U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

85–337 PDF 2003

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

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Deleware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

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 

(III)

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

(1)

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. 

2

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 

3

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 

4

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 

5

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. 

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. 

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. 

6

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. 

7

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. 

8

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. 

9

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 

10

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 

11

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 

12

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 

13

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 

14

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 

15

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? 

16

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 

17

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.] 

(19)

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, allsource 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. 

20

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/

21

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 § 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. 

22

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.

23


85337.001
24


85337.002
25


85337.003
26


85337.004
27


85337.005
28


85337.085
29


85337.007
30


85337.008
31


85337.009
32


85337.010
33


85337.011
34


85337.012
35


85337.013
36


85337.014
37


85337.015
38


85337.016
39


85337.017
40


85337.018
41


85337.019
42


85337.020
43


85337.021
44


85337.022
45


85337.023
46


85337.024
47


85337.025
48


85337.026
49


85337.027
50


85337.028
51


85337.029
52


85337.030
53


85337.031
54


85337.032
55


85337.033
56


85337.034
57


85337.035
58


85337.036
59


85337.037
60


85337.038
61


85337.039
62


85337.040
63


85337.041
64


85337.042
65


85337.043
66


85337.044
67


85337.045
68


85337.046
69


85337.047
70


85337.048
71


85337.086
72


85337.049
73


85337.050
74


85337.051
75


85337.052
76


85337.053
77


85337.054
78


85337.055
79


85337.056
80


85337.057
81


85337.058
82


85337.059
83


85337.060
84


85337.061
85


85337.062
86


85337.063
87


85337.064
88


85337.065
89


85337.066
90


85337.067
91


85337.068
92


85337.069
93


85337.070
94


85337.071
95


85337.072
96


85337.073
97


85337.074
98


85337.075
99


85337.076
100


85337.077
101


85337.078
102


85337.079
103


85337.080
104


85337.081
105


85337.082
106


85337.083
107

Æ


85337.084