[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 612]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  ON THE INTRODUCTION OF H.R. 410, SCAAP REIMBURSEMENT PROTECTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. LINDA T. SANCHEZ

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Monday, January 24, 2011

  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to 
introduce H.R. 410, the SCAAP Reimbursement Protection Act of 2011.
  When I was a new Member of Congress, local police officials came to 
me and explained how a change in the State Criminal Alien Assistance 
Program--also known as SCAAP--was having a profound impact on their 
budgets.
  Securing our nation's borders is the exclusive jurisdiction of the 
federal government. However, communities across the country continue to 
face extraordinary costs associated with incarcerating undocumented 
criminals at a time when they can least afford it.
  The SCAAP program was established to reimburse state and local 
governments for these costs.
  From the SCAAP's inception in 1994 until 2003, states were permitted 
to seek reimbursement for the costs of detaining deportable immigrants 
charged with a felony or two or more misdemeanors.
  In 2003, the Department of Justice reinterpreted the SCAAP statute in 
a way that caused a drastic drop in every state's reimbursement. Under 
this interpretation, states only receive reimbursement if a criminal 
alien is convicted of a felony or two misdemeanors and the arrest and 
conviction occur in the same fiscal year.
  This may seem like a small change, but it has had large repercussions 
in the law enforcement community. In my state of California, SCAAP 
reimbursement payments have declined from $220 million in FY2002, prior 
to the Department of Justice's reinterpretation, to $112 million in 
FY2009.
  This nearly 50 percent decline in funding greatly impairs funding of 
in local law enforcement efforts and makes it harder to fight crime in 
throughout my state.
  Due to major state and county budget shortfalls, every dollar 
included in SCAAP reimbursement means a dollar that a State can spend 
for other essential public safety services. When Congress originally 
developed SCAAP, we knew that, without SCAAP, state and local budgets 
would be overwhelmed by costs that should be the federal government's 
responsibility.
  My legislation would modify the SCAAP statute so that states and 
localities can be reimbursed for the cost of incarcerating aliens who 
are either ``charged with or convicted'' of a felony or two 
misdemeanors regardless of the fiscal year of the incarceration and 
conviction--just like it was before the Department of Justice's 
reinterpretation in 2003.
  Mr. Speaker, at a time when states struggle with tough budget 
choices, we be doing all we can to help them. We must restore SCAAP to 
reflect the meaning Congress originally intended it to have.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in correcting this flawed Department 
of Justice interpretation and help our local police departments.

                          ____________________