[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 44 (Friday, April 7, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3359-S3363]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Immigration Reform
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to comment on what has happened
over the last 2 weeks on a very important bill--maybe the most
important bill for the future of our country that we will take up this
year, and that is immigration reform.
I was very disappointed that we were not able to have a vehicle on
which we can have amendments in the normal course of action that we
have on the floor of the Senate. I cannot think of a more complicated,
comprehensive issue that we could amend and make a better bill that
would have the support of the vast majority of the Senate. Yet we have
spent 2 weeks and were only able to have three amendments.
There are many differing views on what to do with the 12 million
illegal immigrants that are in our country. But I think there is a
consensus that we need better control of our borders, that we need
security measures to know who is in our country, and that we need a
guest worker permit program that would allow people to come into our
country legally to work and earn a living for their families,
contribute to the economy of the United States, and perhaps become
citizens, if they decide to, or not become citizens if they wish to
remain citizens of their home country.
However, the issue of what to do with the 12 million people was not
able to be discussed, debated, or refined on the Senate floor. I think
that is a mistake, and I think we have missed a very important
opportunity. The negotiations got down to allowing 20 amendments--20
amendments--on one of the most complicated bills that we will take up
this year. We take up appropriations bills that have 70 amendments. We
take up authorization bills that have 40 amendments. The negotiation
was down to allowing 20 amendments, and we were not able to get the
consent of the minority to take up 20 amendments to try to refine a
bill that would allow the Senate to speak with an overwhelming
majority, or at least to have all the voices heard so that we could
start beginning to craft a bill that would help with an issue in our
country of security and economics.
Mr. President, I am very disappointed. I think we have missed an
opportunity. I hope very much that, as we go home for a 2-week break,
we will think about how we can come together, come back here and not
give up on having an immigration reform bill that secures our borders,
that creates a guest worker program that will be productive for the
participants and for the economy of our country, that will not displace
American jobs but will welcome the immigrants who seek to come here, as
we have done for over 200 years in our country on a regularized basis.
I thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I know he is
going on to very important work. I hope that we can address this issue
when we return, and I hope the minority will work with the majority not
to block future amendments that would make this a better bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ENSIGN). The Senator from Virginia is
recognized.
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.
[[Page S3360]]
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.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Dorrance Smith
Dorrance Smith is a four-time Emmy award winning television
producer, political consultant, and media strategist who has
worked over 30 years in television and politics.
Mr. Smith spent nine months in Iraq in 2003-2004 Senior
Media Adviser. 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
United States government. In addition, Mr. Smith was asked to
overhaul the fledgling Iraqi Media Network. By April, 2004
this effort was deemed so successful that the terrestrial
channel--AI Iraqiya--was launched on satellite. For his
efforts he was awarded the Secretary of Defense Medal for
Exceptional Public Service.
A four time Emmy Award winning ABC News and Sports
producer, he has held a number of positions at the network,
including serving as the first executive producer of ``This
Week with David Brinkley.''
From 1989 until 1991, Smith was the executive producer of
ABC News ``Nightline.'' During his tenure he was responsible
for the weeklong ``Nightline'' series originating from South
Africa, which covered the release of Nelson Mandela. The
broadcasts won an Emmy award. In addition he served as
executive producer of the prime time special ``Tragedy at
Tiananmen--The Untold Story,'' which was honored with the
duPont Columbia University Award, the Overseas Press Club
Award and an Emmy. ``Nightline'' also won an Emmy in 1991 for
outstanding news coverage of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
Prior to his work on ``Nightline,'' Smith was the executive
producer of the number one rated Sunday public affairs
program, ``This Week with David Brinkley,'' a post he held
from the program's inception in 1981 until 1989. During his
tenure the broadcast received the first Joan Barone Award,
the George Foster Peabody Award, and was named the Best
National TV Interview Discussion Program by the readers of
the Washington Journalism Review.
In 1991 Smith left ABC News to become Assistant to the
President for Media Affairs at the White House. In this
capacity Smith handled all television and radio events
involving President Bush, members of the White House staff
and Cabinet. In addition his office handled all regional
media; coordinated media strategy for administration
officials seeking confirmation; and organized the debate
preparation during the 1992 political campaign.
In 2001, Smith was designated by FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh
to handle all media following the events of September 11th.
In this capacity Smith was responsible for FEMA's media
strategy for print, radio and television. Smith organized and
distributed the now famous FEMA video feeds from Ground Zero.
He reorganized the Public Affairs Office to meet the post
September 11th media demands.
At ABC News, Smith became executive producer of all weekend
news programming in 1980. He was responsible for the
production and programming of ``World News Saturday,''
``World News Sunday,'' ``The Weekend Report,'' and ``The
Health Show.''
Prior to his weekend assignment. Smith was Washington
producer of ABC News' ``The Iran Crises: America Held
Hostage.'' He also served as ABC News Senior Producer at the
1980 Winter Olympics, the 1984 Winter and Summer Games, and
the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary.
From 1978-1979, Smith served as ABC News' White House
producer. Smith joined ABC News as a Washington producer in
1977. Previously he was staff assistant to President Gerald
Ford.
He began his broadcasting career at ABC Sports in 1973 as
an assistant to the producer. In 1974 he was made Manager of
Program Planning for ABC's Wide World of Sports.
Smith is a member of the Advisory Council for the George
Bush Library in College Station, Texas.
He graduated from Claremont Men's College in 1973 with a
Bachelor of Arts degree. He lives in McLean, Virginia.
____
Nomination Hearing for Mr. J. Dorrance Smith, Senate Armed Services
Committee, October 25, 2005
Member: Senator John Warner, Witnesses: Young, Smith, Etter, Bell,
Smith
Question #1
Arab Satellite News
Question: 1. Mr. Smith, on April 26, 2005, you wrote an
article for the Wall Street Journal titled ``The Enemy on our
Airways.'' In the article you stated that ``. . . Al-Jazeera
continues to aid and abet the enemy . . .'' Have you ever
stated or written that U.S. broadcast networks have aided or
abetted terrorists by airing video that first appeared on the
Arab satellite news channel? Do you believe this to be the
case?
Answer: I have never written or stated that the United
States networks aid and abet terrorists by airing video that
first appeared on the satellite news channel Al-Jazeera. I
did write an Op Ed piece in April, 2005 for the Wall Street
Journal which raised a number of questions following the
airing of hostage video by Al-Jazeera and all 6 U.S. news
networks. In that piece I wrote, ``the battle for Iraqi
hearts and minds is being fought over satellite T.V. It is a
battle we are losing badly. And I wrote, ``As long as Al-
Jazeera continues to aid and abet the enemy, as long as we
are fighting a war on the ground and in the airwaves, why are
we not fighting back against Al-Jazeera . . .''
My past experiences running the Iraq Media Network in
Baghdad gave me insight into the communications strategy of
our enemy. Raising the tactics of the enemy in a newspaper
piece was an effort to spur public discourse. I believe the
public, the networks and policy makers should examine the
tactics of the enemy including providing video to the Arab
satellite network with the knowledge that it will be
broadcast in the United States as well. Understanding the
communications strategy of the enemy is a prerequisite to
developing a communications strategy that is effective. In
the WSJ, I was not writing as a policy maker or government
official, nor was I a candidate for the Public Affairs job at
the Pentagon.
Newspaper accounts that I believe the U.S. networks aid and
abet terrorists are incorrect. When asked at the confirmation
hearing ``But you think it's a fair characterization now to
say that the networks in the United States aid and abet
terrorists by showing that.'' I said, ``No, I do not.'' That
is and always has been my belief.
I worked in network television for over 22 years and I
maintain a professional working relationship with the today.
During my nine months with the CPA in Iraq, I worked very
closely with U.S. networks to meet their coverage needs. Most
recently I was a media consultant to the United States Senate
for the Joint Congressional Committee for Inaugural
Ceremonies (JCCIC). For four months I represented that
institution to the U.S. network pool with the aim of
producing the best event for both parties. After the
inauguration Tom Shales wrote in the Washington Post, ``ABC's
Peter Jennings noted that for the relatively few viewers able
to see them in high-definition TV, the images were often
``fabulous.'' Indeed they were.
As a network executive I appreciate the difficult decisions
facing journalists during wartime especially potential
conflicts between journalistic integrity and national
security. If confirmed, I look forward to conducting my
relationship with U.S. networks in a professional and
respectful manner as I did when working in Iraq for nine
months and for JCCIC. I also look forward to working closely
with this committee on these important issues.
Do you agree with these goals?
Yes, I support the goals of the Congress in enacting the
reforms of the Goldwater-Nichols legislation.
Do you anticipate that legislative proposals to amend
Goldwater-Nichols may be appropriate? If so, what areas do
you believe it might be appropriate to address in these
proposals?
I am unaware of any need to modify Goldwater-Nichols at
this time. If I am confirmed, I will raise any such
requirements that I may identify within the Department. The
Department would consult closely with Congress, especially
this Committee, on any changes that might be appropriate.
[[Page S3361]]
Duties
What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
Policy?
I understand that, if I am confirmed, my duties as
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
Policy will be to serve as the principal assistant and
advisor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in
formulating and implementing national security and defense
policy in a wide range of areas, including: nuclear forces;
technology security; missile defense; Europe and NATO;
Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia; arms control, non-
proliferation, and counter-proliferation.
Assuming you are confirmed, what duties and functions do
you expect that Secretary Rumsfeld would prescribe for you?
I would expect Secretary Rumsfeld to look to the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy to
fulfill all the duties assigned to that office under the
authorities of the Secretary of Defense and the Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy in particular, assistance and
advice on the formulation of national security and defense
policy in the areas noted in the response to the previous
question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes to speak on the
nomination of Dorrance Smith to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Public Affairs.
I oppose this nomination for a very critical reason, which is that
Dorrance Smith has spoken out against the very media in the United
States that he would be involved with, engaged in, as the public
affairs official for the Department of Defense.
Mr. Smith has shown in his writing and in his testimony before the
Senate Armed Services Committee that he believes that our media
undermines our national security when they perform their legitimate
role of providing newsworthy information to the public about what is
going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has gone so far as to accuse our
major networks of acting in partnership with al-Qaida.
That extreme position is not appropriate for the spokesperson of the
Department of Defense. This is what Mr. Smith said in his April 25,
2005, article in the Wall Street Journal, entitled ``The Enemy on Our
Airwaves,'' in which he complained about what he called ``the ongoing
relationship between terrorists, Al-Jazeera, and the [major U.S.
television] networks.'' The basis of this alleged relationship is the
fact that the networks played video of hostages in Iraq, which Al-
Jazeera allegedly obtained from terrorist sources.
The text of Mr. Smith's article leaves little doubt about his belief
that the ``enemy on our airwaves'' are our major television networks
themselves, all of them--ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN--all of them. Here is
what Mr. Smith said in this article:
Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and al-Qaida have a
partner in Al-Jazeera and, by extension, most networks in the
U.S. This partnership is a powerful tool for the terrorists
in the war in Iraq.
That is the view taken by the proposed spokesperson for the
Department of Defense--that our networks are partners with Osama bin
Laden, the man who orchestrated the slaughter on 9/11.
The smear then continues as Mr. Smith raises ``ethics'' issues about
the conduct of the media.
The arrangement between the U.S. networks and Al-Jazeera
raises questions of journalistic ethics. Do the U.S. networks
know the terms of the relationship that Al-Jazeera has with
the terrorists? Do they want to know?
What if one of the networks had taken a stand and refused
to air the [video of an American hostage] on the grounds that
it was aiding and abetting the enemy, and from that point
forward it would not be a tool of terrorist propaganda?
Mr. Smith is entitled to his views. I will defend that right any day
and any place. But we should not confirm him to represent the
Department of Defense to the very media that he calls a partner with
our deadly enemy, al-Qaida. That is over the top. It is extreme. It is
not the kind of view that should be represented by the Department of
Defense in their dealings with the media.
The Armed Services Committee held a hearing on Mr. Smith's nomination
on October 25, 2005. At that time, I asked Mr. Smith about his
statement that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida ``have a partner in Al-
Jazeera and, by extension, most networks in the United States.'' Mr.
Smith testified that he still believes this statement to be a fair
characterization of the relationship between the networks and al-Qaida.
He insisted that ``there is a relationship that exists'' and ``the
relationship is a cooperative one.''
I pressed him:
Does this ``relationship'' make the networks partners of
our terrorist enemies, as you wrote? Do you really believe
this, that they are partners?
Mr. Smith declined to provide a direct answer to that question.
I then asked him about his rhetorical question:
What if one of the networks had taken a stand and refused
to air the [video of an American hostage] on the grounds that
it was aiding and abetting the enemy, and that from this
point forward it would not be a tool of terrorist propaganda?
Mr. Smith testified he does not believe that the networks aid and
abet terrorism by showing film of hostages. He insists that he was
``raising the point that you never know where this video comes from and
that . . . simply because it plays on al-Jazeera does not mean that it
should necessarily play on any given network.''
That is not being straight with the committee. That is not what his
question clearly implied. There is only one implication from the
question which he wrote, and that is that networks are aiding and
abetting terrorism by airing this video. So if Mr. Smith does not
believe this to be the case, it appears that Mr. Smith was willing to
smear our television networks by implying something that he does not
actually believe.
On December 13, 2005, the committee met with Mr. Smith in executive
session to afford him a further opportunity to explain his position.
And while I cannot quote from Mr. Smith's statements in closed session,
I believe it is fair to say that it was consistent with his testimony
in open session.
Mr. President, the free press in this country is not our enemy.
Freedom of the press is not only guaranteed in our Bill of Rights, it
is a fundamental part of what we stand for as a country. Every one of
us disagrees with stories and characterizations that appear in the
press from time to time, but to label our networks as partners with
those who attacked us on September 11 is over the top, it is extreme,
it is unacceptable, and it is not the kind of position that is going to
be useful for a representative of the DOD with our media.
The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs is the primary
Department of Defense official responsible for providing timely and
accurate information to the press and to the public about the
activities of the Department of Defense. A person who believes that the
U.S. media is the enemy is not the right person for this position. A
person who shows a willingness to try to intimidate the press, to try
to limit or color its cover, is not the right person to serve in this
position. That is why I urge my colleagues to oppose this nomination.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is my understanding that our
distinguished colleague from Rhode Island will be addressing another
matter.
Mr. LEVIN. No, this matter.
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
[[Page S3362]]
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I stand to support the position of Senator
Levin with respect to the nomination of Dorrance Smith to be Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. I, too, participated in his
hearings. I listened to Mr. Smith, and I think he lacks the judgment
necessary to be the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs.
Senator Levin has quoted the Wall Street Journal op-ed piece. This
was not the example of making an offhand statement. This is not the
situation where someone was being quizzed and extemporaneously
suggested something that later one regrets. This was a very carefully
crafted editorial which was sent to the Wall Street Journal for
publication. In it, Mr. Smith says:
Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and al Qaeda have a
partner in al-Jazeera and, by extension, most networks in the
U.S.
Mr. President, can you think of a more provocative and a more
incendiary comment, to suggest that anyone is equivalent, by extension,
to bin Laden and al-Zarqawi? That is essentially what he said about the
media in the United States. I believe it represents extremely poor
judgment. Perhaps that is why he is getting the job, because we have
heard before these very loose suggestions that somebody is just like
Zarqawi, somebody is just like that.
We also heard coming out of the Department of Defense the notion that
we have problems not because of strategic mistakes that have been made,
we have problems because the media just doesn't get the story right.
This may be part of their approach to the media, but I don't think it
represents the judgment necessary for an individual to discharge the
responsibilities of that nature for the United States and the
Department of Defense.
The other point is that Mr. Smith later went on to say:
Al-Jazeera continues to broadcast because it reportedly
receives $100 million a year from the government of Qatar.
Without this subsidy it would be off the air, off the
Internet and out of business. So, does Qatar's funding of al-
Jazeera constitute state sponsorship of terrorism?
As long as al-Jazeera continues to practice in cahoots with
terrorists while we are at war, should the U.S. Government
maintain normal relations with Qatar?. . . . Should the U.S.
not adopt a hard-line position about doing business with
Qatar as long as al-Jazeera is doing business with
terrorists?
All of these quotes are from the Wall Street Journal article.
I think what he fails to recognize is that Qatar is a major base of
American military operations in the region. I asked at the hearing if
he seriously thinks we ought to break diplomatic relations to Qatar.
The answer was rather unsatisfactory, sort of: I was just posing a
question. But these are the kinds of provocative questions that suggest
he doesn't have the judgment to do the job.
Let me just suggest our involvement with Qatar. Qatar has invested
over $1 billion to build Al-Udeid Air Base, one of our principal air
operations in the region. There are 2,200 U.S. air men and women
stationed today at that airbase. During our operations in Afghanistan,
that number was over 4,000.
U.S. military flights leave and arrive from Iraq every single day
going into Qatar. All of us on the Armed Services Committee have
traveled in Qatar, have stayed in Qatar, have visited with the
Government of Qatar, and to suggest, even rhetorically, that we should
consider abandoning our normal relations with Qatar is absurd.
This was not some cocktail-party comment where he was just thinking
out loud; this was a very well-crafted editorial. Again, it just goes
to my conclusion that he lacks judgment.
It is a very intricate arrangement we have with the Government of
Qatar. Yes, they do support al-Jazeera. Al-Jazeera is not an entity
that is trying to promote American interests in the region. That is
clear. But we have to recognize not just the simple black-and-white
comic book approaches to policy but the reality of our engagement with
Qatar, their support of our operations, and the essential facilities
that are there. Statements such as these are totally, in my mind,
indefensible and demonstrate a gross lack of judgment. That is not the
kind of individual we want in a position that is supposedly designed to
craft a policy that will, through ideas and engagement, get the people
of this region to be supportive of the United States and its policies.
So I join my colleague in opposing this nomination.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I know of no other Senator who is going to
speak with regard to Mr. Smith.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will yield? I don't
know how much time I used on the previous comments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 17 minutes remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 2 minutes more on Mr. Smith.
Mr. President, I have no better friend in the Senate, nor have I ever
had a better friend in the Senate than John Warner. I know of no finer
Senator and no finer gentleman. We have a disagreement on this
nomination, and we respect each other's points of view.
As he has pointed out, we have been partners, and we are partners.
And the use of the word by Mr. Smith, ``partner,'' carries very special
meaning. For him to say in writing, in a prepared op-ed piece, that
Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida have a partner in al-Jazeera and, by
extension, most networks in the United States--and he rattles them off:
ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, and MSNBC--is absolutely indefensible, it is
extreme, it is over the top, and it is unbecoming somebody who is going
to be representing the Department of Defense with the media.
If any one of us had said this on the Senate floor, that FOX News is
a partner with the people who attacked us on 9/11, we would think that
person not only owed FOX an apology but would probably owe every single
victim of 9/11 an apology. I find this such an extreme statement. And
the use of the term ``partner'' and his defense of that when we pressed
him on it I find to be one of the most extreme, irresponsible, and
reckless kinds of statements anyone can make. Again, I will defend Mr.
Smith's right to make it; that is not the issue here. He can write any
article in the Wall Street Journal or any other paper and I will defend
his right to do so. But the issue here is whether someone who has this
position--this position--on the issue of whether tapes of al-Jazeera
should be played on American television is, it seems to me, the wrong
representative for our Department of Defense.
I want to thank my friend from Virginia. As always, he is putting
differences in context. We have very few of them, and when we do have
them, we deal with them with great respect for each other and our
points of view, and I will always not only admire him for that, but
always relish this particular relationship which we have had for so
many years.
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
[[Page S3363]]
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.
____________________