[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2210-2213]
[From the U.S. 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.
  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

[[Page 2211]]

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 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

[[Page 2212]]

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 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

[[Page 2213]]

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.

                          ____________________