[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.

       (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;

[[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.

       (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.

  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.

                          ____________________