[Senate Hearing 108-46] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 108-46 NOMINATION OF HON. GORDON R. ENGLAND ======================================================================= HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON THE NOMINATION OF HON. GORDON R. ENGLAND TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY __________ JANUARY 24, 2003 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 2003 85-337 PDF For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman TED STEVENS, Alaska JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio CARL LEVIN, Michigan NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah THOMAS R. CARPER, Deleware PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois MARK DAYTON, Minnesota JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama MARK PRYOR, Arkansas Michael D. Bopp, Staff Director and Counsel Johanna L. Hardy, Senior Counsel Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Counsel Michael L. Alexander, Minority Professional Staff Member Jennifer E. Hamilton, Minority Research Assistant Darla D. Cassell, Chief Clerk C O N T E N T S ------ Opening statements: Page Senator Collins.............................................. 1 Senator Stevens.............................................. 1 Senator Pryor................................................ 9 Senator Levin................................................ 11 Prepared statements: Senator Lieberman............................................ 19 Senator Shelby............................................... 20 Senator Lautenberg........................................... 21 WITNESS Friday, January 24, 2003 Hon. Gordon R. England to be Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security: Testimony.................................................... 5 Prepared statement........................................... 23 Biographical and professional information.................... 28 Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 37 Responses to post-hearing questions from: Senator Collins............................................ 72 Senator Specter............................................ 86 Senator Shelby............................................. 87 Senator Lieberman.......................................... 89 Senator Lautenberg......................................... 96 NOMINATION OF HON. GORDON R. ENGLAND ---------- FRIDAY, JANUARY 24, 2003 U.S. Senate, Committee on Governmental Affairs, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Susan Collins, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. Present: Senators Collins, Stevens, Levin, and Pryor. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN COLLINS Chairman Collins. Good morning. The Committee will come to order. I would like to go slightly out of order this morning by calling on the distinguished Senator from Alaska, the President Pro Temp of the Senate, who is going to have the honor this morning of introducing our nominee before he goes to preside over the Senate. Senator Stevens, if you would proceed with your comments. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR STEVENS Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I do think it is an honor to have the opportunity to introduce to you and endorse Gordon England's nomination to be the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. I would ask you to put my full statement in the record as though read. Chairman Collins. Without objection. The prepared statement of Senator Stevens follows: PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR STEVENS Mr. Chairman, Senator Lieberman, and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear before you today to strongly endorse Gordon England's nomination to be the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Secretary England is accompanied today by his wife, Dottie, and his daughter Megan. I want to thank them for all the support they have given him in his current position at the Pentagon. I know they will provide him that all-important support while he is at the Department of Homeland Security. Daughter Megan is the mother of two children--Isabel and Theodore, or ``Izzy'' and ``Theo.'' They are not here today, but I know the Secretary is justifiably proud of his grandchildren as a part of the family ``team.'' I have gotten to know Gordon England well since he took over as the 72nd Secretary of the Navy--almost 2 years ago. He is an extremely capable manager and has a proven leadership record in both the private and public sectors. During his time in the Pentagon, Gordon England has done a tremendous job representing the Nation. In fact, he is one of the most respected members of the Bush team and is especially well regarded within the Navy. He has earned the respect of uniformed and civilian members of the Department of Defense for a winning leadership style. Those on his staff know that he trusts them with responsibility but holds them to high standards. As Secretary of the Navy, Gordon England leads a force of 472,000 sailors and 212,000 marines. He manages a fleet of 308 warships, 4,100 aircraft and an annual budget of over $110 billion--a very complex responsibility. He understands that our country now faces an unprecedented array of difficult and dangerous challenges around the world. He has the right mix of skills and capabilities to help lead our new Department of Homeland Security to address those challenges. Gordon England is one of those rare people in Washington, D.C. who is truly willing to listen. This served him well as Secretary of the Navy and will make him even more successful as he and Tom Ridge pull together the many disparate agencies to create the Department of Homeland Security. Ialso think it is important to say that Gordon England fully recognizes the importance of Congress' oversight responsibilities with respect to the new Department. He understands that, without close cooperation with and support from Congress, the Department will hardly be able to perform its difficult duty of protecting the American homeland. I know that he will make it a high priority to have a good working relationship with the Congress. I am confident that the President has chosen the right leadership team to build this new Department. Gordon England will be a superb asset to Tom Ridge and I unequivocally give him my support. Senator Stevens. Secretary England is accompanied today by his wife Dottie and his daughter Megan, whom I have just met. I want to thank them for their support that they have given to my friend in his position at the Pentagon. I know they are going to provide him the all-important support while he is at the Department of Homeland Security. It is going to be a busy job for my friend. His daughter Megan is the mother of two children, Isabel and Theodore, or Izzy and Theo. Why don't you just call him Ted? [Laughter.] They are not here today but I know the Secretary is justifiably proud of his grandchildren and his whole family team. Now I have gotten to know Secretary England very well since he took over as the 72nd Secretary of the Department of the Navy. He is an extremely capable manager, Madam Chairman, and has a proven record of leadership in both the public and private sectors. During his time at the Pentagon, Gordon England has done a tremendous job in representing our Nation. He has been one of the most respected members of President Bush's team and especially well regarded within the Department of the Navy and the whole Pentagon. He has earned the respect of uniform and civilian members of the Department of Defense for a winning leadership style. Those on the staff know that he trusts them with responsibilities but holds them to very high standards. As the Secretary of the Navy, Gordon England has led a force of 472,000 sailors and 212,000 Marines. He has managed 308 warships, 4,100 aircraft and an annual budget of over $110 billion. That is a very complex responsibility. Senator Inouye and I, who have overseen the defense budget now for many years, really have learned to respect Secretary England. In fact were it not for a death in his family Senator Inouye would be with me today to recommend our friend. Secretary England understands that our country now faces an unprecedented array of difficult and dangerous challenges around the world, but he has the right mix of skills and capabilities to lead this new Department of Homeland Security and to address the challenges. It is extremely important to me to let you know that Secretary England understands the responsibilities of Congress in terms of oversight. He has always responded to us when we have asked questions and he has been more than forward in coming to us to explain problems before they really develop into difficulties with the Congress. He has served well as the Secretary of the Navy and I think he will serve even a better role, a greater role for the United States as he works with Tom Ridge and pulls together the very disparate agencies that we have created within the Department of Homeland Security. So I recommend him very highly, Madam Chairman. I thank you very much, my friend, and I hope you will excuse me. Chairman Collins. Thank you, Senator Stevens. Your high praise means a lot to, not only the nominee, but to the Committee as well. Today the Committee on Governmental Affairs is holding a hearing to consider the President's nomination of Secretary Gordon England to be the first Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. One week ago this Committee considered the nomination of Tom Ridge to be the new Secretary of the Department, and on Wednesday the Senate voted unanimously to confirm Secretary Ridge in his new position. Gordon England will join Secretary Ridge at the helm of the new Department, which officially opens its doors today. My hope is that we will act very quickly to put the other half of this impressive team in place. The time for an ad hoc approach to homeland security has long since passed. We may not have fully realized how outmoded our approach truly was before September 11, but we certainly do now. And there is much work still to be done. The establishment of the new Department of Homeland Security will be the most significant restructuring of the Federal Government in more than 50 years. It will involve the merger of 22 agencies and some 170,000 Federal employees. Managing this new Department will pose extraordinary challenges. Indeed, in my judgment, Congress has not created two more challenging positions than Secretary and Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security since it established the Department of Defense in 1947. I have no doubt whatsoever that Secretary England is extremely well qualified for this challenge. Gordon England currently serves, as Senator Stevens indicated, as Secretary of the Navy, a position that he has held since May 2001. I have had the honor of working very closely with Secretary England in my position as a member of the Seapowers Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee so I can attest firsthand to his character and his extraordinary ability. Secretary England came to the Navy with an impressive portfolio of management experience. He served as executive vice president of General Dynamics Corporation at which he was responsible for two major sectors, information systems and international affairs. Earlier in his career, he served in various executive capacities at a number of divisions of General Dynamics. He holds a bachelor of science degree from the University of Maryland and a master's degree in business administration from Texas Christian University. But regarding his preparation for becoming Deputy Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, it would be difficult to beat a tour as Secretary of the Navy. As Secretary, Gordon England headed a department with a budget of over $100 billion and consisting of 372,000 active-duty and 90,000 Reserve Sailors, and 172,000 active-duty and 40,000 Reserve Marines. The Department of Homeland Security will bring together a civilian workforce of about 170,000. That figure always causes us to question how this Department could be managed. Secretary England has already overseen 190,000 civilians in the Navy. His extensive experience in managing large complex operations in both the public and the private sectors will serve him well as Deputy Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security. Moreover, Secretary England's understanding of the Department of Defense will prove invaluable in developing the appropriate communications links and levels of coordination between the two Departments. The Department of Defense recently established the U.S. Northern Command, or NORCOM, to oversee and further develop land, aerospace, and sea-based military defenses of our homeland. It has also established a new Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security. It will be critical for the new Department of Homeland Security to have free-flowing and constant communication with the Department of Defense as each Department performs its mission in defense of our homeland. Secretary England's knowledge will help ensure that the two departments work as a team, not at cross purposes. Secretary England, I want to tell you that I believe our Nation is extremely fortunate to have you and Secretary Ridge leading this new Department. Both of you have the experience, the background, the conviction, and the character to take on this incredible challenge. I want to thank you for being willing to step up to the plate, and I also want to assure you that, as Chairman of this Committee, that I am committed to working with you and Secretary Ridge to make this new Department a success. At this point I would like to give Secretary England the opportunity to introduce his family members. Senator Stevens did that to some extent but if we could have them stand as you introduce them. Mr. England. Senator, thank you. Also, thank you for those very nice words. Yes, let me introduce my wife Dottie and my daughter Megan from Austin, Texas. She is the mother of my two great grandchildren. Chairman Collins. One of whom has been renamed Ted this morning, I believe. We are pleased to have you here this morning. Secretary England has filed responses to a biographical and financial questionnaire, answered prehearing questions submitted by the Committee, and had his financial statement reviewed by the Office of Government Ethics. Without objection, this information will be made part of the hearing record with the exception of the financial data which are on file and available for public inspection in the Committee offices. Our Committee require that all witnesses in nomination hearings give their testimony under oath, so Secretary England, I would ask that you stand and raise your right hand. [Witness sworn.] Secretary England, I believe you have a statement and I would call upon you to give it to us at this time. STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON R. ENGLAND \1\ TO BE DEPUTY SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Mr. England. Madam Chair, thank you. First of all, thank you for the opportunity to be here, and all the Members of the Committee for giving me an opportunity to testify today. I do have a brief oral statement but I would ask that my written statement be submitted for the record. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Hon. England appears in the Appendix on page 23. Biographical and professional information appears in the Appendix on page 28. Responses to pre-hearing questions appears in the Appendix on page 37. Responses to post-hearing questions appears in the Appendix on page 72. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Collins. Without objection. Mr. England. Thank you. Before beginning, let me first thank President Bush and Secretary Tom Ridge for their leadership and vision, and for placing their confidence in me. Homeland security relies on partnerships and it is an honor and most humbling that they would make me a partner in this great national effort. The Secretary has brought together an extraordinary team of patriots and public servants many of whom I have had the privilege to meet. No matter what agency or bureau they may hail from, they are resolute and united by the mission of homeland security, to protect the American people and our way of life from terrorism. For the first time we now have a single department whose primary mission is exactly that and which will help them do their jobs even better. The effort to secure the homeland can be summed up as follows: Prevent terrorist acts, identify and reduce our vulnerability to terrorist threats, and ensure our preparedness to effectively respond and recover while saving as many lives as possible in the event of a future attack. To achieve those goals, the President's national strategy for homeland security, the Nation's first, identifies six critical mission areas the new Department will focus on, intelligence and warning, domestic counterterrorism, border and transportation security, the protection of critical infrastructure and key assets, defense against catastrophic threats, and emergency preparedness and response. Significant progress has already been made and continues to be made in each of those mission areas. As Secretary Ridge indicated before this Committee, since September 11 this Nation has clearly improved its protective capabilities. Our maritime borders have been pushed farther from shore, our land border security has been tightened and walls torn down between the law enforcement and intelligence communities so we better know who is in our country and why. Tens of thousands of professional screeners have been deployed at every one of our commercial airports and thousands of air marshals are on our planes. We have acquired 1 million doses of antibiotics and instituted a major smallpox vaccination program. Working with Congress, billions of dollars have been allocated for bioterrorism training and food and water security, and the President continues to work with the Congress on his proposed 1,000 percent increase in funding for first responders. In short, as Secretary Ridge said, the homeland is indeed safer and better prepared today than on September 11, but it will be safer tomorrow as we develop new capabilities through the Department of Homeland Security. As Deputy Secretary, I will do whatever the President and the Secretary ask of me in order to achieve those goals and accomplish our mission of protecting the American people from terrorism. They have placed their confidence in me and I will do my utmost to repay that confidence. I believe my record and experience show that I am qualified for this task. I thank this Committee for their support and I look forward to taking your questions. Chairman Collins. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Senator Pryor, in Senator Lieberman's absence you get to be the Ranking Member today and I wondered if you had any opening comments that you would like to make. Senator Pryor. I don't, thank you. Chairman Collins. Secretary England, your responses to all the prehearing questions are going to be placed in the record but pursuant to Committee practice before we begin questions there are three standard inquiries that I ask of all nominees. First, is there anything that you are aware of in your background which might present a conflict of interest with the duties of the office to which you have been nominated? Mr. England. No, Madam Chairman, I do not know of any conflicts in my background. Chairman Collins. Second, do you know of anything personal or otherwise that would in any way prevent you from fully and honorably discharging the responsibilities as Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security? Mr. England. No, I am not aware of anything. Chairman Collins. Third, do you agree without reservation to respond to any reasonable summons to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of Congress if you are confirmed? Mr. England. Yes, I do agree. In fact, Senator, I will tell you in my experience as Secretary of the Navy, it is very important that we have this very close relationship with the Senate because I know that the people in the field rely on that relationship for them to get their job done. That said, I have read that there are 88 committees in the Congress, so hopefully there are not 88 committees associated with it, but reasonably we will indeed interface with all the committees that is reasonable and practical to do so. Chairman Collins. Thank you. Secretary England, the Directorate of Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection within that new Department in some ways is the central nervous system that will receive intelligence and information as required from the intelligence and law enforcement communities. The Department then decides what the appropriate response to that information is. Numerous reports have pointed to the need for better information sharing among Federal agencies and their State and local counterparts. In particular, just last month the Gilmore Commission concluded that intelligence and information sharing has only marginally improved since September 11. How do you intend to work with the intelligence and law enforcement communities and other Federal agencies to improve this information sharing? Mr. England. Madam Chair, first of all you are absolutely right, this is a cornerstone of the Department because, in my judgment, the way the Department will operate we will do vulnerability assessments, we will understand the consequences of those vulnerabilities, and then we need to understand the threat. That will provide us an analytical basis in terms of how we proceed in this Department. So you are absolutely right, this information sharing is absolutely crucial. Now the act itself makes all the intelligence data available to the Department of Homeland Security so we will receive all the data from all the agencies. We will work to have a collaborative environment to make sure the data is shared with us and that we also share data with other intelligence agencies. So in my judgment, we will have the process in place and we will work very hard to make sure we have this sharing because it is the foundation of how we will proceed in the Department of Homeland Security, but it does appear to me that the act puts in place the appropriate regulation and requirement that all this data be shared among the intelligence agencies. So I am confident that we will indeed be able to proceed very effectively in that area, Senator. Chairman Collins. One concern that I hear frequently expressed at the State and local level is that local law enforcement lacks access to information that might be useful in identifying terrorists in their midst. The police chief in Portland, Maine, Mike Chitwood, has told me many stories about his efforts to coordinate with the FBI, with other Federal law enforcement officials on matters of homeland security and he has told me that information sharing is the biggest obstacle that he faces. Similarly, in a recent report by the Council on Foreign Relations, which was led by former Senators Hart and Rudman, the statement was made that some 650,000 local and State police officers continue to operate in a virtual intelligence vacuum. How do you balance the need to get information data down at the lowest possible level with concerns that the more people who have access to sensitive information, the more vulnerable it may be to being compromised? Mr. England. Senator, yesterday I had the opportunity-- Secretary Ridge invited me to be on a phone conversation with him and he spoke to the homeland security advisors in all the States and he in fact addressed this issue because it is critical that we get the right intelligence at the local level. This is indeed a local program. It is very important that we make this program, not a Federal program, but a national program with local roots. Therefore, we will need to provide intelligence data at the local level. We will have to determine what is appropriate in each case and, frankly, I have not had the opportunity to look at all those areas. But it is evident to me that we do have to make information available at the local level if they are to be effective in carrying out their responsibilities. So there will be a program in place, and as you are aware, we do have an office for local and State government coordination so that office will be very important in working with the local personnel, both public and private, to make sure that we have the appropriate program in place. But it is important that we do this and we will have a program to bring this about. Chairman Collins. I am very glad to hear you say that. I had suggested, along with my colleagues Senator Carper and Senator Feingold, that we actually have a Department employee stationed in each of the 50 States. I think at a minimum we need a good point of contact in each State, and we do need to remember that the ones who are on the front lines and are the first responders are not people working at headquarters in Washington. They are our police officers, firefighters, and our emergency medical personnel. I am very pleased to hear you state that commitment. I want to raise just one other question with you before I turn to Senator Pryor for his questions during this round, and that has to do with privacy concerns about the new Department. Many of us have read about the project undertaken by the Department of Defense which has been called Total Information Awareness. On the one hand, Congress often criticizes Federal agencies for not having their computers talk to one another. On the other hand, when they do talk to one another and you start combining massive databases it raises concerns about the privacy rights of average Americans against whom there are no allegations of wrongdoing or suspicions. How will you ensure that the new Department, in its need to gather and assess more information, does not tread on the privacy rights and the civil liberties of Americans, rights that are the very foundation of our country? Mr. England. Senator, first of all, as Secretary of the Navy I have been acutely aware that for 226 years Americans have gone forth to protect this Nation, and protecting this Nation is protecting our liberties and our freedoms and our privacy and all those things we hold dear. So it is very important in this environment that we not sacrifice what we have fought for for 226 years. My feeling in this regard is that the privacy officer--as part of this Department there is a privacy officer--should be involved early in any programs, be involved early so we can make appropriate decisions, or bring those decisions to the Congress and the American people if indeed it is necessary that we have some sort of constraint, if that proves important in some circumstance, bring it before the American people so we can make those types of decisions. But we should have these vetted very early so they should not be issues as we proceed to protect and defend America. But you are absolutely right, this is very important to our people, this is fundamental to our Nation, so we will have to be very careful in terms of how we balance this. I can assure you, however, I am very sensitive to this matter and it will get my full attention and we will consult with the Congress and other parts of the government as we proceed with programs that would have any aspect of privacy invasions for Americans. Chairman Collins. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Senator Pryor. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PRYOR Senator Pryor. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for being here this morning. The first question or line of questions I have for you this morning is about your experience. You have a great resume and you bring a lot into this position. it is very encouraging to see what you have done and the things you have been involved with in the past. It seems like you have almost been preparing your whole life for this, and it is very encouraging to me as a member of this body. Have you ever been involved in establishing and setting up a new organization? Mr. England. Yes, I have, Senator, and I guess on both ends of this. At one point I was president of General Dynamics, now Lockheed, but at the time it was General Dynamics. It was about 26,000 employees and we were bought by Lockheed. So we were basically merged into another company. So at that point I was being merged into another company, so I understand and recognize the difficulties of doing that if you happen to be someone who is being brought into another organization. Also, as the executive vice president of General Dynamics we bought a number of companies and we merged those into General Dynamics, and that was my responsibility. That was a new sector of the corporation. So I have worked on both sides of merging employees and responsibilities and I do understand the difficulties in that arena. Senator Pryor. You know from your corporate experience and your government experience, that in corporations there is what is subjectively known as a corporate culture where different companies over time pick up personalities and values that they have, that they run by and there is sort of a feel that you get inside a company when you work for a company or when you deal with a company. I think the same is true for government agencies. There is an agency culture. It seems to me one of your challenges will be to take the best of the cultures of the employees and the divisions that are coming together and try to harmonize those, but to try to take the best and to establish at the foundation of this agency a great agency culture. Would you agree with that? Mr. England. You are absolutely right, Senator. I agree with you. What you would like to do, in my judgment, is you want to create a culture superior to any of the other cultures so that people will want to be part of this new culture. So that is a leadership issue. It is a management issue to establish that new culture that people want to be part of. But you are absolutely right. Senator Pryor. How do you do that? Mr. England. You do, as you said, you provide an environment for people to excel. So in my judgment, you create this whole environment for people to excel and that means you give them authority and responsibility, you provide them the correct work environment, the correct tools, you respect their contributions. So you provide an environment of mutual respect. So, again, I believe this is a leadership issue that starts at the very top to set those standards that are important for the people who work there. But leaders do and can create better cultures for people, and I believe all successful organizations have leaders who are very sensitive to that. Senator Pryor. I agree with you on that. I do think that falls on your shoulders and a small handful of people's shoulders to take the agency and get it established and launched in a very positive and productive way. Really, you have a rare opportunity, in my mind--I do not want to say to set up an ideal agency. There maybe is no such thing as an ideal agency, but to take an agency from the ground up and make it a model agency for all the others to look to and see as the way the Federal Government should work and ought to work. I hope you will take that challenge and go to work every day and try to get the Department of Homeland Security launched in the way it should be. Mr. England. I can assure you that is the objective of the Secretary and myself. We would like this to be a model agency going forward for the Federal Government. Senator Pryor. In your written statement you said, success must be measured by the capabilities we create with the resources we have. Now I am not trying to put words in your mouth but are you implying there that you need more resources than you currently have? Mr. England. No, I am not. I am really implying that you need to be able to measure what you are achieving before you put more resources into something. So they are linked but we need a system of measuring capability. That is not organization, not the fluff. We need to actually measure capability; what have we done to protect and defend America. That is what is important. Senator Pryor. What measure will you use? What standard, what system, how do you establish that? Mr. England. Typically when you establish standards and metrics you do this with the people doing the work itself because they need to buy into these measures. So you establish the measures with the people themselves. It is very important that you have the right metrics and measures because it drives the behavior and the direction of the organization. So this will be something that is both a top-down and a bottom-up type process and it is something that is to be accomplished. My expectation is we would have some measures and metrics early in terms of the top level, but this is a long process. We will have to work this with the under secretaries, with the workforce themselves, but we will need measures and metrics. Definitely we will need to do that. Senator Pryor. It seems to me that one of the measures, and this is subjective and always the devil is in the details and in the definitions of trying to determine this, but it seems to me that one of the overarching measures should be that the new Department does the job better than the old system. That however you measure it, there should be some quantifiable way to determine that we are actually doing it better than we were in the old system because that is the whole purpose of the Department. Mr. England. You are absolutely right, sir. You do have to have that. You had the key words, a quantifiable way to measure. So when you say, something better than the old system, first you need a baseline to go from. So we need to establish that baseline and have measures as we proceed into the future. But you are absolutely right, Senator. Senator Pryor. I think you are up to the challenge and I look forward to watching you operate over the next few years there. It is just so important to our country, I believe it is important to the country that we get this established in the right way, and get it off firm footing, and I am excited about the prospect of you being there. Thank you. Mr. England. Thank you very much, Senator. Chairman Collins. Thank you, Senator Pryor. Senator Levin. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN Senator Levin. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Let me welcome Gordon England, an old friend. We worked together when he was working in Michigan, and then recently as Secretary of the Navy, where he has done a wonderful job. I look forward to your stewardship, your position here with this new Department. I think it is going to make it really critical in the success of this Department that the Secretary has a deputy such as yourself. I welcome you and your family. I congratulate you on your appointment. The challenge I know has been laid out by our Chairman, Senator Pryor, and Senator Stevens who introduced you, and perhaps others. You know very well what the challenge is before you, how many agencies have to be pieced together, how many employees have to work together, be coordinated, have to be protected in their legitimate rights. That is going to be a major issue that we are going to be looking at. There are a few things that I have raised along the way that have concerned me that I just want to highlight here for you. I cannot expect you to have the detailed answers to questions but I just want to share with you some of the concerns that I have had as this agency has been put together. Some of the privacy concerns I think have already been mentioned by our Chairman. I share those concerns. Yesterday we adopted an amendment which Senator Wyden introduced along with Senator Grassley and myself and others relative to a project called the Total Information Awareness program which has been funded to some extent by DARPA, which the Congress, at least through the Senate's action last night has indicated we have got some real problems with. This is a program to develop and integrate information technology enabling the intelligence community to sift through multiple databases, sources, passports, visas, work permits, driver's licenses, credit card transactions, airline tickets, car rentals, and gun purchases to detect and classify and to identify potential terrorist activities, which is fine. But the potential for the invasion of privacy into the lives of ordinary citizens is huge. We want you to be aware of the privacy concerns that this Committee and I think members of Congress generally have. We want to go after terrorists in the way which does not undermine or jeopardize the traditional rights of American citizens. We do not have to impinge on those basic rights and freedoms to do what we need to do to go after terrorism. So I just want to highlight that for you. I doubt even that you are familiar-- perhaps you are--with that one program that I mentioned, but that general concern I know has been highlighted by Senator Collins and others and I just wanted to add my voice to it. One of the major concerns that I have had along the way has to do with where is the responsibility going to be located for the analysis of foreign intelligence? There was a major failure prior to September 11 in terms of the CIA and FBI sharing information with each other, with local law enforcement, and with other parts of the law enforcement community. We had a major gap there. If that gap did not exist and if the communication had occurred linking information which various agencies had about people who were involved in the attack, that attack may have been prevented. That is how serious an issue this is. Currently that analysis is done at the CIA, at a place called the Counterterrorist Center, or the CTC, at the CIA. All of the law enforcement agencies are represented around the table at that CTC, and your agency will be represented. There is language in the law creating the new agency which suggests that the new agency will duplicate that function. When we had the new Secretary, Governor Ridge, in front of us, he made it very clear that is not the intention--that it is not his intention. That is well and good and I applaud him for it because we have got to focus responsibility and accountability. We cannot blur it. We cannot diffuse it. We have got to focus it, wherever it is going to be. I think it is probably in the right place, by the way, and that the CTC is the principal place for the analysis of foreign intelligence. But you are talking about thousands of pieces of information coming into hundreds of analysts. If we do it right once we will be lucky. If we just do that right once. But it is critically important. Probably the most important thing we can do is to get our intelligence act together. So as you undertake these new responsibilities I would hope that you would work with the governor to clarify where that responsibility is, through a statement of the governor, through, if necessary, an amendment to the statute. I can only say this, when that bill creating the Homeland Security Department came through this Committee there was a bipartisan effort to make it clear that that responsibility to analyze foreign intelligence would be focused, located principally in one place. We said where it is now, we want to improve it, streamline it, make sure it works well, but that was the place. If that is the wrong place, put it somewhere else. But we must have accountability. We must focus responsibility. That language was dropped when the bill went through the Congress. That helped to create a legislative record, which also can create some confusion. So it is not just the final language which is not clear and suggests that maybe you are going to duplicate the function that the CIA has, but the legislative history here, dropping language which would have clarified also helps to create, it seems to me, some confusion about that issue. So I again want to highlight that as a concern. Governor Ridge indicated very clearly what his understanding and intent was, and his willingness to make sure that there is no confusion in the law or in practice relative to where that responsibility is to analyze foreign intelligence. So I would ask you whether you will take a look at that issue and work with the Secretary to clarify anything that needs to be clarified. Mr. England. Absolutely. Understanding the Secretary did make that commitment to you to work with you, and that is my understanding, and certainly I will support the Secretary in that regard, Senator. Senator Levin. My final question, Madam Chair--oh, my time is up. Chairman Collins. If you would like to proceed, go ahead. Senator Levin. I just have one additional question. Thank you. There has been some concern at the General Accounting Office about access to records and information in this agency and as far as I am concerned, they have a good basis for their concern. My question to you is, will you pledge that you will work with the General Accounting Office, give them access to records and other information and to other Federal officials as necessary? Mr. England. I certainly will. I guess I do not understand all the security aspects. There are obviously some things perhaps we cannot discuss. But I have been working with the General Accounting Office for a lot of years and I have a good relationship and I will certainly continue that relationship, Senator. Senator Levin. They have the kind of clearance necessary, I can assure you. But just so long as you are aware of that problem. They are a watchdog. You folks are going to need some watchdogs. Chairman Collins. In addition to this Committee? [Laughter.] Senator Levin. Despite the, may I say, tenacity and brilliance of our Chairman--it is unsurpassed, and she is a fabulous watchdog in this Committee and some of its subcommittees have a good reputation in that regard--we need some watchdogs. We need some help, by the way. This Committee has used the GAO, as have some of our subcommittees as part of the oversight process. You need some oversight. You need some watchdogs. There is always resistance and there is always reluctance in the bureaucracy. It gets to the whistleblowing issue, it gets to a whole host of issues here which were not well done in the statute. But the GAO is critically important to us and I just want you to understand that and to work with them to help make it possible for you to have the oversight that you ought to welcome, any agency ought to welcome, and I hope that you will welcome it as well. Mr. England. I understand your point. Senator Levin. Thank you. Chairman Collins. Thank you, Senator Levin. Secretary England, I want to turn to the issue of port security. Last August, Robert Bonner, the Commissioner of the Customs Service, described the security problem posed by shipping container traffic. He stated, there is virtually no security for what is the primary system to transport global trade. The consequence of a terrorist incident using a container would be profound. If terrorists used a sea container to conceal a weapon of mass destruction and detonated it upon arrival at a port, the impact on global trade and the global economy would be immediate and devastating. Moreover, we all know that al-Qaeda likely knows how to use shipping containers. In October 2001, Italian authorities discovered a suspected operative hiding in a shipping container headed for Montreal. He had cell phones, a computer, an airplane mechanic's certificate and a plane ticket from Montreal to Egypt. We have taken some steps over the past few months to try to improve our port security, but what other initiatives or what priorities would you have in this area? Mr. England. First of all, Madam Chair, as Secretary of the Navy I do have a sensitivity about the whole port issue because it is also an issue with our Navy ports both here and around the world. But I do understand a number of initiatives have been taken. I do know, even our Navy worked with the Coast Guard immediately after September 11 to put some measures in place. I do not want to discuss in this open forum, but we did put measures in place after September 11, and understand that there have been measures put in place in terms of inspecting cargo at the source, not necessarily as it arrives in the United States, which certainly seems to be a very valid initiative. I think long term though, this is going to be a technology issue because there is a limit as to how many places you can physically inspect. So I think this will be, long term, a technology issue; better sensors, better detectors, better ways to inspect. In the meantime, we will rely, I believe, on the inspection overseas at the source and selective inspections as cargo comes into the United States. In terms of priorities, we do need to establish priorities and as I commented earlier, we need to look at the infrastructure vulnerabilities and then the consequences of our problem, and the probability of something happening in that area so we can establish some priorities in the Department, because it will not be possible for us on day one to just look at every single threat to America. So it is vitally important that IAIP section come up to speed very quickly and do this analysis so we can establish these priorities. That will drive the efforts of the Department, that analysis. Chairman Collins. I do believe that your experience as Navy Secretary is extremely helpful in this area. I view port security as being an extremely high priority and I look at our ports as being our biggest vulnerability. So I do hope that your actions will reflect that concern. Mr. England. They will. Thank you, Senator. Chairman Collins. The Maritime Transportation Security Act requires the implementation of background checks for a variety of port workers. That is another part of improving port security. Similarly, the USA Patriot Act requires those kinds of background checks for truckers carrying hazardous waste, yet a recent story in the Wall Street Journal suggests that not a single trucker nor a single longshoreman has been screened or has undergone any kind of background check, and that there is a lot of disagreement over who should be checked and whether individuals with a criminal history should be allowed to even have these kinds of jobs. Do you have any kind of timetable for implementing those regulations? The USA Patriot Act, in particular, has been law for quite some time now and it is of concern that it appears there is no progress in implementing these background checks. Mr. England. Senator, I am not familiar with that specific plan. I just have not been with this agency long enough to understand those specific schedules. But it is the law so it needs to be complied with, and I can assure you--I know when TSA comes into the Department that will be our responsibility and we will follow up on that. It is very important that we do those types of background checks so I will definitely have this as one of my action items, and as soon as I understand that schedule and the approach we will indeed get back with you, Senator. Chairman Collins. I would appreciate that. Finally, Secretary England, the new Department includes an Office of International Affairs and I think we can learn a lot from other countries, particularly Israel, which unfortunately has a long history of preparing for and responding to terrorist attacks. Recently I met with two constituents who worked for the Maine Community Policing Institute, and much to my surprise both had been to Israel for training for first responders dealing with a terrorist attack. How do you see the role of this office as far as harvesting the techniques or technologies that are available in other countries which might be useful to us in improving our homeland security? Mr. England. Madam Chair, this is international terrorism, so this is terrorism around the world, so a lot of countries are affected by international terrorism. It is important that we have a network around the world so we can share best practices, share technology, understand the kind of threats. The better we understand this internationally, we will be in a better position to protect and defend America. So I believe that is very important. We do have the special office for international. That office will be very important in terms of sharing our science and technology, understanding techniques developed in other countries, training could be shared between countries. So again, this is a global threat and it will require a global response. So a fundamental approach of this Department will be to work internationally in this regard, Senator. Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Pryor. Senator Pryor. Madam Chair, let me follow up on one of your questions a moment ago on port security. Now Arkansas is not really known as a port State but I do share your concerns about security and the overall impact it has on America's security. You mentioned that you think it may just boil down to a technology issue. Tell me what you mean by that. Mr. England. I am not sure it is just a technology issue, but it would seem to me that as time goes on we will need to develop better sensors and approaches. We do baggage screening at the airport today. That is basically technology does the baggage screening as opposed to people physically inspecting everyone's baggage. That would be very difficult, so technology has made that possible. We will need to look at similar approaches for international, and particularly detectors against specific types of threats. So the S&T will be the foundation, at least long term. I hope it provides us some benefit even short term, but certainly long term we need to focus our energies on better detectors and non-invasive type of inspection. So I believe that will be important for cargo coming in, also for personal baggage and the like. So technology long term will be the answer, I believe. Senator Pryor. Do you know where we are in developing that technology? Does it already exist or is being worked on right now? Mr. England. Senator, one of the first efforts of the S&T Department will be literally to survey all the Federal labs, all the universities, see what is available in private industry to see if we cannot bring together some new disparate technologies into one cohesive integrated approach. So we may be able to make some progress. That is my hope. I am not sure it is my expectation, but it is at least my hope that we can bring different technologies together to solve some of these problems. We will have to wait and see. That is still work to be accomplished. Senator Pryor. Right, I understand that. Now second line of question here relates to the collection of intelligence. It is kind of a practical question and that is, I know that the President gets very regular intelligence briefings. Will you all have a role in those briefings, do you believe? Mr. England. Senator, I do not know. I do not know what our role will be. I can get back to you with that answer but I have not been part of any of those conversations. Senator Pryor. One thing I am thinking of is that the Department of Homeland Security may from time to time have a different interpretation of intelligence information than do other agencies possibly. I am just wondering if there is a conflict of interpretation between your Department and other departments and other agencies. I guess I am wondering who will have the President's ear or will he get both interpretations, or do we know how that is going to work yet? Mr. England. Senator, I guess I would be surprised if there are different conclusions, because of I believe this is a very collaborative effort. I believe these are people of good faith working together to get the best answer. So I do not see that there is different analysis going on and arriving at different answers. This is the very best people we have working together to get the best answer for the Nation. So hopefully we are not going to have that situation that you are mentioning. My view is, again, very collaborative, very best people and we arrive at the very best answer for the country. Senator Pryor. I think that certainly should be the goal. It just seems to me that you all should have a seat at the table as the President and the White House are being briefed on all the intelligence and all the gathering that we are doing, not just in this country but around the world, and it should filter through your Department. Also I think you should have a seat at the table there when that is happening at the White House. Mr. England. We definitely have a seat at the table, I just do not know how data gets briefed to the senior executive of the country. But we definitely have a seat at the table. Senator Pryor. Madam Chair, that is all I have. Chairman Collins. Thank you very much, Senator Pryor. Secretary England, I have a few more questions but I am going to submit them for the record for you to answer in writing. I want to thank you very much for appearing before the Committee today. I think I can speak for my colleagues when I predict your speedy confirmation. I hope that the Committee will be able to have a markup on your nomination next week. I would ask that you promptly prepare answers to any questions that are submitted for the record. The hearing record, without objection, will be kept open until 5 p.m. today for the submission of any written questions or statements. I do intend to schedule a markup on your nomination next week and my hope is that the Senate will act very shortly thereafter to confirm you. Again, I want to thank you very much for being here today and for your willingness to continue to serve your country in such an important role. Mr. England. Madam Chair, thank you very much for your support and I look forward to being confirmed and working and contributing to the defense of America is this new capacity. Thank you very much for your support. Chairman Collins. Thank you. This hearing is now adjourned. [Whereupon, at 10:20 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X ---------- PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN Thank you, Madame Chair. It's a pleasure to welcome Secretary England, who has earned my appreciation and respect as Secretary of the Navy. We have met in oversight hearings conducted by the Senate Armed Services Committee on which I serve, and by the Airland Subcommittee I have been privileged to chair. Based on that experience, I have no doubt, Secretary England, that you will earn this Committee's confidence and make a highly honorable and effective Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security. Your qualifications are not in question, nor is your dedication. Throughout your entire professional career, you have demonstrated a unique readiness, willingness, and ability to help make America safer. However, let me repeat something I said at the confirmation hearing for Governor--now Secretary--Ridge. It will not be enough for this Department to be led by public servants with good judgment, strong experience, and in-depth expertise in homeland security. Of course that helps tremendously. But more important than the quality of the officers is the quality of the orders--and in my view, since September 11, the Bush Administration has not proven itself bold enough, aggressive enough, or visionary enough to make America significantly safer. Let me give you three quick examples. First, intelligence. This Administration's failure to confront, much less fix, the fundamental problems that plague our intelligence community has been discouraging, disappointing, and I believe potentially dangerous. The Homeland Security Act requires the new Department to create a single, all-source intelligence unit that will analyze information regarding any and all terrorist threats against Americans here at home. Its job, according to the legislation, is to prevent any type of terrorist attack against American civilians in the United States. I'm troubled--and all Americans should be troubled--that the Administration seems to have decided, unilaterally, that the mission of the intelligence unit will be much narrower than that. Secretary Ridge is asserting that it will be focused on protecting our critical infrastructure--meaning our roads, information networks, energy grids, food distribution systems, and the like. Of course this is a critical priority, but I want to know--and the American people deserve to know-- how other types of threats will be handled. Right now, it appears that this Administration is designing an intelligence unit that in some cases will be more focused on protecting highways, bridges, and tunnels than on men, women, and children. But what happens if our government learns of a possible smallpox attack against the citizens of a major American city--an attack that isn't against our critical infrastructure at all? Under the Administration's current understanding of the new Department--which appears to have been shaped in deference to the FBI, CIA, and other entrenched interests inside the intelligence community--makes preventing such an attack secondary or peripheral responsibility of the new intelligence unit. To me, that's unbelievable and unacceptable. Second, the role of the military. As Secretary England understands well, our armed forces have tremendous resources. There are 1.3 million people on active military duty, most of them in the United States, and about 900,000 members of our Reserves and Guard. That's 2.2 million defense personnel. We expect the Department of Homeland Security to employ about 170,000 people. Taxpayers will invest almost $393 billion this year, money well spent, in their Department of Defense. The new homeland defense department will probably have a budget, and total resources, about one tenth that. Now of course our military's principal activities will be and must be outside our borders. As we are learning in the effort to disarm Iraq, we need our forces to be strong. We need them to be flexible. We need them to be ready at any time. But I believe at the same time we can and must us some of our defense assets more effectively here at home. Our Department of Defense has trained, disciplined, cohesive units with more experience in responding to crisis, more technology, and more expertise in dealing with chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological weapons,than anybody else in government. It has created a new Northern Command to defend the United States. In this new kind of war taking place on a homeland battlefield, we must use all those resources optimally. I've put forward some ideas on how to do that, primarily by applying some of the expertise and experience of our National Guard. I hope the Administration engages in this discussion and comes forward with some idea of its own. Secretary England, your experience will make you an invaluable contributor to this discussion, and I look forward to hearing your views. Third, let me briefly discuss the role of the private sector. ``United we stand, divided we fall'' is not a cliche. In the case of the war against terrorism, it is a truism--and a warning for us all to heed. This war cannot be won by government alone. We must be one nation under collaboration, one nation under cooperation. I hope Secretary England, who has extensive experience as an engineer and executive in the aerospace industry, is ready to think creatively about how best to engage private industry to better protect us from terrorism--because in the past 16 months, the Bush Administration has been far too passive on this front. We're paying a price for that passivity. According to a report issued by the Council on Competitiveness in December, the vast majority of U.S. corporate executives do not see their companies as potential targets of terrorism. Only 53 percent of survey respondents indicated that they had made any increased security investments between 2001 and 2002. And most of the security changes in the past year in the private sector have focused on ``guards, gates and guns''--in other words, on protecting the physical security of buildings alone. Despite 80 percent of the respondents to the council's survey indicating they had conducted vulnerability assessments related to their physical plants, barely half have studied the vulnerabilities in their telephone and shipping networks, electric power supplies, and supplier companies--and even fewer companies had made any changes based on these assessments. With 85 percent of our critical infrastructure owned by the private sector, this slow action ought to be a national concern, and correcting it ought to be a national priority. Another are I believe we should instantly expect more productive public-private partnerships is in vaccine development. I've put forward a comprehensive proposal to ignite private development of the countermeasures we'll need to protect ourselves from the dozens and dozens of bioterror agents that might be used against us. Those medicines, antidotes and vaccines won't materialize by accident. Getting that done will take leadership from Washington. Secretary England, thank you for your commitment to serve. Your country appreciates your public and private service over the course of the last 40 years, and values you focusing your experience, expertise, and management skill on this urgent new challenge. I look forward to being a partner in your efforts--but I also look forward to pushing and prodding this Administration, which has so far moved too slowly and cautiously in closing our dramatic homeland security vulnerabilities. Thank you. __________ PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHELBY Thank you, Madame Chair. I am glad to be here today. As I supported Governor Ridge's nomination to be Secretary of the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS), I too will support Gordon England to be its Deputy Secretary. I have known him for many years and firmly believe that he possesses the personal qualities to make him the strong leader this office requires. In addition, his experience as Secretary of the Navy and in the corporate private sector make him more than well-qualified for the difficult job he will face in the formation and day-to-day operations of the Department of Homeland Security. As we all know, the continuing threat of domestic terrorist attacks has placed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security on an accelerated schedule. In our haste to establish this Department, however, it is imperative that we do not lose sight of Department's mission--to protect Americans from the threat of terrorism. For the Department to truly make our country a safer place, it is crucial that the reorganization accomplish more than a mere shifting of agencies into one centralized bureaucracy/ I am glad to see that Homeland Security Act enacted into law last year provides at least the statutory framework to avoid this pitfall by creating an all-source fusion center for terrorism-related intelligence within the new Department. I wish that I could say that I am confident that the establishment of this analytical center will lead to an open and trouble-free flow of information between the Intelligence Community and DHS. Unfortunately, my 8 years of experience on the Intelligence Committee, leads me to conclude otherwise. I have seen agencies such as the CIA hoard information from other agencies to the detriment of national security. I have also observed incidents where the FBI did not ``know what it knew'' because of poor internal intelligence sharing. These sorts of breakdowns were a major problem identified by the joint Senate-House inquiry into the intelligence failures of September 11. If we do not learn from the mistakes that led to the tragic events of that infamous day, I believe we are destined to repeat them. In order to avoid the failings of the past, the Department ofHomeland Security will need to challenge the status quo. The institutional habits of the CIA, FBI, NSA and others in Intelligence Community will no doubt be hard to break. DHS must not allow the difficulty of doing so to prevent it from accomplishing its mission of protecting the homeland. As I have said before, the success of this department depends on its ability to effectively analyze unevaluated intelligence. For this reason, it is crucial for DHS to exercise the full extent of the powers granted to it by the Homeland Security Act-- especially Sec. 202 which gives the Secretary statutory authority to access all needed reports, analyses, and unevaluated intelligence collected by Federal agencies. While I am concerned about the willingness of the Intelligence Community to share information with DHS, I have no reservations about the abilities of Secretary England. In his capacity as Secretary of the Navy, he has served our country with honor and distinction. I believe that he will provide the leadership and wisdom needed to accomplish the enormous job he has been given. I therefore urge the Committee to act on Secretary England's nomination expeditiously so that it may be considered by the full Senate. I thank you Madame Chair for the opportunity to address the Committee this morning. __________ PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG Madam Chair, I am pleased to be joining you, Senator Lieberman, and the other members of the Governmental Affairs Committee to consider the nomination of Navy Secretary England to be Deputy Secretary of the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Secretary England and I had a good visit the other day, and I look forward to supporting his nomination. I expect that his nomination will move through the Senate as quickly as Governor Ridge's did earlier this week. I would note that Secretary England had a distinguished career in the private sector at General dynamics before President Bush nominated him to head the Navy. I have always felt that successful businessmen make the best public servants! Secretary England is well-suited for his new position. He has an academic background in engineering and business. His private sector experience was with one of the Nation's principal defense contractors. And, as Secretary of the Navy, he has been managing nearly 900,000 active duty and reserve Sailors and Marines and civilian employees. Moreover, as they say--there is the right way, the wrong way, and the Navy way. He certainly should be no stranger to dealing with strong- willed government agencies. I would make several points for Secretary England as he takes on this new leadership role: First: Make sure the new Department works effectively with the FBI, CIA, and other intelligence agencies. It turns out that we had intelligence prior to 9-11 pointing to the potential targets, the method of attack, and even when they might occur. But because of the conflicting missions of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies and the unfortunate tendency to hoard information rather than share it we were caught unprepared. It is still very unclear how intelligence and law enforcement information will be integrated. Your Department faces an enormous challenge to insure the right information gets to the right people at the right time. In all candor, if we can't do that, then establishing the Department of Homeland Security will be an enormous waste of time and treasure. Even worse, it will promote a false sense of security. Second: Keeping America safe will be a challenge. Keeping America safe without trampling on the civil liberties that make us a free people will be an even bigger challenge. Even as you aggressively pursue getting the information you need, you must be aware of and guard our citizen's constitutional rights and protections. Finally, on a note closer to home, don't forget New Jersey. Nearly 700 New Jerseyans lost their lives as a result of the 9/11 attacks. Because many New Jerseyans work in New York and Philadelphia, New Jerseyans would suffer from a terrorist assault on either city. New Jerseyans would be among the first responders arriving at the scene of an attack. New Jersey's medical and emergency response capabilities would be needed in the case of a severe attack. New Jersey itself has 8.5 million people and several large population centers. Moreover, we have plenty of critical infrastructure targets: ports, airports, tunnels, rail lines, chemical and nuclear power plants, etc. I want to make sure that New Jersey's critical role in defending against and responding to terrorist attacks in he Northeast is taken into account when the DHS allocates resources to the States to bolster their security. Secretary England, I want to wish you the best of luck in this new job, and I offer my pledge to work with you to meet these challenges that we all face together. Thank you, Madam Chairman. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5337.084 -