U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

35–799 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 110–54

STRENGTHENING OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM:

THE JOHN R. JUSTICE PROSECUTORS AND

DEFENDERS INCENTIVE ACT OF 2007

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

FEBRUARY 27, 2007

Serial No. J–110–12

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

MICHAEL O’NEILL, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., a U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ............. 16

Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois .................... 1

Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 23

Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 50

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ...... 14 

WITNESSES 

Bergeman, Jessica A., Assistant State’s Attorney, Cook County State’s Attorneys Office, Chicago, Illinois ............................................................................... 9

Logli, Paul A., Winnebago County State’s Attorney, and Chairman of the 

Board, National District Attorneys Association, Rockford Illinois ................... 4

Shepherd, George B., Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law, 

Atlanta, Georgia ................................................................................................... 6

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Bergeman, Jessica A., Assistant State’s Attorney, Cook County State’s Attorneys Office, Chicago, Illinois, prepared statement ............................................ 19

Conference of Chief Justices, resolution ................................................................ 21

Feinblatt, John, Criminal Justice Coordinator, City of New York, Office of 

the Mayor, New York, New York, letter ............................................................ 22

Gradess, Jonathan, Executive Director, New York State Defenders Association, Inc., Albany, New York, letter .................................................................... 25

Greenlee, Ellen T., Defender, Defender Association of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, letter ................................................................................... 27

Hennings, James D., Director, Metropolitan Public Defender Services, Inc., 

Portland, Oregon, letter ....................................................................................... 29

Hobraffer, V. David, Public Defender, King County Office of the Public Defender, Department of Community and Human Service, Seattle, Washington, letter and attachments ........................................................................... 33

Judge, Michael P., Chief Public Defender, Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, 

California, statement ........................................................................................... 47

Logli, Paul A., Winnebago County State’s Attorney, and Chairman of the 

Board, National District Attorneys Association, Rockford, Illinois, statement ...................................................................................................................... 56

National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Martin S. Pinales, President, Washington, D.C., statement ..................................................................... 69

National Bar Association, 2006–2007 legislative agenda ..................................... 73

National District Attorneys Association, Alexandria, Virginia, letter ................ 74

National Juvenile Defender Center, Patricia Puritz, Executive Director, 

Washington, D.C., letter ...................................................................................... 81

National Legal Aid & Defender Association, Jo-Ann Wallace, President and 

Chief Executive Officer, Washington, D.C., letter ............................................. 82

Shepherd, George B., Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law, 

Atlanta, Georgia, statement ................................................................................ 83

State and local public defenders, joint letter ......................................................... 88

Swenson, Ingrid, Executive Director, Oregon Office of Public Defense Services, Salem, Oregon, letter ................................................................................... 96

Voluntary bar and allied associations, joint letter ................................................ 97

(1)

STRENGTHENING OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE 

SYSTEM: THE JOHN R. JUSTICE PROSECUTORS AND DEFENDERS INCENTIVE ACT OF 

2007 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2007

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:03 p.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin, 

presiding. 

Present: Senators Durbin, Cardin, and Whitehouse. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Senator DURBIN. Welcome, everyone, to this meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The topic of our discussion today is 

‘‘Strengthening Our Criminal Justice System: The John R. Justice 

Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2007.’’ I want to thank 

Chairman Senator Leahy for scheduling this hearing, and I also 

want to thank Ranking Member Senator Specter, Senators Kennedy, Biden, Kohl, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer, and Whitehouse 

for their support of this legislation. We are honored to welcome as 

well the distinguished panel of witnesses whom I will introduce 

shortly. 

This bill seeks to address a serious problem with our criminal 

justice system. Prosecutor and public defender offices across the 

country are having major difficulties in recruiting and retaining 

qualified attorneys. According to the Department of Justice, in 

2005 one-fourth of State and local prosecutor offices reported problems with recruiting new staff attorneys and over one-third reported problems with retention. The problem is particularly severe 

in large offices. Over 60 percent of offices that serve populations of 

250,000 or more reported problems with attorney retention. In 

every State, we hear exactly the same story from prosecutors. They 

simply cannot keep enough talented and experienced attorneys on 

the staff. 

The same is true for public defender officers. Here I want to give 

special recognition to the Appellate Public Defender in Illinois, Ted 

Gottfried, from my home town of Springfield, who brought this 

matter to my attention many years ago. As we all know, State and 

local governments are obligated to provide indigent defense servVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:10 Jun 13, 2007 Jkt 035799 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\35799.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
2

ices in order to satisfy criminal defendants’ constitutional right to 

counsel. 

A recent survey found that over 60 percent of public interest law 

employers, including State and local public defender offices, reported difficulty in attorney recruitment and retention, and it is no 

secret why. Just look at the math. The average law school tuition 

in 2005 was nearly $29,000 per year for private law schools, approximately $23,000 for out-of-State students, and over $13,000 for 

in-State students at public law schools. Those are just tuition costs. 

They do not include food, lodging, books, fees, or expenses. 

Over 80 percent of law students now take out loans to pay for 

their education. The average debt for a law school graduate is approximately $51,000 for those going to public schools, $79,000 for 

those attending private schools. Many law students graduate with 

well over $100,000 in law school debt. Two-thirds of law students 

also carry additional debt from undergraduate studies, which is not 

included in the totals I just gave you. Now, the average starting 

salary for State prosecutors or public defenders is around $45,000 

a year. It is not easy to make large monthly payments on that kind 

of salary. In contrast, the median first-year salary in 2005 for private sector law firms was $100,000 a year. A starting salary of 

many big-city law firms exceeds $150,000 annually. 

Now, many attorneys will tell you part of the reason they went 

to law school was because they weren’t very good at math. But 

even an elementary school student could add these numbers up 

and understand why we have a problem. If you want to work as 

an attorney in the criminal justice system, it is tough to pay off 

your student loan. 

I have heard from many dedicated young prosecutors and defenders in Illinois who work second and third jobs to make ends meet. 

I met an Assistant State’s Attorney in the Cook County Office that 

Ms. Bergeman works in who also works—and he says he waves at 

me from time to time—at O’Hare. He is a freight handler when it 

is not serving as an assistant prosecutor in Cook County. Derrick 

Smith is that man. He drives a forklift at O’Hare to pay his 

$120,000 in student loans. Or Aisha Cornelius from the South Side 

of Chicago, first in her family to graduate from college, let alone 

first from law school. She still owes $110,000 in law school loans. 

She sells cosmetics at night to pay for the bills for her and her 

daughter. Jessica Bergeman is here from Skokie, and she is going 

to tell us about her own personal situation. 

But despite their desire to serve their communities and criminal 

justice systems, many young attorneys who start out as prosecutors 

or defenders find they have to leave after a few years. They just 

cannot afford to keep going. Our communities pay a severe price 

when these law graduates are shut out from pursuing criminal justice careers. Prosecutors and public defenders offices find it hard 

to attract new lawyers and keep experienced ones. Our witnesses 

today will talk about that in some detail. 

I introduced the John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act to try to address these problems. The bill is named 

after John Justice, former solicitor for the Sixth Judicial Circuit in 

South Carolina, President of the National District Attorneys AssoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:10 Jun 13, 2007 Jkt 035799 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\35799.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
3

ciation, and a strong supporter of loan repayment for public sector 

attorneys. 

The bill would establish a student loan repayment program for 

qualified attorneys who agree to remain employed for at least 3 

years as State or local criminal prosecutors or public defenders. 

These attorneys would receive up to $10,000 per year in loan repayments. After the 3-year commitment is up, participants can sign 

up for a second 3-year commitment, for a total of up to $60,000 in 

loan repayments over 6 years. If an attorney does not complete the 

required period of service, they have to pay the money back. 

This program is modeled after existing loan repayment programs 

currently available for Federal employees that have been used to 

recruit and retain hundreds of attorneys in the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and other agencies. 

Our bill complements these existing repayment programs, which 

currently cover Federal prosecutors, by making loan relief available 

to Federal public defenders as well. 

The John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act will 

strengthen our criminal justice system. The bill will bolster the 

ranks of qualified attorneys in that system, enhancing the system’s 

efficiency and public confidence. Prosecutor and defender organizations do not agree on much, particularly not in courtrooms, but 

they are united behind this bill. They recognize that the quality of 

our criminal justice system begins with those who serve in it. 

I understand that Senator Specter may be on his way and may 

be delayed. I would ask unanimous consent, and hearing no objection, that his opening statement be included at this point in the 

record. 

Now we are going to turn to our witnesses for their opening 

statements. I will note at the outset that one of our scheduled witnesses, Michael Judge, chief public defender of Los Angeles County, 

recently suffered an injury and was not able to be with us today, 

but his written statement will be submitted for the record, and we 

certainly wish him a speedy recovery. Each of the witnesses here 

today will be given 5 minutes for oral testimony, and their complete written statements will be included. And I am going to ask 

now if all the witnesses would please stand and raise your right 

hands to be sworn. 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give 

before the Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. LOGLI. I do. 

Mr. SHEPHERD. I do. 

Ms. BERGEMAN. I do. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you. Let the record reflect that all three 

witnesses responded in the affirmative. 

Our first witness is a friend of mine from my home State of Illinois, Paul Logli, the elected State’s Attorney in Winnebago County. 

Mr. Logli has served as State’s Attorney—that is Rockford, Illinois, 

for those who would like to know where the county seat is, but he 

has been in that capacity for 20 years. Prior to his current position, 

he served as Assistant State’s Attorney, a lawyer in private practice, an associate circuit judge for Winnebago and Boone counties. 

He is the immediate past president of the National District AttorVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:10 Jun 13, 2007 Jkt 035799 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\35799.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
4

neys Association, currently serves as Chairman of the board of that 

association. He is also a member of the faculty of the National College of District Attorneys, past president of the Illinois State’s Attorneys Association, a native of Rockford, a graduate of University 

of Illinois College of Law, and one of the more highly respected 

prosecutors in our State. 

Paul, thank you for being here today. The floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL A. LOGLI, WINNEBAGO COUNTY STATE’S 

ATTORNEY, AND CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION, ROCKFORD, ILLINOIS 

Mr. LOGLI. Thank you, Senator. It is a pleasure to be here on behalf of America’s prosecutors, and we want to thank you for your 

leadership in bringing to the Senate this critical bill, the John R. 

Justice Prosecutors and Public Defenders Incentive Act. 

John Justice was a friend of mine. He was a solicitor, as you 

mentioned, from South Carolina, and he began the inquiry back in 

1998 into what we could do to encourage the brightest and the best 

young persons to come into the prosecution area. He quickly identified at that time the law school and college debt as a major barrier 

to bringing people into the public service of prosecution, and let me 

just add also into the area of the public service as defender, both 

critically important to our system of justice. 

As State and local prosecutors, Senator, we are responsible for 

handling about 95 percent, prosecuting 95 percent of the cases in 

this Nation. And in order to ensure that these cases are handled 

competently, it is critical that prosecutor offices as well as public 

defender offices are able to not only recruit the best and brightest 

attorneys, but to also retain those qualified and experienced attorneys in their offices. Without these assurances, the safety of victims and the safety of the community, as well as the integrity of 

the criminal justice system and the rights of those persons who 

stand accused, are compromised. 

The reason for these recruitment and retention hurdles, both 

prosecutors and public defenders, is that they are paid less, much 

less than attorneys in the private sector, and they both graduate 

from law school with incredible burdens, staggering student loan 

debts—mortgage size student loans, as you have characterized it, 

Senator. Our annual starting salary is approximately $44,000 on 

the prosecution side and about $43,000 on the defense side. And 

this is up against the debts that from a private law school come 

to about $80,000, from a public law school over $50,000. And in 

some cases, the prosecutors and defenders are carrying six-figure 

loan amounts. 

We believe that the John R. Justice Prosecutors and Public Defenders Incentive Act will provide a solution to these challenges, 

very similar to that which is already provided to attorneys who 

work in the Federal sector. 

We struggle daily with the recruitment and retention of lawyers. 

We struggle daily to keep these offices fully staffed with trained 

and experienced attorneys. My jurisdiction, Winnebago County, Illinois, as one example, has a population of about 280,000 people living in a diverse community. The county seat is Rockford, which is 

the third largest city in the State. We face a daily challenge, just 

5

like every other jurisdiction, to provide effective prosecution of 

criminal and serious traffic cases. As arrests and prosecutions increase in number and complexity, we also face difficulty in holding 

onto younger prosecutors long enough to see them become experienced career prosecutors. 

In the last 30 days, in my office alone I have lost two prosecutors 

for one reason, and one reason only: they couldn’t afford to work 

in the public sector. They both took jobs in the private practice. 

They both left before they had served in my office for 2 years. What 

a loss. They had just really started to become effective lawyers in 

the courtroom, tremendous promise. 

Several years ago, I had an attorney in my office who worked 

every night, 4 hours a night, at the UPS sorting hub at the Greater 

Rockford Airport in order to make her student loan payments. I 

don’t know how she did it. I don’t know how she took on the incredible load of a public prosecutor and at the same time worked 4 

hours every night at the UPS hub. 

All the criminal cases from both sides, prosecution and defense 

side, have a serious impact on victims, the safety of the community, 

and the rights of the defendant. A recent survey showed that in 64 

percent of prosecutors’ offices that responded to our survey, they 

were affected by the attrition, the departure of good lawyers from 

their offices. In addition, 53 percent of the prosecutors that responded to the survey told us that the student loan debt, law 

school student loan debt, was a very significant factor in their ability to retain staff. And 62 percent of the chief prosecutors reported 

that student loan debt is a very significant factor in their ability 

to recruit staff. 

Beyond recruitment and retention difficulties caused by the high 

costs of attending law school and the low salaries paid to local 

prosecutors and defenders, the chief prosecutors and supervisors 

cited other effects in their offices, such as increased caseloads per 

prosecutor, increased costs for training, decreased morale, and increased risk of prosecutorial error. And when you look at the defense side, it is the same problem. If you cannot attract and retain 

good defenders, your caseloads will increase per public defender. 

You will have an incredible expense of training and retraining, not 

to mention ineffective assistance of counsel, not because it is intentional but because we put defenders and prosecutors on difficult 

cases before they have had the opportunity to really develop the 

skills. 

I don’t know how in good conscience we as chief prosecutors and 

chief defenders can ask young people to make the sacrifices they 

make. Our survey also indicated that more than 50 percent of the 

respondents who responded to our survey indicated that this student loan indebtedness not only affects their jobs, but it affects 

their personal decisions—when to start a family, when to buy a 

home. 

I understand that when somebody comes to work for me, it is a 

50-, 60-hour week. I understand that. But it is not right that we 

ask them to make that kind of a sacrifice in order to work in a 

prosecutor’s office or a defender’s office. And it really does impede 

the ability of us to accomplish our mission. 

6

Let me just conclude. I am extremely appreciative, Senator, of 

your leadership on this in introducing this Act. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the importance of the student loan repayment 

assistance for prosecutors and public defenders. Without this relief, 

it is clear to me that the administration of justice and the safety 

of our community and the welfare of victims will continue to suffer. 

Thank you for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Logli appears as a submission for 

the record.] 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Logli, for your testimony. 

Our next witness is Professor George Shepherd, Emory University School of Law in Atlanta, Georgia. Professor Shepherd is a 

graduate of Yale University and Harvard Law School and expects 

to receive his Ph.D. in economics from Stanford University this 

year. Prior to joining the faculty of Emory, Professor Shepherd 

served as law clerk to Judge Alice Marie Stotler of the U.S. District 

Court for the Central District of California and also worked in private practice. At Emory, Professor Shepherd has taught courses in 

corporate law, evidence, civil procedure, law and economics, and is 

the author of several books and numerous articles in law journals 

and periodicals. 

Professor Shepherd, thank you for joining us today, and the floor 

is yours. 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE B. SHEPHERD, PROFESSOR OF LAW, 

EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 

Mr. SHEPHERD. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before 

your Committee, and also I am here to support with great enthusiasm passage of the John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act. 

My main point today will be the following: If we limited or even 

eliminated the accreditation requirements for law schools, we could 

substantially reduce the costs of implementing the Act, and we 

could do this while at the same time improving the training of lawyers. 

Many of the participants in the accreditation system are publicspirited and selfless, and the system may provide some benefits. 

However, my research shows that the system has also imposed 

large harms. It has increased the cost of legal education substantially. It has suppressed potential new schools that would be cheaper, and sometimes also better. The system has excluded many from 

the legal profession, particularly the poor and minorities. It has 

raised the cost of legal services, and it has, in effect, denied legal 

services to whole segments of our society. 

Today, I will focus on one of these harms: how the accreditation 

system substantially increases the costs of legal education. The Act 

is excellent and essential legislation. However, we need to recognize that passage of the Act is necessary partly because of the accreditation system. Without the system, many more students would 

graduate from law school with no loans or much smaller ones so 

that they would not need to use the benefits that the Act provides. 

With the accreditation system, the Act will, in effect, transfer much 

7

taxpayers’ money from the Federal Government to overpriced law 

schools. 

Strict accreditation requirements are a relatively recent phenomenon, having begun in the Great Depression. What seems normal now after 70 years was, in fact, a radical change from a much 

more open system that had functioned well for more than a century 

before then. Until the Great Depression, no State required an applicant to the bar to have attended any law school at all, much less 

an accredited one. Indeed, 41 States required no formal education 

whatsoever beyond high school. Similarly, bar exams were easy to 

pass, and they had very high pass rates. 

Often, the best lawyers did not go to law school. For example, my 

great-grandfather was Henry Russell Platt. He was a founding 

name partner of what is currently a leading law firm in Chicago, 

which until recently was called Mayer, Brown, and Platt. He never 

went to law school. 

During the Depression, State bar associations attempted to eliminate so-called overcrowding in the legal profession. They attempted 

to reduce the number of new lawyers in two ways: first, they decreased bar pass rates; second, they convinced courts and State legislatures to require that all lawyers graduate from ABA-accredited 

law schools. 

The ABA’s accreditation requirements, in turn, increase the cost 

of becoming a lawyer in two ways: 

First, they increase law school tuition. They do this by imposing 

many costs on law schools. For example, accreditation standards effectively raise faculty salaries; they limit faculty teaching loads; 

they require high numbers of full-time faculty rather than cheaper 

part-time adjuncts; and they require expensive physical facilities 

and library collections. The requirements probably cause law 

schools’ costs to more than double, increasing them by more than 

$12,000 per year, with many schools then passing the increased 

costs along to students by raising tuition. The total increase then 

from the system for the 3 years of law school is more than $36,000. 

One example of the many expensive accreditation requirements 

is the ABA’s requirement that an accredited school have a library 

and extensive library collection. Insiders confirm that the ABA requires a minimum expenditure on the library of approximately $1 

million per year. This is more than $4,000 per student per year in 

the average size school. 

The second way that the ABA requirements increase student 

costs of entering the legal profession is as follows: The ABA requires students to attend at least 6 years of expensive higher education—3 years of college and 3 years of law school. Before the 

Great Depression, a young person could enter the legal profession 

as an apprentice directly after high school. Now a person can become a lawyer only if she can afford to take 6 years off from work 

after high school and pay 6 years of tuition. The total cost of the 

6 years of tuition and 6 years of lost income easily exceeds 

$300,000. 

The student has to pay for the increased costs from accreditation 

somehow. Unless the student is wealthy, large student loans will 

be necessary. Under the Act, for students who will become prosecutors or public defenders, the taxpayers will pay for the loans. 

8

To reduce the costs that the Act imposes on taxpayers, the accreditation system’s restrictions should be loosened. For example, 

law schools might be permitted to experiment with smaller libraries, cheaper practitioner faculty, and even shorter programs of 2 

years rather than 3, just like business school. Or the requirements 

might be eliminated completely. Students without a degree from an 

accredited school would be able to practice law. 

Reducing or removing the flawed, artificial accreditation bottleneck would create many benefits but few harms. The current system’s high-end qualities would continue, while a freer market for 

variety would quickly open up. To Rolls-Royce legal educations 

would be added Buicks, Saturns, and Fords. 

Reduction or elimination of the accreditation requirement is a 

modest, safe proposal. Even if accreditation were completely eliminated, it merely re-establishes the system that exists in other critical professions, a system that worked well in law for more than 

a century before the Great Depression. Business and accounting 

provide comforting examples of professions without mandatory accreditation. In both professions, people may provide full-quality 

basic services without attending an accredited school. A person who 

seeks to manage a local McDonald’s franchise or to prepare tax returns need not attend business school or become a CPA first. Yet 

there is no indication that the level of malpractice or fraud is higher in these fields than in law. Likewise, there is no indication that 

malpractice and fraud were any more frequent during the century 

before accreditation and the bar exam when lawyers like Abraham 

Lincoln practiced. Lincoln never went to law school. 

The John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act is 

superb legislation. However, the ABA accreditation system increases the Act’s costs. Limiting or eliminating the accreditation requirements would produce few harms and many benefits. The benefits would include making the Act much cheaper to implement. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shepherd appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Professor Shepherd. 

Our final witness is Jessica Bergeman, Assistant State’s Attorney in Cook County, currently serves the 2nd Municipal District of 

Cook County in Skokie. She prosecutes misdemeanor cases involving DUI, assault, theft, and domestic violence. A native of 

Boyertown, Pennsylvania, 2003 graduate of Temple University’s 

Beasley School of Law in Philadelphia, she was one of Temple’s 

first students in the Beasley’s Scholars Program, and she received 

a scholarship that paid for her first year of law school education. 

When she graduated, she had approximately $65,000 in student 

loan debt from law school. According to a recent survey, the average law school loan debt assumed by prosecutors is around 

$65,000. So, Ms. Bergeman, I am sorry to say that in this category 

you are only average. But it could have been worse. However, in 

every other category of professional and personal accomplishment, 

it is clear you have been exceptional, and your public service has 

been an asset to Cook County and our State of Illinois. 

Glad to have you here today. The floor is yours. 

9

STATEMENT OF JESSICA A. BERGEMAN, ASSISTANT STATE’S 

ATTORNEY, COOK COUNTY STATE’S ATTORNEYS OFFICE, 

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 

Ms. BERGEMAN. Thank you, Senator Durbin. Allow me to express 

my thanks in having this opportunity. I have been shouting at the 

wall for so long, it is nice to have a voice in this forum. Thank you 

very much. 

There are ten misdemeanor Assistant State’s Attorneys in my division. I would like to just introduce a few. In addition to the two 

exceptional Assistant State’s Attorneys Senator Durbin already 

mention in Derrick and Aisha. 

Mark has been with the office for several years, and he has rotated through each of the assignments in our office, from petty tickets to Class A misdemeanors to domestic violence, preliminary 

hearings, and felony review. Mark walks to work whenever the 

weather permits, even though it takes him 40 minutes each way, 

because leg power is cheaper than putting gas in his car. He pays 

$500 a month in student loans, and he has $70,000 to go. When 

I talked to Mark about coming here today, he said to me that all 

he wants to do someday is to be able to own his own home. 

Laura is uniquely situated to both investigate criminal charges 

and respond to the needs of the victims of crime. She came to the 

office after receiving undergraduate and graduate degrees in psychology, and she had top-secret clearance in the FBI’s Organized 

Crime Division. She owes a minimum of $150,000 in post-graduate 

loans. She, like me, makes $52,000 a year. She lives for payday so 

she can pay her bills and use almost everything that is left to buy 

groceries and put a full tank of gas in her car. 

And then there is me. I was raised by my mother, a single parent 

and a secretary for more than 35 years. I grew up, as Senator Durbin mentioned, in Boyertown, Pennsylvania, an area that until recently was a hotbed of neo-Nazi and Ku Klux Klan activity. It was 

there that I learned about both power and fear. On the one hand, 

I was the golden child. I was the honor roll student, the cheerleader, the Junior Miss Congeniality Award winner, and the nationally ranked public speaker. But, on the other hand, I was tormented and harassed because of my color, and my cousin was 

chased home by a truckload of Klansmen. 

It was then that I decided that I hated bullies, and I decided to 

become a prosecutor because of it. Nothing infuriates me more than 

watching someone wield power without compassion or, worse, vindictively or with hatred. 

Crime, as I have learned, is at its essence about power—the 

power to forcibly or by deception take something not rightfully 

yours, the power to cause fear through the swinging of a fist or seeing the glint of steel flash before you. And yet I also recognize that 

members of the judicial system, prosecutors in particular, wield significant power themselves. 

Prosecutors hold the power to control the fate of cases and determine in which instances the people, whom we have sworn to represent, have actually been harmed and would demand redress, or 

in other instances where no harm is done and the criminal is, in 

fact, a criminal only because of circumstance. I will give you an example. 

10

If one’s old semi-dilapidated car, like my 10-year-old Explorer, 

fails to pass an emissions test, the Secretary of State will suspend 

the driving privileges of the registered owner of the vehicle. Driving on a suspended license is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable 

by up to 364 days in the county jail, a fine of up to $2,500, or some 

combination of the two. 

Many defendants are too poor to fix the car, certainly too poor 

to buy a new one, and have unreliable or no public transportation 

option, yet they need to get to work to maintain their income, however limited it may be. That is an untenable position. 

If the prosecuting attorney standing on the far side of the bench 

has never wondered, much less lost sleep over, how to make ends 

meet financially, how much compassion will they have for the defendant’s dilemma? And will they seek justice in that situation? 

My car personally has been in the shop four times since October, 

and even though I am very grateful for my credit cards in those 

instances, when the bill comes I wonder how many times I am 

going to be left eating Cup O Noodles for dinner because I cannot 

afford to buy groceries. 

Moreover, I keep the heat in my apartment at 62 degrees, and, 

Senator Durbin, as you know, Chicago is not warm in the wintertime. I cap the temperature at the level because if I set it any higher, my heating bills are more than $200 a month, and even the 

budget plan requires a $100-a-month payment all year long. 

Finally, my student loans total just under $400 a month. My last 

one is due on February 20, 2030. I will be 55 years old. 

I understand financial dilemmas, but beyond just the economics, 

out of the 26 Assistant State’s Attorneys in my district, I am the 

only African-American prosecutor. I have been mistaken in court 

for the interpreter, the clerk, the public defender on a regular 

basis. And yet when I tell people who I am, even if they want to 

hate me, I can see the respect in their eyes when they look at me. 

I believe it is good for the communities of Chicago to see Assistant State’s Attorneys of color. Unfortunately, it is often we who are 

most burdened with educational debt. And when people like me are 

forced to leave their position, it cannot just be considered a personal career setback. Their leaving has the potential to further the 

divisions between the prosecutors and the majority of the people 

that they prosecute. 

The word ‘‘justice’’ has a definition. The search for justice in the 

criminal system that bears its name requires a variety of perspectives and experience. And without bills in place like this one, the 

perspectives of the people entrusted with administering justice will 

be narrowed, their experiences homogenous, and justice itself more 

and more elusive. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bergeman appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you for your testimony, and thanks to all 

three of you. 

I just let Senator Whitehouse know that we have a vote that just 

started. He is going to race over to the floor and vote, return, and 

during that period of time I will ask questions. Then he will ask, 

11

and I will try to return after that. So if it looks like a tag team 

match, it is. 

Before I ask specific questions of witnesses, I would like to place 

in the record statements from the following organizations: the National District Attorneys Association, Conference of Chief Justices, 

a letter from 62 State and local Chief Public Defenders, National 

Legal Aid and Defender Association, National Juvenile Defenders 

Center, a letter from 30 State criminal defense lawyer associations, 

the Defenders Association of Philadelphia, the Oregon Office of 

Public Defense Services, the King County, Washington, Office of 

the Public Defender, the New York State Defenders Association, 

the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and the 

Metropolitan Public Defender Services of Portland, Oregon. And, 

without objection, they will be included in the record in support of 

the legislation pending. 

Ms. Bergeman, I have noticed when talking to private law firms 

that they put a premium on minorities. Many of them are anxious 

to have a diverse work force, particularly women, because many 

women who are talented and come to the law firm do not stay for 

long periods of time, make other decisions with their lives, have interrupted service in private practice and such. So it strikes me as 

an unusual situation here to learn of the sacrifice you are making 

to stick with public employment when the potential on the private 

side may be substantially greater. 

I have listened to your life story that you told us in brief here. 

How many others in the Cook County State’s Attorneys Office are 

in similar circumstances that you know? 

Ms. BERGEMAN. There are far too many to mention, but what I 

think is so important to realize is that those of us who are in the 

office are there because of a true commitment to public service. We 

all recognize that we could walk out the front door of the Cook 

County State’s Attorneys Office into a major law firm, and have all 

of our debts paid in a very short amount of time. But the long-term 

commitment for us is seeking justice in the justice system. And so 

many of us, whether it is women or people of color, feel that the 

most impact they can have is from working within that system, 

and that is why we are willing to give up all of those benefits, all 

of those perks. 

Unfortunately, so many people end up having to make the decision to leave public service because they need to be able to pay for 

the basic necessities of life. No one is running out to buy a Ferrari. 

They just want to pay their bills. 

Senator DURBIN. It goes without saying that many of the defendants in these criminal trials are minorities as well. Is that not correct? 

Ms. BERGEMAN. It is the reality of the city of Chicago. 

Senator DURBIN. The reality mainly of our country. 

Ms. BERGEMAN. Absolutely. 

Senator DURBIN. And I happen to believe—and I take it from 

your testimony you feel the same—that for people in the courtroom 

to see diversity on both sides is a good indication of a justice system that is trying to be balanced in its approach. And if we lose 

that diversity, then we lose something in our justice system. 

12

Ms. BERGEMAN. That is unquestionably true. When someone 

walks into a courtroom and sees me as the prosecutor, they may 

suddenly feel that there is a chance for true justice for them; 

whereas, if I was not there, or if I was there in a different role, 

like the interpreter, they would not necessarily feel that way. 

Senator DURBIN. Paul Logli, when it comes to your search for Assistant State’s Attorneys in Rockford, has the territory or area that 

you have had to start searching in expanded over the years? 

Mr. LOGLI. Certainly. We could always rely on homegrown talent, 

and now we are reaching into the Chicago law schools or 

downstate. We go to law schools more often to recruit. We try to 

develop more networks. Thankfully, the State of Illinois had the 

wisdom to startup the Northern Illinois University Law School several years ago, and that has provided us. 

But the real challenge is I am spending more and more of my 

time interviewing the candidates for Assistant State’s Attorney almost trying to talk them out of it, in a way. I have in front of me 

the net pay figure of what they are going to start with. And I say, 

‘‘Now, this is what you are going to get every 2 weeks. Are you 

going to be able to pay the bills? Because I do not want you to start 

and then get frustrated and quit before you can really get to the 

point where you are enjoying the job and handling the major 

cases.’’ That is the reality that we have been faced with. 

I was at an event the other night. One of my young assistants 

was there with his parents. Here is a man who went to a good undergraduate school out East, went to one of the Chicago law 

schools. We are paying him $42,500 a year. He is still living at 

home because he has substantial law school debt that just does not 

permit him to be independent. What is going to happen when he 

falls in love and wants to get married and start a family? He is not 

going to be able to stay in that office. He has already told me that 

even without that, next year the private loans have to start being 

paid. He cannot defer the payments any longer. 

He does not know what he is going to do, and it is a stress on 

him right now. And he is a bright young man from Rockford who 

turned down a job with a major Chicago law firm because he wanted to make a difference in his community. If I cannot attract and 

retain that person, we are significantly losing an important part of 

our prosecution efforts. 

Senator DURBIN. What impact has this had on the diversity of 

Assistant State’s Attorneys? 

Mr. LOGLI. A negative impact. I am fortunate to have several assistants that represent diversity, but certainly not enough to represent the population of my community, and that is troublesome. 

And as you referred to earlier, a minority graduate from a law 

school with substantial debt is going to get paid an incredible 

amount of money and is really sought after by the downtown firms 

on LaSalle Street. And I cannot compete with that. They are coming out of law school and getting $130,000, $140,000 a year. We 

start them at $42,500. 

Senator DURBIN. Professor Shepherd, first thank you for endorsing the bill. I am glad you did. And you raise a very interesting 

question, which I think should be addressed, not just at law schools 

but across the board: Why are we paying so much more in tuition 

13

at universities and professional schools? Way beyond the increases 

in cost of living, way beyond increases in personal income. 

I know these are related, but I am not sure they are directly connected. It is as if we are dealing with the high gasoline bills people 

are paying, but saying before we can help you with your high gasoline bill, we have got to address the question of mass transit planning at the Federal level. People are still worried about filling that 

gas tank, and I think that we are talking about the practical side 

of it. So thank you first for endorsing the bill. 

But let me ask you a few particular questions because I think 

you raise some interesting points that I had not thought about before your testimony. As I understand it now—and let me make sure 

I get my numbers correct here—each State is responsible for its 

process for admission to the bar. As part of that process, States are 

not required to recognize graduation from an ABA-accredited school 

as fulfilling the requirement, but all 50 States currently do so to 

some extent. 

So are you calling for Federal legislation that would dictate to 

the States the standards they must set for admission to the bar? 

Mr. SHEPHERD. Well, I have not fully thought through this, but 

we must recognize that if States insist on requiring compliance 

with the accreditation standards from the ABA, that does increase 

the cost of law schools and, therefore, increases the obligations of 

the Federal Government under the Act. And so one thing that 

could be done is to condition provision of such aid with loosening 

up of the accreditation standards. 

There are some States with looser accreditation standards, for 

example, California. There are unaccredited law schools there. If 

you graduate from them, you are permitted to practice law within 

the State of California, and the schools are half the price of accredited schools. And those schools impose half the financial burden 

under the Act on the Federal Government. 

So I have not thought through exactly the vehicle for doing this, 

but maybe there is some way for the Federal Government to insist 

that its money be spent wisely. 

Senator DURBIN. The ABA and the National Conference of Bar 

Examiners’ Guide to Bar Requirements notes that not all States require that bar exam applicants graduate from an ABA-approved 

law school. Only 21 States or jurisdictions limit eligibility to take 

the bar exam to graduates of ABA-approved law schools. Three 

States do not require that a law school be ABA or State approved, 

and seven States permit law office study. 

Is there evidence that law school tuitions are lower in States that 

do not require bar applicants graduate from ABA-accredited law 

schools? 

Mr. SHEPHERD. Well, for example, California, as I just indicated. 

The unaccredited law schools there are about half the price of the 

accredited ones. Similarly, in Massachusetts, there is a school 

called Massachusetts School of Law which has a special dispensation that its graduates can practice law in several States in New 

England. Its prices are substantially below the prices of accredited 

law schools. The numbers require that, because the ABA accreditation standards impose costs on law schools, they need to be passed 

along if the school is not to fail. 

14

Senator DURBIN. You have taken us beyond that suggestion to a 

brave new world, perhaps a return to a brave old world, which 

would allow people to read for the bar, I suppose, as Abraham Lincoln did. And you use an analogy of someone starting a business, 

a McDonald’s, with no requirement that they have a business degree. 

But it strikes me that there is a significant difference. A person 

lacking talent who opens a business and fails loses his investment. 

An attorney lacking talent may lose a case and his defendant go 

to jail for life. 

Isn’t that a little different? 

Mr. SHEPHERD. It is different, but first we need to look at the 

other professions which have similar requirements, for example, accounting. One can be an accountant without having to become a 

CPA. My mother works for H&R Block without having gotten a 

CPA and works for about $20 an hour or $15 an hour, and she is 

hired at H&R Block because she is not representing defendants in 

capital cases. 

Similarly, the market would sort things out such that you would 

not have inexperienced people without law degrees representing 

people either in capital murder cases or representing large companies in large transactions. The market would sort things out just 

the way it did 80 years ago. And, similarly, you can see this in 

other fields such as engineering. Many States do not require that 

someone go to an accredited school to become an engineer, even 

though engineering, of course, failure in that area can result in 

people being killed by buildings falling down. 

So I think—

Senator DURBIN. I do not doubt that the market would sort it 

out. I just wonder how many customers in that market would have 

a miserable life experience while the sorting is taking place. That 

is my concern if we do not have some standards for law school and 

standards for admission to the bar. But I appreciate your testimony. It is challenging, and I am going to think about it myself as 

I proceed to rush over for a vote because I have 4–1/2 minutes left. 

I am going to turn it over to Senator Whitehouse, who was here 

first, to ask questions, and then Senator Cardin, and I will try to 

return. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. SHEPHERD. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, I thank you all for being here. I appreciate it. This is an important issue, and I want to commend 

Senator Durbin for having taken the lead on it. I do not know how 

familiar you are with my background, but I have served as United 

States Attorney and led prosecutors in the Federal system. I have 

served as a State Attorney General and led prosecutors who are 

State officials, Assistant Attorneys General and Special Assistant 

Attorneys General. And I began my career as a staff attorney in 

the Attorney General’s office many years ago, and I distinctly remember we were working very late hours because there was all 

sorts of stuff we had to do. And I was working for an Attorney General—I see our public defender Barbara Hurst in the audience. She 

15

will remember Attorney General Violet, who was the Attorney General at the time, and she insisted that the staff members keep 

track of their hours. So it was very late one night, and I was filling 

out my weekly report of the hours that I had been at the office. 

And I happened to have my paycheck as well. I do not know what 

compelled me to do this, but I figured I would do a little simple 

division. And the number that I came up with was below the prevailing minimum wage in Rhode Island at the time. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. It had more to do with long hours than it 

had to do with low wage, but it was a deadly combination of the 

two. And I come from fortunate circumstances so I did not have college loans. I had been able to pay my way through college and law 

school. 

The idea that somebody could have stepped into that position 

and given that job the attention that it needed for that level of remuneration, who also had had to pay for college and carry the 

weight of those loans, it just could not happen. It just could not 

happen. So I am really glad that we are doing this, and I really 

applaud Senator Durbin for thinking about it. 

Jessica, I appreciate your testimony. You seem to have had some 

similar experiences. We know where it comes from. 

One concern that I have in the legislation that I think we are 

going to address later on is that it appears at this point that there 

would be a question whether it would cover prosecutors who work 

in the juvenile area. And I would want to make sure that this legislation covers prosecutors who were operating in the juvenile arena 

as well. I know that there are semantic distinctions. It is not technically prosecution. It is not technically criminal. But it is very 

similar, and I want to make sure that we reach out to the entire 

community, and people should not feel separated between the two, 

particularly with the sort of crimes that juvenile prosecutors nowadays have to face. 

Mr. Logli, I did not have the chance to hear your testimony. I 

have just arrived here. Would you mind giving me the 2- or 3-

minute version? 

Mr. LOGLI. Absolutely, Senator. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. My apologies for this, but we have been all 

scrambled today with the vote going. 

Mr. LOGLI. That is absolutely not a problem. We appreciate you 

being here, and we appreciate your support for this. 

Basically, Senator, we have been dealing with this—we identified 

this as a major issue back in 1998 and 1999, and we started to observe a very disturbing trend, and that was that more and more 

of the young men and women that we were trying to hire were 

coming to us with substantial student loan debts, both undergraduate and law school, but especially the law school debts. 

We have since discovered that the average amount borrowed in 

law school by the class of 2005 was nearly $80,000. It was $78,763 

on average. And that was if you graduated from a private school. 

If you graduated from a public school, the average law school debt 

was $51,056. 

These are mortgage-size debts. These are much bigger than the 

mortgage I had on my first home, and they are just debilitating. 

16

They discourage people from even considering coming into the public sector. And even if they do come with the best of intentions, 

they do not stay very long. They cannot stay. If they want to start 

a family, buy a home, get a new car, it becomes a real impediment. 

So in my office’s example, the number of Assistant State’s Attorneys in my office has increased in the last 10, 15 years. But what 

has not increased is the number of career prosecutors. I just have 

more prosecutors coming and going in larger numbers because they 

cannot afford to stay in the office. 

We look for those persons that are really driven to come in and 

make a difference in their community. And at the same time, when 

I am interviewing them, I have to really grill them on whether they 

can afford to work there. I show them the net on a typical check 

and say, ‘‘Are you going to be able to live on this? Because, otherwise, you are going to be frustrated.’’

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So they do not have to face buyer’s remorse afterwards when they get that first paycheck? 

Mr. LOGLI. Well, sometimes they do, Senator. But in the last 30 

days, I have lost two fine young prosecutors who left for one reason, and one reason only: economics. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Senator Cardin has got a tight schedule, 

so if you do not mind, I will interrupt for a second. 

Mr. LOGLI. Sure, absolutely. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I will yield the floor to the Senator from 

Maryland. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much. First, let me thank all 

of you for your testimony. 

As a way of background, I chaired the Maryland Legal Services 

Corporation for about 6 years, and I also chaired a commission in 

the State of Maryland for public interest law. So I am very sympathetic to this bill, and I am very concerned about the fact that student loan debt is impacting decisions made by law school graduates, that they have to look at the economic realities rather than 

perhaps what they really want to do in life. But that is true beyond 

just the public defender’s office or the prosecutor’s office. It goes 

into a whole range of public interest areas. 

So I guess my question is whether—this goal is certainly one 

that I support, helping the prosecutors. There is a dire need in the 

civil areas to get young attorneys willing to work in those areas. 

Some of our States have programs that provide for loan forgiveness 

and other programs dealing with those who go into public interest 

law. But with the Federal Government intrusion into this area, I 

am just somewhat concerned as to whether this is broad enough 

and whether we should be looking at other areas in addition to 

prosecutors and defenders, defense attorneys. Any thoughts? 

Mr. LOGLI. Well, obviously, the National District Attorneys Association is primarily concerned about the prosecutors and defenders 

because we are primarily concerned with the criminal prosecution. 

But I have got to tell you, I understand the problems of which you 

speak. Prairie State Legal Services is a corporation in Illinois that 

provides just the type of services you are talking about, Senator. 

17

It helps the indigent people with the problems they have in the 

civil courts. If there is a group of lawyers that are paid even less 

than what I pay my lawyers, it is Prairie State Legal Services. And 

as lawyers, I know that we contribute to it, we raise funds for it. 

Many of the lawyers in the private sector volunteer their time to 

take the load off those attorneys. 

At the risk of making the pool so broad that we dilute whatever 

money the Government may put into it, I would be hard pressed 

to say, no, do not include them. They are in there performing a valuable function. 

Senator CARDIN. Here is the problem. Here is the problem. There 

are certain constitutional protections in our criminal defense system, and we know that we will always be able to put public pressure to prosecute—maybe not at the level we want to. In the civil 

areas, there is no such protection. And surveys have shown that 

the amount of adequate representation to indigent or low-income 

individuals in our civil justice system is very, very low. 

One of the problems is that you cannot attract experienced attorneys to work in this area. They may work a year or two, and they 

leave. The first recommendation I made as Chairman of the State 

commission was to increase the salaries of those in legal aid because the salaries were unbelievably low, much lower than your 

entry levels in the prosecutor’s offices in our State. 

So I am sympathetic to what this bill is trying to do, but I do 

think there is a desperate need out there to deal with access to our 

justice system in which too many attorneys are foregoing because 

they cannot afford to go into those fields. 

Mr. SHEPHERD. I was here to testify about how the ABA accreditation system has increased the costs of legal education, and my 

calculations and my own research indicate that if one goes to a private ABA-accredited school and one does not have family means to 

support you during that education, to be able to pay your loans you 

have to earn about $55,000 or $60,000 per year afterwards. If you 

earn less, you cannot make a go of it. 

So, really, what the system has done is created a situation in 

which only those with private family means can engage in legal 

services or can become prosecutors or public defenders, and it is 

just wrong. 

Senator CARDIN. I am somewhat concerned, though, with the limited aspects of this legislation. I just think it—I am not sure it is 

the right signal for the Federal Government’s participation. 

Ms. BERGEMAN. I would simply suggest, Senator, that with the 

criminal justice system, you are talking about a penal interest, and 

to some extent, I think there needs to be more protection provided 

there because we are talking about potential loss of liberty. 

Senator CARDIN. If a person loses their home or cannot get 

health care or cannot get access to social services, that is pretty 

tragic. 

Ms. BERGEMAN. It is absolutely tragic. It is absolutely tragic 

without a doubt. And I simply draw the distinction between that 

and a loss of liberty in terms of incarceration. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I think, Senator, the even more practical 

distinction is that there is a CBO number attached to this with respect to its application to those involved in the criminal justice sysVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:10 Jun 13, 2007 Jkt 035799 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\35799.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
18

tem. And if we get beyond that, we get into new budget realms. So 

perhaps that is for a later day. 

Senator CARDIN. We shall see. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We shall see. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, I appreciate all of your testimony. 

This has been very, very helpful. I note that a number of organizations have already sent in letters of interest and support. I hope 

we will hear from the National Association of Attorneys General at 

some point and maybe even NAFUSA, the National Association of 

Former United States Attorneys, although I think on the Federal 

side, the salary issues are less compelling. But I think anybody 

who has been in this world of law enforcement has witnessed the 

enormous sacrifice and dedication of people who work at the State 

level and in some cases at the municipal and county level at what 

really is a pittance of their earning capacity because of their love 

for what they do and because of their dedication to the principles 

that part of the legal practice is dedicated to upholding. So I am 

very grateful to all of you. 

If there are no further comments, I will bring this hearing to a 

close. The hearing record will remain open for 1 week for additional 

materials from interested individuals or organizations to be submitted. Written questions for the witnesses—you may end up having homework—must also be submitted by the close of business 1 

week from today, and written questions may be submitted to our 

absent witness, Michael Judge. We will ask the witnesses to respond to those questions promptly so we can complete the record. 

I hope that this hearing has helped impress on everyone the importance of facilitating the continued dedication of the best and our 

brightest young lawyers to this vital part of our legal profession 

and this vital part of our society. And I appreciate everybody’s attention today. 

Thank you. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:58 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow.]

19


35799.001
20


35799.002
21


35799.003
22


35799.004
23


35799.005
24


35799.006
25


35799.007
26


35799.008
27


35799.009
28


35799.010
29


35799.011
30


35799.012
31


35799.013
32


35799.014
33


35799.015
34


35799.016
35


35799.017
36


35799.018
37


35799.019
38


35799.020
39


35799.021
40


35799.022
41


35799.023
42


35799.024
43


35799.025
44


35799.026
45


35799.027
46


35799.028
47


35799.029
48


35799.030
49


35799.031
50


35799.032
51


35799.033
52


35799.034
53


35799.035
54


35799.036
55


35799.037
56


35799.038
57


35799.039
58


35799.040
59


35799.041
60


35799.042
61


35799.043
62


35799.044
63


35799.045
64


35799.046
65


35799.047
66


35799.048
67


35799.049
68


35799.050
69


35799.051
70


35799.052
71


35799.053
72


35799.054
73


35799.055
74


35799.056
75


35799.057
76


35799.058
77


35799.059
78


35799.060
79


35799.061
80


35799.062
81


35799.063
82


35799.064
83


35799.065
84


35799.066
85


35799.067
86


35799.068
87


35799.069
88


35799.071
89


35799.072
90


35799.073
91


35799.074
92


35799.075
93


35799.076
94


35799.077
95


35799.078
96


35799.070
97


35799.079
98


35799.080
99

Æ


35799.081