PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 21, 2003
Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act - Amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) to establish a program of student loan forgiveness for borrowers who agree to remain employed, for at least three years, as public attorneys who are: (1) State or local criminal prosecutors; or (2) State, local, or Federal public defenders in criminal cases.Directs the Secretary of Education to provide such student loan repayment benefits for such public attorneys on a first-come, first-served basis, and subject to the availability of appropriations. Requires priority to be given to borrowers who received repayment benefits for the preceding fiscal year and have completed less than three years of the first required service period. Allows the borrower and the Secretary to enter into an additional agreement, after the required three-year period, for a successive period of service which may be less than three years. Limits the amount paid under such program on behalf of any borrower to $6,000 per calendar year and $40,000 total.Includes public defenders among those eligible under a current HEA program of cancellation of student loans for certain public service.
People & committees
Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL] · D–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 18, 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 S.1091 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 S.1091 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 S.1091 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 S.1091 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.