John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2007

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 916, the John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2007. I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for their effort and time in holding this very important markup hearing.

Madam Speaker, I support H.R. 916 because it amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to direct the Attorney General to assume the obligation to repay student loans for borrowers who agree to remain employed, for at least three years, as: (1) State or local criminal prosecutors; or (2) State, local, or Federal public defenders in criminal cases. H.R. 916 also will allow a borrower and the Attorney General to enter into an additional loan repayment agreement, after the required three-year period, for a successive period of service which may be less than three years. The bill also limits the amount paid under such program on behalf of any borrower to $10,000 per calendar year and $60,000 total.

Madam Speaker, this bipartisan legislation will benefit our criminal justice system and our communities by creating a student loan repayment program for law school graduates who agree to serve for at least 3 years as criminal prosecutors or public defenders.

Madam Speaker, over recent years we have witnessed the difficulty prosecutor and public defender offices across the country have had attracting and retaining qualified attorneys. We have also seen that our communities suffer when the criminal justice system fails to obtain and retain a sufficient supply of experienced prosecutors and defenders. Under those trying circumstances, the resulting effect is that criminal caseloads become unmanageable, cases can be delayed or mishandled, serious crimes may go unprosecuted, and innocent defendants may be sent to jail. H.R. 916 will improve the administration of the criminal justice system to recruit and retain talented attorneys and help that system function more effectively.

Although I support H.R. 916, it needs to go a step further in ensuring that bright lawyers will lend their services to civil public service legal careers that include legal aid to this country's most disadvantaged and vulnerable populations. That is why during the markup of H.R. 916 I strongly supported the Nadler Amendment, which included civil legal aid attorneys in the category of lawyers eligible for loan forgiveness. Indeed, the Nadler Amendment is comparable to more extensive legislation that I plan to introduce.

Including civil legal aid attorneys in the group who may qualify for loan forgiveness when committing to work in public service will help to recruit and retain legal aid lawyers so that low-income Americans receive the legal assistance they need. Specifically, the Amendment would provide a loan repayment program for new law graduates who work for legal aid.

Providing loan relief for legal aid attorneys is crucial. Legal Aid attorneys protect the safety, security, and health of low-income citizens nationwide. Support for such programs not only provides relief for prospective legal aid attorneys but also for the most vulnerable members of our population. Such programs are available for Federal prosecutors and other Federal employees. But, for the legal aid attorneys--who have the lowest incomes--there currently is not enough access to loan repayment programs. We must ensure that legal aid attorneys receive the financial incentives they need to commit to a career in legal aid.

Without such incentive as loan relief, the legal aid field will continue to fall far short of the mark to meet the needs and demands of requests for legal assistance. Despite the importance of the services legal aid lawyers provide, almost half of the eligible people seeking assistance from Legal Aid are being turned away because of a lack of resources. As law school tuition has skyrocketed, so has a young lawyer's debt. A recent survey found that with median law school debt at $70,000 with an additional $16,000 in undergraduate debt, over 65 percent of new law school graduates were prevented from even considering a public service career.

Given the financial realities, individuals who take positions with legal aid often leave after two or three years. One Midwestern program cited a turnover rate of 60 percent over a two year period, with an average tenure for new attorneys of 17 months. Many of these young attorneys leave at a time when they have just develop necessary experience, creating a revolving door of inexperienced lawyers. This turnover dramatically decreases the efficiency of the program and the vital services it provides. Such a bill would allow young lawyers to choose a career in public service without having to bear the heavy burden of law school debt on their own.

Madam Speaker, whether legal aid attorneys, prosecutors or public defenders, public service attorneys must be given some comparable incentive to choose a career in public service instead of a career in the higher-paying private sector arena. One of the primary reasons for the recruiting difficulty of the administration of the criminal justice system is that huge amounts of student debt have pulled students in the opposite direction of public service careers such as those of prosecutors and defenders. Why? We all know that no one is going to get rich going into service careers such as teachers, social workers, and prosecutors and public defenders especially when they are starting out with enormous student loan obligations. That is why we must give those who wish to serve in public service careers incentive such as loan forgiveness so that they will not forgo service careers simply because they are buried in mounds of student loans.

H.R. 916, which authorizes $25 million in appropriations for FY08, establishes a program of student loan repayment for borrowers who agree to remain employed, for at least 3 years, as State or local criminal prosecutors or as State, local or Federal public defenders in criminal cases (note that Federal prosecutors are already eligible for loan relief through existing Federal programs). The 3 year period is comparable to other loan forgiveness programs.

Other important aspects of the bill include: allowing eligible attorneys to receive student loan debt repayments of up to $10,000 per year, with a maximum aggregate over time of $60,000; covering student loans made, insured or guaranteed under the Higher Education Act of 1965, including consolidation loans; providing that repayments benefits be made available to eligible attorneys on a first-come, first served basis, subject to the availability of appropriations; and permitting attorneys to enter into additional loan repayment agreements, after the required 3-year period, for additional periods of service. The bill also sets safeguards to ensure loan forgiveness participants satisfy their commitments by requiring attorneys to repay the Government if they do not complete their required period of service.

Madam Speaker, this bill has bipartisan support as well as wide support in the legal community. H.R. 916 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 National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Madam Speaker, I strongly support this bill and urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 916) to provide for loan repayment for prosecutors and public defenders, as amended.

Madam 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.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I am proud to join with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) and rise in strong support of H.R. 916 because our Nation's criminal justice system depends on the hard work and commitment of the men and women who serve as prosecutors and defenders; yet the ability of the public sector to attract qualified individuals and to retain experienced attorneys is increasingly becoming more compromised.

As many of us know, recent law school graduates are often burdened with overwhelming student education loans. The amount of their debt can effectively preclude a young attorney from choosing to practice in the public sector, and with the median salary for an associate in private practice now many times the median salary of a State prosecutor, public-spirited attorneys who owe extensive student loans have a very hard time deciding that they can afford to work in our criminal justice system.

In Wayne County, Michigan, our county prosecutor Ms. Kym Worthy, a veteran trial lawyer before she assumed the position, has come to me repeatedly asking for help in this area.

So this measure addresses the critical problem by directing the Attorney General to establish a loan repayment assistance program for an individual who agrees to remain employed for at least 3 years as either a State or local criminal prosecutor or as a State, local or Federal public defender for criminal cases.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to congratulate the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), the floor manager of this bill, and to thank him for the helpful compromises that he led in working out the bipartisan support of this bill. I thank you.

Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), the author of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute and that is to describe the wide spectrum of legal support for this measure: the National District Attorneys Association, the American Bar Association, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the National Legal Aid & Defender Association, and many others.

Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to introduce a gentleman from South Carolina, the chairman of the Budget Committee, as much time as he may consume, Mr. John Spratt.

(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I would bring to the attention of our membership a communication from the National Conference of Chief Justices at the State level in support of Federal legislation to create incentives to law students to participate in public service occupations after graduations.

The 109th Congress considered legislation designed to encourage qualified individuals to enter in and continue employment for at least 3 years as criminal prosecutors and public defenders by means of providing the United States Government payment of a portion of that individual student loan for each year of such employment.

Whereas the 110th Congress is also likely to consider legislation to assist the repayment of student loans of qualified individuals who commit to employment as prosecutors and public defenders, therefore, the Association of American Law Schools, Equal Justice Works, the National Legal Aid & Defender Association, and the American Bar Association have expressed support for the above-described legislation, and the lawyers to engage in civil and legal services to enhance access by justice, by low-income persons rendered valuable public service that is comparable to that provided by criminal prosecutors and public defenders.

Therefore, be it resolved that the Conference of Chief Justices hereby urges the Congress to adopt legislation to give financial incentives to law school graduates to commit to sustained public service as prosecutors and public defenders.

Therefore, the conference additionally encourages Congress to develop and adopt separate legislation providing similar relief for qualified individuals who engage in employment as civil, legal aid attorneys, adopted as proposed by the Government Affairs Committee and the Professionalism and Competence Committee of the Conference of Chief Justices on February 7 in the year 2007.

Madam Speaker, I would be happy to recognize former judge Louie Gohmert of the Judiciary Committee for 1 minute.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for his contribution.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I thank very much Chairman Conyers. This is indeed a great moment. It is a great time, and I appreciate the leadership that you provide as chairman of the committee and all of our colleagues.

This is definitely a bipartisan effort to really deal with one of the most pressing issues facing our country today, Madam Speaker. I cannot think of a more significant thing we can do to make the essence of this country a reality for all. For at the cornerstone of America are these words: wisdom and justice and fairness and moderation. That is what makes this country great.

And at the cornerstone of that is to be able to have, when you come before the bar of justice, that justice is indeed blind and that everyone will be able to receive justice in a fair way. Regardless of whether or not you are a wealthy person or if you are a poor person, one thing is important: you are an American citizen and you deserve to make sure that you have fairness and justice and integrity when you come before the criminal justice system.

Unfortunately, now, Madam Speaker, that is not the case. For in all too many cases, when it comes down to public defenders and prosecutors, that is not the case because of the strains and the interplay of our economic system and the pressures that the marketplace has on that.

But what I am talking about is this, that right now the cost of living has gone up 28 percent, but the costs of tuition for 3 years in law school has gone up 167 percent. So that the average cost now per year for a student to go to law school is $50,000 a year. For 3 years, that's $150,000.

So, Madam Speaker, what I am saying is when that individual gets out of

school he has to go into a marketplace where the private economy is willing to pay him an average now of $110,000, and in some markets in this country, such as New York or California and even in my home State of Georgia in Atlanta, beginning law school students going into the private sector can earn as much as $160,000 a year. But if you're a public defender, if you're a prosecutor, the average starting salary is just $43,000.

That is the crux of the problem, and that's why we have this bill, Madam Speaker, so that we can bring some equity to the playing field; so that we will be able to provide law students with the opportunity to help them with their loan repayment; so that we can have a partial loan forgiveness, not total.

This package that we're offering would give an individual up to $10,000 from the Federal Government to help offset his loans, and he must serve in the public sector for 3 years. But there's also contingent in our bill that with agreement with the employer if he wants to extend that after priority has been given to those that come in at 3 years first, that he will be able to extend it for 3 more years. So the maximum they can get is $60,000.

No, this will not solve the problem, Madam Speaker, but this is a very complex problem. But there are young people that understand the virtues and the need of this country to serve in the public arena, and we need those bright and talented individuals to be able to come into this arena, and this is a small incentive package for which we give.

As my colleague pointed out, this amounts to $25 million a year up to 6 years. It is a small gesture, but it is a meaningful investment because otherwise what we have is today where many innocent people are languishing in jails because we are not addressing this issue and many who are criminals are going free.

And that's why for the last 2 years, Madam Speaker, I have been pushing and working on this bill because, at the crux of it all, as I said, America is great because of many things, but paramount is justice, it is wisdom and it is moderation. That's in our flag, that's in our motto, and that's what is in this bill.

This bill is a companion bill. We have the Senate who has already moved on this in a bipartisan way under the leadership of Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, their distinguished majority whip, and we're very proud.

So I am very proud for this moment at this time in this House of Representatives for us to move forthright and to be able to bring some help to our college law students and especially into the private sector and to those individuals who cannot afford a high-priced attorney but have to rely on a public defender.

Madam Speaker, don't these individuals deserve to be able to have the best legal representation? Yes, they do, and that's why this bill is important and that's why I commend this to the full House of Representatives, and I am sure we will have a strong bipartisan vote for it.

I thank the chairman and thank my colleagues, and I urge your passage of this bill.

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

H.R. 916, the John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2007, establishes a loan forgiveness program within the Department of Justice for State and local prosecutors and for Federal, State and local public defenders. However, the bill, as introduced, raised several concerns regarding the breadth and cost of the loan forgiveness program.

I am pleased that the majority listened to our concerns, and at the Judiciary Committee markup we were able to reach a bipartisan compromise that ensures fiscal responsibility while encouraging young attorneys to join the criminal justice system and preventing attrition.

Many law school graduates carry a large amount of student loan debt, on average between $50,000 and $80,000. More than 80 percent of law students borrow to pay for their law degree, and the amount borrowed by many students exceeds $100,000.

At the same time, the median entry level salary for State prosecuting attorneys is $46,000, and the median entry level salary for public defenders is $43,000.

Several States and prosecuting agencies currently offer loan repayment programs. Yet, H.R. 916, as introduced, made no provisions for whether participation in existing State and local loan repayment programs would offset repayment from this program.

This substitute amends the bill to direct the Department of Justice to consider applicants' participation in other loan repayment programs when determining their ability to pay their loans.

The bill, as introduced, would have resulted in a very costly program. Although the bill caps repayment at $60,000 per applicant, as few as 25,000 applicants would have cost $1.5 billion over the life of the program, even with the cap in place.

The bill also authorized the program at $25 million for the first year and such sums as are necessary for each additional year. The bipartisan compromise authorizes $25 million a year for 6 years. This fiscally responsible limit on the authorization provides Congress the opportunity to review the cost effectiveness of the program.

The bipartisan compromise directs the Inspector General of the Department of Justice to review the costs of the program and determine whether the program positively impacts the hiring and retention of prosecutors and public defenders.

The compromise also directs the Department of Justice to administer this program subject only to the availability of appropriations, ensuring that the Department's criminal justice responsibilities remain a priority.

H.R. 916, as amended, directs the Attorney General to give priority to those applicants with the least ability to repay their loans. This provision guarantees that funds will be made available under this program to those prosecutors or public defenders suffering the greatest burden.

I thank Chairman Conyers and Crime Subcommittee Chairman Scott for their cooperation on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), an individual who knows firsthand the importance of good prosecutors and public defenders having served as a district court trial judge.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Madam Speaker, we just request and urge the passage of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding some time.

Madam Speaker, I was a former prosecutor for 8 years and a judge in Texas for 22. I spent all my life basically in the criminal justice system as a prosecutor or as a trial judge, and I can attest to the high workload, long hours and low pay attributed to our Nation's prosecutors and to public defenders.

I have found over the years that most of them do what they do because they are committed to serving the public, either as a prosecutor or a public defender. They certainly don't do it for the money.

According to the Law Schools Admission Council, however, the average law school debt for an individual who borrows Federal or private loans is anywhere from $90,000 up. The starting salary for local and State prosecutors and public defenders starts anywhere at $25,000 and sometimes it reaches $50,000. It is not nearly enough to cover the expenses and keep up with the high loan repayments every month that these lawyers have to deal with.

This leaves many qualified and dedicated lawyers leaving the district attorney's office and the public defender's office for work in the private sector where they can make more money. What happens is these lawyers get trial experience at taxpayers' expense, then leave for the big law firms because of their low government salary and their high law school debt.

When I served in the criminal courts as a judge for 22 years, I saw many good prosecutors and public defenders just leave public service because of this problem.

The people of our Nation and the victims of crime need to have the best trial lawyers we can find to prosecute criminal cases. Defendants, likewise, need conpetent public defenders to represent the rights of the citizen accused.

I am honored to be a cosponsor of H.R. 916, the John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2007. Prosecutors and public defenders can have up to $30,000 of law school debt erased if they serve 3 years in their current position in public service.

Of course, this is a renewable debt forgiveness. If the trial lawyer is willing to work another 3 years as a prosecutor or public defender, then a total of $60,000 of law school debt can be forgiven. Most of the time, this will still not cover the majority of their law school debt.

Of course, local and State courts will benefit because they will be able to keep qualified and competent trial lawyers. We need the best trial lawyers in our legal profession to try criminal cases for the State and the defense.

Madam Speaker, we basically have two types of lawyers--trial lawyers. We have civil lawyers, and there are a lot of wonderful trial lawyers who are civil lawyers.

But, basically, civil lawyers argue in the courtroom over money. Nothing wrong with that, but that's what they are arguing over.

But in the criminal courts, we are arguing over something much more important than money, and it's the liberty of the person on trial. It is very serious business, and that's why you need the best prosecutor and the best public defender that we can find to represent both sides because the stakes are so high.

I urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 916.

I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) for introducing this important piece of legislation.