Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to recognize ten outstanding women in business who have been honored by the Des Moines Business Record as ``Women of Influence.'' Each in their own way, these women have left a positive mark in the Iowa business world and Iowa as a whole. More than 100 women were nominated for this honor and the selections were made based on lifetime achievements in the workplace and in the community. I wanted to take a few minutes to recognize a group of women who have recently been honored for their years of leadership in the Greater Des Moines area. They are: Mary Bontrager, executive vice president of the Greater Des Moines Partnership; Joyce Chapman, senior vice president of West Des Moines Bank; Angela Connolly, Polk County Supervisor; Christine Hensley, Des Moines City Councilwoman; Elizabeth Jacobs, state legislator and, assistant director of corporate relations to the Principle Financial Group; Jerilee M. Mace, executive director of the Des Moines Opera; Dr. Sheila McGuire Riggs, executive director of the Wellmark Foundation; Dr. Rizwan Z. Shah, medical director of the Child Abuse Program at Blank Children's Hospital; Margaret Swanson, 50-year volunteer and philanthropist; Margaret Toomey, activist for youths living in poverty, community college teacher and former executive director of the Oakridge Neighborhood, a private non-profit subsidized housing community. I congratulate each of them on this notable achievement. In addition to their specific accomplishments, each of these women serve as an inspiration to young women in Iowa who hope to achieve great heights in business and in the community. I applaud Connie Wimer and the Des Moines Business Record for recognizing their outstanding contributions. These women are an integral part of the strength of Iowa's community.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I am proud to be joined by Senators Lugar, Kerry, Crapo, McConnell, Helms, Dayton, Leahy, Hutchinson, Miller, Lincoln, Baucus, Roberts, Conrad, and Nelson today as we introduce legislation in support of those men and women who voluntarily leave their communities, leave their jobs, and leave their families to serve our country. In the past few weeks, thousands of men and women have been called to duty as reservists and members of the National Guard. Many of these people have volunteered to leave their farms to respond to the call. Some of these people borrow money from the USDA to sustain their farms. Because these reservists and members of the National Guard have been called up, they may find it difficult to continue to meet the terms of these loans. The bill offered today would alleviate some of the financial stress caused by the activation. The bill directs the USDA to use its lending authority to minimize the financial impact of a reservist being activated. The Secretary of Agriculture is directed to take actions to help keep the farm of an activated reservist in operation, including deferring scheduled payments, reducing interest rates, reamortizing or consolidating loans, or taking other restructuring actions. The bill also provides the USDA new authority to provide emergency loan assistance to farms financially injured because of the activation of a reservist. I thank Senator Kerry for this idea. He introduced legislation in 1999, of which I was a cosponsor, that provided similar relief to borrowers from the Small Business Administration who are called up. Just as small businesses can be greatly affected by the absence of one person, farms many times rely entirely on the labor and ingenuity of just one or two key people. At this time, when these men and women are sacrificing so much, the least we can do is alleviate the financial strain at home caused by their willingness to serve. By enacting this modest measure, we can help lift worries about the farm at home from the minds of the individuals and families directly affected by activation. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I am proud to be joined by Senators Lugar, Kerry, Crapo, McConnell, Helms, Dayton, Leahy, Hutchinson, Miller, Lincoln, Baucus, Roberts, Conrad, and Nelson today as we introduce legislation in support of those men and women who voluntarily leave their communities, leave their jobs, and leave their families to serve our country. In the past few weeks, thousands of men and women have been called to duty as reservists and members of the National Guard. Many of these people have volunteered to leave their farms to respond to the call. Some of these people borrow money from the USDA to sustain their farms. Because these reservists and members of the National Guard have been called up, they may find it difficult to continue to meet the terms of these loans. The bill offered today would alleviate some of the financial stress caused by the activation. The bill directs the USDA to use its lending authority to minimize the financial impact of a reservist being activated. The Secretary of Agriculture is directed to take actions to help keep the farm of an activated reservist in operation, including deferring scheduled payments, reducing interest rates, reamortizing or consolidating loans, or taking other restructuring actions. The bill also provides the USDA new authority to provide emergency loan assistance to farms financially injured because of the activation of a reservist. I thank Senator Kerry for this idea. He introduced legislation in 1999, of which I was a cosponsor, that provided similar relief to borrowers from the Small Business Administration who are called up. Just as small businesses can be greatly affected by the absence of one person, farms many times rely entirely on the labor and ingenuity of just one or two key people. At this time, when these men and women are sacrificing so much, the least we can do is alleviate the financial strain at home caused by their willingness to serve. By enacting this modest measure, we can help lift worries about the farm at home from the minds of the individuals and families directly affected by activation. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I rise today to say thank you and farewell to a trusted friend and a dedicated public servant, Tom Morford. For the past 5 years, Tom has served as the deputy administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration, helping to bring health care to millions of underserved Americans. Without much fanfare or public recognition, he has quietly and dutifully served the American people in this post and in many others over the past three decades. I do not know if Tom had planned for such a long career in public service when he came to Washington in 1971. Since he first began as a management intern at the then Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Tom has held numerous positions, authored 12 papers, and received more awards than time will allow me to recite. For the past five years as deputy administrator at HRSA, Tom spent his days making hundreds of phone calls, reviewing budgets, and signing contracts. It isn't the kind of work that will make you famous, but it does make a tremendous difference. Tom was responsible for some of America's most vital public health programs; the construction of health care facilities, the operation of health clinics in underserved areas, and the training of healthcare professionals. His leadership helped strengthen the nation's community health centers, bringing primary health care services to nearly 12 million people this past year alone. Tom also helped pioneer the comprehensive telehealth network which provides first-class health care to the hardest to reach communities. Yet Tom's accomplishments go much further than the systems he oversaw or the facilities he helped build. Tom's greatest skill has always been his desire to put aside egos and politics so he could concentrate on serving the American people. From the secretaries and grants officers at HRSA to Members of Congress, Tom listens, builds relationships and trust, then gets the job done. By his example alone, Tom reminds us why we entered public service--to make a difference. Now, thirty years later, Tom has decided to move on. He leaves behind a tremendous legacy and our nation's health care system is better for his efforts. While he will be sorely missed, we thank him for what he has already anonymously done for millions of people. It is said that ``a hand never opens in vain.'' Tom Morford has spent the last 30 years opening his hands to a succession of presidents and secretaries, to legislators, and to health care providers and advocates. Most importantly, Tom Morford opened his hands to the millions of forgotten who are often left in the shadows of our society. On behalf of my colleagues in the Congress and the millions of Americans who don't know Tom, but who benefit from his work, I say a simply thank you. Thank you, Tom, for opening your hands to lift those most in need. You will be missed.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I stand today with my colleagues from New York and Virginia to honor those public safety officials, our police, firefighters, and emergency services personnel, who were lost, or seriously wounded in the attacks of September 11 and to public safety officers who participated in the subsequent search, rescue, and recovery efforts. In a tragedy so horrific, when so many were lost so unexpectedly, there is little we can do to console a grieving family. A thank you won't console a child whose father won't be there to say good night. It's little solace to the men and women of a firehouse who even now are waiting to welcome their brothers and sisters home. But by showing our gratitude for their sacrifice, by saying a simple thank you, we can help heal the hearts of the men, women, and children who were left behind, or who struggled to save their friends and neighbors. Today, my colleagues and I hope to be part of this process of healing by introducing a resolution recommending that the President award the Congressional Medal of Valor for Public Safety Officers to those public safety officials killed or seriously wounded in the September 11 attacks and to deserving public safety officers who participated in the subsequent search, rescue and recovery efforts. These medals will serve as a thank you to those still with us. But I think they can do much more for the families who lost loved ones. I've seen how medals awarded in combat can help tell a story to a child about a lost loved one. They can show a child and an entire family that their loved one did not die in vain. These medals can say that these men and women gave their lives in service to their neighbors and to their nation, and that nation is a grateful one. History will mark September 11, 2001 as one of the darkest days in our Nation's history. In less than two hours, more Americans were killed than those who died during the Revolutionary War or the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Words cannot begin to capture our grief, our loss, or our resolve to strike back against global terrorism. But in that darkest of hours, the bravery and selflessness of our public safety officials shined a light of hope for us all to follow. You see it reflected back in towns large and small across America. You see it in flag-lined streets, lines of blood donors, and in the millions contributed to help care for the victims families. The example set by our police, firefighters and emergency services personal steeled the resolve of every American. I would be remiss if I did not thank my colleague and the senior Senator from Alaska Senator Stevens. Earlier this year the Congress passed, the president signed, the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Act, which was authorized by my friend from Alaska. That earlier recognition of the need to honor the heroism of public service officers makes today's resolution possible, and I thank my colleague from Alaska. I should also note that Senator Stevens has also introduced a resolution similar to the one we offer today. My resolution goes somewhat further by calling on the President to award the Congressional Medal of Valor to those killed and those seriously injured in the attacks and to deserving public safety officers who participated in the subsequent search, rescue, and recovery efforts. The men and women this resolution would honor are the first victims of America's first war of the 21st century. My solemn prayer is that they will be the final casualties of a final war. But then I remember the destruction of the past century, how we spoke of a War to End All Wars, only to see the century unfold with more destruction. As we move closer to some form of military action, I hope for a day when we can stop throwing more young lives into the breech and instead repair the breech itself. But today, to these new fellow veterans, we say thank you. A grateful Nation has drawn its strength from the courageous firefighters, police officers, and emergency services personnel who have sacrificed so much without hesitation. It is my privilege to have this chance to say thank you in this small way. I want to thank my colleagues from New York and Virginia. I hope we can move this resolution forward with the help of all of my colleagues.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I had a longer speech I wanted to give with charts and graphs and items such as that, but I want to take the time this evening to just register my deepest concern about the reopening of National Airport. This goes back a long way with me. I remember when however many billions of dollars was put into modernizing National Airport, and I have been saying for many years that it is just an accident waiting to happen. Quite frankly, we were very lucky when the Air Florida flight crashed into the bridge, in that it didn't get any higher and crash into downtown Georgetown or the Lincoln Memorial or the Jefferson Memorial. I remember that day as though it were yesterday, when that Air Florida flight took off and crashed into the 14th Street Bridge. I thought at that time--maybe if it had a little bit less ice on the wings, a little bit more power, and a few things were different--about where that plane might have come down. Whatever the reason for having National Airport located where it was in the past, I think those reasons have been shunted aside and overcome, right now at least, by what happened on September 11. Notwithstanding the act of the terrorists, I still believe National Airport is still an accident waiting to happen. The approaches--I don't care what anybody says--are intricate and hard to fly in the best of conditions. You have an airport where, as one of our briefings told us--I think one of the people who briefed us about National Airport said that if you are in a landing configuration, the time from the airport to the Capitol is less than 30 seconds; from there to the White House is less than 20 seconds, and to the Pentagon it is less than 15 seconds. There is no way you can put a perimeter or fence around Washington, DC, if you have an airport such as National right downtown. You can't do it. So, therefore, I have thought for a long time that National Airport ought to be moved someplace further out in Virginia. It is true that we need an airport, but it ought to be either down 95 or out west someplace, outside the city, so you can put a 20-mile or so perimeter around this city into which no aircraft is allowed. And then you might have a good perimeter defense of Washington, DC. But I have the sneaking suspicion that National Airport is being opened because it is convenient--convenient to the higher-ups in Government. It is convenient to us. It is convenient to me; personally, it is convenient. I love National Airport. It is 10, 15 minutes from my house. Otherwise, I have to drive to BWI or Dulles. But I have to put aside my convenience for what I think is the greater interest of this country. There has been a lot of talk about how much money we put into National in upgrading it. It is a beautiful facility. But what would it cost to replace this Capitol? You could never do it. Or the White House or the Lincoln Memorial or the Jefferson Memorial or everything else that is so precious and almost sacred to our Nation? So I disagree that somehow, if we kept it closed, it means the terrorists have won. I disagree. I think National ought to be opened somewhere else. There is plenty of open territory outside of Washington, DC, to the south and to the west. There are a lot of big areas out in Virginia. It would still be an economic income to the State of Virginia and the upper Virginia area. It is needed, but it is not needed where it is. So I wanted to register my concern about the reopening of National Airport, and, quite frankly, I don't think it should have been there in the first place. If you could turn the clock back, it should have been put somewhere else. Certainly, the amount of money that was put into upgrading it in the last few years, while it is a magnificent facility, I think was unwise. I said so at the time and I say it again today. There are a lot of things that could be done with that facility there. Look at what they did with Inner Harbor at Baltimore. Just think what that would do for tourism with tourist attractions beside an airport. I see it from two standpoints: First, the defense of Washington, DC, and having an adequate perimeter of defense; and, second, because of the type of approaches in and out of National, there is an inherent danger. I wanted to register my concerns. I hope we will take another look at this issue and rebuild National Airport some other place farther outside the city. Madam President, my time has expired. I yield the floor.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the previous order entered, I be allowed to speak for up to 5 minutes, and then have the Senate adjourn at that point.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Animal Health Protection Act, AHPA, of 2001. I am proud that my good friend from Indiana, Senator Lugar, stands with me today, as well as Senators Hatch, Dayton, Akaka, Johnson, Allard, Crapo, Craig, Lincoln, and Helms. This legislation modernizes and consolidates important animal health statutes. We support the AHPA as a means towards improved domestic livestock protection. As many of my colleagues are aware, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, is currently more prepared to protect our Nation's plants from foreign pests and diseases than to protect our domestic livestock from the same threats. Last year, the Plant Protection Act, a bill that greatly improved plant protection regulations, was signed into law. We need similar action to protect animal agriculture. The AHPA will expand USDA's legal authority to protect animals to that currently afforded for plant agriculture. The AHPA updates and consolidates animal quarantine and related laws, some of which date back to the late 1800's and replaces them with one flexible statutory framework. USDA will be better prepared to take more effective, expeditious action to protect animal health. This legislation also gives USDA authority to specifically address modern threats to all aspects of animal health. One such threat is foot-and-mouth disease. As our friends in Great Britain can attest, an outbreak of this destructive disease can cost a Nation billions of dollars and millions of livestock. In the U.K. alone, over one million animals had to be destroyed as a result of FMD. If we do not update our laws, I worry that our Nation will be vulnerable to the introduction and spread of foreign animal diseases like FMD or ``mad cow disease'', BSE. The recent discovery of BSE in Japan shows that the threats are still current. The price of prevention is vigilance. Finally, this legislation has become even more important since the tragic events of September 11. Concerns about biosecurity and possible biological or chemical attacks directed at our Nations food supply must be taken very seriously. This legislation is crucial to fully protect domestic livestock and the U.S. food supply from these threats. I hope that the Senate will be able to move quickly on this legislation, and I thank Senator Lugar and others for working with me to get it introduced. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce the Animal Health Protection Act, AHPA, of 2001. I am proud that my good friend from Indiana, Senator Lugar, stands with me today, as well as Senators Hatch, Dayton, Akaka, Johnson, Allard, Crapo, Craig, Lincoln, and Helms. This legislation modernizes and consolidates important animal health statutes. We support the AHPA as a means towards improved domestic livestock protection. As many of my colleagues are aware, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, is currently more prepared to protect our Nation's plants from foreign pests and diseases than to protect our domestic livestock from the same threats. Last year, the Plant Protection Act, a bill that greatly improved plant protection regulations, was signed into law. We need similar action to protect animal agriculture. The AHPA will expand USDA's legal authority to protect animals to that currently afforded for plant agriculture. The AHPA updates and consolidates animal quarantine and related laws, some of which date back to the late 1800's and replaces them with one flexible statutory framework. USDA will be better prepared to take more effective, expeditious action to protect animal health. This legislation also gives USDA authority to specifically address modern threats to all aspects of animal health. One such threat is foot-and-mouth disease. As our friends in Great Britain can attest, an outbreak of this destructive disease can cost a Nation billions of dollars and millions of livestock. In the U.K. alone, over one million animals had to be destroyed as a result of FMD. If we do not update our laws, I worry that our Nation will be vulnerable to the introduction and spread of foreign animal diseases like FMD or ``mad cow disease'', BSE. The recent discovery of BSE in Japan shows that the threats are still current. The price of prevention is vigilance. Finally, this legislation has become even more important since the tragic events of September 11. Concerns about biosecurity and possible biological or chemical attacks directed at our Nations food supply must be taken very seriously. This legislation is crucial to fully protect domestic livestock and the U.S. food supply from these threats. I hope that the Senate will be able to move quickly on this legislation, and I thank Senator Lugar and others for working with me to get it introduced. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pesticide Maintenance Fees Reauthorization Act of 2001 on behalf of myself and my friend, Senator Lugar. This legislation reauthorizes several existing legislative provisions addressing pesticide fees. As Senator Lugar and my colleagues know, the legal authorization for the collection of so-called maintenance fees for the reregistration of pesticides expires at the end of this month. This expiration means that EPA will face a significant funding shortfall as it continues its implementation of FQPA. This legislation has been negotiated between the Senate and House Agriculture Committees and representatives of the environmental and agri-chemical industry. It would require industry to pay $20 million a year to reevaluate pesticides approved by EPA prior to 1984. In return, a controversial proposal by the Environmental Protection Agency to more than quadruple the amount of fees paid by the pesticide industry will be shelved. The $20 million per year represents an increase over the previous fee schedule that had ranged from $14 to $17.6 million a year. $20 million reflects the amount of money that EPA says is necessary to pay the salaries and expenses of the 200 employees that review older pesticides. If this reauthorization were not provided, EPA would have to make up the money from elsewhere in its budget or layoff some of those employees. If that were to happen there is widespread concern that EPA's review of pesticides would slow down significantly. EPA has been charged with reviewing all pesticides to make sure they are safe for the environment and safe for kids. The last we need is for EPA to lose the workers vital to accomplishing that. I hope that the Senate will be able to move quickly on this legislation, and I thank Senator Lugar for working with me to get it introduced.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pesticide Maintenance Fees Reauthorization Act of 2001 on behalf of myself and my friend, Senator Lugar. This legislation reauthorizes several existing legislative provisions addressing pesticide fees. As Senator Lugar and my colleagues know, the legal authorization for the collection of so-called maintenance fees for the reregistration of pesticides expires at the end of this month. This expiration means that EPA will face a significant funding shortfall as it continues its implementation of FQPA. This legislation has been negotiated between the Senate and House Agriculture Committees and representatives of the environmental and agri-chemical industry. It would require industry to pay $20 million a year to reevaluate pesticides approved by EPA prior to 1984. In return, a controversial proposal by the Environmental Protection Agency to more than quadruple the amount of fees paid by the pesticide industry will be shelved. The $20 million per year represents an increase over the previous fee schedule that had ranged from $14 to $17.6 million a year. $20 million reflects the amount of money that EPA says is necessary to pay the salaries and expenses of the 200 employees that review older pesticides. If this reauthorization were not provided, EPA would have to make up the money from elsewhere in its budget or layoff some of those employees. If that were to happen there is widespread concern that EPA's review of pesticides would slow down significantly. EPA has been charged with reviewing all pesticides to make sure they are safe for the environment and safe for kids. The last we need is for EPA to lose the workers vital to accomplishing that. I hope that the Senate will be able to move quickly on this legislation, and I thank Senator Lugar for working with me to get it introduced.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on September 26, 2001, in SD-106 at 9 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to discuss the Administration perspective with regard to the new federal farm bill followed by a nomination hearing. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon at this late hour on Friday at the close of a terrible week--a week which has seared itself into our very being for the rest of our lives--to object to the approval of John Negroponte to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. I understand an agreement was reached that this nomination be passed on a voice vote today. It has been made, and certainly I will honor and respect the agreement. However, I believe this nomination deserves a full debate on the Senate floor and a full look into the record of this individual who is about to represent all of us in the United Nations. I understand and I agree that America needs a U.N. ambassador. We do need someone there, especially given the terrorist attacks on our Nation this week, in terms of an international dialog and international response to this terrorist attack. But I believe it is also important that all Senators be given an opportunity to vote on this controversial nomination and to debate it. Why is Mr. Negroponte's nomination so controversial? Why did the Baltimore Sun, in April of this year, devote a five-part series just on this one nominee? Well, I think there are two considerations that stand out in my mind, and I will explain why I oppose his nomination. First of all, Mr. Negroponte showed a callous disregard for human rights abuses throughout his tenure as U.S. Ambassador to Honduras between 1981 and 1985, during which time I traveled to Honduras and, in fact, went out to one of the contra camps with the Ambassador at that time. Quite frankly, in my conversations at that time in Honduras, and with the later revelations of what was going on with Battalion 316, which was supervised and basically trained by our CIA and our military personnel--when a lot of these issues came to light, it became clear to me that during my trip there I was misled and, quite frankly, not given the correct information that I sought. Secondly, I believe Mr. Negroponte knowingly misinformed the U.S. State Department about gross human rights violations in Honduras and throughout Central America during the height of the so-called contra war in Central America in the 1980s. That action, in turn, resulted in the Congress being misled as to the scope and nature of gross human rights violations that were being committed by the contras and by the Honduran military and, in particular, Battalion 316 in the Honduran military. In a letter to The Economist in 1982, then-Ambassador Negroponte wrote: It is simply untrue that death squads have made appearances in Honduras. Yet from 1981 to 1984 over 150 people disappeared, including one American priest, Father James Carney, whose body has never been recovered. All indications are it was Battalion 316 that took custody of and had control over Father Carney. There had been reports that they interrogated him, that he was severely tortured and killed--he was an American citizen, an American priest--during the time of Mr. Negroponte's ambassadorship. I am not saying in any way he was responsible. I do not want anyone to get that wrong. All I am saying is as Ambassador at that time, there is a lot of evidence to show he just turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the human rights abuses at that time in Honduras. The 1997 CIA Inspector General's report and other official records, as well as extensive research published in numerous books and articles, have implicated Mr. Negroponte personally in condoning and covering up egregious human rights violations during his service in Honduras in the 1980s. Read the five-part series that was in the Baltimore Sun in 1995 and later amplified this year. That lays out the case quite clearly. Is he really the best nominee President Bush could find to represent our Nation at the United Nations? I think not. I guess what bothers me more than anything else is, as we move ahead seeking to get other nations to support us in our efforts to uphold human rights around the world, he does not bring clean hands to this critically important and senior diplomatic post. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following articles be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks: An April 16, 2001, Los Angeles Times editorial headlined ``Hard Questions for U.N. Nominee''; a Sunday, April 8, 2001, editorial written by Frank Del Olmo, associate editor of the Los Angeles Times; a Thursday, April 19, 2001, editorial written by Father Joseph Mulligan, a Jesuit priest from Detroit who has been working in Central America since 1986; an April 2, 2001, editorial from In These Times of the Institute for Public Affairs, and a list of 150 people who disappeared in Honduras from October 29, 1981, to May 30, 1985.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand agreements were made. I wish we had a fuller debate on this nominee. I want the record to show if, in fact, there was a record vote on this nominee, this Senator from Iowa would have voted no. I thank the President, and I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Los Angeles Times, Apr. 16, 2001] Hard Questions for U.N. Nominee Under normal circumstances, President Bush's nomination of a veteran U.S. diplomat like John D. Negroponte to be ambassador to the United Nations would be a routine matter. Negroponte is well regarded in the State Department and close to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. Senate approval would be all but certain. But while Negroponte's 37-year career in the foreign service has admittedly been an impressive upward arc of increasingly important ambassadorships, it was not routine. It would be a mistake for the Senate, and particularly for the Committee on Foreign Relations, to treat Negroponte with kid gloves. To be sure, Negroponte's diplomatic career has been marked by noteworthy accomplishments. He handled sensitive embassy posts quite effectively, most notably Mexico City in the years leading up to the North American Free Trade Agreement and Manila following the collapse of Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos' regime. But Negroponte's career also includes some troubling activities that took place in Honduras during his tenure as ambassador there, between 1981 and 1985. Those were the years when President Ronald Reagan ordered the CIA to launch covert activities against the Sandinista government in neighboring Nicaragua. The key element of Reagan's anti-Nicaragua strategy was a guerrilla war waged by a puppet army based in Honduras and known as the Contras. It was composed largely of former soldiers of Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza, whom the Sandinistas had ousted. With such unseemly allies, the Contra war was immediately controversial, and Congress imposed limits on how the CIA could wage it. Among other things, Congress insisted that before a small nation like Honduras received massive increases in military aid (from $4 million a year to $77 million during Negroponte's tenure alone) that the U.S. Embassy there had to verify that the notoriously corrupt Honduran army would use the money properly. The Honduran security forces were not, for instance, to use the money to pursue political dissidents or otherwise violate the human rights of their fellow citizens. Congress even required annual human rights reports on Honduras to ensure that its mandate was being carried out. The human rights reports that Negroponte signed off on during his tenure in Honduras need to be carefully reviewed by the Senate. For while he routinely reported few violations by the Honduran government, it has since become public record, through declassified government documents and reputable reports in the U.S. and Honduran press, that the Honduran military was indeed engaged in some very brutal activities in support of the Contras and U.S. policy. Honduran officials have documented the disappearance of as many as 184 Honduran citizens, not just political dissidents but innocent civilians who may have been mistaken for dissidents, during that period. Most of these kidnappings and murders were carried out by a secret, CIA-trained Honduran army unit known as Battalion 316. The Senate should probe deeply regarding how much of this activity Negroponte was aware of and whether he hid what he knew from Congress. The Contra war was an ugly and inconclusive affair--but brush-fire wars usually are. And no one is suggesting that Negroponte bears all, or even most, of the blame for whatever excesses may have taken place in Honduras. But he had a legal obligation to truthfully inform Congress of what was happening in Honduras in support of U.S. policy. If Negroponte did not live up to that obligation, it calls into question his suitability for an important post at the United Nations. The Senate must not approve Negroponte's nomination without asking him some very tough questions and putting his tenure in Honduras under renewed and thorough scrutiny.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. It is the understanding of the Senator from New Hampshire that the proper meaning of that amendment would bar the State and Justice Departments from filing any statement of interest or in any manner intervening to oppose any civil action brought by a former prisoner of war against a corporation of the type referenced in the amendment?

Mr. HARKIN. This is my understanding as well.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. I might add that this ought to be a governmental function.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I want to address for a few moments one of the issues we are going to be confronting both on our committees and I am sure in the Chambers of the House and the Senate in the not-too- distant future as a result of the tragic events of this week, and that is the issue of airline safety and what we can do in the future to prevent this tragedy from ever happening again or prevent any kind of hijacking of airliners in the future. It occurred to me as I began thinking about this--and I have been a pilot all my life. I have flown since I have been about 20 years old, both as a military pilot and a civilian pilot. I have my commercial license. So having flown all these years, I am quite aware of the different steps that need to be taken to provide for aircraft security. It occurred to me, while I was thinking about all of this, that over the last several years I have been to Israel on more than one occasion--two or three times--and with all of the terrorist activity that the Israelis have had to put up with over all these years, they have yet to lose an El Al airliner. Having gone through the procedure of flying on El Al as I have done in the past, I know they have a system in place in which you are very certain that no one is going to hijack that airplane. It seems to me we could learn a lot from how the Israelis have done that. I am hopeful our Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Mineta, as he looks at this issue, will call upon our friends in Israel and those who run El Al airlines to consult with us. It has to do with a process and a procedure which might slow things down a little bit. It is true it might slow things down a little bit, but at least I believe it will give passengers in this country the absolute assurance they are going to be safe when they get on that plane. The other thing that occurred to me was that whenever you go out of this country and you come back into this country and you go through immigration, you show them your passport. That immigration officer sits in the back of that little desk and swipes your passport through with your photograph and your numbers. They do it for everyone coming through. I am told they have a list of suspected terrorists, suspected criminals, those who have a record, and that list is readily accessible so they can match a passport coming in--not just a U.S. passport but any passport anywhere in the world--check those papers against that list, and they know right away if a name pops up if this is someone they need to detain or to have a further look at before they are allowed into this country. It is my understanding that list is not available to the airlines, and I wonder again if perhaps this is another system that we ought to look at where, before you get on an airplane, you have your ID, but that some instant check be done to make sure you do not have some kind of a record, that you are who you say you are, and that you would not be on the same list the Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, would have or a more appropriate list. Third, we need to make sure our checked baggage is better examined. Again, I go back to what El Al does in terms of making sure that when you get on the airplane, it is your baggage, that the baggage has been x ray'd thoroughly, and before you get on the plane they have identified that as your luggage. We do not do that in this country. That would not be as easy to accomplish as it sounds. It could cause delays. But, I am hopeful that we can develop efficient methods that can be implemented to efficiently do that minimizing those delays. It has also been suggested that when you get on an airplane you ought to have a photographic record of that. Tickets can be purchased over the Internet. Once you walk up to the counter and receive your boarding pass, you have to show them a photo ID. But once you get the boarding pass, you can give that to anyone. Anyone can get on that airplane. There is a breakdown there. Every time I walk into a 7-Eleven store or up to an ATM machine to draw out money, a picture is taken. When you walk into a 7-Eleven store, there is a photograph taken of you in that store. There is a record kept of that. It seems to me a simple matter to put in place that when you walk up to get your ticket, a photograph is taken. That photograph is matched with your identification. When you go to board the airplane and they take your boarding pass and put it through the electronics, your picture pops up alongside the boarding pass so they know you are the exact person who bought that ticket. It seems to me these are simple, technological means we can use to ensure those who buy tickets are the same people who get on the plane and make sure the baggage checked is yours. This method might sharply simplify the process of assuring that checked package being placed on a plane matches those that get on board that plane. However great a system is, redundancy is essential. So, we also need to think about increasing safety on the aircraft itself. There has been talk of putting sky marshals on appropriate flights. I got a fax from a friend I flew with in the Navy. Larry Durbin retired as an airline captain from United Airlines. He faxed one sentence: Tom, why don't you hire retired airline captains as sky marshals? I thought to myself, that might be a pretty good suggestion. We have a lot of retired airline captains past the age of flying. They might be interested in this type of occupation. I think that is something we ought to consider. Obviously, they know about flying; they know what it takes. I believe they could help us immensely. I am told El Al has on their airlines solid doors in their airplane cabins. Once the pilot, the copilots, and the flight engineers are in the cockpit, they lock the door and you cannot get in. You cannot kick it in. The only way to unlock it is from the other side. We do lock our doors on our planes in this country, but, quite frankly, they are not very secure doors. I believe that is another item we ought to look at in terms of making sure that no one can breach cabin security. Last night, I spoke with Senator Stevens, both of us being pilots of old vintage. We were talking about the old days. We always had an IFF, identification friend or foe, in military parlance, on all aircraft. When the aircraft started up and you turned on the electrical system, that IFF began to transmit. It was on until that airplane was either shot down or landed and turned off. I believe we ought to have that on every domestic airliner in this country. It is a simple device. In other words, these people got on and somehow they knew how to turn the transponder off. Once they did that, it was very hard to keep track of the airliner. But with an IFF system that identified a specific aircraft that would be on all the time, that could never happen again. These are some of the things we are going to have to discuss on the Senate floor and in our committees. Many different measures we have been very lax about. We have been very lucky in this country, very lucky in our domestic and international air service. Our luck has run out. I think now is the time to take a hard look at all of the security measures we need to ensure airline passengers have the absolute assurance once they get on that airline it will not be blown up and it will not be hijacked. These are just some of the measures I have been thinking about that I am hopeful the Congress will take action on soon, in coordination with the Secretary of Transportation and the administration. Many improvements are already being implemented. But, other ideas need to be discussed and be implemented. These and perhaps whatever measures are advisable. In some cases, where airlines now have the responsibility, we probably want to shift those important safety considerations to the Government.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Hatch of Utah, and other cosponsors are Senator Reid and Senator Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Also, Senator Hollings, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, and Senator Feingold wanted to be added as cosponsors. The entire Nation has been shocked and dismayed at what transpired earlier this week in New York and at the Pentagon in Northern Virginia and in Pennsylvania. These were attacks on the American values of liberty, diversity, and tolerance; the terrorists hate us for what we are and what we believe in. As we mourn our dead and pursue the attackers, we must strive to protect not only the American people, but also our American values. I am truly saddened when I hear of malicious and sometimes criminal acts that have been committed all around the country in the last couple of days against Americans who may be from the Mideast, or whose ancestors may have been from the Mideast, who may be of Arabic dissent, or of the Islamic faith--but who had nothing at all to do with these attacks. Arab Americans and American Muslims have faced a terrible rash of hate crimes since Tuesday morning: On Wednesday, police turned back 300 people who tried to march on a mosque in Bridgeview, IL, a southwest Chicago suburb, waving American flags and shouting ``U.S.A., U.S.A.'' I would like to read a quote from Governor Ryan of Illinois, who said: The terrorists who committed these horrible acts would like nothing better than to see us tear at the fiber of our democracy and to trample on the rights of other Americans. I think Governor Ryan had it right when he was responding to those marching on this mosque in a suburb of Chicago. Up to six shots were fired at an Islamic center in Irving, TX, a suburb of Dallas. A Molotov cocktail was tossed at an Arab American community center in Chicago. In Huntington, NY, a drunk 75-year-old man tried to run over an American Pakistani woman in a parking lot, then followed her into a store and threatened to kill her for ``destroying my country.'' Two bricks with notes were thrown through the window of an Islamic bookstore right here in Alexandria, a suburb of Washington, DC. One note was addressed to ``Arab murderers.'' The other opened with an obscenity and said, ``You come to this country and kill. You must die as well.'' Members of the Islamic community center in Sterling, VA, came to the center in order to give blood for the victims of the terrorists acts. When they arrived, they found their hallway spray-painted with black letters, several feet tall, saying, ``Die, pigs,'' and ``Muslims burn forever.'' Other mosques and community centers have been vandalized, splattered with blood, and received hate messages, and more. These acts are attacks both on Americans and on our American values of liberty, diversity, and tolerance. They are acts of hate, as Governor Ryan said, that tear at the fabric of American society. We cannot accept them or let them go unanswered. It is especially ironic that these acts of hate have occurred despite strong Arab, Arab American, and American Muslim support for our country in the wake of the terrorist acts. Heads of state in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Pakistan, and other predominantly Muslim countries have strongly condemned the terrorist attacks and the senseless loss of innocent lives. American Muslims have lined up to give blood for those injured in the attacks, waiting in line for hours, along with so many other Americans. They are as saddened, sickened, and outraged at what happened as other Americans. The terrorist attacks were heinous crimes, and we will bring to justice and punish their perpetrators and those who aided or harbored them. But we must make sure that when we train our sights on the enemy, we do not harm innocent people in the crossfire. Again, I quote from Cardinal McCarrick, the Archbishop of Washington, speaking at a mass on Tuesday: We must resist the temptation to strike out in vengeance and revenge and, in a special way, not to label any ethnic group or community for this action, which certainly is just the work of a few madmen. We must seek the guilty and not strike out against the innocent, or we become like them who are without moral guide or direction. These outbursts of hate, this misplaced blame and labeling of an entire group, is not an inevitable response. When 168 people died in the bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, some people immediately falsely assumed that Islamic extremists had done it, and the same kind of vandalism and hate speech occurred. Later, when we found out that the main perpetrator was Timothy McVeigh, nobody said all Christians are to blame. Not all Christian churches were attacked. No acts of hate against American Irish followed the bombing in Oklahoma City. We brought the perpetrator to justice, but we did not attack others simply because they may have looked like, or belonged to the same faith as, or had the same ethnic background as Timothy McVeigh. We should not paint with a broad brush those who may look the same, or have the same ethnic background or religion, as those who perpetrated these heinous acts on Tuesday. In Arabic, Islam means peace, and in the Koran it says: Whoever kills a soul unjustly, it will be written in his book of deeds as though he killed all humanity. Chapter 5, verse 32 of the Koran. Those who are using the Islamic faith as some justification for the wholesale killing of innocent people are simply trying to cloak their murderous activities with the cloak of religion and the Islamic faith. The Islamic faith is a religion of compassion and mercy, of tolerance and justice, and we should not let those terrorists, those who kill innocent people, try to make the Islamic faith into something it is not. This amendment that Senator Hatch and I and others have sent to the desk expresses the sense of the Senate condemning the vicious backlash against our Arab Americans and American Muslims. The resolution also affirms the important role that American Muslims have played in America and in our world culture, and affirms the American values of religious freedom, rule of law, and civil rights. I hope this will be adopted unanimously as a strong statement of our enduring support for our constitutional framework of tolerance, civil rights, human rights, and diversity. In this time of national trial, we must come together with resolution, determination, and unity. We cannot afford hate, divisiveness, or prejudice, or we become like the terrorists. I urge all my colleagues, I urge all Americans to celebrate our diversity, to reaffirm the contributions and civil liberties of all Americans, including Arab Americans and American Muslims. Mr. President, I yield the floor.