U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

20–201 PDF 2005

S. Hrg. 109–44

NOMINATION OF HON. MICHAEL P. JACKSON

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON THE

NOMINATION OF HON. MICHAEL P. JACKSON TO BE DEPUTY 

SECRETARY OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

MARCH 7, 2005

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas

MICHAEL D. BOPP, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JOHANNA L. HARDY, Senior Counsel 

JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Minority Staff Director and Counsel 

ADAM SEDGEWICK, Minority Professional Staff Member 

AMY B. NEWHOUSE, Chief Clerk 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 1

Senator Levin .................................................................................................... 3

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 4

Senator Coleman .............................................................................................. 14

Senator Pryor .................................................................................................... 18

WITNESS 

MONDAY, MARCH 7, 2005

Hon. Michael P. Jackson, to be Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8

Biographical and financial information .......................................................... 35

Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 46

Responses to pre-hearing questions for Mr. Jackson from Senator 

Lieberman ...................................................................................................... 130

Responses to post-hearing questions for Mr. Jackson from: 

Senator Collins .............................................................................................. 132

Senator Akaka ............................................................................................... 135

Senator Bennett ............................................................................................ 140

Senator Stevens ............................................................................................ 141

APPENDIX 

Airforwarders Association, prepared statement .................................................... 142

Air Carriers Association of America (ACAA) ......................................................... 144

(1)

NOMINATION OF HON. MICHAEL P. JACKSON 

MONDAY, MARCH 7, 2005

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room SD–

342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Susan M. Collins, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Collins, Coleman, Levin, Akaka, and Pryor. 

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 valuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:18 Jun 20, 2005 Jkt 020201 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\20201.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
2

able 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 afVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:18 Jun 20, 2005 Jkt 020201 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\20201.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
3

flict 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. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Let me 

add my welcome to Mr. Jackson. 

This Committee is going to be holding a hearing, as our Chairman has said, on Wednesday to ask Secretary Chertoff about a 

number of issues, including the proposed funding for fiscal year 

2006, but I just want to quickly say that the funding request for 

first responders, with the significant cut that it is proposed, as our 

Chairman has mentioned, is something which is deeply troubling 

to me. 

The allocation last year for our first responder grant programs 

was $1.1 billion. This year, by requiring States and localities to allocate no less than 20 percent, or about $200 million of that 2006 

budget request, means that it is going to take a significant reduction if this budget is adopted. Rather than reducing the amount of 

grants going to first responders, we ought to be increasing those 

grants as they have proven to be inadequate. 

How we allocate Homeland Security resources is just as important as the level of funding that we provide, and what we need to 

do is change the way that this funding is distributed by allocating 

funding where the threats and the consequences of attacks and the 

vulnerabilities are the most significant. The Homeland Security 

Department this year does appear to be moving towards funding 

for Homeland Security grant programs based on risks, threats, 

vulnerabilities, and unmet essential capabilities, and that is a positive move, certainly an improvement over the formula which has 

been used to allocate this funding which has yielded inequitable results. 

Hopefully, with the commitment of the Department, we will be 

able to actually move to a more equitable formula this year, and 

I know that our Chairman has attempted to find various formulas, 

and I commend her on her effort, which will be equitable to all of 

the States and all of our localities. She has made a Herculean effort to find that magic formula which can obtain a consensus which 

will both produce greater equity, but also make sure that all of our 

States are given allocations which reflect their position as States 

and their responsibilities as States. 

4

I am also concerned that there is still no dedicated funding 

source to enhance the interoperability of communications equipment, even though that remains one of the top priorities of our first 

responders. Secretary Chertoff has expressed his support for focused spending and is committed to studying that issue further and 

I would be interested, Mr. Jackson, in your ideas on how we can 

accomplish the goal of providing interoperability communications 

equipment that is so desperately needed by our first responders. 

The Chairman has mentioned programs to try to protect our 

ports of entry in a much greater fashion than we have to date. I 

concur with her comments on that. I would only add this, that the 

ports of entry on land, which receive about half of the containers, 

are just as significant as the seaports of entry that receive approximately the other half of our containers. 

Just to give you one example, the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit, 

which supports 6.25 million truck crossings, and the Blue Water 

Bridge in Port Huron, Michigan, which supported almost two million truck crossings in 2004, are highly vulnerable ports of entry 

and they must be considered along with other land ports of entry, 

along with those seaports which have been inadequately funded 

since such a huge percentage of containers come in through those 

ports, both on land and at the seaports. 

So those are some of the questions that I hope you will be able 

to comment on. Again, we congratulate you. I gather your family—

I wasn’t here when our Chairman opened up——

Chairman COLLINS. We haven’t got to that yet. 

Senator LEVIN. You haven’t got to that yet, all right. She always 

does, so I will allow her to do that without moving into that area. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Akaka. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I am 

pleased to join you in welcoming Dr. Michael Jackson, the President’s nominee to be Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. 

This is one of the most challenging positions in government. I 

have a longer statement, Madam Chairman, and I ask that it be 

included in the record. 

Chairman COLLINS. Without objection. 

Senator AKAKA. DHS is a work in progress. Some good work has 

been done already by Secretary Ridge and you will have picked up 

where he left off and continue improving it. Now is a good time to 

assess whether or not some areas need changing. 

To bring together these functions, Congress authorized the Department and the Office of Personnel Management to create a new 

personnel system which, now finalized, represents a radical departure from the existing Federal Civil Service system. Most Americans are not aware of this particular aspect, and those who are 

might think of it as one of those inside-the-Beltway issues of no 

real consequence. They are wrong. 

The first line in our national defense is our public servants, in 

or out of uniform. We must ensure that our national security workforce has the right tools, the right incentives, and the supportive 

working environment necessary to accomplish their mission. 

5

I believe you appreciate this, Dr. Jackson, but as you know, you 

will be judged by your deeds and not your words. I am hearing 

from Federal workers in Hawaii and throughout the Nation that 

DHS personnel regulations lack the support of employees. Dr. Jackson, you and Secretary Chertoff have the opportunity to foster a 

more positive environment so that the Department of Homeland 

Security can meet its mission of making America more safe. 

There are several actions that you can take to make this happen: 

One is ensure that the DHS internal labor relations and mandatory 

removal panels include members recommended by employees. 

Two, reinstate the current authority of the Merit Systems Protection Board to mitigate penalties. 

Three, issue more detailed regulations in the Federal Register on 

the pay-for-performance system. 

And four, provide greater opportunities for employees and their 

union representatives to be involved in agency decisionmaking. 

In addition, it is essential to ensure strong whistleblower protections for all Federal workers, especially national security employees. 

Last week, a bipartisan group of Senators from this Committee 

joined Senator Collins and I to reintroduce legislation to strengthen 

whistleblower protections for Federal workers. I ask you to consider 

whistleblowing as an effective tool for management, not a hindrance, and I urge you to extend whistleblower protection to all 

DHS employees. 

Reports that other Federal agencies, such as the Department of 

Defense, paid more bonuses to senior political appointees than career senior executives damages morale and heightens apprehension 

of everyone serving in the Federal workforce. I hope this does not 

happen to DHS. Employees should be treated fairly and equitably. 

Dr. Jackson, your first challenge will be to convince the men and 

women who work for you that that is the case at DHS. 

Your second challenge will be to provide leadership to the DHS 

workforce, not just a new set of personnel regulations. As I mentioned earlier, right employees must have the right tools, the right 

incentives, and the right environment to accomplish their mission. 

And again, you can tell how focused I am on this. Chairman 

Voinovich and I, as Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight of Government Management and the Federal 

Workforce intend to focus on this. 

Again, I welcome you to the Committee and I want to welcome 

your family. I think your wife and your daughter are here and it 

is great to see them. I want to thank them for their sacrifice for 

their country in supporting you for this position. I hope they will 

be able to join you in a visit to my State of Hawaii. [Laughter.] 

Mr. JACKSON. Well, you have opened the door now, Senator. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator AKAKA. Sooner, rather than later. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Akaka follows:]

6

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming Dr. Michael Jackson, 

the President’s nominee to be Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. This is one of the most challenging positions in the government. 

I understand that Secretary Chertoff, who was sworn in 2 weeks ago, has already 

begun a top-to-bottom review of the Department, and I want to say that I welcome 

this review. 

As we all know, the Department was cobbled together from 22 existing government entities with new functions added. DHS is a work in progress, and I agree 

that now is a good time to assess whether or not some areas need changing. 

To bring together these disparate functions, Congress authorized the Department 

and the Office of Personnel Management to create a new personnel system, which 

now finalized, represents a radical departure from the existing Federal civil service 

system. 

Most Americans are not aware of this particular aspect. And, those who are, 

might think of it as one of those inside-the-Beltway issues of no real consequence. 

They are wrong. 

The first line in our national defense is our public servants: In or out of uniform. 

We must ensure that our national security workforce has the right tools, the right 

incentives, and a supportive working environment necessary to accomplish their 

mission. 

I believe you appreciate this, Dr. Jackson. But as you know, you will be judged 

by your deeds. 

I am hearing from Federal workers in Hawaii and throughout the Nation that the 

DHS personnel regulations lack the support of employees. Moreover, employee 

unions have filed suit to prevent the implementation of these regulations, and even 

if the suit fails, it is indicative of a severely strained labor-management environment. 

Dr. Jackson, you and Secretary Chertoff have the opportunity to foster a more 

positive environment so that the Department of Homeland Security can meet its 

mission of making America more safe. 

There are several actions that you can take to make this happen:

• Ensure that the DHS internal labor relations and mandatory removal panels 

include members recommended by employees; 

• Reinstate the current authority of the Merit Systems Protection Board to 

mitigate penalties; 

• Issue more detailed regulations in the Federal Register on the pay for performance system; and 

• Provide greater opportunities for employees and their union representatives 

to be involved in agency decisionmaking.

In addition, it is essential to ensure strong whistleblower protections for all Federal workers, especially national security employees. 

Last week, a bipartisan group of Senators from this Committee joined Senator 

Collins and I to reintroduce legislation to strengthen whistleblower protections for 

Federal workers. As you know from your role in helping to establish the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Federal baggage screeners do not have full 

whistleblower rights. This Committee supported extending full whistleblower rights 

to all DHS employees during our markup of the DHS bill in 2002. Unfortunately, 

the final legislation did not reflect this intent. 

I ask you to consider whistleblowing as an effective tool for management, not a 

hindrance, and I urge you to extend whistleblower protection to all DHS employees. 

Such action will have an immediate impact on employee morale and will help the 

Department uncover mismanagement and security lapses. This is what leadership 

is all about—being able to focus on the goal and not be dragged down by the details. 

It is also essential that employees have adequate training on the implementation 

of the new human resources system, particularly on the performance management 

system. We often find that in tight fiscal years, training budgets are routinely cut 

or used to pay for other agency priorities. I hope you will be committed to ensuring 

a strong and robust training program for the Department. 

I fear the Administration has been too focused on the details, wasting time, expending political capital, hurting the morale of the very civil service workforce 

whose duty is to make America safe. 

Reports that other Federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense, paid 

more bonuses to senior political appointees than career Senior Executives damages 

morale and heightens the apprehension of everyone serving in the Federal workVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:18 Jun 20, 2005 Jkt 020201 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\DOCS\20201.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
7

1The biographical and financial information and pre-hearing questionnaire appears in the Appendix on page 35. 

force. I hope this has not happened in DHS. Employees should be treated fairly and 

equitably. 

Dr. Jackson, your first challenge will be to convince the men and women who 

work for you that that is the case of DHS. 

Your second challenge will be to provide leadership to the DHS workforce, not just 

a new set of personnel regulations. 

As I mentioned earlier, employees must have the right tools, the right incentives, 

and the right environment to accomplish their mission. 

Again, I welcome you to the Committee, and I welcome your family, and I want 

to thank them for their sacrifice for their country in supporting you for this position. 

And, I hope they will be able to join you in a visit to my State of Hawaii sooner 

rather than later.

Chairman COLLINS. I am wondering why you don’t invite the 

Senators from Maine and Michigan also to come learn more about 

the challenges in Hawaii. 

Senator LEVIN. With all our kids and grandkids, too, right? 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman COLLINS. Mr. Jackson, both of my colleagues have alluded to your family members, so I think I will go slightly out of 

order and ask you to introduce them to the Committee right now. 

Mr. JACKSON. Thank you, Chairman Collins. Well, I have with 

me my wife, Caron, and my daughter, Katherine. As has been said, 

they do make it possible for public service by giving such strong 

support. But DHS is really all about protecting families and citizens and with Caron and Katherine, as with your families, my family gives a name and a face every day to the motives for me wanting to do a job such as I have been nominated for, so I am grateful 

for their support but also grateful for how they bring home every 

day how important it is, the work of this Committee and the Department of Homeland Security. So thank you for the welcome. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Levin and I were just 

remarking that your daughter is beaming—— [Laughter.] 

And I think that she is very proud of her father here today, so 

we welcome you both to the Committee. 

In my opening comments, I gave considerable information about 

Mr. Jackson’s background. Let me just add that he also served as 

a pro bono member of the Coast Guard’s Integrated Deep Water 

System Navigational Council. I am going to ask you later some 

questions about the deep water program, which I care deeply 

about, but I am very pleased to see that you bring experience in 

that area to the Department, as well. 

Mr. Jackson has filed responses to a financial and biographical 

questionnaire, answered pre-hearing questions submitted by the 

Committee, and has had his financial statements reviewed by the 

Office of Government Ethics.1

Without objection, this information will be made a 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 rules require that all witnesses at nomination 

hearings give their testimony under oath, so, Mr. Jackson, would 

you please stand and raise your right hand. 

8

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give to the 

Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. JACKSON. I do. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Mr. Jackson, if you have a statement you would like to make, I would ask that you proceed at this 

time. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. MICHAEL P. JACKSON, TO BE DEPUTY 

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. JACKSON. Thank you, Chairman Collins, and Members of the 

Committee, thank you for your warm welcome and for having this 

hearing today for me. 

I am deeply honored to be nominated, and if confirmed, I would 

look forward to working very closely with this Committee on the 

issues that have already been raised and the many others that you 

have the responsibility to oversee at the Department. 

Perhaps it would be helpful, and Madam Chairman, you have already been through my history a little bit, so I won’t say too much, 

but I will try to compact it with just a brief summary of what I 

have done and a few words about what I would bring to this job, 

if confirmed. 

My professional life has been equally divided in the past 20 years 

between public service and private service. In the public domain, 

if confirmed for this position, I would have worked for three Presidents in four Presidential terms and for five Cabinet Secretaries. 

I started out with a GS number that was definitely in the single 

digits and have worked through a variety of different responsibilities. In the private sector, I have been in multiple corporate and 

trade association jobs that are relevant to our work at the Department of Homeland Security. 

In both of the last two corporate jobs, and in my DOT job, I was 

the Chief Operating Officer. The COO’s job is a job that I relish. 

It is a job for which I bring enthusiasm, and if confirmed in this 

position, it is a position that I would love to return to at the Department. That really is the core of the Deputy Secretary’s job at 

DHS. It calls for supporting the President and the Secretary. It 

calls for being a strategic thinker, yet immersed in the weeds of 

what you do enough to know the practical issues that have to be 

resolved. It calls for being customer-focused. It calls for being a 

change agent, action oriented, and I would say constructively impatient with the progress of our mission. 

At DHS, the COO is involved in much work within the administration, within other departments, with our State and local first responder community, with State and local leaders, and certainly in 

a very immediate and important way with this Committee and 

with other Members of Congress in the work of oversight that you 

have for the Department. 

I have no illusions about the complexity of this job. Secretary 

Chertoff has no illusions about the difficulty of the work that we 

have ahead of us. But I can tell you that the two of us most definitely share this conviction. The jobs for which we have been nominated are perhaps the two most exciting jobs that a person can be 

offered in this government. We believe that the work ahead is so 

9

vital. Why do I say this? It is for this vitality, it is for the mission, 

and it is for the people, and so perhaps I could say just a brief word 

about those before turning to questions from the Committee. 

About the mission first. The importance of the mission is self-evident. The President has given tremendous support for this mission. 

The Congress has a passionate interest in this mission, which I acknowledge and which I, frankly, welcome with great regard. 

I was on watch, Madam Chairman, as you said, on September 11 

at DOT and that day permanently changed my own make-up, my 

own constitution, my own DNA. After that, I walked away with an 

unquenchable desire to serve the public’s effort at trying to prevent 

such a day ever again, in whatever fashion it was, in the private 

sector or the public sector, in something great or something small. 

We have already done so much, and I cannot more heartily agree 

with the words that have been expressed here for Secretary Ridge 

and Deputy Secretary Loy and the phenomenal colleagues that 

they brought to this new Department. The work that they have accomplished is truly large and truly a legacy to the Nation, and I 

think they would be the first to say that there is still so much left 

to do. We have done much, but we can’t eliminate vulnerability. We 

can’t eradicate risk. We have to keep working at it and stay one 

step ahead of the ones that President Bush called the ‘‘evil ones’’ 

shortly after the attack of September 11. 

So whether it is in strengthening transportation infrastructure, 

such a vitally important job, whether it is looking at the security 

associated with chemical plants and reducing vulnerability there, 

with our food supply, or with any of the other 17 clusters of critical 

infrastructure that have been outlined in our work in this area, 

DHS and our allies at the State, local, and tribal level must be 

committed to this continuous innovation. We cannot ever stop innovating or resting on our laurels. 

That brings me to the second reason why I am attracted to this 

opportunity that I have been nominated for and it is the people. In 

building TSA with our colleagues at the Department of Transportation, in working with many of the agencies that now constitute 

DHS, in my work as a private citizen, I have met so many thousands of people who share the same passion that this Committee 

brings to this topic for their daily work in this area, whether it is 

a local first responder or a Coastie standing watch or a TSA agent 

trying to get through that massive line that they have to sometimes work their way through. This is one of the hallmark things 

that makes working with this Department so attractive, is the people, what they bring to it, their passion and commitment about it. 

I certainly recognize the mission of this Department is more than 

just counterterrorism work. It is crucial in the Department to 

maintain the complex missions that have been assigned to the Department by Congress in the Act which created us. So in the Coast 

Guard, for example, search and rescue missions are absolutely 

vital. Our work in immigration is absolutely vital. Our work in responding to natural disasters is indispensably vital to what the Department has stood up to bear. And I just want to acknowledge at 

the outset that I understand that all of these missions, none of 

them can be dropped. All of them have to be maintained and to 

work hard. 

10

I certainly recognize, however, that counterterrorism was the 

core of why we came into being, and I think that by continuing to 

focus on this, with all of the best and brightest minds that we can 

bring and continuing to ask, Madam Chairman, the words that you 

mentioned of mine earlier, ‘‘What Works?’’ By doing this, we honor 

the tragic victims of September 11 and nothing else but that is 

what we have to hold dear. 

So vital mission, great people. These are the things that are at 

the top of the list of what animates those of us who would propose 

to work here and work with you. If confirmed in this position, I 

would very much look forward to working closely and routinely 

with this Committee. 

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 hijackVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:18 Jun 20, 2005 Jkt 020201 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\20201.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
11

ers 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. 

12

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. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

The first question that I want to ask you relates to the way in 

which the formula should be structured. That has been, of course, 

a matter of some debate here in terms of how that funding goes 

to the States. But the 9/11 Commission recommended that homeland security assistance should be based on assessment of risks 

and vulnerabilities and I am wondering whether you agree. 

Mr. JACKSON. I do agree with that. 

Senator LEVIN. Now, the overall funding level that is in the administration’s budget is significantly reduced when it comes to first 

responder grant programs. As I indicated, last year, we allocated 

$1.1 billion to the program, and this year, States and localities are 

going to be required to allocate at least 20 percent of that program, 

which is a significant reduction in that program. I am wondering, 

how does that reflect the huge need that we have for first responder funding? How does that reflect the priorities of this Nation 

to defend this homeland? 

Mr. JACKSON. Senator, I would agree that supporting first responders is an important part of the Department’s work and mission and I would say that I have not had the benefit of a detailed 

opportunity to drill down into the fiscal year 2006 proposed budget 

and would be very grateful to do that, if confirmed, and to get back 

with you in more specifics about the grants that you are raising. 

But I understand the importance of what you are raising. 

Senator LEVIN. Well, we do appreciate that and we will be talking to the Secretary more about that, then, on Wednesday. 

13

The 2006 budget request relative to firefighter grants provides 

that priority shall be given to applications enhancing terrorism response capabilities. Now, when the Fire Act was passed, I think 5 

or 6 years ago, it was passed before September 11, obviously. We 

were trying to provide some support to fire departments relative to 

providing equipment, training, and so forth. 

So my question is what your reaction is to that shift. Is that 

something which is necessary, or can we not basically do both, provide the first responder grants to our fire departments at the same 

time we are supporting their needs, their ongoing needs, I won’t 

say separate and apart, but which would have existed even without 

the September 11——

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir. Well, my understanding of the Department’s programs does identify a first priority on the preparation for 

events of terrorism and other events which we are designed by 

statute to protect against. But there is a zone in which investments 

in that also certainly have some significant benefit to the more traditional roles that you reference and understanding where the 

point of reason might be for seeing a middle ground on those is an 

area that I would commit to you also to study in more detail. 

I will say this about the structure of the grant programs for our 

State and local partners, is that we are trying in the structure of 

the fiscal year 2006 budget to provide this focus on having a 

threat-based assessment of how to make these investments at a 

local level, and by aggregating some of the previously separate programs, we give ourselves some more flexibility to look and say, 

where does the discretion drive us? Where does the threat analysis 

suggest that we go? And so I believe that is, as a principled matter, 

an improvement in the structure of the programs. Obviously, we 

have to have a nuanced and sophisticated understanding of what 

the threat assessment means for us and how we should invest in 

that. It doesn’t mean that it is just an exclusively population-based 

approach, but it does mean that we take a more sophisticated view 

of understanding risk and how to mitigate it. 

Senator LEVIN. The Northern border is not only extremely long, 

but it is very open, relatively. Huge numbers of people cross that 

border. Canada is the single largest trading partner with the 

United States. The largest trade link in the world is the Ambassador Bridge, which connects Detroit and Windsor, Ontario. We 

have more than 7,000 trucks crossing each day from Canada into 

Michigan. 

Yet when we look at the amount of money which goes to port security, it is not only inadequate overall, we only look at, I think, 

2 to 5 percent of the containers coming into this Nation overall as 

a Nation. But between land ports and seaports, there is a huge discrepancy even though, again, about half the containers come into 

the land ports. 

I am wondering what your reaction is to that issue, to that problem, and what you would like to see done to accommodate that 

kind of a concern. 

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir. It is an excellent question. In our approach to this, the Department of Homeland Security screens all of 

the traffic moving across and then inspects a smaller number, 

which is indicated by their risk analysis in the screening, and I 

14

think that without casting any aspersions on the terrific work that 

has been done on both fronts, that, and consistent with our idea 

that this is a constant innovation cycle that we have to chase, we 

can do better on the screening and we can do better on the inspecting. 

I have had some experience in the private sector and in the public sector at these cross-border trucking issues and I am eager to 

look for process solutions and technology solutions that can help us 

make continued progress here. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Coleman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLEMAN 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am looking 

forward to this confirmation——

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator COLEMAN [continuing]. To getting it done. Secretary 

Chertoff is getting lonely over there and he needs as many good 

hands on deck as we can get forward and you are going to be one 

of those, Mr. Jackson. 

Mr. JACKSON. Thank you, sir. 

Senator COLEMAN. Let me follow up, though, on actually two concerns raised by my colleagues. First, in regard to the port security, 

I had a chance to be out at Long Beach in L.A. about 2 weeks ago 

and about 46 percent of the sea cargo comes through there. I am 

not as concerned about the numbers that are screened. I am concerned about the screening process, and I understand the rating 

system. 

But I am concerned on the technology side. The issue of radiation 

portal monitors, the fact is that if you look at the, as I understand 

the system, it doesn’t detect neutron radiation, the kind of radiation that we need, and we have some handheld monitors that get 

some of that, but can you tell me why, help me understand where 

we are at with radiation portal monitors? The concern over threat 

of any kind of nuclear attack——

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator COLEMAN [continuing]. Is obviously enormous and I am 

concerned about where we are on the technology side. 

Mr. JACKSON. It has very high consequence, obviously, and therefore is a very high priority. In an internal administration effort, 

which I believe the Congress has been briefed on, we are proposing 

to create a so-called DNDO, a locus within the Department of 

Homeland Security for putting in place a strategy for counterterrorism related to the nuclear issues. An integral part of that 

strategy is an accelerated schedule to do some fundamental research on a variety of nuclear detection tools. 

It doesn’t mean we can’t continue the deployment of existing 

state-of-the-art technology, but I will tell you that this has been 

one of Secretary Chertoff’s early briefs. He is strongly supportive 

of the effort and a time table has been laid out for implementation 

of this office and an aggressive schedule to work with it. 

Senator COLEMAN. It is certainly an issue that we will be following very closely here. 

15

Let me also follow up on the question raised by the Chairman, 

and that is the secure I.D.s and the lack of movement on the TWIC 

program. Is there an issue here regarding the—let me step back. 

If you are talking about folks who are longshoremen working in 

L.A. or working in New York or anywhere else and we are looking 

at a secure I.D. program, I assume one of the issues is going to be 

background checks, and I have to presume that there may be folks 

who have been working with these folks for long periods of time 

that may have records that will not relate to national security but 

would certainly cause them to have some concern, and perhaps 

based on other Federal standards, may cause us not to have a security concern, which should be the major concern, but it may run 

afoul of some other laws or rules or regulations. 

First, is that an issue, and second, is there some flexibility? The 

main thing is national security and we have to, I believe as soon 

as we can, have a better system in place of understanding who is 

handling this cargo, who is coming in. Pre-September 11, we were 

looking at land coming in. Theft was an issue. But we are way beyond that today, and I just worry about whether there is a flexibility issue here and are we in the Federal Government being flexible enough to allow for a rapid deployment of this TWIC program 

or whether we are suffering from some inflexibility here. 

Mr. JACKSON. We may be suffering from inflexibility that needs 

busting up, and if so, that is something that I would like to have 

a chance to bust at. But I would tell you that my understanding 

of the program is that we have better tools than we did in the year 

or so after September 11 to apply to these background investigations. There has been some significant work in improving those 

tools, for example, in the work that TSA did with screening airport 

employees, and we should be taking those tools for more rapid and 

aggressive deployment and I would be pleased to work on that 

work, as well. 

Senator COLEMAN. Again, here is one where the technology is 

certainly available——

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator COLEMAN [continuing]. To have the kind of smart cards 

that we need. It is a matter of getting them in place. 

Mr. JACKSON. The technology to do the background investigation 

itself is, I think, at a stage where we can learn new lessons there, 

as well. 

Senator COLEMAN. Let me raise one issue about airlines—Minnesota is the home of Northwest Airlines. There is another proposed increase in security fees. Many of us, I am sure, have heard 

our airlines folks coming to us saying, hey, you are going to kill us. 

I don’t know the situation with rail, but I presume there is not a 

security fee on Amtrak yet. Am I right on that? 

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir, to my knowledge. 

Senator COLEMAN. And I presume truckers at this point do not 

have a specific security fee? 

Mr. JACKSON. It may depend in some facility entrance fees and 

the like, but there is not a general levy of the sort that you are 

referencing. 

Senator COLEMAN. It would seem to me that airlines are one 

place where clearly we are focusing. The terrorists know we are foVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:18 Jun 20, 2005 Jkt 020201 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\20201.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
16

cusing on it. I just don’t want to—and I am not looking for reaction 

on the proposal, but I just want to kind of put on the record that 

a lot of us are deeply concerned about the impact of these fees. We 

understand the importance of security. We are working on that. 

But we seem to be piling it on one industry that at this time is in 

a very precarious situation and we shouldn’t tax them to death. So 

I just want to raise that and my sense is you will be hearing that 

from some of my other colleagues, too, and I know the Secretary 

has heard it. 

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir. I have heard this story since the day after 

September 11, and so I am absolutely——

Senator COLEMAN. It seems to be increasing. We have another 

round of proposed fee increases. 

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator COLEMAN. I am not talking about where we have been. 

I am talking about where we are going. 

Mr. JACKSON. Exactly, and it is a balance. We have tried to use 

user fees because we stood up a Federal workforce to manage this, 

unlike security in some of the other modes of transportation. But 

I recognize it is an area that needs close listening. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Coleman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLEMAN 

Madam Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this important hearing on the 

nomination of Michael Jackson to be the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security. 

I want to join in thanking Michael Jackson for appearing this morning before the 

Committee and I want to personally thank you for coming to my office and visiting 

with me. 

My home State of Minnesota has a wide range of Homeland Security interests 

given that we have an international border with Canada, we have two major cities 

in Minneapolis and St. Paul, we have two nuclear reactors in Red Wing and Monticello, and a major port in the city of Duluth. Unfortunately, however, Minnesota 

witnessed an average 48 percent reduction in the allocation of Federal homeland security dollars, including a 71 percent reduction to our urban area security initiative 

alone. Now I don’t want to beat a dead horse but I do want to reiterate my concerns 

that you cannot have effective homeland security with a lack of continuity. I am 

very pleased that Secretary Chertoff has agreed to work with me on this issue and 

I would like to enlist your help as well so we can avoid this problem next year. 

Turning to another important matter, about a month ago, former Attorney General John Ashcroft warned that the gravest threat to the U.S. is the possibility that 

al-Qaeda or its sympathizers could gain access to a dirty bomb or a nuclear weapon. 

In fact, recent studies indicate that a nuclear or radiological event at a U.S. port 

could inflict numerous casualties as well as result in an economic impact of greater 

than one trillion dollars to the U.S. economy. I share the former Attorney General’s 

concerns and traveled to California in February to meet with port officials and get 

a first hand look at the challenges we face. 

Given the enormous stakes involved in the Federal Government’s response to nuclear terrorism, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation, which I chair, is 

working in conjunction with Members of the House and Senate in a bicameral and 

bipartisan fashion and have collaborated to review the actions taken by the Department of Homeland Security and Customs to safeguard our country from a nuclear 

attack. 

PSI will focus it initial inquiry into three areas:

• the deployment of radiation portal monitors at our Nation’s vulnerable ports 

and borders 

• the Container Security Initiative, and 

• the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism

I look forward to working with you on these endeavors to insure that our citizens 

are protected from the threat of nuclear terrorism.

17

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Akaka. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Dr. Jackson, the Emergency Management Performance Grant 

Program is the only source of Federal funding to States and localities for all-hazard emergency management preparedness and response. Most grant recipients use that money to fund key emergency management personnel positions that could not be filled otherwise. In fact, 50 percent of Hawaii’s civil defense staff are funded 

through these grants. 

I have been told by the National Emergency Management Association and officials in Hawaii that OMB wants a 25 percent cap 

on the amount of EMPG funds that can be used for salaries and 

other personnel expenses. If this happens, States and localities 

would lose a significant number of their trained staff. This would 

severely cripple emergency management capabilities. Is the information I received about OMB’s intentions accurate? 

Mr. JACKSON. Senator, I have to give you my apology that I have 

not yet had a chance to dive into this level of granularity about 

that part of the program, but I will do so if sent to the Department 

and would be happy to report back to you on that. 

Senator AKAKA. I would like for you to look at the issue and inform this Committee——

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator AKAKA [continuing]. Before the action is taken to cap the 

personnel funding. 

Dr. Jackson, the National Association of Agriculture Employees 

testified before my Subcommittee that CBP, that is Customs and 

Border Protection, has consciously ignored agriculture inspection 

duties. One of three groups comprising CBP are agriculture specialists who were transferred from USDA to DHS when DHS was created. I understand there are currently 800 vacant agriculture specialist positions there, and that is of great concern to me. 

In addition, I understand the number of agriculture inspections 

conducted per year has decreased by 3.5 million since the DHS 

took over, even though agricultural imports have increased. 

Hawaii is home to more endangered species, as you know, than 

any other State and our economic security depends heavily on agriculture inspections being carried out. Will you commit to look into 

this situation and ensure that agricultural security at the border 

is not sacrificed to other priorities? 

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir, I absolutely will. 

Senator AKAKA. The State of Hawaii, Dr. Jackson, is 2,500 miles 

away from the West Coast. We don’t have any neighboring States 

to call on for assistance, and our eight inhabited islands must be 

self-sufficient. We rely on FEMA’s specific area office in Honolulu, 

to coordinate and provide equipment for disaster preparedness and 

response efforts in Hawaii as well as the rest of the Pacific. 

I understand that FEMA is considering closing the Pacific Area 

Office this year to cut costs. You will be interested to know that 

I introduced the bill that created that office. Will you please look 

into this issue and report back to me as soon as possible? 

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir, I will. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. JACKSON. Thank you, Senator. 

18

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Pryor. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PRYOR 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you for 

being here today. I appreciate, Mr. Jackson, your willingness to 

serve and step into this. 

I have a prepared statement I would like to submit for the 

record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Pryor follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR PRYOR 

Thank you Madam Chairman and Senator Lieberman for convening this hearing 

and continuing your bipartisan leadership on this Committee. I also would like to 

thank your Committee staff for its commendable work in preparing for our many 

important hearings such as this session today. 

Mr. Jackson, good afternoon and thank you for your years of service to your country. I am anticipating an open and in-depth discussion of your background and your 

ideas for securing our country’s safety. 

The Department of Homeland Security faces, as part of its challenge of protecting 

America, a reorganization of over 180,000 men and women. Such a challenge requires great skill in strategic planning, management, and innovation. 

Securing our borders and protecting our infrastructure, while preserving our civil 

liberties are the tasks before you if you are confirmed. I look forward to hearing 

how you would accomplish these tasks in the position for which you have been nominated.

Senator PRYOR. The way I see this is you have got a unique opportunity and a unique perspective here because you are really an 

outsider at the agency. Let me ask this. It is a fairly new agency, 

a couple of years old or less. From the outside looking in, where 

do you want to focus your energies at Homeland Security? 

Mr. JACKSON. Well, the issue is that there are many areas that 

need focus and so what we are trying to do at the start, Senator, 

is to begin with an assessment of how to prioritize what needs to 

be done. This is something that Secretary Chertoff has announced 

internally and that we are beginning to launch. It will involve looking at probably two dozen clusters of like issues, everything ranging from IT programs, such as we have discussed earlier, to specific 

policy areas, and then trying to decide, do we have the organization 

mapped to meet the needs that we think are the highest priorities? 

In this process, we have the National Infrastructure Protection 

Plan reaching its conclusion, and that will intimate a strategic allocation of resources and illuminate some of the key problems, as 

well. So there is much to do on a policy front. 

On an organizational front, we want to take just a quick look and 

see if we can tweak the system and then proceed ahead. 

Senator PRYOR. How long do you think it will take you to set 

those priorities? The concern I have is that could be a never-ending 

process and——

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir. This is intended to be 2 months, possibly 

three at the most for some complex areas. It is intended to be very 

fast. It certainly mimics a process we used at the Department of 

Transportation to set up the Transportation Security Administration, which we established some 50 ‘‘go’’ teams, who came into 

being, did their work, made their recommendations, put options on 

the table, and the boss made the decision. So this is intended to 

be something animated by a sense of urgency. 

19

Senator PRYOR. Based on your responses to those last two questions, can I imply from your answers that you see areas that can 

be improved at DHS? 

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir, I absolutely do. I will give you one example that the Secretary has spoken about publicly and which I surely share, as did Secretary Ridge and Deputy Secretary Loy. We believe that some work to create a policy shop can have a very substantial integrating function within the Department to help us accelerate and to cast a department-wide perspective on some of the 

work done throughout the operating components. So that is just 

one example of something that I would say is an organizational tool 

in the tool kit that we can use. There are multiple other such 

issues to unpack. 

Senator PRYOR. OK. Let me turn my attention to two specific 

areas that have gotten a lot of attention in this Committee over the 

last couple years. One is the TSA. 

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator PRYOR. I think it is fair to say that Members of Congress 

and Members of the Senate were led to believe that consolidation 

of inspection functions would not only be more effective, but also 

more efficient if they were under TSA, but I am not sure I am seeing any cost savings there and I am not sure it has lived up to its 

promise. Do you have a comment on that? 

Mr. JACKSON. Well, I think TSA is an absolutely vital part of the 

force that we throw against the issues we are worried about in 

counterterrorism. Are they perfect? No. Have they done a good job? 

I think, yes. When you see what we moved from in the old system, 

which was owned by the airlines and which you could come and in 

half a day become a screener with very little subsequent oversight, 

testing, or examination of performance, we have made dramatic 

strides. We have some terrific people out there in the field. 

Is it good enough yet? No. Can technology help us make some 

significant improvements? Yes. In the cargo screening, is this an 

area where we need further work? Absolutely, we do. 

I would not want to be a Pollyanna about it, but I wouldn’t want 

to cause you to be prematurely anxious about the direction that we 

are taking. There is much to do, for sure, but I can tell you there 

are just literally thousands of people working their hearts out to 

do the right thing, and if we support them and give them the right 

vision, the right tools, the right equipment to do their job, they are 

going to be a phenomenally important part of this Department, and 

they are already. 

Senator PRYOR. Great. The last thing I have is that you actually, 

I think, anticipated my question about port security. I know Senator Levin asked about it a few moments ago and also Chairman 

Collins over the last couple years—can I use the word ‘‘grill’’? You 

grilled witnesses on port security? [Laughter.] 

She has had ‘‘discussions’’—— [Laughter.] 

About port security issues with witnesses, and justifiably so, and 

I think she is right on that. You have mentioned containers with 

me and with Senator Levin and maybe others, but it sounds to me 

like you are not satisfied with port security. 

Mr. JACKSON. I am not satisfied, and you are probably not ever 

going to see me, if I am confirmed in this position, to be satisfied 

20

and over with any of the progress that we are going to make. It 

is a commitment. It is not just a buzzword to say continuous innovation is how we stay ahead of the game. 

That being said, I do think that if you disaggregate the container 

security issues into both land issues, as Senator Levin rightly 

points out, and land interfaces and sea interfaces, then you see 

that there are tools within that for further unpacking. If you take 

the port issues, there is the security of the facilities themselves, 

many of which are privately owned, and there is the waterside support that the Coast Guard provides and the look at vessels and 

mariners coming in. There is the screening of the containers themselves, which CBP has the significant responsibility for. 

So it is a so-called system of systems that we have to put in 

place, both on the land and the marine side, and continue to work 

each of those component parts so that they are a interlocking whole 

that strengthens the system that we have. It is a multidimensional 

puzzle that has to be worked at every dimension. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. You will be glad to know, Senator Pryor, that today I just asked about port security as opposed 

to grilling the witness. 

Senator PRYOR. Grilling is fine with me. I don’t have any objection to grilling. [Laughter.] 

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 

21

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? 

22

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. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

In August 2004, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement inside the Department now established the Northern 

Border Airwing, opened two locations to give some air cover to the 

Northern border. There was a commitment at that time that there 

would be two additional locations opened to serve as the base for 

that Northern Border Airwing. Apparently, however, that has not 

happened, and I am wondering if you are aware of that fact, and 

if so, why. 

Mr. JACKSON. No, sir, I was not, until you raised it just now, 

aware of that commitment. I don’t believe anyone has told me 

about that. I would be happy to look into it further. 

Senator LEVIN. And would you get back to us on it? 

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir. Absolutely. 

Senator LEVIN. Whether that commitment is going to be carried 

out. 

Our Chairman asked you about cooperation with this Committee 

in terms of providing documents and information. You very 

promptly and strongly indicated that you would do so to assist in 

the oversight of this Committee and you indicated that you thought 

it was, indeed, highly appropriate that this Committee engage in 

oversight. Both with our Chairman Collins and Senator Coleman 

here, who chairs a Subcommittee which is engaged in oversight, 

this Committee and its Subcommittees are engaged heavily in oversight, and frankly, we are one of the few Committees that engage 

in oversight to any significant degree. As far as I am concerned, 

that has been the case. We do too little oversight in the Congress. 

It is important to me that you not only be available to us and 

your Department be available to us promptly with documents and 

information, but that we get it unvarnished, not screened through 

any political screening process at the White House. Some agencies, 

such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, have a requireVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:18 Jun 20, 2005 Jkt 020201 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\20201.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
23

ment that when they are asked to testify in front of a Committee 

of the Congress, that they not seek permission from OMB or any 

other Executive Branch entity and that they do not supply their 

testimony in advance to the White House. They rather respond to 

the invitation and provide testimony without that screening process. 

By the way, I may say that we attempted to get language to that 

effect in the Intelligence Reform bill and our Chairman and Senator Lieberman were very supportive of the effort, which was a bipartisan effort in the Senate to get provisions in the Intelligence 

Reform bill which would require that the Intelligence Community—

and you have a piece of that community—respond to invitations to 

testify and for information to come promptly without screening, 

and indeed, upon request of either the Chairman or Ranking Member of the Committee. 

I am wondering what your reaction is to those thoughts, as to 

whether or not you would have any problem—let me put you on the 

spot here a bit—whether you would have any problem if a law was 

passed requiring your agency’s intelligence piece to promptly appear before this Committee or the Intelligence Committee, I assume, and to supply information as I have outlined. 

Mr. JACKSON. Well, let me unpack that in a couple of ways. First, 

I will start with the principle, which I one hundred percent endorse. This Committee has had a unique historical role in oversight, which I recognize. We have many committees, as you know, 

that have different oversight and testimony responsibilities, but I 

recognize that this Committee, in particular, has a history and a 

need and a mandate to do this. 

I would, if nominated and confirmed, be eager to try to find ways 

to avoid making this some sort of confrontation or a big conflict. 

I would look for ways, formal and informal, to make sure that the 

Department is providing this Committee with the materials and 

the information they need. 

I found the bipartisan support for building TSA after September 

11 to be an enormous engine that allowed us to do good and we 

have to do our share of that at the Department, to come up here 

and to work with you and listen to you, and when we disagree, we 

will have to have it out and say that. But I think that you would 

find in me someone very willing to do this. 

I would not be able or willing to speculate about a position that 

I might bring to some projected legislation without review of the 

legislation itself, in respect for the President’s prerogatives in this 

area. 

Senator LEVIN. Fair enough. We will look forward to your offering your best efforts in that regard. They are important to a successful and a bipartisan oversight function. 

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator LEVIN. Finally, I made reference to the number of border 

crossings on the Northern border and the land crossings before in 

terms of numbers. I just want to raise one specific issue with you, 

and that has to do with the large number of trucks that come into 

my home State of Michigan every day with garbage from Ontario. 

It is a very sore point in my State and there is a lot of deep resentment against Ontario for sending its garbage to be landfilled in my 

24

State. They have a lot more land than Michigan does and a lot 

more vacant land than Michigan does, and to use our landfills has 

created a real deep resentment of a very good neighbor otherwise. 

The question for you goes beyond that and that has to do with 

the security situation, because it is very difficult to inspect garbage 

trucks, to put it mildly, and x-rays do not work particularly well 

because the waste is too dense for an x-ray machine. And yet we 

know already from experience that those trucks can, indeed, contain drugs and hopefully nothing on the biological and chemical 

weapons side and on the nuclear side. But nonetheless, we have a 

real concern about that. 

I would like to get a commitment from you, given your philosophy of ‘‘does it work,’’ to either come up with a technology which 

protects our country from those trucks and their cargo or stop 

those trucks. If we can’t inspect those trucks to make sure that 

their cargo does not contain the type of weapons that I have talked 

about—chemical, biological, or nuclear—I think we may have a radiological capability now, but we sure don’t have a chemical and biological one—but I would like your commitment to give us a 

prompt report as to whether or not we have the technology to make 

sure that we are protected against cargo which does contain those 

substances, and if not, whether or not we are going to stop those 

trucks from coming in on that basis alone, putting aside the environmental issue which I started off this question with. Do we have 

that commitment from you? 

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir. If confirmed, I would be happy to dig into 

this issue and to come back and report what the credible options 

seem to look like and to counsel with the Committee about steps 

that might be taken here. 

Senator LEVIN. Thanks. I appreciate that. Again, congratulations 

to you and thanks to your family. 

Mr. JACKSON. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Coleman. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I got here just a couple of minutes after we started. I didn’t get 

a chance to hear the introductions. I presume that is your wife and 

lovely daughter. 

Mr. JACKSON. My wife, Caron, Senator, and my daughter, Katherine. 

Senator COLEMAN. I have a 15-year-old daughter and I would 

hope that Katherine should be very proud of her father. This is an 

extraordinary responsibility that he is raising his hand and being 

willing to undertake and it is really important to America. I can 

see the pride. Little girls can smile with their mouth shut. It is 

amazing. 

Mr. JACKSON. They can. But as you know, as a father, the dad 

is probably even more proud of the daughter than the daughter is 

of the dad. 

Senator COLEMAN. She is doing a wonderful job, just kind of sitting and listening. 

One of the responsibilities, one of the challenges you are facing, 

Mr. Jackson, is you are leading an agency, helping lead an agency 

of close to 180,000 people, and one of the challenges that you face 

with that is the responsibility, as my colleague, Senator Levin, has 

25

talked about, of responding to oversight, which is important, and 

we have gotten the assurances that you will respond. 

My question is kind of the other side of that, and that is how do 

you lead, how do you provide leadership to 180,000 people when 

the Secretary needs to be up here perhaps a lot. You, yourself, need 

to respond to us. I am a believer in managing by walking around. 

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator COLEMAN. So how are you and the Secretary sorting that 

out? How are you going to be responsible for the needs of oversight, 

but at the same time provide a very clear direction and leadership, 

hands-on leadership, to the folks who are doing this incredibly important function for this country? 

Mr. JACKSON. First, let me just start by saying I appreciate your 

being sensitive to that balancing act, and it is a balancing act and 

it takes a phenomenal amount of the Department’s time to get the 

Secretary adequately prepared and responsibly prepared to visit 

here with the degree of respect that he will always bring to these 

meetings. Ditto for all the rest of the people who would come, as 

well. 

So I think that one crack at that consultative side is why I have 

stressed the informality of being able to come up, visit, talk, and 

say, here is where we are going, here is what we are thinking 

about, what are you thinking? It is giving you a sense of comfort 

that you know what is going on inside the Department. Those don’t 

always have to be in the formal fashion or particularly in a hearing 

fashion, but we can find other methods. 

I do believe in managing by walking around and so that means 

you just have to work a little harder in this. But if you always hire 

someone—as a former boss of mine said—who is smarter than you 

are, you can ripple down a group of women and men who are committed to managing in this way and who are committed to listening 

to our employees and working with them carefully and finding out 

what works and being impatient about the solutions. 

So it is not an easy thing in an organization this large, but we 

are looking at various ways inside this management review that 

the Secretary has launched to accelerate our capacity to get decisions over and done with, to track, monitor, and execute plans that 

need to be done, and to work with our other Federal colleagues, 

which is a very large part of what we do in addition to working 

with State and locals. So it means getting around a lot. It is a challenge that we will put on all of our managers. 

Senator COLEMAN. I appreciate that, and again, it is an extraordinary challenge. 

Let me follow up. A number of us represent Northern border 

communities, the Chairman, the Ranking Member, and myself specifically. Some of the experiences they have on the Northern border 

are much different than obviously in Arizona, Texas, or California. 

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator COLEMAN. Pre-September 11, I think there were about 

300 Border Patrol folks in the Northern area. I think that has more 

than tripled now to over 1,000. But in the Northern border, you 

have to know how to fire a gun at minus-20. It is a little bit different than when it is 50, 60, and 70 degrees outside. You have to 

know how to ride a snowmobile. Float planes are extensively used. 

26

I am concerned about—and in addition to the issues which are 

common to my friend and colleague from Hawaii, agricultural 

issues and the whole range of things, on the training side, we have 

had—I have had discussions with Under Secretary Hutchinson 

about a Northern Border Patrol training facility, in fact, in International Falls, Minnesota, which hails itself as the coldest place in 

the United States, right on the Canadian border, and also, by the 

way, Port Ranier, which is right next to International Falls, one of 

the busiest crossing areas in this country. We have discussed with 

them the possibility of doing a training facility, in fact, not building 

one, there is a community college there that has offered its facilities. But my concern is making sure that we have agents who are 

adequately trained to meet the exogenous circumstances that are 

different in the North areas than they are in Southern areas. 

I don’t know how familiar you all are with this, but I would urge 

you to kind of bring yourself up to speed and to work closely with 

those of us who do have very specific needs in border areas. We 

just want to make sure folks are well trained. 

Mr. JACKSON. I share that concern and I would be happy to look 

into that issue in more detail. 

Senator COLEMAN. I appreciate that. Thank you. And again, I 

hope we can move very quickly on this confirmation. 

Mr. JACKSON. Thank you, sir, for your consideration. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Akaka. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Dr. Jackson, for some time, I have called attention to the vulnerability of American agriculture to either an accidental or intentional contamination by terrorists. This week, I will introduce two 

bills that will improve Federal, State, and local governments’ ability to prevent and respond to an attack on the U.S. food supply. 

Senator Collins and Senator Levin both raised concerns over 

cooperation with this Committee. I agree with them. I have made 

repeated requests to the Department for a briefing on agriculture 

security activities. Unfortunately, the briefing has not yet occurred. 

One, I would ask for your commitment to the critical task of securing the United States against an agro-terror attack, and two, I 

would appreciate you looking into my briefing requests. 

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir. I am happy to look into that request and 

to get back to you in a timely fashion. I will tell you that I have 

launched my own request for some briefings, both inside the Department and at the Department of Agriculture at a very senior 

level to help me understand these issues better. I participated in 

a USDA-sponsored senior executive tabletop exercise while I was 

Deputy Secretary of Transportation and it was an enlightening experience for me and one that made me more eager coming into this 

job, if the Senate is willing, for me to look at these issues closely. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. As you know, TSA recently began accepting applications allowing airports to revert back to contract 

screeners. I am concerned that the DHS IG has found widespread 

security lapses in airport screening. I am also concerned about the 

allegations made in a recent lawsuit by a former contract employee 

at the San Francisco International Airport. This former employee 

claims there were nonexistent employees on the payroll, non-functioning security equipment, and attempts to thwart government 

27

auditors. What will you do to ensure that DHS has effective contract management and oversight of private screening forces? 

Mr. JACKSON. Well, I became aware of this particular issue 

through reading a news article and have asked for some additional 

information on the specifics of that set of allegations. I am familiar 

with the design and was very much involved in the design of the 

five pilot test programs at San Francisco and other four airports 

around the country. I am eager to dig in and understand the result 

of those, since I was there at the launch but haven’t seen the landing. I believe in principle that a program can be designed that allows both public and private screening services, but I am inflexible 

as to the performance and the outcome and the accountability that 

would have to be put in place, not only for private screening, but 

for us, as well. 

So I am eager to dig into this. I understand it is an area that 

Dave Stone, the TSA Assistant Secretary, has told me they are 

doing some considerable measurement work on. So I would like the 

chance to explore those metrics and to work with him and his team 

on good performance. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you for that response. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has had serious financial 

management problems, resulting in a hiring freeze and spending 

restrictions. Last year, DHS asked to reprogram $300 million to 

make up for a budget shortfall at ICE. Last fall, we were assured 

that ICE had its financial affairs in order, yet last week, we 

learned that DHS plans another reprogramming request for an additional $280 million this year. 

ICE has a critical mission of preventing terrorist attacks by targeting people, money, and materials that support terrorists. My 

question to you is what do you intend to do to ensure that these 

financial shortfalls do not impact ICE’s ability to fulfill its mission? 

Mr. JACKSON. Senator, I understand that in the first year of 

DHS’s existence, that ICE was a donor to other parts of the Department to help during that first year stand up and meet needs 

within the Department. In the last 2 years, last year and this fiscal 

year, they have been a recipient of funds from other departments. 

The Secretary was briefed in his first week on this potential reprogramming request and was told by the Department that they 

believe that the fiscal year 2006 budget will provide a stabilized 

base and that this is the last of these problems. I believe I would 

take a page from Ronald Reagan on that and say, trust but verify. 

I would like to dig into the financial performance and see for myself what I think. 

But I believe that one of the things that ICE is suffering from 

is insufficient financial controls and IT systems to understand their 

budget and to project appropriately. That is also an area where the 

Department is bringing assets to try to seek greater performance. 

It is an area which I would be interested in all across the Department, as well. So hopefully, we will see an end to this. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I 

thank you very much for your responses and I want to wish you 

and Mrs. Jackson and Katherine well in your future and look forward to working with you. 

Mr. JACKSON. Thank you so very much. I am grateful for that. 

28

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. 

Mr. Jackson, you will be glad to learn that this is the final round 

of questions, but I am trying to figure out how I am going to raise 

6 issues with you in six minutes, but I will do my best. 

Senator AKAKA. Madam Chairman, I have other questions that 

I will submit for the record. 

Chairman COLLINS. Without objection, and I am certain some of 

my questions will make it into the record as well as Senator Coleman’s. We will ask that the record remain open until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning for the submission of any materials and questions 

and responses. 

I want to follow up on the issue just raised by the Senator from 

Hawaii about some of the budget problems with the Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement Bureau, because those concern me, as 

well. As you know, the CSIS–RAND study recently recommended, 

partially to solve some of those problems, a merger of Customs and 

Border Protection with ICE. When I have talked to law enforcement officials, whether at the State, Federal, or local level, they 

have been very enthusiastic about the prospect of this merger. On 

the other hand, former Under Secretary Asa Hutchinson has a contrary view that he has expressed to me and he has told me he 

thinks that it would be a big mistake to merge the two Bureaus. 

I am not going to ask you to take a position on the merger today 

since obviously it requires a great deal of analysis and care, but I 

would ask you to take a close look at the pros and cons of merging 

these two Bureaus and to report back to the Committee with your 

findings and recommendations within a reasonable period of time. 

I anticipate that the Committee will do a reauthorization bill. It 

may not be next year until we do it, but we are putting together 

the pieces through our hearings this year. So will you commit to 

taking a look at that and giving us your thoughts after a reasonable period? 

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, I absolutely will. It is an issue that is already 

on my radar screen. 

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 

29

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 

30

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. 

31

Chairman COLLINS. I do want to thank you for agreeing to make 

all these issues a priority and for your participation today. 

Senator Coleman. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Let me first 

off associate myself with the last series of comments by the Chairman concerning the importance of employees. I also appreciate 

your willingness to focus on this, and also her comments about H2–

B visas. 

In Minnesota, we have the same problem, a somewhat different 

circumstance. We have a company, Marvin Windows. It is one of 

the most successful window manufacturers in the country. They 

are right up in Warroad, Minnesota. They have a lot of college kids 

that come work during the summer to fill the assembly lines. And 

by the way, they employ people from a broad geographic area. But 

when these kids leave, they have got production lines going and 

they need folks to fill them and they cannot get folks on H2–B 

visas. And so the result of this is potentially shutting down lines 

that will cost American jobs. If we had the ability to fill the lines, 

they are going to keep the jobs. So this is a very important issue 

and I appreciate the Chairman raising it and your response. 

Just one last area to raise. I also have the opportunity to serve 

on the Foreign Relations Committee, and during the confirmation 

hearing of Secretary Rice, she noted that each and every member 

of the committee asked her about the issue of student visas, international students. America for years championed itself as being in 

the preeminent position of folks from around the world who wanted 

to come here and study. In a post-September 11 world, because of 

legitimate concerns, the system got tight. It tightened. Two of the 

hijackers, two of the terrorists apparently had student visas, but no 

one checked to see if they were students. 

The concern that many of us had, and again, this was the one 

item that Secretary Rice said every single member of the committee raised this issue, was that in responding to past sins and 

mistakes that we have really tightened the system so much that 

today, I believe we have an over 30 percent decline in the number 

of international graduate students. 

We have the experience now that I am sure all of my colleagues 

have, and they will speak to a foreign minister or a defense secretary or a vice president or president from another country. Invariably, they studied or their family studied and they have an 

American experience. In 20 years from now, that is not going to be 

the case because of policies that are in place today, and that is a 

concern. Certainly, it is also an economic issue for our colleges that 

are losing tuition dollars. It is a competitiveness issue for American 

business. 

Homeland Security does have a role in this process. You manage 

the SEVIS system, which keeps track of students. You make interagency decisions about who and who is not a security threat and 

participate in the developing of policy for that. So what I am looking for here is just raising this issue——

Mr. JACKSON. Yes. 

Senator COLEMAN [continuing]. And hoping that you will, and 

asking your pledge to work with us to restoring the United States’ 

role in international student education. I think we can do it in a 

32

way that is consistent with meeting the demands of national security, but at the same time doing better than we are doing today in 

understanding the economic and security implications of both today 

and tomorrow by some of the policies and procedures that are in 

place today. 

Mr. JACKSON. It is an important balance and it is one that I 

would focus on. I understand and 100 percent agree with you that 

it is one of the marvelous things about our country, that we have, 

as the President spoke in his inaugural address, shared our experience with democracy around the globe by these types of tools. I 

know that the needs in this century are great in this regard and 

so we have to have something that is reasonable. 

Senator COLEMAN. The sense I get is that the word went out, 

slow it up, slow it up. What I am looking for here is, again, focus 

on national security but using common sense——

Mr. JACKSON. And maybe some new tools to help make it work 

better, smarter, and faster. 

Senator COLEMAN. I look forward to working with you on that 

issue. 

Mr. JACKSON. I would, too, Senator Coleman. 

Senator COLEMAN. Again, I look forward to your confirmation. 

Mr. JACKSON. Thank you, sir, and thank you for your help today. 

Senator COLEMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

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. 

33

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. 

Mr. JACKSON. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 3:48 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(35)

A P P E N D I X 


20201.001
36


20201.002
37


20201.003
38


20201.004
39


20201.005
40


20201.006
41


20201.007
42


20201.008
43


20201.009
44


20201.010
45


20201.011
46


20201.012
47


20201.013
48


20201.014
49


20201.015
50


20201.016
51


20201.017
52


20201.018
53


20201.019
54


20201.020
55


20201.021
56


20201.022
57


20201.023
58


20201.024
59


20201.025
60


20201.026
61


20201.027
62


20201.028
63


20201.029
64


20201.030
65


20201.031
66


20201.032
67


20201.033
68


20201.034
69


20201.035
70


20201.036
71


20201.037
72


20201.038
73


20201.039
74


20201.040
75


20201.041
76


20201.042
77


20201.043
78


20201.044
79


20201.045
80


20201.046
81


20201.047
82


20201.048
83


20201.049
84


20201.050
85


20201.051
86


20201.052
87


20201.053
88


20201.054
89


20201.055
90


20201.056
91


20201.057
92


20201.058
93


20201.059
94


20201.060
95


20201.061
96


20201.062
97


20201.063
98


20201.064
99


20201.065
100


20201.066
101


20201.067
102


20201.068
103


20201.069
104


20201.070
105


20201.071
106


20201.072
107


20201.073
108


20201.074
109


20201.075
110


20201.076
111


20201.077
112


20201.078
113


20201.079
114


20201.080
115


20201.081
116


20201.082
117


20201.083
118


20201.084
119


20201.085
120


20201.086
121


20201.087
122


20201.088
123


20201.089
124


20201.090
125


20201.091
126


20201.092
127


20201.093
128


20201.094
129


20201.095
130


20201.096
131


20201.097
132


20201.098
133


20201.099
134


20201.100
135


20201.101
136


20201.102
137


20201.103
138


20201.104
139


20201.105
140


20201.106
141


20201.107
142


20201.108
143


20201.109
144

Æ


20201.110