The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“ON THE INTRODUCTION OF H.R. XXXX, SCAAP REIMBURSEMENT PROTECTION ACT” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E99 on Jan. 24, 2011.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
ON THE INTRODUCTION OF H.R. XXXX, 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. XXXX, 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.
____________________
