John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Wait a minute. I must get from my side a clarification on that. My understanding is there were two votes.

Mr. WARNER. You said the last vote. Let's be clear.

Mr. WARNER. We could consequently have a voice vote. I doubt if it will be necessary.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination of Dorrance Smith.

Mr. WARNER. We now turn to Peter C. W. Flory who became the principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs in 2001. In this capacity he serves as the principal assistant to the Assistant Secretary of International Security Affairs who is the principal adviser to the Secretary of Defense on the formulation and coordination of international security strategy and policy for East Asia, South Asia, the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, Africa, and Latin America. I wish to put further facts regarding this distinguished gentleman into the Record, but I am very anxious to keep the momentum. I think the concern of my colleague can be best expressed by himself momentarily, perhaps not to Mr. Flory himself but to the matter of process, and that process is an issue that in some respects I share with my distinguished colleague. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. I will not object, but I wish to advise my colleague a number of my colleagues are on the tightest of schedules. I am proposing, on the conclusion of the debate on Flory, we immediately go to an up-or-down vote on Smith followed by a cloture vote on Flory. Is that understood?

Mr. WARNER. If cloture is obtained, will the Senator be willing to have a voice vote on Flory?

Mr. WARNER. We will reserve that for the leadership, but as manager that would be my position. I must impress upon colleagues--they are all here, those able to remain for the votes--in order to accommodate a great many, let us hold rigidly to the time schedules allocated for the votes.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, by way of wrapup, Mr. Flory is nominated to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy. Peter C.W. Flory, by recess appointment on August 2, 2005, became Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy. He previously served from 2001 to the present as the principal assistant to the Assistant Secretary for International Security Affairs, who is the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense on the formulation and coordination of international security strategy and policy for East Asia, South Asia, the Middle East and Persian Gulf, Africa, and Latin America. From April 1997 to July 2001, Mr. Flory was Chief Investigative Counsel and Special Counsel to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, SSCI. Mr. Flory had responsibility for the People's Republic of China and other regional issues, as well as counterintelligence, covert action, denial and deception, and other intelligence oversight matters. An Honors Graduate of McGill University, Mr. Flory received his law degree from Georgetown University Law Center. After working as a journalist, he served as a national security advisor to Members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. From 1989 to 1992, Mr. Flory served as the Special Assistant to Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Paul D. Wolfowitz. From 1992 to 1993, he was an Associate Coordinator for Counter- Terrorism in the Department of State with the rank of Deputy Assistant Secretary. From 1993 until he joined the SSCI staff in 1997, Mr. Flory practiced law with the firm of Hughes, Hubbard & Reed LLP. Mr. Flory speaks German and French. He and his wife Kathleen have six children, and reside in Nokesville, Virginia. I would simply conclude, this is somewhat of a dilemma for those not following it. This man is eminently qualified to discharge the responsibilities to which the President has nominated him. There is no doubt in my mind. I have worked with my colleague. I will continue to work with my colleague. It is no different than other chairmen and ranking members, irrespective of party. We are always in a push-pull contest with the executive branch regarding the documents we need to perform oversight. I do not in any way disparage or criticize my colleague's observations. I think he is meticulously correct in what he has set forward to the Chamber. But the problem is, I am not sure this gentleman was party to in any way the obstruction of those documents coming forward. Those decisions primarily were made by his superiors. I think it would penalize him for actions of superiors, which superiors were acting as they believed in the best interests of the United States, and within the parameters of the time-honored traditions between the executive and legislative branches about the privacy of certain documents. I hope now we could move on. I see my friend, the Senator from Rhode Island. Does he have a few concluding words?

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we wish to confine ourselves strictly to the time the joint leadership agreed upon in the event we need recorded votes. Mr. President, Dorrance Smith, the nominee, is designated to be the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense on matters relating to public affairs in the media. Mr. Smith is a four-time Emmy Award- winning television producer, a political consultant, and a media strategist who has worked for over 30 years in television and politics. He spent 9 months in Iraq, in the years 2003 and 2004, where he served as senior media advisor to the setup at that time. He was responsible for developing a state-of-the-art communications facility in Baghdad for the Coalition Provisional Authority and a public diplomacy strategy for the U.S. Government. In addition, Mr. Smith was asked to overhaul certain aspects of the Iraqi media network, which he did. He was quite successful, such that they had a television channel that was launched on satellite. For those efforts, he was awarded by the Secretary of Defense a medal for exceptional public service. I have met with Mr. Smith on several occasions. I believe him to be highly qualified, and I fully support his nomination. At a full Armed Services Committee hearing on October 25, 2005, and later, at an Executive Session on December 13th, at which Mr. Smith was present, he was questioned about an Op Ed article he wrote that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on April 25, 2005, which I also attach. In this article, based on his in the trenches experience as Ambassador Bremer's Senior Media Advisor in Baghdad, Mr. Smith questioned the practice relied on by major media outlets in the United States of airing video of insurgent attacks supplied by the Arab satellite news channel Al Jazeera. Mr. Smith has clarified his intent about the role of U.S. Networks in his in raising these issues for discussion and public scrutiny. He has emphasized publicly that he has never written or stated that the United States networks aid and abet terrorists. In this regard, I have attached Mr. Smith's response to a question for the record he provided after the hearing. I ask unanimous consent that a biography of Dorrance Smith, and some questions and answers during his nomination hearing be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER. Let me interject an observation or two, and then I will be happy to yield the floor. Mr. President, the good Senator from Michigan and I have been partners on this committee now the 28th year and rarely do we have matters of--particularly with executive positions--difference because we screen them carefully. But on this one, we do. That is the way the system works. I cannot impress upon my colleagues too strongly several points. One, we did have an executive session, and I shall observe the confidentiality of that session, but I got quite a different impression when Senator Levin and I largely--I think Senator Reed was present-- cross-examined Mr. Smith very carefully. I felt he more or less acknowledged a better selection of words in hindsight he should have made. In no way do I believe he was trying to smear the press. I think the best evidence I can produce for my colleagues that it wasn't sort of a smear is that, to the best of my knowledge--and I will put the question to all Members of the Senate, most particularly my distinguished ranking member--we did not receive--at least I did not--any comments from the media industry, individual stations, or trade associations, or anything else. I think they took this in stride as a 30-year veteran of their profession with great distinction. Everybody makes an error now and then. Who among us on this floor has not made a public statement that he or she wishes perhaps they had couched in different words? To deny this man the position of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, having been nominated by the President of the United States, having really been personally screened by the Secretary of Defense and others for the position--the Secretary of Defense, with whom I have discussed this matter, has total confidence in this individual. He has been performing in an acting capacity in the Department now for some period of time. I urge my colleagues to look at the overall picture, but most importantly, is anybody going to stand up and say: Oh, no, this is what the media industry communicated with me, and for that reason I feel I should oppose the nomination? I don't think that evidence is before us. That industry is tough, tough on itself, and it wants to maintain its reputation. The industry, as such, has accepted this as an event which happens to all of us who speak in public life. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I know of no other Senator who is going to speak with regard to Mr. Smith.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my long-time friend and good colleague for his thoughtful remarks, and I assure you, I offer the same long-term feelings for you. But in this instance, I come back to the simple proposition that there is not a one of us who has not at times in our public career uttered or written statements that we wish we could have revised. I felt in executive session he was sufficiently contrite and acknowledged that he still has the basic concerns about al-Jazeera, and I share those concerns, but a better choice of words might have avoided it. Then all of the networks he enumerated, I didn't get any communications on it from any of them. I suggest at this time, so that we can move and accommodate all of our colleagues--and I am very grateful to the majority leader and the Democratic leader for allowing these nominations to be acted upon today. For all Members, last night, I am pleased to say, we voice voted the Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, so we made good progress in putting into position those persons who have been designated by the President for the Department of Defense.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I urge we proceed immediately to the second vote, a cloture vote on Peter Flory. cloture motion

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this will be the last recorded vote of the day. There could be a voice vote subsequently, but this will be the last recorded vote for the record.

Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I would like to take a few minutes of the Senate's time to introduce a bill together with Senator Clinton. The bill is to equalize authorities to provide allowances, benefits, and gratuities to civilian personnel of the United States Government for their services in Iraq and Afghanistan and for other purposes. Throughout the hearings of the Armed Services Committee this year and the appearance of our distinguished group of witnesses, and based on two--and I say this most respectfully and humbly--personal conversations I have had with the President of the United States and, indeed, the Secretary of State, I very forcefully said to each that we need to get the entirety of our Federal Government into a greater degree--they have done much--of harness in our overall efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan to secure a measure of democracy for the peoples of those countries. For example, the QDR so aptly states that ``success requires unified statecraft: the ability of the U.S. Government to bring to bear all elements of national power at home and to work in close cooperation with allies and partners abroad.'' General Abizaid, when he appeared before our committee this year, stated in his posture statement: We need significantly more non-military personnel . . . with expertise in areas such as economic development, civil affairs, agriculture, and law. Likewise General Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, iterated much the same message when he appeared before our committee. I commend the President and the Cabinet officers. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter that I sent every Cabinet officer and agency head, asking what they had done thus far and of their ability to contribute even more.

Mr. WARNER. In my conversations with President Bush and the Cabinet officers and others, there seems to be total support. The administration, at their initiative, asked OMB to draw up the legislation, which I submit today in the form of a bill. I hope this will garner support across the aisle--Senator Clinton has certainly been active in this area, as have others--and that we can include this on the forthcoming supplemental appropriations bill. The urgency is now, absolutely now. Every day it becomes more and more critical in the balance of those people succeeding with their message of 11 million on December 15 in Iraq: We want a government, a unified government stood up and operating. To do that, this government, hopefully, will utilize such assets as we can provide them from across the entire spectrum of our Government. Our troops have done their job with the coalition forces. Their families have borne the brunt of these conflicts now for these several years. Now it is time for every individual to step forward and work to make the peace secure in those nations so they do not revert back the lands of Iraq and Afghanistan to havens for terrorism and destruction to the free world. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I would like to take a few minutes of the Senate's time to introduce a bill together with Senator Clinton. The bill is to equalize authorities to provide allowances, benefits, and gratuities to civilian personnel of the United States Government for their services in Iraq and Afghanistan and for other purposes. Throughout the hearings of the Armed Services Committee this year and the appearance of our distinguished group of witnesses, and based on two--and I say this most respectfully and humbly--personal conversations I have had with the President of the United States and, indeed, the Secretary of State, I very forcefully said to each that we need to get the entirety of our Federal Government into a greater degree--they have done much--of harness in our overall efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan to secure a measure of democracy for the peoples of those countries. For example, the QDR so aptly states that ``success requires unified statecraft: the ability of the U.S. Government to bring to bear all elements of national power at home and to work in close cooperation with allies and partners abroad.'' General Abizaid, when he appeared before our committee this year, stated in his posture statement: We need significantly more non-military personnel . . . with expertise in areas such as economic development, civil affairs, agriculture, and law. Likewise General Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, iterated much the same message when he appeared before our committee. I commend the President and the Cabinet officers. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter that I sent every Cabinet officer and agency head, asking what they had done thus far and of their ability to contribute even more.

Mr. WARNER. In my conversations with President Bush and the Cabinet officers and others, there seems to be total support. The administration, at their initiative, asked OMB to draw up the legislation, which I submit today in the form of a bill. I hope this will garner support across the aisle--Senator Clinton has certainly been active in this area, as have others--and that we can include this on the forthcoming supplemental appropriations bill. The urgency is now, absolutely now. Every day it becomes more and more critical in the balance of those people succeeding with their message of 11 million on December 15 in Iraq: We want a government, a unified government stood up and operating. To do that, this government, hopefully, will utilize such assets as we can provide them from across the entire spectrum of our Government. Our troops have done their job with the coalition forces. Their families have borne the brunt of these conflicts now for these several years. Now it is time for every individual to step forward and work to make the peace secure in those nations so they do not revert back the lands of Iraq and Afghanistan to havens for terrorism and destruction to the free world. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to start my participation here by congratulating my distinguished colleague from Maryland and her senior Senator, Mr. Sarbanes. It has been a great pleasure to work with both of them on this program through the years. I wonder if I might ask the principal sponsor of this amendment, Senator Mikulski, a question. In this turbulent era of immigration and the search for solutions, this program could be described as a model program, one that has worked as it was intended, one that serves the small business community as it was intended, and welcomes within our borders these individuals, as my colleague says, largely from south of the border, Mexico, in a way that doesn't conjure up any fear or suspicion or any resentment in the communities when they come to do their work. Would my colleague concur in my observation that this is a model program?

Mr. WARNER. A further point of colloquy: Last time you and I joined with Senator Sarbanes and others, Senator Allen on my side of the aisle, and just in the nick of time, we were able to get through that extension. It received a modest amount of publicity I read the articles and trade interests. But I cannot recall anyone contacting my office who was out right opposed to the program. Does the Senator know of anyone who has stood up and said it has taken away work and any of that sort of confusion and criticism we are experiencing today in the larger measures of the immigration problems?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am delighted that my colleague had experiences similar to mine. I bring up one single aspect. I happen to be one who really enjoys crabmeat. I know that when so many of our crab houses came to us, they explained that if we lose what little market we have today, we are gone, because Venezuela has entered the market--I even saw crabmeat in the market this week, and I have been constantly studying it ever since I have been involved in this issue. But all of the crabmeat is coming from way beyond our shores. That is understandable now because the bay, which is the principal source of our crabmeat, is not quite ready for the harvesting. I would hate to see the famous blue crab disappear from our tables. It was about to disappear had we not gotten this program through last time; am I not correct on that?