Senate Armed Services Committee Holds Hearing on Navy Secretary Nomination

LEVIN:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On the end strength issue, there has been a request for the 2004 fiscal year budget that there be a reduction in active duty end strength for the Navy of 1,900 sailors. Nineteen hundred sailor reduction is requested also in the end strength for the Reserve. And I'm concerned about the efforts to cut the size of the active and Reserve Navy at a time when the operational tempo has never been higher.

Our military personnel are serving extremely well during times of high stress. And I just don't see how we can cut end strength and continue with all of our military missions and expect our servicemembers to elect to enlist or reenlist in our already stretched military services. Can you give us your views on that end strength issue?

ENGLAND:
Well, Senator, during my last tenure, we took a lot of steps, frankly, to make the Navy more effective and more efficient, including lower manning levels on our ships. And our new ships, frankly, require less personnel because they're more highly automated with different technologies, et cetera. So the plan at that time was indeed to reduce the manpower in the Navy and in our Reserves as a function of less manning on our ships and better technology. I will look at that when I return, sir, to make sure that that's still appropriate and we're on the right path. But that was the plan about a year ago, Senator.

LEVIN:
Secretary England, the administration is planning on deploying a sea based missile defense system in 2004 despite the fact that it failed its most recent test. Will you support deployment of a sea based missile defense prior to completion of a successful test program?

ENGLAND:
Senator, I'm not familiar with the test program as being conducted or how extensive, how long that test program is. Again, I know that we had some successes when I was secretary of the Navy before. It was extremely promising. I think this is likely a question of the risk and the immediacy in terms of confidence in the design versus the risk. So I would expect this is a risk management type of a decision. I'm not familiar exactly what those risks are at the moment, because, again, I have not been in that role now for some time. But again, I'd be happy to get into that in more detail. But I do think it's a risk based assessment that would be made.

LEVIN:
Would you do a little research on that issue for the record, give us a more complete answer for the record in the next day or so?

ENGLAND:
Yes, sir, I will.

LEVIN:
And would you also, if, in fact, you do support the deployment of that missile defense system before completion of its test program successfully, would you in your answer also let us know if there is any other Navy systems that you'd recommend deploying prior to successful completion of operational tests?

ENGLAND:
Yes, sir.

LEVIN:
And then there's just two other questions, given the time. One is relative to the harpoon enhancement program, which the Israeli government has approached the Navy about relative to a possibility of joint development and upgrading of the harpoon anti- ship missile. Do you support pursuing a joint development program to improve the harpoon missile?

ENGLAND:
Well, I did when I was secretary of the Navy. Now again, sir, I don't know what's transpired since then. But at the time when it was first discussed, it did sound like a reasonable approach. I don't know what the latest situation is in regard to that. That's another issue, Senator, with your permission, I'll get back with you.

LEVIN:
That'd be great if you would do that. And finally, on your current position since you'll be there for a few more hours, in any event, first let me thank you for connecting me to Secretary Ridge so promptly as occurred last week. Your offices worked very, very well on that. And I appreciate it.

ENGLAND:
You're welcome, sir.

LEVIN:
Could you remind the secretary while you're still there that he owes Senator Collins and me an answer -- and I think the Senate and the country, frankly -- an answer on the question of coordination between the terrorist threat integration center, the counter terrorist center and the new Homeland Security Department's information analysis and infrastructure protection section? Because there could be confusion, uncertainty as to who's got the primary responsibility for analyzing foreign intelligence. And until that is pinned down very clearly, Secretary Ridge knows he owes us that. But please remind him.
It's very important that we not have a repeat of the situation before 9-11 where the failure to clearly identify responsibility for that analysis, at least in the judgment of some of us, contributed to our lack of preparedness and being able to be ready for that kind of an attack and to know about it in advance. So if you could just leave that in your final notes to your secretary, we'd appreciate that a great deal.

ENGLAND:
I'll do it.

LEVIN:
Congratulations, again, we look forward to your confirmation.

ENGLAND:
Great. Thank you very much. Thank you for your support, sir.

LEVIN (?):
I'm told that we actually have two votes. We're going to continue until we hear from the chairman about whether he's going to try and get back.

So Senator Chambliss is recognized.