[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 32 (Thursday, February 27, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2984-S2987]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISCHARGE OF GAY LINGUISTS FROM THE MILITARY
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the military's recent
discharge of several linguists who are critically needed in our
Nation's fight against terrorism but who, in the military's eyes, are
unfit for the job because of their sexual orientation. The military's
treatment of these individuals is not only a grave injustice to these
talented men and women who have bravely volunteered to defend our
Nation, but it poses a serious threat to our Nation's preparedness.
After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, our Nation's
security agencies and all branches of the military recognized that they
must increase the recruitment and training of linguists who can speak
and interpret languages such as Arabic, Farsi, Korean, Mandarin
Chinese, and Russian. Understanding these languages is critical to
ensuring our Nation's security. Those who are able to communicate in
these languages can translate communications that may be made by
terrorists or others intent on doing us harm. In fact, a large portion
of the intelligence information retrieved by the U.S. security agencies
currently cannot be translated, hindering the ability of the Federal
Government to protect our country.
According to a study released by the U.S. General Accounting Office
in January 2002, the Army is facing a serious shortfall of linguists in
five of the six languages it categorizes as most critical--Arabic,
Korean, Mandarin Chinese, Farsi, and Russian. The Army has met only 50
percent of its need for linguists who speak Arabic, 63 percent of its
need for Korean speakers, 62 percent of its need for Mandarin Chinese
speakers, 32 percent of its need for Farsi speakers, and 63 percent of
its need for Russian speakers. This leads to a 44 percent total
shortfall in translators and interpreters for 5 of the 6 critical
languages. Furthermore, the Army only has 75 percent of the cryptology
linguists needed who speak Korean and Mandarin Chinese, and has a 13
percent shortfall of Army Human Intelligence Collectors in five of the
languages found to be of critical importance. Spanish is the only
language for which the Army has met its linguist needs.
Although the military faces a crisis in the linguistics field,
linguists with a high level of proficiency in languages determined
critical by the military and security agencies have continued to be
discharged from the Armed Forces simply because they are gay, lesbian,
or bisexual.
In 1993, the military instituted a plan known as ``Don't Ask, Don't
Tell, Don't Pursue, Don't Harass,'' known more commonly as the ``Don't
Ask, Don't Tell'' policy. The basic premise of the ``Don't Ask, Don't
Tell'' policy is that, while military leaders know that gays, lesbians,
and bisexuals have always played an important part in America's
military, homosexual members of the military are not allowed to be
asked about or to tell anyone about their sexual orientation.
Furthermore, the Department of Defense generally cannot conduct
investigations regarding the sexual orientation of service members, and
the Armed Forces has a policy that does not tolerate harassment of
anyone based on perceived or actual homosexuality.
The ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy has been, by most accounts, a
failure. Homosexual military personnel continue to be harassed within
all the branches of the Armed Forces. In fact, according to the
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, SDLN, an advocacy organization
dedicated to aiding gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members who face
discrimination in the armed services, in 2001 the armed services fired
more than 1,250 gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans B more than any
other year since 1987. Furthermore, since the initiation of the ``Don't
Ask, Don't Tell'' policy, more than 7,800 American service members have
lost their jobs because of anti-gay sentiment.
Not only does the ``Don't Ask Don't Tell'' policy needlessly
discriminate against courageous Americans, it also wastes millions in
taxpayer dollars. For example, according to SLDN, the government spent
$36 million to replace gays, lesbians, and bisexuals who were
discharged from the military in 2001. Even more staggering is the fact
that the government has spent over $234 million to train replacements
for homosexual service members since the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell''
policy was enacted in 1993. Thus, instead of using those millions of
dollars on fighting terrorism, the military is spending it to replace
linguists that they already have in their ranks.
Not only does the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy waste time, money
and linguistic skill, it also initiates discrimination against those
who simply want to serve their country. One of these Americans is
Alastair Gamble. He had been in training in Arabic for only a few
months at the Defense Language Institute when the terrorist attacks of
September 11 occurred. After the attacks, he decided that his skills
were needed more than ever. He continued his studies and soon was able
to converse about military operations, economics, and politics in
Arabic. He, however, would not be able to serve his country. Why?
Because he was caught one night in his partner's room after hours.
Though Gamble admits that he broke the military's policy, he states
that many heterosexual couples also broke this same rule on that same
night. The heterosexual couples, however, were only reprimanded. In
stark contrast, Gamble's infraction led to a search of his room where
military officials found evidence that led to the discovery of a
relationship with another officer who was studying Korean at the time.
Soon both Gamble and his partner were dismissed from the Army, and the
American people were denied the service of two young men who were
learning badly needed language skills.
Gamble and his partner are not alone. From October 2001 through
December 2002, seven other linguists specializing in critical languages
were also discharged after telling superiors that they were gay.
Gamble and the eight other linguists should not be treated this way.
It is past time for the U.S. military to modernize its attitudes toward
soldiers' sexual orientation. It is time for the U.S. military to
recognize the contributions of gay, lesbian, and bisexual military
officers and enlisted personnel by allowing them to serve in the Armed
Forces without fear and prejudice. Currently, security organizations
within the United States allow for open service--most notably, the
Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency. These
openly gay men and women serve our country well. In fact, they
sometimes serve along-side military men and women who cannot discuss
their sexual orientation.
Not only do United States intelligence agencies allow for open
service, but many other nations allow open service as well. Some of our
closest allies--Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Australia, the
Czech Republic, Sweden, Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain,
Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Iceland and Italy--allow open service in
their military. In fact, the United States and Turkey are the only two
NATO countries that do not allow open military service for gay men.
[[Page S2985]]
Nations that allow for open military service have not reported any
change in the way the military is run because of their policies.
According to a study by Aaron Belkin, the Director of the Center for
the Study of Sexual Minorities at the University of California, Santa
Barbara, and Jason McNichol, senior officials, commanders, and military
scholars within the Australian Defense Forces consistently praise the
lifting of the gay ban, which occurred in 1992. The report states that
there has been no overall pattern of disruption to the military,
recruitment and retention have not suffered, and military performance
was not affected because of the ban.
In January 2000, Britain too lifted its ban on gays in the military.
According to PlanetOut News, a review of the policy by the British
military, released in late 2000, found that there was no discernable
impact on the military after it lifted the ban.
If some of our closest allies have been successful in allowing open
service in the military, why not the United States?
Our military has been fighting terrorism and may soon go to war
against Iraq. We desperately need the specialized language skills of
our fellow Americans as resources. Our military should cease the
discriminatory and counter-productive policy of discharging competent
military personnel simply because of their sexual orientation. I hope
that this administration will consider the consequences of the decision
to discharge the linguists I have spoken about today and will give gay,
lesbian, and bisexual Americans the chance to serve openly in the
United States military.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to contribute to the public
discourse and national debate we are witnessing with regard to a
potential conflict--if diplomacy fails--with Saddam Hussein's brutal
regime in Iraq. All of our offices have been inundated with calls, e-
mails, and letters from concerned constituents about the consequences
of war with Iraq. It is a timely debate of utmost gravity and
importance. It is the essence of our democracy.
I, for one, have been supportive of our President's policies and
intentions with regard to Iraq. I am firmly convinced that--should our
efforts at the United Nations fail to convince Saddam Hussein to
disarm--we must decisively end the menace that he represents to the
world and to his own people. He has tyrannized his nation, the region
and, indeed, the entire world for over two decades. I am proud that our
President has shown the courage to bring this present and growing
danger to the world's attention. It is not easy to muster the courage,
in the face of widespread apprehension, to confront the truly evil
elements of our global community. It is easier and more popular to
procrastinate and defer decisions.
Our President is a man of principle however, who will not shrink from
the dangers that threaten our Nation. He has carefully laid out a case
against Saddam Hussein and has brought to the attention of the world
the terrible threat this man and his regime represent to our national
and global security. I am proud to stand with him and with my
colleagues who have given the President the authority he needs to
effectively confront Saddam Hussein, with military force, if necessary.
This morning's Washington Post contained a thoughtful editorial on
this important subject: ``Drumbeat on Iraq? A Response to Readers.'' It
is an editorial that captures, in a balanced manner, the essence of the
debate and is, in fact, responsive to the diverse readership of the
Post.
I commend this editorial to my colleagues and my constituents. I
further thank the Washington Post for this thoughtful contribution to
the national debate on this subject. The prospect of conflict is never
a pleasant option. The consequences of inaction in this case are
unacceptable. Our President has enhanced the security and safety of our
Nation by forcefully confronting those who would bring harm to our
shores. We can no longer stand idly by. In the case of Saddam Hussein,
I fully agree with the conclusion of this Washington Post editorial
that, ``. . . a long term peace will be better served by strength than
by concessions.'' We must find the strength, as a nation--hopefully as
an international community--to act if this last chance for diplomacy
fails.
I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Feb. 27, 2003]
``Drumbeat'' On Iraq? A Response To Readers
``I have been a faithful reader of the Washington Post for
almost 10 years,'' a recent e-mail to this page begins,
``Recently, however, I have grown tired of your bias and
endless drumbeating for war in Iraq.'' He's not the only one.
The national and international debate over Saddam Hussein's
weapons of mass destruction, and our editorials in favor of
disarming the dictator, have prompted a torrent of letters,
many approving and many critical. They are for the most part
thoughtful and serious; the antiwar letters in particular are
often angry and anguished as well. ``It is truly depressing
to witness the depths Washington Post editors have reached in
their jingoistic rush to war,'' another reader writes. It's a
serious charge, and it deserves a serious response.
That answer, given the reference to ``Washington Post
editors,'' probably needs to begin with a restatement of the
separation at The Post news and editorial opinion functions.
Those of us who write editorials have no influence over
editors and reporters who cover the news and who are
committed to offering the wariest and most complete
journalism possible about the standoff with Iraq. They in
turn have no influence over us.
For our part, we might begin with that phrase ``rush to
war.'' In fact there is nothing sudden or precipitous about
our view that Saddam Hussein poses a grave danger. In 1990
and 1991 we supported many months of diplomacy and pressure
to persuade the Iraqi dictator to withdraw his troops from
Kuwait, the neighboring country he had invaded. When he
failed to do so, we supported the use of force to restore
Kuwait's independence. While many of the same Democrats who
oppose force now opposed it then also, we believe war was the
correct option--though it was certainly not, at the time, the
only choice. When the war ended, we supported--in hindsight
too unquestiongly--a cease-fire agreement that left Saddam
Hussein in power. But it was an agreement, imposed by the
U.N. Security Council, that demanded that he give up his
dangerous weapons.
In 1997 and 1998, we strongly backed President Clinton when
he vowed that Iraq must finally honor its commitments to the
United Nations to give up its nuclear, biological and
chemical weapons--and we strongly criticized him when he
retreated from those vows. Mr. Clinton understood the stakes.
Iraq, he said, was a ``rogue state with weapons of mass
destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists,
drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world
among us unnoticed.''
When we cite Mr. Clinton's perceptive but ultimately empty
comments, it is in part to chide him and other Democrats who
take a different view now that a Republic is in charge. But
it has a more serious purpose too. Mr. Clinton could not
muster the will, or the domestic or international support, to
force Saddam Hussein to live up to the promises he had made
in 1991, though even then the danger was well understood.
Republicans who now line up behind President Bush were in
many cases particularly irresponsible; when Mr. Clinton did
bomb Iraqi weapons sites in 1998, some GOP leaders accused
him of seeking only to distract the nation from his
impeachment worries. Through the end of Mr. Clinton's tenure
and the first year of Mr. Bush's presidency, Saddam Hussein
built up his power, beat back sanctions and found new space
to rearm--all with the support of France and Russia and the
acquiescence of the United States.
After Sept. 11, 2001, many people of both parties said--and
we certainly hoped--that the country had moved beyond such
failures of will and politicization of deadly foreign
threats. An outlaw dictator, in open definance of U.N.
resolutions, unquestionably possessing and pursuing
biological and chemical weapons, expressing support for
the Sept. 11 attacks: Surely the nation would no longer
dither in the face of such a menace. Now it seems again an
open question. To us, risks that were clear before seem
even clearer now.
But what of our ``jingoism,'' our ``drumbeating''? Probably
no editorial page sin could be more grievous than whipping up
war fever for some political or trivial purpose. And we do
not take lightly the risks of war--to American and Iraqi
soldiers and civilians first of all. We believe that the Bush
administration has only begun to prepare the public for the
sacrifices that the nation and many young Americans might
bear during and after a war. And there is a long list of
terrible things that could go wrong: anthrax dispersed,
moderate regimes imperiled, Islamist recruiting spurred, oil
wells set afire.
The right question though, is not ``Is war risky?'' but
``Is inaction less so?'' No one can provide more than a
judgment in reply. But the world is already a dangerous
place. Anthrax has been wielded in Florida, New York and
Washington. Terrorists have struck repeatedly and with
increasing strength over the past decade. Are the United
States and
[[Page S2986]]
its allies ultimately safer if they back down again and leave
Saddam Hussein secure? Or does safety lie in making clear
that his kind of outlaw behavior will not be tolerated and in
helping Iraq become a peaceable nation that offers no haven
to terrorists? We would say the latter, while acknowledging
the magnitude of the challenge, both during and especially
after any war that may have to be fought. And we would say
also that not only terrible things are possible: To free the
Iraqi people from the sadistic repression of Saddam Hussein,
while not the primary goal of a war, would surely be a
blessing.
Nor is it useful merely to repeat that war ``should only be
a last resort,'' as the latest French-German-Russian
resolution states, or that, as French President Jacques
Chirac said Monday, Iraq must disarm ``because it represents
a danger for the region and maybe the world . . . but we
believe this disarmament must happen peacefully.'' Like
everyone else, we hope it does happen peacefully. But if it
does not--if Saddam Hussein refuses as he has for a dozen
years--should that refusal be accommodated?
War in fact has rarely been the last resort for the United
States. In very recent times, the nation could have allowed
Saddam Hussein to swallow Kuwait. It could have allowed
Slobodan Milosevic to expel 1 million refugees from Kosovo.
In each case, the nation and its allies fought wars of
choice. Even the 2001 campaign against Afghanistan was not a
``last resort,'' though it is now remembered as an inevitable
war of self-defense. Many Americans argued that the Taliban
had not attacked the United States and should not be
attacked; that what was needed was police action against
Osama bin Laden. We believed they were wrong and Mr. Bush was
right, though he will be vindicated in history only if the
United States and its allies stay focused on Afghanistan and
its reconstruction.
So the real questions are whether every meaningful
alternative has been exhausted, and if so whether war is wise
as well as justified. The risks should not be minimized.
Everyone agrees, for example, that the United States would be
stronger before and during a war if joined by many allies,
and even better positioned if backed by the United Nations.
If waiting a month, or three months, would ensure such
backing, the wait would be worthwhile.
But the history is not encouraging. The Security Council
agreed unanimously in early November that Iraq was a danger;
that inspectors could do no more than verify a voluntary
disarmament; and that a failure to disarm would be considered
a ``material breach.'' Now all agree that Saddam Hussein has
not cooperated, and yet some countries balk at the
consequences--as they have, time and again, since 1991. We
have seen no evidence that an additional three months would
be helpful. Nor does it strike us as serious to argue that
the war should be fought if Mr. Chirac and German Chancellor
Gerhard Schroeder agree, but not if they do not. If the war
is that optional, it should not be fought, even if those
leaders do agree; if it is essential to U.S. national
security, their objections ultimately cannot be
dispositive.
In 1998 Mr. Clinton explained to the nation why U.S.
national security was, in fact, in danger. ``What if he fails
to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third
route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this
program of weapons of mass destruction? . . . Well, he will
conclude that the international community has lost its will.
He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to
rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day,
some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal.''
Some argue now that, because Saddam Hussein has not in the
intervening half-decade used his arsenal, Mr. Clinton was
wrong and the world can rest assured that Iraq is adequately
``contained.'' Given what we know about how containment
erodes over time; about Saddam Hussein's single-mindedness
compared with the inattention and divisions of other nations;
and about the ease with which deadly weapons can move across
borders, we do not trust such an assurance. Mr. Clinton
understood, as Mr. Bush understands, that no president can
bet his nation's safety on the hope that Iraq is
``contained.'' We respect our readers who believe that war is
the worst option. But we believe that, in this case, long-
term peace will be better served by strength than by
concessions.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, for thousands of mothers across the
U.S., having a child is a momentous occasion filled with happiness and
excitement. However, for a smaller percentage of women, childbirth
brings about feelings of sadness, fear, and anxiety so overwhelming
that they can no longer function normally. Postpartum depression, a
mood disorder that is the culprit of these sentiments, severely affects
the mental health of new mothers and places a strain on families. This
is why I am proud to join my colleagues, Senator Durbin and Senator
Fitzgerald, in introducing the ``Melanie Stokes Postpartum Depression
Research and Care Act.''
I firmly believe that postpartum depression is a national problem; it
strikes women regardless of age, race, or economic status. Nearly 80
percent of new mothers experience baby blues, a very common, mild form
of depression occurring in the first days or weeks after birth, but 10
to 20 percent suffer from the more severe postpartum depression. This
is accompanied by irritability, despair, and anger, which can continue
without treatment. The most acute form of depression, postpartum
psychosis, can be accompanied by anxiety and fear, but also delusions
and hallucinations. It strikes 1 in 1000 women. These two forms of
postpartum depression contribute to a mother's sense of worth, inhibits
a women's ability to complete her every day activities or enjoy the
precious new moments with her child.
Despite these serious effects, there is alarmingly little research on
postpartum depression. Additionally, while drops in hormone levels such
as progesterone and estrogen have been linked to postpartum mood
swings, there is no definite known cause for this disorder. This bill
seeks to fill a glaring void in the understanding of this illness and
provide treatment and care options for new moms. It establishes
research programs to explore the causes, prevention, and prevalence of
postpartum depression and psychosis. I also believe that women need
real support in terms of comprehensive services at the community level.
This legislation provides grants to help moms manage postpartum
conditions at hospitals, community health centers, and shelters so they
can access home based care, screening services, and other comprehensive
treatments.
Motherhood should be a blessing, not a nightmare. Organizations and
health professionals all urge families and friends to inundate at risk
or new moms with support as she takes on the complex task of raising a
child. This bill is our way of supporting these moms. We hope to
provide research results and necessary help to ensure a brighter future
for new mothers caught in the fearful grip of postpartum depression. I
will continue to support efforts to diminish the anguish of postpartum
depression and improve efforts to safeguard the mental well-being for
new mothers.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, last night I introduced the ``State
Criminal Alien Assistance Program Reauthorization Act of 2003,''
bipartisan legislation to authorize funds to relieve State and county
governments of the some of the fiscal burdens associated with the
incarceration of undocumented criminal aliens.
I am pleased that Senators McCain, Kyl, Schumer, Boxer, Hutchison,
Bingaman and Domenici have joined me in introducing this important
measure.
The broad principle on which this bill is based is simple: the
control of illegal immigration is a Federal responsibility. When the
Federal Government falls short in its efforts to control illegal
immigration, it must bear the responsibility for the financial and
human consequences of this failure.
More and more, however, the fiscal consequences of illegal
immigration are being borne by the States and local counties.
The State Criminal Alien Assistant Program, SCAAP, Reauthorization
Act of 2003 would properly vest the fiscal burden of incarcerating
illegal immigrants, who are convicted of felonies or multiple
misdemeanors, with the Federal Government.
The legislation would do so by authorizing up to $750 million in
Fiscal Year 2004 for Federal reimbursement to the States and county
governments for the direct costs associated with incarcerating
undocumented criminal aliens. It would authorize an additional $850
million in Fiscal Year 2005, and $950 million for the program in Fiscal
Years 2006 through 2010.
The number of State and local governments seeking SCAAP funding has
jumped 25 percent from the previous year. The combination of the
increase, and the fact that all 50 States and the District of Columbia
receive some funding from the program, suggests that no State is immune
from the fiscal costs associated with crimes committed by illegal
aliens.
Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues to work with me to not only
ensure that the SCAAP program survives, but also that it is adequately
funded.
At a time when the administration is asking State and local
governments to do even more with their local funds to enforce the
nation's immigration laws, it is at the same time recommending the
elimination of a vital source of funding that already falls far short
of what states spend to incarcerate criminal illegal aliens.
[[Page S2987]]
High impact States, like California, continue to shoulder
extraordinary costs for housing illegal aliens in its criminal justice
system. The State prisons had an estimated 22,565 criminal aliens it
its system out of a total population of 160,728.
In just a 3-month period last year, the State's county jails housed
just under 10,000 criminal aliens. Overall, California taxpayers paid
more than $2.28 billion in 2001 to cover these costs.
In 2002, California received a SCAAP payment of $220 million--less
than 10 percent of the total costs to the State. This year, California
taxpayers can expect to spend even more.
The SCAAP reauthorization bill would help California and all other
States that are experiencing increasing costs from incarcerating
undocumented felons--both low-impact and high-impact states.
Last year, the State of Wisconsin and its counties, for example,
received more than $3.5 million in funding; Massachusetts received over
$13 million; Pennsylvania received lose over $2.6 million; Virginia
received more than $6.4 million; North Carolina received $5.2 million;
Michigan received $2.9 million; Minnesota received $1.8 million.
Thus, even states that have not traditionally had to confront the
growth in illegal immigration are now bearing the costs of this Federal
responsibility.
The administration's opposition to this program is puzzling.
I am particularly disappointed that an Administration headed by a
former governor of a State highly impacted by the Federal Government's
inability to control illegal immigration, would recommend the
elimination of this important program.
Who pays when these costs go uncovered?
In California, the burden will fall on our law enforcement agencies--
including sheriffs, officers on the beat, anti-gang violence units,
district attorneys offices. At a time when the nation is focused on
enhancing security within our borders, within our States and within our
local communities, a vital program like SCAAP should not be vulnerable
to being short-changed or eliminated.
I note that when the current president was governor of Texas, he was
a strong supporter of Federal funding for SCAAP he, too, recognized
that controlling illegal immigration was a federal responsibility and
that States cannot and should not be expected to handle the national
burden on their own.
Certainly, the problems that were faced by Texas then with respect to
the incarceration of criminal aliens have grown since then-Governor
Bush wrote that letter. In 1997, the year in which the letter was
written, the State of Texas incurred more than $129 million in
incarceration costs. In fiscal year 2002, those costs soared to more
than $1.17 billion.
It is inexplicable to me that this administration would now call for
the elimination for the program. I will include the letter then-
Governor Bush wrote to Representative Hal Rogers, chairman of the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary
and Related Agencies, for the Record.
After years of strongly supporting funding for the SCAAP program,
President Bush's recent opposition to the program prompted Congress to
cut the program by 56 percent this year, from $565 million to $250
million.
I urge my colleagues to reverse that course in Fiscal Year 2004 and
consider restoring the cuts that were made when Congress considers the
FY2003 supplemental appropriations request the administration is likely
to submit in the next several weeks.
I thank my colleagues who joined me yesterday for their tireless
efforts in ensuring that States and local counties receive some
compensation for they do their part in securing their communities from
criminal aliens who are in the country illegally.
I join them in introducing the SCAAP reauthorization legislation in
hopes that it will go further to alleviate some of the fiscal hardships
States and local governments incur when they must take on this Federal
responsibility.
I ask unanimous consent to print the letter to which I referred in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
State of Texas
Office of the Governor,
July 10, 1997.
Hon. Hal Rogers,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, the
Judiciary and Related Agencies, Committee on
Appropriations, Washington, D.C. 20515.
Dear Chairman Rogers: The cost of processing and housing
criminal aliens in our state criminal justice system
continues to grow. I am writing to ask you to support funding
the $650 million authorization to reimburse state and local
governments for the costs of incarcerating undocumented
criminal aliens. We are thankful for Congress' recognition of
this problem in Texas and appreciate the funding we have
already received.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates that
Texas incarcerates more than 8,000 undocumented aliens each
year. At this current rate of incarceration, the annual cost
to Texas exceeds $129 million. During fiscal year 1996, Texas
received $51.9 million in reimbursement under the State
Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP). Any additional
funds dedicated to assist Texas in recapturing the costs of
housing these criminal aliens would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter of
importance to Texas. I will appreciate any action you can
take on this matter.
Sincerely,
George W. Bush,
Governor.
____________________