To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for compensation to States incarcerating undocumented aliens charged with a felony or two or more misdemeanors.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a critical piece of legislation, the State Fiscal Relief Act of 2008. This legislation builds upon the $20 billion State fiscal relief model passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush as part of the Jobs and Growth Tax Reconciliation Act of 2003. It would provide $12 billion in State aid, equally divided between an increase in Federal Medicaid matching payments and general revenue sharing grants to States.

Many of my colleagues may wonder why I am introducing a $12 billion State fiscal relief bill instead of a $15 billion State fiscal relief bill--the approach I have consistently supported. The reason is simple. I want to build on the strong, bipartisan support of our Nation's Governors, who have repeatedly endorsed a $12 billion fiscal relief package--with $6 billion in additional Medicaid assistance to States and $6 billion in targeted grants to States. I still worry that State deficits will only grow in the coming days, weeks, and months, but I am willing to start with $12 billion and continue my work with our Nation's Governors, health care providers, advocates, and others to get this aid to States immediately.

I want to begin my remarks with the fact that leading economists support State fiscal relief. Earlier this month, Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com, examined the effectiveness of the various stimulus options that Congress is considering. Dr. Zandi's analysis found that targeted State aid would generate increased economic activity of $1.36 for each dollar of cost, because it would lessen State and local government budget cuts that ``are sure to become a substantial drag on the economy later this year and into 2009.''

As a former Governor, who survived the tough times of the 1980s, I strongly believe that States deserve to be a part of the economic stimulus package currently before the Senate. State and local governments are an integral part of our national economic engine. They provide health care and a wealth of social services to millions of Americans, particularly when the economy is weak. We should act immediately to provide States with relief before they are faced with the harsh decision to cut children and families off of Medicaid.

States experience enormous budget pressures when the economy slows. State revenues can evaporate rapidly during an economic downturn. Unlike the Federal Government, States cannot borrow infinite amounts of debt from China and other countries. By law, 49 States including West Virginia--are required to balance their budgets and, in times of economic downturn, this task becomes significantly more difficult.

A delayed Federal response to the growing impact of this downturn on States is an invitation to disaster. We know from experience that Medicaid is consistently the first program slated for cuts during a State budget squeeze. This is not only a problem for current Medicaid enrollees; it is also a problem for hard-working Americans who have lost their jobs because of the economic slowdown.

In the last year, our unemployment rate has increased to 5.0 percent with nearly 900,000 more Americans without jobs. The loss of a job is hard enough financially on an individual or family, but since the majority of Americans get their health insurance through their jobs, the loss of a job often results in a simultaneous loss of health insurance coverage. Medicaid fills the gap for working families when they lose access to private coverage. For every 1 percent increase in the unemployment rate, Medicaid enrollment increases by 2-3 million people.

During the last economic downturn, the number of uninsured Americans would have been millions more if Medicaid and CHIP had not responded to the twin challenges of an economic downturn and a sharp drop-off in private health insurance coverage. A critical factor in helping States sustain Medicaid enrollment during those difficult times was the $20 billion in State fiscal relief that Congress enacted in 2003. The 2003 fiscal relief provisions went a long way to preserve health care coverage for millions of working Americans. However, we cannot discount the fact that one million low-income people had already lost Medicaid coverage because we waited two years into the recession to pass State fiscal relief. We should not make the same mistake twice. We must act quickly.

There is no question that health care is economic stimulus. Insuring jobless workers encourages consumption of health care services and provides an economic boost to the health care sector. People without insurance seek treatment less often than people who are insured. Uninsured Americans not only have greater problems accessing needed care but often spend more out-of-pocket on health care, making it harder for them to spend on other things.

The grants to States are also stimulative. For example, they can be used to finance unfunded Federal mandates like child support enforcement. Six economists recently wrote that ``restoring funding to the child support program will produce well-targeted stimulus to the economy because child support redistributes income toward lower-income families who are more likely to use the income to meet their consumption needs. Restoring funding to the child support program would also mean that the State and county governments would not have to lay off child support workers and reduce the level of services that they provide families in the child support program.''

One of the arguments against State fiscal relief that I continue to hear is the argument that State fiscal conditions are not that bad. We have to be very cautious about that type of argument because State fiscal situations are changing rapidly. The recent CBO report on the economy alludes to this very fact. It reads, ``Recent evidence indicates that many States respond relatively quickly to a downturn in the economy, even if it occurs after their budgets have been enacted for the year.''

We already know from the National Governors Association that 18 States have reported budget shortfalls totaling $14 billion for 2008 and 17 States project shortfalls totaling $31 billion for 2009. However, we cannot simply take a snapshot of the economy today and argue that this is not a crisis waiting to happen. The fact of the matter is that a dozen more States could be in deficit situations very soon if the downturn continues. This is especially true given the significant decline in property tax revenues in many States and the impact of the bonus depreciation provisions included in the stimulus bill in several States.

As proud as I am of the 2003 fiscal relief package, I want to remind my colleagues that the $20 billion in relief was nearly too late. One million low-income people had already been cut off of Medicaid by the time that legislation finally passed because we waited two years into the recession to enact it. History does not have to repeat itself. We know that working families are at risk of becoming uninsured now and into the near future, so we must act swiftly to protect them.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. We have a real opportunity to proactively address a looming health care crisis. This approach is supported by the National Governors Association as well as hundreds of provider and health advocacy groups nationwide. We should not allow this opportunity to pass. Too much is at stake.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government under the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which we refer to as SCAAP, reimburses part of the expenses that States and localities incur in incarcerating illegal immigrants who have been convicted of a felony or of two or more misdemeanors. And, in fact, I would bring the Chamber's attention, Mr. Speaker, to a report that was issued by the GAO in April of 2005 that identifies that the Federal Government is reimbursing 25 percent of the cost of the incarceration of criminal aliens within the institutions in the United States. But H.R. 1512 expands the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program to compensate States for incarcerating illegal immigrants who are charged with, and not only convicted, which is under the current program, charged with a felony or two or more misdemeanors.

I stand here, Mr. Speaker, and applaud the gentlelady from California for bringing this legislation because I think this is a constructive change to our policy, and the language very simply adds the words ``charged with or'' to the existing language of compensation for those ``convicted of.'' And it recognizes that there are significant costs involved in processing criminal aliens in the investigation stage, the arrest stage and the indictment stage. And as those costs mount and are incurred, we need to be sure that we take this position, that it is the Federal

Government's job to guard and protect our borders. That is not the job of a political subdivision. It is essentially the job of the Federal Government.

When we fail to do our job, when we don't have sufficient constraints in place at our borders or at our airports or our ports of entry, then the result of it is that this burden of law enforcement falls upon the political subdivisions, on the States, on the cities and on the counties to enforce the law. And when they do, they incur these costs. This bill, H.R. 1512, seeks to lift off some of that burden. And it certainly wouldn't be all of it.

Lamar Smith, the ranking member of the full Judiciary Committee, and I both believe the available statistics on criminal illegal immigrants in the United States leave much to be desired. There is too little data on illegal immigrants imprisoned in the United States. We don't really know how many there are or what crimes they are charged with or convicted of or how much time they spend in our prison systems.

And I particularly can speak to that, since I asked for the GAO study that was completed in April of 2005. I thought in that study I would get the answers to the percentages of our inmate populations that are criminal aliens, what crimes they might be convicted of, and quite a list of things that would help us establish our policy, both law enforcement policy and our immigration policy.

However, that report came back not quite apples to apples. And there are conclusions that can be drawn. There are also gaps to their knowledge base. And because of the inspiration that is brought forward, because of this bill of Ms. Sanchez, H.R. 1512, we engaged the Judiciary Committee in dialogue about how we can better gather that information. I am really pleased that Ms. Lofgren, the Chair of the Immigration Subcommittee, of which I am the ranking member, and Mr. Smith, the ranking member of the full Judiciary Committee, have agreed to send a joint request to the Government Accountability Office to develop additional statistics on criminal alien immigrants. I look forward to working with Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Smith and others on this particular subject matter. This is something we vitally need to provide statistics that will help us establish a better immigration policy.

As we move forward with this piece of legislation that I believe is a constructive move in the right direction that helps to compensate, and it won't be all, but it will at least in part help to compensate the political subdivisions for their costs incurred to enforce laws against criminal aliens, it adds to it those charged with a crime, not just those convicted of a crime or two serious misdemeanors.

But into this negotiation also will be the formal request for the GAO study to look further at the effect of crime on the United States of America by criminal aliens. And the question has got to be constantly before us, since we are charged with the responsibility of protecting the American people. And it is very much a constitutional responsibility. We are also constitutionally charged with the responsibility of establishing immigration policy. The executive branch is charged with the responsibility of enforcing that policy, however aggressively or lack of aggression they might have. The result is that some get in through the borders, through our ports of entry. Some commit crimes, and some of those crimes that are committed are of a very heinous nature. And the cost of those crimes against this society can be quantified if we can identify the numbers of crimes that are being committed by criminal aliens and in what categories they are in, where they are being incarcerated, what lengths of terms they are serving, and especially, Mr. Speaker, when they are released, when they are released from a municipal jail, a county jail or a State penitentiary, let alone from a Federal institution, when they are released, we need to know if they are released into the hands of ICE, if they have been processed for deportation, if that happens to be the law, or if they are released back into the streets. And if they are, we need to ask the question, are they committing further crimes?

So what is the level of effectiveness in our law enforcement system? What percentage of our overall crimes are being committed by criminal aliens? What are those crimes? What's the price against society, and how does this break down into all these categories that I have mentioned in a fashion that will allow us, as a Congress, to prudently step back, take the empirical data that we are expecting to receive from the Government Accountability Office and after the submission of this request, and process that into policy that reflects the best interests of the people in the United States of America.

I think this bill is a healthy step in the right direction. I think it's a prudent thing to do, and I think it says the right thing to the people in America. I applaud the gentlelady for bringing H.R. 1512, and I support the expansion of SCAAP funding to those who have also been charged with a crime.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may consume.

Just in summation, this is a component of taking this legislation in the right direction, and it's important that we compensate political subdivisions. When the Federal Government is not doing the job they need to be doing, this is the natural result of it.

I expect that this has come from a request of those political subdivisions. Although they aren't making this request necessarily in my district, there are many jails in my district that will be beneficiaries of this piece of legislation.

I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1512) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for compensation to States incarcerating undocumented aliens charged with a felony or two or more misdemeanors.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today we act to restore the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program or SCAAP, to its original meaning, that which Congress originally intended it to have. Introduced by myself, H.R. 1512 will help States obtain much-needed reimbursement for the costs of detaining deportable immigrants charged with or convicted of certain criminal offenses.

SCAAP was created in 1994 to reimburse States and localities for arrest, incarceration and transportation costs incurred in detaining criminal aliens. From the program's inception until 2003, States were able to obtain reimbursement for the costs of detaining deportable illegal immigrants charged with a felony or two or more misdemeanors.

In 2003, however, DOJ reinterpreted the SCAAP statute to require that a criminal alien be actually convicted of a felony or two misdemeanors. Moreover, the reimbursement must be requested in the year in which the conviction takes place, and is limited to that 1 year, regardless of how long the expenses are incurred.

Not surprisingly, this novel reinterpretation, which contradicted Congress' clear intent, as well as DOJ's consistent interpretation, from 1994 to 2003, caused every State's reimbursement to fall dramatically.

H.R. 1512 would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to return SCAAP to its originally intended meaning. States and localities would be reimbursed for the cost of incarcerating criminal aliens who are either ``charged with or convicted'' of a felony or two misdemeanors regardless of when the incarceration and conviction occur.

H.R. 1512 corrects the current administration's errant reinterpretation of the law and provides States and localities burdened by the costs of jailing criminal aliens the opportunity to apply for and receive much-needed reimbursement for the costs they bear from detaining deportable immigrants charged with crimes.

The bill has broad bipartisan support and the support of many respected law enforcement groups.

I would like to especially commend Zoe Lofgren, Chair of the Immigration subcommittee and Steve King, the Subcommittee ranking member, for their leadership in helping bring this bill to the floor today.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to close.

Mr. Speaker, you know, immigration is probably the signature Federal policy issue. Try as they might, States simply can't fix failures in Federal immigration policy on their own.

But when we fall down on the job, States, cities and counties bear the burden for an immigration system that simply doesn't work. While Congress is working on a comprehensive solution to our broken immigration system, we must not forget about the local governments who are paying an extremely high cost as a result of our inaction.

In 1994, Congress passed the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP, to reimburse States and localities for the arrest and incarceration and transportation costs associated with criminal aliens, averting a tidal wave of expenses that could have overwhelmed the State and local budgets.

However, in 2003, the Department of Justice reinterpreted the SCAAP statute and caused a drastic drop in every State's reimbursement. Now States no longer receive reimbursements unless, first, the criminal alien is convicted of a criminal felony and two misdemeanors; and, second, the arrest and conviction occur in the same year.

To add insult to injury, President Bush has zeroed out SCAAP in his budget proposals for the last 6 years. This means that State and local governments are left to pick up the tab. Every dollar reduction in SCAAP reimbursements means one less dollar that law enforcement agencies have to hire new officers, provide essential training, make critical equipment purchases and detain other, perhaps more violent, inmates.

Following the SCAAP funding cuts in 2003, the LA County Sheriff's Department implemented a new early-release policy for inmates convicted of misdemeanors. This means the neighborhoods I represent in Southern California are at risk.

Sadly, these communities are not alone. Across the country, the SCAAP reimbursement cuts have had a domino effect, where funding for anti- gang activities, homicide investigations, anti-terrorism activities and even basic maintenance is cut to pay for expenses associated with incarcerating criminal aliens and suspected criminal aliens.

As Arizona county supervisors recently stated, ``This is a huge problem because we can't keep up with fixing roads, the other costs of law enforcement, and keeping up with health agencies.''

While this bill on its own won't solve the fiscal crisis many States now face, it will help in the long term by covering a greater share of costs that

properly belonged to the Federal Government.

H.R. 1512 amends 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, just like it was before the DOJ's reinterpretation in 2003. This Federal investment will allow State and local law enforcement agencies to devote more resources to important public safety programs.

Law enforcement agencies and coalitions from all over the country, including the U.S.-Mexico Border Counties Coalition, the National Association of Counties, the California State Association of Counties, the Sheriffs' Association of Texas and the Virginia Sheriffs' Association support this bipartisan legislation.

Lastly, I want to offer thanks and gratitude to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for passing this bill unanimously through the Judiciary Committee and for bringing it to the floor today without any amendments. We may not agree on many aspects of immigration policy, but this bill accomplishes a larger goal, making our community safer. For that reason, I appreciate your support.

I urge my colleagues to support their local law enforcement agencies by voting for this bill.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, today Senator Hutchison and I are introducing two bills that will significantly alleviate the burden of illegal immigration on State and local governments: the SCAAP Reimbursement Protection Act of 2008 and the Ensure Timely SCAAP Reimbursement Act. We are joined by Senators Boxer, Kyl, Schumer, Cornyn, Durbin, McCain, Bingaman, Craig, Cantwell, Domenici, and Crapo.

These bills will amend the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP, statute to ensure that states and localities receive more funding for costs associated with incarcerating criminal aliens, and that these reimbursements are given out in a timely manner.

The cost of incarcerating criminal aliens is high. In California alone, the State spent more than $900 million in 2007 to house over 20,000 criminal aliens.

Congress enacted SCAAP in 1994 to help reimburse States and localities for the cost of arrest, incarceration, and transportation of these aliens.

However, in 2003, the Department of Justice, DOJ, reinterpreted the statute. Now States are only reimbursed for what they spend incarcerating convicted criminal aliens and only when the arrest and conviction occur in the same fiscal year.

The DOJ reinterpretation has significantly cut the reimbursement local governments are eligible to receive for incarcerating and processing illegal aliens.

This reinterpretation is even more devastating because SCAAP is consistently under-funded. The President has zeroed out SCAAP funding in his budget proposal over the past 6 years. Through bi-partisan support, Congress was only able to partially fund the program.

As a result, SCAAP only reimburses States for a fraction of the costs of incarcerating criminal aliens. For example, in fiscal year 2007, SCAAP reimbursed only $109.5 million of the more than $912.5 million spent by the California Department of Corrections that year. That means the State paid $803 million of its own funds to house criminal aliens.

This cut has had a domino effect on public safety funding. Every dollar less that SCAAP reimburses States means a dollar less to spend on critical public safety services. For example, after the SCAAP funding cuts in 2003, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department implemented an ``early release'' policy for prisoners convicted of misdemeanors.

I believe it is the Federal Government's responsibility to control illegal immigration. The funding cuts imposed by this administration have let our local public safety services down, and have made our communities less safe.

The SCAAP Reimbursement Protection Act of 2008 would restore the original intent of SCAAP so that States are reimbursed for the costs of incarcerating aliens who are either charged with or convicted of a felony or two misdemeanors. States would also be reimbursed regardless of the fiscal year of the incarceration and conviction.

This bill has been endorsed by the National Sheriffs' Associate, California State Association of Counties, CSAC, the U.S./Mexico Border Counties Coalition, the Virginia Sheriffs' Association, the Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee

Baca, and the Sheriffs' Association of Texas.

Our colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee unanimously passed a companion bill, H.R. 1512, and I urge you to do the same.

Another problem with SCAAP is the significant delay in reimbursement. Recently, State and county governments that foot the bill for holding criminal aliens between July 2004 and June 2005 had to wait until June 21, 2007, before they were reimbursed.

For example, Los Angeles County, San Bernardino County, and Riverside County waited 2 years to receive their reimbursement--totaling $85.9 million. While they were waiting, public safety offices had to cut back on critical services. This delay is worse when one considers that even when localities receive the federal funds, they are only reimbursed for pennies on every dollar spent.

Delays place unreasonable budgetary burdens on States, counties, and municipalities that already shoulder most of the costs of housing criminal aliens.

California is not alone. Every other State depends on these funds to perform what is ultimately a federal responsibility--to control illegal immigration and its effects in our communities. These delays affect every State.

The Ensure Timely SCARP Reimbursement Act would help ease this burden on States and localities by requiring the Justice Department to disburse funds within 6 months of the application deadline.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting these much needed amendments to the SCAAP statute. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of these two bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2008.

At first glance, a bill with a name like that might not seem too exciting. But I can assure my colleagues that it addresses a serious, largely unknown problem that is a real threat to our fiscal well being.

Each year, agencies are required to look at all of their programs and activities and determine which are susceptible to significant improper payments. For those that are deemed at risk, agencies must produce estimated error rates that are included in their year-end financial statements. They must also come up with action plans for reducing their errors.

In fiscal year 2007, agencies are estimated to have made nearly $55 billion in improper payments. That is an astounding number, Mr. President.

We spend so much time around here throwing around numbers like $55 billion that they begin to lose their meaning. So I want to take a minute or so to put that number in perspective.

I was surprised to learn that $55 billion is more than the total budget for the Department of Homeland Security. It is also twice as much as we're projected to spend to protect the vehicles our soldiers are using in Iraq against roadside bombs.

To illustrate further the amount of money we are talking about, $55 billion is just a little bit less than the total GDP of Vietnam. It is a little bit more than the GDPs of Croatia and Slovakia. Most astoundingly, $55 billion equals the combined GDPs of 44 of the smaller countries in the world.

So our Federal Government is likely wasting more money than the total populations of many countries produce in a given year.

But $55 billion is not even a real number. It is likely just the tip of the iceberg. It includes no error estimates for massive programs like TANF, SCHIP, and the Medicare Prescription Drug Program. So I expect that we will see more than $55 billion in improper payments next year and the year after.

My colleagues and I on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management have held six hearings focused on this issue now, including one this afternoon. What we

have learned is that, in some cases, agencies are just not taking their responsibility to deal with and address their problems with improper payments and the management weaknesses that can cause them. The bill I am bringing forward today addresses just about all of the failures and deficiencies we've learned about through our oversight.

My bill starts by improving transparency. OMB right now has set the reporting threshold for improper payments too low, meaning millions of errors go unreported--and potentially unaddressed--each year. I want to lower the reporting threshold so that Congress and the general public have a better picture of the problem we face.

My bill would also help to prevent improper payments from happening in the first place by requiring that agencies come up with stronger corrective action plans and aggressive error reduction targets. It would also implement a recent recommendation from GAO that called on OMB to develop a process whereby agencies would receive regular audited opinions on the financial controls used to prevent improper payments before they happen.

My bill would also force agencies to be more aggressive in recovering improper payments they make. Some agencies--and most private sector firms--regularly go over their books to identify payment errors and get back overpayments made to contractors and others they do business with. We haven't done that enough in the Federal Government. Even as the agencies are reporting more and more improper payments, the amount recovered remains miniscule. I want to change this by requiring that all agencies with outlays of $1 million or more perform recovery audits on all of their programs and activities if doing so is cost effective.

Finally--and perhaps most importantly--my bill would hold agencies accountable. Today, as I mentioned, some agencies do not appear to be taking improper payments very seriously. I want to force agencies to hold top managers accountable for their progress--or lack of progress-- in doing something to take better care of the tax dollars we entrust them with.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to get these important reforms enacted. I am sure we can all agree that allowing this level of waste to continue unchecked is reckless and unacceptable.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.