    [Senate Hearing 108-46]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                             S. Hrg. 108-46

                      NOMINATION OF HON. GORDON R. ENGLAND

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                              GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                     ON THE

      NOMINATION OF HON. GORDON R. ENGLAND TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF THE
                        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

                                   __________

                                JANUARY 24, 2003

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs

                           U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
                                  WASHINGTON : 2003

    85-337 PDF

    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
    Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

                       COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                       SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman
    TED STEVENS, Alaska                  JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
    GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio            CARL LEVIN, Michigan
    NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota              DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
    ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania          RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
    ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              THOMAS R. CARPER, Deleware
    PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois        MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
    JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire        FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
    RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama           MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

                  Michael D. Bopp, Staff Director and Counsel
                        Johanna L. Hardy, Senior Counsel
          Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Counsel
            Michael L. Alexander, Minority Professional Staff Member
               Jennifer E. Hamilton, Minority Research Assistant
                         Darla D. Cassell, Chief Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                     ------
    Opening statements:
                                                                       Page
        Senator Collins..............................................     1
        Senator Stevens..............................................     1
        Senator Pryor................................................     9
        Senator Levin................................................    11
    Prepared statements:
        Senator Lieberman............................................    19
        Senator Shelby...............................................    20
        Senator Lautenberg...........................................    21

                                    WITNESS
                            Friday, January 24, 2003

    Hon. Gordon R. England to be Deputy Secretary of the Department
      of Homeland Security:
        Testimony....................................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................    23
        Biographical and professional information....................    28
        Responses to pre-hearing questions...........................    37
        Responses to post-hearing questions from:
          Senator Collins............................................    72
          Senator Specter............................................    86
          Senator Shelby.............................................    87
          Senator Lieberman..........................................    89
          Senator Lautenberg.........................................    96

                      NOMINATION OF HON. GORDON R. ENGLAND

                                  ----------

                            FRIDAY, JANUARY 24, 2003

                                           U.S. Senate,
                             Committee on Governmental Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room
    SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Susan Collins,
    Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Collins, Stevens, Levin, and Pryor.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN COLLINS

        Chairman Collins. Good morning. The Committee will come to
    order. I would like to go slightly out of order this morning by
    calling on the distinguished Senator from Alaska, the President
    Pro Temp of the Senate, who is going to have the honor this
    morning of introducing our nominee before he goes to preside
    over the Senate.
        Senator Stevens, if you would proceed with your comments.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR STEVENS

        Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I do
    think it is an honor to have the opportunity to introduce to
    you and endorse Gordon England's nomination to be the Deputy
    Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. I would ask
    you to put my full statement in the record as though read.
        Chairman Collins. Without objection.
        The prepared statement of Senator Stevens follows:

                     PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR STEVENS

        Mr. Chairman, Senator Lieberman, and Members of the Committee, I am
    pleased to appear before you today to strongly endorse Gordon England's
    nomination to be the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland
    Security.
        Secretary England is accompanied today by his wife, Dottie, and his
    daughter Megan.
        I want to thank them for all the support they have given him in his
    current position at the Pentagon.
        I know they will provide him that all-important support while he is
    at the Department of Homeland Security.
        Daughter Megan is the mother of two children--Isabel and Theodore,
    or ``Izzy'' and ``Theo.'' They are not here today, but I know the
    Secretary is justifiably proud of his grandchildren as a part of the
    family ``team.''
        I have gotten to know Gordon England well since he took over as the
    72nd Secretary of the Navy--almost 2 years ago. He is an extremely
    capable manager and has a proven leadership record in both the private
    and public sectors.
        During his time in the Pentagon, Gordon England has done a
    tremendous job representing the Nation. In fact, he is one of the most
    respected members of the Bush team and is especially well regarded
    within the Navy.
        He has earned the respect of uniformed and civilian members of the
    Department of Defense for a winning leadership style. Those on his
    staff know that he trusts them with responsibility but holds them to
    high standards.
        As Secretary of the Navy, Gordon England leads a force of 472,000
    sailors and 212,000 marines. He manages a fleet of 308 warships, 4,100
    aircraft and an annual budget of over $110 billion--a very complex
    responsibility.
        He understands that our country now faces an unprecedented array of
    difficult and dangerous challenges around the world.
        He has the right mix of skills and capabilities to help lead our
    new Department of Homeland Security to address those challenges.
        Gordon England is one of those rare people in Washington, D.C. who
    is truly willing to listen. This served him well as Secretary of the
    Navy and will make him even more successful as he and Tom Ridge pull
    together the many disparate agencies to create the Department of
    Homeland Security.
        Ialso think it is important to say that Gordon England fully
    recognizes the importance of Congress' oversight responsibilities with
    respect to the new Department.
        He understands that, without close cooperation with and support
    from Congress, the Department will hardly be able to perform its
    difficult duty of protecting the American homeland.
        I know that he will make it a high priority to have a good working
    relationship with the Congress.
        I am confident that the President has chosen the right leadership
    team to build this new Department. Gordon England will be a superb
    asset to Tom Ridge and I unequivocally give him my support.

        Senator Stevens. Secretary England is accompanied today by
    his wife Dottie and his daughter Megan, whom I have just met. I
    want to thank them for their support that they have given to my
    friend in his position at the Pentagon. I know they are going
    to provide him the all-important support while he is at the
    Department of Homeland Security. It is going to be a busy job
    for my friend.
        His daughter Megan is the mother of two children, Isabel
    and Theodore, or Izzy and Theo. Why don't you just call him
    Ted? [Laughter.]
        They are not here today but I know the Secretary is
    justifiably proud of his grandchildren and his whole family
    team.
        Now I have gotten to know Secretary England very well since
    he took over as the 72nd Secretary of the Department of the
    Navy. He is an extremely capable manager, Madam Chairman, and
    has a proven record of leadership in both the public and
    private sectors. During his time at the Pentagon, Gordon
    England has done a tremendous job in representing our Nation.
    He has been one of the most respected members of President
    Bush's team and especially well regarded within the Department
    of the Navy and the whole Pentagon. He has earned the respect
    of uniform and civilian members of the Department of Defense
    for a winning leadership style. Those on the staff know that he
    trusts them with responsibilities but holds them to very high
    standards.
        As the Secretary of the Navy, Gordon England has led a
    force of 472,000 sailors and 212,000 Marines. He has managed
    308 warships, 4,100 aircraft and an annual budget of over $110
    billion. That is a very complex responsibility. Senator Inouye
    and I, who have overseen the defense budget now for many years,
    really have learned to respect Secretary England. In fact were
    it not for a death in his family Senator Inouye would be with
    me today to recommend our friend.
        Secretary England understands that our country now faces an
    unprecedented array of difficult and dangerous challenges
    around the world, but he has the right mix of skills and
    capabilities to lead this new Department of Homeland Security
    and to address the challenges.
        It is extremely important to me to let you know that
    Secretary England understands the responsibilities of Congress
    in terms of oversight. He has always responded to us when we
    have asked questions and he has been more than forward in
    coming to us to explain problems before they really develop
    into difficulties with the Congress. He has served well as the
    Secretary of the Navy and I think he will serve even a better
    role, a greater role for the United States as he works with Tom
    Ridge and pulls together the very disparate agencies that we
    have created within the Department of Homeland Security.
        So I recommend him very highly, Madam Chairman. I thank you
    very much, my friend, and I hope you will excuse me.
        Chairman Collins. Thank you, Senator Stevens. Your high
    praise means a lot to, not only the nominee, but to the
    Committee as well.
        Today the Committee on Governmental Affairs is holding a
    hearing to consider the President's nomination of Secretary
    Gordon England to be the first Deputy Secretary of the
    Department of Homeland Security. One week ago this Committee
    considered the nomination of Tom Ridge to be the new Secretary
    of the Department, and on Wednesday the Senate voted
    unanimously to confirm Secretary Ridge in his new position.
    Gordon England will join Secretary Ridge at the helm of the new
    Department, which officially opens its doors today. My hope is
    that we will act very quickly to put the other half of this
    impressive team in place.
        The time for an ad hoc approach to homeland security has
    long since passed. We may not have fully realized how outmoded
    our approach truly was before September 11, but we certainly do
    now. And there is much work still to be done.
        The establishment of the new Department of Homeland
    Security will be the most significant restructuring of the
    Federal Government in more than 50 years. It will involve the
    merger of 22 agencies and some 170,000 Federal employees.
    Managing this new Department will pose extraordinary
    challenges. Indeed, in my judgment, Congress has not created
    two more challenging positions than Secretary and Deputy
    Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security since it
    established the Department of Defense in 1947.
        I have no doubt whatsoever that Secretary England is
    extremely well qualified for this challenge. Gordon England
    currently serves, as Senator Stevens indicated, as Secretary of
    the Navy, a position that he has held since May 2001. I have
    had the honor of working very closely with Secretary England in
    my position as a member of the Seapowers Subcommittee of the
    Senate Armed Services Committee so I can attest firsthand to
    his character and his extraordinary ability.
        Secretary England came to the Navy with an impressive
    portfolio of management experience. He served as executive vice
    president of General Dynamics Corporation at which he was
    responsible for two major sectors, information systems and
    international affairs. Earlier in his career, he served in
    various executive capacities at a number of divisions of
    General Dynamics. He holds a bachelor of science degree from
    the University of Maryland and a master's degree in business
    administration from Texas Christian University.
        But regarding his preparation for becoming Deputy Secretary
    for the Department of Homeland Security, it would be difficult
    to beat a tour as Secretary of the Navy. As Secretary, Gordon
    England headed a department with a budget of over $100 billion
    and consisting of 372,000 active-duty and 90,000 Reserve
    Sailors, and 172,000 active-duty and 40,000 Reserve Marines.
        The Department of Homeland Security will bring together a
    civilian workforce of about 170,000. That figure always causes
    us to question how this Department could be managed. Secretary
    England has already overseen 190,000 civilians in the Navy. His
    extensive experience in managing large complex operations in
    both the public and the private sectors will serve him well as
    Deputy Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security.
        Moreover, Secretary England's understanding of the
    Department of Defense will prove invaluable in developing the
    appropriate communications links and levels of coordination
    between the two Departments. The Department of Defense recently
    established the U.S. Northern Command, or NORCOM, to oversee
    and further develop land, aerospace, and sea-based military
    defenses of our homeland. It has also established a new
    Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security.
        It will be critical for the new Department of Homeland
    Security to have free-flowing and constant communication with
    the Department of Defense as each Department performs its
    mission in defense of our homeland. Secretary England's
    knowledge will help ensure that the two departments work as a
    team, not at cross purposes.
        Secretary England, I want to tell you that I believe our
    Nation is extremely fortunate to have you and Secretary Ridge
    leading this new Department. Both of you have the experience,
    the background, the conviction, and the character to take on
    this incredible challenge. I want to thank you for being
    willing to step up to the plate, and I also want to assure you
    that, as Chairman of this Committee, that I am committed to
    working with you and Secretary Ridge to make this new
    Department a success.
        At this point I would like to give Secretary England the
    opportunity to introduce his family members. Senator Stevens
    did that to some extent but if we could have them stand as you
    introduce them.
        Mr. England. Senator, thank you. Also, thank you for those
    very nice words. Yes, let me introduce my wife Dottie and my
    daughter Megan from Austin, Texas. She is the mother of my two
    great grandchildren.
        Chairman Collins. One of whom has been renamed Ted this
    morning, I believe. We are pleased to have you here this
    morning.
        Secretary England has filed responses to a biographical and
    financial questionnaire, answered prehearing questions
    submitted by the Committee, and had his financial statement
    reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics. Without objection,
    this information will be made part of the hearing record with
    the exception of the financial data which are on file and
    available for public inspection in the Committee offices. Our
    Committee require that all witnesses in nomination hearings
    give their testimony under oath, so Secretary England, I would
    ask that you stand and raise your right hand.
        [Witness sworn.]
        Secretary England, I believe you have a statement and I
    would call upon you to give it to us at this time.

    STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON R. ENGLAND \1\ TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY
                 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

        Mr. England. Madam Chair, thank you. First of all, thank
    you for the opportunity to be here, and all the Members of the
    Committee for giving me an opportunity to testify today. I do
    have a brief oral statement but I would ask that my written
    statement be submitted for the record.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Hon. England appears in the Appendix
    on page 23.
          Biographical and professional information appears in the Appendix
    on page 28.
          Responses to pre-hearing questions appears in the Appendix on
    page 37.
          Responses to post-hearing questions appears in the Appendix on
    page 72.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Chairman Collins. Without objection.
        Mr. England. Thank you.
        Before beginning, let me first thank President Bush and
    Secretary Tom Ridge for their leadership and vision, and for
    placing their confidence in me. Homeland security relies on
    partnerships and it is an honor and most humbling that they
    would make me a partner in this great national effort.
        The Secretary has brought together an extraordinary team of
    patriots and public servants many of whom I have had the
    privilege to meet. No matter what agency or bureau they may
    hail from, they are resolute and united by the mission of
    homeland security, to protect the American people and our way
    of life from terrorism. For the first time we now have a single
    department whose primary mission is exactly that and which will
    help them do their jobs even better.
        The effort to secure the homeland can be summed up as
    follows: Prevent terrorist acts, identify and reduce our
    vulnerability to terrorist threats, and ensure our preparedness
    to effectively respond and recover while saving as many lives
    as possible in the event of a future attack. To achieve those
    goals, the President's national strategy for homeland security,
    the Nation's first, identifies six critical mission areas the
    new Department will focus on, intelligence and warning,
    domestic counterterrorism, border and transportation security,
    the protection of critical infrastructure and key assets,
    defense against catastrophic threats, and emergency
    preparedness and response. Significant progress has already
    been made and continues to be made in each of those mission
    areas.
        As Secretary Ridge indicated before this Committee, since
    September 11 this Nation has clearly improved its protective
    capabilities. Our maritime borders have been pushed farther
    from shore, our land border security has been tightened and
    walls torn down between the law enforcement and intelligence
    communities so we better know who is in our country and why.
    Tens of thousands of professional screeners have been deployed
    at every one of our commercial airports and thousands of air
    marshals are on our planes. We have acquired 1 million doses of
    antibiotics and instituted a major smallpox vaccination
    program.
        Working with Congress, billions of dollars have been
    allocated for bioterrorism training and food and water
    security, and the President continues to work with the Congress
    on his proposed 1,000 percent increase in funding for first
    responders. In short, as Secretary Ridge said, the homeland is
    indeed safer and better prepared today than on September 11,
    but it will be safer tomorrow as we develop new capabilities
    through the Department of Homeland Security.
        As Deputy Secretary, I will do whatever the President and
    the Secretary ask of me in order to achieve those goals and
    accomplish our mission of protecting the American people from
    terrorism. They have placed their confidence in me and I will
    do my utmost to repay that confidence. I believe my record and
    experience show that I am qualified for this task. I thank this
    Committee for their support and I look forward to taking your
    questions.
        Chairman Collins. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
        Senator Pryor, in Senator Lieberman's absence you get to be
    the Ranking Member today and I wondered if you had any opening
    comments that you would like to make.
        Senator Pryor. I don't, thank you.
        Chairman Collins. Secretary England, your responses to all
    the prehearing questions are going to be placed in the record
    but pursuant to Committee practice before we begin questions
    there are three standard inquiries that I ask of all nominees.
        First, is there anything that you are aware of in your
    background which might present a conflict of interest with the
    duties of the office to which you have been nominated?
        Mr. England. No, Madam Chairman, I do not know of any
    conflicts in my background.
        Chairman Collins. Second, do you know of anything personal
    or otherwise that would in any way prevent you from fully and
    honorably discharging the responsibilities as Deputy Secretary
    of Homeland Security?
        Mr. England. No, I am not aware of anything.
        Chairman Collins. Third, do you agree without reservation
    to respond to any reasonable summons to appear and testify
    before any duly constituted committee of Congress if you are
    confirmed?
        Mr. England. Yes, I do agree. In fact, Senator, I will tell
    you in my experience as Secretary of the Navy, it is very
    important that we have this very close relationship with the
    Senate because I know that the people in the field rely on that
    relationship for them to get their job done.
        That said, I have read that there are 88 committees in the
    Congress, so hopefully there are not 88 committees associated
    with it, but reasonably we will indeed interface with all the
    committees that is reasonable and practical to do so.
        Chairman Collins. Thank you. Secretary England, the
    Directorate of Information Analysis and Infrastructure
    Protection within that new Department in some ways is the
    central nervous system that will receive intelligence and
    information as required from the intelligence and law
    enforcement communities. The Department then decides what the
    appropriate response to that information is. Numerous reports
    have pointed to the need for better information sharing among
    Federal agencies and their State and local counterparts. In
    particular, just last month the Gilmore Commission concluded
    that intelligence and information sharing has only marginally
    improved since September 11.
        How do you intend to work with the intelligence and law
    enforcement communities and other Federal agencies to improve
    this information sharing?
        Mr. England. Madam Chair, first of all you are absolutely
    right, this is a cornerstone of the Department because, in my
    judgment, the way the Department will operate we will do
    vulnerability assessments, we will understand the consequences
    of those vulnerabilities, and then we need to understand the
    threat. That will provide us an analytical basis in terms of
    how we proceed in this Department. So you are absolutely right,
    this information sharing is absolutely crucial.
        Now the act itself makes all the intelligence data
    available to the Department of Homeland Security so we will
    receive all the data from all the agencies. We will work to
    have a collaborative environment to make sure the data is
    shared with us and that we also share data with other
    intelligence agencies.
        So in my judgment, we will have the process in place and we
    will work very hard to make sure we have this sharing because
    it is the foundation of how we will proceed in the Department
    of Homeland Security, but it does appear to me that the act
    puts in place the appropriate regulation and requirement that
    all this data be shared among the intelligence agencies. So I
    am confident that we will indeed be able to proceed very
    effectively in that area, Senator.
        Chairman Collins. One concern that I hear frequently
    expressed at the State and local level is that local law
    enforcement lacks access to information that might be useful in
    identifying terrorists in their midst. The police chief in
    Portland, Maine, Mike Chitwood, has told me many stories about
    his efforts to coordinate with the FBI, with other Federal law
    enforcement officials on matters of homeland security and he
    has told me that information sharing is the biggest obstacle
    that he faces.
        Similarly, in a recent report by the Council on Foreign
    Relations, which was led by former Senators Hart and Rudman,
    the statement was made that some 650,000 local and State police
    officers continue to operate in a virtual intelligence vacuum.
    How do you balance the need to get information data down at the
    lowest possible level with concerns that the more people who
    have access to sensitive information, the more vulnerable it
    may be to being compromised?
        Mr. England. Senator, yesterday I had the opportunity--
    Secretary Ridge invited me to be on a phone conversation with
    him and he spoke to the homeland security advisors in all the
    States and he in fact addressed this issue because it is
    critical that we get the right intelligence at the local level.
    This is indeed a local program. It is very important that we
    make this program, not a Federal program, but a national
    program with local roots. Therefore, we will need to provide
    intelligence data at the local level.
        We will have to determine what is appropriate in each case
    and, frankly, I have not had the opportunity to look at all
    those areas. But it is evident to me that we do have to make
    information available at the local level if they are to be
    effective in carrying out their responsibilities. So there will
    be a program in place, and as you are aware, we do have an
    office for local and State government coordination so that
    office will be very important in working with the local
    personnel, both public and private, to make sure that we have
    the appropriate program in place. But it is important that we
    do this and we will have a program to bring this about.
        Chairman Collins. I am very glad to hear you say that. I
    had suggested, along with my colleagues Senator Carper and
    Senator Feingold, that we actually have a Department employee
    stationed in each of the 50 States. I think at a minimum we
    need a good point of contact in each State, and we do need to
    remember that the ones who are on the front lines and are the
    first responders are not people working at headquarters in
    Washington. They are our police officers, firefighters, and our
    emergency medical personnel. I am very pleased to hear you
    state that commitment.
        I want to raise just one other question with you before I
    turn to Senator Pryor for his questions during this round, and
    that has to do with privacy concerns about the new Department.
    Many of us have read about the project undertaken by the
    Department of Defense which has been called Total Information
    Awareness. On the one hand, Congress often criticizes Federal
    agencies for not having their computers talk to one another. On
    the other hand, when they do talk to one another and you start
    combining massive databases it raises concerns about the
    privacy rights of average Americans against whom there are no
    allegations of wrongdoing or suspicions.
        How will you ensure that the new Department, in its need to
    gather and assess more information, does not tread on the
    privacy rights and the civil liberties of Americans, rights
    that are the very foundation of our country?
        Mr. England. Senator, first of all, as Secretary of the
    Navy I have been acutely aware that for 226 years Americans
    have gone forth to protect this Nation, and protecting this
    Nation is protecting our liberties and our freedoms and our
    privacy and all those things we hold dear. So it is very
    important in this environment that we not sacrifice what we
    have fought for for 226 years.
        My feeling in this regard is that the privacy officer--as
    part of this Department there is a privacy officer--should be
    involved early in any programs, be involved early so we can
    make appropriate decisions, or bring those decisions to the
    Congress and the American people if indeed it is necessary that
    we have some sort of constraint, if that proves important in
    some circumstance, bring it before the American people so we
    can make those types of decisions. But we should have these
    vetted very early so they should not be issues as we proceed to
    protect and defend America.
        But you are absolutely right, this is very important to our
    people, this is fundamental to our Nation, so we will have to
    be very careful in terms of how we balance this. I can assure
    you, however, I am very sensitive to this matter and it will
    get my full attention and we will consult with the Congress and
    other parts of the government as we proceed with programs that
    would have any aspect of privacy invasions for Americans.
        Chairman Collins. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Senator Pryor.

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PRYOR

        Senator Pryor. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for being
    here this morning.
        The first question or line of questions I have for you this
    morning is about your experience. You have a great resume and
    you bring a lot into this position. it is very encouraging to
    see what you have done and the things you have been involved
    with in the past. It seems like you have almost been preparing
    your whole life for this, and it is very encouraging to me as a
    member of this body. Have you ever been involved in
    establishing and setting up a new organization?
        Mr. England. Yes, I have, Senator, and I guess on both ends
    of this. At one point I was president of General Dynamics, now
    Lockheed, but at the time it was General Dynamics. It was about
    26,000 employees and we were bought by Lockheed. So we were
    basically merged into another company. So at that point I was
    being merged into another company, so I understand and
    recognize the difficulties of doing that if you happen to be
    someone who is being brought into another organization.
        Also, as the executive vice president of General Dynamics
    we bought a number of companies and we merged those into
    General Dynamics, and that was my responsibility. That was a
    new sector of the corporation. So I have worked on both sides
    of merging employees and responsibilities and I do understand
    the difficulties in that arena.
        Senator Pryor. You know from your corporate experience and
    your government experience, that in corporations there is what
    is subjectively known as a corporate culture where different
    companies over time pick up personalities and values that they
    have, that they run by and there is sort of a feel that you get
    inside a company when you work for a company or when you deal
    with a company. I think the same is true for government
    agencies. There is an agency culture.
        It seems to me one of your challenges will be to take the
    best of the cultures of the employees and the divisions that
    are coming together and try to harmonize those, but to try to
    take the best and to establish at the foundation of this agency
    a great agency culture. Would you agree with that?
        Mr. England. You are absolutely right, Senator. I agree
    with you. What you would like to do, in my judgment, is you
    want to create a culture superior to any of the other cultures
    so that people will want to be part of this new culture. So
    that is a leadership issue. It is a management issue to
    establish that new culture that people want to be part of. But
    you are absolutely right.
        Senator Pryor. How do you do that?
        Mr. England. You do, as you said, you provide an
    environment for people to excel. So in my judgment, you create
    this whole environment for people to excel and that means you
    give them authority and responsibility, you provide them the
    correct work environment, the correct tools, you respect their
    contributions. So you provide an environment of mutual respect.
        So, again, I believe this is a leadership issue that starts
    at the very top to set those standards that are important for
    the people who work there. But leaders do and can create better
    cultures for people, and I believe all successful organizations
    have leaders who are very sensitive to that.
        Senator Pryor. I agree with you on that. I do think that
    falls on your shoulders and a small handful of people's
    shoulders to take the agency and get it established and
    launched in a very positive and productive way. Really, you
    have a rare opportunity, in my mind--I do not want to say to
    set up an ideal agency. There maybe is no such thing as an
    ideal agency, but to take an agency from the ground up and make
    it a model agency for all the others to look to and see as the
    way the Federal Government should work and ought to work. I
    hope you will take that challenge and go to work every day and
    try to get the Department of Homeland Security launched in the
    way it should be.
        Mr. England. I can assure you that is the objective of the
    Secretary and myself. We would like this to be a model agency
    going forward for the Federal Government.
        Senator Pryor. In your written statement you said, success
    must be measured by the capabilities we create with the
    resources we have. Now I am not trying to put words in your
    mouth but are you implying there that you need more resources
    than you currently have?
        Mr. England. No, I am not. I am really implying that you
    need to be able to measure what you are achieving before you
    put more resources into something. So they are linked but we
    need a system of measuring capability. That is not
    organization, not the fluff. We need to actually measure
    capability; what have we done to protect and defend America.
    That is what is important.
        Senator Pryor. What measure will you use? What standard,
    what system, how do you establish that?
        Mr. England. Typically when you establish standards and
    metrics you do this with the people doing the work itself
    because they need to buy into these measures. So you establish
    the measures with the people themselves. It is very important
    that you have the right metrics and measures because it drives
    the behavior and the direction of the organization. So this
    will be something that is both a top-down and a bottom-up type
    process and it is something that is to be accomplished.
        My expectation is we would have some measures and metrics
    early in terms of the top level, but this is a long process. We
    will have to work this with the under secretaries, with the
    workforce themselves, but we will need measures and metrics.
    Definitely we will need to do that.
        Senator Pryor. It seems to me that one of the measures, and
    this is subjective and always the devil is in the details and
    in the definitions of trying to determine this, but it seems to
    me that one of the overarching measures should be that the new
    Department does the job better than the old system. That
    however you measure it, there should be some quantifiable way
    to determine that we are actually doing it better than we were
    in the old system because that is the whole purpose of the
    Department.
        Mr. England. You are absolutely right, sir. You do have to
    have that. You had the key words, a quantifiable way to
    measure. So when you say, something better than the old system,
    first you need a baseline to go from. So we need to establish
    that baseline and have measures as we proceed into the future.
    But you are absolutely right, Senator.
        Senator Pryor. I think you are up to the challenge and I
    look forward to watching you operate over the next few years
    there. It is just so important to our country, I believe it is
    important to the country that we get this established in the
    right way, and get it off firm footing, and I am excited about
    the prospect of you being there. Thank you.
        Mr. England. Thank you very much, Senator.
        Chairman Collins. Thank you, Senator Pryor. Senator Levin.

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN

        Senator Levin. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Let me
    welcome Gordon England, an old friend. We worked together when
    he was working in Michigan, and then recently as Secretary of
    the Navy, where he has done a wonderful job. I look forward to
    your stewardship, your position here with this new Department.
    I think it is going to make it really critical in the success
    of this Department that the Secretary has a deputy such as
    yourself. I welcome you and your family. I congratulate you on
    your appointment.
        The challenge I know has been laid out by our Chairman,
    Senator Pryor, and Senator Stevens who introduced you, and
    perhaps others. You know very well what the challenge is before
    you, how many agencies have to be pieced together, how many
    employees have to work together, be coordinated, have to be
    protected in their legitimate rights. That is going to be a
    major issue that we are going to be looking at.
        There are a few things that I have raised along the way
    that have concerned me that I just want to highlight here for
    you. I cannot expect you to have the detailed answers to
    questions but I just want to share with you some of the
    concerns that I have had as this agency has been put together.
    Some of the privacy concerns I think have already been
    mentioned by our Chairman. I share those concerns.
        Yesterday we adopted an amendment which Senator Wyden
    introduced along with Senator Grassley and myself and others
    relative to a project called the Total Information Awareness
    program which has been funded to some extent by DARPA, which
    the Congress, at least through the Senate's action last night
    has indicated we have got some real problems with. This is a
    program to develop and integrate information technology
    enabling the intelligence community to sift through multiple
    databases, sources, passports, visas, work permits, driver's
    licenses, credit card transactions, airline tickets, car
    rentals, and gun purchases to detect and classify and to
    identify potential terrorist activities, which is fine. But the
    potential for the invasion of privacy into the lives of
    ordinary citizens is huge.
        We want you to be aware of the privacy concerns that this
    Committee and I think members of Congress generally have. We
    want to go after terrorists in the way which does not undermine
    or jeopardize the traditional rights of American citizens. We
    do not have to impinge on those basic rights and freedoms to do
    what we need to do to go after terrorism. So I just want to
    highlight that for you. I doubt even that you are familiar--
    perhaps you are--with that one program that I mentioned, but
    that general concern I know has been highlighted by Senator
    Collins and others and I just wanted to add my voice to it.
        One of the major concerns that I have had along the way has
    to do with where is the responsibility going to be located for
    the analysis of foreign intelligence? There was a major failure
    prior to September 11 in terms of the CIA and FBI sharing
    information with each other, with local law enforcement, and
    with other parts of the law enforcement community. We had a
    major gap there. If that gap did not exist and if the
    communication had occurred linking information which various
    agencies had about people who were involved in the attack, that
    attack may have been prevented. That is how serious an issue
    this is.
        Currently that analysis is done at the CIA, at a place
    called the Counterterrorist Center, or the CTC, at the CIA. All
    of the law enforcement agencies are represented around the
    table at that CTC, and your agency will be represented.
        There is language in the law creating the new agency which
    suggests that the new agency will duplicate that function. When
    we had the new Secretary, Governor Ridge, in front of us, he
    made it very clear that is not the intention--that it is not
    his intention. That is well and good and I applaud him for it
    because we have got to focus responsibility and accountability.
    We cannot blur it. We cannot diffuse it. We have got to focus
    it, wherever it is going to be. I think it is probably in the
    right place, by the way, and that the CTC is the principal
    place for the analysis of foreign intelligence. But you are
    talking about thousands of pieces of information coming into
    hundreds of analysts. If we do it right once we will be lucky.
    If we just do that right once. But it is critically important.
    Probably the most important thing we can do is to get our
    intelligence act together.
        So as you undertake these new responsibilities I would hope
    that you would work with the governor to clarify where that
    responsibility is, through a statement of the governor,
    through, if necessary, an amendment to the statute. I can only
    say this, when that bill creating the Homeland Security
    Department came through this Committee there was a bipartisan
    effort to make it clear that that responsibility to analyze
    foreign intelligence would be focused, located principally in
    one place. We said where it is now, we want to improve it,
    streamline it, make sure it works well, but that was the place.
    If that is the wrong place, put it somewhere else. But we must
    have accountability. We must focus responsibility.
        That language was dropped when the bill went through the
    Congress. That helped to create a legislative record, which
    also can create some confusion. So it is not just the final
    language which is not clear and suggests that maybe you are
    going to duplicate the function that the CIA has, but the
    legislative history here, dropping language which would have
    clarified also helps to create, it seems to me, some confusion
    about that issue.
        So I again want to highlight that as a concern. Governor
    Ridge indicated very clearly what his understanding and intent
    was, and his willingness to make sure that there is no
    confusion in the law or in practice relative to where that
    responsibility is to analyze foreign intelligence. So I would
    ask you whether you will take a look at that issue and work
    with the Secretary to clarify anything that needs to be
    clarified.
        Mr. England. Absolutely. Understanding the Secretary did
    make that commitment to you to work with you, and that is my
    understanding, and certainly I will support the Secretary in
    that regard, Senator.
        Senator Levin. My final question, Madam Chair--oh, my time
    is up.
        Chairman Collins. If you would like to proceed, go ahead.
        Senator Levin. I just have one additional question. Thank
    you.
        There has been some concern at the General Accounting
    Office about access to records and information in this agency
    and as far as I am concerned, they have a good basis for their
    concern. My question to you is, will you pledge that you will
    work with the General Accounting Office, give them access to
    records and other information and to other Federal officials as
    necessary?
        Mr. England. I certainly will. I guess I do not understand
    all the security aspects. There are obviously some things
    perhaps we cannot discuss. But I have been working with the
    General Accounting Office for a lot of years and I have a good
    relationship and I will certainly continue that relationship,
    Senator.
        Senator Levin. They have the kind of clearance necessary, I
    can assure you. But just so long as you are aware of that
    problem. They are a watchdog. You folks are going to need some
    watchdogs.
        Chairman Collins. In addition to this Committee?
    [Laughter.]
        Senator Levin. Despite the, may I say, tenacity and
    brilliance of our Chairman--it is unsurpassed, and she is a
    fabulous watchdog in this Committee and some of its
    subcommittees have a good reputation in that regard--we need
    some watchdogs. We need some help, by the way. This Committee
    has used the GAO, as have some of our subcommittees as part of
    the oversight process. You need some oversight. You need some
    watchdogs. There is always resistance and there is always
    reluctance in the bureaucracy. It gets to the whistleblowing
    issue, it gets to a whole host of issues here which were not
    well done in the statute. But the GAO is critically important
    to us and I just want you to understand that and to work with
    them to help make it possible for you to have the oversight
    that you ought to welcome, any agency ought to welcome, and I
    hope that you will welcome it as well.
        Mr. England. I understand your point.
        Senator Levin. Thank you.
        Chairman Collins. Thank you, Senator Levin.
        Secretary England, I want to turn to the issue of port
    security. Last August, Robert Bonner, the Commissioner of the
    Customs Service, described the security problem posed by
    shipping container traffic. He stated, there is virtually no
    security for what is the primary system to transport global
    trade. The consequence of a terrorist incident using a
    container would be profound. If terrorists used a sea container
    to conceal a weapon of mass destruction and detonated it upon
    arrival at a port, the impact on global trade and the global
    economy would be immediate and devastating.
        Moreover, we all know that al-Qaeda likely knows how to use
    shipping containers. In October 2001, Italian authorities
    discovered a suspected operative hiding in a shipping container
    headed for Montreal. He had cell phones, a computer, an
    airplane mechanic's certificate and a plane ticket from
    Montreal to Egypt.
        We have taken some steps over the past few months to try to
    improve our port security, but what other initiatives or what
    priorities would you have in this area?
        Mr. England. First of all, Madam Chair, as Secretary of the
    Navy I do have a sensitivity about the whole port issue because
    it is also an issue with our Navy ports both here and around
    the world. But I do understand a number of initiatives have
    been taken. I do know, even our Navy worked with the Coast
    Guard immediately after September 11 to put some measures in
    place. I do not want to discuss in this open forum, but we did
    put measures in place after September 11, and understand that
    there have been measures put in place in terms of inspecting
    cargo at the source, not necessarily as it arrives in the
    United States, which certainly seems to be a very valid
    initiative.
        I think long term though, this is going to be a technology
    issue because there is a limit as to how many places you can
    physically inspect. So I think this will be, long term, a
    technology issue; better sensors, better detectors, better ways
    to inspect. In the meantime, we will rely, I believe, on the
    inspection overseas at the source and selective inspections as
    cargo comes into the United States.
        In terms of priorities, we do need to establish priorities
    and as I commented earlier, we need to look at the
    infrastructure vulnerabilities and then the consequences of our
    problem, and the probability of something happening in that
    area so we can establish some priorities in the Department,
    because it will not be possible for us on day one to just look
    at every single threat to America. So it is vitally important
    that IAIP section come up to speed very quickly and do this
    analysis so we can establish these priorities. That will drive
    the efforts of the Department, that analysis.
        Chairman Collins. I do believe that your experience as Navy
    Secretary is extremely helpful in this area. I view port
    security as being an extremely high priority and I look at our
    ports as being our biggest vulnerability. So I do hope that
    your actions will reflect that concern.
        Mr. England. They will. Thank you, Senator.
        Chairman Collins. The Maritime Transportation Security Act
    requires the implementation of background checks for a variety
    of port workers. That is another part of improving port
    security. Similarly, the USA Patriot Act requires those kinds
    of background checks for truckers carrying hazardous waste, yet
    a recent story in the Wall Street Journal suggests that not a
    single trucker nor a single longshoreman has been screened or
    has undergone any kind of background check, and that there is a
    lot of disagreement over who should be checked and whether
    individuals with a criminal history should be allowed to even
    have these kinds of jobs.
        Do you have any kind of timetable for implementing those
    regulations? The USA Patriot Act, in particular, has been law
    for quite some time now and it is of concern that it appears
    there is no progress in implementing these background checks.
        Mr. England. Senator, I am not familiar with that specific
    plan. I just have not been with this agency long enough to
    understand those specific schedules. But it is the law so it
    needs to be complied with, and I can assure you--I know when
    TSA comes into the Department that will be our responsibility
    and we will follow up on that. It is very important that we do
    those types of background checks so I will definitely have this
    as one of my action items, and as soon as I understand that
    schedule and the approach we will indeed get back with you,
    Senator.
        Chairman Collins. I would appreciate that. Finally,
    Secretary England, the new Department includes an Office of
    International Affairs and I think we can learn a lot from other
    countries, particularly Israel, which unfortunately has a long
    history of preparing for and responding to terrorist attacks.
    Recently I met with two constituents who worked for the Maine
    Community Policing Institute, and much to my surprise both had
    been to Israel for training for first responders dealing with a
    terrorist attack.
        How do you see the role of this office as far as harvesting
    the techniques or technologies that are available in other
    countries which might be useful to us in improving our homeland
    security?
        Mr. England. Madam Chair, this is international terrorism,
    so this is terrorism around the world, so a lot of countries
    are affected by international terrorism. It is important that
    we have a network around the world so we can share best
    practices, share technology, understand the kind of threats.
    The better we understand this internationally, we will be in a
    better position to protect and defend America. So I believe
    that is very important. We do have the special office for
    international. That office will be very important in terms of
    sharing our science and technology, understanding techniques
    developed in other countries, training could be shared between
    countries.
        So again, this is a global threat and it will require a
    global response. So a fundamental approach of this Department
    will be to work internationally in this regard, Senator.
        Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Pryor.
        Senator Pryor. Madam Chair, let me follow up on one of your
    questions a moment ago on port security. Now Arkansas is not
    really known as a port State but I do share your concerns about
    security and the overall impact it has on America's security.
    You mentioned that you think it may just boil down to a
    technology issue. Tell me what you mean by that.
        Mr. England. I am not sure it is just a technology issue,
    but it would seem to me that as time goes on we will need to
    develop better sensors and approaches. We do baggage screening
    at the airport today. That is basically technology does the
    baggage screening as opposed to people physically inspecting
    everyone's baggage. That would be very difficult, so technology
    has made that possible. We will need to look at similar
    approaches for international, and particularly detectors
    against specific types of threats.
        So the S&T will be the foundation, at least long term. I
    hope it provides us some benefit even short term, but certainly
    long term we need to focus our energies on better detectors and
    non-invasive type of inspection. So I believe that will be
    important for cargo coming in, also for personal baggage and
    the like. So technology long term will be the answer, I
    believe.
        Senator Pryor. Do you know where we are in developing that
    technology? Does it already exist or is being worked on right
    now?
        Mr. England. Senator, one of the first efforts of the S&T
    Department will be literally to survey all the Federal labs,
    all the universities, see what is available in private industry
    to see if we cannot bring together some new disparate
    technologies into one cohesive integrated approach. So we may
    be able to make some progress. That is my hope. I am not sure
    it is my expectation, but it is at least my hope that we can
    bring different technologies together to solve some of these
    problems. We will have to wait and see. That is still work to
    be accomplished.
        Senator Pryor. Right, I understand that.
        Now second line of question here relates to the collection
    of intelligence. It is kind of a practical question and that
    is, I know that the President gets very regular intelligence
    briefings. Will you all have a role in those briefings, do you
    believe?
        Mr. England. Senator, I do not know. I do not know what our
    role will be. I can get back to you with that answer but I have
    not been part of any of those conversations.
        Senator Pryor. One thing I am thinking of is that the
    Department of Homeland Security may from time to time have a
    different interpretation of intelligence information than do
    other agencies possibly. I am just wondering if there is a
    conflict of interpretation between your Department and other
    departments and other agencies. I guess I am wondering who will
    have the President's ear or will he get both interpretations,
    or do we know how that is going to work yet?
        Mr. England. Senator, I guess I would be surprised if there
    are different conclusions, because of I believe this is a very
    collaborative effort. I believe these are people of good faith
    working together to get the best answer. So I do not see that
    there is different analysis going on and arriving at different
    answers. This is the very best people we have working together
    to get the best answer for the Nation. So hopefully we are not
    going to have that situation that you are mentioning. My view
    is, again, very collaborative, very best people and we arrive
    at the very best answer for the country.
        Senator Pryor. I think that certainly should be the goal.
    It just seems to me that you all should have a seat at the
    table as the President and the White House are being briefed on
    all the intelligence and all the gathering that we are doing,
    not just in this country but around the world, and it should
    filter through your Department. Also I think you should have a
    seat at the table there when that is happening at the White
    House.
        Mr. England. We definitely have a seat at the table, I just
    do not know how data gets briefed to the senior executive of
    the country. But we definitely have a seat at the table.
        Senator Pryor. Madam Chair, that is all I have.
        Chairman Collins. Thank you very much, Senator Pryor.
        Secretary England, I have a few more questions but I am
    going to submit them for the record for you to answer in
    writing. I want to thank you very much for appearing before the
    Committee today. I think I can speak for my colleagues when I
    predict your speedy confirmation. I hope that the Committee
    will be able to have a markup on your nomination next week. I
    would ask that you promptly prepare answers to any questions
    that are submitted for the record. The hearing record, without
    objection, will be kept open until 5 p.m. today for the
    submission of any written questions or statements. I do intend
    to schedule a markup on your nomination next week and my hope
    is that the Senate will act very shortly thereafter to confirm
    you.
        Again, I want to thank you very much for being here today
    and for your willingness to continue to serve your country in
    such an important role.
        Mr. England. Madam Chair, thank you very much for your
    support and I look forward to being confirmed and working and
    contributing to the defense of America is this new capacity.
    Thank you very much for your support.
        Chairman Collins. Thank you. This hearing is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 10:20 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

                    PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN
        Thank you, Madame Chair. It's a pleasure to welcome Secretary
    England, who has earned my appreciation and respect as Secretary of the
    Navy. We have met in oversight hearings conducted by the Senate Armed
    Services Committee on which I serve, and by the Airland Subcommittee I
    have been privileged to chair.
        Based on that experience, I have no doubt, Secretary England, that
    you will earn this Committee's confidence and make a highly honorable
    and effective Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security. Your
    qualifications are not in question, nor is your dedication. Throughout
    your entire professional career, you have demonstrated a unique
    readiness, willingness, and ability to help make America safer.
        However, let me repeat something I said at the confirmation hearing
    for Governor--now Secretary--Ridge. It will not be enough for this
    Department to be led by public servants with good judgment, strong
    experience, and in-depth expertise in homeland security. Of course that
    helps tremendously. But more important than the quality of the officers
    is the quality of the orders--and in my view, since September 11, the
    Bush Administration has not proven itself bold enough, aggressive
    enough, or visionary enough to make America significantly safer.
        Let me give you three quick examples.
        First, intelligence. This Administration's failure to confront,
    much less fix, the fundamental problems that plague our intelligence
    community has been discouraging, disappointing, and I believe
    potentially dangerous.
        The Homeland Security Act requires the new Department to create a
    single, all-source intelligence unit that will analyze information
    regarding any and all terrorist threats against Americans here at home.
    Its job, according to the legislation, is to prevent any type of
    terrorist attack against American civilians in the United States.
        I'm troubled--and all Americans should be troubled--that the
    Administration seems to have decided, unilaterally, that the mission of
    the intelligence unit will be much narrower than that. Secretary Ridge
    is asserting that it will be focused on protecting our critical
    infrastructure--meaning our roads, information networks, energy grids,
    food distribution systems, and the like. Of course this is a critical
    priority, but I want to know--and the American people deserve to know--
    how other types of threats will be handled.
        Right now, it appears that this Administration is designing an
    intelligence unit that in some cases will be more focused on protecting
    highways, bridges, and tunnels than on men, women, and children. But
    what happens if our government learns of a possible smallpox attack
    against the citizens of a major American city--an attack that isn't
    against our critical infrastructure at all? Under the Administration's
    current understanding of the new Department--which appears to have been
    shaped in deference to the FBI, CIA, and other entrenched interests
    inside the intelligence community--makes preventing such an attack
    secondary or peripheral responsibility of the new intelligence unit. To
    me, that's unbelievable and unacceptable.
        Second, the role of the military. As Secretary England understands
    well, our armed forces have tremendous resources. There are 1.3 million
    people on active military duty, most of them in the United States, and
    about 900,000 members of our Reserves and Guard. That's 2.2 million
    defense personnel. We expect the Department of Homeland Security to
    employ about 170,000 people.
        Taxpayers will invest almost $393 billion this year, money well
    spent, in their Department of Defense. The new homeland defense
    department will probably have a budget, and total resources, about one
    tenth that.
        Now of course our military's principal activities will be and must
    be outside our borders. As we are learning in the effort to disarm
    Iraq, we need our forces to be strong. We need them to be flexible. We
    need them to be ready at any time.
        But I believe at the same time we can and must us some of our
    defense assets more effectively here at home. Our Department of Defense
    has trained, disciplined, cohesive units with more experience in
    responding to crisis, more technology, and more expertise in dealing
    with chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological weapons,than
    anybody else in government. It has created a new Northern Command to
    defend the United States. In this new kind of war taking place on a
    homeland battlefield, we must use all those resources optimally.
        I've put forward some ideas on how to do that, primarily by
    applying some of the expertise and experience of our National Guard. I
    hope the Administration engages in this discussion and comes forward
    with some idea of its own. Secretary England, your experience will make
    you an invaluable contributor to this discussion, and I look forward to
    hearing your views.
        Third, let me briefly discuss the role of the private sector.
        ``United we stand, divided we fall'' is not a cliche. In the case
    of the war against terrorism, it is a truism--and a warning for us all
    to heed. This war cannot be won by government alone. We must be one
    nation under collaboration, one nation under cooperation. I hope
    Secretary England, who has extensive experience as an engineer and
    executive in the aerospace industry, is ready to think creatively about
    how best to engage private industry to better protect us from
    terrorism--because in the past 16 months, the Bush Administration has
    been far too passive on this front.
        We're paying a price for that passivity. According to a report
    issued by the Council on Competitiveness in December, the vast majority
    of U.S. corporate executives do not see their companies as potential
    targets of terrorism. Only 53 percent of survey respondents indicated
    that they had made any increased security investments between 2001 and
    2002.
        And most of the security changes in the past year in the private
    sector have focused on ``guards, gates and guns''--in other words, on
    protecting the physical security of buildings alone. Despite 80 percent
    of the respondents to the council's survey indicating they had
    conducted vulnerability assessments related to their physical plants,
    barely half have studied the vulnerabilities in their telephone and
    shipping networks, electric power supplies, and supplier companies--and
    even fewer companies had made any changes based on these assessments.
        With 85 percent of our critical infrastructure owned by the private
    sector, this slow action ought to be a national concern, and correcting
    it ought to be a national priority.
        Another are I believe we should instantly expect more productive
    public-private partnerships is in vaccine development. I've put forward
    a comprehensive proposal to ignite private development of the
    countermeasures we'll need to protect ourselves from the dozens and
    dozens of bioterror agents that might be used against us. Those
    medicines, antidotes and vaccines won't materialize by accident.
    Getting that done will take leadership from Washington.
        Secretary England, thank you for your commitment to serve. Your
    country appreciates your public and private service over the course of
    the last 40 years, and values you focusing your experience, expertise,
    and management skill on this urgent new challenge.
        I look forward to being a partner in your efforts--but I also look
    forward to pushing and prodding this Administration, which has so far
    moved too slowly and cautiously in closing our dramatic homeland
    security vulnerabilities.
        Thank you.
                                   __________
                      PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHELBY
        Thank you, Madame Chair. I am glad to be here today.
        As I supported Governor Ridge's nomination to be Secretary of the
    new Department of Homeland Security (DHS), I too will support Gordon
    England to be its Deputy Secretary. I have known him for many years and
    firmly believe that he possesses the personal qualities to make him the
    strong leader this office requires. In addition, his experience as
    Secretary of the Navy and in the corporate private sector make him more
    than well-qualified for the difficult job he will face in the formation
    and day-to-day operations of the Department of Homeland Security.
        As we all know, the continuing threat of domestic terrorist attacks
    has placed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security on an
    accelerated schedule. In our haste to establish this Department,
    however, it is imperative that we do not lose sight of Department's
    mission--to protect Americans from the threat of terrorism. For the
    Department to truly make our country a safer place, it is crucial that
    the reorganization accomplish more than a mere shifting of agencies
    into one centralized bureaucracy/
        I am glad to see that Homeland Security Act enacted into law last
    year provides at least the statutory framework to avoid this pitfall by
    creating an all-source fusion center for terrorism-related intelligence
    within the new Department. I wish that I could say that I am confident
    that the establishment of this analytical center will lead to an open
    and trouble-free flow of information between the Intelligence Community
    and DHS. Unfortunately, my 8 years of experience on the Intelligence
    Committee, leads me to conclude otherwise. I have seen agencies such as
    the CIA hoard information from other agencies to the detriment of
    national security. I have also observed incidents where the FBI did not
    ``know what it knew'' because of poor internal intelligence sharing.
    These sorts of breakdowns were a major problem identified by the joint
    Senate-House inquiry into the intelligence failures of September 11. If
    we do not learn from the mistakes that led to the tragic events of that
    infamous day, I believe we are destined to repeat them.
        In order to avoid the failings of the past, the Department
    ofHomeland Security will need to challenge the status quo. The
    institutional habits of the CIA, FBI, NSA and others in Intelligence
    Community will no doubt be hard to break. DHS must not allow the
    difficulty of doing so to prevent it from accomplishing its mission of
    protecting the homeland. As I have said before, the success of this
    department depends on its ability to effectively analyze unevaluated
    intelligence. For this reason, it is crucial for DHS to exercise the
    full extent of the powers granted to it by the Homeland Security Act--
    especially Sec. 202 which gives the Secretary statutory authority to
    access all needed reports, analyses, and unevaluated intelligence
    collected by Federal agencies.
        While I am concerned about the willingness of the Intelligence
    Community to share information with DHS, I have no reservations about
    the abilities of Secretary England. In his capacity as Secretary of the
    Navy, he has served our country with honor and distinction. I believe
    that he will provide the leadership and wisdom needed to accomplish the
    enormous job he has been given. I therefore urge the Committee to act
    on Secretary England's nomination expeditiously so that it may be
    considered by the full Senate.
        I thank you Madame Chair for the opportunity to address the
    Committee this morning.
                                   __________
                    PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG
        Madam Chair, I am pleased to be joining you, Senator Lieberman, and
    the other members of the Governmental Affairs Committee to consider the
    nomination of Navy Secretary England to be Deputy Secretary of the new
    Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
        Secretary England and I had a good visit the other day, and I look
    forward to supporting his nomination. I expect that his nomination will
    move through the Senate as quickly as Governor Ridge's did earlier this
    week.
        I would note that Secretary England had a distinguished career in
    the private sector at General dynamics before President Bush nominated
    him to head the Navy. I have always felt that successful businessmen
    make the best public servants!
        Secretary England is well-suited for his new position. He has an
    academic background in engineering and business. His private sector
    experience was with one of the Nation's principal defense contractors.
    And, as Secretary of the Navy, he has been managing nearly 900,000
    active duty and reserve Sailors and Marines and civilian employees.
    Moreover, as they say--there is the right way, the wrong way, and the
    Navy way. He certainly should be no stranger to dealing with strong-
    willed government agencies.
        I would make several points for Secretary England as he takes on
    this new leadership role:
        First: Make sure the new Department works effectively with the FBI,
    CIA, and other intelligence agencies.
        It turns out that we had intelligence prior to 9-11 pointing to the
    potential targets, the method of attack, and even when they might
    occur. But because of the conflicting missions of our intelligence and
    law enforcement agencies and the unfortunate tendency to hoard
    information rather than share it we were caught unprepared.
        It is still very unclear how intelligence and law enforcement
    information will be integrated. Your Department faces an enormous
    challenge to insure the right information gets to the right people at
    the right time.
        In all candor, if we can't do that, then establishing the
    Department of Homeland Security will be an enormous waste of time and
    treasure. Even worse, it will promote a false sense of security.
        Second: Keeping America safe will be a challenge. Keeping America
    safe without trampling on the civil liberties that make us a free
    people will be an even bigger challenge. Even as you aggressively
    pursue getting the information you need, you must be aware of and guard
    our citizen's constitutional rights and protections.
        Finally, on a note closer to home, don't forget New Jersey.
        Nearly 700 New Jerseyans lost their lives as a result of the 9/11
    attacks. Because many New Jerseyans work in New York and Philadelphia,
    New Jerseyans would suffer from a terrorist assault on either city. New
    Jerseyans would be among the first responders arriving at the scene of
    an attack. New Jersey's medical and emergency response capabilities
    would be needed in the case of a severe attack.
        New Jersey itself has 8.5 million people and several large
    population centers.
        Moreover, we have plenty of critical infrastructure targets: ports,
    airports, tunnels, rail lines, chemical and nuclear power plants, etc.
        I want to make sure that New Jersey's critical role in defending
    against and responding to terrorist attacks in he Northeast is taken
    into account when the DHS allocates resources to the States to bolster
    their security.
        Secretary England, I want to wish you the best of luck in this new
    job, and I offer my pledge to work with you to meet these challenges
    that we all face together.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.085

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.086

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.062

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.065

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.067

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.068

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.069

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.070

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.071

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.072

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.073

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.074

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.075

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.076

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.077

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.078

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.079

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.080

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.081

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.082

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.083

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.084

                                       -