Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 5 (Tuesday, February 3, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 5 (Tuesday, February 3, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S310-S316]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

RONALD REAGAN WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT

The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering S. 1575.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. We are returning
to the Ronald Reagan legislation, is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

[[Page S311]]

Mr. COVERDELL. It is my understanding that the Senator from
Connecticut is here to speak on his amendment. I wonder if I might get
the Senator's attention for a moment. About how long does the Senator
need?
Mr. DODD. I will be taking maybe all of 5 to 10 minutes.
Mr. COVERDELL. I yield the floor, Mr. President.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, shortly, I will offer an amendment. I am
making some drafting corrections to it. When that is completed, I will
submit it to the desk for consideration. Allow me to, first of all, ask
unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in a moment I will send that amendment to
the desk. First of all, on the underlying question here, in terms of
the naming of the National Airport in honor of President Ronald Reagan,
I support that, Mr. President. I realize others apparently do not, and
I certainly respect people's right to make that decision. For those who
have been around here long enough, I guess going back to the days when
President Reagan served as President, there were not many issues on
which we agreed. I fought rather vociferously on issues involving Latin
America, domestic policy, and questions on a wide range of issues. But
I happen to believe that the people who have served this country as
President, elected twice, deserve recognition. Whether you agree with
him or not, the people elected him twice to the highest office in our
land, a position achieved only by some 41 or 42 people in the history
of this country. So if this is what has been chosen by those who
believe it is a proper way to recognize the contribution of Ronald
Reagan, I respect that.
It has been suggested that we haven't named anything for Harry Truman
or Jimmy Carter, and I think that is a legitimate point. Certainly,
those who want to do that--and I join them in that--ought to find an
appropriate way to recognize their contributions. It seems to me that
that ought not to detract from the effort here to name something in
honor of Ronald Reagan.
So if this is what the President's family and others believe, as I
said a moment ago, is an appropriate and proper way to recognize him,
then this Senator--this Democrat, if you will, which comes secondary to
my role in the Senate, and as a citizen--I am going to support that
decision. I noted earlier that it took many years before we were able
to recognize Franklin Delano Roosevelt with a monument. He was one of
the greatest Presidents in this century, having led us during the Great
Depression and a world war. I was saddened that day when the ceremonies
opened up that wonderful memorial, and it occurred to me that there
weren't many people on the other side of the aisle there.
We ought to take politics out of these decision whenever possible. I
call for the establishment of a commission so that, henceforth--not on
this issue, but henceforth when we decide to name or rename facilities,
there ought to be a deliberative way in which we proceed. Too often
these issues are raised when a particular monument is up for
consideration, and based on whether people agree or disagree with that
choice, there are suggestions about sending this off to a commission or
some group for consideration. I understand that, but too often once
that issue is put aside and ended, we go back to business as usual and
never come back to how we consider these issues.
So the amendment that I am offering establishes a commission. It does
not condition this naming on the commission being established, but
rather it is prospective. So that in the future when such namings or
renamings will occur, there is a process by which we can do it.
I offer a second part of this amendment, which is a Sense-of-the-
Senate resolution that has to do with the naming of facilities here on
the Capitol grounds. Rather than trying to write statutory law here, I
just made it a Sense-of-the-Senate resolution that would establish a
commission made up of former Members of Congress from both parties. So
that on the Capitol grounds when we are naming rooms or facilities
within the Capitol here, there would also be a deliberate process by
which we go, and that is really a sense of the Senate. The idea is that
it would give our former colleagues a role to play when the issue arose
as to whether or not we ought to name buildings, facilities, porticoes,
or balconies that have been named in the past. I think as temporary
custodians of these wonderful grounds of the Capitol, we ought to be
deliberate and cautious in how we go about naming these facilities, so
that long after we are gone, there is an appropriate designation that
the test of time would wear well.
I point out to my colleagues that, in the last 24 hours or so, we
have heard of the people who have just been named to the National
Basketball Association Hall of Fame. What is the relationship? I note
that there is a requirement that there be a period of 5 years since the
person has left professional basketball before they can even be
considered. I note that Larry Bird, someone I admired immensely, as
most Americans did for his great skill on the basketball court, I
suppose you might have made the case when he retired in 1992 that he
should have been named immediately. Yet, the rules are that you have to
wait 5 years and then a board thinks about it, analyzes it, and makes
its judgment.
All I am suggesting here is as temporary custodians, for these
wonderful Capitol grounds, that we ought to establish a similar kind of
a process before we go off and name buildings and rooms and facilities
and other parts of these grounds for people who may be very well
deserving of such a designation, but the test of time and a little
deliberation would serve us all well and serve future generations well
accordingly.
So there are two parts of this amendment. First is that we would
establish, by law, a commission that would consider naming, in future
days, Federal facilities around the country. And the second part is a
sense of the Senate to deal with the Capitol grounds and buildings.
Mr. President, as I say, this is prospective. It doesn't affect the
decision of naming the National Airport for Ronald Reagan. I support
that. I said to my colleagues that, despite whatever differences--and
they were significant--I had with this American President, I believe
that naming such an airport for him is not inappropriate. In fact,
having served this Nation for 8 years as President, chosen by the
American public, a designation such as this in his honor is
appropriate, and I support that.
With that, I will be happy to yield the floor.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, if the Senator seeks a rollcall vote,
which would occur tomorrow, it would be appropriate to ask for the yeas
and nays.

Amendment No. 1641

(Purpose: To provide an orderly process for the renaming of existing
Federal facilities)

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] proposes an
amendment numbered 1641.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. FEDERAL FACILITIES REDESIGNATION ADVISORY GROUP.

[[Page S312]]

(B) the activities to be carried out at, and function of,
the facility;
(C) the views of the community in which the facility is
located (including any public comment, testimony, or evidence
received under subsection (d));
(D) the appropriateness of the facility's existing name,
taking into account its history, function, and location; and
(E) the costs associated with renaming the facility and the
sources of funds to defray the costs.
(2) Age and current occupation.--The Advisory Group may not
recommend a proposed change in the name of a Federal facility
for a living individual unless that individual--
(A) is at least 70 years of age; and
(B) has not been an officer or employee of the United
States, or a Member of the Congress, for a period of at least
5 years before the date of the proposed change.
(d) Administration.--
(1) Meetings.--The Advisory Group shall meet publicly from
time to time, but not less frequently than annually, in
Washington, D.C.
(2) Hearings, etc.--In carrying out its purpose the
Advisory Group--
(A) shall publish notice of any meeting, including a
meeting held pursuant to subsection (f), at which it is to
consider a proposed change of name for a Federal facility in
the Federal Register and in a newspaper of general
circulation in the community in which the facility
is located, and include in that notice an invitation for
public comment;
(B) not earlier than 30 days after the date on which the
applicable meeting notice was issued under subparagraph (A),
shall hold such hearings, and receive such testimony and
evidence, as may be appropriate; and
(C) may not make a recommendation concerning a proposed
change of name under this section until at least 60 days
after the date of the meeting at which the proposal was
considered.
(3) Administrative support.--The Administrator of General
Services shall provide such meeting facilities, staff
support, and other administrative support as may be required
for meetings of the Advisory Group.
(e) Reports.--The Advisory Group shall report to the
Congress from time to time its recommendations with respect
to proposals to rename existing Federal facilities.
(f) Proposal To Rename DCA.--Notwithstanding subsection
(b), the Advisory Group shall not have the authority to
consider any proposal to rename Washington National Airport,
or a portion of the airport, in honor of former President
Ronald Reagan.

SEC. 2. REPORT REQUIRED BEFORE EITHER HOUSE PROCEEDS TO THE
CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION TO RENAME FEDERAL
FACILITY.

(a) In General.--It shall not be in order, in the Senate or
in the House of Representatives, to proceed to the
consideration of any bill, resolution, or amendment to rename
an existing Federal facility unless the Advisory Group has
reported its recommendation in writing under section 1(e)
concerning the proposal and the report has been available to
the members of that House for 24 hours.
(b) Rules of Each House.--This section is enacted by the
Congress--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate
and of the House of Representatives, and as such subsection
(a) is deemed to be a part of the rules of the Senate and the
House of Representatives; and it supersedes other rules only
to the extent that it is inconsistent therewith; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
the Senate and the House of Representatives to change the
rules (so far as relating to the procedure of the Senate or
House of Representatives, respectively) at any time, in the
same manner and to the same extent as in the case of any
other rule of the Senate or House of Representatives.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act:
(1) Advisory group.--The term ``Advisory Group'' means the
Federal Facilities Redesignation Advisory Group established
by section 1.
(2) Federal facility.--The term ``Federal facility'' means
any building, road, bridge, complex, base, or other structure
owned by the United States or located on land owned by the
United States.

TITLE III--SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING COMMISSION TO NAME FEATURES
OF CAPITOL BUILDING AND GROUNDS

SEC. 301. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING COMMISSION TO NAME
FEATURES OF CAPITOL BUILDING AND GROUNDS.

It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should
establish, in accordance with the rules of the Senate and the
House of Representatives, a commission consisting of former
members of Congress, appointed by the Speaker of the House,
the Minority Leader of the House, the Majority Leader of the
Senate, and the Minority Leader of the Senate, to recommend
the naming or renaming of--
(1) architectural features of the Capitol (including any
House or Senate office building); and
(2) landscape features of the Capitol Grounds.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, may I inquire of the distinguished Senator
from Georgia, chairman of the committee, may it not be possible--and I
see my colleague, the distinguished Democratic leader arriving. He has
an amendment that is very similar. In fact, it is drawn in similar
language, but it has a different application. I inquire as to whether
or not the ordering of the amendments might be such that his amendment
be considered--
Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DODD. I yield to the Democratic leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I think the Senator may be referring to
an amendment that I understand the Senator from Virginia may be
offering. I will be offering another amendment. But I think the
suggestion made by the Senator from Connecticut is a good one and
perhaps we could make that arrangement later on in the unanimous
consent agreement.
Mr. DODD. I hope that might be the case. It would be a proper
ordering of these.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Could the
distinguished floor manager, the distinguished Senator from Georgia, or
the distinguished Democratic leader, advise the Senate, is tonight to
embrace all of the debate that is going to be on the central bill as
well as the amendments and, therefore, Senators desiring to speak
should do so this evening?
Mr. COVERDELL. By close of business this evening.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at some point I hope to be recognized for
a period not to exceed 4 or 5 minutes.
Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent I believe
we have established the order of the amendments. The first was an
amendment to be offered by Senator Daschle or his designee regarding
the commission. So the Senator's desire that that be considered first
is accomplished.
The next amendment is the one offered by the Senator from Connecticut
to be followed by another amendment to be offered by Senator Daschle or
his designee regarding Dulles Airport. There is then an amendment to be
offered by myself, which I would at the moment not likely offer, to be
followed by the amendment which has already been offered by Senator
Reid dealing with the FBI building. There is a provision for a relevant
amendment to be offered by the majority leader which may or may not be
offered, and a similar amendment--I think that is what we have here--to
be offered by the minority leader. So I believe the order has been
established, and it accomplishes what the Senator from Connecticut
would have preferred.
Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague for that.
Mr. President, if I may inquire further, I was just told--I apologize
to my colleague from Virginia, Senator Robb--it is my understanding
that the distinguished Democratic leader would be offering the
commission amendment. All I was suggesting is if it is appropriate at
the proper time that an unanimous consent request would provide an
order for these amendments so there would be a proper flow here in a
way that we would consider the amendment of the Senator from Virginia,
I suspect, prior to mine, and then mine. If that would be the order,
again, I am here on the floor because I have another engagement and was
asked to come over and properly deal with the amendment which I want to
offer. There was no attempt to try to get ahead of anybody in line.
Maybe a sequencing of these amendments would serve everybody's
interest. I would have no objection to that, if the amendment of the
Senator from Virginia can be considered prior. We can deal with this at
a later point.
Mr. COVERDELL. If I might ask a question of the minority leader, is
the amendment of the Senator from Virginia fulfilling this first
amendment request, he or his designee, on the commission amendment?
Mr. DASCHLE. I will respond, if the Senator will yield, by
acknowledging the leadership of the Senator from Virginia. It is my
understanding that he will be prepared to offer the amendment relating
to a commission and that we would want to precede to the other
commission amendment offered by Senator Dodd.

[[Page S313]]

I will simply inform colleagues that the amendment relating to the
renaming of Dulles International Airport will likely not be offered.
So, as the Senator from Georgia has suggested, it may be appropriate
just to ensure that everyone has a clear understanding, that the
amendment relating to a commission offered by Senator Robb, be first;
the amendment by Senator Dodd, second; the amendment, should he choose
to offer it, by Senator Coverdell, third; the amendment by Senator
Reid, fourth; the amendment by Senator Lott, fifth; and the amendment
by myself relevant, or my designee, sixth.

Perhaps there would be an appropriate time to propound the unanimous
consent, and I will do so.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the sequence of the
amendments?
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, which I
will not, the minority leader has followed the path of the unanimous
consent previously ordered. I can think of no reason for anybody on our
side, even though I can't counsel with the majority leader, to object.
Therefore, there is no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate Democratic leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the indulgence of
the senior Senator from Virginia.
Mr. President, as I noted, the amendment relating to the renaming of
Dulles International Airport will not be offered, and Senator Robb will
be offering the amendment relating to a commission.
I would like to use my authority under the unanimous consent
agreement relating to the relevant amendment to send an amendment to
the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Amendment No. 1642

(Purpose: To require approval by the Metropolitan Washington Airports
Authority of the renaming of Washington National Airport as the Ronald
Reagan National Airport)

Mr. DASCHLE. I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle) proposes an
amendment numbered 1642.
On page 3, after line 5, insert the following:

SEC. 3. MWAA APPROVAL REQUIRED.

This Act shall not take effect until the Metropolitan
Washington Airports Authority approves the redesignation of
the airport provided for by section 1 of this Act.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, that is the entire text of the amendment.
I have spoken on this issue on several occasions, so I don't need to
restate many of the thoughts that were already expressed. Obviously,
this is an issue that will unfortunately divide us in some respects.
But I don't think the question of honoring President Reagan should
divide us at all.
There is no doubt that we, on a bipartisan basis, should seek ways in
which to honor former leaders and former Presidents. Frankly, I am not
all that troubled about whether they are still living and very much a
part of our country and society in roles of leadership, as is the case
with President Reagan. I do think there have been a number of questions
legitimately raised about whether this is the most appropriate way with
which to honor our former President, and the appropriateness of
renaming Washington National Airport has been the subject of a good
deal of discussion over the last several days.
Senator Robb and others have pointed out that Washington National
Airport was transferred to the Metropolitan Washington Airports
Authority in 1986 under a 50-year lease. The Airports Authority and
other local authorities under that lease have been given all
jurisdiction relating to matters pertaining to the airport. Some have
noted that imposing this change in name will require countless
businesses to make, in some cases, substantial investments and
commitments financially that they have already noted could be very
prohibitive.
Some asked as well whether it is appropriate, given the fact that the
International Trade Center in Washington will be named after our former
President, Ronald Reagan in May. This is the single most expensive
Federal building ever erected and is second only to the Pentagon in
size. The naming of this building will provide us with a sufficient
opportunity to call attention to Ronald Reagan's commitments and
contributions to this country.
That isn't the only matter that will be raised with regard to
renaming or naming of facilities. A new Nimitz-class aircraft carrier
will be named after the former President as soon as it is completed.
So we have the International Trade Center to be named in May and the
Nimitz-class aircraft carrier in the near future. We have clearly
demonstrated that we are prepared to honor this former President on a
bipartisan basis.
Many people have questioned whether or not the Greater Washington
Board of Trade's views about renaming Washington National Airport ought
to be considered. In a letter to Congressman Shuster, the Washington
Board of Trade noted that this change ``would be very confusing to air
travelers, visitors, and local residents alike.''
The imposition of the Federal Government on local jurisdiction has
also been raised. Perhaps no one spoke more forcefully and passionately
about the importance of local control, about the importance of local
decisionmaking, about the importance of giving more power to the local
level, than President Reagan. Yet, we find the chairman of the
Arlington County Board in opposition to this name change. Christopher
Zimmerman, the chairman of the Arlington County Board, noted,
``Memorializing President Reagan by imposing a name change, against the
wishes of the local business community, Metropolitan Washington
Airports Authority, and local jurisdictions which it serves, would
certainly go against the spirit and intent of the President's actions
while in office.''
The chairman of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, also
questions whether Congress could impose the change legally without the
authority's consent, given the contractual arrangements under which we
are now operating. Alexandria Mayor Kerry Donley is concerned that the
name change could affect nearby businesses and suggested that Congress
``leave well enough alone.''
The city council of Alexandria also urges Congress to ``retain the
present name of Washington National Airport, which honors the ``Father
of our Nation' and our first President, George Washington.''

Linwood Holton, who served as the chairman of the Airports Authority
when the Federal Government leased Washington National Airport in 1986,
also opposes renaming it. He argues that the purpose of the lease was
to achieve ``local control, management, operation and development of
the airport,'' and that this bill is not ``consistent with either the
literal terms or the purpose of that lease agreement'' and ``would be
detrimental to the airport and its users and affect the traveling
public in ways currently not intended by the drafters of this
legislation.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Mr. Holton's
letter sent by Mr. Holton to Congressman Moran which describes the
concern in greater detail be printed in the Record at the conclusion of
my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as I noted, President Reagan made it very
clear that were he to waive the magic wand, the more the Federal
Government could turn local decisionmaking over to local
decisionmakers, the happier he would be. Here we have virtually every
single local decisionmaker elected and appointed who oppose the very
renaming that is incorporated into this legislation.
How ironic that in the name of President Reagan we do the very thing
that he opposed the most--forcing Federal will on local officials.
I don't think that Congress should pass legislation that removes
Washington's name from National Airport and

[[Page S314]]

replaces it with the name of another President, or anybody else, over
the objection of local officials. I personally oppose it. But that
shouldn't be the issue. In the name of the spirit of Ronald Reagan, the
issue should be, what do the local authorities think? What would they
do? And if we are prepared to say tomorrow that we don't care what they
think, it doesn't matter how opposed they are, we are going to do it
anyway, Mr. President, how ironic.
How ironic, indeed. The airports authority has only had this very
unique opportunity to govern themselves for 11 years. We turned over
that airport to them for 50 years.
Another irony is that Ronald Reagan signed that legislation. So it,
indeed, represented the spirit of the Reagan philosophy when we enacted
it. All the local entities, in keeping with his spirit, said, ``We'll
take this responsibility. This is what is probably as indicative of
what you are trying to do as anything. You are turning over the
responsibility to us. Give it to us.'' Now they have it. They have had
it for 11 years. Now the irony is we are saying, ``Well, we take it
back.'' And all the more ironic, we are going to take it back in the
name of President Ronald Reagan.
So, Mr. President, the amendment I am offering simply says, look, if
we are going to honor the spirit of former President Ronald Reagan,
let's, at the very least, do what he said was what his Presidency was
all about. Let us ensure that local governmental decisionmakers have
the opportunity to have a voice in keeping with the spirit of Ronald
Reagan. So the amendment I am offering is very simple. It states this
act shall not take effect until the Metropolitan Washington Airports
Authority approves the redesignation of the airport.
As everyone knows, the airports authority is a bipartisan panel,
Republicans, Independents and Democrats. Let's do what President Reagan
said we should do in honoring his name, in honoring the spirit of his
Presidency. Let us not say we did not mean it in 1987. Let us not say,
over your objections, we are going to do it anyway. Let's honor the
spirit of this President by doing the right thing. Let's give them the
opportunity to have a voice. This amendment does that. We will have the
opportunity to vote tomorrow. I ask for the yeas and nays on the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

Linwood Holton,

McLean, Virginia, January 29, 1998.
Hon. James Moran.
Dear Jim: I am writing to you in regards to the pending
legislation to change the name of the Washington National
Airport to ``Ronald Reagan National Airport.'' I had the
honor of working closely with the Congress and Secretary of
Transportation Elizabeth Dole in advancing the Metropolitan
Washington Airport Act of 1986 to transfer Washington
National Airport out of the Federal Government to the
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority. This legislation
of course was signed into law by President Reagan. The
Airports Authority was created by the Commonwealth of
Virginia and the District of Columbia. The Federal Government
leased Washington National Airport and Washington Dulles
International Airport to the Authority for fifty years
beginning on June 1987. I was privileged to serve as Chairman
of the Authority at that time and I signed that lease on
behalf of the Authority.
The purpose of the transfer, as recited in the lease
itself, was to achieve ``local control, management, operation
and development'' of the airports. I am very concerned that
after ten years of this lease arrangement, the Congress now
proposes to take unilateral action to change the name of the
airport. This is not at all consistent with either the
literal terms or the purpose of that lease agreement.
Further, the change to the name as proposed, while honoring a
president for whom I have the greatest respect, would be
detrimental to the airport and its users and affect the
traveling public in ways certainly not intended by the
drafters of this legislation.
The lease grants the Authority complete control, power, and
dominion over the airports. The intent of Congress, Virginia
and the District of Columbia in this arrangement is clear.
Even though the Federal Government continues to own the
underlying land, the airport is to be treated as any other
airport, not as a federal facility. In the past, there have
been changes made to the lease at the request of Congress and
the changes have been brought about by a mutually agreed upon
agreement to the lease to secure the consent of the Airports
Authority. The proposed name change legislation does not
acknowledge the need to obtain the consent of the Authority
and this is inconsistent with the intended relationship
between the Federal Government and the Authority.
As for the consequences, the removal of ``Washington'' from
the airport name removed the location and market identifier
that is obviously very important to travelers and shippers at
points distant from the Washington area. It is worth noting
that well over half of those who travel through National are
not residents of the Washington region. The word
``Washington'' provides immediate market and location
information. Without it, there will be confusion that does
not exist today about where the airport is and what market it
serves. The cost of such loss of identity and confusion may
not be readily qualified, but I believe that it would be
substantial. There also are other costs such as the costs to
local businesses who have associated their identities with
Washington National Airport.
In conclusion, the legislation which transferred Washington
National Airport to the Metropolitan Washington Airports
Authority granted to the Authority the control and oversight
of the airport. Unilateral action by the Congress to take the
drastic action of changing the name of the airport is
inconsistent with both the spirit and the intent of the
transfer.
Very truly yours,
Linwood Holton.

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, this amendment would be among those
that the sponsors of S. 1575 would oppose. I want to first acknowledge
that the Senator from Connecticut in offering his amendment, which is
prospective, offered his support of the effort of the sponsors to
redesignate Washington National as Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport, and that he would vote for this redesignation even though he
had differences. The differences were so pronounced I can remember
them, and I was a long way from the Senate at that time.
I really believe the nature of the amendment that has just been
described by the minority leader is basically a disagreement of
redesignation and not so much one of the philosophical issue over local
control. Of course, it isn't the Alexandria airport. It is the National
Airport. Cities are constitutional instruments of States. The Governor
of the State of Virginia has endorsed the redesignation of the airport
which is an appropriate governing local facility.
But, again, we could argue this forever. The level of Federal
Government control of operations at Washington National is without
parallel in the United States. The legislation that authorized limited
local authority over Washington National contains congressional
directives--appropriate landing fees, employee bargaining rights. The
precise composition of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority
and political affiliations of its members is mandated by Congress, not
constructed by State or local government.
By statute, the Federal Government limits the length of nonstop
flights to and from National Airport--National Airport, not
Alexandria--to 1,250 miles. That is the Metropolitan Washington
Airports Act of 1986, section 6012. There is only one other federally
imposed perimeter rule in the country, in the entire United States--
Love Field, TX.
In addition, the Federal Government controls the number of slots,
take off and landing rights at four ``high density rule'' airports:
Washington National, New York LaGuardia, JFK, and Chicago O'Hare. Air
carriers are limited to 37 hourly operations at Washington National; 11
hourly operations are reserved for commuter aircraft, and 12 for
general aviation and business activity, all Federal mandates.
When the Federal Government authorized the lease of Washington
National and its limited governance by the Washington Metropolitan
Airports Authority in 1986, it codified all of the regulations of the
Metropolitan Washington Airports into Federal regulations. These
Federal regulations govern airport operations such as taxicab
operation, nighttime noise, and landing fees. And the Federal
Government has the prerogative and authority legally and emotionally to
designate the name of the National Airport.
I could cite the specific authority, but in deference to time, and I
know the Senator from Virginia has strong opinions and wants to be
heard, I will not linger on this question. I do want to say that any
amendment that creates a retroactive impoundment on Congress' ability
to designate will be opposed by the sponsors.
We are pleased that there is bipartisan support for this designation.
I want

[[Page S315]]

to say, and I have mentioned it several times during the discussion,
obviously there are disagreements on the contribution, but, as Senator
Dodd said, there is no disagreement about the admiration the American
people have for former President Ronald Reagan. To be quite candid
about it, talking about the ironies, I am not sure that the naming of
the most expensive building in Washington's history is exactly in
concert with President Reagan.
In conclusion, let me say that this President is wounded. He was a
great American servant. He is in the sunset of his life. He is probably
engaged in the most courageous battle he ever was tested for. I think
sometimes extraordinary conditions and circumstances call for a
spontaneous response. I am most hopeful that this legislation will be
successful, and it will be successful in order to meet his 87th
birthday, which is this Friday.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from the great State of Virginia.
Mr. ROBB. I thank the Chair. I thank you for the characterization of
Virginia.

Amendment No. 1643

(Purpose: To provide an orderly process for the renaming of existing
Federal facilities)

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, in accordance with the unanimous consent
agreement, I would like to send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia (Mr. Robb) proposes an amendment
numbered 1643.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. FEDERAL FACILITIES REDESIGNATION ADVISORY GROUP.

(a) In General.--There is established a Federal Facilities
Redesignation Advisory Group comprised of--
(1) 2 members of the House of Representatives designated by
the Speaker of the House;
(2) 2 members of the House of Representatives designated by
the Minority Leader of the House;
(3) 2 members of the Senate designated by the Majority
Leader of the Senate;
(4) 2 members of the Senate designated by the Minority
Leader of the Senate; and
(5) the Administrator of General Services.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of the Advisory Group is to
consider and make a recommendation concerning any proposal to
change the name of a Federal facility to commemorate or honor
any individual, group of individuals, or event.
(c) Criteria.--
(1) In general.--In considering a proposal to rename an
existing Federal facility, the Advisory Group shall
consider--
(A) the appropriateness of the proposed name for the
facility, taking into account any history of association of
the individual for whom the facility is proposed to be named
with the facility or its location;
(B) the activities to be carried out at, and function of,
the facility;
(C) the views of the community in which the facility is
located (including any public comment, testimony, or evidence
received under subsection (d));
(D) the appropriateness of the facility's existing name,
taking into account its history, function, and location; and
(E) the costs associated with renaming the facility and the
sources of funds to defray the costs.
(2) Age and current occupation.--The Advisory Group may not
recommend a proposed change in the name of a Federal facility
for a living individual unless that individual--
(A) is at least 70 years of age; and
(B) has not been an officer or employee of the United
States, or a Member of the Congress, for a period of at least
5 years before the date of the proposed change.
(d) Administration.--
(1) Meetings.--The Advisory Group shall meet publicly from
time to time, but not less frequently than annually, in
Washington, D.C.
(2) Hearings, etc.--In carrying out its purpose the
Advisory Group--
(A) shall publish notice of any meeting, including a
meeting held pursuant to subsection (f), at which it is to
consider a proposed change of name for a Federal facility in
the Federal Register and in a newspaper of general
circulation in the community in which the facility is
located, and include in that notice an invitation for public
comment;
(B) not earlier than 30 days after the date on which the
applicable meeting notice was issued under subparagraph (A),
shall hold such hearings, and receive such testimony and
evidence, as may be appropriate; and
(C) may not make a recommendation concerning a proposed
change of name under this section until a least 60 days after
the date of the meeting at which the proposal was considered.
(3) Administrative support.--The Administrator of General
Services shall provide such meeting facilities, staff
support, and other administrative support as may be required
for meetings of the Advisory Group.
(e) Reports.--The Advisory Group shall report to the
Congress from time to time its recommendations with respect
to proposals to rename existing Federal facilities.
(f) Proposal to Rename DCA.--The Advisory Group shall meet
within 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act to
consider proposals to rename Washington National Airport, or
a portion thereof, in honor of former President Ronald
Reagan.

SEC. 2. REPORT REQUIRED BEFORE EITHER HOUSE PROCEEDS TO THE
CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION TO RENAME FEDERAL
FACILITY.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act:
(1) Advisory group.--The term ``Advisory Group'' means the
Federal Facilities Redesignation Advisory Group established
by section 1.
(2) Federal facility.--The Term ``Federal facility'' means
any building, road, bridge, complex, base, or other structure
owned by the United States or located on land owned by the
United States.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I was going to go ahead and allow the
amendment to be read because it is not terribly long, and I think it is
fairly straightforward.
I am also conscious of the fact that there are sufficient votes to
pass the Coverdell bill as it was introduced. I would point out,
however, that the bill was not referred to a committee. It was not
subject to a hearing and does not have the benefit of any of the local
input that would have been so desirable under the circumstances.
Because local views on this proposal were not considered, I made a
speech in this Chamber yesterday reflecting my own views and, I
believe, the views of many Virginians. My comments were similar to the
views that were just expressed by the minority leader, who spoke more
eloquently but came to the same conclusion.
I mentioned yesterday that I have long personally admired President
Reagan's personal courage, his strong convictions, his infectious
spirit, and his leadership in the national and international community.
But I thought this particular legislation, because it was contrary to
the wishes of all of the local governments that President Reagan worked
so hard to empower, was simply not the right way to proceed.
I also suggested that renaming some other international airport,
perhaps in his native State of Illinois or his adopted State of
California, would be more appropriate. I talked about the fact that the
most substantial Federal building ever built in Washington is going to
be dedicated in his name on May 5. And I talked about the fact that the
next super carrier will bear his name, and that given his role as
Commander in Chief and the respect that he generated, not only
throughout the United States but around the world, I wholeheartedly
endorsed this designation.
The difficulty I have with the legislation before us is that it
directly contravenes the legacy of the man we hope to honor. We have
clear expressions of the views of the local governments. Both of the
local governments, the City of Alexandria, and the County of Arlington,
have expressed their concern and opposition.
In addition, my predecessor, the first Republican Governor of
Virginia in this century, and a former chair of the Metropolitan
Washington Airports Authority, was very explicit in his description of
the intent of the 50-year

[[Page S316]]

lease of the National Airport and Dulles airport, and the autonomy it
provided for the Airport Authority.
I do not quarrel with the characterization of the distinguished
Senator from Georgia as to some of the Federal strings that remain
attached to that particular legislation. We seldom really ever turn
loose anything in its entirety in this body, and I understand that.
But the bottom line is, in my judgment, this legislation disregards
the views of local officials and business leaders, and thrusts the
central government upon a local authority that was divorced from the
federal government by President Reagan himself.
The amendment I have sent to the desk simply creates an advisory
group which would take into consideration the views of the local
community, and the history of a particular facility, before any
renaming occurs.
There may be other approaches to this particular challenge, and in
listening to the distinguished minority leader, I believe his approach
would be entirely appropriate.
The problem here is that we are taking up and considering legislation
that has not been considered by any committee of the Senate, that has
not had any hearing. Indeed, when we have been able to ascertain the
views of those who would normally be considered most interested, they
have expressed reservations in various degrees. I think it would be
appropriate under the circumstances, since the legislation before us
today purports to honor the 40th President, if the views of either the
President or Mrs. Reagan, who speaks so eloquently for him, were known
on this matter. I think that would be helpful to many Members in
considering this issue.
It may be entirely appropriate, after appropriate consultation, to go
ahead and rename Washington National Airport.
In any event, the haste with which we move is designed, I believe, to
reflect the coming birthday of President Reagan. And I would simply
suggest that some consultation with the family--and specifically the
President, or speaking for the President, Mrs. Reagan--might very much
be in order.
A very nice ceremony, I am informed, has been planned for the
dedication of the Ronald Reagan Building on May 5. The former First
Lady is planning to participate, and I think all the Members of
Congress will certainly be there, if not in body, then in spirit.
So I ask my colleagues to think about what we are doing, and think
about whether or not this properly honors the man it is designed to
honor.
The amendment I have sent to the desk will be taken up tomorrow.
Again, it would create an advisory group that would deliberate on some
of the issues I have raised, and report back to Congress in a timely
fashion. It would not preclude any action by the Senate or the House.
It would simply provide input from some of the local governments and
communities that President Reagan so strongly defended during his long
and illustrious tour as President of the United States.
Mr. President, I request the yeas and nays on the amendment I have
sent to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, unless the Senator from Georgia wishes to
take the floor at this point, 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, once again this argument, which I just
simply do not understand, suggesting that the President's family
somehow has to come here and seek homage, or lobby the Congress--it is
an incredible argument. That family would never do that. Anybody
waiting for some communique or something of that nature--I would not
hold my breath.
As I said a moment ago, this is something the Nation has to feel it
needs to do. It is a ``thank you'' that they need to express; our
country, our citizens. There is no way that family would come here
lobbying for this kind of thing. I am always surprised when it is
suggested that we have not heard or something. That is disappointing.
Mr. President, again I want to make it clear, the sponsors are going
to oppose any of these amendments that change the rules retroactively,
that impose some new constraint on this redesignation or some new
constraint on the Congress. The concept of putting something in place
prospectively may be laudable. There are several amendments here by
Members on the other side who have declared they are going to vote for
the redesignation but they have another issue that they are bringing
forward. I think that is appropriate. But the amendments that reach
backwards are not acceptable on our side.
The argument that a local city or authority has jurisdiction here is,
in my judgment, a specious argument. The Federal Government's
relationship with Washington National Airport is indisputable. You
cannot go to that airport without seeing the presence of it any day or
any night. And the law is very clear, in terms of the Federal role in
that facility. I will read the short version rather than the elongated:

The Federal Government has a continuing but limited
interest in the operation of the two federally owned airports
which serve the travel and cargo needs of the entire
metropolitan Washington region as well as the District of
Columbia as the national seat of Government.

As I said, municipalities are creatures of State governments and
chartered by State governments and the Governor of the State of
jurisdiction is in support of the redesignation.

____________________