[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 4 (Monday, February 2, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S263-S268]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUESTS--S. 1575

  Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 301, S. 
1575, the Ronald Reagan airport legislation.
  I further ask unanimous consent that there be one amendment in order 
to be offered by myself, Senator Coverdell, relative to a modification 
of the original bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the total time for debate be limited to 
2 hours equally divided between Senator McCain and Hollings, or their 
designees, and following the debate the Senate proceed to vote on or in 
relation to the amendment to be followed by third reading and a vote on 
passage of S. 1575.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, reserving the right to object, this is 
very similar of course to the offer made last week.
  I guess I will just ask: What is wrong with regular order? What is 
wrong with bringing a bill to the Senate floor, having a good debate, 
allowing the opportunity to offer amendments, and proceed under the 
rules of the Senate? Why do we need this gag rule with regard to this 
piece of legislation? Many of us are confused about that. And, 
unfortunately, many of the objections raised are being, in my view, 
misinterpreted by some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. 
All we want is an opportunity to offer amendments and to have a good 
debate.
  Some have suggested that this opposition is cynical. I don't know 
that the opposition expressed in the last several days by local 
officials including the mayor of Alexandria, Kerry Donley, by the 
Chairman of the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority, Chris 
Zimmerman, by the former Governor of Virginia, Linwood Holton, are 
cynical in their opposition to this piece of legislation. We are simply 
raising concerns about whether or not this is the right thing to do.
  But that again argues, it seems to me, that we need the opportunity 
to have a good debate. This should not be done in 2 hours and with just 
one amendment. I give the distinguished Senator credit for his 
persistence and his determination to see this legislation through--but 
as I understand it, the one amendment to be offered by our Republican 
colleague is the one that literally takes the name ``Washington'' out 
of the title and instead puts in the name ``Reagan.'' We ought to have 
a discussion about that.
  I suggest that perhaps there are other airports that should be 
considered to be renamed rather than Washington National Airport. For 
instance, it seems to me that Dulles International Airport might be a 
better candidate. We could have two airports named after two Presidents 
in the Washington area, ``Washington'' and ``Reagan,'' without 
affecting the first President of the United States. But we ought to 
have an opportunity to debate it. We ought to have an opportunity to 
discuss it and consider other amendments.
  We have suggested as well that nothing would honor this former Ronald 
Reagan more than the opportunity to directly address a concern that he 
raised while he was President: the need to reform the IRS. Legislation 
to do just that passed 426 to 4 in the House of Representatives last 
year. We ought to pass it unanimously here in the Senate before more 
and more Americans are adversely affected by actions taken by IRS. 
Since we failed to act last November, one and a half million Americans 
have been adversely affected by actions taken by the IRS.

  So let's deal with that legislation. Let's offer that as an amendment 
in tribute. We could even refer to it as the ``Ronald Reagan IRS reform 
amendment.''
  I would just hope that we don't proceed as the first order of 
business imposing a gag rule on the Senate not allowing the opportunity 
for regular order, not having an opportunity to debate, to listen and 
respond to local officials.
  How ironic that in the name of Ronald Reagan we carelessly 
demonstrate a lack of sensitivity to the local officials that Ronald 
Reagan said ought to be paramount in governmental decisionmaking. 
Unfortunately, we are attempting to override the objections that local 
decisionmakers have about what name should be placed at Washington 
National Airport. Do we really want to do that? Again, how ironic it 
would be if we did.
  So, Madam President, for all those reasons I would simply ask 
unanimous consent that the Senator's request be modified to provide for 
three first-degree amendments to be in order per side during the 
consideration of that bill.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator agree to modifying his 
request?
  Mr. COVERDELL. No. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, regrettably, under those circumstances 
I would have to object to the distinguished Senator's request as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, first let me say this to my good 
friend, my distinguished colleague, the minority leader. It is 
incorrect to suggest that we are not talking about debate. We want to 
move to the bill and debate its merits, both for or against it. It is 
true that perhaps I, more than any other, am objecting to the concept 
of taking a memorial statement to a former President and turning it 
into a free-for-all about IRS or other issues. I just do not think that 
is appropriate. I can understand. And if we have a local official, a 
former Governor, who is opposed to it, then during the course of

[[Page S264]]

the debate that can be heard and people can make their judgments about 
whether that is correct or wrong. But I can't accept the idea of taking 
something in the face of the family and finding ourselves in who knows 
what.
  With regard to the propounding of but one amendment--and that being 
mine, although I know the minority leader and the majority leader have 
not had a chance to talk about this--but from my point of view that 
amendment does not need to be offered. It was an administrative attempt 
to be in concurrence with the House which removed it and made it Ronald 
Reagan National Airport. My original legislation is Ronald Reagan 
Washington National Airport just like it is Washington Dulles Airport. 
I know this is not the moment to resolve that. But the minority leader 
is here, and I am here, and I am passing that along.
  With regard to the minority leader's suggestion as to other 
amendments, of course I would not know what those are. And I hope that 
during the course of the afternoon or tomorrow that the minority leader 
and the majority leader will have a chance to come to terms on it. But 
I do say in the strongest way that, while we can debate whether we 
should or shouldn't, I do not think it is appropriate. I think it would 
be unseemly to the family and everybody associated to open this up 
where we are debating other issues--no one wants to modify IRS more 
than I. But I wouldn't do it on this bill. And that is just a point of 
disagreement between us.

  I agree with the Senator that it is unfortunate. I do think it is--I 
am the one that used the word ``cynical''--I do think it is reflective 
of the city, that we find ourselves dealing with this effort in this 
way, approaching a filibuster again. I think that it speaks for what it 
is.
  We can debate it and vote for it or against it depending on whatever 
the individual Senator's desire would be, no matter their side of the 
aisle. I did think that the arguments--and the minority leader wasn't 
the source of all of those arguments--but they were, I thought, derived 
in an attempt to suggest a debate when in fact it was an attempt to 
stall or delay the legislation.
  I say to the minority leader, I am going to go on and talk a bit 
about this, and I do not want him to feel impounded by that in that I 
basically responded to his comments.
  Madam President, let me first say this legislation is awfully simple. 
It doesn't require some of the work such as an overhaul of the IRS or 
redesignation of Medicare. This is an attempt, a very appropriate 
attempt, to honor one of the great Presidents of our time.
  This past Friday I referred to the process as being cynical. It 
reminds me of just how many changes have occurred in this Capital City 
of ours. At first it was suggested last week that to name it Ronald 
Reagan National Airport was removing the name of a former President, 
but everybody knows that the use of the word ``Washington'' with regard 
to Washington National is referring to location, although I certainly, 
as I told the minority leader, have no problem leaving it the Ronald 
Reagan Washington National Airport. But I am doing that because I am 
still certifying where the airport is. It is in Washington, DC.

  It was suggested to me a little bit earlier that the Baltimore-
Washington International Airport is not named after Lord Baltimore--it 
is named after a city called Baltimore that is named after Lord 
Baltimore--any more than the designation ``Washington'' in Baltimore-
Washington International Airport refers to our first President. It 
refers to the two geographic locations in a very wise marketing attempt 
on the part of Baltimore to be an auxiliary airport to Washington 
National, or to the city airport here in Washington. I just do not feel 
that is a real nor meritorious problem in dealing with this 
legislation.
  Probably the most offensive of the arguments that were offered this 
past Friday was the argument that the Reagan family is not here asking 
for this to be done. What an unseemly thing to be saying, ``Well, if we 
are going to honor former President Reagan you all have to come here, 
kind of crawl through the door and ask us to do this.'' They will never 
do that. They will never do that. What are they supposed to do, launch 
a lobbying effort or buy some public relations firm to come up here and 
plead with the U.S. Senate that this would be an appropriate gesture?
  Madam President, I have already taken issue with the idea that you 
take a memorial, a memorial to a great American leader, and you use it 
as a vehicle to handle all the other processes that go on in the 
Capital City, whether it's IRS or Medicare or some other issue. We all 
know better than that. Protocol and etiquette simply dismisses that as 
being inappropriate, related to a memorial designation. As I said last 
week, this ought to stand or fall on its own merits. You either support 
the idea of honoring President Reagan in this way or you don't. But the 
idea of trying to cripple it through a series of amendments is 
demeaning and inappropriate.
  I frankly think this filibuster is inappropriate. It seems to become 
more and more of the process the other side is using. But if you had to 
find one area where it just was inappropriate, it would be using it in 
the context of a memorial statement to a former President. And I want 
to repeat, we are dealing with a gentleman who was a great American 
President, who was wounded in the twilight of his years, made one of 
the most magnanimous statements to his countrymen, one of the finest 
demonstrations of courage and bravery and ongoing public 
responsibility, whose birthday is this week. This town is not honoring 
itself in this debate--both in the context of the way this is being 
handled and now we find ourselves in the midst of yet another, in my 
judgment demeaning characteristic, and that is a filibuster.
  In an era where America yearned for a leader, Ronald Reagan answered 
the call. It is easy to forget that leadership is not doing what is 
popular based on a poll, it is doing what is right. Time and time 
again, President Reagan made his decisions on the strength of his 
convictions, regardless of current polls or popular opinion. How 
quickly we forget how he was mocked, chided, ridiculed when he called 
the Soviet Union an evil empire, but history has borne him out.
  I remember very vividly the mocking of President Reagan when he 
characterized the Soviet Union as an evil empire, and I remember 
wondering in my mind, and aloud, why in the world would anybody mock 
somebody for describing the Soviet Union in such a way? This was an 
avowed adversary that had enslaved millions of people in a 
dictatorship. But he was mocked when he referred to the Soviet Union as 
an evil empire.
  Did it deter him? Was he shaken by this? Did he call another press 
conference to try to explain what he meant? No. He said it was an evil 
empire and an avowed adversary and we ought to understand it in that 
way. As I said, people scoffed at his naivete when he demanded that 
Mikhail Gorbachev tear down the Berlin Wall. I can still see him 
standing there: ``Tear down this wall.'' Freedom won. The Berlin wall 
fell and the world is a completely different place because of the 
convictions--not only of him. He'd be the first, if he were here, to 
say, ``I didn't do this alone.'' But he was a giant in the effort.

  I remember several years ago, before his illness, he was in Atlanta, 
GA. It was a Republican Party event that he had agreed to attend. At 
the end of the meeting, in a very inspiring way, very emotional, the 
chairman of the dinner walked over and gave him, encased, a piece of 
the Berlin wall, and said, ``I hope you will let this rest on your desk 
to remind you of the achievement your strength of convictions meant to 
our country and to the world.''
  Now that the wall was down--and instead of this forceful edifice of 
oppression that looked down on people, that enslaved people, that 
threatened people--it had come to the point that it was but a mere 
souvenir to be sitting on desks or in libraries around the world.
  Originally, the Congress that I am unfortunately dealing with here 
today balked at the idea that families, not Government, should decide 
how to spend tax dollars. Under Ronald Reagan, the families won one of 
the largest single tax cuts in American history. And we certainly have 
seen the benefit of it--millions of new jobs. The decade of the 1980s 
was one of unbridled optimism. As we lowered the pressure on our 
families, left more of the income they produced in their checking

[[Page S265]]

accounts, we saw an unprecedented turnaround from stagflation, from 
unbelievable interest rates, from high taxes; and you saw the American 
people come forward with almost boundless optimism.
  For some of the people in this city, they called that a decade of 
greed. I call it a decade of growth and strength and authority for the 
United States--not only in the context that we were able to stand up 
and force the Soviet Union to tear the wall down, but that our everyday 
families from Iowa to Georgia, were better off, and they were 
optimistic, and they regained--you know--it's ``morning in America,'' 
as he would say. And it showed. We were a smiling Nation again.

  Throughout his Presidency, Ronald Reagan stood on principle, and 
history has, again, borne him out. In 1981, the office he inherited and 
the country he was to govern was in grave crisis, both at home and 
abroad. We forget, inflation was double digits.
  What is that versus today? Several times what it is today. Interest 
rates were over 20 percent. It means if you wanted to buy a house, if 
you wanted to buy a car, you were going to pay 20 cents on the dollar 
just to use the money. All of you have seen the ads for automobiles 
today. Some are as low as 6 percent. So it was dragging our economy 
down.
  Ronald Reagan's most critical opponents would acknowledge that 
President Reagan's policies reversed our course, bringing prosperity to 
home and allowing us to stand tall once again abroad.
  President Reagan taught us that leadership, as I said, is more than 
polls and focus groups. Leadership is not doing what is popular and 
then trying to make it right. It is doing what is right and then making 
it popular. As Eric Sevareid said of Harry Truman in David McCullough's 
book ``Truman,'' ``Remembering him reminds people of what a man in that 
office ought to be like. It's character, just character, and he stands 
like a rock in memory now.''
  Madam President, Ronald Reagan is a rock of our time, and history is 
going to demonstrate that again and again.
  The Wall Street Journal of Monday, January 5, 1998, talks about 
Ronald Reagan. ``Reagan National Airport'' is the headline. I am going 
to share it with the Senate:

       The Republican Governors Association has unanimously 
     endorsed renaming Washington's chief transportation gateway 
     the ``Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.''

  I might add, that includes the current Governor of Virginia, not a 
former Governor, the current Governor.

       The move gives impetus to a plan by Congressional leaders 
     to pass legislation honoring the former President in time for 
     his 87th birthday on February 6.

  This week, which is what is so frustrating about this filibuster. We 
are running on a short fuse here, Madam President.

       A big booster of the idea is Governor George Allen of 
     Virginia, where National Airport is located.

  Of course, he is now retired from that governorship.

       He notes that many airports are named after famous people, 
     from San Diego's Lindbergh to New York's LaGuardia, Chicago's 
     O'Hare, Washington's Dulles Airport and Orange County's John 
     Wayne Airport. A serious effort is under way to rename Los 
     Angeles' airport after actor and World War II aviator Jimmy 
     Stewart. The late President John F. Kennedy was honored by 
     having the nation's largest international airport named after 
     him in 1964.
       Friends of Mr. Reagan say National Airport is a more 
     appropriate memorial than the new $818 million government 
     office building in Washington that is also named after him.

  I know this to be the case. Washington National is a symbol. It is 
something that millions of passengers see every year, both domestic and 
foreign. Those of us who share my view think that is the appropriate 
memorial to designate Ronald Reagan Airport.

       To have him identified with [this building]--

  And I am going to modify this language, I don't want to read it 
exactly--``represents everything he was opposed to, is the ultimate 
irony.''
  That is the big building.

       ``He wanted to pare back government,'' says former Senator 
     Paul Laxalt. In contrast, renaming National Airport would 
     cost almost nothing.

  Now we know it costs nothing because we have had letters from people 
willing to pay for any changes, citizens who are willing to step 
forward.

       ``You're talking about a few signs and a logo,'' says David 
     Ralston, chairman of the airport's authority. Grover 
     Norquist, who came up with the idea as head of the Ronald 
     Reagan Legacy Project, says he will be happy to raise money 
     to pay for any extra costs if Democrats find that a reason 
     to object.

  We have already put that to bed. We have another citizen who already 
stepped forward who said he would see to any financial costs associated 
with renaming the airport.

       A few already are grouching privately. While President 
     Clinton has declined to say if he would sign the name change 
     into law, some Democrats in Congress mutter that Mr. Reagan 
     is an inappropriate choice. Washington, D.C.'s Mayor Marion 
     Barry says ``a host of other people'' should be considered.

  As I have said, if they believe that this memorial is inappropriate, 
they should speak to it and vote against it. But using specious 
arguments to somehow cloud the effort I do not think is appropriate.

       But the first frontal assault on the idea came from Mary 
     McGrory, the Washington Post's venerable liberal columnist. 
     She says the idea ``should be nipped in the bud.''

  She must have some influence here.

       Mr. Reagan ``didn't only rail against Washington, he 
     genuinely despised it. . .''

  I have to say that is just such an inappropriate characterization of 
our former President. He didn't like a lot of the ideas. He didn't like 
the idea that this town thought it ran America, but he did love 
America, and he was a believer in its optimism and its glory and 
understood that this was the capital of the free world for which he 
gave so much of his life to protect.
  She says:

       He took no part in its revels or its problems. He was in no 
     way attached to it.

  I think most Americans would find not being attached to the Capital 
City an attribute. If I have one criticism of the city in the brief 
time I have been here, it is that too many people succumb to this city 
and the idea that it dominates the Nation.

       She concludes by saying ``we do not know what Ronald Reagan 
     feels about all this. He is not himself.''

  That is accurate. He has fallen ill, as we all know.

       That may be true, but Nancy Reagan and Mr. Reagan's son 
     Michael are on record as supporting the idea. Governor Allen 
     says a Reagan Airport would gladden the hearts of millions of 
     Americans who don't view Washington as an imperial city.

  It is true that President Reagan did not view this as an imperial 
city.

       He says generations of future lawmakers would do well to 
     remember Mr. Reagan as they fly in to pass laws. ``Every time 
     they come here, they'll be reminded they're here to serve the 
     people, even though they're far from home,'' Governor Allen 
     says.

  Nothing can restore Ronald Reagan to the inspirational vitality that 
so inspired Americans during the 1980s, qualities that are vividly 
recalled in the superb PBS biography of Mr. Reagan that will air 
nationally on February 23 and 24. Still, we can't help but think the 
country would benefit from having such a visible national symbol 
honoring him.

  Great last line:

       Name this one for the Gipper.

  Madam President, I have alluded several times here this afternoon to 
the fact that our former President has been afflicted with a crippling 
illness. President Reagan faced personal adversity many times during 
his Presidency. Being cut down by an assassin's bullet would have been 
enough to knock the wind out of almost anybody, but not President 
Reagan. I remember this incident so vividly. I think most Americans 
would.
  I happened to be in London that afternoon. Nancy and I were having 
dinner. It is very interesting. The waiter came over, and he leaned 
over, and he said, ``Pardon me. Are you Americans?''
  I guess we must have looked a little different to him or maybe it was 
the southern accent. I am not sure. But he said, ``Are you Americans?'' 
And I said, ``Yes, we are. Thank you.'' And in the most somber way, he 
leaned over and he said that he was so sorry to advise me that, ``Your 
President has been shot.'' He was just stunned. And he said, ``We would 
like to help you, so we have arranged for a television in our living 
quarters upstairs, if you might like to understand what has happened.'' 
We immediately dashed upstairs.
  We shared the shock of everyone in the world wondering at that 
moment,

[[Page S266]]

had we lost this great President. And where was the Vice President? And 
what was actually happening? But even in that moment you could sense 
the world's admiration, even in this waiter, even in this community, 
this restaurant, their admiration for President Reagan, and trying to 
help the only Americans that were right there in front of them to see 
them through this situation.
  Or do you remember when he was diagnosed with cancer? He bounced back 
again. Couldn't take the Gipper down.
  But now he faces his greatest battle--Alzheimer's disease. And he has 
not shrunk from the challenge. Ronald Reagan chose to use his personal 
suffering to bring public focus on the devastation caused by this 
disease, and in so doing once again took the cards he was given and 
turned them to another public use.
  Last Thursday, Madam President, I shared the unbelievable letter that 
President Reagan wrote to his fellow countrymen and to the world, for 
that matter. I am going to share that again this afternoon because it 
is not long. And I think it speaks to the nature of the individual we 
are trying to honor on his 87th birthday.
  He said, on November 5, 1994--not that long ago:

       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. They 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.

  Every time I read this I am just struck, as I was with the 
assassination attempt, with the bout with cancer. I remember when he 
was first running for President--he had been an actor --and there was 
no way he possessed the qualifications to be President. And then, of 
course, he was too old. I think this President defied about everything 
they could put in front of him. And he turned out to be one of the 
truly great American Presidents of this century and for all time.
  I know that if we are able to accomplish this, and can do so by his 
birthday this week, we will have made but a small gesture to 
acknowledge our gratitude for an enormous career and an America for 
which all time--all time--will be changed, for which millions of people 
are now free that were not, for thousands upon thousands of men and 
women in our military and others who did not have to lift up their arms 
to accomplish the transformation in Europe.
  Many of those people probably do not realize how much they are 
indebted to this great President. Wouldn't it be nice to remind them, 
and wouldn't it be nice for them to understand, through this gesture, 
what a great leader can mean to the Nation, our country and our future?
  Madam President, 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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Madam President, one of President Reagan's most ardent 
supporters, if not the most ardent, oddly enough, is not an American 
citizen. A moment ago I was talking about an individual--I wish I kept 
this person's name--that was a British citizen. Oddly enough, it was 
this individual's Prime Minister who is probably President Reagan's 
most ardent supporter, Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of Britain, 
1979 to 1990.
  Recently, a book has been published of vignettes and remembrances of 
Ronald Reagan. There is a short one from Margaret Thatcher that I will 
share with the Senate.

       I . . . met Governor Reagan shortly after my becoming 
     conservative leader in 1975. Even before then I knew about 
     Governor Reagan because Denis [her husband] had returned home 
     one evening in the late 1960s full of praise for a remarkable 
     speech Ronald Reagan had just delivered to the Institute of 
     Directors.. I read the text myself and quickly saw what Denis 
     meant. When we met in person [she is talking about meeting 
     Governor Reagan] . . . I was immediately won over by his 
     charm, sense of humor, and directness.

  These are all very important characteristics of President Reagan. 
Charm. The other side all referred to him as Teflon. Sense of humor. It 
was absolutely captivating to be in his presence because he could so 
effectively use humor to calm things down, to take the sting out of a 
confrontation, to move people back to the table. He was the best at 
using his sense of humor. And then the directness. Directness.
  Years ago when he was first running for President, in 1976, I was 
summoned to a meeting at Atlanta International Airport which is named 
for Hartsfield, one of our distinguished former mayors. The Governor 
was going to visit with us. He was reaching out and trying to meet 
Republicans everywhere. We didn't have many in Georgia at that time, 
but a few of us gathered together, and he came in the room. I tended to 
support our sitting President, President Gerald Ford. I thought it made 
sense the party should stick with the incumbent President. The Governor 
was making a case for himself.
  I asked the very last question. I asked the Governor, ``Now, look, if 
we are going to be in such a tough election, why does it make sense to 
replace a sitting incumbent with all the assets that that person can 
bring to the contest?'' And that threw Governor Reagan a bit, threw him 
off. So then the person stood up and said, ``Well, that concludes our 
meeting,'' and without a heartbeat, Governor Reagan said, ``We are not 
ending this meeting on that question,'' and he took another question 
that was on a more optimistic note and completely turned the meeting 
around. His directness and his ability to take charge in any setting 
was remarkable.

       In the succeeding years I read his speeches, advocating tax 
     cuts as the root to wealth creation and stronger defenses as 
     an alternative to detente. I also read many of his radio 
     broadcasts which his press secretary sent over regularly for 
     me. I agreed with them all. In November 1978 we met again in 
     my room in the House of Commons.
       In the early years Ronald Reagan had been dismissed by much 
     of the American political elite though not by the American 
     electorate. . . [they considered him] a right-wing maverick 
     who could not be taken seriously. Now he was seen by many 
     thoughtful Republicans as their best ticket back to the White 
     House. Whatever Ronald Reagan had gained in experience, he 
     had not done so at the expense of his beliefs. I found him 
     stronger than ever. When he left my study, I reflected on how 
     different things might look if such a man were President of 
     the United States. But, in November 1978, such a prospect 
     seemed a long way off.
       The so-called Reagan Doctrine, which Ronald Reagan 
     developed in his speech to both Houses of Parliament in 
     1982, demonstrated just how potent a weapon in 
     international politics human rights can be. His view was 
     that we should fight the battle of ideas for freedom 
     against communism through the world, and refuse to accept 
     the permanent exclusion of the captive nations from the 
     benefits of freedom.
       This unashamedly philosophical approach and the armed 
     strength supporting it transformed the political world. 
     President Reagan undermined the Soviet Union at home by 
     giving hope to its citizens, directly assisted rebellions 
     against illegitimate Communist

[[Page S267]]

     regimes in Afghanistan and Nicaragua [in our own hemisphere] 
     and facilitated the peaceful transition to democracy in Latin 
     American countries and the Philippines. Of course, previous 
     American governments had extolled human rights, and President 
     Carter had even declared that they were the ``soul'' of U.S. 
     foreign policy. Where President Reagan went beyond these, 
     however, was in making the Soviets the principal targets of 
     his human rights campaign, and moving from rhetorical to 
     material support for anti-Communist guerrillas in countries 
     where Communist regimes had not securely established 
     themselves. The result was a decisive advance for freedom in 
     the world . . . In this instance, human rights and wider 
     American purposes were in complete harmony.

  Madam President, I will read a letter to the Senate.

                                                  January 2, 1998.
       Gentlemen: I endorse and support H.R. 2625 and S. 1297. 
     Both would redesignate Washington National Airport as 
     ``Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.''
           Sincerely,
                                                   Gerald R. Ford.

  Madam President, this next Friday, February 6, as President Reagan 
likes to put it, will be the 48th anniversary of his 39th birthday.
  We have been blessed to have had such a great leader, dedicated to 
principle. Ronald Reagan distinguished himself in several careers in 
his lifetime. He was a radio sportscaster, announcing Cubs games for 
WHO in Des Moines, IA; an actor in films, such as ``Knute Rockne, All-
American;'' a union leader--head of the Screen Actors Guild; a two-term 
Governor of California; and a twice-elected President of the United 
States.
  So today, Madam President, I say to my colleagues, let's pass this 
one for the Gipper.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, we are developing a position here that I 
don't particularly like, as it relates to naming an airport after one 
of our great Presidents. One of the things that concerns me most is 
what Ronald Reagan did as President. When he wrote his federalist 
papers, the Executive Order, I believe, 12612, it related to States 
rights and local authority.
  I want to explain my views on this legislation to rename the 
Washington National Airport. This airport has been named the Washington 
National Airport since 1941. Franklin Roosevelt laid the cornerstone 
for the airport. The airport is on property that once belonged to the 
family of Martha Washington and the stepson of George Washington. What 
we are about to do is not an appropriate way to honor, in my opinion, 
one of our Presidents. In fact, in a sense, it dishonors our first 
President.
  Ronald Reagan will have his place in history, having served two terms 
as President. His name is already etched on the second-largest 
Government building in this community. And in April, his lovely wife 
Nancy will be here to celebrate and dedicate the opening of that 
building. President Reagan clearly believed that State and local 
governments should be given the power to act, wherever possible, rather 
than the Federal Government. In fact, he issued an Executive order so 
that all Federal agencies made sure that local decisions were 
respected.
  Each of our major airports named after a President was accomplished 
because of local decisions. In Houston, George Bush's name was added to 
the name of the airport because of a decision by the mayor and the city 
council. In New York, the mayor, city council, and port authority 
honored John F. Kennedy. Here, we have objections, not support, from 
local communities. We may all agree that it should be renamed, but 
should we run roughshod over the views of the local citizenry? That 
would be contrary to President Reagan's papers, the Executive Order 
12612.
  One year prior to signing the executive order on federalism, Congress 
enacted legislation, championed by President Reagan's Secretary of 
Transportation, that created a multi-State airport authority to run and 
operate the two Washington-area airports. We turned over the keys to 
the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which we refer to as 
MWAA. On March 1, 1987, Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole 
signed a 50-year lease with MWAA. Lock, stock and barrel, subject to 
certain limitations, we gave them the keys to the Washington National 
Airport.
  Section after section of the 1986 act recognizes the independence of 
MWAA from the Federal Government for the purposes of running the 
airport. The lease also has similar language.
  It is not clear to me that we can clearly usurp the local airport 
authority's power and merely rename the airport. Yet, this bill does 
just that. In 1990--just think back a few short years ago--Senator Dole 
appropriately introduced a resolution to rename the Dulles Airport 
after former President Eisenhower. Now, Eisenhower was a very good 
President. He was a very good military leader; World War II was won by 
his genius. The Dole bill, however, recognized the local operating 
authority, and rather than usurping that authority, it urged the 
airport authority to make the name change. That was done appropriately 
and by the law and by President Reagan's federalist papers, where he 
said local authority should be the uppermost.

  If we had worked this issue properly, Madam President, I suspect we 
would have come to a similar conclusion and found a way to recognize 
our former President. Instead, we will rename the airport by fiat and 
let the lawyers have their day in court. The legality may be challenged 
and, in my view, the lawyers may have an excellent chance of winning. 
We are running over local authority with this piece of legislation. 
They say that closer to the runway are those who are associated with 
this area, and those who operate the airport would prefer that the 56-
year-old airport stay Washington National. And joining officials from 
Alexandria, who are opposed, and Arlington, who have previously said 
they oppose the change, the Greater Washington Board of Trade weighed 
in against this change last week. ``With all due respect to President 
Reagan, we believe that renaming the airport would be very confusing to 
air travelers, visitors, and local residents alike,'' the chairman of 
the Board's Transportation and Environment Committee said.
  Let me quote the first Republican Governor of Virginia this century--
and I served with him--A. Linwood Holton, Jr.:

       I also urge Congress not to impose the change on the 
     Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority, which oversees 
     National and Dulles International Airport under this 50-year 
     lease from the Federal Government.

  Linwood Holton says:

       I hate to see even something as politically popular as this 
     begin to chip away at the independence of local authority.

  It's not easy to stand up here and be opposed to having the name of a 
famous and well-liked President on an airport. But someone, somehow has 
to understand that we are usurping local authority and the local people 
do not want it, and we would be giving them something they don't want, 
and that is typically Federal Government.
  My colleague from Georgia, Mr. Coverdell, read a letter from the 
former President announcing his problems with having Alzheimer's and 
his wife having a problem as it relates to breast cancer. And if the 
Gipper could tell us today what he would rather have, I believe he 
would rather have something named on behalf of his wife as it relates 
to the fight against breast cancer in this country today. That would be 
meaningful. That would be helpful. And it would be something that I 
think you would find 100-percent support for.

  So, Madam President, I regret that I must oppose this piece of 
legislation. You can go across the country. I named Houston for 
President George Bush, New York for President Kennedy, Denver--they 
decided to name the airport after a former mayor. And Las Vegas named 
it after a former Senator.
  So it is on and on, and all of the decisions were made by the people 
of those communities. President Reagan would not want us to violate his 
principles in the process of naming something in his honor.
  Let's think about that just a minute. President Reagan would not want 
us to violate his principles in the process of naming something in his 
honor.
  The law states that the airport assumes all rights and obligations as 
an airport. And it should be treated like all other airports. Can we 
mandate a renaming of any other airport? I don't think so.

[[Page S268]]

  So, Madam President, I hope that something can be worked out rather 
than having the resolution amended to add other names; the resolution 
be amended to take care of the IRS, the resolution be amended to do a 
lot of other things.
  So let's look at the ownership of this property for a moment, if we 
may.
  Originally it was owned by the Alexandria family, for which the city 
of Alexandria is named. That is who owned this property.
  The property was later owned by the Custis family. John Parke Custis 
acquired the land from the Alexandria family. John Parke Custis was the 
son of Martha Washington, and the stepson of George Washington.
  George Washington was close to John Custis, and following John's 
death adopted his two children. The children then lived at Mount 
Vernon. And the airport was designed after Mount Vernon.
  The Abington Plantation was returned later to the Alexandria family.
  In the 1920's, the land was owned by Lewis Smoot, and later sold to 
the Richmond, Fredricksburg, and Potomac Railroad.
  Two airports were located near the Virginia side of the 14th Street 
Bridge; one the Hoover Field. That was after a President, which opened 
in 1926, and Washington Airport opened in 1927. The airports merged 
because of the Depression.
  The decision to build Washington National Airport did not occur until 
1938 when Franklin Delano Roosevelt effectively bypassed this body and 
began construction.
  Following a series of disputes over who actually owned the land, the 
District of Columbia and Virginia claimed title. The Federal Government 
asserted jurisdiction in 1946.
  So not only has the George Washington family--the first--of these 
United States been involved in this property in this area for the 
lifetime of this country but I think that leaving the name as it is, or 
changing the name to whatever should be, as President Reagan insisted 
that we do back in the 1986 when he wrote his Federal Executive order, 
I think it would be much better to honor his wife since his name is 
already etched in the second-largest building in this area, second only 
to the Pentagon. I hope that a way can be found rather than to make it 
look partisan, and some will take my position because they think it is 
right. Others will take an opposite view because of the political 
arena. Some will take the same view I have because of politics. I have 
taken the view because of what President Reagan said in his papers, 
Executive Order 16612, that said that communities and the States and in 
their judgment should be respected. And I think we ought to do what the 
former President asked us to do.
  I see no one wanting the floor. Madam President, I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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. Sessions). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________