You are on page 1of 3

OBP004965

From: (b) (6)


To: (b) (6) GIDDENS, GREGORY; Adams, Rowdy D; (b) (6)
Cc: (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Conversation with OCA re: Hidalgo
Date: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 6:31:43 PM

I think it would be helpful to separate out the purely legal issues (e.g. statutory analysis of existing
CBP, Corps [and IBWC] legal authorities) and the project/business issues (e.g. advisability of 2
contractors or using the Corps) when we talk about this tomorrow. It is hard for me to follow which is
which based on the discussion below.

From: (b) (6)


Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 5:35 PM
To: (b) (6) GIDDENS, GREGORY; Adams, Rowdy D; (b) (6)

Cc: (b) (6)


Subject: RE: Conversation with OCA re: Hidalgo

(b) (6) (b) (5)

From: VAIL, BARBARA H [mailto:barbara.vail@dhs.gov]


Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 5:06 PM
To: BELLOCCHI, LUKE; GIDDENS, GREGORY; Adams, Rowdy D; VAIL, BARBARA H; HIGHSMITH,
ANNMARIE; Mcgill, Kanon; SCUDDER, RYAN J; Bingel, Thad; PAGAN, DAVID G.- HQ
Cc: BLOXSOME, JEFFREY S
Subject: RE: Conversation with OCA re: Hidalgo

(b) (b) (5)

(b) (5)

I’m happy to discuss.


-(b) (6)
OBP004966

(b) (6)
Office of Chief Counsel
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(b) (6)
(b) (6) fax

ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED/ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT


This communication might contain communications between attorney and client, communications that are part of the agency
deliberative process, or attorney -work product, all of which are privileged and not subject to disclosure outside the agency or to the
public. Please consult with the Office of Chief Counsel, U.S. Customs and Border Protection before disclosing any information
contained in this email.

From: (b) (6)


Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 4:33 PM
To: GIDDENS, GREGORY; Adams, Rowdy D; (b) (6)

Subject: RE: Conversation with OCA re: Hidalgo

Greg, That email got spelled checked wrong – I did not mean or intend ever to stop pending
legislation – there is no pending legislation. I did say everyone on the Hill thinks it would be
impossible to get a bill passed in the Senate with a Hidalgo provision, passed in the House,
conferenced between the 2 chambers, and signed by the President by the end of March…
That’s even if such a provision wasn’t controversial, which it probably will be.

My email was intended to get on the same page re whether we asked the Corps to build the
fence/ levee – apparently, the Corp has authority to provide grants where we cannot – it
solves the legislative problem if we simply make an agreement with the corps to construct.
(b) (6) our conversation yesterday seemed to confirm this (and I know the (b) (6) is still
in the Artic), but can we get on the same page on this? Would this indeed solve the
problem? I believe (b) (6) wanted to ask SBI whether we have ever asked the Corp to do
this.
(b) (6) have you gotten any further on your research? The client here is CBP of course.

Thanks,(b) (6)

From: GIDDENS, GREGORY [mailto:GREGORY.Giddens@dhs.gov]


Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 4:11 PM
To: (b) (6)
Cc: Adams, Rowdy D
Subject: Fw: Conversation with OCA re: Hidalgo
Importance: High

(b) ,
Do not stop the legislation. We explored all the options already.
(6)
After that, we went through CBP to DHS and S1 on the need for the legislative remedy. Without the fix, we will
not have the levee fence.

Greg G

------Original Message------
From: (b) (6)
To: 'FLOSSMAN, LOREN W'
OBP004967

Cc: Greg GIDDENS


Cc: ADAMS, ROWDY D
Sent: Mar 4, 2008 2:01 PM
Subject: FW: Conversation with OCA re: Hidalgo

Loren –

Please hold. This is a bit out of hand….Greg is engaging.

(b) (6)

_____________________________________________
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 2:00 PM
To: ADAMS, ROWDY D; GIDDENS, GREGORY
Subject: FW: Conversation with OCA re: Hidalgo
Importance: High

OK…it’s worse than I thought. I think he says here he stopped the legislation.

(b) (6)

_____________________________________________
From: (b) (6)
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 1:09 PM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: Conversation with OCA re: Hidalgo
Importance: High

. <<RE: Border Security Technology Legislation>> (b) (6) See below email from (b) (6) and attached
email.