PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 149.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · May 15, 2007
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on May 14, 2007. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2007 - Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to add a program for student loan repayment for prosecutors and public defenders.
Defines "prosecutor" as a full-time state or local agency employee who: (1) is continually licensed to practice law; and (2) prosecutes criminal or juvenile delinquency cases, including an employee who supervises, educates, or trains other attorneys prosecuting such cases.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Defines "public defender" as a licensed attorney who is a full-time state or local agency employee or a full-time employee of a nonprofit organization who provides legal representation to indigent persons in criminal or juvenile delinquency cases, including an attorney who supervises, educates, or trains other attorneys to provide such representation. Includes in such definition a full-time federal defender attorney.
Directs the Attorney General to establish a program to assume the obligation to repay the student loans of any borrowers who are employed as prosecutors or public defenders and who are not in default on their loans. Sets forth requirements for such program, including that: (1) the borrower will remain employed as a prosecutor or public defender for not less than three years; and (2) the borrower will repay to the Attorney General any repayment benefits received if the borrower is fired from employment for misconduct or voluntarily separates from employment.
Limits the amount payable under such program for any borrower to $10,000 per year andan aggregate total of $60,000.
Authorizes the Attorney General to enter into subsequent agreements with a borrower for another three-year period or a lesser period.
Requires the Attorney General to give priority in granting repayment benefits to borrowers who have the least ability to repay their loans.
Authorizes the Attorney General to issue regulations to carry out this Act.
Requires the Inspector General of the Department of Justice to report to Congress on the cost of loan repayment program under this Act and the impact of such program on the hiring and retention of prosecutors and public defenders.
Directs the Comptroller General to study and report to Congress on the impact of law school accreditation requirements and other factors on law school costs and access, including the impact of such requirements on racial and ethnic minorities.
Authorizes appropriations for FY2008-FY2013.
People & committees
Rep. Scott, David [D-GA-13] · D–GA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 149.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 341 - 73 (Roll no. 347). (text: CR H4978-4979)
House roll call 347 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 341 - 73 (Roll no. 347).(text: CR H4978-4979)
House roll call 347 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5015-5016)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 916.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4978-4982)
Mr. Conyers moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 88.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 110-148.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 110-148.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 6, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.916 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.916 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.916 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.916 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.