From: (b) (6)

To: AHERN, JAYSON( P (b) (6) ; AHERN, JAYSON( P; GIDDENS, GREGOR( ;

(b) (6) ADAMS, ROWDY(
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Claims that Army Corp says they can build levee-fence on time and without relief
Date: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 8:08:17 PM

Copy.

That’s good news.

We’re almost there on a solution. I wish they would just hold there fire so we can resolve this.

_______________________________

(b) (6)
Chief of Staff
Department of Homeland Security

(b) (6)
_______________________________

From: AHERN, JAYSON P (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 7:54 PM
To: (b) (6) AHERN, JAYSON P; GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6)
ADAMS, ROWDY D
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Claims that Army Corp says they can build levee-fence on time and without relief

Rowdy Adams just spoke with (b) (6) who is(b) (6) boss and reaffirmed (b) (6) finding
below.

FYI

JA

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 7:41 PM
To: (b) (6) AHERN, JAYSON P; GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Claims that Army Corp says they can build levee-fence on time and without relief

I just spoke with (b) (6) , one of the USACE folks named below. He confirmed my
suspicion: all USACE said to KBH’s staff is that USACE can build for DHS if DHS asks it to in the
same way it builds for us all over the border. This, obviously, is not the end of the issue for the
proposed Hidalgo project since it doesn’t explain how Hidalgo’s funds can be used. On that point,
(b) (6) (re)confirmed USACE’s position that they do not have the legal authority to receive funds from
Hidalgo, nor to provide funds to Hidalgo for a contract. So, in a nutshell, the below email reflects a
significant misunderstanding of the facts and the representations of USACE.

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 7:07 PM
To: (b) (6) AHERN, JAYSON P; GIDDENS, GREGORY; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: KBH: Claims that Army Corp says they can build levee-fence on time and without relief
Importance: High
Senator Hutchison called S1 about this today.

S1 hasn’t been able to connect back with her yet.

This came from her Chief who, as (b) and I discussed, is likely under a lot of pressure from his boss.
(6)
I challenged him to get us actual names and numbers of the Army Corp folks that are claiming 1) no
relief is needed; and 2) the legal options available without leg relief would allow the fence to be build
by the end of 2008.

(b) (6) , please coordinate with (b) to get final ground truth on these conflicting legal views
(6) a final decision tomorrow.
BEFORE we sit down with S1 to make

Please confirm you got this.

(b)
(6)
_______________________________

(b) (6)
Chief of Staff
Department of Homeland Security

(b) (6)
_______________________________

From: (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 4:57 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: levee-fence

(b) (6)

I greatly appreciate your return call, and the Secretary’s

willingness to accept an amicable solution to border security that
allows for local consultation, while also addressing the need for
a new levee in Hidalgo County.

Unfortunately, our conversation confirmed my concern that

information we share with your department does not filter up to
you. Specifically, we have articulated numerous times to
representatives from CBP that a legislative fix is not necessary
and that the Army Corps has promised us that they could
complete the levee-fence by the end of the year if directed by
DHS. Those same assurances have been given directly from
the Army Corps to CBP while we were on a conference call
together, which makes me all the more concerned as to why
they seem to have been withheld from you.
Upon receiving your proposed legislative fix a week after the
Secretary’s meeting with Senator Hutchison, we consulted the
Senate Homeland Security Committee, who has jurisdiction over
the legislation language. They informed us it was “highly
unlikely” that an issue that would require amending the Secure
Fence Act could be even considered this session. Further, the
Committee, through (b) (6) , their CBP detailee, told our
office that the fix appeared unnecessary and the Army Corps
could be tasked to implement this border security measure
consistent with their current authority to carryout border security
infrastructure on behalf of CBP.

More importantly, the Army Corps of Engineers has maintained

that if instructed by DHS they could build the levee-fence within
the time constraints called upon by DHS and Congress. We
have received this confirmation from (b) (6)
of the Ft. Worth District (b) (6) , and (b) (6)
the Army Corps SBI Liaison. They reiterated,
however, that the instruction to move forward rested in the
hands of CBP and CBP’s determination to implement the
Hidalgo County local alternatives.

Further, since the beginning of our discussions, the IBWC, as

owner of the levee, has expressed its preference that the Corps
would be the more suitable project leader, rather than the
county.

Please know that for weeks we have asked for a legal

interpretation as to why a legislative fix is necessary, and we
have yet to receive one from CBP or DHS. Meanwhile,
precious time has been lost and every day that passes without a
solution affects the project’s timeline. I hope you understand my
frustration; every stakeholder except CBP believes a legislative
fix is unnecessary and that, as of now, the project can be
completed on time to ensure your commitment to 370 miles of
pedestrian fence, yet CBP refuses to give us an explanation as
to why we cannot proceed in that fashion.

Sincerely,
(b) (6)