Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I appreciate this amendment being put forward. I oppose it intensely. I have great respect for the sponsor. But I appreciate it being put forward because, more than any other amendment that we have heard or will hear on this bill, it frames the issue. The question that Senator Byrd's amendment forces every Senator to answer is, Do you want to create a Department of Homeland Security anytime soon? Do you have a feeling of urgency about the disorganization of our Federal Government's response to the terrorist threat, and do you want to respond to it anytime soon? With all respect, this amendment eviscerates the proposal that came out of our committee, the bipartisan proposal. As I have said earlier in the debate, it builds a house and leaves only the attic with a few people up on top. It creates an army to protect America and the rest of the world against terrorism with a few generals and no soldiers underneath. To say that it strengthens our proposal is like telling somebody who owns a house that you are strengthening their house by removing the foundation. It puts at issue what we have done. I do not see how anyone can vote for this amendment and say they are for adopting and creating a Department of Homeland Security soon. The question is, What happens after 13 months? Under our bill, as Senator Byrd has said, all of the agencies that are going to be part of the new Department have to be transferred within 13 months. To me, that means they are going to be operating together as a whole Department, but they have to be transferred. What happens under the amendment? All that has to happen in 13 months is that Congress has to act in some way, if Congress 13 months from now decides that it wants to act. It is kind of a moral invocation, if you will. It is not enforceable by anyone. That is why I say that ultimately not only does the amendment eviscerate the bill but it has no end point to it. Senator Byrd is right. There are Border Patrol and other agencies out there right now, but are they talking to each other? Are they coordinating their strategies? Are they integrating their databases? Are they meshing their command structures? Are they working adequately with State and local officials with the purpose of making every decision on every agency stronger and more effective to protect our Nation? The answer is no. In a Dear Colleague letter that Senator Byrd sent, he said similar things to what he said on the floor. He said that the ``amendment seeks to create a process by which the Congress would retain control over the implementation of this new Department.'' But it does so at a very high cost. The cost is no guarantee that the Department would be created anytime soon. I stress that the underlying proposal which came out of our committee does, in fact, protect the right of Congress to oversee and have great influence over the implementation of this new Department, first, and most significantly, through the appropriations process, and, second, we specifically rejected a call by the White House for broad authority to reorganize the components of the new Department notwithstanding what the law says now. We have said in this bill that you can only do what the law allows. If you want to change the law, you have to come back to the place where laws are made; that is, the Congress. We have required that every 6 months the new Secretary come back to Congress and make recommendations to us about any changes he or she wants to make in this Department. So the issue is clear, and the moment of truth has arrived for Senators. Do we want to create a Department of Homeland Security now? If you do, I respectfully suggest that you must vote against this amendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. I wanted to say a personal word about the extraordinary way in which the families of so many of those who were lost on September 11 have taken their unspeakable losses and personal grief and turned it into remarkable, continuing acts of advocacy for action by our Government to guarantee, as best any human can, that no other families will suffer the losses that they have suffered. These families have pushed relentlessly, and with such principle and purpose, for the creation of this commission to answer the question that they naturally ask, that we all ask but they ask it with a personal poignancy: How could this have happened? Earlier this year, at a rally of family members in support of the creation of just such a commission as our amendment would provide, Mindy Kleinberg, a mother of three, who lost her husband, Alan, last September 11, said: I want to be able to look into the eyes of my children and tell them the evil is over there, that they are safe, and that their country is secure. . . . Months have passed, and I still cannot do that. I do not have answers. The purpose of this commission is to provide those answers for Mrs. Kleinberg, for her children, for all the survivors and friends, and for all Americans, to make sure their Government is doing everything it humanly can to prevent anything like the tragic attacks of September 11 of 2001 from ever happening again. I think this is our best way to do that. I urge the adoption of this amendment. I yield back the remaining time that I have.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I will stand by what I have said before in behalf of the commission. I yield the floor at this point to my friend from Connecticut under the previous order.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend and colleague from Connecticut. In a little over an hour the Senate will vote on the amendment Senator Dodd and I have introduced which we believe will reform and strengthen the Federal tribal recognition process to the benefit of the Native American community and everyone else concerned. It will make that process more fair and give it more credibility and hopefully will provide the resources to have the decisions on tribal recognition made by the BIA and the BAR in a much more timely fashion. Some tribes have been waiting years and years and years for a decision from this recognition process that is, regrettably, broken. Of course, in part it is broken because of the gambling associated with Native American tribal recognition and the surge of applications, the dramatic interest in recognition. Often, recognition leads to the presence of gambling in a locality and the inability of these regulatory authorities to keep up with that extraordinary increase in demands on them. In Connecticut--a relatively small State, yet we have three federally recognized tribes--one recently recognized tribe is being appealed and nine more recognition petitions from our small State are in the pipeline of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We have in two of the federally recognized tribes the two largest casinos in North America, I believe in the world. So there is an impact that these decisions have. That is why, last year, my colleague from Connecticut and I introduced S. 1392 and S. 1393, which were designed to reform and improve the process by which the Federal Government recognizes the sovereign status of American Indian tribes and their tribal governments. We certainly did not view this as antirecognition because there is a historic, a moral right to recognition by tribes that can meet the requirements of this process. Nor was it, as we conceived of it, inherently antigambling. It was to say that the decisions have taken on extraordinary importance and they ought to be reached by a process that is not only fair in itself and gives all participants--the tribes claiming recognition, the neighbors of the tribal grounds, towns, et cetera--the belief that they have been through a process that is fair and therefore that the results of the process, the decisions made, are credible. We have introduced this amendment reluctantly because the problems with the tribal recognition process have not gotten better, notwithstanding concerns expressed by many, as has been indicated here. As my colleague from Connecticut has said, this happens to be a problem that has impacted Connecticut, a relatively small State, but this is really a national problem affecting Native Americans seeking tribal recognition in the States in which they are now located. Let me quote from the GAO report, which has been cited, which found that ``the basis for BIA's tribal recognition decisions is not always clear.'' It went on to state: While there are set criteria that petitioners must meet to be granted recognition, there is no clear guidance that explains how to interpret key aspects of the criteria. For example, it is not always clear what level of evidence is sufficient to demonstrate a tribe's continuous existence over a period of time--one of the key aspects of the criteria. As a result, there is less regulatory certainty about the basis for recognition decisions. That is from a critical report by the GAO on this recognition process. That GAO critique has been seconded by the Interior Department's inspector general and, as has been noted in this debate, even by the past Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. Despite these critiques, there have been no real changes in the recognition process to fix the problems. Instead, the status quo has continued at the BIA, with applicants experiencing long delays and parties in various cases dealing with decisions that they believe have been unfairly arrived at. The amendment we will vote on at 5:30 this afternoon is our attempt to improve this situation. Rather than letting the process continue in the current manner, we ask for it to provide adequate procedures to ensure its legitimacy--something that would benefit both the tribes and the communities and parties that surround them. I want to stress that this amendment does nothing to affect already recognized Federal tribes or to hinder their economic development plans; nor does it change existing Federal tribal recognition laws. It is our hope, in fact, and has been our hope, that the Native American tribes might support these procedural reforms that we are recommending so as to buttress the legitimacy of the ultimate recognition rulings. While, as my friends and colleagues from Colorado and Hawaii have indicated, that is not the case and, in fact, a large number of Native American tribes have opposed this amendment, I continue to hope the fact that we have brought it before the Senate may encourage them, under the wise and fair leadership of the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, and the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Campbell, to see if we can't find common ground. It seems to me no matter what side you are on in a particular proceeding before the BAR or BIA, you have an interest in due process and you have an interest in the result of the process being as broadly credible as possible. What our amendments would do consistent with recognition laws is to ensure that recognition criteria are satisfied and that all affected parties, including affected neighboring towns, have a chance to fairly participate in the decision process. Our amendment ensures a system of notice to affected parties. It assures that relevant evidence from petitioners and interested parties, including neighboring towns, is properly considered; that a formal hearing may be requested with an opportunity for witnesses to be called and with other due process procedures in place; that a transcript of the hearing is kept; that the evidence is sufficient to show the petitioner meets the seven mandatory criteria of Federal regulations; and that a complete and detailed explanation of the final decisions and findings of fact are published in the Federal Register. There is nothing very radical here. It is basic due process procedural rights, all consistent with the established recognition criteria. We have not changed the recognition criteria in the amendment that we proposed. Under the amendment, funding available under the Interior appropriations bill to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the recognition process becomes available when these fundamental due process procedures are implemented by the Secretary of the Interior. So insofar as this is considered a moratorium, it is a moratorium, as I know Senator Dodd has indicated, that could end in a week if these due process changes were put into effect. Our amendment dictates no outcomes in any particular cases. It aims to ensure a fair process. So I hope my colleagues will take a look at the amendment. In some sense the impact of the currently broken process at the BIA has been felt with a particular intensity in Connecticut. But this is a national problem. We may not adopt this amendment today. I hope we will, but if we do not, this is a problem that is not going to go away. It is going to be felt more and more around the country. Again, I say our aspiration is to find common ground. I thank the Chairman, Senator Inouye, and Senator Campbell for their characteristic courtesy and respect and thoughtfulness. We disagree on this one. It is a disagreement in good faith on both sides. I continue to express the hope that under their leadership, those who are concerned about the fairness of the recognition process, those who are concerned about the lack of speed in the process--the terrible delays--will be able to come together and agree on a series of reforms, and then the funding for additional staff at the BAR and BIA to make the promise of due process here real for all concerned. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. I thank my friend from Arizona for a very eloquent statement. I thank him for the work we have done together on this proposal. I also thank him for clarifying something about which I misspoke. I said there had only been one analyst at the CIA committed to targeting al-Qaida even after al-Qaida had been determined to be the source of terrorism against us in a very committed act. In fact, there were five--still not a significant enough number-- in the counterterrorism center of the CIA, and one analyst at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. For the record, the amendment we have offered today differs in a few respects from the bill reported out of committee. We are calling for an even division between Republicans and Democrats in choosing commission members. As Senator McCain said, I certainly hope this is a nonpartisan commission--not even bipartisan--with the majority parties of the Senate and House each receiving three picks and the minority parties in each House having two nominations. This is the configuration of an equivalent commission recently created by the House of Representatives. And it has another notable precedent in the form of a National Commission on Terrorism created by Congress in 1999 headed by former Ambassador Paul Bremer, which produced some work that had an effect on our foreign policy. There are three other minor changes in the text of our original bill. The bill emphasizes that the commission should build on the progress of Congress and its committees, and other inquiries, especially the joint inquiry of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees regarding terrorist attacks. I hope they will come to the floor and speak for themselves. But I want to say that Senator Gramm, chairman of the Intelligence Committee of the Senate, and Senator Shelby, vice chairman, have each said to me--although originally earlier in the hearings--that they have some concerns but now fully support the creation of the commission that this amendment would bring about. The amendment, as we have submitted it, provides that the chair and the vice chair of the commission, in addition to the chairpersons, can issue subpoenas. And it makes technical improvements to the bill's alternative subpoena enforcement mechanism. I wanted my colleagues to know that there have been those changes from the bill as it came out of our committee, and to echo what Senator McCain has said. This is an idea. It is an idea that we believe is a necessity, in the public interest, to answer the plaintive cries of the families of those who died on September 11: How did this happen? And how can we know everything that is possible to know so we can make sure it never happens again? But as to the specific details, we welcome the questions and inquiries of the Members of the Senate before this amendment comes to a vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend from New Jersey for his comments. I used the words ``passionate'' and ``persistent'' to describe his advocacy of an independent inquiry into the events of September 11. He has brought that passion and eloquence to the floor today. We will persist together, in growing numbers in this body, until the questions that he asks, that the families are asking, are answered. He is right, there is an inevitability to this idea, but ``inevitable'' can be a long time. We have to make it happen sooner rather than later, and the adoption of this amendment will do just that. I do want to say to my friend from New Jersey, he raised a question about the underlying bill--I know it was done in the context of what he was saying. I do want to assure him, which I know he knows, that the underlying proposal for the Department of Homeland Security does derive from the Hart-Rudman Commission, which saw these vulnerabilities before September 11, and called for a new department, and the National Commission on Terrorism--the Bremer Commission did the same--and from the various hearings of our committee. So I think there is an ample record that cries out for the establishment of a Department of Homeland Security, but as I have said all along in this debate, this is our first best effort to create such a department. It will be, in my opinion, hope, and belief, measurably improved over time, by experience but also by the results of the inquiry that this amendment will create because the more we know about how September 11 happened, the better we will be able, through this new Department of Homeland Security, to make sure it never happens again. This morning, I spoke to one of the family members of someone who was killed in New York on September 11, and she said that sitting at the hearing of the joint intelligence committee yesterday, hearing the staff director report on findings to date, forced her to a conclusion that she did not want to reach; that the attacks were preventable. I am not one who believes that another September 11 type of attack is inevitable. It is not. We all know that if somebody is crazy enough to strap explosives around their waist and walk into a crowd, it is hard to stop that; but even that, with proper intelligence and infiltration of terrorist groups, can be stopped. A terrorist event as large and as comprehensive as September 11, involving all of the context it had with financial resources, with aviation, with Governmental agencies, immigration and otherwise, when one considers all the money we are investing every year in satellites and conversation surveillance devices, that should have been noted and prevented, and that is the aim of the commission and the department, to make sure that September 11 never happens again. The Senator from New Jersey made reference to the Titanic. I will share with my colleagues very briefly an excerpt from an article that appeared in the New York Times on September 11, 2002, just last week, on the first anniversary of that day. It is written by Jim Dwyer, and it says: Of course the country had to understand what went wrong. One of the largest structures ever built had failed, at a terrible cost in lives. When warned of danger, those in charge had shrugged. Many died because the rescue effort was plagued by communication breakdowns, a lack of coordination, failure to prepare. These findings on the sinking of the Titanic entered the public record after the Carpathia docked at the Chelsea piers in Manhattan on April 18, 1912, with the 705 survivors plucked from the North Atlantic. Starting the next morning at the Waldorf-Astoria, the barely dry witnesses provided a rich body of facts about the accident, the Titanic, the maritime practices to the United States Senate Commerce Committee, which held 18 days of hearings. Their testimony gave form to a distant horror, shaping law and history. No inquiry remotely similar in scope, energy, or transparency has examined the attacks of last September 11, the devastating collapse of two of the world's tallest structures, the deaths at the Pentagon, or on United Airlines flight 93 in Pennsylvania. A handful of tightly focused reviews have taken place mostly in secret, conducted by private consultants, or by Congressional committees. One year later, the public knows less about the circumstances of 2,801 deaths at the foot of Manhattan in broad daylight than people in 1912 knew within weeks about the Titanic, which sank in the middle of an ocean in the dead of night. That hardly seems possible, considering that 9/11 iconography has been absorbed into everything from football pageants to pitches by speakers peddling lessons in leadership. And yet, says John F. Timoney, once a senior police commander in New York and the former police commissioner in Philadelphia, the events of September 11 are among the most rare in American public life: true catastrophes that have gone fundamentally unscrutinized. ``You can hardly point to a cataclysmic event in our history, whether it was the sinking of the Titanic, the Pearl Harbor attack, the Kennedy assassination, when a blue- ribbon panel did not set out to establish the facts and, where appropriate, suggest reforms,'' Mr. Timoney. That has not happened here.'' That is the dreadful gap and omission that this amendment aims to fill. I hope my colleagues will support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. If I might first note the presence of the Senator from New Jersey on the floor, he was an early, outspoken, and passionate advocate for an independent investigation--and I have another adjective--persistent. Acting separately, he introduced a bill with Senator Grassley, and Senator McCain and I introduced another measure. We all agreed we have the same goals, and we put our two proposals together. I thank him for his advocacy of this idea, and I am glad he is on the floor. I welcome him now to this discussion.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Responding again to my friend from Tennessee, let me direct myself to the first part of your question. If this commission functions as its sponsors want it to, this national commission on terrorist attacks upon the United States, it will have the high-quality commissioners devoted to its work, as well as a large, first-rate staff that will have the capability both to pick up the work in the intelligence community and carry it as far as it can be carried forward to answer all relevant questions relating to the causes of September 11, but also to investigate the other subject matter areas we have talked about--diplomacy, law enforcement, aviation policy, et cetera. Of course, the question of whether the Intelligence Committee investigation goes on is a separate question. And this commission idea stands on its own. I am encouraged, as I mentioned, that the chair and vice chair of the Intelligence Committee, Senators Graham of Florida and Shelby, both support the establishment of an independent commission. So I conclude they believe its work can be complementary.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Responding to the Senator from Tennessee--another very important question--it is the intention of the sponsors that the work of this commission build on and complement the work of the joint intelligence committee in investigating the events of September 11, 2001. The joint intelligence committee has done some very important work. It already produced some material, just yesterday released publicly, that was riveting and in its way raised an additional set of questions to be answered either by the committee and its later investigation or by this commission. Again, the purview, the focus of the commission we intend to create is much broader and would build on what the joint committee on intelligence has done but then go into other areas we talked about: Defense, foreign policy, immigration policy, law enforcement, commercial aviation, et cetera.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. That is right. The legislation provides for closed hearings. It is my guess that most of the work of this commission, though not all of it, would be done in closed classified investigations. But some of it, hopefully, presumably, would be done in public, certainly to engage public testimony at various points.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I will respond to the Senator from Tennessee. I thank my friend for his very thoughtful and directly relevant questions. I will try to respond to the first one very briefly and add to what the Senator from Arizona said. The commission is given a broad mandate, in section 604 of this proposal, to conduct an investigation of all relevant facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and then it goes on to say, that ``may'' include relevant facts and circumstances relating to, first, intelligence agencies, and then all the rest. Obviously, intelligence is listed first, though I emphasize the ``may.'' This commission has discretionary authority to go ahead as it will decide to conduct a very broad investigation called for under that section A that I read from. I certainly hope they will do some work on the intelligence community, building on the work the joint intelligence committee has done. The uniqueness of our proposal is to have it be more comprehensive, to get into exactly the kind of broader questions that may seem remote but are not, about what impact the USS Cole and Somalia, et cetera, had on both our foreign policy and the attitudes of others abroad that may have all contributed to what happened on September 11. The breadth is very important. We are trying to build a complementary structure because if you want to end this commission's work feeling that you asked every question that could have been asked about how September 11 happened, there would have to be a lot of questions about intelligence agencies but a lot as well about things that may seem remote, like commercial aviation policies or immigration policies. That is what the intent is. I do want to respond to the second question, which is very important. It seems to me this commission will not be able to successfully complete its work unless it has full access to all the relevant documents in our Government. That is why we have required in the wording of the proposal that the various departments expeditiously respond to requests for security clearances by members of the commission and their staffs. There was an earlier time when some criticized the idea for this commission, saying it might be a circus; I guess on the presumption that it would all be in public. That is not our intention.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Responding to the Senator, a total of 18 months, with a preliminary report due after 6 months.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment which embraces legislation that my friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, and I introduced last December and then joined up with similar legislation introduced by the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Torricelli. Ultimately, we have 22 Members of the Senate from both parties who have joined as cosponsors of the legislation. The underlying bill went to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, which I am privileged to chair, and was reported out favorably earlier this year. This amendment now embraces that legislation. It would create an independent, nonpartisan citizens commission to investigate how and why the tragic terrorist attacks against the United States happened on September 11, 2001. The underlying measure we are considering to create a Department of Homeland Security, to better organize the Federal agencies whose disorganization, I fear, created some of the vulnerabilities that the terrorists took advantage of in striking us on September 11, is a proposal that also came out of our committee. This amendment would improve the Department that will be created as a result of the underlying proposal. Up until this time, the Joint Intelligence Committees of the House and Senate have been pursuing investigations focused particularly on how the intelligence community performed and what lapses there were in that performance that may have contributed to the attacks of September 11. Senator McCain and I, and our colleagues, introduced this measure last December because we believed, first, that there was a need now, after this truly unprecedented attack of September 11, 2001. People compare it to Pearl Harbor. It is comparable, but remember, Pearl Harbor was primarily an attack against Americans in uniform. September 11, 2001, was an attack against innocent civilians, a classic terrorist attack. After Pearl Harbor, there were investigations in Congress, not unlike the ones being carried out by the Joint Intelligence Committee. But there were also citizens' commissions involved to carry out broader investigations, and that is exactly what this commission, as created by this amendment now, would do, if adopted. This commission would build on the work done by the Intelligence Committees which began their reports yesterday. The testimony from the staff director of the committee, I found chilling, insofar as it reported that as far back as 1998, if I remember the date correctly, there was intelligence traffic intercepted that indicated that the al-Qaida terrorists were, in fact, discussing the use of civilian aircraft as weapons targeted against prominent buildings in the United States of America. Along the way, the Director of the CIA, so the testimony yesterday went before the Intelligence Committees, effectively declared an intelligence community war against al-Qaida but only assigned a single analyst to that task; there was intelligence information, of course, and law enforcement intelligence, not being coordinated. Senator McCain and I, as well as Senators Torricelli and Specter, met earlier today with some of the families of the people who lost their lives on September 11. The question they continued to ask is: How could this have happened and was it preventable? They strongly support the adoption of this independent commission. Why? Because they have had the heroic strength to turn their grievous loss into active advocacy for the kind of investigation that will go as far as we can humanly go to determine the causes of September 11 so we make sure it never happens again. The commission, to be appointed by legislative leaders of both parties of both Houses, is to have 10 persons on it, not Government employees, not Members of Congress--an equal number of members of both political parties. They choose the chair and vice chair. This ought to be, and I am confident will be, a commission that will not consider itself in any sense limited or truly identified by party affiliation. This is a commission that will have a public purpose: To go beyond the focus of the Intelligence Committees; directed towards intelligence; to consider the widest array of possible causes of September 11; to look at our defense policies, our foreign policies, our international economic policies, our international public diplomacy policies, our intelligence, our law enforcement; to leave no stone unturned in trying to answer the question of how September 11 could have happened, so we make sure it never happens again. It will have the credibility of an independent, nonpolitical, nonpartisan commission composed of a mix of citizens whose experience and capacity will bring great credibility to this report. I am so pleased there has been a twist of fate and procedure, often quite important in this body, that has allowed us now to introduce this amendment. I am, therefore, honored to move its adoption. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 19, 2002, at 2:15 p.m., in SD-366. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 2623, to designate the Cedar Creek Battlefield and Belle Grove Plantation National Historical Park as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes; S. 2640 and H.R. 3421, to provide for adequate school facilities in Yosemite National Park, and for other purposes; S. 2776, to provide for the protection of archaeological sites in the Galisteo Basin in New Mexico, and for other purposes; S. 2788, to revise the boundary of the Wind Cave National Park in the State of South Dakota; S. 2880, to designate Fort Bayard Historic District in the State of New Mexico as a National Historic Landmark, and for other purposes; H.R. 3786, to revise the boundary of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area in the States of Utah and Arizona; and H.R. 3858, to modify the boundaries of the New River Gorge National River, West Virginia.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Business Rights and Competition be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Oversight of Enforcement of the Antitrust Laws'' on Thursday, September 19, 2002, at 1:30 p.m., in room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Tentative Witness List: The Honorable Charles James, Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC and the Honorable Timothy J. Muris, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet Thursday, September 19, 2002, from 9:30 a.m.-12 p.m., in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing regarding Disease Management.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 19, 2002, at 10 a.m. and 2:30 p.m., to hold a joint open hearing with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence regarding the joint inquiry into the events of September 11, 2001.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 19, 2002, at 2 p.m., to hold a nomination hearing. Agenda Nominees Panel 1: Mr. C. William Swank, of Ohio, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation; Mr. Ned Siegel, of Florida, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation; Mrs. Diane Ruebling, of California, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation; and Mr. Samuel Ebbesen, of the Virgin Islands, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. Panel 2: The Honorable Wendy Chamberlin, of Virginia, to be Assistant Administrator of the Agency for International Development for Asia and the Near East and Ms. Nancy Jacklin, of New York, to be United States Executive Director of the International Monetary Fund.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, September 19, 2002, at 10 a.m., in Dirksen Room 226. Tentative Agenda I. Nominations Dennis Shedd to be a U.S. Circuit Court Judge for the Fourth Circuit; Ronald H. Clark to be a U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Texas; Lawrence J. Block to be a Judge for U.S. Court of Federal Claims; and to be a U.S. Marshal: Antonio Candia Amador for the Eastern District of California. II. Bills S. 2480, Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2002 [Leahy/Hatch/ Feinstein/Thurmond/Cantwell/Grassley/Edwards/Kyl/DeWine/Sessions/ McConnell/Brownback]. S. 2798, Employee Abuse Prevention Act of 2002 [Durbin/Leahy/ Kennedy]. S. 2820, To increase the priority for employee wages and benefits in bankruptcy [Carnahan/Leahy/Kennedy]. S. 2901, Corporate Accountability in Bankruptcy Act [Grassley/Leahy]. S. 1655, Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act of 2001 [Biden/ Feinstein/Durbin/Kohl/Cantwell]. S. 2742, Border Commuter Student Act of 2002 [Hutchison/Schumer/ Cantwell]. S. 2934, To Amend the charter of the American Legion [Johnson]. H.R. 3988, To Amend the charter of the American Legion [Gekas]. S. Con. Res. 139, ``National Minority Health and Health Disparities Month'' [Torricelli]. H. Con. Res. 388, ``National Minority Health and Health Disparities Month'' [Christensen]. S. Res. 326, ``National Mammography Day'' October 18, 2002 [Biden/ Leahy/Hatch/Kennedy/Thurmond/Grassley/Specter/Durbin/DeWine/Cantwell/ Brownback].

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 19, 2002, at 11 a.m., to hold a hearing on law enforcement treaties. Agenda Treaties 1. Treaty Doc. 107-13; Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Belize on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters. 2. Treaty Doc. 107-12; Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Kingdom of Sweden on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters. 3. Treaty Doc. 107-9; Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Ireland on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters. 4. Treaty Doc. 107-3; Treaty Between the Government of the Republic of India on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters. 5. Treaty Doc. 107-16; Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Principality of Liechtenstein on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters. 6. Treaty Doc. 107-6; Extradition Treaty Between the United States of America and the Republic of Peru. 7. Treaty Doc. 107-4; Extradition Treaty Between the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Lithuania. 8. Treaty Doc. 107-11: Second Protocol Amending Treaty on Extradition Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada, as amended. 9. Treaty Doc. 107-15: Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Honduras for the Return of Stolen, Robbed, or Embezzled Vehicles and Aircraft, with Annexes and a related exchange of notes. Witnesses: Mr. Sam Witten, Deputy Legal Adviser, Department of State, Washington, DC and Mr. Bruce Swartz, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Thursday, September 19, 2002, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Project Delivery and Environmental Stewardship'' to examine progress on environmental streamlining under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century, TEA-21. The hearing will be held in SD-406.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Thursday, September 19, 2002, at 10 a.m. on pending committee business. Agenda 1. S. 2949, Aviation Security Improvement Act (Sam Whitehorn/Gael Sullivan, Rob Chamberlin/Michael Reynolds). 2. S. 2946, Federal Trade Commission Reauthorization Act of 2002 (David Strickland/Kim Vandecar, Carlos Fierro/Ken Nahigian). 3. S. 2817, National Science Foundation Doubling Act (Jean Toal Eisen/Chan Lieu, Floyd DesChamps/Ken LaSala). 4. S. 2950, National Transportation Safety Board Reauthorization Act of 2002 (Sam Whitehorn/Gael Sullivan/Carl Bentzel, Rob Chamberlin/ Michael Reynolds/Rob Freeman/Mary Phillips). 5. S. 2951, Federal Aviation Administration Research, Engineering, and Development Act of 2002 (Gael Sullivan/Sam Whitehorn, Rob Chamberlin/Michael Reynolds). 6. S. 2550, Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2002 (David Strickland/Matthew Morrissey, Carlos Fierro/Ken Nahigian). 7. S. 2608, Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act (Margaret Spring/Peter Fippinger, Drew Minkiewicz). 8. H.R. 1989, Fisheries Conservation Act of 2002 (Margaret Spring/ Cindy Smith, Drew Minkiewicz). 9. H.R. 2486, Inland Flood Forecasting and Warning System Act of 2002 (Margaret Spring/Cindy Smith, Floyd DesChamps/Ken LaSala). 10. S. 2862, Firefighting Research and Coordination Act (Jean Toal Eisen/Chan Lieu, Floyd DesChamps/Ken LaSala). 11. S. 2945, the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (Jean Toal Eisen/Chan Lieu, Floyd DesChamps/Ken LaSala). 12. H.R. 2733, Enterprise Integration Act of 2002 (Jean Toal Eisen/ Chan Lieu, Floyd DesChamps/Ken LaSala). 13. S.J. Res. 42, a joint resolution commending Sail Boston for the continuing advancement of the maritime heritage of nations, its commemoration of the nautical history of the United States, and its promotion, encouragement, and support of young cadets through training (Carl Bentzel/Marvin Nixon, Rob Freeman). 14. Nomination of David McQueen Laney (PN 1731), of Texas, to be a Member of the Reform Board (Amtrak) (Carl Bentzel/David Matsuda/Vanessa Jones, Rob Freeman/Mary Phillips/Virginia Pounds). 15. Nomination of Rebecca Dye (PN 1870), of North Carolina, to be a Federal Maritime Commissioner (Carl Bentzel/Marvin Nixon/Vanessa Jones, Rob Freeman/Virginia Pounds). 16. Nomination of Roger Nober (PN 1979), of Maryland, to be a Member of the Surface Transportation Board (Carl Bentzel/David Matsuda/Vanessa Jones, Rob Freeman/Mary Philips/Virginia Pounds). 17. Nominations for Promotion in the United States Coast Guard (PNs 2146, 2160, 2161, 2162) (Vanessa Jones, Virginia Pounds).

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the Session of the Senate on Thursday, September 19, 2002, at 2:30 p.m., in both open and closed session to receive testimony on U.S. policy on Iraq.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, September 19, 2002, at 10 a.m., to conduct an oversight hearing on ``Financial Privacy and Consumer Protection.''