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

22–193 PDF 2005

S. Hrg. 109–197

NOMINATION OF HON. PHILIP J. PERRY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON THE

NOMINATION OF HON. PHILIP J. PERRY TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL OF 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

MAY 19, 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 

JENNIFER A. HEMINGWAY, Professional Staff Member 

JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Minority Staff Director and Counsel 

ADAM R. SEDGEWICK, Minority Professional Staff Member 

TRINA D. TYRER, Chief Clerk 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

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

Senator Warner ................................................................................................ 12

WITNESS 

THURSDAY, MAY 19, 2005

Hon. Philip J. Perry to be General Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15

Biographical and financial information .......................................................... 17

Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 23

Responses to post-hearing questions .............................................................. 67

(1)

NOMINATION OF HON. PHILIP J. PERRY 

THURSDAY, MAY 19, 2005

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m. in room 

SD–562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Susan M. Collins, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Collins and Warner. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN COLLINS 

Chairman COLLINS. The Committee will come to order. Good 

morning. 

Mr. PERRY. Good morning. 

Chairman COLLINS. This morning, the Committee will consider 

the nomination of Philip J. Perry to be General Counsel of the Department of Homeland Security. This is a vitally important position, and Mr. Perry brings impressive credentials to this post. 

If confirmed, Mr. Perry will serve as the chief legal advisor to the 

Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. As General 

Counsel, he and his staff will help to ensure that the Department’s 

activities fully comply with all legal requirements and that the Department’s efforts to secure America’s safety also protect the civil 

liberties of the American people. 

As the chief legal officer of the Department, the General Counsel 

oversees the legal work in virtually all DHS Directorates and component agencies, such as the Secret Service, the Coast Guard, Border and Transportation Security, Emergency Preparedness and Response, and the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. 

This is truly a formidable charge and a great deal of responsibility. 

Mr. Perry has already demonstrated his commitment to public 

service, having served our Nation for nearly 3 years as General 

Counsel of the Office of Management and Budget. 

In that role, Mr. Perry oversaw White House clearance of Federal 

regulations, addressed significant matters on the Justice Department’s civil litigation docket, formulated Executive Orders, developed and implemented White House policy initiatives, and advised 

the President and the Director of OMB on regulatory and budget 

matters. 

A key part of his job was to mediate interagency disputes. I believe that experience will serve him well in his new position because, as we all know, the agencies that comprise the Department 

of Homeland Security often have disputes with one another. 

2

1The biographical and financial information appears in the Appendix on page 17. 

Prior to serving at the White House, Mr. Perry was Acting Associate Attorney General at the Department of Justice, the Department’s third-ranking official. 

While at Justice, Mr. Perry oversaw the Department’s five civil 

litigation divisions, and had a supervisory role in important environmental, civil rights, and antitrust cases. 

In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, Mr. Perry advised the 

Attorney General on legal issues arising from the attacks and the 

war on terrorism, including the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund. 

And, of course, we are very proud of the fact that Mr. Perry 

served this Committee in 1997 during our special investigation of 

campaign finance abuses during the 1996 presidential election. 

That was when I first had the opportunity to meet Mr. Perry for 

the first time. 

So, Mr. Perry, we welcome you back to your old Committee and 

we look forward to working with you. As you know, this Committee’s jurisdiction has been broadened since you worked here. It now 

has responsibility for the Department of Homeland Security, so we 

anticipate working very closely with you. 

I know that Senator Warner is eager to introduce you. I am 

going to proceed and then when the Senator comes, we will break 

and have him introduce you and then resume the questioning. 

Mr. Perry has filed responses to biographical and financial questionnaires, answered pre-hearing questions submitted by the Committee, and has had his financial statements reviewed by the Office 

of Government Ethics. 

Without objection, this information will be made part of the hearing record with the exception of the financial data which are on file 

and available for public inspection in the Committee offices.1

I know, Mr. Perry, that you are blessed to have your family with 

you today and what a wonderful family it is indeed. 

At this point, before I proceed to swear you in, I would like to 

give you the opportunity to introduce your family to the Committee. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. 

My wife, Liz, is directly behind me and then our 5-year-old Grace 

beside her, our 7-year-old Elizabeth, and our nearly 11-year-old 

Kate is here. We also have a boy at home. He is 10 months. He 

is not quite ready for prime time. 

Chairman COLLINS. Well, girls, we welcome you to this hearing 

today. I know you must be so proud of your dad. He has been nominated by the President for a very important position. So I am really 

happy that you have the opportunity to see him today. It is really 

nice to have you here. We also welcome your mom. 

When your brother is a little bit older, you can tell him how exciting it was to watch your father go through his confirmation 

hearing. Will you remember this day so that you can describe it to 

your brother? 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Mr. Perry, all of the nominees that come before this Committee are required to give their testimony under 

3

1The prepared statement of Mr. Perry appears in the Appendix on page 15. 

Pre-hearing questionnare of Mr. Perry appears in the Appendix on page 23. 

Post-hearing questions for Mr. Perry appears in the Appendix on page 67. 

oath, so we would ask that you please stand and raise your right 

hand. 

Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. PERRY. I do. 

Chairman COLLINS. I would now ask you to proceed with any remarks that you might have. 

TESTIMONY OF PHILIP J. PERRY,1 TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. PERRY. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Collins. I am 

honored to appear before you today. 

I also want to thank Secretary Chertoff and the Members of the 

Committee, and in advance thank Senator Warner who I know will 

be here in a little while. 

I have known the Secretary for nearly 10 years. We are partners 

in the same law firm and we were both working in the Department 

of Justice on September 11. It would be my privilege, if confirmed, 

to work with him and the many thousands of other dedicated men 

and women in the Department to preserve an America that is safe, 

secure, and free. 

I agree with both the President and the Secretary that winning 

the war on terror is the great calling of our generation. I know that 

an effective Department of Homeland Security is critical to that effort. 

I had an opportunity first as Acting Associate Attorney General 

and later as General Counsel of OMB to address homeland security 

issues in the aftermath of September 11. I would be honored to rejoin the effort now to protect our Nation. 

I also recognize the Department’s obligation to preserve our freedom, to defend American liberty with courage and determination. 

If confirmed, I would commit myself to preserving our civil liberties 

while pursuing security and to helping the Department address important issues of privacy. 

Although the General Counsel is the Department’s chief legal officer, I believe that the role of General Counsel extends beyond 

merely interpreting and applying the law. The General Counsel 

must also create an effective and efficient mechanism for promulgating Department regulations, addressing bureaucratic hurdles, 

and speeding implementation of the Department’s programs. 

The Office of General Counsel has the ability and the obligation 

to pull separate Department components together to address 

shared problems and to forge Department-wide solutions that draw 

on the authorities and capabilities of each component. The office 

should be a tool for unifying the Department and for accomplishing 

its broad mission. 

I am also committed to developing a close and cooperative working relationship with this Committee and with the Congress. As 

you mentioned, I had the privilege of serving as counsel to this 

Committee in 1997, and I think the perspective I gained from that 

4

service should help me create a constructive and cooperative department approach to congressional oversight and to the types of 

issues that sometimes divide us. 

Finally, I would like to thank Joe Whitley who has served since 

2003 as the first General Counsel of the Department of Homeland 

Security. When he took the job, he found a newly minted Department with more than 1,400 lawyers spread out among 22 separate 

organizations. He has done admirable work in pulling those disparate pieces together and creating a cohesive legal organization. 

If confirmed, I hope to build on the foundation he established. Although I cannot promise perfection, I promise to work tirelessly to 

help fulfill the Department’s mission and to serve the Secretary, 

the President, and the American people. 

I would be very pleased to answer any questions you have. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you very much for your statement. 

You mentioned in your testimony the importance of working 

closely with this Committee. And as I indicated to you, this Committee does have new jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security beyond what we had initially. 

We have, however, had an uneven relationship with the Department with regard to the provision of information in response to the 

Committee’s request. 

Under what circumstances do you believe the Department of 

Homeland Security may withhold information from Congress when 

it is exercising its oversight functions? 

Mr. PERRY. Well, thank you for that question, Chairman Collins, 

because it is an issue I want to address. I have given it some considerable degree of thought. 

And aside from the executive privilege issues and similar issues, 

I think we ought to be able to cooperate and have a constructive 

relationship. 

And as I mentioned a moment ago, the fact that I have served 

both with this Committee in its prior life in 1997 and served as an 

Executive Branch General Counsel, I think, gives me the perspective on how to accomplish an effective relationship between the 

Committee and the Department, how to work together to accomplish the ends that you are seeking to accomplish and at the same 

time address the Executive Branch concerns. 

I have worked with your staff before and I think that we ought 

to be able to work many issues out that have previously been problems. And I hope to have an opportunity to do that. 

Chairman COLLINS. It does give me a great deal of comfort that 

you have experienced the difficulties in getting information from 

the Executive Branch as a Member of this Committee’s staff. And 

I know that my Chief Counsel and Staff Director, Michael Bopp, 

speaks very highly of you and has assured me that you will bring 

a different perspective. 

Our Committee has been investigating the naturalization of suspected terrorists for about a year now. Yet, despite the importance 

of that subject, we have had an exceedingly difficult time in being 

allowed to interview DHS employees who worked on one of the particular cases that we are examining as a case study. 

5

Do you believe that a Federal agency may refuse a congressional 

request to interview a Department employee solely on the grounds 

that the employee is, ‘‘a line employee?’’

Mr. PERRY. Well, I am not familiar obviously since I have not 

been serving as the General Counsel of DHS with the policies DHS 

employs in that regard. 

I can say that when I served at the Department of Justice, I had 

some basic familiarity with those policies and know that they principally relate to making sure that you do not have political influence, whether from the White House or from other Executive 

Branch agencies or even from Congress, in an ongoing criminal 

proceeding, whether it is a criminal investigation or prosecutorial 

proceeding. 

I do not know exactly how that policy would translate to the Department yet because I have not gone and done a review of each 

of the Department’s functions, CBP and ICE and so forth. And I 

think I would need to do a review like that to articulate a really 

clear answer to your question. 

I think, though, calling back to my comments a moment ago, I 

think we can find ways to work through these issues. And given 

the fact that, as you mentioned, Mr. Bopp and I have some experience working together in the past, I believe that we can find some 

ways to address these things that are satisfactory both to the Committee and serve our needs in the Department. 

Chairman COLLINS. You know, in many cases, it is a matter of 

just good will and negotiation. A lot of times, the issues can be 

worked out. The information requests can be more focused. Individuals can be provided who can give us the information we need. 

My point to you is that this has been a lingering concern in this 

Committee, and I hope that you will take a close look at it. 

Mr. PERRY. I certainly will. 

Chairman COLLINS. We had another example just yesterday. The 

Committee held a hearing on FEMA’s role in responding to hurricane damage in Florida last year, at which the DHS Office of Inspector General released a report on this issue. 

I mention this to you because at the request of the General 

Counsel of DHS, the Inspector General redacted information concerning some important issues. The General Counsel cited executive privilege in requesting the redaction of the material. 

I know you were not involved at all in this decision, and I am 

not asking your opinion on that or to comment on it specifically. 

Instead, I want to ask you about the larger issue which is of great 

concern to me, that the Department of Homeland Security would 

deny Congress and the public access to information ostensively on 

the basis of executive privilege when we have no reason to believe 

that the standards required to invoke privilege, namely invocation 

by the President directly, have been met. 

Therefore, I would like to get a sense from you under what circumstances you think that executive privilege should be invoked to 

deny Congress access to the information it seeks. 

Mr. PERRY. Well, I think you are right that the executive privilege is the President’s to invoke and it should not be used in a liberal fashion. It should be used in a very careful way. And I am obVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:09 Dec 06, 2005 Jkt 022193 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\22193.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
6

viously not familiar with the individual circumstances you are addressing here in the predicate to your question. 

I would be very careful about making those types of claims. I do 

not think they should be made often. I think they should be made 

with great care. And as I mentioned a moment ago, absent that 

type of legitimate claim, I think we ought to be able to find solutions to many of those types of issues where you need documents 

or testimony or other types of assistance, and we have other collateral concerns that we can resolve with you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Speaking of the Inspectors General, that is 

also part of this Committee’s jurisdiction, to perform oversight on 

the Inspectors General themselves and the act. We work very closely with the Inspectors General of various departments. Not every 

Department and not every General Counsel’s office welcomes the 

role of the Inspector General. 

Could you tell us if you are confirmed what you will do as DHS’s 

General Counsel to make sure that the Inspector General receives 

the support from the component agencies so that he or she can perform the vital functions that Congress expects? 

Mr. PERRY. Sure. I have sat down with the Inspector General 

nominee who was actually also the acting Inspector General at that 

time, Mr. Skinner, and had a very nice chat. And I would anticipate if confirmed having an open relationship with him such that 

we share information and that I support his efforts. 

To be more specific, it is my view that the Inspector General’s 

authority is a very important piece of our tool box for managing 

problems in the Department and it allows you to see into different 

areas of the Department, whether the management structure, the 

Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and some of the under secretaries, 

would not normally have a view. 

So if you fail as leadership in the Department to have a close 

working relationship, a cooperative relationship with the Inspector 

General, you are going to lose one of the tools that is necessary for 

managing the Department. 

So to answer your question specifically, I would have an open 

channel of communication and hopefully a close working relationship with the Inspector General. 

Chairman COLLINS. I am pleased to hear that. 

Mr. Perry, earlier this year, the Committee began oversight hearings on the Department. Our goal ultimately is to do a reauthorization bill. I have had conversations with Secretary Chertoff, and am 

awaiting the results of his review. I know that he has already identified some issues that will require changes in the underlying law. 

We heard from experts from the Heritage Foundation, the RAND 

Corporation, the Council on Foreign Relations, and The Brookings 

Institution with differing views on the Department and its performance today. 

I think that even the Department’s strongest critics would concede that the Department has accomplished a great deal since it 

was first operational 2 years ago. I think also, on the other hand, 

that the Department’s staunchest defenders would concede that 

there have been some problems. 

7

How do you plan as General Counsel to address the challenges 

facing the Department? What are some of your priorities as you 

take on this role? 

Mr. PERRY. Well, I would certainly follow the Secretary’s lead on 

many things. But personally I have three priorities that I have 

identified to date. 

We need to speed up our regulatory review process. We need to 

get regulations out in a prompt way. We need to get the process 

moving that relies on those regulations. And so as an initial matter, there are a number of steps I think we could take to make that 

process work better. 

Also it has certainly been in the press recently that we need, as 

a Department, to do a better job of responding to Congress generally and specifically to congressional oversight. There are reports 

that we need to be more prompt in delivering. We need to respond 

better to requests for information. We need to have more cooperative relationships. So that is item two. 

Item three would be to improve the role of the General Counsel’s 

Office in unifying the Department across different authorities and 

different components. Just in terms of serving as a consultant to 

the Department so far, I have already seen a couple occasions 

where an authority in one component could be of great use to another component, but the components are not speaking and have 

not begun to understand what could be done with their sister components. 

I think the General Counsel’s Office is one place where you could 

actually bring those types of unifying activities to bear and actually 

make some progress. 

So those are the three initial thoughts I would have. And if confirmed, certainly I would study the office and the Department more 

generally and follow the Secretary’s lead. 

Chairman COLLINS. One of the issues that this Committee is focused on is the vulnerability of our Nation’s chemical facilities. One 

of our witnesses who formerly worked at the White House said that 

this should be the No. 1 priority of the Department, and that there 

has not been enough done to protect chemical facilities. 

Several witnesses testified at the first hearing that we had on 

chemical security that strong Federal legislation was needed to ensure security at chemical facilities nationwide. The industry has a 

lot of voluntary codes and it has made some great progress in some 

cases, but those codes are voluntary. 

I want to ask you in your role as General Counsel whether you 

believe that DHS has sufficient statutory authority now to regulate 

the security of chemical facilities. 

Mr. PERRY. I don’t have a firm conclusion on that yet, but I can 

tell you what I would look at in order to reach a conclusion. 

First, of course, there is the U.S. Coast Guard’s authority under 

their MTSA which applies to certain plants located near waterways. 

Second, there is the Department of Transportation and TSA’s authority to regulate the transportation by rail or truck or by other 

means which could apply in some circumstances in a way that relates to chemical facilities. 

8

And, third, there is, of course, EPA authority which has been in 

the press off and on to address accidental releases. And that might 

have some role to play in the broader picture, too. 

But the fourth thing I think I would need to do is understand 

what progress we have made to date, meaning the Department and 

particularly the infrastructure protection people within the Department, to understand where industry has gone with the Department’s direction and to make sure that if you were to proceed with 

a legislative package or even a regulatory package, you would be 

building on the progress that they have already made. 

So those are the steps I would take. And I would have to run 

through those steps and complete that examination before reaching 

a conclusion. 

Chairman COLLINS. This is an issue of great interest to this 

Committee, so we look forward to working with you on that. There 

are issues involving whether EPA has sufficient authority. 

I personally believe that when we are talking about security that 

it is not a function that EPA should be involved in but rather is 

a more appropriate role for the Department of Homeland Security 

that does not ignore the important environmental safety role that 

the EPA places with regard to chemical security. 

But we are talking about making these facilities safer from a terrorism attack perspective. So we look forward to working with you 

on that. 

Mr. PERRY. I would be pleased to. 

Chairman COLLINS. I now would like to turn to the issue of intelligence. As you know, Senator Lieberman and I authored an intelligence reform bill that makes the most sweeping reforms in our intelligence structures in more than 50 years. The President signed 

that into law last December. 

The legislation designates a National Counter-Terrorism Center 

as the primary organization in the Executive Branch for analyzing 

and integrating all intelligence concerning counter-terrorism. As we 

all know, the 9/11 Commission identified several serious communication gaps. The concept behind the center is to bring together 

the expertise of 15 agencies to work together to make sure that information is pooled and expertise is shared. 

How will you ensure that the Department provides the necessary 

intelligence and otherwise works to ensure that the National 

Counter-Terrorism Center fulfills its mandate under the Intelligence Reform Act? 

Mr. PERRY. It is a fascinating topic. And I know the Secretary 

has been very clear with the Department so far that he is going 

to require strict adherence with his policy of cooperation with the 

DNI. He has been crystal clear on that. And part of my role would 

be to assist him in that effort. 

I will note also that DHS is an interesting entity because it is 

a source, many of the components are sources of intelligence that 

are important, that as a member of the intelligence community, we 

have to make sure we can share with the intelligence community. 

And, of course, those include the Coast Guard and CBP, ICE, TSA, 

Secret Service, and CIS. 

9

So there is a critical role to play for the Department in any intelligence effort. But I think it is critical to make sure that we obey 

the Secretary’s dictate and cooperate with the DNI. 

Chairman COLLINS. There has also been a lack of clarity about 

the role of the Information Analysis Office within the Department 

and how it relates as far as information sharing with the FBI, with 

State, local, and tribal governments. 

How do you articulate the roles, missions, and authorities of the 

Information Analysis Office regarding other intelligence offices 

within DHS and across the Executive Branch? 

Mr. PERRY. Well, there are two pieces, I think, to my answer. 

First, it is clear in the Homeland Security Act that the Secretary, 

and, therefore I, have the opportunity and the power to gather information from other entities within the government. 

Now, focusing specifically within the Department, I think I ought 

to have a coordinating role among all the entities we mentioned a 

moment ago, Coast Guard, CBP, ICE, TSA, Secret Service, and 

CIS, to produce a product for the intelligence community generally, 

and for the DNI, that is helpful. 

Chairman COLLINS. As we seek to expand information and intelligence gathering across the Federal Government, we must do so in 

a way that is ever mindful of civil liberties and privacy. 

I was very pleased to see the answer to your written questions 

in which you indicated that vigilance in protecting Americans’ fundamental liberties and privacy is a critical piece of the Department’s mission. 

In that regard, I want to bring to your attention that the intelligence bill set up a new Civil Liberties and Privacy Board, and we 

are having some difficulty in seeing that board get underway, get 

funded appropriately. The President has yet to appoint the chairman or vice chairman of that board. 

How do you see the Department interacting with the new Civil 

Liberties and Privacy Board? 

Mr. PERRY. Well, I am certainly not privy to how the White 

House is addressing that now, and I know that they are working 

on it. I am just not sure where it is in the process. 

I have had some, I think, very productive conversations with 

Nuala O’Connor Kelly who is the privacy officer within the Department. And I think based on my understanding of how she has operated in her role, that may be a model for how the privacy operations generally across the government may work. 

I would like to seek her counsel on how to deal with the board. 

I think she has got terrific expertise and knowledge in the privacy 

area. And so the first stop I would make if confirmed to address 

issues that come before the board is to talk to her. 

Chairman COLLINS. I hope you will work closely because, for example, as the Department develops its passenger screening programs more, if you have the input from a civil liberties privacy perspective, I think it will save a lot of problems down the line. 

I would now like to turn to two issues that are of particular importance to the State of Maine. 

Last month the Department of Homeland Security announced 

plans to implement the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative that 

requires DHS in consultation with the State Department to impleVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:09 Dec 06, 2005 Jkt 022193 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\22193.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
10

ment a plan requiring U.S. citizens and aliens to present a passport or document sufficient to denote citizenship and identity for 

travel into the United States from western hemisphere countries. 

In developing this plan, it is absolutely critical that the Department strike the right balance. I am from northern Maine originally, 

so I know firsthand what this entails. Every single day in border 

communities in Maine, people cross over to Canada to shop, to 

work, and to visit families. 

We even have situations in some parts of Maine where the Americans’ houses are on obviously our side of the border, but all the 

services from hospitals to churches to grocery stores are on the Canadian side of the border. 

I have a Canadian sister-in-law whose family still lives in Canada, and she takes her four children frequently to visit her mother. 

Since September 11, those ordinary daily back and forth exchanges have become far more complicated for people living in border communities. There is a lot of concern that the Department is 

going to require passports for people who travel every day back and 

forth. 

We have Canadian nurses, for example, who work on the American side in a Maine hospital who every single workday are crossing the border. 

To address those concerns, I was very careful to include in the 

Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act provisions directing the Department to take into account the interests and concerns of people living in border communities and also to expedite 

the travel of frequent travelers. 

The Secretary has been given clear authority to develop procedures for alternatives to passports. Yet, the initial indications that 

we are getting from the Department suggest that very few documents would be deemed acceptable in lieu of a passport. 

As you work toward implementation of this, I am going to ask 

you to keep in mind the practical realities and that we do not want 

to impede the legitimate flow of legitimate people and commerce by 

imposing a system that is going to be burdensome and costly. 

Would you comment on that? 

Mr. PERRY. Sure. I have not been involved in this to date, but 

I understand your point that we need to be sensitive to the needs 

of the cross-border communities. And that is indeed what I think 

the Department will have to do through its notice and comment 

process, through its consultations, and through all the other activities that it undertakes to evaluate what ought to be the alternative 

forms of identification to a passport that can be used. 

I would commit to spending any time necessary to look at this 

issue if I am confirmed. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. I do want to work closely to come 

up with a practical solution, and I may drag you to northern Maine 

and show you the realities if we cannot come up with a good system. It is a lovely place to visit I hasten to say. 

Mr. PERRY. I would be pleased to do that. 

Chairman COLLINS. The second issue that is of great concern to 

my State involves the manufactured housing industry. The North 

American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA, permits Canadian transportation operators to enter the United States as B–1 visitors in 

11

order to transport and deliver what is known as international cargo 

such as manufactured or modular homes. 

These workers are also permitted under Department policy to 

take part in activities that are necessary incidents in the term of 

this delivery. However, they are not supposed to be performing 

building and construction work while they are in the United States. 

Now, what I am being told by the Maine manufacturing home industry is that some Canadian workers are routinely given the permit to enter as B–1 visitors, but then they are engaging in activities that really cross the line and are not really a function of delivery. They, in fact, qualify as construction. 

That violates our immigration laws. It is unfair to workers in 

Maine. And it places them in direct competition with American 

workers. 

My office has met with CBP officials many times about it. We 

have brought together industry representatives, and as a result, 

the agency has agreed to review its policy. 

But this is an issue that I would again ask you to monitor and 

to seek to clarify the scope of permissible activity for Canadian 

workers who are coming in for this purpose. 

Mr. PERRY. I will. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Mr. Perry, I appreciate very 

much your being here today. 

There will be some additional questions for the record from other 

Members of the Committee. And without objection, the record will 

be kept open until 5 p.m. today for the submission of any additional materials. 

Let me conclude this hearing by thanking you for your willingness to once again step forward and serve your country. I have a 

great deal of admiration for people who make sacrifices and give 

up lucrative private sector work in order to serve their country. 

As you said at the very beginning of your statement, there is no 

greater challenge that our country faces than the war on terrorism 

and strengthening the security of our homeland. 

So I very much appreciate your willingness to once again step 

forward and serve, and I personally look forward to working very 

closely with you. 

Mr. PERRY. Well, thank you very much. I am honored to be nominated by the President. I am honored to appear before you. I would 

be honored to work with you. 

Chairman COLLINS. And, fortunately, Senator Warner has just 

arrived right at the moment. 

So, Senator Warner, we are very pleased to have you here. I told 

Mr. Perry that your endorsement carries great weight with this 

Chairman and with this Committee and we very much appreciate 

it. 

Senator WARNER. Well, maybe we better stop while we are 

ahead. [Laughter.] 

But this is a pleasure for me. Sorry to be a little late, but I think 

you changed your time and one thing and another. 

Chairman COLLINS. I do not believe so, but we are happy to have 

you here. 

12

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WARNER 

Senator WARNER. Again, Madam Chairman, this wonderful nominee has already served as General Counsel to the Office of Management and Budget and in numerous positions at the Department of 

Justice, including Principal Associate Attorney General. 

Professional experience also includes service in the Executive Office of the President, as an attorney in private practice, and even 

time as counsel to this Committee. So he is a member of the Senate 

family and that is very important. 

All of these roles have prepared him very well for the significant 

new challenge ahead providing an understanding of both the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch. 

The post-September 11 world has changed the way the Federal 

Government works. Mr. Perry’s role both at the Department of Justice and OMB were both during the new period of homeland security we know so well. 

I recently spent some time with Phil and we spoke about the difficulty of continuing to advance the missions of the DHS at a time 

when there will be some growing pains, particularly under the new 

management. 

So I applaud his willingness and applaud the President for the 

nomination. I applaud his family most of all because we know the 

heavy burdens of office that he will have in this new position. 

So I strongly urge that this Committee endorse him by unanimous consent, and send his name to the floor, and let him get to 

work.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR WARNER 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. One of our greatest responsibilities as Members 

of the U.S. Senate is to provide advice and consent regarding the President’s nominees for Executive Branch positions. Already this year this Committee has seen two 

wonderful nominees to lead the Department of Homeland Security. Today, I have 

the pleasure to introduce the third. 

The role of any agency’s Counsel is to provide legal advice and counsel to the Secretary in order to further the mission of that Department. The nominee must be 

one with a strong legal background, the ability to manage staff and myriad priorities, and ultimately hold the agency accountable for responsible government. The 

challenge at the Department of Homeland Security is heightened by the fact that 

this Secretariat is still in its formative stages and the Congress continues to mold 

the laws governing our Nation in the post-September 11 world. 

Today, I have the pleasure to introduce Philip Perry as the President’s nominee 

to be the General Counsel of the Department of Homeland Security. Today he has 

with him his family who I would like to recognize at this time. 

Wife: Elizabeth Cheney Perry, children: Katherine, 10; Elizabeth, 7; Grace, 5; and 

Philip, 9 months. 

He has already served as General Counsel of the Office of Management and Budget and in numerous positions at the Department of Justice, including Principal Associate Attorney General. His professional experience also includes service in the 

Executive Office of the President, as an attorney in private practice, and even time 

as Counsel to this Committee. All of these roles have prepared him well for the significant new challenge ahead providing an understanding of both the Executive 

Branch and the Legislative Branch. 

The post-September 11 world has changed the way the Federal Government 

works. Mr. Perry’s roles at both the Department of Justice and OMB were both during the new paradigm of Homeland Security we now know so well. I recently spent 

some time with Phil and we spoke about the difficulty of continuing to advance the 

mission of DHS in a time where there will be some growing pains—New management, a new Congress, and the new laws and regulations that go along with those 

changes. He is ready, willing, and able to get to work. I applaud his willingness to 

serve this President, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the American people 

13

and urge the Committee to quickly report his nomination to the full Senate so that 

we are able to get him to work.

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. And we very much appreciate 

your taking the time to be here today. 

Senator WARNER. Certainly. 

Chairman COLLINS. I want to thank our witness for appearing 

before us, and I want to thank his family for being here. 

And this hearing is now adjourned. 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 10:13 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(15)

A P P E N D I X 


22193.001
16


22193.002
17


22193.003
18


22193.004
19


22193.005
20


22193.006
21


22193.007
22


22193.008
23


22193.009
24


22193.010
25


22193.011
26


22193.012
27


22193.013
28


22193.014
29


22193.015
30


22193.016
31


22193.017
32


22193.018
33


22193.019
34


22193.020
35


22193.021
36


22193.022
37


22193.023
38


22193.024
39


22193.025
40


22193.026
41


22193.027
42


22193.028
43


22193.029
44


22193.030
45


22193.031
46


22193.032
47


22193.033
48


22193.034
49


22193.035
50


22193.036
51


22193.037
52


22193.038
53


22193.039
54


22193.040
55


22193.041
56


22193.042
57


22193.043
58


22193.044
59


22193.045
60


22193.046
61


22193.047
62


22193.048
63


22193.049
64


22193.050
65


22193.051
66


22193.052
67


22193.053
68


22193.054
69


22193.055
70


22193.056
71


22193.057
72


22193.058
73

Æ


22193.059