Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: FW - Levee-Fence (Redacted) 3
CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: FW - Levee-Fence (Redacted) 3
CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: FW - Levee-Fence (Redacted) 3
Anything to add…?
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) (re)confirmed USACE’s position that they do not have the legal authority to receive funds from
(6)
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.
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
(b)
(6)
_______________________________
(b) (6)
Chief of Staff
Department of Homeland Security
(b) (6)
_______________________________
(b) (6)
Sincerely,
(b) (6)