Both these letters. Mr. President. make a strong case and. to me. a convincing case that the current $12 million proposal to construct a triplefence barrier along the entire 14mile 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 millionfar 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 14 miles would be dangerous and ineffective. Now. what this amendment does is present a sensible. costeffective 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 allweather road system along the border. It would allow for the lowlight television system. more ground sensors and infrared nightvision equipment. It would also provide some flexibility with respect to the border fence itself. I am told that of the 14 mile area. the INS has located eight locations which it has said could be suitable for threetier barriers that range in length from half a mile to 3 miles in length. That totals about 9 miles.
Keywords matched
border fence Border Patrol