[Pages S209-S219]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

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

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

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

[[Page S210]]

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

[From Human Events, Jan. 16, 1998]

How Reagan's Courage Changed the World

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

courage and charm of ronald reagan

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

[[Page S211]]

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

RONALD REAGAN'S ACHIEVEMENT

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

[[Page S212]]

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

new challenges face the west

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

policymakers succumbed to liberal contagion

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

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

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

[[Page S213]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page S214]]

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

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

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

[[Page S215]]

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

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

[[Page S216]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page S217]]

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

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

[[Page S218]]

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

A Time for Choosing

(By Ronald Reagan)

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

[[Page S219]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________________