[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 17 (Thursday, January 30, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1785-S1788]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATION OF GORDON ENGLAND TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF HOMELAND SECURITY
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
go into executive session and the Committee on Governmental Affairs is
discharged from further consideration of the following nomination which
the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read the nomination of Gordon England, of
Texas, to be Deputy Secretary, Department of Homeland Security.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are now 20
minutes evenly divided on the nomination.
The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Presiding Officer had the misfortune
last night to be presiding when I presented the qualifications of
Secretary Gordon England to be the Deputy Secretary of the new
Department of Homeland Security. Unfortunately for the Presiding
Officer, the vote did not occur last night, so he is going to once
again hear a little bit more about Secretary England. But since Gordon
England is such an unusually well qualified candidate for this
position, I will beg the indulgence of the Presiding Officer as I
outline for my colleagues who were not here last evening his
qualifications for this important post.
Last Wednesday, the Senate voted unanimously to confirm Tom Ridge to
be the first Secretary of Homeland Security. Today, I am confident that
the Senate will unanimously confirm Gordon England to be Secretary
Ridge's Deputy at his side at the helm of this critical new Department.
The Department of Homeland Security opened its doors last Friday.
Together, Secretary Ridge and Deputy Secretary England make a
formidable team to chart the new Department on a course to protecting
our Nation from the threat of terrorist attacks.
As President Bush has said:
Our enemy is smart and resolute, [but] we are smarter and
more resolute.
Part of our resolve must be to place the best possible leaders in
charge of the new Department of Homeland Security. Gordon England is
such a leader. The Committee on Governmental Affairs, which I have the
honor of chairing, thoroughly considered his nomination. We held a
hearing last Friday. The nominee also responded to extensive prehearing
questions. And yesterday the committee unanimously agreed to discharge
the nomination to expedite floor consideration.
Gordon England is extraordinarily well qualified for this important
post. He currently serves as Secretary of the Navy, a position he has
held since May 2001. Moreover, he came to the Navy with an impressive
portfolio of management experience. He served as executive vice
president of General Dynamics and he was responsible for two major
sectors of the corporation: Information systems, and international
affairs.
Earlier in his career, he served in various executive capacities at a
number of divisions of General Dynamics. But as preparation for
becoming the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, it would be
difficult to beat a tour as the Secretary of the Department of the
Navy. As Secretary, Gordon England headed a department with a budget of
over $100 billion and consisting of 462,000 sailors and 212,000
marines.
The Department of Homeland Security, which we often describe as a
massive new Department, will bring together a civilian workforce of
about 170,000 individuals. The Secretary of the Navy not only had many
more military employees to supervise, but he had a civilian workforce
of 190,000 employees.
Secretary England's extensive experience in managing large complex
operations in both the private and public sectors will serve him well
as the Deputy Secretary of the new Department.
[[Page S1786]]
Moreover, Secretary England brings a complete understanding of the
Department of Defense which will prove invaluable in developing the
appropriate communications links and levels of coordination between the
Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.
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. So it will be critical
for the Department of Homeland Security to have a good relationship
with the Department of Defense and very good coordination between the
two Departments as each performs its mission in defense of our
homeland.
Secretary England's knowledge will help ensure that the two
Departments work as a team and not at cross-purposes. In short, I
believe Secretary England is uniquely qualified for this important job.
We are extremely fortunate as a nation to have two such highly
qualified individuals as Secretary Tom Ridge and Deputy Secretary
Gordon England at the helm of this critical new Department.
I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this important nomination.
Seeing no one seeking the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum
and ask unanimous consent that the time be assigned equally to each
side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the
nomination of Secretary Gordon England to the position of Deputy
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Secretary England 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 but that Secretary England
will make a highly honorable and effective Deputy Secretary of Homeland
Security. His qualifications are not in question, nor is his
dedication. Throughout his entire professional career, Secretary
England has demonstrated a unique readiness, willingness, and ability
to help make America safer.
However, as I have said repeatedly, 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.
I am, of course pleased that the President, in his State of the Union
address, announced his support for the creation of a Terrorism Threat
Information Center. For many months now, I and other members of the
Senate have been proposing a similar analysis center as a way of
addressing one of the most glaring weaknesses in our domestic defenses
exposed by the September 11 terrorist attacks. This new center will be
the place where the dots are connected, to give our Government a better
chance of uncovering terrorist threats and preventing attacks. I am
glad that the Administration has finally agreed this is critical to our
ability to better protect the American people, though I must admit my
frustration that it has taken this long for the President to awaken to
the wisdom of this solution.
During the debate over the Department of Homeland Security, I
proposed creation of an independent Intelligence Directorate, under the
Secretary of Homeland Security, to be staffed by analysts on loan from
the FBI, CIA, and other intelligence agencies, and given maximum access
to the information about all terrorist threats collected by those
agencies. Its purpose would be clear, to connect the dots and overcome
the failures to share intelligence that surely contributed to the
successful terrorist attacks on our country.
Unfortunately, the President opposed that approach. Instead, the
administration insisted on focusing the Department's intelligence
center on protecting critical infrastructure, rather than on performing
analysis primarily designed to preempt and disrupt attacks before they
occur. In the end, a compromise was reached; creating a single
directorate that would analyze all terrorist threats as well as assess
vulnerabilities to the infrastructure. However, until the President's
State of the Union Address, the administration has insisted on
implementing its original concept of infrastructure protection.
But there is still serious reason for concern. The President said
Tuesday night the new analysis center would answer to the Director of
Central Intelligence and would be composed of analytical units from the
FBI and the CIA. But Congress's clear intent was that he should create
a strong Directorate to ``connect the dots'' within the Department of
Homeland Security. Historic rivalries among the CIA, FBI, and other
intelligence agencies are a major problem we must overcome. Placing
this fusion center in the new Department would ensure analysis from an
independent entity outside of the existing rivalries. The President's
approach perpetuates a major part of the problem. Though I am glad he
has finally agreed that we need a single Terrorist Threat Information
Center, the President has been altogether too reluctant to challenge
the status quo in the intelligence community and the FBI.
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 use 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
ideas of its own. Secretary England's experience will make him an
invaluable contributor to this discussion.
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
[[Page S1787]]
in the past 16 months, the Bush administration has been far too passive
on this front.
We are 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 area I believe we should instantly expect more productive
public-private partnerships is in vaccine development. I am pleased
that the President has now acknowledged the need to build new shields
to protect ourselves from the deadly bioterror arrows that our enemies
may use against us. This is an urgent priority that our Government has
let languish for far too long.
Unfortunately, the administration's approach to developing medicines
to protect us against a bioterror attack has been too narrow, too
conventional, too slow, and too small to rise to this urgent challenge.
Respectfully, the new initiative announced by the President, what we
know about it today, seems to be more of the same. So far, the
administration has addressed this problem by providing funding for
basic research by academics. But that is not the only thing we need to
do to swiftly develop breakthrough new medicines that we can stockpile
and deploy.
To do this the right way, we also need to engage our ingenious
private sector, the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, which
have so far shown no interest in this research. Today, even if the
academic scientists find a promising lead, there is no company ready to
move that antidote or medicine from concept to product, from laboratory
to bedside.
Back in December of 2001 I introduced legislation, now cosponsored by
Senator Hatch, S. 3148, to provide incentives to private companies to
take up and accelerate this vital research.
The BioShield program apparently adopts one of the ideas from our
bill, to provide a guaranteed purchase fund for needed medicines. That
is good news, and I am glad the President has seen the wisdom of this
approach. I have said for more than a year that we can't expect these
private companies to commit themselves to this R&D if they cannot
determine the scope and terms of the market that might await them.
But based on the details the White House has released to date,
BioShield does not incorporate any of the other incentives I have
proposed, no tax incentives, no intellectual property protections, no
liability protections, no incentives to develop research tools or
construct manufacturing facilities. It is a bare and belated beginning
on what we have to do to engage the private sector in this research.
We are in grave danger. The Defense Science Board estimated in 2000
that we have only 1 of the 57 diagnostics, vaccines and drugs we need
to deal with the top 19 bioterror threats. In other words, if you do
the math, we were less than 2 percent prepared. No progress has been
made since then. The DSB said if we were to launch a major industrial
development effort, we might be able to develop twenty of these
countermeasures in 5 years and thirty in 10 years. The President's
announcement of $600 million in funding over 10 years won't begin to
address this massive and threatening gap.
The administration's failure on this front is, in my view, part of a
general myopia. The President seems unwilling to enlist every sector
and segment of society to do its part to help us win the war against
terrorism. But Americans want to contribute. They want to know what
they can do for their country. This would have been the perfect place
for the President to pave the way to a new, productive partnership
between Government and the private sector. But, regrettably, he has
missed the opportunity.
I have put forward a comprehensive proposal to ignite private
development of the countermeasures we will 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.
Let me conclude by saying that I appreciate Secretary England's
commitment to serve. The country appreciates his public and private
service over the course of the last 40 years, and values his
experience, expertise, and management skill which will be focused on
this urgent new challenge.
I look forward to partnering with soon to be Deputy Secretary England
and Secretary Ridge, 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.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--I know we have
the vote ordered for 2:50 p.m.--that the Senator from Virginia have 2
minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I have an airplane to
catch. Can the Senator withhold until after the vote?
Mr. WARNER. I will withhold until after the vote.
Mrs. BOXER. I so appreciate that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the nomination of Gordon England, of Texas, to be Deputy
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security?
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I request the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) would vote ``Aye.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 29 Ex.]
YEAS--99
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (FL)
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Lautenberg
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is
laid upon the table.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the President for
the selection of Gordon England for the post to which the Senate will
confirm him soon in the newly created Department of Homeland Security.
I have had the privilege of working with Mr. England for some time
now. Since he assumed the duties of Secretary of the Navy, we
immediately became friends--because we had known
[[Page S1788]]
each other while he was in the private sector, but, of course, I having
had the privilege of serving as Secretary of the Navy some many years
before, we were sort of a band of brothers--those of us who are
privileged to serve in the greatest Navy in the world, and particularly
in the post as a civilian boss. We have worked together these many
years.
I want the record to reflect the extraordinary qualifications of this
nominee. The Navy will miss him. But duty calls so often. It did in
this instance because the President and Secretary Ridge wanted to draw
on someone who had a proven record of management capabilities. Gordon
England exhibited that record while he was Secretary of the Navy. He
will exhibit it as the hands-on operator of the management decisions in
assisting the distinguished Secretary, Mr. Ridge.
I am very pleased with this nomination.
I want to mention just a few things about the distinguished career of
this fine person.
He began his career with Honeywell Corporation working as an engineer
on the Gemini space program before joining General Dynamics in 1966 as
an avionics design engineer in the Fort Worth aircraft division. He
also worked as a program manager with Litton Industries on the Navy's
E-2C Hawkeye aircraft.
By coincidence, these are programs I worked on somewhat when I was
Secretary, Under Secretary, and then, of course, while I have been here
in the Senate serving now 25 years on the Senate Armed Services
Committee.
He served as executive vice president of General Dynamics Corporation
from 1997 until 2001 and was responsible for two major sectors of the
corporation--first, information systems, and international.
Previously, he served as executive vice president of the Combat
Systems Group, president of General Dynamics Fort Worth aircraft
company. Before that, he served as president of General Dynamics land
systems company producing land combat vehicles.
He has had this management experience, particularly in high-tech
areas. Much of the Homeland Defense Department function will be going
to the private sector, encouraging that private sector to design state-
of-the-art and beyond--I stress ``beyond''--technology to meet the many
unknowns with which our Nation and other nations are confronted in this
battle against worldwide terrorism.
Mr. England is a native of Baltimore. He graduated from the
University of Maryland in 1961 with a bachelor's degree in electrical
engineering. In 1975, he earned a master's degree in business
administration from the M.J. Neeley School of Business at Texas
Christian University. He served as a member of the Defense Science
Board and was vice chairman of the National Research Council Committee
on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry.
It is an extraordinary record.
If I may say with the greatest respect to our President and to the
new Secretary that his first Deputy, Gordon England, in the Department
of Homeland Security, I think, can help avert what could come about as
a tug of war between the Department of Homeland Security and the
Department of Defense as it regards budget matters. Both have the
highest priorities, properly accorded by our President, and indeed I
think the Congress. Homeland defense is just starting. As their cash
flow and appropriations come in, I hope they will be adequate to meet
the needs of this new Department. If they are not, I hope we can find
other means by which to finance those requirements. They should be
given top priority financially and support-wise because they will guard
us here at home--augmenting what is in place already by way of the
National Guard, the North Command and the other commands of the
Department of Defense--many other things that are in place in bringing
together the various and disparate agencies and departments and put
them under this one head.
I am going to be ever watchful--and I think my good friend, Gordon
England, likewise--to advise the Secretary of Defense and to advise the
Secretary of Homeland Security. We cannot ever witness a budget war
between these two strong and powerful and vitally needed Departments.
Gordon England is eminently qualified to see that doesn't happen.
Homeland defense starts beyond our shores in the forward-deployed
positions of the men and women of the Armed Forces all over the world.
For example, on the battlefields of Afghanistan, we have made great
progress.
I had the privilege just this morning of meeting with General Franks
to talk about the progress he has made and the challenges that remain
in Afghanistan. But he has, in large measure, achieved a goal of
stemming the flow of terrorism from that troubled piece of land to
other places in the world and will continue to fight that battle.
That is the clearest example I can give right now of where we have to
stop terrorism before it comes to our borders. Hopefully, it can be
interdicted there and certainly interdicted before it gets into
hometowns in America.
Those two Departments must be adequately funded because they will
work together to protect this great Nation.
I wish my old friend good luck, fair winds, and flowing seas, as we
say in the Navy. He is eminently qualified to take on this position.
I thank the Chair.
____________________