Higher Edcuation Amendments of 2007
Floor Speech
HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 2007 -- (Senate - July 23, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT NO. 2377
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer the John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act as an amendment to the Higher Education Act of 2007.
This amendment would create a targeted student loan repayment assistance program that will bolster the ranks of attorneys in the criminal justice system in America.
I think the need for this amendment is clear. Prosecutor and public defender offices throughout the country are having serious difficulties recruiting and retaining qualified attorneys.
In a recent survey, over a third of prosecutor offices nationwide reported problems with keeping attorneys on staff. Over 60 percent of prosecutor offices that serve populations of 250,000 or more reported serious problems with the retention of attorneys.
The story is the same for public defender offices. Another recent survey found that over 60 percent of State and local public defender offices reported difficulty in attorney recruitment and retention.
When prosecutor and defender offices cannot attract new lawyers or keep experienced ones, their ability to protect the public is compromised. Caseloads become unmanageable, cases can be delayed or mishandled, crimes may go unprosecuted, and innocent defendants may sit in jail.
Why is it that prosecutor and defender offices are struggling to keep attorneys on staff? I will tell you one major reason: student loan debt.
Over 80 percent of law students take out loans to finance their legal education. The average educational debt for law school graduates in the class of 2005 was almost $79,000 for private school graduates, and $51,000 for public school graduates. Two-thirds of law students also carry additional debt from their undergraduate experience.
In light of this, it is not surprising that two-thirds of law students in a recent national survey stated that student loan debt prevented them from even considering a public interest or Government job--two-thirds of law school graduates. Of those dedicated law graduates who initially accept criminal justice jobs, many cannot stay. They just cannot afford to do so with the student loans they face.
The higher education reconciliation bill we passed last week does much to address student loan debt in general for those who have already been in public service for 10 years. There is student loan forgiveness. There is a cap on how much a graduate would have to repay for a period of time, and at the end of 10 years there is student loan forgiveness.
But, unfortunately, it does not go far enough to address the urgent need to help our criminal justice system recruit and retain qualified attorneys. We need a special solution to provide immediate assistance.
My amendment, the John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act, is a tailored solution. My amendment would establish, within the Department of Justice, a program of student loan repayment assistance 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.
I should point out that Federal prosecutors are already eligible for loan relief through existing programs.
Under my amendment, borrowers could enter into another agreement, after the 3-year minimum, for an additional period of service. Attorneys who participate in this program can receive student loan debt repayments of up to $10,000 annually, with a maximum over time of $60,000. Repayments would begin with the first year of service. But, remember, there is no repayment unless there is a pledge to work at least 3 years, and then an opportunity to come back for another 3 years. So a commitment has to be made.
The program gives priority in repayment benefits to attorneys who have the least ability to repay their loans. It ensures a fair allocation of benefits among prosecutors and defenders nationwide.
If an attorney receives loan repayments under this program but does not complete the agreed-upon period of service, they have to pay back the money.
The John R. Justice Act is modeled on existing loan repayment programs that cover Federal executive branch employees and the Department of Justice. They have been demonstrated to be a great success as an attorney recruitment and retention tool.
Simply put, a targeted loan repayment assistance program such as this one would make criminal justice careers more feasible and more attractive to qualified attorneys.
Let me say, this bill has passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee twice. It has strong bipartisan support. It was brought to me by the prosecutors and the defenders in our criminal justice system. As we read in the news about case after case where those in prison have had their prosecutions reevaluated, we understand that competent counsel is the bedrock of a good system of criminal justice. We need the very best attorneys on both sides of the table--prosecuting those who have been accused of a crime and defending those who have that presumption of innocence in America.
This bill has strong bipartisan support, with 38 Senate cosponsors. Companion legislation in the House passed by a vote of 341 to 73. It is supported by prosecutor, defender, and criminal justice organizations. I urge my colleagues to support their State and local prosecutors and defenders, and to support this legislation.
It has, among others, the support of the National District Attorneys Association, the National Association of Prosecutor Coordinators, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the American Council of Chief Defenders, the National Juvenile Defender Center, the American Bar Association, the Conference of Chief Judges, and the American Law Deans Association.
Mr. President, I would like to ask, is there an amendment currently pending on this legislation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is an amendment pending.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside and I send this amendment to the desk. Then, of course, I would agree to step back in line and defer to the chairman and ranking member as to the sequence of amendments that will be called later. So I ask unanimous consent that be the order.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I respect the Senator from Wyoming. I wish to make sure we understand what happened last week. It was a good thing. We basically kept the amount that all student borrowers would pay based on the income they receive. As I understand the bill that was passed last week, which I was happy to support, there is a cap at 15 percent of the discretionary income of graduate students for those loans that are either in the Direct Loan Program or consolidated into the Direct Loan Program.
Basically, what it means from the chart I saw is that students, instead of paying back $600 or $700 a month, might face half that amount they would pay back because of the limit they would pay each year of 15 percent discretionary income, which I understand to be gross income less 150 percent of poverty for the student or the graduate in that category.
The reason I have come back this week to offer this is because we are talking about a group of individuals who are in an exceptional circumstance. They are people who will face an even greater debt than most college graduates. In addition to their undergraduate debt, they have the debt of a law education, which, as I noted here, can be substantial--almost $80,000 for those who have gone to public law schools, and $50,000 for those in private law schools on top of their undergraduate debt. Then we find that two-thirds of these students cannot seriously consider taking any job in public service or Government work because of the amount of their debt. So we have prosecutors coming in from all over the United States--and I would bet from your own State--saying: We are having some difficulties here. We can't attract the kind of talented young men and women from law schools, because of their debt, to come work as prosecutors and defenders in the criminal justice system and once there, we can't keep them. As soon as they have a good offer to go with a private firm, they leave. One of the compelling reasons is the fact that their student debt is so high.
So even though the bill passed last week is a good step, it is not adequate to the task. These particular graduates face more debt--dramatically more debt--than ordinary undergraduates or even graduate degree students in America. We have a special need. I would say to the Senator from Wyoming, I guess you can argue that this is special interest because it deals with our system of justice, but I think we all concur that as legislators, we can pass the best laws in the world in the criminal justice system, but if we don't have well-trained and competent lawyers prosecuting those cases on behalf of the people of this country, defending those charged on behalf of those who have been named defendants, then our system of justice will not work as well as it should.
I will concede that this goes after a special group, but I think there are special circumstances that warrant it.
So I hope the Senator will reconsider his opposition to this. As I said, it has bipartisan sponsorship because I think people realize that if we don't do this, we will diminish this branch of our Government which is so important for our democracy.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DURBIN. I thank my colleague from Maryland for his support. I might also say, during the course of the debate he raised an important issue--legal aid attorneys. These are attorneys who work primarily in the civil area, representing people of limited means. They are not very well paid. Many of them come out of law school facing debt on their own. We want to make sure that people, regardless of their economic status in America, have access to good legal counsel. So I have pledged to him--and I renew the pledge--that if there is a way for us to help the legal aid attorneys as well as defenders and prosecutors, we should.
It is in the best interests of our country to have competent counsel available for all Americans in terms of our civil and criminal justice systems. Think about how much we count on prosecutors to take the bad guys off the street and keep them off. We don't want somebody bungling a trial because of lack of experience or lack of skill. We want the best and brightest as prosecutors. Similarly, if the system is going to work and work well, there is a good attorney across the table defending the person who has been
charged so there truly is a contest that is respectful of our judicial system.
The same thing for legal aid attorneys. Whether they are representing people of modest means who are dealing with the daily drudgery of divorce or wills or landlord-tenant issues or small claims court, we want to make certain that those who are of modest circumstances in this country do not lose because the race always goes to the swift; that is, to those with more money.
I thank the Senator from Maryland for his commitment to this amendment and his general commitment to justice in this country.
Mr. CARDIN. Will my colleague yield?
Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. CARDIN. I thank my colleague for his leadership on this issue. I know he has been working for many years to get this accomplished, and I hope this is the vehicle on which we will get it done. I had the chance to chair the Maryland Legal Services Corporation and chaired a commission in Maryland looking to services for our population, and there are not enough attorneys who will handle poverty law. There are not enough attorneys who will handle public defender cases. It is difficult to get experienced prosecutors today because you can go into a private law firm and make a lot of money, much more than you can as a public defender or legal aid attorney or as a prosecutor.
The Senator's legislation gives us a chance to say we want to make sure every citizen in our State has equal access to justice in our State. I applaud him for it. I think this is what we need to do. We have a chance in this bill to get it done. I thank the Senator for bringing it to the floor, and I support his amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. In my hometown of Springfield, IL, we have an appellant defender program. These are young men and women who handle cases on appeal after the trials and work for a government salary. When I announced this amendment--that we had the possibility of student loan forgiveness--two young women came to the press conference. One of them said to me that she has plotted out how long it will take her, working as an appellate defender, to pay off her student loan. She said, ``I will be paying when I qualify for Social Security.'' That is hard to imagine, but it is a fact. The debt these young lawyers incur to get through law school, unless they are lucky enough to grab the brass ring and go to a big law firm, is so large that it haunts them for a lifetime. It colors their life decisions as to where they will work, whether they can own a car, whether they can finally have an apartment of their own and move out of their parents' homes. All of these things are associated many times with student debt.
Whether we are talking about appellate defenders or prosecutors or public defenders, I think we want to make sure these young people are spared some of this financial worry and some of this financial burden if they are willing to dedicate themselves to public service. That is what this is about.
I think this is a noble calling, and I have to recall it has not been but a few weeks since a Justice of the Supreme Court testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. This Justice came and said he thought the current pay for Federal judges was inadequate in America. That pay is in the realm of $165,000 to $200,000 or maybe more, certainly more at the Supreme Court level. We asked how much more he thought these Federal judges should receive.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source