component of 
American liberty as did President Ronald Reagan. He was the epitome of 
optimism.
  I see we have just be joined by my good friend and colleague and 
neighbor, the Senator from Alabama, and in deference to his time I am 
going to withhold these other remarks for a moment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have the honor to speak on this 
legislation sponsored by the distinguished Senator from Georgia. I so 
greatly admire him. I admire his principle, integrity, ability, and 
passion for this issue. I think it is an important issue, and I am 
proud to be a cosponsor of this resolution. We ought to recognize 
people who have made great differences in this Nation's history. I 
think President Reagan is one of those people.
  I thought I would take a very few minutes to tell a story that 
illustrates how deeply and how important President Reagan's life is to 
the American people and to the people of the world.
  In 1993, I went on a church trip to Russia and spent a week there. 
Our group went to a small city of 40,000 people that is located 5 hours 
east of Moscow in an area where very few Americans were allowed in over 
the years because it was a security area in the Soviet Union. We went 
to the town of Sovetsk. I was able to stay with another American in the 
home of a Russian businessman who was beginning to develop a business 
in Sovetsk. The first night we arrived they were going to celebrate the 
baptism of their daughter. A Russian Orthodox priest appeared in his 
great robes. The mother, father, and the grandparents had come in from 
the Ural Mountains, and it was a goodly group of people there. It was a 
marvelous ceremony as the priest performed that baptism.
  As we had dinner afterwards the priest told us that since 
perestroika, since the fall of the wall, he had baptized 18,000 people 
in that town of 40,000. He told us that before the wall fell he was not 
allowed to baptize people. He said he was not allowed to wear his 
robes, and that the Soviet Communist authorities moved him around 6 
months or so at a time so that he could not really get to know his 
congregation and so he would be unable to build the kind of rapport 
that is necessary. He discussed how he could now wear his robes, how he 
could now walk about town, how he could now meet with the mayor, and 
how he was now respected in the city in public affairs. For this priest 
and his congregation, it was now a great time.
  At the conclusion of that discussion my host proposed a toast to 
Ronald Reagan ``who made us believe in God again.''
  Mr. President, I don't know if they missed the translation. But the 
heart of that was very, very real.
  President Ronald Reagan helped shape this world. He helped free 
millions of people from a totalitarian state. He called the Soviet 
empire an ``evil empire,'' and evil it was.
  Before we went to Russia, we spent time with a college professor who 
had spent 6 months there. He said, ``I used to teach that the United 
States and Russia were just like scorpions in a bottle. There is no 
difference between us.'' Now, however, he says that after having been 
there and after having met with young Russian people he has changed his 
mind. In the words of that professor, ``when I would talk in that 
fashion, the Russians looked at me like I was crazy. They said, `What 
are you talking about? You had all kinds of freedom. We had none. There 
was a great distinction between Russia, the Soviet Union, and the 
United States of America and the democracy that you have.''' Today that 
professor has come to believe that those young people had it right.

  Ronald Reagan personified that. He personified the collapse of the 
totalitarian empire. He gave his life to it. He articulated it better 
than any man that ever lived. His was a Presidency both in terms of 
domestic policy and foreign policy that ranks among the highest order 
of American Presidents.
  I think he deserves this recognition. I think it is very fitting that 
it be done on his birthday. I think it is very fitting that we 
recognize him while we are still blessed with his presence.
  I want to congratulate the Senator from Georgia for his articulate 
explanation and promotion of this legislation. I am delighted and 
honored just to have this moment to share this story with the people in 
this body and the people in the United States because I think it says 
in a very real way that this man symbolized the American democratic 
free enterprise victory over the totalitarian atheistic Communist 
government.
  I appreciate the leadership of Senator Coverdell and thank him for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, it is interesting to hear the good 
Senator from Alabama, and I appreciate the personal experience he had 
confronting these people that were being made free for the first time.
  I had the opportunity to do that as well. I will never forget the 
faces of those people who had never been free or had not been for so 
long they couldn't remember. If you will bear with me one second, I am 
going to yield. One afternoon I was in Soviet Bulgaria. It was on the 
eve of this epic realignment of all Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. I 
decided to break away, and I did and walked about 5 miles back through 
the neighborhoods. Do you know what struck me? This is before the 
freedom had hit. I never saw a single adult ever smile. Never, not one, 
not one person smiled because of the weight of the oppression. 
Fortunately, the children were smiling. So you could say, ``There is 
hope here.'' But it had been beaten out of them--the natural nature of 
human mind.
  The man that brought the wall down--the Senator from Alabama said it 
and we will never be able to say it enough--how many people he freed 
through that show of force. He didn't do it alone. He would be the 
first one to say so. In fact, he would deny it. He would put somebody 
else far ahead of him in terms of having created that freedom. But when 
you walk through those streets today and you talk to those people and 
in all of those countries, they know the force of President Ronald 
Reagan and they know when he said, ``Gorbachev, you tear this wall 
down'' that that was not just rhetoric. That wall came down.
  I yield to the Senator from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I think the Senator from Georgia is so correct. I think 
back on that example and I think that it really sort of symbolizes the 
difference between a totalitarian government where freedom is denied, 
where people are not allowed to worship, and are not allowed to be 
baptized, and the wonder of the democracy that we are blessed with 
having.
  I think also that it is fitting for us to recognize him in this 
manner. I have on my desk a plaque which is imprinted with one of 
President Reagan's quotes, a quote which I think is most appropriate 
especially as we discuss naming National Airport after him at this late 
point in his life. It says, ``There is no limit what a man can do or 
where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit.''
  I think it is time to give Ronald Reagan credit. This is a fitting 
tribute to him. I salute the Senator from Georgia for his efforts, and 
I support his steadfastness in that.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, of course, during the course of the 
afternoon we have been talking about very personal praise for his 
family and the First Lady. But for Ronald Reagan there is a lot of 
unlikely praise that needs to be acknowledged here today from 
Republicans and Democrats alike. While my friends on the other side of 
the aisle may disagree with him on certain policies, I hope they will 
agree

[[Page S218]]

that he stood fast on conviction and provided leadership for America at 
a very critical time. Ronald Reagan did after all begin his career as a 
Democrat. He truly was a man of both sides of the aisle. He cast his 
first vote for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose name has been evoked in 
this debate because when we were talking about the need to have an 
appropriate not designation but memorial for President Roosevelt, we 
did not enter into any of this kind of bickering. It was done. It 
should be done. Now citizens from all across the country can be 
reminded of that era of our Nation's history.
  Here are some words of tribute from some unlikely sources.
  Former California Governor and Presidential candidate, Jerry Brown, 
said, ``He was not just the guy across the table. He had a presence. He 
had the quality of being able to tell a story. . .'' And, as Senator 
Sessions just said, `` . . . and then smile and laugh. There was a sort 
of magic there, and I could see it at work.''
  Or former majority whip of the House, Representative Coehlo, ``Ronald 
Reagan believed a few things and he really stood for them. He was 
Presidential. He did not get down in the gutter.''
  I want to repeat that. ``He did not get down in the gutter. Indeed, 
he would let people accuse him of anything. We did. But these things 
never got a response.''
  Even Sam Donaldson has good things to say about President Reagan. He 
said, ``I don't think we have ever had a President who used the bully 
pulpit better than he did. He was its master. Reagan's most outstanding 
leadership quality was that you knew where he stood on a matter. You 
didn't have to agree with him. He got into some of the most contentious 
issues for our country. I never had to figure out what kind of a speech 
he would give tomorrow or worry that he would change his mind from the 
views he expressed today.''
  That is Sam Donaldson talking about Ronald Reagan.
  Donaldson, further quoting, ``Reagan is the most dynamic President I 
have seen.''
  So, as I said, whether you agreed with him or not, Ronald Reagan 
defined leadership in our time.
  Mr. President, I am going to suggest the absence of a quorum. I think 
Senator Hutchinson is here from Arkansas. I will determine whether that 
is so.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator already has that right.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, as I listened to the speeches and the 
various tributes to Ronald Reagan and the speeches that are in favor of 
this legislation to name the Washington National Airport after former 
President Ronald Reagan, I had not intended to speak today. But I was 
moved by some of the tributes that I have heard. I was dismayed by 
noticing the opposition to this legislation--surprised and dismayed. 
And I thought there was little I could add to some of the glowing 
tributes that we have heard except my own personal experience because I 
think in many ways I like many of my generation owe to Ronald Reagan 
the inspiration and the motivation to go into the whole sphere of the 
political arena.
  In 1964 I was in junior high school living in the northwest corner of 
Arkansas. My parents were not particularly political. But I watched the 
news and followed closely the political events that year and the 
election campaign between Lyndon Johnson and Barry Goldwater. I 
remember--I think it was about 10 days before the election that year--
watching on our black-and-white television in Arkansas a speech by an 
actor by the name of Ronald Reagan. I remember sitting on the floor in 
front of the black-and-white television mesmerized as I listened to 
what later became known to a whole generation of young people as ``The 
Speech''--``A time for choosing,'' it was called--in which Ronald 
Reagan so eloquently laid out for the Nation the choice that faced 
America in that campaign and a philosophic choice that faced Americans 
down through the ages.
  And there is a junior high schooler listening to Ronald Reagan make 
that speech, a speech that historians say was the launching pad, if you 
will, for his political career, a speech that propelled him to a 
meteoric rise in politics, from the Governorship of California to the 
Presidency of the United States. I think it also propelled a whole 
generation of young people to look at politics as something noble, as 
something of a great adventure, as an arena in which truly a difference 
could be made in the lives of our fellow citizens and the future of our 
Nation.
  And so when young people write me today, and I so frequently get 
asked by elementary students and high school students: Senator, how did 
you get started in politics and who is your favorite President? I 
answer it in reverse order. I say, ``My favorite President is Ronald 
Reagan, and let me tell you how I got started in politics.'' And then 
we enclose in that letter a copy of the speech, the 1964 address by 
Ronald Reagan that started his political career and that started the 
political careers of a host of other individuals as well and made a 
great difference in America. I will not take time to read all of the 
speech, ``A Time for Choosing.'' I ask unanimous consent to have it 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                          A Time for Choosing

                           (By Ronald Reagan)

       [Given as a stump speech, at speaking engagements, and on a 
     memorable night in 1964 in support of Barry Goldwater's 
     presidential campaign. This version is from that broadcast.]
       I am going to talk of controversial things. I make no 
     apology for this.
       It's time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms 
     intended for us by the Founding Fathers. James Madison said, 
     ``We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for 
     self government.''
       This idea that government was beholden to the people, that 
     it had no other source of power is still the newest, most 
     unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. 
     This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our 
     capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the 
     American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual 
     elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us 
     better than we can plan them ourselves.
       You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, 
     but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. 
     There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream--the 
     maximum of individual freedom consistent with order or down 
     to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their 
     sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would 
     sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward 
     path. Plutarch warned, ``The real destroyer of the liberties 
     of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, 
     donations and benefits.''
       The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the 
     economy without controlling people. And they knew when a 
     government sets out to do that, it must use force and 
     coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time 
     for choosing.
       Public servants say, always with the best of intentions, 
     ``What greater service we could render if only we had a 
     little more money and a little more power.'' But the truth is 
     that outside of its legitimate function, government does 
     nothing as well or as economically as the private sector.
       Yet any time you and I question the schemes of the do-
     gooders, we're denounced as being opposed to their 
     humanitarian goals. It seems impossible to legitimately 
     debate their solutions with the assumption that all of us 
     share the desire to help the less fortunate. They tell us 
     we're always ``against,'' never ``for'' anything.
       We are for a provision that destitution should not follow 
     unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have 
     accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the 
     problem. However, we are against those entrusted with this 
     program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal 
     shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the 
     program means that we want to end payments. . . .
       We are for aiding our allies by sharing our material 
     blessings with nations which share our fundamental beliefs, 
     but we are against doling out money government to government, 
     creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world.
       We need true tax reform that will at least make a start 
     toward restoring for our children the American Dream that 
     wealth is denied to no one, that each individual has the

[[Page S219]]

     right to fly as high as his strength and ability will take 
     him. . . . But we can not have such reform while our tax 
     policy is engineered by people who view the tax as a means of 
     achieving changes in our social structure. . . .
       Have we the courage and the will to face up to the 
     immorality and discrimination of the progressive tax, and 
     demand a return to traditional proportionate taxation? . . . 
     Today in our country the tax collector's share is 37 cents of 
     every dollar earned. Freedom has never been so fragile, so 
     close to slipping from our grasp.
       Are you willing to spend time studying the issues, making 
     yourself aware, and then conveying that information to family 
     and friends? Will you resist the temptation to get a 
     government handout for your community? Realize that the 
     doctor's fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We 
     can't socialize the doctors without socializing the patients. 
     Recognize that government invasion of public power is 
     eventually an assault upon your own business. If some among 
     you fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals 
     from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that 
     you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he'll eat you last.
       If all of this seems like a great deal of trouble, think 
     what's at stake. We are faced with the most evil enemy 
     mankind has known in his long climb from the swamp to the 
     stars. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if 
     there is no fiscal and economic stability within the United 
     States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup 
     kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of 
     accommodation.
       They say the world has become too complex for simple 
     answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there 
     are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we 
     know is morally right. Winston Churchill said that ``the 
     destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When 
     great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are 
     spirits-not animals.'' And he said, ``There is something 
     going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, 
     whether we like it or not, spells duty.''
       You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve 
     for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or 
     we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand 
     years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and 
     our children's children say of us we justified our brief 
     moment here. We did all that could be done.

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I would like to read just the closing two paragraphs 
of Ronald Reagan's speech in 1964 on behalf of Barry Goldwater, a 
speech that obviously did not turn the tide in that election but a 
speech that started his political career, a speech that inspired me to 
become involved in the political process. He concluded that speech, the 
speech in 1964 with these words:

       They say the world has become too complex for simple 
     answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there 
     are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we 
     know is morally right.
       You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve 
     for our children this, the last best hope on Earth, or we 
     will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand 
     years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and 
     our children's children say of us we justified our brief 
     moment here. We did all that could be done.

  I cannot say it as Ronald Reagan said it, but his words still have 
the power of great meaning, and what an inspiration it was to a Nation. 
And so when he became President of the United States, this great 
communicator and great optimist infused in us again the feeling that 
America can be and is a great Nation.
  With the Reagan tax cuts, the economic recovery that it spawned, with 
his repair of our neglected defenses, with his courageous and bold 
stand to say the words that everybody criticized him for when he called 
communism, ``The Evil Empire,'' as a result of that and his willingness 
to stand at the Berlin wall and say to Mr. Gorbachev, ``Tear this wall 
down,'' it sewed the seeds for what became the collapse of the old 
Soviet Union and most of communism in the world.
  And then perhaps no incident I think reflects the greatness of this 
man and his impact upon us and how he buoyed us as a people: 
Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, all Americans how he raised 
our spirits, inspired us and inspired a Nation than when on January 28, 
1986, the space shuttle Challenger exploded just after takeoff, 
disintegrating into a ball of flame before a world television audience. 
The disaster understandably stunned America. Never before had the 
dangers of space exploration been brought home as graphically and as 
visibly as they were that day. The intensive prelaunch media attention 
had caused the world to know these seven crew members as we knew few 
other astronauts. We knew them with an unusual intimacy, and now they 
were gone. The Nation was staggered.
  Then Ronald Reagan took to the airwaves. The President of the United 
States delivered a 5-minute speech, and he concluded his 5-minute 
speech by quoting the words written by a Royal Air Force pilot shortly 
before his death in the battle of Britain, those words that we will 
remember:

       For I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth and touched the 
     face of God.

  President Reagan's short speech of 5 minutes, concluding with those 
words, unified and uplifted and encouraged a heartbroken America.
  Tip O'Neill, who was Reagan's political adversary, tough political 
adversary, with whom he had many fierce arguments and disagreements, 
later that very day described the moment in which Reagan made that 
inspiring speech to America. He said, and I quote Tip O'Neill, ``Reagan 
at his best.'' It was a trying day for all Americans and Ronald Reagan 
spoke to our highest ideals.
  May I say, Tip O'Neill said it right because Ronald Reagan always 
spoke to our highest ideals. This is a very small tribute but a very 
fitting and appropriate tribute that we name this airport after one of 
our greatest Presidents and one of our greatest living Americans, 
Ronald Reagan.
  I thank Senator Coverdell for his leadership and his willingness to 
take on this project, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. The Senator from Arkansas was here yesterday and gave 
a very inspiring commentary on his legislation to improve American 
education, but he has matched yesterday. Those were remarkable words, 
and the personal feeling in connection with the former President is 
obvious. I watched the same speech and remember just being stunned by 
it. I didn't really know that much about him, but I remember turning to 
my mother and saying, ``You ought to have heard that speech.'' Anybody 
who heard it I think was moved by it. But I really do believe the 
Senator has captured his optimism, and I commend the Senator for it.
  Mr. President, we have been joined by my good colleague from Nevada, 
who has other matters to talk about. I am going to yield the floor so 
that he might proceed with his piece of business.
  Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business 
for a period of time not to exceed 8 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BRYAN. Let me preface my comments by thanking the senior Senator 
from Georgia. I am delighted to have a chance to be down here today to 
talk on an issue. And his willingness to accommodate me is something I 
appreciate very much.

                          ____________________