PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 113.
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Apr 10, 2007
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" and "public defenders" to include individuals engaged in the supervision, education, or training of other prosecutors and public defenders. Includes within the definition of "public defender" full-time employees of nonprofit organizations who devote substantially all their time providing indigent criminal defense services and federal public defenders. Requires prosecutors and public defenders to prosecute or provide representation for juvenile delinquency cases.
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 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.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Limits the amount payable under such program to $10,000 per year for any borrower and to an aggregate total of $60,000 for any borrower.
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.
Directs the Government Accountability Office 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.
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.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 113.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy with amendments. With written report No. 110-51. Additional views filed.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy with amendments. With written report No. 110-51. Additional views filed.
Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably.
Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S1415)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S1413-1415)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. 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.442 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.442 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.442 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.442 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.