Hearing of Committee on Homeland Security on Nomination of Hon. Michael P. Jackson to be Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security

Hearing of Committee on Homeland Security on Nomination of Hon. Michael P. Jackson to be Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN COLLINS

Chairman Collins. The Committee will come to order.

Today, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will consider the nomination of Michael P. Jackson to be Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

Let me begin by noting that I recognize that our nominee shares his name with another individual who has been receiving
a great deal of media attention lately. To anyone thinking about cracking a joke along those lines, I would offer two
observations. First, our nominee had the name first, and second, there cannot possibly be a joke that he has not already
heard a hundred times before. So I think that he would find our avoiding the subject to be a real ``thriller.''
[Laughter and groans.]

Good. I wanted to see if you would all get that.

This month marks the second anniversary of DHS operations. At this time, we are witnessing the departure of many of the
Department's first generation of officials. These pioneers of Homeland Security--Tom Ridge, Admiral James Loy, Asa
Hutchinson, and others--stepped forward to serve their Nation under extraordinarily difficult and uncertain circumstances.
All Americans owe them a great debt of gratitude.

Now, a second generation is stepping forward. This transformation began last month with the confirmation of
Secretary Michael Chertoff. As the unanimous votes in both this Committee and in the full Senate indicate, Secretary Chertoff's distinguished career in the law has prepared him well for this leadership position.

Similarly, Mr. Jackson's distinguished and varied career prepares him well to be Secretary Chertoff's second in command.
He was Deputy Secretary of Transportation on September 11 and thus was on the front lines of the war on terror from the very
start. He was a leader in the creation of the Transportation Security Administration. Prior to, and now after that tour of
duty, he gained valuable experience in the private sector that bears directly on some of the Department of Homeland Security's most pressing issues. From the American Trucking Association, to Lockheed Martin, to his most recent position as Chief Operating Officer of AECom Technology Corporation, Mr. Jackson appears to be well qualified for this important post.

There is no specific job description for the Deputy's position, but the individual Mr. Jackson seeks to replace,
Admiral James Loy, summed up the job qualifications this way in a recent interview. He said the job requires vision, action,
perseverance, and a thick skin.

Beyond an impressive employment record, Mr. Jackson brings with him something that will be invaluable to the Department, a reputation as a great manager. In fact, a book about post-September 11 America titled ``After,'' by Steven Brill,
describes Mr. Jackson as, ``whip smart when it comes to budget and operational details, a real manager who everyone seems to think was destined for bigger things.''

It doesn't get any bigger than helping to protect our Nation against terrorism and improving our ability to respond.
The first generation of Department leaders did a remarkable job in laying the foundation, but much remains to be done. The task is made even more challenging by the fact that new threats and vulnerabilities continue to emerge, even as we still strive to address the old ones.

Since the stand-up of the Department, this Committee has held several oversight hearings to explore the status of DHS
and to help chart its future. The expert testimony we have heard has made it clear that the melding of 22 Federal agencies
with more than 180,000 employees into one cohesive unit remains very much a work in progress.

Within the general status reports are several troubling specifics. A lack of strategic planning continues to hamper our
ability to direct the right resources to the right place at the right time. The configuration of the Department itself has yet
to be refined for maximum efficiency and effectiveness. There is a need to define more clearly the authorities and responsibilities of the agencies within the Department as well as between the Department and other Federal agencies and
departments.

On a more specific level, I am very concerned about a number of issues. For example, our Nation's seaports remain an
obvious vulnerability and have not received the resources and the priority that they warrant. The delay in implementing the
Transportation Worker Identification Credential Program is inexplicable and unacceptable. And the administration's
proposed budget would reduce funding for our first responders to clearly inadequate levels.

I am heartened, however, that Mr. Jackson shares at least some of these concerns. In a Heritage Foundation lecture
entitled, ``Securing America's Airports and Waterways,'' Mr. Jackson described his vision for a fully integrated approach to
security across our entire transportation network, air, land, and sea. The details of his plan go directly to the core of
many deficiencies that have been described in our oversight hearings. Most heartening is his bottom line. The turf battles
and bureaucratic inertia that continues to afflict DHS internally as well as to affect its relationships with other agencies at all levels of government cannot prevent us from answering the fundamental question with which he concluded his
lecture. That question was, ``What works?'' Nothing else makes a difference. I think that is a terrific question for us to be
asking as the Department begins this new stage of its existence.

I do want to say that the Department has accomplished a great deal. I have tended to focus in my opening remarks on the
challenges that will confront the nominee, but certainly, we are making progress, and even the Department's staunchest
critics will admit that progress has been made. At the same time, even the Department's fiercest supporters would concede
that we still have a long ways to go.

I look forward to discussing what works in greater detail today with our nominee. Senator Levin.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Chairman Collins. Thank you. Mr. Jackson, the Committee starts its questioning of every nominee with three standard
questions. Lately, I have been adding a fourth, and I am going to do that in your case, as well.

First, is there anything 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. Jackson. No, there is not.

Chairman Collins. Second, do you know of anything, personal or otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from fully or
honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office?

Mr. Jackson. I do not.

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. Jackson. Without reservation, I certainly do.

Chairman Collins. And the fourth, which I also asked Secretary Chertoff, is the result of experience that many
Members of this Congress, including myself, have had with difficulty in securing information from the Department as part
of our investigative responsibilities. So the fourth question is, do you agree to cooperate with the Committee's
investigations and oversight activities?

Mr. Jackson. I certainly do. I respect that important role in the Committee's work.

Chairman Collins. Thank you. We will now start a first round of questions limited to 6 minutes each, but I want to
assure my colleagues that we will have a second round, so don't be concerned about having to get it all in on the first round.

Mr. Jackson, the 9/11 Commission set forth a report that was very critical of the information sharing within the Federal
Government, and I want to give you an example of poor information sharing that the Committee has encountered as part
of an ongoing investigation. As you may be aware, the Department relies on a system that is called the A file, which
stands for Alien file, to keep documents and records relating to an alien's immigration status. This is a paper-based system
that appears to be extremely cumbersome and difficult to manage.

For example, our Committee learned that a suspected terrorist was mistakenly granted citizenship because his A file
could not be located at the time the request for citizenship was made. More recently, this Committee, as part of its ongoing
investigation, requested the A file of a known associate of the September 11 hijackers and was told that the file was in ``deep
storage'' and could not be easily located.

These experiences suggest the need for fundamental reforms within the Department in its information sharing, and they are
very troubling because if individuals who are suspected of links with terrorists or of terrorist activities themselves can
be granted citizenship because the information from the FBI is not shared with the Immigration Bureau or vice versa, that is
putting our country in danger.

You have considerable private sector experience. You understand information systems. What would you do to try to
improve on the types of antiquated paper-based systems that seem to still be far too prevalent within the Department?

Mr. Jackson. Senator Collins, I think that is an excellent question. It is a very important priority for the Department,
and if confirmed, it is one that I would bring a significant amount of focus to in my own efforts.

I think that the right start has been launched by Secretary Chertoff. He has asked for a review of major programs, systems,
processes, policies, interagency relations. This is both to understand our relations inside the Department and with our
external stakeholders, including our other Federal stakeholders. A part of that is to work with our CIO and with
some other U.S. Government assets and non-U.S. Government assets at this cluster of issues about information management
to come up with an assessment and options for making substantial improvements. It is not good enough to say that a
file is in deep storage and it is something that we should work on, and I promise to do so if confirmed and to report back to
you as you would feel comfortable in having reports on.

Chairman Collins. I would appreciate that. I think the Department, in addition to having some antiquated paper-based
systems, also has a structural problem because the Chief Information Officers of the various component agencies are not
reporting to the Chief Information Officer of the Department. This sets up a structural problem that makes it very difficult
for leadership to be exerted. So that is an area I would like you to look at as you review this whole area.

Mr. Jackson. Yes, ma'am, I certainly will.

Chairman Collins. I would now like to turn to the Transportation Security Administration, which you obviously
have tremendous background in since you helped to create and stand up that agency. According to a recent GAO report, TSA has experienced significant project management problems in implementing the Transportation Worker Identification
Credential. As a result, this has been delayed year after year after year. The last target date was August 2004. That now
apparently has slipped by at least 2 years, and TSA is still in the process of testing a prototype.

I know from my recent visit to Los Angeles that those two large ports are using just a driver's license as the means for
access to the ports, when you have thousands of people having access to these two ports only having to show what may be an easily counterfeited driver's license.

What is most troubling to me is during this same time period, other secure identification programs have proceeded as
planned. So it is not like the technology is not there. This can be done. For example, the International Labor Organization
has adopted a biometric identification card standard for the world's 1.2 million mariners. More recently, the Commerce
Secretary approved a new standard for a smart card-based identification for all Federal employees and contractors
associated with Federal facilities in that Department.

What has gone so wrong with the TWIC program when it affects an area that is so important to our security and was
specifically mandated by the Congress?

Mr. Jackson. I honestly don't know and I wish I did. I have to say it is perhaps impolitic but it is true that I just share
your frustration in this area and I am perplexed at why we have not been able to move this ball further and faster because it
is important. I would just tell you that I have asked for some additional information. This is an area where my sense of
urgency would be focused at the Department to try to get some answers and see where we can go. This is not rocket science. It is a case where we should not let perfect be the enemy of making a substantial improvement, and I would be committed to helping the Department move in that direction and working with the Congress to do so.

Chairman Collins. This is an area that the Committee will be following up on----

Mr. Jackson. Good.

Chairman Collins [continuing]. So I appreciate your commitment. Senator Levin.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Chairman Collins. Mr. Jackson, you responded to a question from Senator Levin about the formula for Homeland Security
grants. Just to clarify for the record, do you also agree that every State has certain minimum homeland security preparedness
needs and that population alone does not equate to threat?

For example, you can have a State with a small population but an extensive coastline that is a border State, that is the
home of a major Navy yard, that was the departure point for two of the September 11 hijackers, that also, just for example,
would have some considerable vulnerabilities.

Mr. Jackson. Yes, ma'am, I acknowledge that. This is, again, something that has to be nuanced and complex. I have
been to the Portland airport both before and after the conversion of TSA to take a look at that departure point and to
understand its importance to what happened on September 11, and I would just say that understanding how to array these skills is hard. It is harder in a constrained budget environment. And the fact that the administration has the 0.25 figure in the
budget is an acknowledgement of the fact that we believe that there are needs across the Nation while we are making the
argument for a more nuanced focus on risk-based assessment. Chairman Collins. We will be working closely with you on
that issue.

I want to talk about something that, in my opinion, would fail the question that you have raised about what works, and it
has to do with a practice of TSA and the airlines in designating passengers as selectees. This is an issue that my
constituents have raised with me. It is not uncommon during the winter months for planes to be canceled that are going into the State of Maine.

When that happens, the passengers are diverted to other flights. At that point, each and every one of those passengers
becomes a selectee subject to secondary intrusive screening, solely because they had the bad fortune of having their flight
canceled. There is no way that these passengers could have predicted the flight was going to be canceled and manipulated
the flight to get on a different flight. So it is entirely different from a situation where an individual is purchasing a ticket on a flight at the last minute.

First of all, are you aware of that practice, other than from my bringing it to your attention, and second, whether or
not you are aware of that, do you think this works? I mean, shouldn't we have a better way of using our scarce resources?

Mr. Jackson. I would describe that as a blunt instrument and not a refined one. I do believe that with--there is a very
important topic of Secure Flight that the Department has spoken to this Committee about before and which itself needs some, I
think, substantial--some attention. That will be the tool that will help us to begin to reduce the hassle factor of multiple
different dimensions in what passengers go through as they go through airports. Patience is still a virtue in this environment, but this is an area where I think we can make progress. We need to accelerate some tools to do just that.

As an orientation on what my view is on this, I parallel very much what you heard from Secretary Chertoff. I think we
have to be able to look all the time at what we are doing and ask if it is the right thing. In 2002, when Jim Loy came aboard
as the head of the TSA at that point, he and I launched what we called internally and somewhat affectionately the ``stupid rule
review.'' We asked, what are we doing that we thought we needed to do in those hours and days after September 11 that now we know better or have different tools we can torque back on? This would be an area that we could look at in the Department, I am confident.

Chairman Collins. I would now like to turn to the Coast Guard. I mentioned that I was very pleased to see that you had
served on a council and have experience with the Deepwater program. The Coast Guard, since September 11, has done an
extraordinary job in balancing its homeland security mission with its traditional functions, but that increased expectation
in performance has imposed a tremendous strain on the Coast Guard's personnel and its assets. In fact, the Coast Guard is
spending millions of additional dollars each year just to maintain its cutters, its airplanes that are breaking down
rapidly, creating possible danger to the Coast Guard members and also in some cases causing a delay in response.

I am a strong supporter of the Deepwater program, which would recapitalize those assets, and a RAND report issued just
last year suggested that if we invested now at a quicker rate in the Deepwater project, if we accelerated it from a 20-year
period to a 10-year period, it would generate almost one million additional mission hours and it would save $4 billion
in procurement costs over the life of the project. This strikes me as a win-win situation for the taxpayer and for the Coast
Guard, but it is going to require more of an up-front investment to save that enormous amount, $4 billion, in the
long run.

What is your position on the acceleration of the Deepwater program? Do you think it is possible for us to finance this
more rapidly to meet the needs of the Coast Guard?

Mr. Jackson. A couple of points on this important topic. One, I am a very strong supporter of the Deepwater program. I
understand the urgency of taking on these questions.

Two, you are absolutely right in saying that the operations tempo, what the Coast Guard calls the OPTEMPO, has increased
dramatically after September 11 and changed in its structure so that different assets which weren't anticipated to deplete as
rapidly are facing different configurations in their depletion cycle.

So the Coast Guard has commissioned a rebaselining study, as I suspect you are aware of. The Secretary has asked for 30
days with OMB to review this issue and to make those choices, and that is something which, if confirmed, I would love to and
expect to participate in, to get a chance to make that weighing and balancing on what we need and how to configure the assets that we are placing against the need.

On the overall acceleration issue, I have an open mind on that issue, but just simply recognize that in constrained
budget times, accelerating that comes at a cost of other programs and so it is a prudential balancing act and we would
be happy to talk through all that in some detail in conjunction with bringing the rebaselining program up here for your review.

Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Levin.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Chairman Collins. Thank you. Another issue that is of concern to many of the Members of this Committee, including
myself, is the recent shortage of H2-B visas. In a State like Maine, which has a huge peak in the summer and fall months in
the workforce needed for the hospitality industry, it has been a real problem that the Department has reached the statuary cap
on H2-B visas within the first couple of months of the fiscal year. In fact, I think it was reached in late January this
year. That puts areas of the country like New England at a competitive disadvantage because our tourism season is later
than Florida's or, for example, the ski areas in the West.

I want to emphasize that these are just temporary, seasonal workers who return to their home countries and employers can
only apply for these temporary workers if they certify that there are no local American workers available for the jobs.
Indeed, a very important safeguard against abusing the system is that the State of Maine, or any other State, has to certify
that advertising has taken place and that workers are not available.

Would you commit to exploring administrative solutions that would allocate the visas throughout the year, perhaps by
holding back some until later in the year, or at least doing it by quarters or some other means, so that we could eliminate
this regional inequity that now hurts the tourism and other businesses that need these workers for a limited period of time
in my State and other New England States?

Mr. Jackson. Yes, Madam Chairman, I would make that commitment, and I understand--I have been told that this is an
issue that we have struggled with and I think reasonable solutions are something that we should absolutely continue to
press for and I will take that attitude to looking at the issue.

Chairman Collins. I would note that there is some urgency associated with this issue for those of us who have employers
whose small businesses will be adversely affected if they can't rely on these workers. Before you know it, the high season will
be here. So I hope you will make it a priority to work with us on that.

Mr. Jackson. I will.

Chairman Collins. I know this is of interest to Minnesota, to Michigan, to many other States, as well, but we in New
England, because of when our tourism season is, are hit particularly hard, and that is why there has been bipartisan
concern over this issue.

Mr. Jackson. Yes, ma'am. I recognize the complexity of it and I will be happy to look at it.

Chairman Collins. Thank you. One of the challenges that the Federal Government faces in homeland security is protecting our critical infrastructure. But according to most estimates, 85 percent of our Nation's critical infrastructure is owned by the
private sector. It is not government-owned.

One of our witnesses, Richard Falkenrath, in a hearing that we held in January, pointed to this need, particularly with
relation to the chemical industry and the need to secure our chemical facilities. In fact, he identified securing our
chemical facilities as one of the greatest uncompleted tasks of the new Department.

What would you do to encourage more cooperation with the private sector, and do you believe that we need to develop some chemical security legislation to address this issue?

Mr. Jackson. After September 11, I met with the Chlorine Institute, to give you just one example, in my capacity as
Deputy Secretary at DOT, and there was a case of a private trade association that worked very closely with a relatively
compact and small number of the manufacturers of this particular chemical to put in place what I would consider some
very meaningful and strong measures. Perfect? I couldn't say they were perfect, but were they a substantial improvement?
Yes, very much so. I had the same conversations with the railroad industry that moves these tank cars.

I think that we can do a lot by the appropriate consultations with the private sector. When asked a question
similar to this in his confirmation hearing, Secretary Chertoff mentioned that the President himself has said that in areas
where we do not feel that we can reach the right level of security by a voluntary effort, that we should be or we would
be open to considering regulation in this area.

So I think my first choice would be to see how much we can get done in a voluntary motion, being patient with that, and
continue to reassess that, but there are a lot of good-willed people out there that want to try to crack these issues with
us. If regulation is necessary, so be it. We move in that direction. If legislation is the only way to proceed, then I think that we would be happy to counsel up here and make such an assessment with you.

Chairman Collins. What I have found in recent months is a real evolution in the approach taken by the chemical industry
to the point where now they are asking for Federal legislation or regulation because they are having to deal with too many
different State systems that is making it very difficult for companies with operations in more than one State. So this is an
issue that the Committee does intend to pursue this year and we look forward to working closely with you and getting the advice and guidance from the Department.

Mr. Jackson. Good. And I should say on this one, just to be--my general point about how to tackle these issues is true.
I have not made, since being nominated, an independent study or had significant conversations in the Department about the
chemical industry per se and what might be needed there. It certainly, as with Rich Falkenrath, it is on Michael Jackson's
radar screen, as well.

Chairman Collins. Thank you. The final comment that I want to make today echoes some of the concerns that Senator Akaka made in his opening statement, and that is the Department is embarking on a new personnel system and the system may well end up being a template for future legislative reforms of the Civil Service system. It is absolutely essential that there be
adequate training, consultation with employees and with their representatives for this new system to be a success. The
Department has taken a great deal of time and care in the consultative process, but a lot of challenges remain.

I am sure you would agree with me that the employees of the Department are your greatest asset, and if they become
alienated through this process, not only will the new personnel system fail, but also the Department will not be successful in
carrying out its absolutely critical mission.

So I just want to end my questioning today by encouraging you to continue to work in a collaborative way to ensure
employee acceptance, participation, and the success of the system, and I think training of managers to do fair personnel
evaluations, for example, is going to be absolutely critical to the success of the new system.

Mr. Jackson. I welcome your comments and I agree with your perspective on this, very much so.

Chairman Collins. Thank you. Well, knowing that you have a reputation as a great manager, I am certain you know that
running a Department requires the full participation of your employees and I look forward to working with you on that, as
well.

Mr. Jackson. And those employees deserve the support of their political and career leadership and we will work to make
sure that they have that.

Chairman Collins. They do, indeed, and it is the civil servants who are there day in and day out who are making the
decisions that are literally life and death decisions for the security of our country. I know you value their contributions,
as do I and the other Members of this Committee.

Mr. Jackson. Very much so.

Chairman Collins. I do want to thank you for agreeing to make all these issues a priority and for your participation
today.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Chairman Collins. Thank you.

Mr. Jackson, I think Senator Coleman's final question really sums up what this is all about, which is tightening
security but doing so in a way that does not interfere unduly with the free flow of legitimate commerce and legitimate people
across our borders. That is a constant tension.

We had a real problem in Northern Maine in some of the remote communities where services are on the Canadian side of
the border. People live on the American side. Border crossings are only open certain hours. The post-September 11 world has
changed everything for those of us particularly who live in border States and I think we have to constantly be figuring out
how we can do this better and smarter to make sure that we are not infringing on civil liberties, privacy rights, legitimate
commerce, and legitimate travel, and yet at the same time tightening the porous borders that allowed the terrorists on
September 11 to enter our country so freely and so many times. That is the challenge, among many, that you face, and we look forward to working with you on that.

I want to also echo my colleagues in thanking you very much for being willing to leave your private sector job and to come
back into government. That is quite a sacrifice, but as you said in your opening remarks, there are few jobs in Washington
that are as important as yours and Secretary Chertoff. So we are grateful for your willingness to serve. I am going to try
to move your nomination through the Committee as quickly as possible this week, and I very much appreciate your being here
today and your cooperation with the Committee process.

Mr. Jackson. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for your kindness and your consideration in this.

Chairman Collins. The hearing record will remain open until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

I want to thank the staff for their work, the Department for its cooperation, and your family for being here. Your
daughter listened more closely than anyone else in the room.

This hearing is now adjourned.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_senate_hearings&docid=20201.wais