The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“RONALD REAGAN WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Commerce was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H247-H278 on Feb. 4, 1998.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
RONALD REAGAN WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 344 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 344
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2625) to redesignate Washington National Airport as ``Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport''. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule for a period not to exceed two hours. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall be fifteen minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), pending which I yield myself such time as I might consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 344 is a modified open rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2625, the Ronald Reagan National Airport bill.
The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule also provides a 2-hour overall limitation on the amendment process.
The rule also makes in order the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, which shall be considered as read.
The rule additionally authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record, and it allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill and reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote.
And, finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, this rule strikes an appropriate balance between the majority's interest in moving its legislation through the House expeditiously and the minority's interest in being allowed to offer amendments to the bill. An overall time limitation in this case seemed to be a fair way for the Committee on Rules to address both sides' interest in the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today to honor Ronald Reagan through the passage of a bill to rename National Airport the Ronald Reagan National Airport. Why should we bestow this honor on President Ronald Reagan?
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, we cannot honor Ronald Reagan enough. His leadership brought prosperity and pride back to America and freedom to much of the rest of the world, and I will discuss that maybe perhaps a little bit later in the debate.
Mr. Speaker, in order to fully appreciate President Reagan's lasting impact and the rationale for naming the airport, let me remind Members of the world landscape when he took office back in 1980, and I was here then. In 1981, the Soviet Union was continuing a massive arms buildup and attempting to spread its hegemony into Afghanistan. They had invaded Afghanistan back in 1979. Eastern Europe suffered under the boot of totalitarian regimes, and the Berlin Wall scarred the face of Europe, enslaving millions and millions of people.
In America, we were experiencing something called ``stagflation.'' I just wonder if many of my colleagues can remember back that far. That dreadful combination of unconscionable 13 percent inflation. Can we imagine what that did to senior citizens living on a fixed income? Thirteen percent annual inflation and interest rates of 22 percent, and 24 percent prime if one happened to be a small businessman like I was, borrowing money to keep our businesses going and paying 24 percent interest. That brought on a recession, my colleagues, that created massive unemployment in almost every industry in America. And that was back in 1980, before President Reagan took office.
In fact, our country's morale was so low that then President Carter even declared the American people to be in a state of malaise. Imagine that, we proud Americans being in a state of malaise. But President Reagan saw the moral and financial flaws inherent in that Soviet system that was enslaving half the world population. He had the courage to call communism by its rightful name, the Evil Empire, and insist on human rights and proper treatment of human beings, dissidents, behind the Iron Curtain.
And his peace through strength policies, Mr. Speaker, ultimately resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union and freedom for the captured nations of Eastern Europe so that today, instead of deadly atheistic communism spreading its tentacles throughout this world, we now have democracy breaking out all over the world, and these people now have sovereign nations to live in and they enjoy the freedoms that we have enjoyed for so many years now.
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs all during President Reagan's two terms, it was a great honor for me to support President Reagan's foreign policies here in the House and on the floor of Congress. It makes me so proud to know that those policies for which President Reagan was berated at the time have led to an explosion of that freedom I just talked about of democracy and prosperity all around this globe and in this country of ours.
Domestically, President Reagan's economic policies not only pulled this country out of that stagflation I talked about, but they created economic benefits for everyone, for all of our citizens. Nineteen million new jobs were created. Incomes grew at all levels. New industries and technologies flourished and exploded. Exports exploded around this world.
In fact, a recent survey of leading American businessmen, and I hope Members will listen to this, a survey of leading American businessmen attributed today's strong economy precisely to the Reaganomics that was laid out during the 1980s right here on the floor of this Congress.
Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan's views and his ideas, once considered conservative, now occupy the center, the mainstream, of American politics, and it is represented here in this Congress in the House and Senate today. President Reagan's vision of a smaller government and individual responsibility are still embraced by the American people even more so today, and that is really what we Republicans are fighting for on the floor of this Congress every single day.
And, finally, Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan set a moral tone for this country that would always bring out the best in us as individual Americans and as a Nation as a whole. He would speak to the Nation plainly and convincingly about complicated subjects and he trusted in the judgment of the people, the American people. His words and his gestures were always genuine.
He had such respect for the office of Lincoln and Washington that he would never ever put personal gratification above the national interests of this country. Let me repeat that. He had such respect for the office of Lincoln and Washington that he would never, ever put personal gratification above the national interest of this great country of ours. Ronald Reagan would never have put himself in a situation which might tend to degrade either himself or the esteemed office of this Presidency. That is why he was such a great President.
Mr. Speaker, passage of this rule will bring us one step closer to voting on a bill to honor one of the greatest Americans that I have ever had the privilege of knowing and working with. I urge all of my colleagues to come over here and participate in this next 3 hours of debate to pay long-lasting tribute to this great American, Ronald Wilson Reagan.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), for yielding me the customary half-hour, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I know and I realize that there may be a lot of people in this country who think Washington National Airport should be named after President Reagan, but I daresay very few of them live in the area.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this restrictive rule. Because in 1986 there was a bill in which the Federal Government ceded responsibility for managing this airport to the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority. That bill was signed into law by none other than President Ronald Reagan. Because, Mr. Speaker, President Reagan was a big believer in giving local government more control and the Federal Government less control.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, President Reagan himself said, and I quote, this is a quote:
In many respects the Federal Government is still operating on the outdated and, if I may say so, arrogant assumption that the States just can't manage their own affairs.
But this bill is a complete contradiction of the very philosophy of Ronald Reagan himself. This bill takes a local airport name and says the Federal Government has decided to change the name of this airport despite nearly unanimous local opposition. And I want to add also, Mr. Speaker, that this airport does have a name. It is Washington National Airport, named for our first President, George Washington, who lived just a stone's throw away from where the airport currently stands.
The Federal Government has already named the second largest building in Washington after Ronald Reagan, the Ronald Reagan Trade Center. And as far as I am concerned, they can name the largest building in the D.C. area after Ronald Reagan, the Pentagon. It does not have a name. Let us make it the Ronald Reagan Peace Clinic.
Mr. Speaker, President Reagan had a profound impact on our country. He was one of the greatest proponents of freedom worldwide. My opposition in renaming the airport has nothing to do with my respect for the former President but, rather, my belief that we should honor his ideas as well as his name.
Yesterday afternoon in the Committee on Rules we heard from local representatives, Democrats and Republicans alike. These are the people who speak for this area. These are the people who can speak for the people who live around the airport. Mr. Speaker, every one of them, every one of them asked that the airport not be renamed but remain Washington National Airport after our first President, George Washington.
{time} 1045
But today it looks like my Republican colleagues are going to continue despite strong local opposition and despite the very principles Ronald Reagan himself stood for.
My dear friend, my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), said this bill will honor President Ronald Reagan. That is true. But, Mr. Speaker, this bill will dishonor President George Washington.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule. This imposes a 2-hour time cap on a partisan bill, which we have nothing but time around here, and it does not do anything to credit the memory of a great president, Ronald Reagan.
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from my dear friend how many speakers he has remaining?
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, we have a number of speakers; but, at the present time, none of them are on the floor.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, it is a great puzzlement to me why the Committee on Rules chose to have, in a sense, an open rule on amendments and a closed rule on the time in which to consider the amendments and the votes thereon.
I indicated yesterday to the Committee on Rules that I did not expect more than three amendments to be offered but that we did expect to have some time for debate. I did not expect that we would be constrained given the very light schedule that there is today. But I did expect that we would have an opportunity to discuss at some length, not ad nauseam; and I did indicate that I had worked diligently to deflect a number of amendments that I thought would be dilatory and to reserve those amendments to only those that were necessary.
Unfortunately, we are operating under a very restrictive rule; and we will limit the number of amendments. But I hope that, within the time, we will also have adequate discussion of the issue at hand.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, I have great respect for him. I served on his committee as much as 20 years ago. He was a good Member in those days, and he is a good Member today. But I just have to take exception with him talking about a closed rule, a restrictive rule.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I did not say ``closed.'' I said, ``restrictive.''
Mr. SOLOMON. No, my colleague said, ``closed.''
Mr. OBERSTAR. Closed as to time.
Mr. SOLOMON. But forget about that. The truth is the gentleman did say there were only a couple of amendments that might be offered. As a matter of fact, several of them were withdrawn I think by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) when he was upstairs. And in order to try to schedule the schedule for today, and we have another open rule coming up after this one, I felt that 2 hours was ample time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The time of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has expired.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota and ask if he would yield to me.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman knows that, under the Rules of the House, that if my colleague or his counterpart, the other respected Member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) feel that additional time is needed, I am sure I would agree and I am sure he would agree that we might want to extend that time a little bit.
So we are not trying to cut anyone off at all. I want the gentleman to know that.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I greatly appreciate that. That is a very grand gesture, and I appreciate that very much.
I will return just briefly, if I have additional time, to summarize my concern about the bill at hand.
Of course, we will debate it on its merits later. But it is not appropriate for the Congress to intercede in a jurisdictional matter where we have given authority to a local airport entity with full power, full authority, over the Dulles and National airports to then take back some of that power and say we will arrogate onto ourselves the authority to name this airport, not only to name it but to take off a good name that it already has and to replace another name. That is my principal objection.
Never in the history of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or its predecessor, named Public Works Committee, did we take a name of a building and replace it with another name.
Washington National already has a name. It is good enough for the country. It has been good enough since 1940. It ought to be good enough for the next 50 years or the next millennium.
We should not be in the business of renaming facilities. If this precedent is followed, then woe be to any other building that the Federal Government has funded or any other airport that has received Federal airport improvement funds anywhere in the Nation as this Congress is setting a precedent today that we can come in and take names off buildings and place other names on them. That is not appropriate.
If this building were rising fresh out of the ground, if there had not been a Washington National Airport, I would have no objection to naming it for whomever the Majority chose to name it. But I certainly object to taking the name Washington National off that airport and replacing it with another name.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York still does not have any speakers?
Mr. SOLOMON. I do. But I think you want to yield the time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Why do you not give the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) the time then?
Mr. SOLOMON. I do not have as much time as he wants. So, I think he is a good Democrat on your side of the aisle. The gentleman from Massachusetts ought to yield him some time; and I will, too.
Mr. MOAKLEY. He only needs a couple minutes. Why not give him a couple minutes?
Mr. SOLOMON. I am friendly today. I am glad to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). He is one of the most respected Members on the gentleman's side of the aisle. I will always yield him 2 minutes.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule and support the bill. How much time do I have?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield the gentleman 3 minutes.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I wish the gentleman from New York would make up his mind.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I question many of the economic policies, like many Democrats. And we can take a look at Ronald Reagan as any other president, and we can question many things. But I think we have to give the Gipper his due here today.
Ronald Reagan, probably more than any other single individual, was responsible for correctly identifying the Soviet Union as the big bad bear, for pressing communism around the world, and for challenging the people of the free world to really actually tear down the Berlin Wall. And, more than any other individual, Ronald Reagan is to be credited with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the demise almost of communism, and the dismantling of the Berlin Wall.
Now I do agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), whether he was serious about it or not, and he is a great Member, that, honestly, we probably should name the Pentagon after this fearless leader. But the Republican party wants to honor their great president, and it is a lesson that maybe the Democrats should learn from it. I believe that I will support that because he was a great president, and I will vote for the rule, and I will vote for the bill.
But I want to say this to the Republican party. There are many Democrats that want the legacy of Robert Kennedy remembered with a significant naming in this District; and since RFK has become now a suburban stadium, there is no real present honoring that legacy.
Now the Union Station has a lot of private interests, but I believe we could look at that and talk to those interests, and I think we should look at some other buildings in this district. So I am not talking about any deal being made here. I support the naming of the National Airport, the local interests notwithstanding. This is a national airport.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I would just like to ask the gentleman if, during his years as chairman of the Public Buildings and Grounds Subcommittee, in his years as Ranking Minority Member on that subcommittee, if he presided over a bill naming in which we took the name off a building and put another name on? Did we ever rename a building?
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, no, this was not in my jurisdiction. And when we look at J. Edgar Hoover, I think the Democrats should have taken some action when we were in charge.
So all I am going to say is I support this. I believe President Reagan did a great job in dismantling communism, and I will vote for the rule.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say, speaking as a former John F. Kennedy Democrat, which I was and so was Ronald Reagan, we support what my colleague has just asked for; and we would like to help him with Robert F. Kennedy in the future.
Mr. TRAFICANT. We will be doing that. I thank the gentleman very much.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I just had a thought. I was thinking maybe 10 or 15 years into the future, when there is a beautiful edifice in New York named after the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), then maybe 20 years later than that someone says, take that name down and let us put up another name, what a terrible travesty that would be.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), Ranking Member of the Committee on Rules, for making the important points that need to be made so eloquently, as well as the Ranking Member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. (Mr. Oberstar.)
I want to say to the chairman of the Committee on Rules that my opposition to this bill in no way implies a lack of sympathy for the health condition of our former president. It is not a criticism of his policies. In fact, it is just the opposite. My opposition is completely consistent with his philosophy. Our hearts do go out to the Reagan family. We want a fitting memorial for President Reagan.
But I strongly oppose this bill. I bitterly oppose it because it is an arrogant abuse of power, and it stands in direct contradiction to everything that President Reagan stood for.
Arlington County, where the airport is located, is opposed to this. The City of Alexandria, which is directly contiguous to the airport, voted unanimously in opposition to this. The Greater Washington Board of Trade, which represents the business community in the Washington Metropolitan Area, is opposed to this. It is going to cost them millions of dollars to change all their advertising material. Why can we not respect the wishes of local government and the small businesses in the area.
It needs to be emphasized that, in 1986, it was President Reagan who signed the legislation that turned over the authority of this airport to a regional authority that would then be responsible for making these decisions. Why should we not now defer to them? Why would we impose our will upon the very organization that President Reagan created?
It is wrong that we do this today. It is wrong to strip George Washington's name from our national airport.
Many of my colleagues may not be aware of the fact that Franklin Roosevelt, when this airport was commissioned, told the architects he wanted the main terminal to look like Mount Vernon. It was clear that this was to memorialize George Washington. His adopted son owned the land. There is no precedent for this, stripping a former president's name and imposing another president.
The only explanation can be a partisan political one. And this should not be partisan. In fact, in many ways it dishonors President Reagan's legacy to be subjecting he and his family to this kind of contentious debate, to be doing something that is so contrary to what he believed in. This should not be done.
And one of the people that has explained why it should not be done is the first Republican governor of Virginia, Governor Linwood Holton, who was the first chair of this airport authority. Governor Holton has written a letter. We have that letter. He urges us in the strongest terms, do not do this.
{time} 1100
It is completely contrary to what President Reagan stood for.
We will have a number of amendments that will seek to make a bad bill a little bit more palatable. One would defer this renaming decision to the Washington Airport Authority. Another would say that until we have enough money to reimburse the businesses and the public bodies that are going to incur substantial expenses because of this, we should not do it.
President Reagan is being honored in appropriate ways. We have an
$800 million Federal Trade Center. Outside of the Pentagon, this is the largest Federal building in the world. It is going to be named after President Reagan in just a few weeks. We are going to name the next Nimitz class aircraft carrier after President Reagan. We have got a courthouse in California named after President Reagan. There are going to be a lot of things named after President Reagan.
I am not sure that this idea that was in Time Magazine that we ought to carve his face in Mount Rushmore is not going to be an even more contentious issue, but there are sure going to be lots of opportunities to honor President Reagan, appropriate non-partisan opportunities. This is not an appropriate opportunity.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Solomon), are his speakers reassessing their position on this bill?
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, one of the real pleasures of serving on the Committee on Rules is having the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) as my counterpart, as the ranking member, because the gentleman always makes my day, as Ronald Reagan used to say.
Mr. MOAKLEY. I hope they do not make it the same way they made Clint Eastwood's day.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the opposition from my friend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), because there was a speaker of this House named Thomas ``Tip'' O'Neill, and he was one of the most loved speakers we have ever had, even though he was tough and he once broke a gavel yelling at me from the Chair up there one day.
But let me just say that we have heard people say, well, you know, this goes against Reaganomics and all President Reagan wanted to do.
I was just going to ask the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), how did he and all of the other Members that have spoken here today vote when we wanted to reform welfare, return welfare back to the States and back to the counties, so that we could make able-bodied people work for their welfare checks? How did they vote when we changed the whole concept of doing away with categorical aid grants for education; in other words, where we were telling local school boards how to educate their children, we here in Washington? We changed all of that, converted it to block grants, gave it to the States, and mandated that 80 percent of those funds go right on to the local school districts. That is Reaganomics.
So when we talk about what we are doing here, I just have to question a little bit the complaint about Washington National Airport, because, as the gentleman knows, and I will read from this document, according to the National Park Service, in 1927 a joint airport committee voted to approve a site for a new municipal airport for the Nation's capital. It chose Gravely Point, a shallow water area on the west bank of the Potomac across from Hains Point, 4.5 miles south of Washington, D.C. This was designed to replace, listen to this, the Washington Hoover Airport, which was located over where the Pentagon is today.
At first the proposed airport was referred to as the Gravely Point Airport project. However, over time it came to be known as the National Airport. There does not seem to be any precise moment or action that can be cited for the name change. Nevertheless, the name National Airport was appearing on documents as early as 1938.
Then in 1940, when legislation was finally passed on this floor, they named it Washington National Airport, after the City of Washington, after the District of Columbia. So it is not that we are deleting one name and adding another.
As a matter of fact, I do not have any strong opposition to naming it the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. There may be an amendment on the floor here dealing with that. We will cross that bridge when we come to it.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make clear that the gentleman ought to be singing the accolades of Ronald Wilson Reagan, the same way our good friend Tip O'Neill would if he were on this floor today.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's explanation, but I do not know what he was explaining. All we are talking about here is naming an airport. I have the greatest respect for my colleague's greatest friends and idol, Ronald Reagan. I have great respect. The matter here is taking one President's name off a building and putting another President's on it. It is a bad precedent. Who knows where it is going to stop?
I would hate to think that the party in power is going to rename every Federal Building in honor of their heroes and take down the minority's names. It just does not make sense.
Ronald Reagan, in his own statements that I quoted, would be the last one in the world that would want to take someone else's name off a building and put his name on it. He would be the last one in the world that would want a congressional action to name a local airport, against the wishes, against the desires of the people who sit on the board. Nobody who represents that district was even asked. They read about it in the newspaper. This is no way to legislate.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote against the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will remove the 2-hour time limitation on the amendments and will also provide that the IRS reform bill be added to this bill.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, the measure passed the House last spring by an overwhelming vote of 426 to 4. What greater tribute could we pay to President Ronald Reagan than this IRS amendment?
The Senate has yet to consider this bill, but by adding the House-
passed bill to the measure, we can give the Senate a much-needed push to take up the IRS reform.
Mr. Speaker, so I urge Members to vote no on the previous question so we can add the bipartisan IRS reform bill, H.R. 2625.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record.
Previous Question for Rule on H.R. 2625: Ronald Reagan National Airport
Text: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2625) to redesignate Washington National airport as ``Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport''. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. In the engrossment of H.R. 2625, the Clerk shall:
(1) add the text of H.R. 2676, as passed by the House, as new matter at the end of H.R. 2625; (2) conform the title of H.R. 2625 to reflect the addition of the text of H.R. 2676 to the engrossment; (3) assign appropriate designations to provisions within the engrossment; and (4) conform provisions for short titles within the engrossment.
the vote on the previous question: what it really means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a role resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the title, or yield for the purpose of amendment.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.''
The vote on the previous question on a role does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my dear friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this request that we reject the previous question so that we can have made in order H.R. 2676, the IRS Restructuring Act of 1997 and be able to bring that up and include it in this bill.
H.R. 2676 is a bill that is very important. It is one of the highest priorities, I think, of this Congress. I want to congratulate both the Democratic and Republican leadership in this body, because we made it a truly bipartisan bill.
The Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Coyne), and others, worked together so that we in this House could pass by an overwhelming majority the IRS Restructuring Act of 1997.
It is important for us to act now. Tax season is coming up shortly. We need to act before April 15 so that the reforms can take effect immediately.
President Clinton has urged the Congress to act, and Secretary Rubin has worked with us on this important legislation. It provides for a reform in the administration of the IRS by creating an outside oversight board. It provides for taxpayer bill of rights and makes it easier for electronic filing. It simplifies the Congressional oversight function. In short, it will be the first major reform of the IRS in over a half a century.
Mr. Speaker, it is important that we act now. By defeating the previous question, we have a chance so that the other body can follow the lead of this body and act now on IRS reform.
Since the House passed this bill, we have continued to learn about abuses in the IRS. Charles Rossotti, the new Commissioner, has embarked on an ambitious plan to reorganize the IRS, but he needs the tools provided in this legislation in order to complete the job.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the ranking member: Nothing could be more fitting than for Ronald Reagan to be associated with this historic legislation to reform the IRS. I urge my colleagues to reject the previous question so we can move this legislation forward and give the other body a chance to do what this body has done.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I was surprised to hear my good friend the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) talk about breaking the rules of the House, because the gentleman is known as a person who obeys the rules of the House. As a matter of fact, he helps us keep the House in order quite often. But the gentleman knows that an amendment making in order an IRS debate is not in order, it is not germane, and cannot be added to it, regardless of whether you defeat the previous question or not. We might as well add the Superfund to it, or we could add cloning. We could do a lot of things. But we have rules, and we have to obey them.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we know it is also nongermane, but we know of the gentleman's love for Ronald Reagan. We felt, because of that, the gentleman would allow this amendment to be placed on this bill.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as early as this morning, I spoke to Senator Bill Roth from Delaware, who has the IRS bill in his committee. They are moving that bill and it is going to become law. We are going to make it a lot easier for the taxpayers of this Nation to obey the law when they are filing their income taxes.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman could make it a lot easier by allowing an amendment on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I think we have touched all the pertinent pieces, and I would hope that Members would vote no on the previous question so we can amend this bill to take away the 2-hour time limitation and also put the IRS language in here.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as a former town mayor in New York, they are called supervisors, town supervisors, and county legislator and State legislator, I would be the last one to stand up here and try to take away home rule, to try to usurp the authority of local governments. But let me just lay the facts out here.
The Congressional Budget Office has stated, and it is in the report here, that the cost of complying with this particular mandate, the mandate of changing a name, is insignificant. The cost, therefore, would be negligible. There is no real cost. I, for one, would be glad to work with the Committee on Appropriations and reimburse anyone for any cost there might be.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you why we are really here. I am also the chairman of the NATO observer group, and that is a group of parliamentarians here in the House and the Senate that are responsible for the expansion of NATO.
I was in various countries in central Asia, which is really a part of Europe, just recently. These are countries that have strange names like Uzbekistan, like Kazahkstan, like Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and these people, who were enslaved for decades under this terrible philosophy called communism, all came to me as I was walking the streets in each one of these cities and each one of these new sovereign nations, and, even though they could speak little English at all, they all knew the words ``Ronald Reagan,'' and they all gave a thumbs up to this great President, because after decades and decades and decades of suffering, they were now a free people, they were no longer a captive nation. They had their sovereignty, and now they have a chance to enjoy what we Americans have enjoyed for all these 200-plus years, the ability to live where we want to live, to work where we want to work, to worship in the church of our choice, these things we all take for granted.
The rest of the world knows the value of Ronald Reagan and why he was a great President. That is why we are attempting to just pay some lasting tribute to this great, great American.
Mr. Speaker, therefore, I would hope all Members would come over here and vote for the previous question, vote for the rule, and then come over here and vote for this bill. This President deserved it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The question is on ordering the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of agreeing to the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, nays 189, not voting 14, as follows:
YEAS--227
AderholtArcherArmeyBachusBakerBallengerBarrBarrett (NE)BartlettBartonBassBatemanBereuterBilbrayBilirakisBlileyBluntBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBradyBryantBunningBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCampbellCanadyCannonCastleChabotChamblissChenowethChristensenCobleCoburnCollinsCombestCookCookseyCoxCraneCrapoCubinCunninghamDavis (VA)DealDeLayDiaz-BalartDickeyDicksDoolittleDreierDuncanDunnEhlersEhrlichEmersonEnglishEnsignEvansEverettEwingFawellFoleyForbesFossellaFowlerFoxFrelinghuysenGalleglyGanskeGekasGibbonsGilchrestGillmorGilmanGoodlatteGoodlingGossGrahamGrangerGreenwoodGutknechtHall (TX)HansenHastertHastings (WA)HayworthHefleyHillHillearyHobsonHoekstraHornHostettlerHoughtonHulshofHunterHutchinsonHydeInglisIstookJenkinsJohnson (CT)Johnson, SamJonesKasichKellyKimKing (NY)KingstonKlugKnollenbergKolbeLaHoodLargentLathamLaTouretteLazioLeachLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LinderLivingstonLoBiondoLucasManzulloMcCollumMcCreryMcDadeMcHughMcInnisMcIntoshMcKeonMetcalfMicaMiller (FL)Moran (KS)MorellaMyrickNethercuttNeumannNeyNorthupNorwoodNussleOxleyPackardPappasParkerPaulPaxonPeasePeterson (PA)PetriPickeringPittsPomboPorterPortmanPryce (OH)QuinnRadanovichRamstadRedmondRegulaRileyRoganRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRoukemaRoyceRyunSalmonSanfordSaxtonScarboroughSchaefer, DanSchaffer, BobSensenbrennerSessionsShadeggShawShaysShimkusShusterSkeenSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (OR)Smith (TX)Smith, LindaSnowbargerSolomonSouderSpenceStearnsStumpSununuTalentTauzinTaylor (NC)ThomasThornberryThuneTiahrtTraficantTurnerUptonWalshWampWatkinsWatts (OK)Weldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWhiteWhitfieldWickerWolfYoung (AK)Young (FL)
NAYS--189
AbercrombieAckermanAllenAndrewsBaeslerBaldacciBarciaBarrett (WI)BentsenBermanBerryBishopBlagojevichBlumenauerBoniorBorskiBoswellBoucherBoydBrown (CA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)CardinCarsonClayClaytonClementClyburnConditConyersCostelloCoyneCramerCummingsDannerDavis (FL)Davis (IL)DeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDellumsDeutschDingellDixonDoggettDooleyDoyleEdwardsEngelEtheridgeFarrFazioFilnerFordFrank (MA)FrostFurseGejdensonGephardtGoodeGordonGreenGutierrezHall (OH)HamiltonHarmanHastings (FL)HefnerHilliardHincheyHinojosaHoldenHooleyHoyerJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee (TX)JeffersonJohnJohnson (WI)Johnson, E. B.KanjorskiKapturKennedy (MA)Kennedy (RI)KennellyKildeeKilpatrickKind (WI)KleczkaKlinkKucinichLaFalceLampsonLantosLevinLewis (GA)LipinskiLofgrenLoweyMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)MantonMarkeyMartinezMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (NY)McDermottMcGovernMcHaleMcIntyreMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeekMenendezMillender-McDonaldMiller (CA)MingeMinkMoakleyMoran (VA)MurthaNadlerNealOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOwensPallonePascrellPastorPelosiPeterson (MN)PickettPomeroyPoshardPrice (NC)RahallRangelReyesRiversRodriguezRoemerRothmanRoybal-AllardRushSaboSanchezSandersSandlinSawyerSchumerScottSerranoShermanSisiskySkaggsSkeltonSlaughterSmith, AdamSnyderSprattStabenowStarkStenholmStricklandStupakTannerTauscherTaylor (MS)ThompsonThurmanTierneyTownsVelazquezVentoViscloskyWatersWatt (NC)WaxmanWexlerWeygandWiseWoolseyWynnYates
NOT VOTING--14
BecerraEshooFattahFranks (NJ)GonzalezHergerLutherMcCarthy (MO)MollohanPayneRiggsSchiffStokesTorres
{time} 1134
Mr. BONIOR, Mr. HEFNER, Ms. KILPATRICK and Ms. DeGETTE changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. BILBRAY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
personal explanation
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 3, moving the previous question, I was unavoidably detained at Washington National Airport.
Had I been present, I would have voted Nay.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Sununu). Pursuant to House Resolution 344 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2625.
{time} 1136
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2625) to redesignate Washington National Airport as ``Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport,'' with Mr. Combest in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Committee on International Relations.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Shuster) for yielding. I rise in support of the redesignation of the Washington National Airport as the Ronald Reagan National Airport.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2625, the redesignation of the Washington National Airport as the ``Ronald Reagan National Airport.'' I wish to thank our colleagues from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and from Georgia (Mr. Barr) for bringing this legislation to our attention.
President Reagan's dedication to a safe world, coupled with a strong and prosperous America, secured the status of our nation as an international leader, and led directly to the economic and political successes we have in recent years achieved. The roots of Communism's worldwide collapse can be found in the Reagan Administration's effective defense strategy, which has as its cornerstone the truism that negotiations can take place only from a position of strength.
It is appropriate that we honor former President Reagan in this manner because it was his Administration which transferred, in 1986, all Washington airports to a local authority. This ended 45 years of inefficient and expensive federal ownership, and opened the door for privatization. This, in turn, paved the way for much-needed airport modernization projects.
With Mr. Reagan's 87th birthday occurring on February 6, 1998, it is appropriate that we approve this legislation immediately, to make it a fitting tribute on a milestone occasion.
I ask that my colleagues join with me in supporting H.R. 2625 in an expeditious manner, as a fitting, appropriate tribute to one of the great Americans of all time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
H.R. 2625 was introduced by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) last October 7. This bill would change the name of the Washington National Airport to the Ronald Reagan National Airport.
Ronald Reagan was born on February 6, 1911, and in 1980 was elected the 40th President of the United States. This legislation would honor President Reagan for his leadership to and for the citizens of the United States and all freedom-loving people throughout the world.
In particular, this bill is designed to honor the President for the following accomplishments during his administration:
President Reagan established fiscal policies that invigorated the American economy. As a result of his efforts, growth and investment increased while Federal spending, inflation, interest rates, tax rates and unemployment decreased.
When confronted by the former Soviet Union, President Reagan's policy of peace through strength restored national security, ensured peace and paved the way for the successful end of the Cold War.
President Reagan's leadership encouraged the rediscovery of the values upon which our forefathers founded this Nation. And in 1986, President Reagan persuaded Congress to end the inefficiency and expense of Federal ownership of National Airport and to transfer the operating control to an independent authority, paving the way for long overdue airport modernization projects, including construction of the new terminal.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1145
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
It is clear that the fix is in, the tablet has been handed down from atop Mount Gingrich. Republicans are determined to erect a political billboard at the entrance to the Nation's capital in honor of their hero Ronald Reagan.
I have no objection to naming something for Ronald Reagan. In fact, I supported the naming of the billion-dollar international trade center in downtown Washington in honor of Ronald Reagan, just a stone's throw from the White House. I sympathize with his family and the condition that he finds himself in with Alzheimer's. My dearest aunt suffered from and succumbed to Alzheimer's. I know the pain that they are experiencing. But that does not justify doing something we have never done in the history of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or its predecessor, the Public Works Committee, and that is take a name off a building and put another name on.
If this structure had no name, there would be no objection on this side. But you are taking a good name, the good name of Washington National Airport, and taking that off and substituting for it another name. That is not right. You are going to leave the word ``national'' in. I correct myself. But the title itself is defaced. That is not right.
You are interfering, interceding in the affairs of the airport authority itself. That is not right. When Congress created the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority in 1986, the law said this airport should be treated like any other airport in the country. The transfer law leased the airport to the MWAA for 50 years and gave it complete discretion and full power, those words in the lease, to run the airport. This takes away complete discretion and full power. It is wrong. It should not be done.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just to make the record clear, I would like to point out to the body that in the last Congress, 63 Democrats sponsored legislation, H.R. 3247, to rename the Herbert Clark Hoover Department of Commerce building as the Ron Brown Commerce building and, indeed, my dear, dear friend from Minnesota as well as several of our other esteemed colleagues on our committee, on the Democratic side of the aisle, cosponsored that legislation. So it is a little mystifying to me to hear that this is something that has never been attempted before. Indeed the very Members who oppose this are Members who attempted to remove the name of President Hoover and replace it with the name of Mr. Brown.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation.
(Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his leadership on this issue. I rise in support of H.R. 2625 and urge my colleagues to support it as well.
Obviously, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and others have mentioned, President Reagan was one of the most popular and most well-respected leaders this Nation has ever produced. As all of us know, he accomplished many great things during his Presidency.
Washington, D.C., is a city that symbolizes freedom and democracy for every American, for many people all over the world. Renaming the Washington National Airport as the Ronald Reagan National Airport is a fitting tribute to this great American, a man with a vision and a man who has done so much for this Nation and for the world.
In the 2 decades before President Reagan took office, Americans suffered oppressively increasing rates of taxation, inflation, unemployment and interest rates. It was Ronald Reagan who led this Nation out of its economic problems, reducing runaway inflation and interest rates to the lowest levels in many years and creating prosperity for millions of citizens across this country.
Mr. Chairman, President Reagan got this Nation back on track. His initiatives led to great improvements in all sectors of our economy, including the aviation industry. Air passenger traffic increased dramatically throughout the Reagan years, and airlines had some of their best years as well, both as a result of deregulation and the strong economy.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this is a fitting tribute because flying, aviation, airports, flight in general in the final analysis are about freedom. They enable people to expand their horizons and accomplish things that otherwise would not have been possible. They give people the freedom and the ability to go places and do things that make all of our lives better.
In the same way Ronald Reagan's life, his philosophy, his beliefs, his actions, if they could be described in one word, that word would be freedom. He fought to protect and preserve freedom here at home and to expand freedom for people all over this world. In the great Battle Hymn of the Republic it says, in the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea with a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me. As he died to make men holy, let us live to make men free. Ronald Reagan did that. He lived for freedom. He did so much for so many, naming this airport after him is a small way to say thank you for all that he did.
I rise in support of H.R. 2625 and urge my colleagues to support it as well.
Obviously, as you and others have mentioned Mr. Chairman, President Reagan was one of the most popular and well respected leaders this Nation has ever seen.
As all of us know, he accomplished many great things during his presidency.
Washington, DC is a city that symbolizes freedom and democracy for every American and for many people all over the world.
Renaming the Washington National Airport as the Ronald Reagan National Airport is a fitting tribute to this great man--a man with vision and a man who has done so much for this Nation and for the world.
In the two decades before President Reagan took office, Americans suffered oppressively increased taxation, inflation, unemployment, and interest rates.
It was Ronald Reagan who lead this Nation out of its economic problems; reducing runaway inflation and interest rates to the lowest levels in years and creating prosperity for many citizens across the Country.
Mr. Chairman, to be direct, President Reagan got this Nation back on track. His initiatives led to great improvements in all sectors of our economy, including the aviation industry.
Air passenger traffic increased dramatically throughout the Reagan years. And airlines had some of their best years as well. Both a result of deregulation and a strong economy.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I wanted to be on record as saying that this makes no sense whatsoever. We have a President whose name of this city is very well known. It is well known that National Airport is the Washington National Airport, named after a President. There is no need to change it, spending the money to name it for another President. This is only done, only done for partisan reasons. We should have this as a bipartisan city, a bipartisan airport. Why is there a need for a change in the name? This is the wrong way to go. We should let it stay, by the way, bipartisan to object to this. Both Republicans and the Democrats on the National Airport said this is the wrong way to go. I will vote against this and urge my colleagues to vote against it.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this well meaning, but ill-
conceived legislation.
It is appropriate to honor past Presidents. And, we have done so with President Reagan.
We have named a federal courthouse in California after him--we have named the brand new building at the Federal Triangle in Washington, DC, after President Reagan--and, the newest aircraft carrier will be named the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan.
In addition, President Reagan has been honored in states and cities across America by hospitals, bridges, highways and other constructions that bear his name.
I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that this is a matter that should be left to local authorities.
Congress should not impose its will on the Airport Authority that manages National Airport.
Members from other states should not override the views of Congressman Moran, in whose District the Airport is located, and Congresswoman Norton, whose constituents are affected by this decision.
We either support the right of state and local governments or we don't.
And, while there is some debate over whether the Airport was named after our first President, George Washington, it would seem important to maintain that name because of its historical value.
I am aware also that a change in the name of the Airport will have an adverse economic impact on many merchants who will suffer great losses as a result.
It is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to do the responsible thing on this Bill--vote for order, history and fairness and against chaos, confusion and disarray--vote against this Bill.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to set the facts of the record straight. If indeed this bill has been made partisan, it is only because our friends on the other side choose to make a naming bill partisan.
Let me share with the body the facts in the previous Congresses. In the 100th Congress, two-thirds of the naming bills were named by Democrats, and we Republicans supported it. In the 101st Congress, two-
thirds of the naming bills were for Democrats, and we Republicans supported it. In the 102d Congress, 60 percent of the naming bills were for Democrats, and we Republicans supported it. In the 103d Congress, 66 were named for Democrats, and we Republicans supported it. And in the 104th Congress, a Congress controlled by Republicans, two-thirds of the naming bills were for Democrats, and we Republicans supported it. And in the 105th Congress, thus far, two-thirds, again, the 105th Congress, a Republican-controlled Congress, two-thirds of the naming bills were for Democrats. We Republicans supported it. And indeed, when Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall died, we cooperated in a naming in his honor in 2 days. He was not even buried when we acted promptly to cooperate on a bipartisan basis.
So indeed if there is partisanship here, the record of the past several Congresses shows that in naming bills, we Republicans have cooperated. And if there is partisanship, it is because our friends on the other side choose to make it so.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman of the committee for his stewardship and leadership on moving this piece of legislation through the committee so that it comes before this great body today to vote on.
Mr. Chairman, it is somewhat disappointing that constantly there are those who find partisanship and rail against something on partisan reasons when in fact those things have nothing to do with partisanship. This is one of those bills. This bill is simply one of a number of efforts that Congress undertakes on a bipartisan basis year in and year out, as the chairman just indicated, to recognize great Americans for their role in shaping American history by naming public buildings and public facilities, and National Airport is a public national facility, after those great Americans.
When we vote in the Congress, year after year to name Federal facilities and Federal buildings after Democrats, Republicans and Independents and those not affiliated necessarily with any political party, we do so because the people of this country want their heritage to be remembered and monumentalized on our public buildings. When we in the Congress have voted in the past to name a particular Federal facility or building after a particular person, I doubt that any of us vote in favor of those votes, for those votes because we agree with every single policy or every single pronouncement that those individuals have made during the course of their public career. They are recognized through legislation such as this, not for any one particular vote, not because every one of us agrees with everything that they did, but because they have contributed in some form or fashion in a significant way to the overall history and running of this great Nation.
I do not think that there are anybody but the most extreme partisans who could with a straight face fail to put Ronald Reagan in that category. I think it is entirely appropriate and clearly within the purview of this United States Congress to name a Federal facility which we, the people of this country, not of any particular State, own and have a stewardship relationship in running that facility.
It is not that there is anything sacrosanct about any name. The name of National Airport in Washington has been changed in the past. Other Federal facilities have had their name changed as new people, new American heroes have come on the scene and for which the order of the day is to recognize them.
I think it is entirely appropriate that we in this Nation's capital, we the Representatives of the people of this country today seek to honor on the eve of his birthday one of the great Presidents of this country's history. I would urge all of my colleagues to put aside any sort of partisanship that they may feel. We are not asking them today to vote for this resolution, for this piece of legislation because they agree with everything that President Reagan did, although I do think he was a great President. There are others who may not place him in that high category, but I do not think that that means that they have the right to simply vote against it because they may disagree with something that he said or did. The same as we on this side did not vote against naming Federal facilities after persons on the other side of the aisle simply because we may have disagreed with something that they said or did.
The history, the legacy, of Ronald Reagan will far outlive our great leader. It is a legacy that future generations can know and enjoy and bear the fruits of because of the work that he did in ending the Cold War, in bringing pride back to these United States of America.
I think that all of us also feel a sense of pride as this name change goes forward and our national airport, which, again, I would like to stress, Mr. Chairman, is owned by the people of this country, it is not a State facility, it is run, leased to a local facility. That is something that Ronald Reagan believed in, but naming this national airport after Ronald Reagan does not take away from the ability of that airport authority to run the airport as it was intended to do.
Those that make that claim are simply making a specious claim in order to disguise the fact that they just do not want to name an airport after Ronald Reagan. If there are some folks that believe that in their heart, and their constituents want them to do that, that is one thing, but to come up with arguments that this airport is not a Federal facility, that the Federal Government through congressional mandate does not have every single right to name this airport, as we the people, through our representatives feel free and feel fit to do, is inappropriate.
I would prefer to see the debate stay exactly where it ought to be, and that is a legitimate exercise of limited congressional authority to name Federal facilities owned by the Federal Government on behalf of the people of this country, this entire country, not any particular State or region, on behalf of and in recognition of great national leaders, of which Ronald Reagan clearly is.
This legislation has the very clear support of his family, as he enters his twilight years. We know he is very ill, and I think there would be no more fitting tribute than to pass this legislation today and rename National Airport after Ronald Reagan.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, first of all, as a member of the Subcommittee on Aviation, let me say that it is inappropriate that we reported this bill out without a hearing or a markup in subcommittee. This is an important decision we are making today, and I urge my colleagues to consider all of the information. Naming National Airport after President Ronald Reagan is unnecessary government intervention and duplication, and, in addition, he is not known for being a champion of aviation policy. Quite the contrary, his aviation policies were often divisive and controversial. Although we differ on political views, I do respect him as the President.
First of all, as a member of the aviation subcommittee, let me say that it is inappropriate that we reported this bill without hearings or a markup in subcommittee. This is a very important decision we are making today, and I urge my colleagues to consider all the information.
I hate to be put in the position like this, when we are pressured to vote on an important issue that will be costly, involves wrongful government intervention into local business, and renames a public facility--something we have never done before, when President Reagan is ill. This is not the time or place for this discussion.
I will not enter into a partisan debate on this issue. I think the simple facts speak for themselves. We have already honored President Reagan for his achievements. Many credit him for bringing an end to the Cold War, and I think it is fitting that there is an Aircraft Carrier to be named in his honor, as America's defense buildup helped bring an end to the Cold War.
Additionally, we have honored him again by naming the largest Federal building outside of the Pentagon after President Reagan. This building which completes the Federal Triangle project is just a few blocks from the White House, and in plain view to the millions of tourists that come to Washington every year.
And in President Reagan's home state of California, a Federal courthouse bears his name. This is an addition to countless other roads, bridges, and buildings that have been named after him across the country. Naming National Airport after President Reagan is unnecessary government intervention and duplication. And additionally he is not known for being a champion of aviation policy. Quite the contrary, his aviation policies were often divisive and controversial.
Although we differ in political views, I do respect him as a President; however, I truly feel he has been honored, and in many ways unlike any other President, in terms of the number of honors to him in the short period of time since he has left office.
Let us stop the politics and move on to real business. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), now controlling the time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), has 17 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has 27 minutes remaining.
{time} 1200
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of this bill, I rise today in strong support of this measure to honor President Ronald Reagan with this designation.
Much has been said about the redesignation of the airport which received the title Washington National, contrary to the insistence of the other side of the aisle, not directly because of George Washington's legacy but because of the name of our Nation's capital. We have always acted in a bipartisan manner on such bills, until now, when the Democrats, not the Republicans, have decided to be partisan on this matter.
I would like to address the importance of the Reagan years. I hope that all of us will remember the anxiety of the Cold War and pay homage to the man who put our fears to rest. Please support this bill.
President Reagan once stated that through his policies he hoped to
``foster the infrastructure of democracy''. We foster and measure our Presidents by the fruition of their promises; and by that high standard, President Reagan has been proven a champion of foreign policy. He deserves this designation and he deserves our utmost respect.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, several things need to be clarified. This airport clearly was named in honor of George Washington, and anyone suggesting that it is only referring to Washington, D.C., should ask themselves who they think Washington, D.C. was named after; Bugs Bunny?
It is obvious that George Washington is honored here. In fact, the land was owned by George Washington's adopted son.
There is a lot of history. We are going to share that with Members. The main thing we need to emphasize here is this is directly contrary to Ronald Reagan's legacy. Ronald Reagan signed the legislation giving local control. Respect that local control.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn).
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
I am proud to be here to talk in favor of naming Washington National Airport after Ronald Reagan. He was my President. I knew him, I admired him, I loved him. I worked with him as state party chairman in the State of Washington for all of those first years during the Reagan administration, the 8 years.
And I remember my fondest memory of Ronald Reagan was when he came to Seattle in 1989, after he had left the Presidency and his Vice President, George Bush, had become President and he did a little meeting with some of the folks that cared a lot about Ronald Reagan. There were people who had been with him over the years from when he was first a movie actor, from when he ran for governor of California, from when he ran for the Presidency in 1976 and then again in 1980. And it was my joy that day to introduce him and to have the opportunity to thank Ronald Reagan for everything that he did for us.
It was the last time I talked to him in private, but that was such an overwhelming sense of support in that room, all the personal connections in that room and the opportunity to say thank you, Mr. President, for getting rid of the potential threat from the Soviet Union, for standing strong for our Nation, for its principles, for everything that we believe in, and for leaving a legacy of decency in the White House, for setting us up to be able to compliment him now years later after he was the President.
I think this is the proper, the fair, the appropriate thing to do. And, Mr. Chairman, in my household, I have a son named Reagan. He was 9 years old when the Reagan he was named after became President. So, indeed, he waited a long time to be named after a President, but I think compared to the naming of a son, an airport is very small indeed.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
History judges Presidents over time. People love Presidents in real time, and millions clearly love Ronald Reagan today. Monuments spring up all over America. They always spring from the ground up. That way we assure consensus and comity and dignity surrounding the process.
There is a pragmatic reason for this, as well and that is because we seek to honor the person, not to have a quarrel among ourselves. If we do, we overwhelm the honor with contention and embarrass the person and the family. That is why naming bills in this House are always done by consensus, first within State delegations and then always on a bipartisan basis.
H.R. 2625 breaks the time honored tradition of the House in moving forward a bill that does not have the necessary consensus.
The other value, besides consensus, that has always been honored in naming bills is local control. This is the second time that local control has been violated in the name of President Reagan. The first time was the Ronald Reagan Building located in my district. It was my project. I worked harder on it than any other Member. I was not consulted on the name. Out of respect for President Reagan, I did not raise an objection.
Now, we have the second instance of no respect, this time for the entire region. D.C. is one of three jurisdictions on the regional authority. So is the Federal Government on the regional authority. Congress has been glad to have the authority pay for the magnificent new terminal. Congress is glad, however, as well, to intervene at every whim.
There have been two Supreme Court lawsuits. Both of them Congress lost when Congress wanted to intervene whenever it wanted to do something. The lease says full power and dominion and complete discretion go to the regional authority.
What we are doing now is going to get us another lawsuit. President Reagan deserves much better than that.
There have been a number of great Presidents. History may one day say that Ronald Reagan is one of them, but only one President's name belongs on the airport that is the gateway to the Nation's capital. That is the President whom Congress named the capital itself for.
There is no partisanship, no division of the House surrounding George Washington's name. We would not remove his name from this city. I ask this House please do not remove George Washington's name from our airport.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair the time remaining on both sides?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has 23\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) has 14 minutes remaining.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, this is a most extraordinary event. We are, without any hearings whatsoever, naming an airport after a President in opposition to the wishes of the people in the area.
The most remarkable thing is that we are taking an airport named after the first President of the United States, one of the greatest of Americans living and dead in the entire history of the country, but who is apparently not appreciated sufficiently to allow that airport to be named after him.
As a young boy I knew the man who built that airport. He was a Virginian, a student of history, and he was a man who was determined that he would name that airport after one of the greatest Americans of our history, Clinton M. Hester. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, when he made the inaugural speech with regard to that particular airport's dedication, mentioned President Washington not once but twice. Washington lived just down the road and owned lands around that airport.
The extraordinary thing about the whole business is, however, that we are naming an airport which was given by the Federal Government on a long-term lease to an authority. We literally have no ability and no authority and no control over that land, because it was planned when we gave that land to the authority that they would have entire control over the function and operation of that airport in all its particulars.
We are removing the name of our greatest President from that airport. We are adding another President. I think it is fine that we should honor President Reagan. He is and was a great man. But I do not believe that this is a suitable honor for him. It raises a controversy which, very frankly, besmirches his name, which stands in the way of carrying out the intention of the original creators of that airport, and which leaves us in a situation where we are doing something that we really do not have the authority to do.
If something needs to be named after President Reagan, let us search for it and let us come about it in a bipartisan way. The Democrats stand ready to assist in that kind of undertaking.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to address the issue of whether, in fact, the airport is named after George Washington.
The current official name of the airport is Washington National Airport, not George Washington National Airport. The Washington is in the name to indicate the market in the airport service. The name in the bill, Ronald Reagan National Airport, is consistent with the approach taken by other airports named after Presidents.
For example, there is the John F. Kennedy, JFK, International Airport in New York. I wonder what the public outcry was when that airport was renamed. It would be interesting to check that.
Also, there is the George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston. Nobody thinks that name change slighted Sam Houston. I wonder what the public outcry was when that airport was renamed.
Concerns that the name chosen for this airport would somehow denigrate the memory of George Washington are, quite frankly, without foundation. The term ``Washington'' was included in the 1940 name of the airport to indicate the market the airport served; that is, Washington, D.C. The term ``Washington'' included in the name of the other two local airports was not to honor the man but to indicate the market.
For example, Public Law 98-510 in 1984 named Dulles International Airport the Washington Dulles International Airport. I do not believe there was a big outcry when that airport was named, but it would be interesting to check the record. The purpose of this renaming was not to minimize the contribution of John Foster Dulles but to indicate to passengers that Dulles serves the Washington market.
And I know it is going to be hard to refute this, because I am sure my colleague does not have the evidence to go back and look at the record to see what kind of public outcry there was, but in any event the gentleman may use his time when I am finished.
Similarly Baltimore Washington International Airport, BWI, was given that name not to honor Lord Baltimore and George Washington but, rather, to indicate to passengers that that airport served both Baltimore and Washington, D.C.
The Reagan International Airport, with its close proximity to Washington, D.C., is now so closely associated with the Nation's capital that there is no real need to continue to include
``Washington'' in the title.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Would the gentleman from Illinois, with his very carefully researched and closely reasoned presentation acknowledge that the namings that he cited of airports, or renamings, were not done by the United States Congress except for Dulles?
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. LaHOOD. Dulles was.
Mr. OBERSTAR. They were not done by the United States Congress.
Mr. LaHOOD. Dulles was.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I made that exception. But the others were not done by the United States Congress.
The gentleman from Illinois would embrace, then, given this scenario he just presented, would embrace an act of Congress to rename O'Hare Airport? Would the gentleman embrace that idea?
Mr. LaHOOD. If we could name it after Mayor Daley or Governor Thompson or somebody like that, I certainly think the people of Illinois would----
Mr. OBERSTAR. Would the gentleman be happy to have the U.S. Congress do that?
Mr. LaHOOD. It is not a Federal facility.
{time} 1215
Mr. OBERSTAR. That is the distinction. My colleague draws false distinctions when talking about naming an airport in Houston for former President Bush. That was done by local authority. That is the whole point. We gave authority to the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority full power over the airport. We should not take over their authority and rename an airport.
Our Chairman referenced the legislation to name the Commerce Department building. Former Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown died in a tragedy in Bosnia in early April, 1996. Our colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), introduced on April 15 a bill to name the Commerce Department for Ron Brown. My name was listed as a cosponsor.
Later, I asked our staff to review this issue before it should come up in our committee. We found that the Commerce Department already had a name. I was not aware of it. I did not know that it was named for former President Herbert Hoover.
I ruled against bringing up that bill, against moving that bill in our committee. Instead, our colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), introduced on May 30, 1996, a bill to name a courthouse in New York for Ron Brown, which I felt was more appropriate. I did not want to initiate a procedure in our committee where we would rename a building. That is what this issue is all about, about renaming.
And the matter of Dulles renaming was done before we transferred authority to the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority. It was still fully within the power of the Congress to rename that airport, which was done in order to avoid confusion of names for airports. And I do not need to go into it any further, but that was done before we created the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority. So, again, it was not a matter of intrusion into local affairs.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Today, Mr. Chairman, we are seeing a little bitterness from people who should not be bitter, we are seeing partisanship and pettiness from people who should not exhibit partisanship and pettiness, and we certainly are seeing a lot of silliness and gamesmanship when people say that we are changing this name of the airport from George Washington.
I go to the National Airport every single week twice. I have never see any bust or any reference whatsoever to the great George Washington. Let us get away from that silliness. The real matter is partisan politics.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KINGSTON. I will be glad to yield on the gentleman's time.
We can talk about the Reagan record, reducing inflation. We can talk about unemployment going down, the creation of 18 million new jobs, economic turnaround, interest rates falling, the demise of the Soviet Union, the rise of the American military and international prestige.
We can talk about the Reagan spending programs, the fact that seven out of eight of his budgets that he submitted to the Democratic-
controlled Congress were actually increased, that if we had kept as a Congress with the Reagan budgets, he would have left office with over
$100 billion in surplus. Now, we can talk about his strong economic legacy.
But I want to speak to you, Mr. Chairman, about Reagan the man. I am a baby-boomer. I was raised during the Watergate era and then Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter and the Iran hostage situation. And do you know what? Speaking as a young American, we did not have that much to look up to, particularly out of Washington.
But when Ronald Reagan came to the scene, I can tell my colleagues that, as a youngster, younger than I am now, in my late 20s, we had somebody to look up to.
My wife said, ``Isn't he wonderful? He is like a king, somebody you can really respect and follow.'' Then I said to her one day, I said,
``Libby, you know what, you like Ronald Reagan'' she kept on going on and on and on, ``You like Ronald Reagan better than you like me.'' And she said, ``Yes. But I like you better than I like George Bush.'' So I had to take it any way I could get it.
The man, as president, brought dignity, honor, respect and optimism to the White House and to the streets of America. He wrote my wife's grandfather, Basil Morris, while in his 80s, a birthday letter. And Mr. Morris wrote him back and said, ``You have restored the prestige of what it means to be the president of the United States.'' And I think that those words, coming from an octogenarian, means so much and speaks so loudly.
I will close with this line. There were a lot of difficulties. Was Reagan the perfect president? No, he was not the perfect president. Is Bill Clinton? No. Was George Bush? No. Jimmy Carter? No. Was George Washington? No. I do not know that we will ever have the perfect president. But one thing that Ronald Reagan taught us is that we can all be optimistic and look forward without fear of tomorrow because, and I quote, ``After all, we are Americans.''
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner).
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remind my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), that he is kind of rewriting history here.
All the years Ronald Reagan was here, he sent a budget up, he never offered but two of those budgets. He never offered them for a vote. And one of them got one vote, and one of them got, I believe, 37 votes. So he did not produce a balanced budget, and we ran up $3 trillion of new debt. To me, the gentleman is rewriting history.
Those of us that served on the Defense Subcommittee had a little bit to do with the Cold War coming to an end and building up the Armed Forces in this country. So the gentleman should not rewrite history on the floor during this debate.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, what is the time split remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has 17\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) has 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the first thing that needs to be made clear is that, just as Washington, D.C., is named after George Washington, Washington National Airport is named after George Washington.
I know that Ronald Reagan would not want us doing this. He would know that the main terminal at Washington National Airport is designed after Mount Vernon. He would know that. He would know that Washington National Airport is located on the very land that George Washington's adopted son owned. He would know the history behind this.
He would also know that it is unprecedented to rename a facility in a district of a Member that opposes it. He would know why that Member opposes it. Because he would respect the fact that the County of Arlington, the City of Alexandria both have informed the Congress that they are opposed to it. He would respect the fact that the Washington business community has written to us their opposition to doing this. He would know that the local community does not want this name change because it respects George Washington. And our community, the community I represent, does not want to dishonor Ronald Reagan by doing this, and it certainly does not want to dishonor George Washington.
We know there are better ways, more appropriate ways, to honor Ronald Reagan. This is not an appropriate way to do it. There are many other ways.
But the irony of this, that it was Ronald Reagan that signed the very legislation in 1986 to seed over local control, is completely consistent with his philosophy of devolving power to local and State governments.
Ronald Reagan signed that legislation. That legislation epitomizes what he was all about. And what an irony, what a dishonor to then turn around and act so contrary to that legislation.
He would also recognize that the first Republican State-wide official in the Commonwealth of Virginia has written this body stating his opposition to this legislation. Governor Linwood Holton, who certainly respects Ronald Reagan but fully understands why this should not be done and not just for the financial cost. He understands the history of Virginia. He understands the background of Washington National Airport and of the local control. He understands what Ronald Reagan stood for.
I wish more Members of this body did understand that and respected it. Let us find a way to honor Ronald Reagan's memory that is consistent with Ronald Reagan's philosophy, that is consistent with the legislation establishing Washington National Airport, and is certainly consistent with the history behind its name.
Washington National Airport is a facility we can all be proud of. We will not be as proud of a facility that is renamed after another president against the wishes of the local community. It should not be done. It is an arrogant abuse of power.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking Member.
Well, Mr. Chairman, there they go again. The Majority is again sacrificing commonly accepted rules, practices, traditions, and even their own sacred mantras to meet their own partisan needs of the moment.
The self-proclaimed party of family values now seeks to strip the name of America's founding father, George Washington, from the airport that serves the capital city, also named in his honor. The Congressional Majority that only 3 years ago legislated a prohibition on unfunded mandates now blindly ignores the unfunded costs imposed on the Metropolitan Washington Airport's Authority and other local jurisdictions.
The Majority that purports to favor low local control and coined the word ``devolution'' now dismisses any notion of local control. They disregard the opinions and wishes of our colleagues who represent the airport, as well as the local airport authority, which itself was created by legislation that Mr. Reagan signed.
The mantra of a smaller, less intrusive government is conveniently forgotten again as the heavy arm of Congress reaches out to impose its big government will by edict. Forgotten too are the accepted practices of not renaming structures, of seeking bipartisan support for naming efforts and of not naming structures of people who are still living. It is all another case of ``Do as I say, not as I do,'' Mr. Chairman. The rules do not suit the Majority, so the Majority is changing the rules.
Yes, I believe that we should have a suitable memorial to Mr. Reagan. We have it in the $800 million Ronald Reagan Building in the International Trade Center. We have it in the future $4.5 billion U.S.S. Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier, the Ronald Reagan Courthouse in Santa Ana, California, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, and a dozen other sites throughout the Nation.
We in California remember Governor Reagan's famous phrase, ``If you've seen one redwood tree, you've seen them all.'' I say, in paraphrase, ``If you've seen one Ronald Reagan memorial, you've seen them all.''
We should not cut the redwoods. We should not cut Washington out of Washington National Airport. I will follow our accepted procedures, honor America's founding father, President George Washington, vote to keep his name on Washington National Airport.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) has 8 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).
Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chairman.
I had the privilege of working for Ronald Reagan in the last 2 years of his administration, first at the Justice Department and then in the White House as a special assistant to the President. Ronald Reagan is, in my estimation, the greatest president in our times. He came in fighting big government. In fact, he noticed that the government in Washington had the notion that, if it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.
But things would be quite different under Ronald Reagan. His administration was an administration of ideas and one idea in particular, that freedom should be the watchword of our policies at home and abroad. He believed that the explosive growth of government in the 20th century was depriving Americans of the freedom to keep more of their hard-earned money and to make decisions for them and their family, and he believed that abroad the rise of communism was the biggest threat to freedom that we have seen in the history of the world.
He set about correcting both of those problems. He reined in big government in Washington; and he marshalled the coalition that had won the Second World War to win the Cold War and defeat communism in our lifetime, something that people did not believe could be done when he came to Washington in 1980; and we were all celebrating at the end of that decade after his presidency brought about the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the resurrection of freedom throughout eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.
{time} 1230
Well, today we see a world that is free of communism, but we still have the vestiges of big government in Washington. Many of us would like to see this airport named after Ronald Reagan so that those passengers traveling to our Nation's capital would be reminded of his call to freedom at home and abroad, and that that reminder would greet us every time we entered into this city.
I support the chairman's resolution. I think it is the best thing we can do to remind America that Ronald Reagan stood for freedom, that freedom is a battle we must always engage to preserve, and that we will not let that flame die here in Washington after his departure.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it has been referenced by several Members on the other side that opposition on our side is partisan-based, partisan-motivated, we are upset because this airport is to be named for Ronald Reagan.
It is not the Democrats who initiated the partisanship. In the ``This Week'' show on ABC television, conservative columnist and commentator George Will was the one who said if the renaming proposal is adopted, Washington passengers ``would fly out of two airports; one named for John Foster Dulles and the other after Ronald Reagan, and that is an ideologically perfect choice.''
On the same program, his fellow conservative, Bill Kristol, remarked that naming the airport after Ronald Reagan is ``especially worth it, because it will so annoy people like George Stephanopoulos.''
Those are partisan remarks. We did not initiate them. Opposition on our side is not to naming something for Ronald Reagan, but it is to taking a name off an already-named structure and renaming it.
As I said earlier, my good friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) was out of the room, I vigorously directed our staff not to ask for movement on the Ron Brown Commerce Department naming when I learned that the building had already been named for Herbert Hoover. I did not know that at the time my name was added to the bill that was introduced in rush after Ronald Brown's death, and instead we sought another building to be named for Ron Brown. The chairman very graciously and with great skill moved that legislation through our committee and through the House, and we greatly appreciate that. But I want to emphasize, once we learned that the Commerce Department building had a name, said we should not be in the business of renaming. That applies today to this bill, and to this airport.
Mr. Chairman, again, no other airport in the country would we dare to name or rename since other airports are already under the authority of local governments.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, in 1978 or 1979, I was driving home late one evening from a course I was teaching, and I listened to the President of the United States talk about America in malaise. The Nation was baffled with stagflation. It seemed as though the Soviet empire was a threat to every corner of the world. It seemed as though we were not able to cope, not only with our own domestic problems, but with the world situation. It seemed, in fact, that maybe we were destined to be a Nation in despair.
Then, all of a sudden, we saw a new shining voice of optimism emerge on the American scene, a person who had so much confidence, so much hope for this country, so much appreciation for the quality of the American people and so much dedication to the fundamental principles of personal freedom and responsibility, that he reached out and he lifted us up. That person was Ronald Reagan.
I must say that during the 1970s, I even thought maybe I would move to another country just to find more freedom, and when Ronald Reagan came on the scene, I drew hope, I drew from him encouragement.
I dared again to believe in America and the greatness of this great land, and when he came to Washington, D.C., as the President of this land, he stood and delivered. In the first 2 years he whipped inflation, a problem of economics that had baffled seven Presidents before him. He got this Nation on a new standing of prosperity and growth, price stability, that in fact it stands unto this day, and he broke down the Soviet empire and tore down that wall.
He has been and he is today a shining example of goodness, a reflection of the fundamental goodness of the American people. We want to honor that. We want to appreciate that. We think it is little enough to ask.
It is a confusing thing in Washington, D.C. The question is, is something that is named after George Washington the President or Washington the city, but not so confusing. We talk about the George Washington monument. We talk about the George Washington Parkway. We make the distinction. Washington National was not understood to be George Washington National, it was Washington National after the city.
I get on a plane at what is today Washington National and I drive to Dallas, and on my way home I drive on the LBJ Freeway. Now, I could probably take some umbrage at that, but to many people in America, LBJ was a great President; not to me, but they have the right to honor a man who served as President of this great land. I go to Fort Worth and I drive on the Jim Wright Freeway. Again, they have the right to honor him. It would seem to me the fundamental standards of decency and respect should accommodate that we have a right to honor Ronald Reagan.
I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, I travel a lot in this country. I have to tell you, I do not believe that you can find in America today a more loved American than Ronald Reagan. I want to honor Ronald Reagan for the example of goodness, faith, confidence in this Nation, appreciation for and confidence of this Nation's people that he has always been. I want to get on an airplane at Ronald Reagan Airport. I want to be reminded of his greatness, and by so being reminded of the greatness of these people of this great land.
And when I get off the airplane on the other end, having had the 3 hours to reminisce in my mind about the greatness of Ronald Reagan, I will be content to drive home on LBJ Freeway, with an understanding that we are able to get beyond politics, we are able to be decent and respectful, and we are willing to accept that everybody in America has a right, I believe a duty, certainly should have the opportunity, with honor, dignity and respect, to honor those people we believe to have been great people that served this Nation well.
Mr. Chairman, I would encourage everybody, show that standard of decency, respect, appreciation and good sportsmanship, and vote yes on this measure.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, speaker after speaker on the other side has come to the floor and said this airport was not named after George Washington. Goodness gracious me, that is splitting hairs with the finest theological, philosophical razor that you can find.
For whom is the City of Washington named? Joe Washington, who played football for the Washington Redskins? Or for Harold Washington, the former mayor of Chicago?
It was named the City of Washington, was named for our first President.
When the name ``Washington'' was added to this airport, it was obviously done with the name of our great first President, Father of the Country in mind. Good heavens, stop denying your patrimony. That is just silliness.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
It is extraordinary to me that we are engaged in a debate here today where the majority party is going to break a sacred lease with local government and violate one of the principles of Ronald Reagan's tenure in office, which is local control, to remove things from the awesome bureaucracy of Washington, D.C. and get them back down to the local level.
It was Ronald Reagan who signed the agreement which gave the compact to the District of Columbia and the State of Virginia, and it is an extraordinary document. It is one of the most comprehensive lease agreements you have ever seen. And actually he was right, because they have done things that I am sure the Federal Government and Congress never could have done in terms of developing that beautiful terminal at Washington National Airport. The investment that has gone in there would not have gone forward had it remained totally under Federal control, given the lack of interest in this Congress, which is also a scandal, in the infrastructure of this country.
But back to the issue at hand: This legislation would preempt, probably illegally and probably actually is doomed to lose in court should it be challenged, the authority, the full authority, the full control, the dominion, for the use, the development of this airport, extraordinary terms in a 50-year lease. Fifty-year leases are akin to ownership. In the courts they are interpreted that way. And yet Congress now is going to wade back in, the Republican majority, in order to rush through something for Ronald Reagan's birthday. They cannot wait for the Nimitz class aircraft carrier. They can't be happy with the largest Federal building in the world outside of the Pentagon. And we could rename the Pentagon, if they so chose, and I would probably support that.
Mr. Chairman, to preempt the name of George Washington, the Father of the Country, the first President, from this airport, it is extraordinary to not only violate the principles set down by Ronald Reagan, that is local control, local authority, a legal and binding contract and lease agreement signed by Ronald Reagan, endorsed by the Congress, which now Congress is attempting to usurp, and to remove the name from the airport of the Father of our Country, the first President of our country. It is extraordinary, and it is no way to honor Ronald Reagan or his principles, despite our many disagreements. I think this is a disservice to your greatest living President.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, my route to Congress was from State and local government. One of the legacies that I think is indisputable for President Reagan is that he focused more perhaps than any American President the attention of governance on the State and local level, his assertion that big government at the Federal level is not necessarily the best approach to solving our problems.
I think history will note that this will be one of his most important and lasting legacies, refashioning partnerships with local governments.
I can think of no more bizarre way to recognize President Reagan than to undercut that important part of his legacy when we have a designation of an airport, over the objection of the local business community, over the objection of the local airport authority, and where the Congress itself has no ability to go out and change the signs, to say Ronald Reagan Airport.
We had our distinguished committee counsel explain that what we could do is simply withhold passenger landing fees and other Federal funds. We could basically force the local authority to bend to the will of the United States Congress, and in the alternative force them to put at risk the safe and orderly administration of that airport.
Think about that extraordinary response.
{time} 1245
I have no doubt in my mind that if Ronald Reagan were President and a Congress came forward with a proposal like this that would thwart the will of the local community, establish a precedent that would allow the renaming of any airport in America; for instance, the John Wayne Airport, this principle could allow the John Wayne Airport to be renamed the Jane Fonda Airport by withholding the same revenue stream, force them to comply with the will.
I think this is an embarrassment to our former President. I think it is actually the wrong way to go, and I hope that the Congress will not follow this path in a way that I think has a very dangerous precedent in the long term.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.
I rise in support of naming the airport after Ronald Reagan. I was a medical student in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and I remember 20 percent inflation rates, I remember no job creation, I remember my wife and I wondering what kind of future we were going to have. Then I remember Ronald Reagan getting elected and things really beginning to turn around, and I also remember the defense bill that he wanted to pursue which ultimately led to the end of the Cold War, and every step of the way there was opposition, opposition, how his policies were wrong.
He created prosperity in this country, and in my opinion, he is one of the greatest Presidents that this country has ever seen. It is fitting and proper for us to name this airport after him, and considering all of the opposition he got during his career, it is not surprising to me at all that this simple act is indeed opposed as well. It is because the people who oppose it will never recognize the fact that his policies were good for this country and the people loved him, and we are living today in the prosperity and the benefits still, created by Ronald Reagan.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to come back to the point about the name that the airport of our Nation's Capital bears. I said earlier, it is splitting hairs to try to say it is not named after our first President. It bears the name of the city that bears his name. It is clear that George Washington was in the mind of those who built and named this airport.
I have a copy of the brochure that was printed at the occasion of the opening of National Airport in 1941. It is replete with references to our first President. Let me just quote:
From the highest point within the airport, George Washington might well have chosen the site for the Capitol to be amidst the meadows and low hills at his feet across the river.
Again and again, throughout this brochure, there are references to our first President.
Another stratum of American history is about to be laid along the banks of the Potomac. The powerful figures in history will land here on land that knew the tread of Washington's horse as he campaigned for freedom, governed his country and managed his farms.
It is splitting hairs.
Look, this debate is not about the greatness of Ronald Reagan or his place in history. That will be secured by future historians. That will be secured by the value of his deeds, his actions as President, the legislation that he championed.
This airport has a good name. Let us find something else. Let us build a monument to Ronald Reagan in our Nation's capital, build it on ground at the National Airport, but let us not take a name, let us not be like the Evil Empire that Ronald Reagan so despised and so opposed and take names off and put other names on, depending on who is in favor or who is out of favor.
That is not the American way. That is not the way of this Congress. That is not appropriate. Go out into greater America, as I have been just recently in my district and hear what average folks say. They say, this is silly. This is trivial. There are better things to do in the Congress than to go about changing names and renaming.
I am sorry we are here to do this. It does not serve Ronald Reagan's name well, his place in history well, to take a name off and replace it with his. I wish the majority were pursuing a different course.
As in the case of the Ronald Reagan International Trade Building, I was glad to support it, and if there is some other structure they want to name or build in his honor, I would support it. But not this, not this action, not at this time in history, not this airport.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I would like to make several closing points. It is a fact that the Federal Government owns this airport, which makes it quite different from other airports around the country. So to suggest that we could rename the John Wayne Airport is something entirely different, since we do not own the John Wayne Airport.
Secondly, with regard to the fact, and I think it is very clear, that the name Washington represents a market area. If it does not represent a market area, then I suppose The Washington Post should change their name to the George Washington Post, or the Washington Times to the George Washington Times, or the Washington Redskins to the George Washington Redskins.
Beyond that, in Houston the airport was not named for Sam Houston; it was named for the market area, and it has changed from the Houston Airport to the George Bush Airport.
Indeed, we have taken names off buildings. When our friends were in control of this House, they chose, and we supported it, to take the Lincoln Federal Building and change it to the Robert V. Denney Federal Building in Nebraska, and likewise, to take the Quincy Post Office in Massachusetts and change it to the James A. Burke Post Office in Massachusetts. These are minor points, but they have been brought up by our friends, and so I think they need to be addressed.
Perhaps the most crucial point, however, is that in the past several Congresses, when our friends were in control of the Congress, two-
thirds of all of the naming bills were for Democrats, and we Republicans supported them. Even more significantly, in the 104th Congress, which the Republicans controlled, and in the 105th Congress, which the Republicans controlled, two-thirds of the naming bills continued to be for Democrats, and we Republicans supported it.
So we believe that it is quite proper for us to honor a President in this fashion who happens to be a Republican President, and just as we have supported our Democrat colleagues in the past on a bipartisan basis, we are disappointed that our colleagues have chosen not to support us on this matter and to make it a partisan issue. Nevertheless, so be it.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of honoring a great President, Ronald Reagan.
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to voice my concern about an issue of fiscal responsibility. The proposal to rename Washington National Airport for former President Reagan, while an attempt to honor a revered leader of this country, is an unfunded mandate on the state and local governments of Virginia as well as the businesses of this region. Public Law #104-4, enacted by the 104th Congress, which I cosponsored, prohibits the federal government from imposing requirements on state and local governments without adequate funds to carry out the order. The enactment of this legislation without a guarantee of federal funds to pay for it violates the intent of the law.
The cost of this mandate will effect the federal government as well as state and local governments and the regional airport authority. It is estimated to run in the millions of dollar when one considers all of the revisions which will have to be made to our air traffic control system, airline schedules, computer programs, baggage tags and other preprinted items, and the cost of changing the road signs leading to and around the airport and numerous other related activities. The State of Virginia estimates that changing the road signs alone will cost
$60,000.
In addition to the costs, the action of revising a previously named facility is without precedent and the general practice of the House to consult with the Members who represent the affected facility before moving forward is being ignored. Mr. Moran and other members from the Washington area are opposed to this renaming and support the decision-
making authority that a previous Congress gave to the Washington Metropolitan Airports Authority. We should reject this measure as it is an action that may set us on a course for a number of name changes to existing buildings across the country to honor various icons of either party. We should respect the precedent of consultation with Members of affected areas and maintain the practice of honoring distinguished Americans without partisan debate.
The Federal Aviation Administration has stated that such a change needs ``strong and documented justification, primarily concerning air safety,'' because of its recognition of the costs to the system of making such a change. Mr. Chairman, today we need to ask ourselves if the benefits of changing the name of an airport from one former President to another outweigh the costs, and whether this is the best way to honor the principal of federalism for which former President Reagan stood firmly. I believe that it is important to remember as we enter into this era of intergovernmental cooperation and budget balance the restraint which brought us to this point of fiscal responsibility.
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2625, a bill to rename Washington National Airport as ``Ronald Reagan National Airport.'' I have no problem naming a government building after President Reagan. I believe we should honor him for the many things he accomplished as our President. I have a problem with renaming an airport that was built as a monument to our first President, George Washington.
The Congress has a long-standing policy against renaming buildings. Washington National Airport was named when it opened in 1941. It is named ``National'' because it serves the capital of our nation and
``Washington'' in honor of our first President.
In addition, I believe it is an insult to the Reagan legacy of local control for this body to impose this legislation on a local government body that has made it quite clear that they oppose this legislation. This bill is an unfunded mandate--both on the local government, and on the local businesses who will be forced to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to make the changes necessary to accommodate a new name for this airport.
My final--and perhaps most important--objection to this legislation is the fact that none of our constituents will benefit from it. Yet, in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on which I sit, we debated this issue for three hours. Prior to that meeting, the Democratic Caucus spent an hour and the Republican Caucus probably spent a comparable amount of time debating the legislation. My constituents did not send me to Congress to spend this much time working on an issue that is of no consequence to the great majority of Americans.
I believe it is appropriate for the Congress to name federal buildings in honor of great American leaders. I have no problem with naming an unnamed federal building after President Reagan. I have no problem with naming an unnamed federal building after any great American leader. Building namings are typically routine matters that pass through our committee without discussion and pass the House under suspension of the rules. When any building-naming legislation is debated for this long and with this much objection, we must think twice about whether that legislation is really worthwhile. My colleagues, I submit to you that this particular proposal is not worthwhile.
Mr. Speaker, we should honor the Reagan legacy. We should name buildings in his honor. But we should not insult that legacy by imposing our will upon a local government that has made it quite clear that they do not want this name change.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART, Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2625, a bill to redesignate Washington National Airport as the ``Ronald Reagan National Airport''.
What is the standard we use to judge our Presidents? How do we appropriately honor those men who have served our great nation and the office of the Presidency with great distinction, courage, honor, and vision? In this city, which is already graced with so many memorials of marble, granite, and bronze, to men and women who have loved freedom more than life and their country more than self--how can we best remember and celebrate the service rendered to these United States and to those dedicated to the cause of freedom throughout the world by President Ronald W. Reagan?
President Reagan represents the spirit that has made America strong. He began his eight years in office at a time when America appeared to be on the ebb--economically and militarily demoralized. But for President Reagan--it was morning in America. America during the Reagan years was an America of hopes fulfilled and a place where dreams came true. Reagan's America was to be a Shining City on a Hill--shining the light of freedom for all peoples throughout the world. This was his vision, a vision from which he never wavered.
In a speech given in 1964, President Reagan responded to his detractors, to those who said that only bigger and more powerful governments could provide security despite the price of freedom. He said:
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 the last best hope of man on earth or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness.
Throughout his life, President Reagan has fought against tyranny and oppression--against that thousand years of darkness. He did not shy back from calling the Communist Soviet Union an Evil Empire; He did not hesitate to support those freedom-fighters who were engaged in battle against tyranny; He fought back relentlessly against every attack against America's people and her interests.
His moral courage and his conviction that America should be the example for all who would desire freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness never failed and he is an example to all Americans. Around the world today, we are harvesting the benefits of that vision and hard labor as more and more nations around the world are turning from tyranny and oppression to democracy and justice.
I still share President Reagan's vision of America as a Shining City on a Hill shining its light of freedom around the world. It is only fitting that we honor the lifetime and legacy of this great American hero by reminding all that travel through our National Airport, a major gateway into this Capitol city, of his unwavering service and strength of vision. As long as freedom is our watchword and liberty our call to arms, America will continue to so shine its light into the world for all to see.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I must reluctantly oppose HR 2625, the renaming of Washington National Airport for one of our former Presidents of the United States Ronald Reagan. I find it inappropriate that the forces of self interest are using public sympathy of an ailing President as a justification for their own efforts which are misguided and mystifying to me. Washington National Airport already has an appropriate name, which was given to the airport when it opened in 1941. The word ``National'' is appropriate considering we live in the Capital of this Nation. The airport does not belong to the memory and ideology of one man or political party but it belongs to all citizens of the United States, regardless of party affiliation. We also need to remember that Washington Dulles International is already named after a Republican official. We have enough names in this city to pay homage to both Democrats and Republicans.
Some say that during the era of President Reagan, safety took a back seat to economics. After all, one of President Reagan's most controversial decisions was to fire air traffic controllers in 1981 and he prevented them from reapplying for their jobs. We also need to realize that as a Congress, it would be disrespectful to go against the wishes of the Member who represents that airport and who is opposed to this renaming bill.
Finally Mr. Chairman, I would like my colleagues to know that I am not here to undermine the Reagan Era, for after all he was the leader of this country at one time. But as a Congress we need to take a stand on renaming buildings, airports and monuments in order to fulfill political favors.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to House Resolution 2625, a bill that would change the name of Washington National Airport to ``Ronald Reagan National Airport.'' With all due respect to the former President, it is no secret that there was no love lost between President Reagan and this city. Over and over again, he stated emphatically that he did not hold this city in high regard. He was proud to call himself anti-Washington.
Clearly, when visitors arrive in their Nation's Capital, it is only appropriate the airport don the name of our Nation's first President. It would be inappropriate to name this airport after the man who in 1981, fired over 11,000 air traffic controllers and deprived the aviation industry of years of expertise and experience. The negative effects of President Reagan's actions are still visible today.
Evidently, I am not the only one who has these sentiments. My colleague, Mr. Morgan, the Greater Washington Board of Trade, and both Arlington County and the city of Alexandria are officially opposed to H.R. 2625. Generally speaking, naming bills are enacted with the consent of the Member or community in which the building is located. I would support an amendment that requires the approval of local officials before an official name change takes effect. This partisan attempt to force a federally unfunded mandate onto a local community, as well as the city as a whole, contradicts President Reagan's own philosophies.
In addition, President Reagan has already been honored by having his name on a bridge in Illinois, a boulevard in New York, a beltway in Ohio, and a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier which is to be christened in 2000. Not to be forgotten is the 3.1 million square foot, $818 million Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center which is located here in Washington, DC, only a few miles from the airport.
For better or for worse, I will concede that President Reagan was an influential President in our Nation's history, but there are many alternatives that could be considered to honor his accomplishments, as well as his name. Unfortunately, these alternatives are not being considered by the proponents of this bill. Therefore, I urge you to join me in opposition of H.R. 2625.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, today's debate is not about whether there will be a monument to Ronald Reagan's Presidency; there are several, and there will likely be more. The largest Federal building in Washington bears his name, as does the newest Nimitz-class carrier in the Navy's fleet.
Mr. Reagan was committed to, and perhaps best remembered for, keeping the Federal Government out of local affairs. That's what makes the renaming of this airport, over vociferous local opposition, so inappropriate.
Mr. Reagan signed the bill in 1986 that put Washington National Airport under local control. Today, the Federal Government no more controls Washington National Airport than it does the airports in Denver or Los Angeles.
Denver International Airport, like most major airports, was built with substantial help from the Federal Government but is operated by a local authority, accountable to the people it serves. If Congress were to attempt to rename Denver's DIA after former President Eisenhower, or LAX after John Denver, I suspect most here would adamantly oppose overriding local control. And the most devoted supporters of former President Reagan's belief in local control would lead the charge.
Yet that's the precedent we would set today by passing this bill. It stands for the absurd proposition that any airport can be renamed, without regard to local opinion.
Congress make a commitment to local control of Washington National Airport in 1986 under the Ronald Reagan administration. It would do no justice to his legacy to go back on that commitment now.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, while I have a great respect for Ronald Reagan and what he was able to accomplish during his tenure in the White House, I strongly disagree with the proposal to rename Washington National Airport the Ronald Reagan National Airport.
Over the years, this body has named many buildings and public facilities for past presidents, including the new Ronald Reagan Trade Center in Washington, DC. However, to my knowledge we have never renamed a building, let alone an airport. To replace the name given to Washington National Airport--clearly named after the first president and founding father of our country, George Washington--with another president sets a terrible precedent.
There is overwhelming local opposition to renaming Washington National Airport. To do so is contradictory to the Republican philosophy that the Federal Government should stay out of local matters. The Airport Authority, which was granted control of Washington's two airports in 1986, does not support this name change. Representative Jim Moran, who represents the district in which Washington National is located, opposes the redesignation as do many of his constituents in the airport's community. Further, the County of Arlington and the Greater Washington Board of Trade both oppose changing the name.
This attempt to rename Washington National Airport does not serve Ronald Reagan well. I cannot support this bill and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against it.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the legislation before us today, H.R. 2625, a bill that would rename Washington National Airport to the Ronald Reagan National Airport. This legislation usurps local authority, betrays the legacy of President Reagan, and would be an unfunded mandate to the hundreds of businesses located in Arlington, VA.
As a former State Representative for the State of Michigan and a current Member of Congress, I respect the position and office of the President. I also sympathize with the struggle that former President Reagan and his wife, Nancy, have shown with former President Reagan's challenge with Alzheimer's Disease. President Reagan and his family have my personal prayers and hope in battling this debilitating and destructive disease. I want to make it unequivocally clear that my opposition to this legislation is regarding its impact upon our tax payers, not because of any ill will toward the former President or his family.
I oppose this bill for many of the same reasons delineated in the committee report that accompanies H.R. 2625:
I. Renaming Washington National Airport would be against the wishes of the locality in which it is located, and is directly opposite the emphasis upon local control that was the fulcrum of President Reagan's philosophy. Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA), the Member of Congress in whose district National Airport resides, Arlington County, VA, the City of Arlington, the Greater Washington Board of Trade, and former Virginia Governor Linwood Holton, the former Chairman of the Washington Airport Authority and the first Republican elected to statewide office in Virginia since the Reconstruction, opposes this legislation.
II. Renaming Washington National Airport would be against Federal precedents. Congress has never changed the name of a facility which already has a name. This policy has been followed by Democrats and Republicans alike. For example, the Department of Commerce building was not renamed when the late Secretary Ronald H. Brown died in the line of duty to his country. If this bill is adopted, all of our national monuments: the Washington Monument, Mount Rushmore, and numerous other buildings and edifices--might be renamed as well. To rename a building or edifice that has already been designated is a disgrace to the former honoree and the current honoree.
III. Renaming Washington National Airport is particularly puzzling because of his aviation policies. It is particularly ironic that an airport would be selected to be named after former President Reagan, as it was President Reagan who fired over 11,000 air traffic controllers after they want on strike in 1981, and then went on to prevent them from reapplying for their jobs far beyond any reasonable period of punishment. This overt union-busting tactic did little to improve the safety or security of our Nation's airways, and destroyed the financial well-being and livelihood of thousands of families across the Nation.
IV. Renaming Washington National Airport is not necessary to honor former President Reagan. President Reagan has been honored with the
$800 million International Trade Center in Washington, DC, the largest Federal building other than the Pentagon; by a Federal court house in California; and the newest Nimitz-class carrier in the Navy's fleet. It should be noted that construction on George Washington's monument did not begin until 49 years after his death; President Lincoln was not honored with a memorial until 44 years after his assassination, and the Jefferson and Roosevelt memorials were not complete until 134 and 52 years after their respective deaths.
President Reagan has already been honored. President Reagan will continue to be honored--but, he should be honored in a manner that is appropriate with his legacy of less Federal intervention in local affairs and no unfunded mandates on municipalities. The cost of this legislation could perhaps be better used to improve Michigan's roads and bridges, provide safer and affordable home health care to our seniors, or provide more before- and after-school programs for our youth. While I sincerely respect the position of the Presidency, I must oppose this legislation and will vote against it on final passage.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the removal of the name of the father of our country from Washington National Airport. While there are many people in American history deserving of recognition in their role in the development of our country, I do not believe that any of them made a larger contribution than our first President, a great patriot, George Washington.
Let us forget for just a moment that Washington National Airport is named for the father of our country, but instead for someone who won the ``what are we going to name our airport lottery.'' Even in that situation, do we really want to follow the old Soviet Union model where we change the names of our cities and landmarks depending on the whims of whomever is in power? St. Petersburg which became Volgograd which became Leningrad and then became once more St. Petersburg. I don't think anyone on the other side of the aisle would appreciate it if, when Democrats regain control of the Congress we change the name of the Ronald Reagan Federal Building downtown to the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Federal building.
I would like to ask my colleague on the other side of the aisle why they would deny George Washington an airport? No one on this side of the aisle denied Ronald Reagan his landmark by naming the largest federal building in Washington, DC, after our former President. No one objected. The building did not yet have a name. Why is it that you want to deny George Washington his due?
Again, forgetting for a moment who this airport is named after, the name ``Washington National Airport'' is easily recognizable to shippers and tourists alike. When people come to our nation's capitol they see the name of the City they have come to visit. They see Washington and know they are in our nation's capital. Changing the name would cost the Airport Authority millions of dollars to change signs and pamphlets. Additionally, it would go against the wishes of the people of the region who provided the main support for Washington National Airport. These people are proud of the name of their airport, they are proud to be the gateway to our nation's capital.
Ronald Reagan's legacy will be decided by history, and monuments to that legacy should not come at the expense of the wishes and desires of the local community and especially not at the expense of our first President, George Washington.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule for 2 hours. The amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is as follows:
H.R. 2625
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.
The airport described in the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the administration of the Washington National Airport, and for other purposes'', approved June 29, 1940
(Chapter 444; 54 Stat. 686), and known as the Washington National Airport, shall hereafter be known and designated as the ``Ronald Reagan National Airport''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.
(a) In General.--(1) The following provisions of law are amended by striking ``Washington National Airport'' each place it appears and inserting ``Ronald Reagan National Airport'':
(A) Section 1(b) of the Act of June 29, 1940 (Chapter 444; 54 Stat. 686).
(B) Sections 106 and 107 of the Act of October 31, 1945
(Chapter 443; 59 Stat. 553).
(C) Section 41714 of title 49, United States Code.
(D) Chapter 491 of title 49, United States Code.
(2) Section 41714(d) of title 49, United States Code, is amended in the subsection heading by striking ``Washington National Airport'' and inserting ``Ronald Reagan National Airport''.
(b) Other References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to the Washington National Airport shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Ronald Reagan National Airport''.
The CHAIRMAN. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those amendments shall be considered as read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
Are there amendments to the bill?
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Davis of Virginia
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Davis of Virginia:
Page 3, after line 23, insert the following:
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall take effect on the date that the Secretary of Transportation secures the consent of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority for the redesignation made by section 1.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is offered by myself, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella). It is bipartisan.
This amendment simply says that the act will take effect on the date that the Secretary of Transportation secures the consent of the Washington Metropolitan Airport Authority for the redesignation. Congress would go ahead and redesignate it, but we would ask the authority to share in that decision-making.
Let me explain to this body, I am a great fan of President Reagan's. I was his cochairman in Fairfax County, my county, in 1976, when he opposed the sitting Republican President, and in 1980. I was a delegate to various State and county conventions for Ronald Reagan in 1976, 1980 and 1984. His picture adorns the wall in my office. I believe he was a great President. I think he is worthy of great recognition.
But the good news and the bad news in this debate reminds me of a story of a man coming up for a dinner and saying, the good news is we have voted to make you man of the year; the bad news is it was a 5-to-4 vote. Ronald Reagan deserves more than a 5-to-4 vote. He deserves a mandate. We are not getting that here, we are not getting that in Congress the way this has developed, unfortunately.
Ronald Reagan stood for and warranted and recognized that localities should have control of this airport. Look at what Ronald Reagan's vision of a Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority, the legislation he signed in 1986, has done. If my colleagues have been out to Dulles and looked at the terminals out there and looked at the renovations that have been done, that would not have been completed if the Federal Government still owned and operated this airport. But under the leadership of the airport authority, under their bonding capacity, those renovations have been made and Dulles is now an international airport, and a model for international airports across the world.
Look at the new terminal at National. If there is one indicia of the legacy of Ronald Reagan, it is that terminal there at National Airport, which is new, it is modern, and it is a result of Ronald Reagan's work and legacy when he signed that legislation and gave control of the airport to the airport authority. That work would not have been done had it gone through the Federal appropriation process with the controls and the conflicts in terms of where the dollars are spent. So there is a Ronald Reagan legacy at National Airport.
This amendment simply allows the local airport authority, created by Ronald Reagan, signed into law by the President in 1986, to share in the renaming of this airport. This is not a partisan Republican, such as former Governor Linwood Holton, the first Republican governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, supported this amendment. A number of Reagan members of his administration serve on that authority and advisory and support this amendment and believe that Ronald Reagan would want local control honored in the renaming of any airport that he was involved in in creating that authority.
The airport authority has had 2 lawsuits against this Congress when we tried to intervene our mandate onto their authority. As the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) noted earlier, we lost both of them. What a terrible tragedy it would be if we were to pass this, if we were to be sued and lose this and have it overturned in court because of some judicial interpretation, and both of those earlier suits went to the U.S. Supreme Court. They were not just lower level cases.
Ronald Reagan deserves better than this. He was a great man. He deserves a mandate, not a sharply partisan debate, which is the way this has unfolded, unfortunately.
This amendment is not about the history of the airport. This region was originally the Washington Hoover Airport, where the Pentagon is, and it was the Gravely Point project; it developed from there into the National Airport and then later the Washington National Airport. It has a long history. This is not about Ronald Reagan's legacy, which is a legacy I think historians will treat very kindly: A President who presided over the demise of the Cold War, the falling of the Iron Curtain; a time of great prosperity, and who signed the Airport Authority Act into law in 1986, a landmark decision that helped make this the airport it is.
This amendment is about a principle that he stood for and believed in, and that I believe is local control. I think we not only violate local control, we violate the principles he stood for if we try to impose from Congress, without consultation and the approval of that local airport authority, which is chaired by a Republican, I might add, to have them participate in the process.
I would ask for approval of this amendment, Mr. Chairman. I think that this is the way to go. A lot of Members over here are wondering if this is the appropriate legacy, but no one here wants to vote against somebody who we consider to be a great President, and this I think allows the localities to share in this decision-making, as it should be, and I think as he would want it if he were here speaking. So I ask for approval of this amendment.
{time} 1300
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I must rise in reluctant but very strong opposition to this amendment, because we believe it is simply a circuitous way to kill this bill. It is very clear that when we passed the legislation creating the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, it was careful to transfer only operating, I repeat operating, responsibility to the new authority, not ownership. The Federal Government owns the airport and, therefore, the Federal Government can rename the airport.
A change in the name does not affect the airport authority's operational abilities. They can still safely and efficiently operate the airport whether it is called the Washington National Airport or the Ronald Reagan National Airport.
If it is a concern about financing, the rather insignificant costs of changing signs at the airport, the Ronald Reagan Legacy Foundation has volunteered to help finance those changes. But, in reality, this is really a roundabout way to kill the name change.
Proponents are well aware that the Washington Post reported that the airport board, which has a majority of Democratic appointments on it, would vote 6-to-4, a partisan vote, to kill the name change. So that is what this amendment really is all about. It is unnecessary and it would, in effect, kill the bill.
The naming of federally owned facilities is uniquely a Federal prerogative. That privilege and responsibility should not be abrogated by this facility or any other federally owned facility, and I strongly oppose the amendment.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we are a country with a rule of law; and few things are more sacred under a rule of law than contracts. I always hate and hesitate to disagree with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), my esteemed chairman, but I have got to disagree in this matter of how the airport was delegated and what authority the Federal Government retained.
It is quite clear. We gave them a 50-year minimum term lease, interpreted by most courts as being akin to ownership. We give them full power and dominion over and complete discretion in operation and development, development, of the airport. Not just operation, but development. And they shall have the same proprietary powers and be subject to the same restrictions with respect to Federal law as any other airport, which goes to some of the earlier arguments.
We did say this will be treated as any other airport in the United States. That is, we are not recognizing nor continuing the Federal authority to wade in and change the name or something else that we do not like, unless they violate the term of the lease.
The agreement went on to say that it would not be subject to the requirements of any law solely by reason of the retention of the United States Government of the fee simple title.
In paragraph after paragraph, principle after principle, we gave control to a local authority, a local authority that is doing an admirable job in improving a facility which was outdated and undersized for current demands. They have created a beautiful new gateway to the Nation's capital at Washington National.
But now we are saying, well, we are all for local control, except when we disagree with the conclusions reached by majorities of local boards. I mean, we are either for it or we are against it. We stand on, I believe, no legal ground here.
If Congress does make this empty gesture today in passing this legislation and it becomes law, surely, as Congress has twice before in recent history, Congress will lose in the courts. Like it or not, we signed a 50-year contract. Contracts are sacred under the Constitution in this country. And, as I said earlier, we are also violating the spirit of one of the principles with which, and I think Ronald Reagan made some good changes in this country, and that is some of the movement back from a huge centralized Federal bureaucracy to local governments.
Mr. Chairman, I was a county commissioner at the time; and I agreed with the principle that he set forward. I disagreed with the fact that he took away all of our revenue-sharing money to carry out some of those duties. But I felt the principle was good, that the solutions that work in New York do not necessarily work in Springfield and Eugene, Oregon; and the Federal Government did not necessarily have the best handle on how to solve the problems of Eugene, Oregon, nor the people of New York.
We need here just to rein it in a little bit. Yes, his birthday is coming up Friday. But, just think, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have already honored the President by naming the largest, newest, most expensive Federal building in the United States of America in terms of square feet outside of the Pentagon for Ronald Reagan. There is an aircraft carrier which will be launched in the year 2000 which will be named for Ronald Reagan. There are many other things which do not have names which could be named for Ronald Reagan, the B-1 bomber which he was a great champion of and Star Wars, for instance.
So I believe that rather than removing the name of the first President of our country, usurping the control which we granted by sacred contract to a local board, that Congress would be better served today to approve this amendment and say if the local board agrees and the local communities agree, we will go forward. But if they do not, this renaming will not go forward; and Congress will choose, in its full authority in cases that are fully clear, fully within our dominion, to name other things as the majority so wishes.
Mr. Chairman, I really want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) for offering this amendment, which I offered in committee; and I particularly want to thank the other gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), who actually first brought this issue to my attention and the attention of my staff several weeks ago in saying that this was causing a local fire storm.
I mean, this is against the desires of local communities, local business, and the duly appointed local authority to whom Congress has given local control and dominion. This is not an appropriate tribute. This amendment should be adopted; then it becomes an appropriate tribute.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Davis-DeFazio-Moran-Morella amendment to H.R. 2625, which would redesignate Washington National Airport as the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
This amendment would leave the decision to rename Washington National Airport with the local Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority where it belongs.
When the Republicans became the majority party during the 104th Congress, we came into power on the theme of greater fiscal responsibility and more local control. This theme was consistent with former President Reagan's philosophy that the Federal Government should not carry out responsibilities that could be handled by State and local governments.
In keeping with this philosophy, President Reagan signed the legislation that in 1986 transferred control of Washington National Airport from the Federal Government to a local authority, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, called MWAA.
During the first 45 years of National Airport's existence, it was owned by the Federal Government and operated by the Federal Aviation Administration. There were several attempts to transfer National to local control, but none was successful until President Ronald Reagan and Transportation Secretary Elizabeth Dole established an advisory commission to review the matter.
It was this advisory commission's report that brought about the transfer legislation that created the local authority, made up of members appointed by the governors of Maryland and Virginia and the Mayor of the District of Columbia.
Under the auspices of the Federal Government, National Airport was deteriorating and losing money. Under the auspices of MWAA, National has a new terminal and has undergone major renovation. These have been funded without any Federal contributions but with bonds and fund-
raising efforts of the local authority. MWAA has been doing an outstanding job, and the airport indeed is the proud gateway to the Nation's capital.
Now, contrary to Mr. Reagan's philosophy, Congress is reaching into the affairs of National Airport, instead of leaving the major decisions to the local authority.
I have been very involved in issues regarding National Airport during my tenure in Congress. It is our local airport. I pushed for policies that would ensure that the airport is safe and a good neighbor to the surrounding communities.
Mr. Chairman, no one ever contacted the local congressional delegation about the issue of renaming National Airport. No hearings were held. H.R. 2625 has come to the House floor without local input, and I think this betrays former President Reagan's legacy.
Mr. Chairman, I can tell my colleagues, from the phone calls and letters to my office, that the local governments oppose renaming National Airport. MWAA, the Greater Washington Board of Trade, and the Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia all oppose the name change.
In addition, renaming National would be costly and would hurt small businesses in and around the airport. These businesses would have to change signs, stationery, and other promotional materials at a significant cost. We should not impose this unfunded mandate on local businesses and on our local authority. Of course, there would be resulting confusion.
Let me add that there was one flaw in the legislation that transferred control of National Airport to a local authority. That flaw was the creation of the Congressional Review Board that had oversight over all the decisions made by MWAA. The constitutionality of this congressional oversight was challenged on two occasions by the local community, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. Twice, the Supreme Court decided that Congress exercised too much power over National Airport. In essence, the Supreme Court told Congress to stay out of the affairs of the airport and leave the daily operations and major decisions to MWAA, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority.
So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Davis-DeFazio-Moran-
Morella amendment.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, with all due deference to lawyers and lawyer wannabees, a lease is not quite the same as ownership, no matter what the term of the lease; and I think that we need to recognize that fact.
Mr. Chairman, if there are those that simply politically disagree or personally disagree with renaming National Airport for President Reagan, then fine. But let us do away with some of these arguments that are cluttering up what is really going on here. The Federal Government owns National Airport. The fact that they have leased it to a local authority does not change the fact that the Federal Government owns that airport.
Some have suggested that President Reagan's name be affixed to Dulles International Airport. It is not quite the same. Mr. Chairman, Washington National Airport, the national airport at Washington, D.C., is the only airport in our country that is a national airport. It is the national airport. It is the only national airport. It is America's airport.
And as the airport for all of America, not for any locality, it is not Virginia's airport. It is not Maryland's airport. It is not Pennsylvania's airport. It is not Georgia's airport. It is America's airport. It is the airport that serves our Nation's capital. It is the only airport that directly serves our Nation's capital, and I believe that it is entirely within the prerogative of the United States Congress to name that airport as the people of this country through their representatives wish it to be named.
Mr. Chairman, make no mistake about it. This amendment is a killer amendment. It would gut and remove what we are trying to do here as representatives of the people, for the people, and by the people.
I urge my colleagues to vote this amendment down, recognizing it for what it is, and that is a killer amendment designed to kill this legislation and the intent of the legislation. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, there are those who would like to make this debate and passage of this bill a referendum on whether or not we honor and respect President Reagan's service to the Nation. So let me say up front, while I may not agree with many of President Reagan's policies, I honor and respect his committed and dedicated service to his fellow citizens. I believe most us here today do feel that way.
But, unfortunately, this legislation is not about honoring his service. It is about honoring his politics. And there is a difference.
The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr), the sponsor of this legislation, supported the bill by saying, quote, ``It is only fit that this gateway to the city that still enjoys the Reagan legacy of smaller government and lower taxes be named after this American hero.''
Former Governor Allen of Virginia was quoted in The Washington Post as saying, quote, ``He noted with relish that, with the new name, generations of lawmakers would be greeted by a memorial to a famous opponent of Federal spending.''
Honoring service is not a controversial matter. Honoring politics is. We need look no further than how this legislation is being viewed to tell how this effort is perceived.
{time} 1315
It is the proponents of this bill who are doing a disservice to President Reagan by using him as a political pawn to forward a contemporary agenda. But to be consistent, if the goal is to honor President Reagan's politics, then we could at least be presented with a bill in keeping with the spirit of his work. This bill does not even do that. In fact, it does just the opposite. It would place an unfunded mandate on the local airport authority. It takes power and decisionmaking away from the local officials who run the airport to name it as they see fit. It could add costs to private sector operations ranging from airlines to travel agents, but we did not even bother to hold a single hearing to find out what these costs might be. This bill does not honor the spirit of President Reagan's work. It flies in the face of it. It defies everything he stood for, and that is why we should adopt this amendment.
Worse yet, of all the times and of all the places we could choose to inject this politics over service rhetoric, using it to rename Washington National Airport is the most inappropriate of all. As its name says, Washington National Airport belongs to the Nation, to everyone, Democrat, Republican, Independent and alike, young and old, black and white, rich and poor. It welcomes visitors from around the Nation and around the world to our capital, where everyone has a say, where all views can be debated, where the majority may govern but the minority have rights, too.
We have already named various institutions for President Reagan. We think that those are appropriate. But in this case, we in the minority are exercising those rights not to deny President Reagan's honorable service, but to affirm that service, not politics, is the criteria and the way an entire Nation comes together to honor a leader. This is not the way to do it. The amendment should be passed, and in its absence, in its failure, the legislation should be defeated.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan amendment, and it is in that spirit that we usually change names or put names on buildings or monuments. It is an amendment that will be supported by some who are for the name change and some who are against the name change. This amendment is one that Members should rush to the floor to support because it simply says that local control should apply here as it does everywhere else. In this case local control would mean regional control.
This was the only airport under the control of the U.S. Congress for a very long time. The result was that an airport that was a state-of-
the-art airport when it was opened became almost dysfunctional and unworthy of being the airport for the Nation's capital. What Congress wisely did was to create the Washington Regional Airport Authority, and what has emerged, is a beautiful new airport to show for it.
My colleagues, we simply cannot have it both ways, not under the law. This cannot be a regional or local airport when you pay for it and when you run it, but a national airport whenever the Congress feels like intervening into local affairs. Indeed, to have that kind of back and forth, even if it were legally permissible, would be the antithesis of local control. It would be arbitrary and capricious, and the courts have so found.
We wrote a lease which gave absolute, total control and discretion to the Washington Airports Authority. I assure my colleagues, we did not do that out of our great generosity. It was very controversial. Congress did not want to give up control of this airport because it regarded this as its airport with all of the perks attending that status. But Congress was forced to write a lease that gave full responsibility to the Washington Regional Airports Authority. And the reason it was forced to do so was that the legal status and the financial status of the new airport required it. We were simply not going to be able to float bonds, for example, at a reasonable rate if in fact the marketplace was not sure who was in control and who was not. So the words are simply unmistakable; words like ``full authority,'' ``complete discretion.'' There are simply no exceptions in the law or in the lease.
My colleagues do not have to believe me. Simply go to two Supreme Court decisions which have interpreted this language. The Supreme Court has interpreted this language twice. This language is designed to protect bondholders. And what will happen if the courts were to allow even a name change, intervention to change a name, to rename, is that it would send a message in the marketplace that you cannot tell when Congress may come in, and, therefore, we would destabilize the legal and the financial position of the Washington Regional Airports Authority. That is why, Mr. Chairman, this name change is not going to withstand another legal attack. What do we need--three Supreme Court decisions in order to get it? Congress has already lost twice.
This is no way to honor a President of the United States who is beloved by millions upon millions of Americans. But we are on our way not to a name change, we are on our way to a court suit unless this amendment passes. This amendment is a common-sense amendment, the kind of amendment that those who want this name will support, and the kind of amendment that I think could get them this name if they do it the right way, the way we have always done it in this House, the way we always do it in other locations.
This amendment leaves us with the only way to honor a President who lived for and by local control. I ask Members to support this common-
sense amendment.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, the Speaker of this body is in receipt of a letter from the chairman of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority that indicates that the action that we are about to take is likely illegal. I would urge the Speaker to release that letter to the body before we do act in an illegal manner. The letter addresses the legal authority that the gentlewoman representing the District of Columbia just referred to.
There is substantial cause to uphold the control that was ceded in 1986 to the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority and compelling reason not to take away some part of that controlling authority. It does send the signal that not only jeopardizes its bonding authority and the ability to implement its other subsequent decisions, but it would have precedent in other situations where this Congress has ceded authority.
Speaking of Speaker Gingrich, I would like to quote Speaker Gingrich from the Congressional Record of 1986, when the authority was being granted to this Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority. The Speaker said, ``Tonight we have the chance to get the Federal Government out of the business it has no business being in. The very scale and complexity of this resolution should remind all of us that managing legitimately Federal activities is a big enough job. It is time to allow a regional authority to do a regional job, that of managing airports.''
``The fact is very simple.'' He goes on to say, ``The Federal Government ought not be involved in dictating what regional airports ought to be doing.'' He says, ``Do we allow the regional authority to both run the airport, getting it away from our attention and not cluttering us, or do we allow the regional authority to borrow the money, thus not having ourselves burdened?''
I am not going to take up the body's time, but it is clear from the Speaker's quotes as well as the language in the Senate debate, and Senator Dole was most explicit, that complete authority was given to the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority. We did not retain authority to do what is being suggested be done today.
This has substantial adverse implications. That is why the business community is opposed to it. The business community's opposition has no political partisan basis. One rental car company told me that if the Congress does this, it is going to cost him $200,000. It means that they have to change all their promotional materials. It means that the airport location is not going to be readily identifiable. Who knows where Ronald Reagan Airport is? It is going to take a time for the public to figure it out.
We made the arguments against doing this on the basis of history. I think those are compelling arguments. The airport stands on the very road that leads to George Washington's home, Mount Vernon. The land was owned by George Washington's adopted son. We have a long historical relationship, and we can show that. Apparently that does not matter.
But I think it should matter to the Members when the chairman of the committee cites precedent. It is unprecedented to rename a facility or to name a facility in the jurisdiction of a Member of this Congress when that Member opposes that naming. This Member opposes the action that this body is considering. It is unprecedented to do this over the wishes of the Member, whether they be Republican or Democrat. In the past Democratic Congresses have always respected that custom.
I have good reason to be opposed to this because my constituency is opposed to this. The local governments have opposed this. We have made those letters available. They have good reason to be opposed to this. Respect the wishes of those local governments. Respect the constituencies that I am bound to represent.
Our opposition is not partisan. In fact, it is wholly consistent with President Reagan's philosophy of devolving power to local government. If we do this, it will be an arrogant abuse of power. It will be partisan. It will be wrong. We should not do this.
There are plenty of ways to recognize Ronald Reagan appropriately. We are going to be doing that very soon when we dedicate the International Trade Center, an $800 million Federal building, in his honor. We are going to dedicate the next Nimitz class aircraft carrier in Ronald Reagan's honor. Those things are appropriate. This is inappropriate.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I know, as I said at the outset, how the vote is going to come out on this. This is Republican dogma. And the Republican side is going to vote because some order has been passed from on high to vote for this name change. But I do want to make the reasoned argument; at least reason will be on our side, if not the votes.
When the compact was entered into pursuant to act of Congress in 1986 to create the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority, there was very clear and specific language in the lease. It is broad. It is comprehensive in its scope.
``The Airports Authority is authorized to occupy, operate, control and use for the term of this lease all land, improvements, buildings, fixtures, easements, rights of interest, egress and appurtenances thereto belonging, owned by, used or controlled by or assigned to the United States of America.''
{time} 1330
Subject to the provisions of this lease, the airport's authority shall have, consistent with the 50-year minimum term of this lease, full power and dominion over and shall have the same proprietary powers and be subject to the same restrictions with respect to Federal law as any other airport, except as provided herein.
The lease also contains what lawyers call a quiet enjoyment clause; that the airport's authority shall fully, peaceably and quietly occupy in joyful possession of the leased premises without hindrance or interference by the Secretary or any other person or entity. That is us, the United States Congress.
The United States, in the grant of authority to MWAA, did not reserve the right to change the airport's name, and any such action, in my judgment, is patently inconsistent with the broad scope of the lease rights that conferred control and full power and dominion over the airport.
In fact, the Congress did attempt to establish authority to interfere with or override actions of MWAA that it considered not in the broad public interest by creating a control board or an oversight board. On two occasions that oversight board was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. In my service then as chair of the Subcommittee on Aviation, I vigorously opposed reestablishing the authority of this oversight board. I felt we ought to get rid of it and, indeed, the Supreme Court twice ruled that this was an unconstitutional interference in executive branch authority.
So now the question comes up, well, supposing we do pass this legislation, it does become law, and the authority chooses not to change the name as directed by Congress. In the course of our committee markup I asked counsel, well, what authority do we then have? What action could we take if the airport authority would not put up new signs to reflect the change or other actions to reflect the change?
It was rather calmly and coolly suggested that Congress could compel the authority to change signs by taking away their Federal grants and their ability to levy local passenger facility charges to make safety and efficiency improvements. Pretty heavy-handed. An astonishing ruling. An astonishing arrogance to ourselves of power.
If carried out to its logical conclusion, that gives this Congress, gives our committee, authority to interfere in any airport anywhere in America under control of any local government by simply shaking our finger at them and saying, change your name, make some other change that we want done by an act of Congress or we will take away your airport improvement grant money; we will cancel your passenger facility charge authority.
That is an enormous arrogance of power and it opens a dangerous door through which none of us would want to tread. This is a dangerous precedent.
The amendment should be adopted; if not, the bill defeated.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, evidently the Congress is into the business of naming things after people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the facilities that are being named after them. I would say that while I had great personal affection for President Reagan and served with him, I would say that he had about as much to do with Washington National Airport as I have to do with an airport in Tibet. I am old-fashioned enough to believe that if we are going to name something after somebody, we ought to give the name to something with which that person is intimately associated.
So I would simply have a question. Would it not be more appropriate, for instance, to name the Bureau of Public Debt the Ronald Reagan Bureau of Public Debt? The act of this Congress that has made me more angry than any act since I have been here is the action that this Congress supinely took in 1981 when it whooped through here, with people in both parties voting for it, the Reagan budgets, which took the deficit, which had never been higher than $74 billion, up to well over $200 billion. It has taken us almost 20 years to dig out from under that, with strong efforts on the part of people in both parties to accomplish that fact.
And so I simply make that point to note that there ought to be a certain degree of appropriateness, and a certain connection between the name of the person and the act, and I think that would be at least as appropriate as the action being contemplated both by this amendment and by this bill in general.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 344, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] will be postponed.
Are there further amendments?
Amendment Offered by Ms. Norton
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Norton: Page 3, after line 23, add the following new section:
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Act shall take effect on the date that the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority secures funds other than funds from the operating budget of the Authority for all costs of carrying out the redesignation made by section I.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply keeps the promise of the House that there shall be no unfunded mandates. I do not believe that there is any Member of this House who would take exception to this amendment.
The bill itself represents a broken promise: No congressional mandates on Federal buildings without local consent. All I am asking is that we do not add cost to injury by adding cost to the operating budget of the Washington Regional Airport Authority.
The authority that runs the airport consists of four jurisdictions. This authority has not given its consent to this renaming or to accepting the cost. Two of the Members are from Maryland, five are from Virginia, three are from the District of Columbia, and three are Federal appointees. My amendment simply requires that funds outside the operating budget be obtained to carry out any renaming.
Now, those who are for the renaming ought to be the first to vote for this amendment; that is, if they have read the Supreme Court decisions which have interpreted the language to mean that the Congress cannot, in fact, impose its will on any issue at this time. At the very least, when this matter goes to court, and I predict that it will, Congress will be able to say that it did not add to the operating costs.
And that is important also to protect the financial position of the regional authority. The whole reason for the absolute language in the lease is to protect the financial position and the legal posture, and also to protect the Congress so that it is clear that the full faith and credit of the United States of America is not behind this airport at this time; that only bonds floated by this airport stand behind this airport.
My amendment simply says, that is right, we are not imposing on you any costs from Federal legislation, nor is there any Federal mandated cost, nor would any Federal costs be allowed for my bill. And we do not need any Federal costs to be imposed as well. If in fact Ronald Reagan's name is to be imposed on the airport from the top down, rather than the way it is always done in our country, from the bottom up, then certainly no costs should devolve to the local area.
But, Mr. Chairman, nobody has a shred of evidence of what the costs are because we were not given the courtesy of hearings. There is no information and no data. We do not know what the cost to government would be, governments around the world, the country, and regional. We do not know what the cost to the private sector would be. Essentially, what the Congress would be saying by passing this bill is, ``It is not our cost, so why care?'' Well, I tell my colleagues who does care. The business community and the public in this region who will bear those costs care.
There is very substantial injury to this region well beyond cost. What is in a name? Well, billions of dollars in real money and in good will are in a name. That we must all surely recognize from the fact that establishments now sell naming rights and earn millions of dollars simply by selling the right to put one's name on a building or on an establishment. We in the District of Columbia have just sold the naming rights to the wonderful new arena, which I invite Members to partake of, downtown. It is called the MCI Arena, not because we like it that way but because we got millions of dollars for getting it that way.
Over time billions of dollars are tied up in the name of the Washington National Airport. This is a major tourist region. This is the gateway to official Washington, named for the first President of the United States.
My amendment is surely one that the entire House can support. It is very short. All it does is to say to the regional folks that the money from this is going to come from elsewhere; it is not going to come from you. We are sure that those who want the airport renamed, many of them from the private sector, if there are costs, would in fact be able to raise those costs. There is no partisan content here. I ask for a bipartisan vote.
And, Mr. Chairman, I insert for the Record a letter from the Board of Trade opposing this change.
Greater Washington Board of Trade,
Washington, DC., January 26, 1998.Hon. Bud Shuster,Chairman, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Shuster: On behalf of the Greater Washington Board of Trade, I am writing to express our opposition to H.R. 2625 designed to change the name of Washington National Airport to the ``Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.'' With all due respect to President Reagan, we believe that renaming the airport would be very confusing to air travelers, visitors, and local residents alike.
If there is a compelling desire to memoralize President Reagan at Washington National Airport, we believe that a more appropriate recognition would be in renaming the new terminal in his honor. The revitalization of the terminal and other improvements can, after all, be traced to activities initiated during his term in office.
The Greater Washington Board of Trade is the chamber of commerce for the greater Washington region covering Northern Virginia, suburban Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Through the Transportation and Environment Committee, the Board of Trade addresses the needs of our region's transportation infrastructure and the environment.
Thank you for your consideration in this important matter.
Sincerely,
Charles A. Dukes, Jr.
Chairman, Transportation and
Environment Committee.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this is just a last ditch back-door effort to delay and, hopefully, kill this legislation. There are several important points I think that can be made in response.
First of all, there is no reason to delay because the cost of making this change is insignificant. Now, those are not my words, this is the Congressional Budget Office, which estimates that the costs ``would not be significant.'' Further, the chairman of the airport authority stated last year that the cost would be small. Third, it only cost the Houston Airport $10,000 to change the name to the George Bush Intercontinental Airport. And with National Airport having a budget of
$259 million, this indeed is significant.
Beyond that, the Reagan Legacy Project has said that they would be willing to help in expenses, if it were necessary. So there is no reason to delay this.
And let me further deal with the issue of no hearings and moving quickly. In the 104th Congress we had five naming bills pass that did not go through the committee and had no hearings. In the 103rd Congress, six did not go through the committee hearings; 102nd Congress, three; the 101st Congress, four; the 100th Congress, six.
In fact, when we named the Thurgood Marshall building, that did not even come to committee. That was done directly here on the floor two days after Justice Marshall died, before he was even buried. So there is enormous evidence to suggest that we are not doing anything here unusual at all.
For all those reasons, I would urge that we defeat this amendment.
{time} 1345
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the chairman of the full committee recognizes that the CBO estimate of cost only refers to the direct costs incurred by the airports authority. It does not include the very substantial cost that the small businesses in the private sector would incur.
I got a letter and subsequent phone calls from several companies. But one such company, an airport rental firm, estimated that it would cost them $200,000 to make this name change. All of their National promotional materials have to be changed. And that is not one of the largest rental car companies. There are any number of businesses, hundreds of businesses, that refer to their location that serve Washington National Airport. All of that has to be changed.
This, in fact, is an unfunded Federal mandate, more so on private businesses than on the public entity, the airports authority. But it is on both. It is contrary to the legislation that we passed that we would not continue to do these unfunded Federal mandates.
But here we are again. When it suits our purposes, what difference does it make what we do to these local businesses? We want our will imposed. It is more important to us. They do not live in the area. They do not represent the area. So what is it to them?
Their people, if they care anything, they know about Ronald Reagan. They do not know anything about Arlington or Alexandria or the Greater Washington Board of Trade's concerns. But that is what Ronald Reagan told us. That was part of his philosophy: Respect the wishes of local government; respect the wishes of small businesses. And they are going to incur very substantial costs.
I had an amendment that said, well, if we are going to do this, maybe we ought to start paying for parking at the airport and put those funds in a fund that would reimburse the small businesses for the costs that they are going to incur because we chose to impose our will on them.
Talk about rubbing salt into wounds. They thought they got the authority. They have to pay the expense. They issue the bonds. It is not Federal money. We get free parking, and then we decide how the airport should be named, despite the wishes of the local government.
Arlington has voted against it, Alexandria, the Greater Washington Board of Trade, any number of businesses that expect me to represent them and that would expect that this body would have some respect for them.
This is a good amendment. It should pass. It is completely consistent with what this Congress is supposed to be all about.
Certainly, the Republican side of the aisle ought to have some respect for small businesses, even if those small businesses do not happen to be in their own congressional district. It might even be nice if they showed a little respect for the Member who represents that district, because that Member would respect the wishes of them if it was going to be done in their district. But, no, this has too many national political implications, so the heck with it.
This came about because of a national solicitation for funds by a man by the name of Grover Norquist. He set part of this Reagan legacy project and then everybody goes along with it.
It is not right. It is not right to trample on the wishes of local government. It is not right to impose these fees on small businesses. My colleagues do not know whether they can afford that cost.
One of these rental car companies said, ``This could drive me out of business if I have to change all my promotional materials. I just updated them all.'' But what do we care? It is nothing to us. We have the power of the purse. We have the power. We can exercise it at will. Well, this is an arrogant abuse of power. It should not be done. It is wrong, and it creates a precedent that is going to come back to haunt us.
I urge support for the amendment.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I object unless the gentleman is willing to yield so I can respond.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), distinguished member of the committee.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.
I simply wanted to make the point that there is nothing in the law that requires small businesses to change the signs. If I had a small business, I would use my signs and stationery that I had; and when it was appropriate and when it ran out, I would then change it. So I would expect over time this would occur and, therefore, would not be a financial burden on the small businesses.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
I do want to say that I think it would have been appropriate for the gentleman's unanimous consent request to be concurred in so that he could speak, and I think there was simply a misunderstanding over here on our side.
So far, the costs that this bill will impose on the local airports authority are not known. It is conceivable that they will not be inconsequential or unsubstantial. The local authority should not be required to bear these costs when they have been given no voice in change of name.
Under the amendment pending, the costs do not have to be met by the Federal Government since a good deal of the motivation for the name change has come from private sources who want to name airports all over the country. In fact, it was suggested there ought to be a Ronald Reagan Airport named in every State, which raises the possibility we could take off from one State and land in another and not know where we are, we would always be landing in a Ronald Reagan Airport. But it is reasonable to expect that those who are advocating this name change should pay for it.
The CBO statement, which appears in our committee report on the bill, suggests its costs are likely to be minimal. It says that if the State of Virginia chose to change signs, costs would not exceed $500,000. Well, that is $500,000. If they have got a tight budget, that $500,000 makes it all the more tight.
I certainly think that someone other than the Washington Metropolitan Airports Authority should bear the responsibility and the cost for any changes or any costs that may be incurred.
One that occurs to me is that, as one approaches the old terminal now as it is known, across the front of the terminal is the name Washington National Airport. It is engraved in stone, has been there since 1941. I have heard no discussion of whether it is the intent of this legislation to change that name, if we are going to have stonemasons come and replace those blocks of stone with others on which Ronald Reagan's name is carved, or whether there is the intention to lay another block of stone atop what is already there, put the name Ronald Reagan on it, and somehow the idea is to have a political billboard greeting people as they arrive at our Nation's capital.
So I am just wondering if there are stonemasons perhaps in the State of Pennsylvania. My good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), might have some stonemasons there that might want to engage in this trade. Or whether the Majority has given any thought to the fact that this structure, the terminal building, is on the National Register of Historic Places and that to rename it, to change its facade, would require great exceptions under the National Historic Preservation Act. I do not think any thought has been given to that possibility.
So, as the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) proposes, there are costs. We have not thought a great deal about them in this rush to name the airport before President Reagan's birthday. We certainly, at least, ought to pause to give thought to the costs and let those who are proposing this name change bear those costs.
It is quite a responsibility on small businesses that depend upon the airport to have to go and change all of their materials to accommodate this name change that we have been hoisting upon the public here for very narrow partisan purposes.
The amendment is a good one. It raises the issue of costs which have not been carefully thought through, and it is one that ought to be adopted, and I urge support.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, within the 2 hours allotted for consideration of the bill, how much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN. There is 1 hour remaining.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I intended to ask for a recorded vote on the Norton amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. That request comes too late.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia:
Page 3, line 2, strike ``Ronald Reagan'' and insert
``George Washington''.
Page 3, line 6, strike ``Ronald Reagan'' and insert
``George Washington''.
Page 3, lines 17 and 18, strike ``Ronald Reagan'' and insert ``George Washington''.
Page 3, line 22, strike ``Ronald Reagan'' and insert
``George Washington''.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would clarify the name of Washington National Airport since, apparently, there is a great deal of misunderstanding. It needs to be recognized, for example, that Franklin Roosevelt, in the commissioning of Washington National Airport, told the architects that the main terminal was to be designed to look like Mt. Vernon, the home of George Washington.
We can see it from perspective, which is difficult because most of us see it when we are right up on top of it and getting out of an automobile. If we look at it from the proper perspective, though, we can see that that is what the architects did.
I think it also is important to recognize that this land on which Washington National Airport is located was owned by John Park Custis, who was George Washington's adopted son, the only surviving son of Martha Custis Washington. He owned the property, lived there until his death at the battle of Yorktown. He was named to George Washington, who, after marrying Martha, treated John P. Custis as his own son.
Dr. David Stewart, who was then President Washington's physician, married J.P. Custis' widow and moved into the Abingdon estate, which is where Washington National Airport is located. Dr. Stewart was one of the three commissioners supervising the development of the Nation's new capital and personally named the city across the river the city of Washington and the territory of Columbia. It was clear that it was being named after George Washington, that Washington National Airport is named after George Washington.
{time} 1400
J.P. Custis' son, George Washington Park Custis, who lived at both Abingdon and Mount Vernon, who was adopted by George Washington following the death of J.P. Custis, built Arlington House, better known as the Custis-Lee Mansion, which later became Arlington Cemetery. He was Robert E. Lee's father-in-law. All of this occurred on this land. That is why my constituents care so much about retaining the identification of Washington National Airport with George Washington.
There is a lot of history here. Washington National Airport is built on the very foundation of Abingdon Plantation. This is where these people lived.
In the promotional material for Washington National Airport, as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has referred to, time and again they talk about George Washington treading on this land. His family owned this land. This was very important to him. That is why it is so important to us. He lived on the same road, at the very end of it, at Mount Vernon.
What this amendment would do is to make it clear that this airport is named after George Washington, as George Washington National Airport. That is the way it should continue to be named.
Mr. Chairman, I can understand people's respect for Ronald Reagan, but, I have to say, this dishonors Ronald Reagan's legacy. This is not right, and I know that neither President Reagan nor Mr. Reagan's family would want his name to be involved in such a contentious issue.
My constituents, who want to retain George Washington's name, do not want to be involved in any way in dishonoring Mr. Reagan's legacy. They do not want this to be such a contentious issue. But they jealously guard the name that this airport now has.
Not only does it honor George Washington, it also identifies where the airport is. It is helpful to the people who use the airport. It is going to be very confusing if it is renamed. People are not going to know where Ronald Reagan Airport is, because it could be anyplace in the country. Why would anyone figure it is going to be in Arlington, Virginia?
I think this is the kind of amendment that we should do, to make it clear that we will not get into this kind of partisan, contentious debate, ever again.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support for my amendment.
Point of Order
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) insist upon his point of order?
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order.
Mr. Chairman, as a preface to making it, I note my good friends on the other side, by making this amendment, have totally destroyed their argument about cost and lack of hearings, because this is going to cost money and this is going to cause hearings.
My point of order is this: My point of order against the amendment is on the ground it violates clause 7 of rule XVI of the rules of the House because it is not germane.
Clause 7 of rule XVI provides that no motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be considered under color of amendment.
The amendment adds an additional proposition. It is not germane because it substitutes a new name. It substitutes George Washington for Ronald Reagan. The bill is narrowly limited to a certain name, and the substitution of another violates the House rules.
Also, interestingly, the law establishing the boundary between Virginia and D.C. names the airport as the Washington National Airport while referring to the adjacent parkway as the George Washington Memorial Parkway. This is further proof that the airport is named for the metropolitan area and not for the person, and I insist upon my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I do.
Mr. Chairman, in the other body they have named this airport Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. The point that I want to make is that no one knows, including our very respected, knowledgeable parliamentarians, whether the people who named the airport Washington National Airport were identifying with the geographical location or with the personal identification. That is my point.
The constituents who use it, in whose district it is located, feel that it is named after George Washington, rather than the geographical location. But who is to say? I do not know for sure.
I am sharing my point of view, and this goes directly to the point of order. I feel that it is named after George Washington, and so I do not see that it would be subject to a point of order simply to clarify that. Certainly you do not need to change any signs, when people already assume Washington National Airport means George Washington National Airport.
So I do not agree it should be subject to a point of order. I think it is entirely in order. I think this clarification is appropriate for this body to pass.
The CHAIRMAN. Do other members seek to be heard on the point of order?
The Chair would rule on the point of order. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) is not germane to the bill.
The bill, H.R. 2625, seeks to redesignate the Washington National Airport as the Ronald Reagan National Airport. The bill consists of a single individual proposition. It proposes to redesignate a specific airport in honor of a specific person.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) seeks to substitute the name ``George Washington'' for the name
``Ronald Reagan'' in the bill. Clause 7 of rule XVI of the rules of the House requires that amendments be germane to the proposition to which offered. A general principle of germaneness rule is that one individual proposition may not be amended by another individual proposition, even though they may be of the same class. This principle is recorded on page 619 of the House Rules and Manual. The chair notes a relevant ruling on this principle. On February 9, 1910, the House was considering a bill providing for the erection of a statue to honor General Von Steuben. An amendment was offered to strike the word ``Von Steuben'' and insert ``George Washington.'' Speaker Clark ruled that the proposition before the House was confined to a statue honoring General Von Steuben and that an amendment offering a proposition for the erection of a statue of George Washington was not germane. This ruling is codified in Cannons Precedents, Volume 8, Section 2955.
Because the pending text propose proposes a narrow individual proposition, the naming of a specific airport for a specific person, and the amendment proposes to substitute a separate individual proposition, to wit, the naming of that airport for a different person, the amendment is not germane.
While the Chair acknowledges the difference of opinion expressed regarding the derivative nature of the current name of the airport, nothing in the committee report on the history of the naming of the airport, or as a matter of law of which the Chair is aware, indicates that the airport is now explicitly named in honor of George Washington. In addition, the Chair would note that a relevant statute, the Act of October 31, 1945, printed in part on page 10 of the committee report, illuminates a distinction between the George Washington Memorial Parkway and the Washington National Airport.
Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.
Are there further amendments?
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed to know George Washington has been overruled by the House Parliamentarian before today. I appreciate my friend offering that amendment, and it is not in order.
Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment that I was going to call up that would have at least clarified the Ronald Reagan National Airport, that is currently contained in the legislation, and would have made it the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. That would have stopped some of the confusion we hear. It would have kept Washington's name in it. Whether it demarks the location or a great President and Virginian, I am not certain. But as I understand it, there will be opposition on the other side to this amendment, so I will not bring it up at this point.
Am I correct there is to be opposition to that amendment to change it from Ronald Reagan National Airport to the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport?
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I would find objection to the gentleman's amendment, along the same lines that had been offered by the majority to other amendments on this side, that that would be a killer amendment. I would also question whether it would be germane in light of the erudite ruling just elicited from the Chair.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is not a killer amendment from this side of the aisle's point of view. If you do not consider it a killer, we do not consider it a killer amendment. I think it does bring some clarification. I have not had a parliamentary ruling.
I would hope, since there is opposition from the other side, and I am disappointed to hear that, at least in the conference, we could clarify that. If this legislation is going to go through, I think it is very important that we keep the name Washington National Airport as a part of it. To many it is always going to be known as that. You have the DCA designation as it moves through customs and it moves through the baggage checks, and to change those, I think, creates a whole series of problems that were not contemplated by the bill's authors.
I would ask the chairman of the committee if he could assure me in conference if this is an accommodation that could be reached?
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my good friend that after conferring with our leadership, we indeed were prepared to accept the gentleman's amendment. I understand it is precisely the same language that is in the Senate. Therefore, it would be my hope and intention to accept the Senate's version of the language, which would then conform with what the gentleman are attempting to do.
I regret that our colleagues on the other side have indicated their opposition to including the name ``Washington'' in the name of the airport.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, and, with that, I will not call up the amendment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I do so to simply explain that I think in opposing the proposed but not offered amendment of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), it would be appropriate to keep faith with the bill that emerged from committee, since the chairman in committee had offered a substitute for the introduced bill, which substitute struck the name
``Washington'' from the proposed name of the airport to call it Ronald Reagan National Airport instead of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. If that was the original purpose of the committee in reporting this bill, we ought to keep faith with it on the floor and let it go its merry way further.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am certain that the chairman of the committee appreciates that kind of loyalty to his amendment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is loyalty of the greatest and deepest felt sort.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. With that kind of bipartisan camaraderie, I look forward to working with the gentleman on other issues.
Mr. OBERSTAR. On other issues, indeed, that do not take over local control of airport naming.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I hate to prolong this debate, it has been prolonged too long, but there are some things that need to be said about the situation we find ourselves in.
Mr. Chairman, I really feel badly about the fact that this bill is going to be voted on and there will be a lot of red lights up there. I think the purpose of this bill is to honor a great American President, a great American President who is in the evening of his life, and of whom can be said more people are walking free in the world today because he was our leader for two terms. The very phrase ``free world'' owes much to this man whom we seek to honor, but whom we are trivializing, and whom this great honor for him has become a victim of what really is raw and petty politics.
``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall''; the democratizations of central Europe, the unification of Germany, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, these are cosmic occurrences in our time and in our century that are worthy of recognition.
And, yes, I think the gentleman in whose district the airport belongs has an important role to play, but the airport is a national airport, and Ronald Reagan was a national figure, and I think there is something beyond the parochialism of a district. I say that with respect, but that is how I feel.
This man, Ronald Reagan, gave this country dignity, he gave it hope, he gave it optimism. It was his fervent desire to make this country a city on a hill, and he did it. He did it. He made us proud of our chief executive, proud of our government, proud of America, and he gave us something to look forward to.
This is simply a small effort to recognize that, and it ought not fall victim to petty politics. If Members deny there are petty politics involved here, I can only say they are fooling themselves, because everybody knows what is the problem here.
But here is a man deserving of the fullest recognition, especially as he is still living, and might in some way learn of what we are doing.
{time} 1415
But to put red lights up there is to me demeaning and sad and unfortunate. Let us recognize the man who made America proud.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I have enormous respect and deep affection for my good friend from Illinois, the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. We have agreed on so many issues over the years. I just want to make it clear that this is not raw and petty politics. We are not trivializing Ronald Reagan's name or his legacy when we oppose the action proposed.
There was no such suggestion when the Democrats wholeheartedly supported the naming, without a murmur of dissent, of the Ronald Reagan International Trade building in Washington, D.C. That was quite a monument, quite a monument for the President. When it is just a stone's throw from the White House, when it is in the heart of what is known as Federal Triangle, that is quite a monument. People from all nations will come there to discuss trade issues. Significant Federal Government agencies will be housed there. Remembering his legacy as workers and constituents from around the country come into that building. It is quite appropriate.
The issue is not do we honor Ronald Reagan, but do we take a good name off this airport and replace it with another albeit good name, I do not think that is appropriate.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman had an opportunity not to take the Washington name off of the Washington National Airport, but simply to add to it Ronald Reagan, and the gentleman did not like to do that.
Also, just let me say, the gentleman is quite right. The Reagan building such as it is ought to satisfy people. But we have the George Washington Parkway, we have the Washington Monument, we have the City of Washington, D.C. It would seem to me in the Washington National Airport there would be room for a few more letters acknowledging and honoring President Reagan.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would argue also that the person who had most to do with National Airport was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was present at the groundbreaking, who was the driving force behind the construction of that airport, who laid the cornerstone for this building; who proposed a big ceremony to dedicate the newly completed airport, but who, on recommendation of his Secretary of Commerce and on his own gut instincts, said, as the darkening clouds of war are gathering, it is not a time, an appropriate time to have a celebration, and chose not to.
He was the first President, Franklin Roosevelt, to fly across the Atlantic. He convened the international conference that guides aviation trade agreements today, the Chicago conference in 1944, in which we negotiate trade rights in aviation among all nations of the world. He had more to do with aviation, I submit, than President Reagan did, and more to do with this airport, but never have we suggested, in the words of my good friend, adding a name, which is really changing a name, of an airport to add Franklin D. Roosevelt.
In fact, Franklin Roosevelt wanted for himself only the smallest monument, not larger than the size of a desk, a piece of stone some place in Washington. That is all he ever asked for. He did not ask to have a political billboard greeting people in his name as they came to the Nation's capital. That is what is at stake here.
This name change was not fueled by a popular citizen movement, it springs from the Ronald Reagan Legacy Project, a movement begun by Americans for Tax Reform. It does not spring from the heart of America.
Why do we not designate a piece of ground in the Nation's capital to be a place where an appropriate memorial to the memory and legacy of Ronald Reagan will be erected? I will support that, as we have legacies for other Presidents. We waited 50 years to begin construction of the Washington Monument. We waited 130-some years to begin construction of the Jefferson Memorial. We waited well over 50 years before a memorial was built to Franklin Roosevelt's name. I am not sure that he would have liked that, frankly. As I said already, he wanted something very modest, very, very simple to be remembered by.
So this is not the appropriate way to honor the legacy of Ronald Reagan, and I urge defeat of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, Amendment No. 6.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia:
Page 3, after line 23, add the following new section:
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall take effect on the date that the Secretary of Transportation determines that a referendum proposing the redesignation made by section 1 has been approved by the voters of Arlington County, Virginia.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, may we have a copy of the amendment?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, it is at the desk, and it has been printed. It was printed last night. It is Amendment No. 6, requiring a referendum.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk is endeavoring to distribute copies of the amendment.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that a point of order was raised before the chairman knew which amendment it was, but I assure the gentleman it was printed.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my friend, I believe that is the procedure.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I assume that this is not taken off my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I guess I should wait for the Chairman to determine whether he wants to continue to raise a point of order against it, or reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) reserve a point of order?
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may wish to exercise that at the appropriate time.
Mr. SHUSTER. I make a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) may continue.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, I have 2 amendments left that were filed last night. One of them I will not submit. That amendment would have required that the Members of Congress and the Senate and the judiciary would have to pay for their own parking at Washington National Airport and the receipts would then be used to offset the costs of changing this name. I will not do that.
However, I would like for the Members to consider how my constituents feel when they see Members of Congress getting parking for which they have to pay, for which Members of Congress do not have to pay, getting it closer to the airport than they are able to park. They resent that. However, I do not think that this is the way to address that, and I am perfectly willing to let that go.
I do think that Members of this body should give those constituents who live in the area where this airport is located, in Arlington County, Virginia, the opportunity to be heard on this issue that does affect them directly, and in fact, does cost the small businesses that work at Washington National Airport a substantial amount of money.
So what this amendment would do is to simply allow for a referendum; it would hold in abeyance our decision with regard to the renaming until there is a referendum conducted in Arlington County, Virginia. It would be conducted in November so there would be no additional expense, and we would hear from the local residents. This is consistent with hearing from local people as to how they feel about Federal Government directives. That is all this would do. There would be a public referendum, as there are already a number of referendums in many states, California particularly, and certainly a procedure that the other party has embraced in any number of other cases. That would give us a real sense of how the people most directly affected by this decision feel about it.
Do not take my word for it. Take the word of the majority. I am certainly willing to accept the democratic process. Let us see what the Democratic majority feel about it. Certainly both parties are well represented in this community. Both parties would have every opportunity to make the case. After full consideration, because there was not a public hearing on this issue, after full consideration, they could then vote through the democratic process, but at least let the majority of citizens render a determination whether this is the right thing to do, whether this is the way that they choose to honor Ronald Reagan. I think this is an appropriate amendment. It is the kind of thing that we should do in any number of cases. Before we decide to impose our will from on top, let us listen to the local community. Let us see what the majority want to do, and let us take that into consideration before we make decisions that affect their daily lives.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would offer this amendment, and I would hope it would be accepted by the party in the majority. I would hope that maybe this could even set a precedent for this type of thing where it clearly is contentious, but where I am purporting to represent the majority. Perhaps I do not, and if I do not, then the majority's will is to be respected by this body. It is certainly consistent with President Reagan's philosophy of devolving power down to local government. That is where the rubber should hit the road, that is where the people are most directly affected, and that is where they should have the most influence over the conduct of our decision-making.
So I offer the amendment, and I hope it would be made in order. I hope that there will not be an objection to this common sense amendment that respects local government, respects local communities, respects the democratic process.
Point of Order
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) insist upon his point of order?
Mr. SHUSTER. I insist upon my point of order, Mr. Chairman.
I make the point that indeed, this is an airport owned by the national government, not owned by Arlington County. The amendment violates clause 7 of rule XVI of the rules of the House because it is not germane. Clause 7 of rule XVI provides that no motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be considered under color of amendment. The amendment adds an additional proposition.
It is not germane because it adds an unrelated condition. The amendment conditions the name change on a referendum by Arlington County voters. We would be imposing a new duty on Arlington County, which does not own the airport. It currently has no such responsibility.
Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay this any longer out of respect for my colleagues. I think the point has been made. The point has been made on any number of these amendments. I would just hope that we would show respect, both for Ronald Reagan's legacy to respect the wishes of local governments and local communities, whether we agree with them or not, and to respect the democratic process of governance. But I will not say any more than that. I know Members want to get on and vote and dispatch this bill. I obviously object to what it does, both to Ronald Reagan's legacy, what it does to a local community and the way that it tramples upon the democratic process. I think it is an arrogant abuse of power.
The CHAIRMAN. If no other Members seek to be heard on the point of order, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The amendment provides that the effective date of the redesignation would be delayed pending the approval of a referendum by the voters of Arlington County, Virginia.
Clause 7 of rule XVI of the rules of the House requires that an amendment be germane to the proposition to which offered. The germaneness rule allows that an amendment delaying the effectiveness of proposed legislation can be made to depend on a related contingency. The Chair notes a relevant ruling on this principle in the 93rd Congress, an amendment proposing to delay the effectiveness of a bill pending the enactment of other legislation and requiring actions by entities not involved in the administration of the program affected by the bill was held not germane. This precedent is recorded in Deschler's Precedents, volume 11, chapter 28, section 31.7. In addition, the Chair has ruled on at least 2 other occasions that an amendment delaying the effectiveness of a bill pending the enactment of State legislation is not germane. These precedents are recorded on page 628 of the rules of the House Rules and Manual.
The condition the amendment seeks to impose on the redesignation is the approval of a referendum by the voters of Arlington County, Virginia, a local entity not responsible for the administration of the airport. Requiring the approval of an entity not charged with the administration of the airport is not a related condition under existing law. As such, an amendment imposing approval by the voters of Arlington County, Virginia as a contingency on the redesignation of the airport is not germane.
Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.
Are there further amendments to the bill?
{time} 1430
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I did not engage in a discussion of the point of order that was made on the last amendment, but I do want to rise and acknowledge two points that have been made on this floor, and there are many others.
One, that a President of the United States deserves high honor. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, made that very plain in an all-so-eloquent statement; and I agree with that. The President of this Nation, whoever it might be, deserves high honor. That includes former President Ronald Reagan, and particularly the honor is appropriate at the time of the celebration of his birthday.
At the same time, I raise the other perspective; and this is a bipartisan perspective. Members who represent the community in which the entity that is sought to be named, both Democrats and Republicans, in this instance, have raised some concerns that I think we in the United States Congress need to consider. One, the involvement, if you will, of the community, so that it is one that is embraced by the community.
It seems that the presentation of this legislation, and maybe the lobbyists or the advocates that have pushed this legislation have gone somewhat far afield. In fact, they may have gone further than President Ronald Reagan may have even encouraged.
I do recognize that Republicans backing this legislation want to pay tribute to someone they honor. It is like trees wanting to celebrate sunshine. They view Ronald Reagan as their source of enlightenment. It is not my place to debate that.
However, I think the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), our Ranking Member, and other Members are making valid points. Does this Congress change the names of buildings that are already named? Does Congress name a building in a congressional district against the wishes of the Congressperson of that district? These are questions that I think are extremely important.
Do we want to engage in partisan politics and do we not say to the American people that, in fact, we have a wonderful and beautiful new testament to President Reagan in the new Federal building that is for international trade? He was one who stood tall in international politics, and this building is an appropriate vehicle by which to honor him.
Mr. Chairman, then there is a more salient issue. I believe this debate started some time early afternoon, and my clock tells me it is 2:30, and we may still be continuing.
It is my point, Mr. Chairman, that there are other issues, such as reforming managed care and getting both better health facilities and service for Americans; the Patient Bill of Rights where we can reinforce the opportunities of choice between patient and physician; the availability of accountability for managed care entities; the need for better health in this country. These are issues, I believe, that the American people would much rather see us debate than have us debate something where we really do not even know what the supporters across the country in America might even think of it that support President Reagan or anybody around him. We do not even know those facts.
Here we are raising up something that seems to be divisive that may cause, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) said, a red light on the board.
I would only offer that it is extremely important that we focus on the business of making America a better place. We need reform in health care. In managed care, in particular, we need reform. The Patient Bill of Rights is extremely important. I am someone who has suffered through that with the loss and passing of my father. I know firsthand what happens when managed care entities do not properly function and serve those who are utilizing its services.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would certainly say, in closing, that we should honor our presidents. We should honor the office. We should honor the responsibility. In this instance, however, I think we do a disservice by not reflecting upon the desires of the community. Bipartisan concerns.
Republicans and Democrats have risen to this floor for local involvement. And, yes, we do not honor the name by bringing forward legislation that does not have a clear point in honoring someone who has served this country as President Reagan has served.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that we find and respect his name by honoring him with this wonderful Federal building and saying to the American people that we thank him for his leadership and we want to do it in the right way, in a way that can be befitting of this Congress and the American people.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise because several speakers have talked about this being a very partisan issue. I do not really think it is that partisan of an issue, and what I am going to say here is what I said not too long ago at the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure markup of this legislation.
That is that certainly, from my perspective, I am opposed to the renaming of Washington National Airport for Ronald Reagan. Not because I oppose Ronald Reagan. In fact, there are a few people on this side of the aisle, if any, that supported Ronald Reagan more than I did in the 6 years that I was here while he was President of the United States. In fact, there are some people on the other side of the aisle who were here, and still are here, who probably supported Ronald Reagan less than I did.
I remember back when we were debating the situation on Nicaragua and the President had a piece of legislation in to give military aid to the Contras, and that passed this floor by one vote. Poor Tip O'Neill was the Speaker of the House at that time, and he came very close to having a heart attack when I voted on behalf of President Reagan and the military aid to the Contras. There were numerous other things that I supported the President on.
So I come to this floor today to express to everyone listening that I am not opposed to Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan is the only President that I served under that I have asked to have a picture taken of, my wife and I, Rose Marie, in the Oval Office of the White House. That is how enthusiastic I was of Ronald Reagan. I have been a fan of his since I first saw him play George Gipp in ``The Knute Rockne Story.''
But Ronald Reagan's greatest memorial is not an airport or a building here in Washington or in other States throughout the Union. His real memorial is in, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) said, in Central Europe, in Eastern Europe, through the former Soviet Union where democracy is starting to grow or in some cases democracy has already bloomed, where the free markets, where capitalism are taking hold.
Someone said earlier that, because of Ronald Reagan, more people on this planet are freer than ever before in the history of the world; and I believe that to be absolutely true. I, myself, would have no problem seeing Ronald Reagan put up on Mount Rushmore. But I do not believe that it is appropriate to rename Washington National Airport after Ronald Reagan, simply because it has a name and there are many other monuments that we can name for former President Reagan.
Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I have thought a good bit about the debate that has occurred both in the committee and in the Committee on Rules and on the floor and also in the Senate about naming the Ronald Reagan National Airport. I have partly reflected, as a former member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, on how often over the past years when I have been here Republicans, in a good spirit, voted yes to name buildings, to name airports. Because we felt that if there was somebody who was a national leader who had worked hard, even if they had been a partisan figure, that there comes a moment when we band together as Americans and we express it.
I just flew back from a meeting and landed at Kennedy Airport in New York. I did not think anything of it. I happen to serve on the board of the Kennedy Center, and it is totally appropriate.
Yet there has been more noise, more heat. I do not think a single Republican who has served in the House, who is currently serving, can remember the level of opposition, the level of explanation. People who are for it, but. They like President Reagan, but. They think there ought to be something named for him, but.
Yet I have to confess, as I was reading Dinesh D'Souza's brilliant new book on Ronald Reagan which he called ``How An Ordinary Man Became An Extraordinary Leader,'' that it is a real tribute to President Reagan that even today that there is so much passion about who he is. That, in fact, he was such a decisive agent of change that some Members on the other side still cannot quite accept that he might have something important named for him.
He arrived at a time when we had malaise. We were told there were limits to growth. We were told we had to accept high inflation, high unemployment. It was the American's people's fault that the system was failing. We had price controls on gasoline. People waiting in line routinely to buy gasoline. The Soviet empire was occupying Afghanistan. Taxes were high, take-home pay was low, and the American people felt miserable.
The man who was elected with the highest negatives of any person ever elected president walked into the Oval Office and in his very first act eliminated price controls for gasoline and ended all government bureaucratic controls of gasoline, and within 6 months the price had collapsed because the free market had worked and the gasoline shortage was over.
He announced proudly that we stood for freedom. He described the Soviet Empire as an Evil Empire to the great shock of political elites, and we were told later by Gorbachev it was quite helpful because they always thought it was evil, but it was useful to have somebody verify it.
He said the Berlin Wall should come down, and people thought he was fantasizing. He built up the American military on the grounds that, in the end, the Soviet Empire would account not compete with us. And within 8 years, the Berlin Wall had fallen, the Soviet Empire could not compete with us and, in fact, it is today gone.
It is politically incorrect to say we had won the Cold War, but let us me say unequivocally, Ronald Wilson Reagan led the United States to the cause of freedom and we won the Cold War and there is today no Soviet Empire. And, for that alone, he deserves a historic role.
But he did more. He said lower marginal tax rates, encourage entrepreneurs, create economic growth. We are today in a continuation of the entrepreneurial boom that began with Ronald Reagan and which, with the exception of one brief recession brought about by a tax increase, in fact has been continuous since late 1982.
He said we should be proud about being Americans. He was the proudest of Americans; and, under him, we revived American culture. People came back once again to have the sense not that there were limits to growth, not that there was malaise, not that poverty was inevitable, but instead that our only limits were those of the spirit and the mind, that every American had the right to pursue happiness. And, as President Reagan said so often, ``You ain't seen nothing yet.'' That is the spirit he rekindled.
So a man who in one brief appearance on the world stage defeated the Soviet Empire, reestablished American strength, rekindled the American spirit, revalidated American culture, and launched a 20-year economic boom of entrepreneurial invention I think deserves to be remembered.
Let me say there has been some confusion. Nancy Reagan did not ask for this. She sought, and the President sought, no personal aggrandizement. On the other hand, I think she would be very gratified if the Congress on its own decided this was an appropriate thing. The family has not been out seeking anything. But, on the other hand, they know that their father did great things and they would be, I think, humbly grateful if we were willing to recognize him for that.
{time} 1445
Finally, more than any President in my lifetime, President Reagan came close to taming Washington, D.C. It will somehow be very fitting that as people come from overseas to the capital of freedom they will be landing at the Ronald Reagan airport. It will be even more fitting as taxpayers fly in from all over America to demand that we reform the IRS, to demand that we keep a balanced budget, to demand that we lower taxes, to demand that we get government out of their lives that they land at the Ronald Reagan airport.
This is a good proposal. It is a sound proposal. It is one which reflects President Reagan's commitment to history. I hope every Member will put aside partisanship and every Member will put aside pettiness and decide to honor a very great man on this week of his birthday.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Davis of Virginia
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 206, noes 215, not voting 10, as follows:
AYES--206
AckermanAllenAndrewsBaeslerBaldacciBarrett (NE)Barrett (WI)BentsenBermanBerryBishopBlagojevichBlumenauerBoniorBorskiBoswellBoucherBoydBrown (CA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)CardinCarsonClayClaytonClementClyburnCollinsConditConyersCostelloCoyneCramerCummingsDannerDavis (FL)Davis (IL)Davis (VA)DeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDellumsDeutschDicksDingellDixonDoggettDooleyDoyleEdwardsEngelEtheridgeEvansFarrFazioFilnerForbesFordFrank (MA)FrostFurseGejdensonGephardtGilchrestGoodeGordonGreenGutierrezHall (OH)Hall (TX)HamiltonHarmanHastings (FL)HefnerHilliardHincheyHinojosaHoldenHooleyHoyerJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee (TX)JeffersonJohnJohnson (WI)Johnson, E. B.KanjorskiKapturKennedy (MA)Kennedy (RI)KennellyKildeeKilpatrickKind (WI)KleczkaKlinkKucinichLaFalceLampsonLantosLevinLewis (GA)LipinskiLofgrenLoweyLutherMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)MantonMarkeyMartinezMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McDermottMcGovernMcHaleMcIntyreMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeekMenendezMillender-McDonaldMiller (CA)MingeMinkMoakleyMollohanMoran (VA)MorellaMurthaNadlerNealNussleOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOwensPallonePascrellPastorPaulPaynePelosiPeterson (MN)PickettPomeroyPoshardPrice (NC)RahallRangelReyesRiversRodriguezRoemerRothmanRoybal-AllardRushSaboSanchezSandersSandlinSanfordSawyerSchumerScottSerranoShermanSisiskySkaggsSkeltonSlaughterSmith, AdamSnyderSprattStabenowStarkStenholmStokesStricklandStupakTannerTauscherTaylor (MS)ThompsonThurmanTierneyTownsTurnerVelazquezVentoViscloskyWatersWatt (NC)WaxmanWexlerWeygandWiseWolfWoolseyWynnYates
NOES--215
AderholtArcherArmeyBachusBakerBallengerBarrBartlettBartonBassBatemanBereuterBilbrayBilirakisBlileyBluntBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBradyBryantBunningBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCampbellCanadyCannonCastleChabotChamblissChenowethChristensenCobleCoburnCombestCookCookseyCoxCraneCrapoCubinCunninghamDealDeLayDiaz-BalartDickeyDoolittleDreierDuncanDunnEhlersEhrlichEmersonEnglishEnsignEverettEwingFawellFoleyFossellaFowlerFoxFranks (NJ)FrelinghuysenGalleglyGanskeGekasGibbonsGillmorGilmanGingrichGoodlatteGoodlingGossGrahamGrangerGreenwoodGutknechtHansenHastertHastings (WA)HayworthHefleyHillHillearyHobsonHoekstraHornHostettlerHoughtonHulshofHunterHutchinsonHydeInglisIstookJenkinsJohnson (CT)Johnson, SamJonesKasich KellyKimKing (NY)KingstonKlugKnollenbergKolbeLaHoodLargentLathamLaTouretteLazioLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LinderLivingstonLoBiondoLucasManzulloMcCollumMcCreryMcDadeMcHughMcInnisMcIntoshMcKeonMetcalfMicaMiller (FL)Moran (KS)MyrickNethercuttNeumannNeyNorthupNorwoodOxleyPackardPappasParkerPaxonPeasePeterson (PA)PetriPickeringPittsPomboPorterPortmanPryce (OH)QuinnRadanovichRamstadRedmondRegulaRiggsRileyRoganRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRoukemaRoyceRyunSalmonSaxtonScarboroughSchaefer, DanSchaffer, BobSensenbrennerSessionsShadeggShawShaysShimkusShusterSkeenSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (OR)Smith (TX)Smith, LindaSnowbargerSolomonSouderSpenceStearnsStumpSununuTalentTauzinTaylor (NC)ThomasThornberryThuneTiahrtTraficantUptonWalshWampWatkinsWatts (OK)Weldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWhiteWhitfieldWickerYoung (AK)Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
AbercrombieBarciaBecerraEshooFattahGonzalezHergerLeachSchiffTorres
{time} 1508
Messrs. Quinn, Radanovich and Talent changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Baesler, Ms. Pelosi, and Messrs. McDermott, Rahall, Weygand and Hall of Texas changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Hansen) having assumed the chair, Mr. Combest, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2625) to redesignate Washington National Airport as ``Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport,'' pursuant to House Resolution 344, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Oberstar
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Minnesota opposed to the bill?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I am opposed to the bill, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Oberstar moves to recommit the bill to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:
SECTION 1. FINDING.
Congress finds that Ronald Wilson Reagan was the forty-second President of the United States and is deserving of have a structure that will be seen by many visitors to the Nation's capital named in his honor.
SEC. 2. NAMING OF TERMINAL BUILDING AT WASHINGTON NATIONAL
AIRPORT.
The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority is urged to use its existing authority to name the terminal building that opened in 1997 at Washington National Airport as the ``Ronald Wilson Reagan Terminal Building'' and that signs and other appropriate designations should be erected to reflect the name of the terminal building.
Amend the title so as to read as follows: ``A bill to urge the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority to name the terminal building that opened in 1997 at Washington National Airport as the `Ronald Wilson Reagan Terminal Building', and for other purposes.''.
{time} 1515
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I offer my colleagues an opportunity to designate an appropriate memorial to President Ronald Reagan without a single dissenting vote.
As was indicated by the previous vote, there is not complete bipartisan support. There are many on the other side of the aisle who voted crossing their fingers with a little check in their throat. This is not the right way to go about designating an appropriate memorial to the memory of Ronald Reagan.
The motion to recommit that I have offered has precedent. The precedent for the motion I offer is that offered by no less than the Senate Minority Leader in 1990, almost 8 years to the week, Senator Dole, who offered a joint resolution to urge the Washington Metropolitan Airports Authority to use its existing authority to change the name of Washington-Dulles International Airport to Eisenhower International Airport.
Note, Senator Dole rose to urge the Washington Metropolitan Airports Authority to use its authority to change the name of Washington-Dulles to Eisenhower International. He was in the Senate when the legislation was introduced and enacted to create the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority to rebuild both Dulles and Washington National.
His great wife was the Secretary of Transportation at the time. Senator Dole understood fully the importance of the transfer of authority from the Federal Government to the Airports Authority created by that legislation. He did not presume to rush in and rename National Airport on the sole fiat and power of the United States Congress but rather, as I propose here modestly, to urge the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority to use its authority to change the name of this airport.
I propose to name the terminal, which does not now bear a name. I am opposed to renaming, I am opposed to taking a good name, anyone's good name, off a building and renaming it. But I do not oppose naming that which does not now bear a name or a title. There is no name. There is no title for the new terminal. That is the greatest contribution of the legislation submitted to the Congress by President Reagan, building of the new terminal and reconstructing Dulles Airport.
I think it is entirely appropriate that we should name the terminal for Ronald Reagan. It does not now bear a name. We will not be doing a disservice to anyone. We will not be creating a precedent for this Congress to come in and name any other airport in the country simply because we have given that airport Federal grant funds from the airport improvement program and thereby arrogate to ourselves the power to rename any airport in America. That is not right.
Naming the terminal would be appropriate. I think that would be a fitting memorial; and if there are other memorials that my colleagues on the Republican side propose to offer and to construct in the name of President Reagan, I will support those. But do not take a good name. My colleagues would not want their good name taken off any structure, any building, or off their own door. Do not take Washington National's good name off that airport.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for the arguments that have been made today; and I would say, if it matters to any of my colleagues, that I am the Member who represents the area where Washington National Airport is located.
Mr. Speaker, if we were to agree to this recommittal, I daresay it would probably be unanimous. What a fitting tribute for President Reagan to have a unanimous vote of this body. It would be fully accepted by all the people and the businesses that are located in Northern Virginia. This is a beautiful terminal, millions of dollars. It is state-of-the-art. It has no name now, so there is no need to strip George Washington's name from it.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, because there is only a second left, this is not a killer amendment. We will support and advocate the Airports Authority to name the terminal.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). Is the gentleman from Pennsylvania opposed to the motion to recommit?
Mr. SHUSTER. I am, Mr. Speaker; and I yield to my good friend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished Majority Whip.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) is recognized for 5 minutes, and he yields to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is one of the saddest motions I have ever seen. This is, to me, a personal insult to Ronald Reagan. I can understand voting against the bill if my colleagues do not want the airport named after Ronald Reagan. But to say that it is okay to name a terminal after Ronald Reagan is an insult to the name of one of the greatest presidents that has ever served this country, and I hope the Members will understand it that way.
If they want to vote against the bill, vote against it. Or if they want to name this terminal after a congressman, go right ahead.
In Houston, Texas, we named a terminal after Mickey Leland; and he deserved the naming of that terminal. But we named the entire airport after George Bush. And to name it after a terminal is just an insult. I hope our Members will vote no against this motion to recommit.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, this does kill the naming of the airport for Ronald Reagan. President Reagan deserves more than simply to have a terminal bearing his name. Other important people, including presidents of the United States, have airports named after them. The Kennedy Airport is named after President John F. Kennedy, not simply a terminal at the airport.
Mr. Speaker, the airport in Houston, the airport, is named after President Bush, not simply a terminal. Washington-Dulles International Airport, the airport, is named after a former Secretary of State, not simply a terminal. The John Wayne Airport is named after an actor, not simply a terminal. In all of these cases, the entire airport is named for the individual, named after an important person.
President Reagan's legacy is worthy of similar treatment, indeed even greater treatment. I strongly oppose this motion to recommit and urge its rejection.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of passage of the bill.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 186, nays 237, not voting 8, as follows:
YEAS--186
AckermanAllenAndrewsBaldacciBarciaBarrett (WI)BentsenBermanBerryBishopBlagojevichBlumenauerBoniorBorskiBoswellBoucherBoydBrown (CA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)CardinCarsonClayClaytonClementClyburnConditConyersCostelloCoyneCramerCummingsDannerDavis (FL)Davis (IL)DeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDellumsDeutschDicksDingellDixonDoggettDooleyDoyleEdwardsEngelEtheridgeFarrFattahFazioFordFrank (MA)FrostFurseGephardtGoodeGordonGreenGutierrezHall (OH)HamiltonHarmanHastings (FL)HefnerHilliardHincheyHinojosaHoldenHooleyJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee (TX)JeffersonJohnJohnson (WI)Johnson, E. B.KanjorskiKapturKennedy (MA)Kennedy (RI)KennellyKildeeKilpatrickKind (WI)KleczkaKlinkKucinichLaFalceLampsonLantosLevinLewis (GA)LipinskiLoweyLutherMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)MantonMarkeyMartinezMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McCarthy (NY)McDermottMcGovernMcIntyreMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeekMenendezMillender-McDonaldMiller (CA)MingeMinkMoakleyMollohanMoran (VA)MurthaNadlerNealOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOwensPallonePascrellPastorPaynePelosiPeterson (MN)PickettPomeroyPoshardPrice (NC)RahallRangelReyesRiversRodriguezRoemerRothmanRoybal-AllardRushSaboSanchezSandersSandlinSawyerSchumerScottSerranoShermanSisiskySkaggsSkeltonSlaughterSmith, AdamSnyderSprattStenholmStokesStricklandStupakTannerTauscherThompsonTierneyTorresTownsVelazquezVentoViscloskyWatersWatt (NC)WaxmanWexlerWeygandWiseWoolseyWynnYates
NAYS--237
AbercrombieAderholtArcherArmeyBachusBaeslerBakerBallengerBarrBarrett (NE)BartlettBartonBassBatemanBereuterBilbrayBilirakisBlileyBluntBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBradyBryantBunningBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCampbellCanadyCannonCastleChabotChamblissChenowethChristensenCobleCoburnCollinsCombestCookCookseyCoxCraneCrapoCubinCunninghamDavis (VA)DealDeLayDiaz-BalartDickeyDoolittleDreierDuncanDunnEhrlichEmersonEnglishEnsignEvansEverettEwingFawellFilnerFoleyForbesFossellaFowlerFoxFranks (NJ)FrelinghuysenGalleglyGanskeGejdensonGekasGibbonsGilchrestGillmorGilmanGingrichGoodlatteGoodlingGossGrahamGrangerGreenwoodGutknechtHall (TX)HansenHastertHastings (WA)HayworthHefleyHillHillearyHobsonHoekstraHornHostettlerHoughtonHulshofHunterHutchinsonHydeInglisIstookJenkinsJohnson (CT)Johnson, SamJonesKasichKellyKimKing (NY)KingstonKlugKnollenbergKolbeLaHoodLargentLathamLaTouretteLazioLeachLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LinderLivingstonLoBiondoLofgrenLucasManzulloMcCollumMcCreryMcDadeMcHaleMcHughMcInnisMcIntoshMcKeonMetcalfMicaMiller (FL)Moran (KS)MorellaMyrickNethercuttNeumannNorthupNorwoodNussleOxleyPackardPappasParkerPaulPaxonPeasePeterson (PA)PetriPickeringPittsPomboPorterPortmanPryce (OH)QuinnRadanovichRamstadRedmondRegulaRiggsRileyRoganRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRoukemaRoyceRyunSalmonSanfordSaxtonScarboroughSchaefer, DanSchaffer, BobSensenbrennerSessionsShadeggShawShaysShimkusShusterSkeenSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (OR)Smith (TX)Smith, LindaSnowbargerSolomonSouderSpenceStabenowStarkStearnsStumpSununuTalentTauzinTaylor (MS)Taylor (NC)ThomasThornberryThuneThurmanTiahrtTraficantTurnerUptonWalshWampWatkinsWatts (OK)Weldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWhiteWhitfieldWickerWolfYoung (AK)Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--8
BecerraEhlersEshooGonzalezHergerHoyerNeySchiff
{time} 1543
Mr. STARK and Mr. HORN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. BARCIA changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5 minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240, nays 186, not voting 5, as follows:
YEAS--240
AderholtArcherArmeyBachusBaeslerBakerBallengerBarrBarrett (NE)BartlettBartonBassBatemanBereuterBilbrayBilirakisBlagojevichBlileyBluntBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBradyBryantBunningBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCampbellCanadyCannonCastleChabotChamblissChenowethChristensenCobleCoburnCollinsCombestCookCookseyCoxCraneCrapoCubinCunninghamDavis (VA)DealDeLayDiaz-BalartDickeyDoolittleDoyleDreierDuncanDunnEhlersEhrlichEmersonEnglishEnsignEvansEverettEwingFawellFoleyForbesFossellaFowlerFoxFranks (NJ)FrelinghuysenGalleglyGanskeGekasGibbonsGilchrestGillmorGilmanGingrichGoodlatteGoodlingGossGrahamGrangerGreenwoodGutknechtHall (TX)HansenHarmanHastertHastings (WA)HayworthHefleyHillHillearyHobsonHoekstraHoldenHornHostettlerHoughtonHulshofHunterHutchinsonHydeInglisIstookJenkinsJohnson (CT)Johnson, SamJonesKasichKellyKennedy (MA)Kennedy (RI)KennellyKimKing (NY)KingstonKlugKnollenbergKolbeKucinichLaHoodLargentLathamLaTouretteLazioLeachLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LinderLivingstonLoBiondoLucasManzulloMartinezMcCarthy (NY)McCollumMcCreryMcDadeMcHughMcInnisMcIntoshMcKeonMeehanMetcalfMicaMiller (FL)Moran (KS)MyrickNethercuttNeumannNeyNorthupNorwoodNussleOxleyPackardPappasParkerPaxonPeasePeterson (PA)PetriPickeringPittsPomboPorterPortmanPryce (OH)QuinnRadanovichRamstadRedmondRegulaRiggsRileyRoganRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRoukemaRoyceRyunSalmonSaxtonScarboroughSchaefer, DanSchaffer, BobSensenbrennerSessionsShadeggShawShaysShimkusShusterSkeenSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (OR)Smith (TX)Smith, LindaSnowbargerSolomonSouderSpenceStearnsStumpSununuTalentTauzinTaylor (MS)Taylor (NC)ThomasThornberryThuneTiahrtTraficantTurnerUptonVentoWalshWampWatkinsWatts (OK)Weldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWhiteWhitfieldWickerWolfYoung (AK)Young (FL)
NAYS--186
AbercrombieAckermanAllenAndrewsBaldacciBarciaBarrett (WI)BentsenBermanBerryBishopBlumenauerBoniorBorskiBoswellBoucherBoydBrown (CA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)CardinCarsonClayClaytonClementClyburnConditConyersCostelloCoyneCramerCummingsDannerDavis (FL)Davis (IL)DeFazioDeGetteDelahuntDeLauroDellumsDeutschDicksDingellDixonDoggettDooleyEdwardsEngelEtheridgeFarrFattahFazioFilnerFordFrank (MA)FrostFurseGejdensonGephardtGoodeGordonGreenGutierrezHall (OH)HamiltonHastings (FL)HefnerHilliardHincheyHinojosaHooleyHoyerJackson (IL)Jackson-Lee (TX)JeffersonJohnJohnson (WI)Johnson, E. B.KanjorskiKapturKildeeKilpatrickKind (WI)KleczkaKlinkLaFalceLampsonLantosLevinLewis (GA)LipinskiLofgrenLoweyLutherMaloney (CT)Maloney (NY)MantonMarkeyMascaraMatsuiMcCarthy (MO)McDermottMcGovernMcHaleMcIntyreMcKinneyMcNultyMeekMenendezMillender-McDonaldMiller (CA)MingeMinkMoakleyMollohanMoran (VA)MorellaMurthaNadlerNealOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOwensPallonePascrellPastorPaulPaynePelosiPeterson (MN)PickettPomeroyPoshardPrice (NC)RahallRangelReyesRiversRodriguezRoemerRothmanRoybal-AllardRushSaboSanchezSandersSandlinSanfordSawyerSchumerScottSerranoShermanSisiskySkaggsSkeltonSlaughterSmith, AdamSnyderSprattStabenowStarkStenholmStokesStricklandStupakTannerTauscherThompsonThurmanTierneyTorresTownsVelazquezViscloskyWatersWatt (NC)WaxmanWexlerWeygandWiseWoolseyWynnYates
NOT VOTING--5
BecerraEshooGonzalezHergerSchiff
{time} 1554
Mr. DEUTSCH changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to rename the Washington National Airport located in the District of Columbia and Virginia as the `Ronald Reagan National Airport'.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
