[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.

                          ____________________