Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to express my strong support for Judge James Gardner who President Bush nominated for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The American Bar Association has rated Judge Gardner ``well-qualified'' to sit on the bench. Judge Gardner graduated magna cum laude with a B.A. degree from Yale University and received his J.D. degree from Harvard University Law School. After graduating from law school, Judge Gardner joined the law firm of Duane, Morris & Hecksher as an Associate. After leaving that prestigious firm, he became a partner in the law firm of Gardner, Gardner, & Racines in Allentown, Pennsylvania. He began his career in public service as Solicitor to the Lehigh County Treasurer and later as an Assistant District Attorney in Lehigh County. Judge Gardner served his country on active duty with the United States Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps and in the Navy Reserve. Currently, Judge Gardner serves as a Judge on the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. He has served in all divisions of that court and has presided over 265 jury trials and innumerable hearings. He has also written over 1,000 legal opinions and adjudications, 138 of which have been published. Judge Gardner is very active in his community. He is on the Board of Directors of the Boys and Girls Club of Allentown and the Allentown Police Athletic League. He has been awarded the Meritorious Service Medal from the President of the United States and the Pennsylvania Bar Association's Special Achievement Award. I thank my colleagues for their vote for the confirmation of Judge Gardner to sit on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the text of an amendment regarding the Homeland Security bill.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for that response. He raises a good issue. I agree with him the earlier language which exists presently, categorizing national security generally and consistent with national security requirements and considerations, is the broader language. I do not think the additional language of terrorism seeks to limit that, but I think the Senator from Tennessee raises a good point that it ought to be clarified so the national security considerations are broader than just terrorism. I direct the attention of the Senator from Tennessee to the second consideration; that is, whether a national security waiver or determination by the President of national security considerations would be sufficient on the issues of the flexibility on the other five chapters.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I think the Senator from Tennessee raises a very good point. I will yield the floor momentarily. But before doing so, if I might have the attention of the Senator from Tennessee. I will yield the floor after a question to the Senator from Tennessee. The Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Tennessee and I had been in the cloakroom discussing these matters, and we had discussed how close we are. As the Senator from Tennessee has noted, the Senator from Connecticut ventured the view that we were very close on the two labor-management issues, as to adding the language of Nelson to the existing law which retains the national security waiver, and then the suggestion of giving the President flexibility where the President makes a determination of national security. I inquire of the Senator from Tennessee what his view is as to how close we are to resolving these two outstanding issues.

Mr. SPECTER. I do, without losing my right to the floor, for a question.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut for that answer. When he focuses in on the national security requirements, I think he puts his finger on the nub of the issue: That if there is a national security interest here that would warrant the waiver on the collective bargaining matters, which are already set forth in existing law, the same rationale ought to apply to give the President greater authority under the other chapters where there really is a national security issue at stake. I quite agree with the statement by the Senator from Connecticut that we have to move with speed because if we do not come to terms, this matter will be removed from the calendar in deference to the consideration of a resolution authorizing the use of force as to Iraq. We all know there is a target date of this Friday, October 4, which has been delayed until next Friday, October 11; and that is the date by which we are likely to be out of session. So if we do not bridge this narrow gap now, and if we then go on to the resolution for the use of force, it is highly likely we will not conclude the legislation on homeland security before we recess. I think that would be a grave mistake. The proponents of the Gramm-Miller amendment have asked for a vote on their amendment without any intervening second-degree amendments. And while I would be prepared to give the proponents of Gramm-Miller such a vote, the proponents of the Nelson amendment have a right, as a second- degree amendment, to proceed to have a vote on their second-degree amendment. So while I supported the position and voted against cloture when the cloture motion was made on Gramm-Miller last week--and I did so in part to give an opportunity for compromise on this matter, but also in part to leave an opportunity for an amendment which this Senator intends to offer, which would bring all of the intelligence agencies under one umbrella--but it seems to me at this point that we ought to move ahead and invoke cloture on Gramm-Miller. That will then bring to a head the second-degree amendment offered by Senator Nelson. And then we would finally get down to some of the really tough negotiations to try to bridge the gap. There is nothing that promotes the negotiations like the imminence of a vote on a specific subject.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut for that answer. The purpose of the question and the colloquy is to demonstrate how close we are; that when the Senator from Connecticut says he prefers language of a ``majority'' of such employees to a ``significant number'' of such employees, I can understand his preference. But what I especially liked about his answer was his determination which matches mine to find language which will find another word which will bridge the gap. When we talk about a 95 percent agreement, I think we are really much closer than that when you really strip down all the language. If I might have the attention of the Senator from Connecticut again for another question, moving now to the issue of so-called flexibility where the Nelson amendment is willing to give the flexibility which the President sought under four of the six chapters, subject only to reference to the Federal Services Impasses Panel in the event of disagreement over implementation--again, noting that all seven of those appointees are designated by the President--the thought I believe might bridge the gap would be if as to five of these areas--performance appraisal, chapter 43; classification, chapter 51; pay raise systems, chapter 53; adverse actions, chapter 75; and appeals, chapter 77, excluding only labor-management relations under chapter 71, for which there already is a national security waiver--my question to the Senator from Connecticut is whether we might be able to bridge the gap by giving the President national security authority for waiver to devise the human resource management system in the event the President makes a determination national security requires it, borrowing the language from chapter 71 where the agency or subdivision has a primary function of intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative or national security work, and the human resources arrangements cannot be applied in a manner consistent with national security requirements and considerations so in effect we are borrowing the national security waiver provisions which apply as to collective bargaining for the other five categories where the President is seeking some flexibility.

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I direct another question to the Senator from Connecticut; that is, it has been reported to me the White House may be willing to accept the language of Nelson on the clause if a ``majority'' of such employees was modified to ``significant number'' of such employees. I ask the Senator from Connecticut if he thinks we might be able to make that minor modification if that would in fact close the area of disagreement on this issue.

Mr. SPECTER. My question to the Senator from Connecticut is: When you take the language of title V, chapter 71, which specifies the President may issue an order excluding any agency or subdivision thereof from coverage under this chapter if the President determines (a) the agency or subdivision has as a primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative or national security work; and, (b) the provisions of this chapter cannot be applied to that agency or subdivision in a manner consistent with national security requirements or considerations; And, add to that the language from the Nelson-Chafee-Breaux amendment which specifies that the President could not use his authority without showing that, (1) the mission and responsibilities of the agency or subdivision materially change; and, (2) a majority of such employees within such agency or subdivision have as their primary duty intelligence, counterintelligence or investigative work directly related to terrorism investigation.0 My question is, isn't it true the provisions of existing law and the additions made by the Nelson amendment are very close?

Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to urge my colleagues to work to resolve the outstanding differences on the labor- management issues because I believe the two sides are very close. I submit further that it is of vital importance that the Congress proceed to enact legislation on homeland security and the Senate move ahead to iron out the remaining differences, go to conference with the House, and then present a bill to the President for signature. It is imperative that all of the intelligence agencies be brought under one umbrella in an effort to avoid a repetition of 9/11. My analysis shows me that had all of the dots been put together prior to 9/11, 9/11 might well have been avoided. I am not prepared to accept the Intelligence Committee's analysis that another terrorist attack will occur. I believe if we put all the dots together, we can prevent it. Had we had the Phoenix FBI report, together with the information from Kuala Lumpur about two of the hijackers known to the CIA, not told to the FBI or INS, had we had the National Security Agency warning on September 10 that something was going to happen the next day, had the warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act been pursued as to Mr. Zacarias Moussaoui, there would have been a blueprint. But the system broke down because there was not one overall umbrella. What we are faced with now, the differences in the two positions, involves the labor-management issues. Last Thursday, we had a discussion in the Senate where it was agreed that the provisions of the Nelson-Chafee-Breaux amendment did not supplant the provisions of title V which have a national security exemption but were in addition to the existing provisions of title V on collective bargaining. When you take a look at the language in the Nelson amendment, it is very close to the language of the existing law. The existing law refers to counterintelligence, investigative, or national security, and the Nelson amendment refers to counterintelligence or investigative work directly related to terrorism investigation. It may be that the language of Nelson would have to be modified slightly so that instead of providing for a ``majority'' of such employees, it would be a ``significant number'' of such employees. Then with respect to the issue of negotiability, the Gramm-Miller bill has six categories: Performance appraisal under chapter 43, classification under chapter 51, pay rates and systems under chapter 53, labor-management relations under chapter 71, adverse actions under chapter 75, and appeals under chapter 77. The Nelson amendment would leave in four of those categories-- performance appraisal, classification, pay rates and systems, and adverse actions--and would subject their implementation to review by the Federal Services Impasses Panel, seven appointees, all appointed by the President. It seems to me we could borrow the language from chapter 71 under labor-management relations, under a national security waiver, and provide flexibility which the President is seeking in the event that there is a national security issue. I believe it is very important we resolve this matter so we can move ahead with enactment of a homeland security bill. As I said last Thursday and repeated yesterday, I have not taken a position in favor either of the provisions of the Nelson amendment or of the provisions which are in the Gramm amendment. But I believe we are so close together these differences can be reconciled. I wonder if I might have the attention of the manager of the bill, the Senator from Connecticut. Will the Senator from Connecticut respond to a question? I ask unanimous consent I may ask a question of the Senator from Connecticut without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry: Are we on the homeland security bill?

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

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, during the month of August, Senator Shelby and I made an extensive trip to Africa. In Africa, we visited many countries and noted some very material changes. For example, the Government of the Sudan finally wants to have good relations with the United States and is willing to make significant concessions to the rebels in the south Sudan. Through the good offices of the President's emissary, former Senator Danforth, a treaty has been worked out which has great promise if implemented and if enforced. The Muslim-Islamic military has come down from the northern part of Sudan, invaded Christian cities, killed all the men and taken the women and children and sold them into slavery, a practice which is really hard to believe in the 21st century. The peace treaty brokered by Senator Danforth has the promise of ending that. But as we talked to clerics in both Khartoum, Sudan, and in Eritrea, it will have to be enforced by the United States. We saw in South Africa great advances since my last trip there in 1993 when there was so much contention between the blacks and the whites on apartheid. A government was formed in the 1994 elections. President Mandela has become the national hero and a great many of those problems are on their way to resolution. Great progress has been made. We saw in Mauritius, an island off the east coast of Africa, tremendous progress being made on trade with a sweater factory yielding compensation up to $300 a week, whereas in some countries in Africa they do not earn more than $250 a year. To reiterate, in accordance with my custom of reporting on my foreign travel, this is a brief summary of a trip with Senator Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, from August 6-22 to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, South Africa, Mauritius, Tanzania, Kenya, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Sicily, Italy. We explored the emerging trade relationship with Africa during implementation of the 2000 African Growth and Opportunity Act, AGOA, and the 2002 Trade Promotion Authority, TPA, legislation. We also looked at health issues--primarily the African HIV/AIDS crisis and poverty and famine that impact upon the U.S. foreign aid posture and the issue of ``trade versus aid.'' The delegation travel began on Tuesday, August 6, 2002, stopping overnightin Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, en route to South Africa. Brazil's economy outweighs that of all other South American countries and will be aided in this respect by the new TPA and a $30 billion loan guarantee by the World Bank. I spoke about this with U.S. Consul General Mark Boulware. He is optimistic that the TPA will help further expand the economy of Brazil now that the Brazilian currency, the real, is no longer pegged to the U.S. dollar. Despite open anti-American protests following comments by U.S. Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill suggesting widescale corruption in the Brazilian monetary system, our delegation was treated well and found the brief visit to Brazil informative. The delegation proceeded to Cape Town, South Africa, where we were informed by U.S. Ambassador Cameron Hume that South Africa is a middle- income, developing country with an abundant supply of resources, well- developed financial, legal, communications, energy, and transport sectors, and a modern infrastructure supporting an efficient distribution of goods to major urban centers throughout the region. President Thabo Mbeki has vowed to promote economic growth and foreign investment, and to reduce poverty by relaxing restrictive labor laws, stepping up the pace of privatization, and cutting unneeded governmental spending. However, President Mbeki has been disappointing in the battle against HIV/AIDS. Despite estimates that one in four South Africans is HIV- positive, Mbeki has refused to accept the premise that HIV causes AIDS, and did not attend this year's World HIV/AIDS Conference in New York City. Mbeki's inaction in the face of this crisis has recently been criticized by former South African President Nelson Mandela. The United States continues to provide large sums of money and resources to confront this growing epidemic. In this year's supplemental appropriations bill, Senator Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, and I proposed that $700 billion be allocated to confront AIDS in countries such as South Africa where it threatens large segments of the population. President Bush has proposed a compromised figure of $500 billion. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control, CDC, has assigned five employees to South Africa to work on the AIDS epidemic, and the National Institutes of Health has recently contributed $11 million. Ambassador Hume believes that we are essentially ``force feeding'' South Africa with assistance on this issue, suggesting that South Africa is still dragging its feet. I questioned Ambassador Hume on the future of race relations in South Africa. Despite the existing divide, for the time being race relations are comparatively good, but the great conciliator Nelson Mandela is slowing down at age 84 and the technocrat Mbeki lacks his personal stature. Nonetheless, South Africa has come a long way with the assistance of the United States since the U.S. Senate voted to override President Reagan's 1986 veto of legislation forbidding certain U.S. corporate investments in South Africa's apartheid regime an important moment in the relationship between our two countries. Our delegation also conducted discussions of a classified nature with U.S. officials in South Africa and other countries we visited. South Africa's fledgling post-apartheid government was the topic of discussion at a dinner hosted by Ambassador Hume with parliamentarians from South Africa's National Assembly and National Council of Provinces. Progress is being made in governance and oversight. I discussed with Johnny de Lange, the Chair of the National Assembly's Judicial Committee, the extent of permissible electronic surveillance and physical search undertaken under South African law. Our next series of meetings occurred in Durban, South Africa. There we met with Consul General Liam Humphreys and his staff to explore, among other things, post-September 11 security procedures. Durban is an important ``feeder port'' for U.S.-bound goods, and the crews that accompany them. As such, potentially lethal materials and individuals traveling under false credentials may enter U.S. ports if authorities in Durban are not vigilant. It is therefore imperative that individual visas--and not blanket crew visas--be issued to individuals only after cross-referencing U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation files for potentially derogatory information. It is important to continue our oversight of FBI information sharing for this purpose and to ensure the proper coordination of visa and cargo manifest procedures--particularly as proposals take shape for our new Department of Homeland Security. Durban is geographically located in the KwaZulu Natal province of South Africa, the only province in which the ANC is not in power. At a dinner hosted by Consul General Humphreys, Senator Shelby and I exchanged views with two leaders of the provincial majority Inkatha Freedom Party, IFP: Provincial Minister of Agriculture and Environmental Affairs and delegate to the National Council of Provinces Narend Singh, and Reverend Musa Zondi, a member of the National Assembly and the Deputy Minister of Public Works. Minister Singh noted the tremendous progress of South Africa and the KwaZulu Natal region when compared to the rest of sub-Saharan Africa, where land reform--or more appropriately, the lack thereof--has been an unyielding challenge. I questioned Deputy Minister Zondi about the nature of race relations in South Africa. Minister Zondi is optimistic about race relations, and noted that relations in South Africa are far better than Saudi Arabia or Egypt where radical Islamic tensions place these societies on the cusp of ``a full-scale race war.'' Minister Zondi also noted with affection his friendship with the late Reverend Leon Sullivan of Philadelphia, a spiritual leader who promoted employment practice standards for U.S. companies doing business in South Africa. Zondi said that Reverend Sullivan did a great deal to make U.S. corporations more socially conscious. Minister Zondi visited Reverend Sullivan in Philadelphia in 1985 and believes strongly in the so-called ``Sullivan Principles,'' the labor code promoted by Reverend Sullivan. From Durban the delegation traveled to Mauritius to explore trade and other issues in advance of the Presidential visit for the AGOA Conference in January 2003. Since independence in 1968, Mauritius has developed from a low-income, agriculturally based economy to a middle- income diversified economy with growing industrial, financial, and tourist sectors. Mauritius has the highest median income in sub-Saharan Africa and an unusually high literacy rate. Investment in the banking sector alone has reached over $1 billion. Employment in Mauritius is at or above 95 percent, according to our dinner guest Raouf Bundhun, the Vice President of Mauritius. I asked the U.S. Ambassador to Mauritius, the Seychelles, and the Comoros, John Price, about the need for expanded commercial opportunities and enhanced security in the Indian Ocean region. I heard concern about the recent developments of official Seychelles passports reportedly being sold for $65,000 to those who wish to move freely in the Indian Ocean region. I also heard concern about aggressive recruitment in the Comoros by Islamic fundamentalists of young, impressionable individuals for schooling in radical theology and military training under the guise of Islamic education. I also inquired about how the new TPA law and AGOA will help Mauritius further progress economically. Ambassador Price informed us that the new TPA will help entrepreneurs such as Sunil Hassamal, who showed us the sweater factory that he has built from the ground up and who now employs 2500 workers. On the labor front, we were assured by Ambassador Price that despite some recent unfavorable press coverage of the treatment of Chinese laborers at one problem factory, in Mauritius no child labor is being employed, that overtime is being paid, that working conditions are tolerable, and that a viable minimum wage is being paid along with appropriate benefits, and that a 60-hour work week is respected--as required by AGOA. We met with Mauritian Prime Minister Sir Anerood Jugnauth and Deputy Prime Minister Paul Berenger to explore trade and security issues. Prime Minister Jugnauth is nearing the end of his term as Prime Minister, and will next year pass the reins to Deputy Prime Minister Berenger and assume the ceremonial role of President of Mauritius. I questioned Prime Minister Jugnauth and Deputy Prime Minister Berenger about what the U.S. should do if Saddam Hussein does not respond to demands for inspections. Prime Minister Jugnauth responded that the U.S. should not attack Iraq without clear provocation, for this act would ``lose the respect of the world.'' Jugnauth said that the U.S. must be careful that it is the U.S., and not Saddam, who will be perceived as ``sympathetic.'' Berenger said that we should await a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis before addressing Iraq. I asked Minister Berenger about U.S. security interests in the region. He seemed to qualify what we understood to be the official Mauritian position on the Chagossian island of Diego Garcia by stating that, in return for full sovereignty over all the other Chagossian islands, Mauritius would be willing to defer the issue of Diego Garcia--``agreeing to disagree'' over its final status while seeking to build U.S. confidence in the prospect of eventual Mauritian succession. On the situation in the Mid-East, Berenger favored a new arrangement within the Palestinian Authority, PA--involving the establishment of a purely symbolic President of the PA such as Yasser Arafat but with all real power going to a new PA Prime Minister. Our delegation next traveled to Tanzania, beginning our oversight of regional and broader security and trade issues in the lesser-developed countries of sub-Saharan Africa. At a luncheon meeting with U.S. Ambassador Robert Royall and the Tanzania country team, we learned that Tanzania is one of the poorest countries in the world, with $250 per capita annual income. The economy is heavily dependent upon agriculture, which provides 85 percent of exports, and employs 80 percent of the workforce. The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and bilateral donors have reportedly been awaiting meaningful Tanzanian land reform prior to investing more heavily in the country. Under the government's socialist land policy, true private ownership is unlawful and investors can acquire merely leaseholds forfeitable at the government's discretion. I was disappointed to hear that Tanzania is not yet fully prepared to export commodities to the U.S. without further local economic reform and development. Tanzania has the potential to follow the example of Mauritius, a country with an 85 percent literacy rate, 95 percent employment, and an entrepreneurial spirit. I suggested that a Tanzanian delegation visit Mauritius and learn from its example. I also noted that with the passage of TPA, Congress expects real movement in the direction of ``trade rather than aid'' and I suggested to Ambassador Royall that he should provide President Bush with a list of achievable goals for Tanzania. We also discussed the AIDS epidemic. A team of researchers from the Centers for Disease Control, CDC, in Atlanta, Georgia, recently completed test kit evaluation in Tanzania, and has acquired data on which AIDS tests are the best performers in statistical pools. New CDC offices are also being constructed in Dar es Salaam, to assist with the disbursement of $7 million in U.S. aid, including $2 million dedicated to blood safety. We also explored the economic and political issues surrounding the tourism industry and the problems with refugees flowing into Tanzania from war-torn countries on its long western border. Tanzania currently has approximately 550,000 recent refugees--80 percent Burundian and 20 percent Congolese and Rwandan--and 400,000 ``old caseload'' refugees from relocations in the 1970s. Ambassador Royall is working to help return these refugees as soon as possible in a fair manner. Ambassador Royall is also working closely with USAID, the U.S. Department of the Interior, and local U.S. non- governmental organizations to assure that the system of national parks that supports Tanzania's tourism industry, accounting for approximately 60 percent of GDP, can be sustained and expanded in conjunction with private sector support. Organizations with which we met, such as the African Wildlife Foundation, work closely with the Tanzanian national park system and the U.S. government. For example, USAID is providing assistance to the Tanzanian Park Service in maintaining roads and natural habitats in two national parks to protect this segment of the Tanzanian economy. The delegation also visited the United Nations' International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, ICTR, which is hosted by Tanzania and located in Arusha. At the ICTR, we were briefed by Lovemore Munlo, the Deputy Registrar, and Kingsley Moghalu, who serves as Special Assistant to the Registrar. Our visit to the ICTR coincided with the arrest by Angolan authorities of Augustin Bizimungu, Rwanda's former armed forces chief who had been indicted by the ICTR for a major role in the 1994 Rwanda genocide. His arrest came less than a month after the U.S. offered up to $5 million under the Justice Department's ``Rewards for Justice'' program for tips leading to the arrest of eight Rwandan genocide suspects, including Bizimungu. Currently, 21 individuals suspected of genocide or complicity therein are on trial in the ICTR in eight separate trials. Former Prime Minister Jean Kambanda of Rwanda confessed in 2000 to war crimes and was convicted by the ICTR. He was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment. Currently, two-thirds of the top leadership of the Kambanda government are on trial for genocide and related war crimes. For lower-ranking participants in the genocide, Rwandan courts have prosecuted over 6,000 individuals--many of whom face the death penalty, which is not available at the ICTR. Later, I questioned U.S. Ambassador to Kenya Johnnie Carson as to whether the U.S. was late in responding to the 1994 Rwandan genocide. While conceding that we were not swift, he assured me that we acted as quickly as we could and that the genocide would have continued--and would have been much worse--if we had not acted when we did. He suggested that the French were in a much better position to intervene to prevent the genocide. The ICTR is expected to remain in existence until 2008 or 2009, by which point the last of the appeals should have run their course. We were able to observe the proceedings of the trial of Eliezer Niyitegeka, former Minister of Information in the interim government of Rwanda in 1994. From Tanzania, the delegation proceeded to Nairobi, Kenya for additional trade and security meetings. Ambassador Carson led a country team briefing focused upon political stability after nearly a quarter century of rule by current President Daniel Moi, security arrangements for the war on terrorism, HIV/AIDS, and related matters. Carson's team noted that Presidents Clinton and Bush and Secretaries of State Albright and Powell have all been privately assured by Moi at various points that he will step down after his term ends and that free elections will be called, likely in the period December 1, 2002 through March 31, 2003. Moi is now backing as his successor Uhuru Kenyatta, the 41 year-old son of Kenya's independence leader, Jomo Kenyatta, and a leader in the majority Kenya African National Union, KANU, party. If he can hold the traditional KANU coalitions together, Kenyatta is favored to succeed Moi. Kenya is a strong security partner of the United States. For example, the United States is the only country with which Kenya has entered a ``Military Access Agreement,'' ``MAA'' allowing for U.S. military assets to be deployed there. Kenya appears well positioned to facilitate regional and other international security issues such as our global war against international terrorism. I also asked whether we are doing enough to combat the AIDS epidemic in Kenya. According to Carson, the hard data shows that the rate of infection among adults appears to be decreasing in Kenya. The CDC is engaged in programs in West Kenya to find new vaccines, to provide education and awareness programs, and to support 40 counseling/testing centers. USAID is also active in AIDS education, prevention, and behavior change. The Peace Corps also plays a role in Kenyan public health projects relating to HIV/AIDS. We next met with Kenya's Foreign Minister Marsden Madoka. Minister Madoka said that Kenya's cabinet had yet to discuss the Kenyan reaction if the U.S. were to move against Saddam Hussein for regime change. While noting that the cabinet would naturally have the final say, he did say, importantly, that ``chances are that Kenya would support the U.S. under these circumstances.'' On the issue of HIV/AIDS, I asked Minister Madoka how serious the problem is and what the United States can do to help. Minister Madoka said that Kenya has lowered the prevalence rate from 14 percent to 13 percent nationwide. There is, however, a long way to go in addressing this crisis and its collateral effects. We then traveled to Sudan. Sudan has been ravaged by civil war since 1956 with intermittent breaks. The Sudan country team, led by Charge de Affairs Jeffrey Millington, contrasted the Bush policy of engaging Sudan in light of recent reform efforts contrasted with the Clinton Administration's approach to maintain sanctions because of human rights violations and religious suppression. With the Bush engagement policy, peace talks between the government of Sudanese President Omar el- Bashier and Sudanese Peoples Liberation Movement, SPLM, leader John Garange are moving forward in talks in Machakos, Kenya. Sudan is not only attempting to remedy its own civil strife with the Machakos negotiations, but its leadership is at least speaking in terms of engaging the United States in its views toward democracy, human rights, religious freedom, and suppressing international terrorism. On the domestic side, the government of President Bashier is conducting ongoing peace talks with the SPLM, which controls much of the southern regions of the Sudan. Former Senator John Danforth, with whom we met in Nairobi on August 18 after returning from Khartoum, accepted his role as Special Envoy to negotiate this conflict on September 6, 2001, and first visited the region on November 6, 2001. Senator Danforth is working with a small team made up of veteran diplomats including Michael Miller from the National Security Council East Africa staff, Charge Millington and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charles Snyder. Senator Danforth has been successful to date. On July 20, 2002, breakthrough agreements were reached leading to the ``famous handshake'' between Sudanese President Omar el Bashier and SPLM leader John Garange on July 27, 2002 in Kampala. The July 20 Machakos round produced an agreement in principle not to apply Sharia (Islamic law) in the post-reconciliation South, and would provide the people of the South the right to self-determination after 6\1/2\ years (including a referendum on secession). Still to be determined in further Machakos rounds will be the precise form of government in the South for the 6\1/ 2\ year trial period such as judiciary, infrastructure, security, and the ultimate status of the SPLM, including whether John Garange can keep a standing army. Senator Danforth, in preparation for upcoming rounds, has skillfully tested the two sides' willingness to come together on four vital humanitarian issues: (1) continuation of a ceasefire in the Nuba Mountain region between North and South, where Evangelicals working with Christian populations have been the target of religious persecution; (2) a polio vaccination program; (3) prevention of attacks against civilians; and (4) prevention of ``raiders,'' who with the encouragement of the government in Khartoum, have killed male populations and enslaved their women and children. Satisfaction of the four Danforth preconditions would lay the groundwork for final agreements in Machakos on a more permanent peace in the Sudan. A key aspect of our trip involved gathering information on religious persecution. Persecution of religious minorities, focused particularly on Christians in Muslim countries such as Sudan, led in 1998 to the passage of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, ``IRFA'', which I introduced with Representative Frank Wolf. The IRFA established the Office of International Religious Freedom and the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom with the mission of reviewing and making policy recommendations on religious freedom. We met with Reverend Ezekiel Kondo, the Provincial Secretary of the Province of the Episcopal Church of the Sudan. Reverend Kondo raised the following issues: (1) the persecution of those who convert from Islam to Christianity, which is apparently continuing and is not covered by Machakos; (2) the withholding of permits to build new churches and to license existing churches, which remains a problem with non-Muslim clerics; (3) the refusal to grant visas for religious leaders to leave the country for professional conferences and for religious leaders from abroad to visit Sudan; and (4) the need for more precise coverage of the Nuba Mountain region dispute within the context of the Machakos agreements. Reverend Kondo is skeptical that Muslim attempts to reach out to non-Muslims will work if the basic rights for non-Muslims are not committed to in writing, implemented, monitored and enforced. When I referenced this religious persecution with President Bashier's Peace Advisor, Dr. Ghazi Sulahaddin, and his Foreign Minister, Mustafa Ismail, I was told that the current Sudanese government should be given a chance to show the international community that the acts underlying the persecution have occurred during many years of civil war, and a process toward reconciliation only began in 1997. Both men assured us that Sudan is on the path to religious freedom and respect for human rights in general. President Bashier pledged that it is ``the obligation of Muslims to provide religious freedom,'' and that he has made this issue a priority and has commanded local officials to ``study this issue closely.'' Dr. Sulahaddin, and Foreign Minister Ismail highlighted for us their views on U.S.-Sudan relations. Sulahaddin said there is a ``huge'' potential for normalization and improvement of relations between our countries and Sudan does not engage in terrorism because the taking of innocent life is contrary to Islamic beliefs. He argued that the U.S. had no basis for concluding that the Sudanese plant that was targeted for missile strikes by the U.S. in 1998 actually produced nerve gas. He emphasized the positive aspects of the new interaction between U.S. and Sudanese intelligence agencies, and the resulting shift toward more engagement and intensification of dialogue with the Bush administration. Foreign Minister Ismail stressed that the international community, particularly the United States, should be patient with Sudan since the real beginning of movement toward democracy, human rights, religious freedom and other elements of a free society only began in 1997-1998 with the drafting of the new Sudanese Constitution. This in combination with the debilitating effects of the North-South war has caused ``growing pains,'' according to Minister Ismail. Minister Ismail handed to Senator Shelby a report that provides details that Sudan has done everything that it can to fight terrorism. President Bashier stated his appreciation for the existing cooperation between the U.S. and Sudan, including the special role of our country and Senator Danforth in brokering the Machakos talks. In stressing the need for the ultimate unification of Sudan following the 6\1/2\ year trial period envisioned by Machakos, President Bashier drew an analogy between the Sudanese civil war and the U.S. Civil War. Bashier said that if the U.S. had not remained unified the Union could have ended up ``more like Canada or Mexico.'' On regime change in Iraq, Dr. Sulahaddin said, any attack on Iraq would fragment the Arab world, and urged the U.S. to seek a unified stance in the United Nations among various Arab countries. President Bashier said that he hopes that the U.S. will seek alternatives to military action because the Iraqi people have suffered enough. Our delegation next moved to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, to further explore trade, security and health issues. We met with the U.S. country team led by Charges de Affairs Thomas Hull. Hull briefed us about the state of Ethiopia in the wake of its two-year border war with Eritrea. The U.S. intelligence relationship with Ethiopia has grown even stronger after September 11. The Ethiopians believe that the war on terrorism serves their own domestic security interests, as Ethiopia must also contend with radical Islam as a constant threat. Other issues that were discussed included potential U.S. basing in Eritrea in preparation to act militarily against Saddam Hussein and the impact such basing might have on Ethiopian security concerns vis-a-vis Eritrea. Ethiopia is also concerned about cross border terrorist incursions into its country from Somalia. We then met with Ethiopia's Prime Minister Meles Zanawi, who was quite articulate and spoke in depth about many subjects. He said that Ethiopia is a close ally in the war against terrorism, but for Ethiopian reasons. The reasons to which he refers is the constant threat of radical Islam to Ethiopia and its African neighbors. He referred to the war on terrorism as something of a godsend for Ethiopia, because it has focused the world on the practices of radical Islam. Ethiopia, according to the Prime Minister, is at the epicenter of terrorism and a secular island in the sea of Islam. We questioned Prime Minister Meles about the U.S. policy of regime change in Iraq. He responded that Saddam should be removed in order to force countries like Saudi Arabia with large Islamic populations to choose whether to allow radical Islam to take hold or to fight against that very radicalism. He calls this a fight for their very survival. Regarding trade, Ethiopia stands to gain by the combination of the AGOA and the TPA, and Meles appreciates the role of the United States in engaging sub-Saharan Africa on trade. He said Ethiopia wants access to the U.S.'s trillion-dollar economy. We also sought the Prime Minister's views on the Sudanese peace process and its effect upon Ethiopia. According to Meles, the Sudanese Muslim government has already taken anti-Islamic actions by agreeing in principle to non-application of Sharia in the South. This, according to Meles, will make it easier to achieve breakthroughs on other issues. The Prime Minister also sees the exploitation of oil and gas reserves in a stable Sudan, and the willingness of the United States to engage the peace process, as positive incentives for the Sudanese to move the peace process forward. With regard to Somalia, Prime Minister Meles compared Somalia to Afghanistan and Yemen as a potential haven for terrorists. When I asked what the U.S. should do to address the situation, Meles noted that the United States must devote nonmilitary resources rather than attempting to broker a Machakos-type agreement. Somalia is not ready for a negotiated agreement because there are too many actors on that stage. We also discussed the HIV/AIDS crisis and human suffering in Ethiopia. The Prime Minister linked solutions to both crises to United States assistance in bolstering Ethiopian infrastructure and institutions, providing access to U.S. markets through expansion of trade, and removal of Ethiopia from the cycle of reliance on foreign aid. U.S. appropriations for HIV/AIDS projects in Ethiopia have increased from $4 million to $18 million in the past two years. At this time, both USAID and the CDC are active in Ethiopia. USAID focuses both on famine relief, drought issues and along with the CDC, HIV/AIDS prevention and education efforts. CDC has also opened HIV/AIDS diagnostic clinics in Addis Ababa. While the HIV/AIDS rate is 13 percent, consistent with Kenya prevalence percentages, actual numbers of those with HIV/AIDS is higher in Ethiopia as the population is higher. From Ethiopia we moved to neighboring Eritrea. Ethiopia's annexation of Eritrea as a province in 1962 started a 30-year struggle for independence that ended in 1991 with Eritrean rebels defeating governmental forces. A two and a half year border war with Ethiopia that erupted in 1998 ended under UN auspices on December 12, 2000. Final lines of demarcation are being arbitrated. According to U.S. Ambassador to Eritrea Donald McConnell, the relationship between the United States and Eritrea is sweet and sour. Ambassador McConnell gives Eritrea an ``A+'' grade in joining with the United States in the war against terrorism. Eritrea may soon be assisting the United States to change the regime in Iraq by allowing our troops to use bases in Eritrea. Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki said in our meeting with him that there must be a change altogether in the Iraqi regime if Iraqi behavior is to change. In terms of promoting stability in the region, Ambassador McConnell told us that Eritrea might face greater challenges from radical fundamentalism. President Isaias is skeptical of Sudanese intentions and believes that the Bashier government will continue to quietly encourage radical fundamentalists to further destabilize the region. President Isaias said that the Sudanese leadership is committed to radical Islam and are worse than bin Laden, and that they preach hatred under the guise of Islam. He believes that the United States must remain constructively engaged in the region to prevent radical Islamic views from overtaking neighboring countries or threatening their security. While in Eritrea, we continued to hear of religious persecution in Sudan and the importance of the United States in stopping it. In separate discussions with Abune Philipos Woldetensae, the Patriarch of the Eritrean Orthodox Church, and Abba Menghisteab Tesfamariam, the Bishop of the Catholic Church of Eritrea, we were told that the Sudanese are oppressing Christians in southern Sudan. Abune Philipos went so far as to say, Christian believers in Sudan will not exist if the U.S. Government does not bring pressure to resolve their persecution by Islam. Bishop Menghisteab recounted how five of his fellow Catholic Bishops from Sudan have told him as recently as July 28, 2002 of Christian women and children being sold into slavery. The Sudanese Bishops also told him that President Bashier is attempting to Islamize the entire country by using Sharia law to suppress Christians. According to both clerics, some new Eritrean churches may be facing problems obtaining permits to worship. These two men stay in close contact with the head of the Eritrean Muslim community, as well as leading Protestants, which make up the traditional four churches in Eritrea. The new churches not belonging to this traditional group of four have been told in recent weeks that they must register with the government and provide information on their activities and source of funding, according to Ambassador McConnell. We discussed other human rights issues such as the detention without charge of two Eritrean employees of the U.S. embassy due to national security concerns. There is just so much the U.S. can do as it relates to the internal affairs of a country like Eritea, and we remain hopeful of an acceptable resolution of the detention of the two employees. The United States can help Eritrea by remaining engaged in the region. Among other things, we can assist Eritrea in becoming an exporter of valuable products by focusing foreign aid on building their infrastructure. Then Eritrea can take advantage of AGOA and TPA and become a viable U.S. trade partner and thus expand our bilateral relationship. Our codel then traveled to Sicily for refueling the night before returning to the United States. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that copies of op-ed pieces which I have written for the Morning Call and the Harrisburg Patriot and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette also be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am opposed to cloture of the Lieberman bill until I have a chance to offer that amendment. I have also voted against cloture on the Gramm-Miller bill because, again, although I have had discussions with Senator Gramm, as I have had discussions with Senator Lieberman, we have not reached fruition. I want an opportunity to include this language about the intelligence directorate on the Gramm-Miller amendment. While I have not taken a position, as I said on Thursday, on whether I will ultimately support the Nelson-Chafee-Breaux amendment, which is backed by labor, or whether I will support the Gramm-Miller amendment, which is the President's preference, it is my hope we can yet work out an accommodation. But I think it is much more important the Senate pass a bill and we go to conference with the House, whichever provisions are included. I grant the provisions labor wants included are important to labor, and I grant the provisions the President wants included are important to the President. But as important as all of those provisions are, they are not as important as getting a bill that can be conferenced with the House, which can be signed by the President, so we can set up this Department of Homeland Security and we can have, under one umbrella, all of the intelligence agencies. It is not that the Secretary is going to tell the CIA agents around the globe where to go, or the FBI agents where to go, or the National Security Agency what to do, or the Defense Intelligence Agency, but as to the analysis, they should all come under one umbrella. That really is the critical factor. That is why I believe the conclusion of this bill on that issue is of greater importance than any other matter in the bill and of greater importance than any other matter which the Congress will consider during this session. So I am prepared to vote for cloture on the Gramm- Miller amendment should I get the chance to offer my amendment. I do not think, as the Senator from Texas said, that he is absolutely entitled to a vote on his proposal without amendment. The rules of the Senate provide that there can be amendments to the Gramm-Miller proposal, just as there can be amendments to the Lieberman bill, just as there can be amendments to any bill. To repeat, I have not yet taken a position as to whether I will favor what labor seeks through the Nelson-Chafee-Breaux proposal or what the President seeks through the Gramm-Miller proposal, but it is of greatest importance that this provision on the Directorate of Intelligence Analysis be adopted and everything be placed under one roof.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is my hope that the Senate will complete action on the pending homeland security legislation, that we will go to conference with the House of Representatives, and that this bill will be passed, signed into law by the President, before we adjourn because, in my judgment, the most important business the Congress has is to legislate is on homeland security and to do our utmost to prevent a recurrence of 9/11. The intelligence communities have advised that there will be another terrorist attack. It is not a matter of whether or if, but it is a matter of when. I am not prepared to accept that. I believe another terrorist attack can be prevented. I believe had all of the so-called dots been put together before September 11, 2001, that there was a good chance that terrorist attack could have been prevented. I say that because there were very important leads which were never coalesced, analyzed, or brought together. I refer to the FBI report out of Phoenix, in July of 2000, about a man taking flight training, had a big picture of Osama bin Laden, very suspicious. That report never got to the upper echelons of the FBI. We had the CIA tracking two members of al-Qaida in Kuala Lumpur. They turned out to be hijackers, two of the pilots involved in September 11. But the CIA never told the FBI or never told INS, and they gained admittance to the country and were part of the suicide bombers. Then there is the famous, or perhaps infamous, national security agency report on September 10 that something dire was about to happen the very next day. It wasn't translated until September 12. Further, the very important effort by the Minneapolis branch of the FBI to get a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for Zacarias Moussaoui, who was supposed to have been the 20th member of the hijackers and suicide bombers, was never pursued properly because the FBI used the wrong standard. We know from the 13-page single-spaced letter written by Special Agent Colleen Rowley that the U.S. Attorney's office in Minneapolis was applying the wrong standard--a 75 to 80 percent probability--and that Agent Colleen Rowley thought it was a standard of more probable than not, which would have been 51 percent. The appropriate legal standard, as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States in Gates v. Illinois, in an opinion by then Justice Rehnquist, was that probable cause is established on the totality of the circumstances based on suspicion. Had the Zacarias Moussaoui matter been integrated, there was a great deal of information available in Moussaoui's computer which was not acquired. The Intelligence Committee hearings have disclosed that in the past two weeks. All of these dots were on the screen, and even more. Had they been brought together, then there is a possibility that 9-11 may have been prevented. At least they would have been on inquiry. I believe this was a veritable blueprint. I believe we have a very heavy duty to see that this legislation is enacted and all of the intelligence agencies are brought under one umbrella. I tried to do that in 1996 when I chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee. I wanted to bring them all under the CIA. I think it is not really critical under which umbrella, but under one umbrella. Now we have the chance to accomplish that with homeland security. We have two provisions under the Labor-Management Act that are, so far, providing a controversy that has held the measure from going further. It is my suggestion these two provisions are not too far apart. The law, as set forth in 5 United States Code 7103 says: The President may issue an order excluding any agency or subdivision thereof from coverage under this chapter [which is collective bargaining] if the President determines that (a) the agency or subdivision has a primary function, intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work, and the provisions of this chapter cannot be applied to that agency or subdivision in a manner consistent with national security requirements and considerations. That is the existing law which the President does not want changed, and there has been an effort by labor to what is called ``shore up'' those provisions of collective bargaining by this language in the Nelson-Chafee-Breaux amendment: The President could not use his authority without showing that (1) the mission and responsibilities of the agency or subdivision materially change, and (2) a majority of such employees within such agency or subdivision have as their primary duty, intelligence, counterintelligence, or investigative work directly related to terrorism investigation. Now, there was a question on my mind as to whether the language of the Nelson amendment was in addition to or in substitution for the existing language on collective bargaining. We had an extensive discussion among Senator Lieberman, Senator Thompson, Senator Breaux, myself, and Senator Nelson was on the floor. At that time, the drafters of the amendment said it was not in substitution for, but in addition to. Well, the main concern the President has expressed is he is concerned his authority under the provisions relating to national security would be taken away. But the drafters of the amendment tell us that is not what is intended because the language is ``in addition to'' and not ``in place of.'' If you look at the specifics of the existing language about intelligence, counterintelligence, investigation, and the language of the amendment, the duties, primary duty, intelligence, counterintelligence, or investigative work, they are not too far apart. I think we can reach an accommodation there. The other provision that has provided the controversy is the issue of the President wanting flexibility, and the provisions of the Gramm- Miller amendment have picked up the language of the House bill, which would give the President flexibility on these six categories: Performance appraisal, classification, pay rates and systems, labor- management relations, adverse actions, and appeals. The amendment provided by Senator Nelson and Senator Breaux would give the President four of those six. It would give the President, No. 1, performance appraisal; No. 2, classification; 3, pay rates and systems; 4, adverse actions. But that would be subject to review by the Federal Services Impasses Panel, a seven-appointee panel, all of whose appointees are the President's. It seems to me we are very close here. I voted against cloture on the Lieberman bill because we do not have in the bill, as it is presently drafted, an adequate provision as to the directorate to have all of the intelligence agencies under one umbrella, and an adequate provision giving the Secretary of Homeland Defense direction to coordinate all of those agencies, to put all those dots on one screen, to have the best likelihood of preventing another 9-11. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the amendment I have already filed and have ready to propose be printed at the conclusion of my statement today.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Correct.

Mr. SPECTER. The President exercised his authority under national security grounds on a collective bargaining issue as opposed to a personnel issue?

Mr. SPECTER. That was on collective bargaining, was it not, as opposed to personnel?

Mr. SPECTER. Senator Gramm had made the comment in his earlier presentation that every President since President Carter has had the power to make personnel decisions on national security grounds. We have just had a discussion with some of the people from the personnel department. We have been cited to no authority as to the personnel decisions under chapter 43, chapter 51, chapter 53, chapter 75 and chapter 77. These are all provisions of the Gramm bill. The only exception for national security is one on labor relations--labor-management relations in chapter 71. The question I have for the manager of the bill, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, is whether he knows of any provision, statutory provision or other provision, which will give the President the authority to make personnel decisions on national security grounds?

Mr. SPECTER. One additional question.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have one additional question, if I might.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if the international security consideration is stricken, there is an enormous difference. But that goes to the basic question as to whether this is in place of or in addition to. If there is a national security consideration, it is nonjustifiable. You cannot take appeals. All the President has to do is come to court and say it is national security. If national security is not in the requirement, then you get into the arbitrary capriciousness, et cetera, on administering appeals. Perhaps, if I might have the attention of the Senator from Tennessee, I think in listening to the Senator and looking at this, in regard to what you are talking about, it is clearly a replacement. It would be clearly redundant if it were not. It says: No agency shall be excluded as a result of the President's authority unless the President establishes these things. I don't see how it could be more clear. I don't see how it could rest side by side with current law. If it is a ``replacement,'' it makes an enormous difference. I was on the floor earlier in morning business saying if it is in addition to, it is a diminution of the President's power but not very much because of the similarity. But if it is a substitute for--Senator Nelson is on the floor. If I might have leave of the Senator from Tennessee to direct the question to Senator Nelson or Senator Lieberman, is it a substitute for or in addition to?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Tennessee that there is an additional requirement. I might differ with him as to how substantial it is.