[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 5733-5737]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  NOMINATION OF DORRANCE SMITH TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in executive session, I ask unanimous 
consent that the cloture motion be withdrawn with respect to Calendar 
No. 485, and that the Senate proceed to its consideration; provided 
further that there be 55 minutes for debate as follows: Senator Warner 
10 minutes, Senator Levin 25 minutes, Senator Harkin 10 minutes, and 
Senator Reed 10 minutes.
  I further ask that following the use or yielding back of time, the 
Senate proceed to vote on the confirmation of the nomination; provided 
further that the Senate then proceed to the vote on invoking cloture on 
the nomination of Calendar No. 252.
  Finally, I ask unanimous consent that if either nomination is 
confirmed, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's 
action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the nomination.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Dorrance 
Smith, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
up to 5 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           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.

[[Page 5734]]

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.
  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

[[Page 5735]]

     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.


                                 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

[[Page 5736]]

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.
  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

[[Page 5737]]

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 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.

                          ____________________