« John Murtha's "Slow Bleed" Plan to End the Iraq War Explained | Blog Index | More on McCain and Romney, the Amazing Pandering Duo »
Philip Perry--Making Sure Our Chemical Faciliities Have No Security
Philip Perry, a former member of the powerful Latham and Watkins law firm in Washington, DC, left the law firm in 2000 to become part of the transition team of his father-in-law, Dick Cheney. He then became the third-highest ranking official in John Ashcroft's Justice Department before serving as General Counsel to the White House Office of Management and Budget.
When the post-September 11 Environmental Protection Agency made an attempt to regulate the security at chemical industry facilities, Perry used his position at the OMB to block the attempt. According to Art Levine, writing for Washington Monthly, Perry told executive branch officials, "If you send up this legislation, it will be dead on arrival on the Hill."
That same year, 2003, Perry returned to his practice at Latham and Watkins, which represented a major chemical industry trade group. After two years, however, Perry went to the Department of Homeland Security, where he became General Counsel. Once Perry joined DHS, the department granted itself the power to set aside state laws, which decreased the level of security required for chemical facilities. There is nothing in the Homeland Security law which grants the DHS such power.
One Congressional staff describes Perry as "an éminence grise. He's been pretty good at getting his fingerprints off of anything, but everyone in this field knows he's the one directing it." Levine calls Perry "a key player in the struggle to prevent the federal government from assuming any serious regulatory role in business, no matter what the cost."
In January, Perry announced his intention to leave DHS. During his tenure in the federal government, both at OMB and DHS, he has successfully blocked every attempt made by a federal agency and Congress to provide reasonable security to chemical plants, storage tanks and rail cars.
Posted by Diane E. Dees on 02/16/07 at 8:01 AM | E-mail | Print | Digg | de.licio.us | Reddit | Newsvine | Yahoo! MyWeb | StumbleUpon | Netscape | Google |
Comments
See the first sentence.
Posted by: Diane on 02/17/07 at 8:20 PM
I'm confused. Congress wouldn't give anybody in the federal government authority to regulate chemical security for 4 years after 911, but now they have done so. Doesn't that mean that the industry will actually be regulated now? Is that because this guy was at Homeland Security that the industry is now regulated, or do I have that backwards. He left, and now the government has authority to regulate?
Posted by: Nigel on 03/02/07 at 11:23 AM
ARCHIVE
September 9, 2007 - September 15, 2007
September 2, 2007 - September 8, 2007
August 26, 2007 - September 1, 2007
August 19, 2007 - August 25, 2007
August 12, 2007 - August 18, 2007
August 5, 2007 - August 11, 2007
July 29, 2007 - August 4, 2007
April 22, 2007 - April 28, 2007
April 15, 2007 - April 21, 2007
April 8, 2007 - April 14, 2007
March 25, 2007 - March 31, 2007
March 18, 2007 - March 24, 2007
March 11, 2007 - March 17, 2007
March 4, 2007 - March 10, 2007
February 25, 2007 - March 3, 2007
February 18, 2007 - February 24, 2007
February 11, 2007 - February 17, 2007
February 4, 2007 - February 10, 2007
January 28, 2007 - February 3, 2007
January 21, 2007 - January 27, 2007
January 14, 2007 - January 20, 2007
RECENT COMMENTS
The Petraeus/Crocker Report: It's Crocker Time! (Part Three) (1)
Ames Tideman wrote:
The testimony was a complete mess. ...
[more]
Scientific Proof That Liberals Are Smarter (4)
MoonDragon wrote:
Can we bias any study to show a tendency for desired resul...
[more]
Protesters in Berkeley: Up a Tree and Fenced In (13)
Brian K wrote:
Kirilovslogic,
Wow. Im not talking about sucking up to th...
[more]
NRA Offers Free Memberships to Soldiers (Step Up, Costco) (17)
Brian K wrote:
Sneezer,
First of all it is NOT his "topic sentance" it is...
[more]
MoveOn, Anbar, and Lantos: Final Thoughts on the Petraeus and Crocker Hearing (1)
Eric Ferguson wrote:
You're not too deep in the weeds on that point about Irani...
[more]
Chuck Hagel, Next SecDef? (4)
bob t wrote:
Wes Clark(Catholic) would be my first choice, but Hagel co...
[more]
Scientific Proof That Liberals Are Not Smarter (4)
Eric Ferguson wrote:
The message intended was a good one, because Petraeus has ...
[more]
Happy Anniversary, Katrina Victims! You Could Celebrate With Cash if You Weren't So Unscrupulous (5)
jah wrote:
I was annoyed by your title, but i understand and relate t...
[more]
White House Advisor Appears to Taunt Bin Laden (10)
Jaime Galarza wrote:
It reminds me of the now infamous "Bring them on" comment....
[more]
Donald Rumsfeld: Not Done Lying! (3)
Jonathan Stein wrote:
Yes, Dan....
[more]
Movable Type 3.33
Did this article forget to mention that Philip Perry is Dick Cheney's son-in-law?
OH! Well, *that* explains it.
Never tiring in their fight for evil.
Posted by: LizDexic on 02/17/07 at 6:16 PM