Dianne Feinstein: “Both these letters, Mr. President, make a strong case and, to me, a convincing case that the current $12 million…”

“Both these letters, Mr. President, make a strong case and, to me, a convincing case that the current $12 million proposal to construct a triple-fence barrier along the entire 14-mile stretch is not feasible, and would not accomplish the intended goals, and could pose safety risks for Border Patrol agents. The INS argues that some border areas are not suitable for multiple fences and are not sealed off by a single barrier because of the steep terrain. They made the case that it would be difficult if not impossible to erect a triple fence in these areas at below a cost of $110 million--far above the $12 million in this proposal. This, to me, is overly expensive and a waste of taxpayer money. The INS and Border Patrol argue that a triple fence running for 14½ miles would be dangerous and ineffective. Now, what this amendment does is present a sensible, cost-effective substitute for the triple fence concept. It has the strong support of the INS, the Border Patrol, and the National Border Patrol Council. Essentially, what the amendment would do is authorize $12 million for construction of a vitally needed all-weather road system along the border.”