Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2005

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2005. I am honored to have the support and cosponsorship of Senator DeWine with whom I have enjoyed working on similar measures in previous Congresses. I am further pleased that Senators Specter, Leahy, Kennedy, Feingold, Feinstein, Akaka, Cantwell, Harkin, Lautenberg, Pryor, and Kerry have also agreed to join me as original cosponsors of this legislation. Our bill is designed to encourage the best and the brightest law school graduates to enter public service as criminal prosecutors and public defenders by making a student loan repayment program available to them.

I am pleased that this legislation enjoys bipartisan support. I am anxious to work closely with Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Leahy to advance it through the Judiciary Committee and secure its enactment by the full Senate.

Our proposed loan repayment program is supported by the American Bar Association, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Association of Prosecutor Coordinators, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, and the American Council of Chief Defenders.

We can--and should--do more to help prosecutor and public defender offices compete with the higher salaries available in the private sector. In many instances, despite high aspirations and strong motivation to work in the public sector, many graduates find it economically impossible to pursue that career path due to the overwhelming burden of debt. The availability of student loan repayment can be a powerful incentive for attracting some of our most talented new lawyers to public service employment.

Many of today's law graduates are finishing law school owing staggering amounts of student loan debt. According to the American Bar Association, the median total cumulative educational debt for law school graduates in the class of 2004 was $97,763 for private schools and $66,810 for public schools. Educational loan debts represent a serious financial obligation which must be repaid. A default on any loan triggers serious consequences. Moreover, the looming obligation can impact career choices for many new graduates.

Many budding prosecutors and public defenders face a disheartening dilemma. On the one hand, they have a deep commitment to pursuing a career in public service. On the other hand, they need a level of income to meet the demands of exorbitant educational loan liabilities. This wrenching choice has not only personal impact but adverse implications for the legal profession and its commitment to ensuring access to justice for all citizens. And from an employer's perspective, comparatively low salaries and high debt make it extremely difficult to recruit and retain attorneys in prosecutor and public defender offices.

The results of a special study, ``Lifting the Burden: Law Student Debt as a Barrier to Public Service,'' published in August 2003 by the American Bar Association, reflects eight key findings, which I will describe in more specificity in my remarks.

First, law school tuition levels have skyrocketed. Second, the vast majority of law students borrow funds to finance their legal education. Third, law students are borrowing increasingly larger sums to finance their legal education. Fourth, public service salaries have not kept pace with rising law school debt burdens or private sector salaries. Fifth, high student debt bars many law graduates from pursuing public service careers. Sixth, many law graduates who take public service legal jobs must leave after they gain 2 to 3 years of experience. Seventh, public service employers report serious difficulty recruiting and retaining lawyers. And eighth, the legal profession and society pay a severe price when law graduates are shut out from pursuing public service legal careers due to high educational debt burden.

On the matter of skyrocketing tuition levels, since the early 1970s, there have been steep and persistent hikes in the costs of legal education and in the tuition rates law schools charge. Researchers found that tuition increased about 340 percent from 1985 to 2002 for private law school students and out-of-state students at public law schools. In state students at public law schools saw their tuition jump about 500 percent. During the period 1992-2002, the cost of living in the United States rose 28 percent while the cost of tuition for public law schools rose 134 percent for residents and 100 percent for nonresidents, and private law school tuition increased 76 percent.

In 1975, when private law school tuition averaged $2,525 and public law school tuition for in state residents was $700, the need to borrow to finance a legal education was not as prevalent or necessary. In 1990, when tuition was $11,680 for private institutions and $3,012 for public law schools, it was at least manageable. In 2002, the median law school annual tuitions were $24,920 for private law schools, $18,131 for nonresident students at public law schools, and $9,252 for resident students at public law schools.

A computation of the tuition rates of the 186 ABA-accredited law schools for 2004 reflects that charges for State residents at public law schools average $10,820 per year. For nonresidents attending public law schools, the average tuition amounts to $20,176 per year. Students attending private law schools pay an average of $25,603 per year.

Additional amounts for food, lodging, books, fees and personal expenses increase the costs for 3 years to more than $60,000 in almost all cases and well over $100,000 in many instances.

The vast majority of law students must borrow funds to finance their legal education. In 2002, almost 87 percent of law students borrowed to finance their legal education. That level remained consistent in 2004. Many of these students also carried unpaid debt from their undergraduate studies.

Law students are borrowing increasingly larger sums to finance their legal education. As tuition and other expenses of attending law school rose, more and more students found they needed to borrow to pay for law school. During the 1990s, the average amount students borrowed more than doubled. Today, the amount borrowed by many students exceeds $80,000.

Public service salaries have not kept pace with rising law school debt burdens or private sector salaries. Entry-level salaries for government or other public service position, have always been significantly lower than those in private practice.

Over the years since the mid-1970s, the median starting salaries in private practice have risen at a much faster pace than entry-level public service salaries. Between 1985 and 2002, the median starting salaries at private law firms rose by about 280 percent. Government lawyers, such as prosecutors and public defenders, saw their salaries increase by just 70 percent.

According to the 2004 Public Sector and Public Interest Attorney Salary Report, published in August 2004 by the National Association for Law Placement, Inc., the median entry-level salary for public defenders is $39,000; with 11 to 15 years of experience, the median is $65,000. The salary progression for State and local prosecuting attorneys is similar, starting at about $40,000 and progressing to $68,000-69,000 for those with 11 to 15 years of experience.

In August 2004, NALP also released the results of its tenth annual comprehensive survey of associate compensation in private sector law firms. According to the 2004 Associate Salary Survey Report, based on salary information as of April 1, 2004 provided by 599 offices, the median salary for first-year associates ranged from $65,000 in firms of 2 to 25 attorneys to $120,000 in firms of 500 attorneys or more, with a first-year median for all participating firms of $95,000. These figures evidence the stark reality of compensation differentials for those graduates electing to devote their skills to public service jobs as prosecutors and defenders.

High student debt bars many law graduates from pursuing public service careers. As law school tuition and student debt have sharply escalated, fewer and fewer law school graduates can afford to take the comparatively low-paying public service positions that are available in government agencies or with prosecutor, public defender, or legal services offices.

A national study of law school debt conducted by Equal Justice Works, the Partnership for Public Service, and the National Association for Law Placement found that law student debt prevented two-thirds of law student respondents from considering a public service career.

The report was based on a spring 2002 survey of graduating law students. Survey respondents included 1,622 students from 117 law schools representing 40 States, the District of Columbia, and Canada. Among the findings reported were the following: Overall, 66 percent of respondents stated that law school debt kept them from considering a public interest or government job. The percentage is higher among those who ultimately accepted jobs in small or large private firms, with 83 percent and 78 percent, respectively, stating that debt prevented them from seeking work with public interest organizations or the Federal Government.

Seventy-three percent of students who had not yet accepted a job when surveyed also indicated that they were disinclined to seek a public interest or government position due to heavy debt load. Providing $6,000 a year in available loan repayment assistance would

result in increased interest in a post graduate Federal Government job for 83 percent of student respondents.

Despite their high debt burden, some law graduates initially accept public service jobs. However, the magnitude of debt precipitates high turnover because many of these cannot repay loan obligations on a median starting salary of $36,000 and pay all their other remaining living expenses with the remaining $1,100 per month. Some who begin careers in public service, and who would like to remain, leave after a few years when they find their debts are too severely constraining on their hopes for making ends meet, much less raising children or saving for retirement.

Many public service employers report having a difficult time attracting the best qualified law graduates. Public service employers, such as prosecutor or public defender offices, have vacancies they cannot fill because new law graduates cannot afford to work for them. Alternatively, those who do hire law graduates find that, because of educational debt payments, those whom they do hire leave just at the point when they have acquired the experience to provide the most valuable services.

The legal profession and society pay a severe price when law graduates are shut out from pursuing public service legal careers due to high educational debt burden. Lawyers with dreams of serving their communities as prosecutors or public defenders are unable to use their skills to do so. And when governments cannot hire new lawyers or keep experienced ones, the ability to protect the public safety is challenged. The inability of poor and moderate-income persons to obtain legal assistance can result in dire consequences to those individuals and the communities in which they live.

Our bill, the Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act, is designed to help remedy some of these problems. Enacting this measure will help make legal careers in public service as prosecutors and public defenders in the criminal justice system more financially viable and attractive to law school graduates who have incurred significant financial obligations in acquiring their education.

Our proposal would establish, within the Department of Justice, a program of student loan repayment for borrowers who agree to remain employed for at least 3 years as public attorneys who are either State or local criminal prosecutors or State, local, or Federal public defenders in criminal cases. It would allow eligible attorneys to receive student loan debt repayments of up to $10,000 per year, with a maximum aggregate over time of $60,000.

Repayment benefits for such public attorneys would be made available on a first-come, first-served basis and subject to the availability of appropriations. Priority would be given to borrowers who received repayment benefits for the preceding fiscal year and have completed less than 3 years of the first required service period. Borrowers could enter into an additional agreement, after the required 3-year period, for a successive period of service which may be less than 3 years. It would cover student loans made, insured, or guaranteed under the Higher Education Act of 1965, including consolidation loans. Furthermore, it would extend to Federal public defenders the existing Perkins loan forgiveness program available for Federal prosecutors.

Our bill is modeled on the program for Federal executive branch employees which has been enjoying growing success. Federal law permits Federal executive branch agencies to repay their employees' student loans, up to $10,000 in a year, and up to a lifetime maximum of $60,000. In exchange, the employee must agree to remain with the agency for at least 3 years.

During fiscal year 2004, 28 executive branch agencies provided 2,945 Federal employees with more than $16.4 million in student loan repayments, as reported by the Office of Personnel Management in April 2005. This marked a 42-percent increase in the number of beneficiaries and a 79-percent increase in benefits over fiscal year 2003.

It is noteworthy that across the Federal Government in 2004, agencies used the loan repayment program most often to recruit and retain attorneys. In fiscal year 2004, 473 Federal lawyers received loan repayments, representing 16.1 percent of all employees who received the benefit.

The Securities and Exchange Commission provided the benefit to 239 lawyers, and the Justice Department distributed program benefits to 118 of its attorneys. According to the Office of Personnel Management's report, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reported that the program has been of tremendous benefit in recruiting and retaining attorneys in its Honors Law Graduate Program. NRC commented that law school debt is continuing to rise--to more than $100,000 in some cases--and a gap exists between Federal and private law firm salaries. As a result, some quality candidates may rule out a career as an attorney in the Federal Government. NRC believes the Federal student loan repayment program helps the Commission overcome these obstacles.

I recently received a compelling letter from Jennifer Walsh, the assistant appellate defender for the State of Illinois. Her experiences portray in testamentary terms the real dilemmas encountered by perhaps thousands of attorneys desiring public service careers despite exorbitant student loan obligations.

To simply paraphrase Ms. Walsh's sentiments would diminish their impact, so I would like to quote some excerpts from her letter: ``I love being a public servant. . . . Helping those who cannot afford to help themselves isn't charity and it isn't socially progressive. It is justice and it has made me a better person. . . . However, the one problem that I have consistently had since becoming a public defender is getting my student loans paid. I have a debt burden over $110,000. . . . My student loan payments will soon exceed $950 a month. This represents about one-third of my monthly take-home pay. I cannot help pay the mortgage on my house. I cannot save for my two children's futures. During a financial crisis, my husband knows that he cannot look to me to help the family finances. . . . I am now faced with a Hobson's choice--do I fulfill the needs of my indigent clients or my struggling family? I absolutely, positively don't want to leave. But my responsibilities to my family and my student loan creditors make staying in the public sector feel selfish and irresponsible. Imagine that--working for the public good seems selfish and irresponsible because I cannot do what I love and, at the same time, repay what I owe.''

I appreciate Ms. Walsh's willingness to share her perspectives with me. By enacting and funding this legislation, we can take a meaningful step toward alleviating some of the financial burden for attorneys such as Ms. Walsh who choose careers as criminal prosecutors and public defenders.

I know there are many other law graduates who, like Jennifer Walsh, want to apply their legal training and develop their skills in the public sector, but are deterred by the weight of student loan obligations. Passage of our legislation will help them make their careers dreams a reality. I urge its swift adoption.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2005. I am honored to have the support and cosponsorship of Senator DeWine with whom I have enjoyed working on similar measures in previous Congresses. I am further pleased that Senators Specter, Leahy, Kennedy, Feingold, Feinstein, Akaka, Cantwell, Harkin, Lautenberg, Pryor, and Kerry have also agreed to join me as original cosponsors of this legislation. Our bill is designed to encourage the best and the brightest law school graduates to enter public service as criminal prosecutors and public defenders by making a student loan repayment program available to them.

I am pleased that this legislation enjoys bipartisan support. I am anxious to work closely with Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Leahy to advance it through the Judiciary Committee and secure its enactment by the full Senate.

Our proposed loan repayment program is supported by the American Bar Association, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Association of Prosecutor Coordinators, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, and the American Council of Chief Defenders.

We can--and should--do more to help prosecutor and public defender offices compete with the higher salaries available in the private sector. In many instances, despite high aspirations and strong motivation to work in the public sector, many graduates find it economically impossible to pursue that career path due to the overwhelming burden of debt. The availability of student loan repayment can be a powerful incentive for attracting some of our most talented new lawyers to public service employment.

Many of today's law graduates are finishing law school owing staggering amounts of student loan debt. According to the American Bar Association, the median total cumulative educational debt for law school graduates in the class of 2004 was $97,763 for private schools and $66,810 for public schools. Educational loan debts represent a serious financial obligation which must be repaid. A default on any loan triggers serious consequences. Moreover, the looming obligation can impact career choices for many new graduates.

Many budding prosecutors and public defenders face a disheartening dilemma. On the one hand, they have a deep commitment to pursuing a career in public service. On the other hand, they need a level of income to meet the demands of exorbitant educational loan liabilities. This wrenching choice has not only personal impact but adverse implications for the legal profession and its commitment to ensuring access to justice for all citizens. And from an employer's perspective, comparatively low salaries and high debt make it extremely difficult to recruit and retain attorneys in prosecutor and public defender offices.

The results of a special study, ``Lifting the Burden: Law Student Debt as a Barrier to Public Service,'' published in August 2003 by the American Bar Association, reflects eight key findings, which I will describe in more specificity in my remarks.

First, law school tuition levels have skyrocketed. Second, the vast majority of law students borrow funds to finance their legal education. Third, law students are borrowing increasingly larger sums to finance their legal education. Fourth, public service salaries have not kept pace with rising law school debt burdens or private sector salaries. Fifth, high student debt bars many law graduates from pursuing public service careers. Sixth, many law graduates who take public service legal jobs must leave after they gain 2 to 3 years of experience. Seventh, public service employers report serious difficulty recruiting and retaining lawyers. And eighth, the legal profession and society pay a severe price when law graduates are shut out from pursuing public service legal careers due to high educational debt burden.

On the matter of skyrocketing tuition levels, since the early 1970s, there have been steep and persistent hikes in the costs of legal education and in the tuition rates law schools charge. Researchers found that tuition increased about 340 percent from 1985 to 2002 for private law school students and out-of-state students at public law schools. In state students at public law schools saw their tuition jump about 500 percent. During the period 1992-2002, the cost of living in the United States rose 28 percent while the cost of tuition for public law schools rose 134 percent for residents and 100 percent for nonresidents, and private law school tuition increased 76 percent.

In 1975, when private law school tuition averaged $2,525 and public law school tuition for in state residents was $700, the need to borrow to finance a legal education was not as prevalent or necessary. In 1990, when tuition was $11,680 for private institutions and $3,012 for public law schools, it was at least manageable. In 2002, the median law school annual tuitions were $24,920 for private law schools, $18,131 for nonresident students at public law schools, and $9,252 for resident students at public law schools.

A computation of the tuition rates of the 186 ABA-accredited law schools for 2004 reflects that charges for State residents at public law schools average $10,820 per year. For nonresidents attending public law schools, the average tuition amounts to $20,176 per year. Students attending private law schools pay an average of $25,603 per year.

Additional amounts for food, lodging, books, fees and personal expenses increase the costs for 3 years to more than $60,000 in almost all cases and well over $100,000 in many instances.

The vast majority of law students must borrow funds to finance their legal education. In 2002, almost 87 percent of law students borrowed to finance their legal education. That level remained consistent in 2004. Many of these students also carried unpaid debt from their undergraduate studies.

Law students are borrowing increasingly larger sums to finance their legal education. As tuition and other expenses of attending law school rose, more and more students found they needed to borrow to pay for law school. During the 1990s, the average amount students borrowed more than doubled. Today, the amount borrowed by many students exceeds $80,000.

Public service salaries have not kept pace with rising law school debt burdens or private sector salaries. Entry-level salaries for government or other public service position, have always been significantly lower than those in private practice.

Over the years since the mid-1970s, the median starting salaries in private practice have risen at a much faster pace than entry-level public service salaries. Between 1985 and 2002, the median starting salaries at private law firms rose by about 280 percent. Government lawyers, such as prosecutors and public defenders, saw their salaries increase by just 70 percent.

According to the 2004 Public Sector and Public Interest Attorney Salary Report, published in August 2004 by the National Association for Law Placement, Inc., the median entry-level salary for public defenders is $39,000; with 11 to 15 years of experience, the median is $65,000. The salary progression for State and local prosecuting attorneys is similar, starting at about $40,000 and progressing to $68,000-69,000 for those with 11 to 15 years of experience.

In August 2004, NALP also released the results of its tenth annual comprehensive survey of associate compensation in private sector law firms. According to the 2004 Associate Salary Survey Report, based on salary information as of April 1, 2004 provided by 599 offices, the median salary for first-year associates ranged from $65,000 in firms of 2 to 25 attorneys to $120,000 in firms of 500 attorneys or more, with a first-year median for all participating firms of $95,000. These figures evidence the stark reality of compensation differentials for those graduates electing to devote their skills to public service jobs as prosecutors and defenders.

High student debt bars many law graduates from pursuing public service careers. As law school tuition and student debt have sharply escalated, fewer and fewer law school graduates can afford to take the comparatively low-paying public service positions that are available in government agencies or with prosecutor, public defender, or legal services offices.

A national study of law school debt conducted by Equal Justice Works, the Partnership for Public Service, and the National Association for Law Placement found that law student debt prevented two-thirds of law student respondents from considering a public service career.

The report was based on a spring 2002 survey of graduating law students. Survey respondents included 1,622 students from 117 law schools representing 40 States, the District of Columbia, and Canada. Among the findings reported were the following: Overall, 66 percent of respondents stated that law school debt kept them from considering a public interest or government job. The percentage is higher among those who ultimately accepted jobs in small or large private firms, with 83 percent and 78 percent, respectively, stating that debt prevented them from seeking work with public interest organizations or the Federal Government.

Seventy-three percent of students who had not yet accepted a job when surveyed also indicated that they were disinclined to seek a public interest or government position due to heavy debt load. Providing $6,000 a year in available loan repayment assistance would

result in increased interest in a post graduate Federal Government job for 83 percent of student respondents.

Despite their high debt burden, some law graduates initially accept public service jobs. However, the magnitude of debt precipitates high turnover because many of these cannot repay loan obligations on a median starting salary of $36,000 and pay all their other remaining living expenses with the remaining $1,100 per month. Some who begin careers in public service, and who would like to remain, leave after a few years when they find their debts are too severely constraining on their hopes for making ends meet, much less raising children or saving for retirement.

Many public service employers report having a difficult time attracting the best qualified law graduates. Public service employers, such as prosecutor or public defender offices, have vacancies they cannot fill because new law graduates cannot afford to work for them. Alternatively, those who do hire law graduates find that, because of educational debt payments, those whom they do hire leave just at the point when they have acquired the experience to provide the most valuable services.

The legal profession and society pay a severe price when law graduates are shut out from pursuing public service legal careers due to high educational debt burden. Lawyers with dreams of serving their communities as prosecutors or public defenders are unable to use their skills to do so. And when governments cannot hire new lawyers or keep experienced ones, the ability to protect the public safety is challenged. The inability of poor and moderate-income persons to obtain legal assistance can result in dire consequences to those individuals and the communities in which they live.

Our bill, the Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act, is designed to help remedy some of these problems. Enacting this measure will help make legal careers in public service as prosecutors and public defenders in the criminal justice system more financially viable and attractive to law school graduates who have incurred significant financial obligations in acquiring their education.

Our proposal would establish, within the Department of Justice, a program of student loan repayment for borrowers who agree to remain employed for at least 3 years as public attorneys who are either State or local criminal prosecutors or State, local, or Federal public defenders in criminal cases. It would allow eligible attorneys to receive student loan debt repayments of up to $10,000 per year, with a maximum aggregate over time of $60,000.

Repayment benefits for such public attorneys would be made available on a first-come, first-served basis and subject to the availability of appropriations. Priority would be given to borrowers who received repayment benefits for the preceding fiscal year and have completed less than 3 years of the first required service period. Borrowers could enter into an additional agreement, after the required 3-year period, for a successive period of service which may be less than 3 years. It would cover student loans made, insured, or guaranteed under the Higher Education Act of 1965, including consolidation loans. Furthermore, it would extend to Federal public defenders the existing Perkins loan forgiveness program available for Federal prosecutors.

Our bill is modeled on the program for Federal executive branch employees which has been enjoying growing success. Federal law permits Federal executive branch agencies to repay their employees' student loans, up to $10,000 in a year, and up to a lifetime maximum of $60,000. In exchange, the employee must agree to remain with the agency for at least 3 years.

During fiscal year 2004, 28 executive branch agencies provided 2,945 Federal employees with more than $16.4 million in student loan repayments, as reported by the Office of Personnel Management in April 2005. This marked a 42-percent increase in the number of beneficiaries and a 79-percent increase in benefits over fiscal year 2003.

It is noteworthy that across the Federal Government in 2004, agencies used the loan repayment program most often to recruit and retain attorneys. In fiscal year 2004, 473 Federal lawyers received loan repayments, representing 16.1 percent of all employees who received the benefit.

The Securities and Exchange Commission provided the benefit to 239 lawyers, and the Justice Department distributed program benefits to 118 of its attorneys. According to the Office of Personnel Management's report, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reported that the program has been of tremendous benefit in recruiting and retaining attorneys in its Honors Law Graduate Program. NRC commented that law school debt is continuing to rise--to more than $100,000 in some cases--and a gap exists between Federal and private law firm salaries. As a result, some quality candidates may rule out a career as an attorney in the Federal Government. NRC believes the Federal student loan repayment program helps the Commission overcome these obstacles.

I recently received a compelling letter from Jennifer Walsh, the assistant appellate defender for the State of Illinois. Her experiences portray in testamentary terms the real dilemmas encountered by perhaps thousands of attorneys desiring public service careers despite exorbitant student loan obligations.

To simply paraphrase Ms. Walsh's sentiments would diminish their impact, so I would like to quote some excerpts from her letter: ``I love being a public servant. . . . Helping those who cannot afford to help themselves isn't charity and it isn't socially progressive. It is justice and it has made me a better person. . . . However, the one problem that I have consistently had since becoming a public defender is getting my student loans paid. I have a debt burden over $110,000. . . . My student loan payments will soon exceed $950 a month. This represents about one-third of my monthly take-home pay. I cannot help pay the mortgage on my house. I cannot save for my two children's futures. During a financial crisis, my husband knows that he cannot look to me to help the family finances. . . . I am now faced with a Hobson's choice--do I fulfill the needs of my indigent clients or my struggling family? I absolutely, positively don't want to leave. But my responsibilities to my family and my student loan creditors make staying in the public sector feel selfish and irresponsible. Imagine that--working for the public good seems selfish and irresponsible because I cannot do what I love and, at the same time, repay what I owe.''

I appreciate Ms. Walsh's willingness to share her perspectives with me. By enacting and funding this legislation, we can take a meaningful step toward alleviating some of the financial burden for attorneys such as Ms. Walsh who choose careers as criminal prosecutors and public defenders.

I know there are many other law graduates who, like Jennifer Walsh, want to apply their legal training and develop their skills in the public sector, but are deterred by the weight of student loan obligations. Passage of our legislation will help them make their careers dreams a reality. I urge its swift adoption.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help ensure our homeland security is in the hands of the best and the brightest leaders. The Department of Homeland Security Qualified Leaders Act will establish minimum qualification standards for most Senate-confirmed positions in the Department of Homeland Security, DHS. I am joined by Senators Lautenberg and Carper in introducing this bill, and I thank them for their support.

Hurricane Katrina and the resignation of Under Secretary Michael Brown have raised concerns regarding the experience and qualifications of political appointees in the Federal Government. Mr. Brown had minimal emergency management experience prior to joining the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA. Despite Mr. Brown's 3 years as a senior official at FEMA, the agency faltered during Hurricane Katrina under his leadership.

While not all of the Government's failures to prepare for and respond to Hurricane Katrina can be placed at Mr. Brown's doorstep, leadership matters. At a recent Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on the Coast Guard's response to Hurricane Katrina, Cpt Bruce C. Jones, the commanding officer of Coast Guard Air Station New Orleans, testified, ``What counts most in a crisis, is not the plan, it's leadership. Not processes, but people. And not organizational charts, but organizational culture.''

According to Captain Jones, one of the reasons the Coast Guard was able to respond immediately and perform efficiently during Hurricane Katrina is because the leaders of the Eighth District and Sector New Orleans were able to make quick, sound decisions while following a predetermined plan. Quick thinking and good judgement cannot be written into a plan.

In addition, DHS, with its multitude of management challenges, requires leaders with strong management experience. Over the past few years, the DHS Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office have cited DHS for poor contract management, ineffective financial systems, and major human capital challenges. Moreover, DHS is in the process of implementing its Second Stage Review, an attempt to better organize the Department to meet its many missions. As Secretary Michael Chertoff overhauls the Department to create what will hopefully be a structure that serve DHS well for years to come, he needs senior officials who have experience running large organizations--people who know which systems and chains of command work and which do not. Good managers are needed across the Federal Government, but nowhere are they more needed than in an infant agency.

Comptroller General David Walker said in a September 21, 2005, interview with Federal Times that ``for certain positions, given the nature of the position, there should be statutory qualification requirements for any nominee.'' I agree.

For these reasons, we must ensure that the right people are leading DHS. Our bill delineates requirements for Senate-confirmed positions based on their compensation under the Executive Schedule. The most senior officials, those in Executive Level II and III, will be required to possess at least 5 years of management experience, 5 years of experience in a field relevant to the position for which the individual

is nominated, such as customs intelligence, or cybersecurity, and a demonstrated ability to manage a substantial staff and budget. These requirements will apply to the following positions: the Under Secretary of Science and Technology; the Under Secretary of Preparedness; the Director of FEMA; and the Under Secretary of Management. The Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security are exempt from this bill.

Executive Level IV positions will be required to possess significant management experience, at least 5 years of experience in a field relevant to the position for which the individual is nominated, and a demonstrated ability to manage a substantial staff and budget. These position include the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement; the Assistant Secretary for Customs and Border Patrol; the Assistant Secretary for Border and Transportation Security Policy; the Assistant Secretary for Plans, Programs, and Budgets; the Director of the Office State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness; the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; the Inspector General; the Chief Financial Officer; the U.S. Fire Administrator; and the General Counsel. The bill exempts the commandant of the Coast Guard from this section since requirements for selection of the commandant already exist in law.

I believe that any program or agency will succeed or fail based on leadership. This is especially true at Federal agencies, which need senior leaders with management skills and subject matter expertise. Our bill is a step in the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to join us in passing this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my senior colleague from Hawaii, Senator Dan Inouye, to provide certain Federal

public benefits for citizens of the Freely Associated State, FAS, who are residing in the United States. The bill would provide eligibility for nonemergency Medicaid, Food Stamps, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, TANF, and Supplemental Security Income, SSI, to FAS citizens residing in the United States.

Citizens from the FAS are from the Republic of the Marshall Islands, RMI, Federated States of Micronesia, FSM, and the Republic of Palau, which are jurisdictions that have a unique political relationship with the United States. The Compact of Free Association established these nations as sovereign states responsible for their own foreign policies. However, the FAS remain dependent upon the United States for military protection and economic assistance.

Under the compact, the United States has the right to reject the strategic use of, or military access to, the FAS by other countries, which is often referred to as the ``right of strategic denial.'' In addition, the U.S. may block FAS government policies that it deems inconsistent with its duty to defend the FAS, which is referred to as the ``defense veto.'' The compact also states that the United States has exclusive military base rights in the FAS.

In exchange for these prerogatives, the United States is required to support the FAS economically, with the goal of producing self- sufficiency, and FAS citizens are allowed free entry into the United States as nonimmigrants for the purposes of education, medical treatment, and employment. Many FAS citizens reside in the State of Hawaii. Since 1997, when Hawaii began reporting its impact costs, the State has identified more than $140 million in costs associated with FAS citizens. In 2002, the State of Hawaii expended more than $32 million in assistance to FAS citizens. P.L. 108-188, the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2003, provides $30 million in annual funding for compact impact assistance to be shared between the State of Hawaii, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, CNMI, and American Samoa. While this funding is a positive step forward, it does not begin to reimburse the affected jurisdictions for the costs associated with FAS citizens.

This legislation would provide assistance to states and territories that shoulder the majority of the costs associated with the compact. The Federal Government must provide appropriate resources to help States meet the needs of the FAS citizens--an obligation based on a Federal commitment. It is unconscionable for a State or territory to shoulder the entire financial burden of providing necessary educational, medical, and social services to individuals who are residing in that State or territory when the obligation is that of the Federal Government. For that reason, we are seeking to provide reimbursement of these costs. It is time for the Federal Government to take up some of the financial responsibility that until now has been carried by the State of Hawaii, CNMI, Guam, and American Samoa by restoring public benefits to FAS citizens.

This bill would restore eligibility of FAS citizens for nonemergency Medicaid. FAS citizens lost many of their public benefits as a result of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity, PRWORA, Act of 1996, including Medicaid coverage. FAS citizens were previously eligible for Medicaid as aliens permanently residing under color of law in the United States.

After the enactment of welfare reform, the State of Hawaii could no longer claim Federal matching funds for services rendered to FAS citizens. Yet the State of Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, and the CNMI have continued to meet the health care needs of FAS citizens. The State of Hawaii has used its resources to provide Medicaid services to FAS citizens.

In 2003 alone, the State spent approximately $9.77 million to provide Medicaid services without receiving any federal matching funds. This represents a dramatic increase from $6.75 million in State fiscal year 2002. Furthermore, the trend in the need for health care services among FAS citizens continues to rise. During fiscal year 2004, the number of individuals served in the State of Hawaii's Medicaid program grew from 3,291 to 4,818 people based on the average monthly enrollment. This is an increase of 46 percent.

This bill would also provide eligibility for FAS citizens residing in the United States to participate in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Supplemental Security Income programs. According to Hawaii's attorney general, financial assistance in the form of the Temporary Assistance to Other Needy Families, TAONF, Program, a State program, provided $5.1 million to FAS citizens in State fiscal year 2003. This continues an upward trend from $4.5 million in State fiscal year 2002. This total includes funds that go to the General Assistance Program, which supports individuals and couples with little or no income and who have a temporary, incapacitating medical condition; the aged, blind, and disabled program for FAS citizens with little or no income who are not eligible for federally-funded Supplemental Security Income; and the State's TAONF Program that assists other needy families who are not eligible for federal-funding under the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program. The financial assistance that the State of Hawaii provides to FAS citizens in the form of TAONF is a great support to those families attempting to achieve economic stability, but it has a significant financial impact on the State's budget.

The bill would also provide eligibility for the Food Stamp Program. Mr. President, the Food Stamp Program serves as the first line of defense against hunger. It is the cornerstone of the Federal food assistance program and provides crucial support to needy households and those making the transition from welfare to work. We have partially addressed the complicated issue of alien eligibility for public benefits such as food stamps, but again, I must say it is just partial. Not only should all legal immigrants receive these benefits, but so should citizens of the FAS. Exclusion of FAS citizens from Federal, State, or local public benefits or programs is an unintended and misguided consequence of the welfare reform law. We allow certain legal immigrants eligibility in the program. Yet FAS citizens, who are not considered immigrants but who are required to up for the Selective Service if they are residing in the United States are ineligible to receiving food stamps. This bill corrects this inequity.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that a letter of support I received last week from Director Lillian Koller of the State of Hawaii, Department of Human Services be printed in the Record.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this measure which is of critical importance to my State of Hawaii, which has borne the costs of these benefits for FAS citizens living in Hawaii for the past 19 years.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Healthy Communities Act of 2005, and I am pleased to have the support of my good friend and colleague Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Over the last few decades, our medical researchers and scientists have developed increasingly sophisticated and high tech methods to diagnose and treat disease. Yet, this approach has caused us to lose sight of the need for preventing diseases on the front-end, with greater investment in basic public health interventions that too often get short shrift.

Today, I would like to bring it back to the basics and talk about environmental quality. The air we breathe, the food we eat, the houses in which we live, and the parks in which our children play--all of these factors contribute to our health. Environmental health, as defined by the World Health Organization, includes both the direct, damaging effects of chemicals, radiation, and some biological agents, and the effects on health and well-being of the broad physical, psychological, social, and aesthetic environment. The legislation that I have introduced draws attention to that aspect of the environment that is the physical environment--the toxicants and pollutants that we may not notice, but are present in our everyday surroundings and taking a toll on our health.

My home State of Illinois faces a number of environmental challenges, including high levels of lead poisoning. It is estimated that over 400,000 children in this country suffer from elevated blood lead levels. Chicago has the unfortunate distinction of ranking number 1 for children with elevated blood lead levels. 6,691 children have elevated blood lead levels, which is 50 percent higher than the number of children in the second ranked city of Philadelphia. Elevated blood levels are known to cause behavioral and learning problems, slowed growth, impaired hearing and damage to the kidneys, brain and bone marrow. Adults are not exempt from lead toxicity--poisoned adults suffer pregnancy difficulties, high blood pressure, digestive problems, nerve disorders, memory and concentration problems, and muscle and joint pain. Lead poisoning is completely preventable, and although our agencies have made good progress, we can and must do more to address this issue.

Obviously lead is only one of many toxicants and pollutants with which we must contend. Different areas of the U.S. face unique challenges--States like California are grappling with the repercussions of air pollution, while Massachusetts and others in the Northeast are challenged with high levels of mercury in the water. As much as we know about these hazards, the effects of many chemicals are unknown.

Less than half of the chemicals produced in this country in quantities greater than 10,000 pounds have been tested for their potential human toxicity, with less than 10 percent studied to assess effects on development. This lack of knowledge has serious health repercussions--in children, environmental toxins are estimated to cause

up to 35 percent of asthma cases, up to 10 percent of cancer cases, and up to 20 percent of neurobehavioral disorders. Overall, an estimated 25 percent of preventable illnesses worldwide can be attributed to poor environmental quality. Diseases such as cancer, heart disease, asthma, birth defects, infertility, and obesity are all caused or exacerbated by toxicants or pollutants in the environment.

Minority Americans are significantly more likely to be affected than other Americans. Some studies have found that 3 of every 5 African- and Latino Americans live in communities with one or more toxic waste sites. Communities with existing incinerators, and those that are proposed for placement of new incinerators, have substantially higher numbers of minority residents. Minority Americans are already plagued with higher rates of death and disease, and fewer health resources in their neighborhoods. As we focus our efforts on environmental health, we must be cognizant that some groups are disproportionately affected by federal policies and decision-making, and deserve careful attention.

The Healthy Communities Act of 2005 addresses environmental health concerns in a comprehensive fashion, building upon many of the successful federal initiatives and filling in gaps in other critical areas. The bill establishes an independent advisory committee to provide recommendations across all relevant Federal agencies. It asks the CDC and the EPA to assess and report the environmental public health of the nation, and each State. The Health Action Zone Program will provide intense Federal attention and resources to clean up and address the health needs of the nation's most blighted communities. Environmental research is expanded, including biomonitoring and health tracking initiatives. Finally, the Act promotes environmental health workforce programs at the CDC and the NIH.

The Healthy Communities Act of 2005 will increase national attention on the importance of the environment, and its relationship to good health. As we work to make our future stronger for our communities, let us look to our past. In the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, Congress wrote that it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to assure that all Americans live in ``safe, healthful and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings.'' Almost forty years later, our responsibility to the American people continues. I encourage all of my colleagues to join me and support passage of this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lead Free Toys Act of 2005, which directs the Consumer Product Safety Commission to intensify efforts to reduce lead exposure for children.

The unfortunate reality for many children--particularly in low-income and minority households--is the continued presence of high blood lead levels. Over 400,000 children in this country have elevated blood lead levels, with my own hometown of Chicago having the largest concentration of these children.

Lead is a highly toxic substance that can produce a range of health problems in young children, including IQ deficiencies, reading and learning disabilities, impaired hearing, reduced attention spans, hyperactivity, and damage to the kidneys, brain and bone marrow. Even low levels of blood lead in pregnant women, infants and children can lead to impaired cognitive abilities, fetal organ development and behavioral problems.

We know that lead poisoning is completely preventable. As the Nation has increased efforts to reduce environmental lead exposure, the number of children with high blood levels has steadily dropped. Restricting lead in gasoline and paint represent two major accomplishments in this regard. But much work remains to be done.

Earlier today I introduced the Healthy Communities Act of 2005, to strengthen Federal, State and local efforts to address environmental health issues in communities already affected by lead and other toxins. However, we need to take greater proactive steps to prevent contamination, and the Lead Free Toys Act of 2005 will help us do just that.

Disturbingly, lead is present in a number of toys and other frequently used objects by young children. According to research conducted by the National Center for Environmental Health, about half of tested lunch boxes have unsafe levels of lead. The highly popular Angela Anaconda lunch box was found to have 56,400 parts per million of lead, which is more than 90 times the 600 parts per million legal limit for lead in paint for children's products. Other lunch boxes showed levels of lead between two and twenty-five times the legal limit for lead paint in children's products. In most cases, the highest lead levels were found in the lining of lunch boxes, where lead could come into direct contact with food.

This problem is not limited to lunchboxes. One study found that 60 percent of more than 400 pieces of costume jewelry purchased at major department stories contain dangerous amounts of lead. From September 2003 through July 2004, there were 3 recalls of nearly 150 million pieces of toy jewelry because of toxic levels of lead.

This past August the Centers for Disease Control updated their ``Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children'' statement calling for the elimination of all nonessential uses of lead in children's products. Specifically, the CDC urged a more systematic approach to identifying lead-contaminated items and prohibiting their sale before children are exposed, rather than usual recall efforts after exposure has occurred.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission leads our national efforts to safeguard our children from potentially dangerous objects. However, the Commission has dragged its feet in aggressively addressing the problem of lead in toys. The Lead Free Toys Act, introduced by my colleague Congressman Henry Waxman earlier this year, requires the Consumer Product Safety Commission to prescribe regulations classifying any children's product containing lead as a banned hazardous substance under the Hazardous Substances Act. It defines ``children's product containing lead'' as any consumer product marketed or used by children under age 6 that contains more than trace amounts of lead as determined by the Commission and prescribed by regulations. The Act also requires the Commission to issue standards for reduction in lead in electronic devices.

It's a national disgrace that toys that could pose a serious and significant danger to children are readily available in our department stores and markets. The Lead Free Toys Act of 2005 will help us keep our children safe and healthy, and contribute to national efforts to reduce lead exposure. I ask each of my colleagues to help support this Act.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Chairman Chambliss in introducing legislation to implement the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, the

LRTAP POPs Protocol, and the Rotterdam PIC Protocol. These three agreements provide an international framework for controlling and eliminating the use of chemicals that have the greatest potential for long-term environmental damage. These persistent organic pollutants, or POPs, are chemicals that do not easily break down in the environment. As a result, they tend to move across international boundaries and bio- accumulate--in other words, they travel up the food chain. This legislation modifies existing U.S. law under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA, to bring us into compliance with these agreements with regard to chemicals used in agriculture. Implementation of the agreements will also require modification of the Toxic Substances Control Act, TSCA.

These conventions and protocols have already entered into force. But at this point, though the United States is a signatory to all of them, we have not ratified them. All of the chemicals that are listed in the agreement are already banned or tightly controlled under U.S. law, but the Stockholm Convention's Review Committee just met in Geneva and further meetings are planned, and decisions are being made without our delegation able to fully participate as a party to the agreement. The United States needs to ratify the convention in order to have a voice in this process.

Our goal in writing this legislation is narrow. It has not been our intention to open up FIFRA as part of this process, but only to craft those changes compelled by our international commitments. That is not to say that FIFRA is perfect or could not be improved and strengthened--only that this is not the occasion to launch into changing the domestic law beyond the narrow goal of compliance with these agreements.

Some have urged that this measure provide for automatic processes triggered by the decisions of the review committee overseeing the Stockholm Convention. For instance, if the review committee lists a chemical, they would have the United States automatically take steps to regulate or ban the chemical domestically. I have sympathy with that approach, and I would hope that our existing environmental laws would be used to restrict the use of such a chemical before international action, as they have with all the initial chemicals listed in the Stockholm Convention.

But that is not what is called for in the Stockholm Convention. The convention that this legislation will implement does not compel parties to adopt new chemicals added to the convention in future years. Instead, the parties are allowed to opt in to the convention's restrictions. The legislation we are introducing today would allow for any information or studies generated as part of the international process to be used as part of a domestic regulatory action on the chemical, but would not provide an automatic process that compelled the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to take action. In essence, we are allowing the EPA to move forward and take action on a chemical if the case made in the international review for a ban is strong, and not make EPA reinvent the wheel and generate new data to back up their conclusions, while at the same time, not mandating EPA action to ban or regulate a chemical. This legislation strikes a fair balance and one that is consistent with the limited goal we have in this process to bring FIFRA into compliance with our international obligations.

The most controversial aspects of this legislation are the provisions that deal with the process by which new chemicals are brought under the convention's control. It is critically important that the position of the United States in the international regulation of chemicals take into account the views of all parties--pesticide manufacturers, farmers, environmental scientists, State regulators--everyone who has a stake in the process.

Under the Stockholm Convention, the process of listing new POPs chemicals follows a three-part process. The review committee determines whether a chemical satisfies the agreed screening criteria in the convention; if the criteria are satisfied, a risk profile is prepared; if on the basis of the risk profile, it is determined that global action is required, the committee or parties would consider listing the chemical.

In each of these stages, the U.S. position should be informed by formal notice and comment periods as provided in existing law. The Federal notice and comment process is open, well developed, and well understood by stakeholders in the process. If this process is optional, there is the risk that the U.S. position could be formed without taking into account important views. While nothing in this legislation dictates that any particular position in this established process be taken by the administration, there is a requirement that the administration use this process to collect information to inform its position in the international body regarding any particular chemical.

The administration's draft of this legislation gave the EPA Administrator permission to initiate a notice and comment period but did not require it. The argument for this position was a constitutional claim that the executive's authority over negotiations with other nations includes a right to rely on whatever information that the president chooses to use. The ``remedy'' for negotiating a faulty treaty, according to the letter received from the Department of Justice, is for the Senate to refuse to consent to the treaty.

This position is not consistent with existing Federal law and is impractical particularly in a process like this one, where the negotiation in question would never be subject to ratification by the Senate. My concern with this constitutional theory resulted in an exchange of correspondence last year, when this bill was being drafted by then-Chairman Cochran.

I wrote to then-Administrator Michael Leavitt at the EPA, asking for a written explanation of the administration's position on this issue. This resulted in two letters, one from Administrator Leavitt on behalf of the EPA dated March 25, 2004, and one from Assistant Attorney General William Moschella on behalf of the Department of Justice dated March 25, 2004. Finally, I requested an analysis of the constitutional issues raised by this provision from the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service and received a memorandum dated March 30, 2004. I will offer all of these letters and the CRS memorandum for inclusion in the Record at the end of my statement.

Having reviewed all this material, I find that the administration's position is not well supported, and I would urge the Senate to reject any effort to include it in this legislation. The CRS memorandum on the EPA draft summarizes the state of the law as follows:

Stated succinctly, the separation of powers doctrine ``implicit in the Constitution and well established in case law, forbids Congress from infringing upon the Executive Branch's ability to perform its traditional functions.'' The Supreme Court has established that in determining whether an act of Congress has violated the doctrine, ``the proper inquiry focuses on the extent to which it prevents the Executive Branch from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions.''

The memo goes on to state that it is ``difficult to see how a mandatory notice and comment requirement would implicate this traditional executive function.'' The memorandum concludes that ``it does not appear that a mandatory notice and comment requirement would present any substantive separation of powers concerns.'' Clearly, there is no merit to the Justice Department's contention that mandatory notice and comment would be an unconstitutional intrusion into the President's exclusive prerogative over foreign policy. Clearly, future steps taken domestically to carry out these international agreements should be informed by the views of all stakeholders and build the record through the notice and comment procedure for domestic implementation of any international action. This legislation makes the right choice by mandating notice and comment.

I appreciate the opportunity to work with Chairman Chambliss on this legislation, and with our committee's previous chair, Senator Cochran, whose staff worked tirelessly to develop this legislation. I am hopeful that we can work together with the other body to reach agreement on implementing legislation along the lines of this bill,

that will clear the way for ratification of the Stockholm Convention.

I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a letter to Administrator Michael Leavitt, his response from March 25, 2004, the response to the same letter by William Moschella on behalf of the Justice Department, and the memorandum of law from the Congressional Research Service.