[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 170 (Tuesday, November 17, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11432-S11438]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEVIN:
  S. 2780. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to establish a small 
business intermediary lending pilot program; to the Committee on Small 
Business and Entrepreneurship.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I introduce the Small Business 
Intermediary Lending Pilot Program Act of 2009.
  As a member of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee I 
have been concerned about access to affordable financing for small 
businesses.
  The need to help small businesses find flexible credit sources has 
become more urgent than ever during this economic and credit crisis. 
The problem is serious. I have heard from numerous small businesses 
from across Michigan facing serious financial difficulties. Too many 
creditworthy businesses are having trouble procuring a loan, getting 
their loans renewed, or are facing higher rates or are having their 
lines of credit withdrawn altogether. This is happening even when the 
business never missed a payment.
  The difficulty of finding bank financing is both a symptom and a 
cause of our economic troubles. The crisis that nearly toppled our 
economy in late 2008 and early 2009 was largely the result of a 
shutdown in lending by banks worried that they would be overwhelmed by 
bad loans. And as the lack of available credit rippled through the 
economy, it hit more businesses, cost them more customers, forced them 
to lay off more workers, and slowed economic activity even more, making 
banks all the more reluctant to lend and setting off a downward spiral.
  The search for solutions to these problems has been intense, and we 
have taken some steps in Congress to alleviate them, including acting 
to reduce Small Business Administration lending fees, increasing the 
dollar amount of those loans the government would guarantee, and 
offering short-term loans to businesses facing immediate financial 
hardship. But it hasn't been enough.
  In May, I told members of the Senate Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship Committee, on which I serve, of just one Michigan 
example of the problem: A small manufacturer based in the Thumb. The 
company's longtime bank lender told the company it could not renew the 
firm's 5-year loan, instead offering 90-day renewals at a much higher 
interest rate. The company, with 77 workers and 150 customers, sought a 
loan elsewhere, but other banks--28 of them--rejected its application. 
The company has an excellent payment history. That story can be 
repeated 100 times throughout the state.
  With the steep decline in the availability of credit from 
conventional financial institutions, demand is increasing for 
community-based financial institutions, including Community Development 
Corporations, Microlenders, Community Development Financial 
Institutions and other non-profit lenders to fill the gap created by 
the reluctance of private financial institutions to provide capital to 
businesses. As demand on these non-profit institutions to fill the gap 
has increased, these institutions' sources of capital are also drying 
up.
  To address this problem, I am introducing legislation to help get 
financing to those small businesses that are not being served by the 
conventional loan programs currently available through the Small 
Business Administration.
  The Small Business Intermediary Lending Program that I am introducing 
today is a three-year pilot program which authorizes the SBA in each of 
the three years to make 20-year loans, on a competitive basis, to up to 
20 non-profit lending intermediaries around the country, with a maximum 
amount of $3 million per loan. Under this proposal, intermediaries 
would use these SBA loans to capitalize revolving loan funds through 
which loans of up to $200,000 would be made to small businesses in need 
of flexible debt financing. In addition, these intermediaries would 
assist borrowers in leveraging the SBA funds to obtain additional 
capital from other sources. The intermediaries would also work closely 
with the small business to provide technical assistance during the life 
of the loan.
  The program would be structured along the lines of the SBA's 
Microloan program and USDA's Intermediary Relending Program, both of 
which have demonstrated the success of using intermediary lenders to 
improve the flow of credit to small businesses that are unable to 
satisfy the underwriting requirements of a congenital bank.
  The program is designed to fill the lending gap that exists between 
SBA's Microloan program that lends up to $35,000 and its 7(a) loan 
program that makes larger traditional loans to small businesses through 
participating banks. Many start-up and expanding small businesses may 
have graduated from the Microloan Program and need larger loans but 
cannot get 7(a) loans because they lack adequate collateral necessary 
for traditional loans. These small businesses may also still need 
technical assistance to help them succeed that would be provided by the 
intermediary lender under this bill.
  Even before the severe economic downturn and resulting credit crunch, 
7(a) lenders were not making the sorts of midsize loans the 
Intermediary Lending Program seeks to make. In fact, several years ago 
a representative for the National Association of Government Guaranteed 
Lenders, the 7(a) lenders' trade association, told a Small Business and 
Entrepreneurial Committee roundtable that 7(a) lenders are not making 
these midsized loans because they are not cost effective, and that the 
Intermediary Lending Program would fill an important niche not being 
filled by any existing SBA program.
  We have been taking some important steps to encourage banks to lend 
to businesses, with varying degrees of success. Clearly more needs to 
be done to get credit into the hands of the small businesses that are 
going to create the jobs necessary to lead us out of this economic 
downturn. The Intermediary Lending Program I am introducing today 
proposes a way to get financing into the hands of those viable 
businesses that conventional banks are currently not lending to so that 
they can hire employees and grow their businesses. I urge its swift 
enactment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Brown, 
        Mr. Cardin, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Burr, Mr. Gregg, 
        Mr. Thune, and Mr. Dodd):
  S. 2781. A bill to change references in Federal law to mental 
retardation to references to an intellectual disability, and to change 
references to a mentally retarded individual to references to an 
individual with an intellectual disability; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation 
that I am calling ``Rosa's Law.'' It began by listening to the people 
in my own State. It began when a mother told me a compelling story 
about her own daughter, her family's efforts to give her daughter an 
opportunity for an education and to be treated with respect and with 
dignity. And, at the same time, it began with the advocacy of not only 
she and her husband but of her entire family, including her 14 year old 
son, Nick, who testified at the Maryland General Assembly.
  As a result of their effort, I am introducing Rosa's Law. But I want 
to tell you about the family. I want to tell you about the 
Marcellinos--two determined parents with four children: Nick, age 14; 
Madeleine, age 12; Gigi, age 10; and Rosa, age 8. I wish you could have 
been with me in my office as I met with them, as I met with the parents 
and talked with the family.
  Last year, at a roundtable on special education, I met Nina 
Marcellino. She told me about her daughter Rosa and the fact that Rosa 
had been labeled at her school some years ago as ``mentally retarded'' 
and told me of the stigma, the pain, the anguish it caused both Nina 
and her husband, Rosa's brother and sisters as well as Rosa herself.
  The mother and father reached out to the advocacy organization, the 
Arc, to see what could be done to change the law. They then reached out 
to a member of the Maryland General Assembly in our own Maryland 
Legislature--a wonderful representative named Ted Sophocleus.
  Mr. Sophocleus introduced legislation in the Maryland General 
Assembly that would change the words ``mentally retarded'' and 
substitute that with the phrase ``an individual with an intellectual 
disability.''

[[Page S11433]]

  That is why I stand on the Senate floor today to introduce, at the 
request of this family, legislation on behalf of this little girl and 
on behalf of all of the children of the United States of America who 
are labeled, stigmatized, and bear a burden the rest of their lives 
because of the language we use in the law books.
  My law simply changes the phrase ``mentally retarded'' to an 
``individual with an intellectual disability.'' We do it in health, 
education, and labor policy without in any way negatively impinging 
upon either the educational or other benefits to which these children 
are entitled.
  When it came time to bring the bill before the General Assembly, the 
family was there. And who spoke up for Rosa? Well, her mom and dad had 
been speaking up for her. Her brother Nick and her sisters Madeleine 
and Gigi had been speaking up for her. This wonderful boy, Nick, at the 
time 13 testified before the general assembly and said:

       What you call people is how you treat them.

  ``What you call people is how you treat them.'' What you call my 
sister is how you will treat her. If you believe she is ``retarded,'' 
it invites taunts, it invites stigmas, it invites bullying, and it also 
invites the slammed doors of not being treated with respect and 
dignity.
  Nick's words were far more eloquent that day than mine are today. I 
want to salute Nick for standing up for his sister. But I think we need 
to stand up for all because in changing the language we believe it will 
be the start of new attitudes toward people with intellectual 
disabilities. Hopefully, people will associate these new words with the 
very able and valuable people that go to school, work, play soccer, or 
live next door.
  Eunice Shriver believed in this when she created the Special 
Olympics. She knew special needs children need special attention, but 
they can do very special things and look what she started.
  This bill has gotten unanimous support in the Maryland legislative 
body. It passed in Annapolis. A few weeks before this bill swept 
through the General Assembly, I had the opportunity to talk to Rosa's 
mom, Nina. I promised her then that if that bill passed the Maryland 
Legislature, I would bring it to the floor of the Senate. Well, it 
passed unanimously, Governor O'Malley has signed it, and today I stand 
before you introducing the legislation.
  It makes nominal changes to policy. It gets into Federal education, 
health, and labor law. It simply substitutes ``intellectual 
disability'' for ``mental retardation,'' ``individual with an 
intellectual disability'' for ``mentally retarded.''
  This bill, as I can assure all who might be concerned, will not 
expand nor diminish services, rights, or educational opportunities. We 
vetted it with legal counsel. We reached out to the very wonderful 
advocacy groups in this field, and they concur that this legislation 
would be acceptable.
  The Senate has changed terminology for this population before. In the 
1960s, Congress passed legislation where we took--I am almost 
embarrassed to say our law once referred to boys and girls as ``feeble-
minded.'' We thought we were being advanced when we changed it to 
``mentally retarded.'' Now, 40 years later, let's take another big step 
and change it to ``intellectual disability.''
  This bill makes language used in the Federal Government consistent. 
The President's Committee on Mental Retardation was changed by 
Executive order so it is now the Committee on Individuals with 
Intellectual Disabilities. The CDC uses ``intellectual disability.'' 
The World Health Organization uses ``intellectual disability.''
  I have always said the best ideas come from the people. ``Rosa's 
Law'' is a perfect example of effective citizen advocacy--a family that 
pulled together for their own, and in pulling together they are pulling 
us all along to a new way of thinking.
  I want to recognize the Marcellino family who is here with us in the 
gallery, and the namesake of the law, Rosa, whose picture is behind me, 
and she is also up there in the gallery today.
  It was indeed an honor to represent this family. I believe in our 
country people have a right to be heard, and we listen. They have a 
right to be represented, which I have tried to do. Now let's try to 
change the law.
  I also want to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues. It is a 
pleasure to work with Senators Harkin and Enzi, the chair and ranking 
member of the HELP Committee. I have their wholehearted support in 
working together.
  This is going to be a bipartisan bill. It is going to be a 
nonpartisan bill. We are going to check our party hats at the door and 
move ahead and tip our hats to these boys and girls. This bill is 
driven by passion for social justice and compassion for the human 
condition. We have done a lot to come out of the dark ages of 
institutionalization and exclusion when it comes to people with 
intellectual disabilities.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in going a step further. Cosponsor 
the legislation I offer on a bipartisan basis. Help me pass the law and 
know that each and every one of us can make a difference. When we work 
together, we can make change. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues in moving this bill forward in our legislative process.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am pleased to have this opportunity to 
join my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, in introducing 
Rosa's law. I would like to thank her for her leadership and her 
commitment on this issue. Simply put, this legislation will make an 
important change in the words we use to refer to those with 
intellectual disabilities. It is a much needed change in the law that 
is fully deserving of our support.
  For far too long we have used words like ``mental retardation'' in 
our Federal statutes to refer to those with intellectual disabilities. 
This has been unfortunate because when we use such a term we send a 
message throughout our society that someone ``is'' their disability, 
instead of someone like us who is facing a challenge in their life. 
Such a term creates the unwanted impression that growth is impossible 
and their disability will lock them into a certain lifestyle forever.
  As an example, imagine a friend with cancer. When you refer to him or 
her you would probably say they have cancer, or are going through 
cancer treatment. You wouldn't say they ``are'' cancer like this term 
says that someone ``is'' their disability. It's a distinction that 
makes a big difference for anyone facing such a difficult period of 
their lives.
  This is not a unique situation. Historically, this and other 
unfortunate terms have been used to refer to people with disabilities 
of all kinds for many years.
  Prior to the 1960's, people who were viewed as having intellectual 
limitations were shunned from society and placed in institutions. The 
American dream of self-determination, independent living, and the 
pursuit of freedom and happiness was thought to be impossible for them 
to achieve. We let the limitations we helped to create with our words 
and our attitudes slowly take away their hopes and dreams for a better 
life and a brighter future.
  We know now that words have meaning, sometimes far beyond what we 
intend. Therefore, we must be very careful about the way we describe 
the people we see every day, including those with disabilities, or 
those who are undergoing treatment for a variety of health issues. 
Unfortunately, the Federal Government has not dropped this term from 
our laws and it still appears in the regulations and statutes that come 
before our legislative bodies and our courts.
  With this legislation we are taking a giant step forward, as we 
acknowledge that times have changed and we live in a much different 
world. Clearly this term was not developed from malice. It came from a 
lack of understanding of what it was like to be labeled with such a 
term and then left virtually alone in the effort to overcome it.
  Over the years, Congress has made it known that community living, 
educational opportunities that lead to success in the workplace, and 
equal opportunity without discrimination will be available to people 
who are living with intellectual limitations under appropriate Federal 
statutes.
  That was a good start. Unfortunately, several key Federal disability 
statutes, including the Individuals

[[Page S11434]]

with Disabilities Education Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the 
Developmental Disabilities Act, and the Genetic Information 
Nondiscrimination Act, still use the outmoded term. It is time for 
Congress to be proactive and join the States of New Hampshire, 
Maryland, and my home State of Wyoming by ending the use of this 
pejorative term and replacing it with a more carefully chosen word.
  To paraphrase a quote I have heard about cancer, a disability is a 
word, not a sentence. We have put that philosophy into practice over 
the years for other disabilities. It is time we adapted it to provide 
support to those living with intellectual disabilities as well.
  Some will ask if we are being overly sensitive, or if we are just 
trying to make a change to be politically correct. The answer to that 
question is clearly ``no.''
  It is no secret. When we put a ``label'' like that on someone we 
often find ourselves dealing with the label as if it is not a 
description of the challenges someone faces in their lives but a 
reflection of who that person really is. That puts them in a group with 
a label for a name and tells them that they are not worthy of being 
treated as an individual, with individual needs and interests.
  I have heard from people with intellectual disabilities over the 
years. They have asked us to put an end to the use of that outdated 
term. Self-advocacy groups such as Self-Advocates Becoming Empowered 
and local People First Organizations as well as organizations such as 
the Arc of the United States, Special Olympics International, and 
others have already stopped using this archaic terminology and dropped 
the term from their agency names. The American Psychiatric Association, 
which publishes the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental 
Disorders, has already voted to use the term ``Intellectual 
Disability'' in the next publication of their manual.
  I have always believed that the law is a great teacher. That is why 
we need to join in this effort and express our support for the efforts 
of those with disabilities of all kinds to live to their full 
potential. We can do that by eliminating the use of negative archaic 
terms to refer to those with intellectual limitations. Such an action 
on our part starts with this bill that uses the term intellectual 
disability in laws that are in the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee 
on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. This bill makes our intent 
clear throughout our Nation that this term will never again be used in 
Congress or in any Federal office.
  When I came to the Senate 13 years ago, my staff and I met almost 
immediately to work on our mission statement. When it was completed, 
one of the most important clauses we had written was our commitment 
that we would treat others not as we would wish to be treated, but as 
they would wish to be treated. There is a difference.
  Today, with the passage of this important legislation, we are 
reaching out to those with intellectual disabilities to assure them 
that their government will treat them as they would wish to be treated. 
By so doing, we will also be directing our staffs and the staffs of 
federal offices throughout the U.S. that the best way for them to refer 
to those with disabilities or to anyone who comes into their office is 
by the term they have carried with them throughout their lives--their 
name.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 2786. A bill to amend titles 18 and 28 of the United States Code 
to provide incentives for the prompt payments of debts owed to the 
United States and the victims of crime by imposing late fees on unpaid 
judgments owed to the United States and to the victims of crime, to 
provide for offsets on amounts collected by the Department of Justice 
for Federal agencies, to increase the amount of special assessments 
imposed upon convicted persons, to establish an Enhanced Financial 
Recovery Fund to enhance, supplement, and improve the debt collection 
activities of the Department of Justice, to amend title 5, United 
States Code, to provide to assistant United States attorneys the same 
retirement benefits as are afforded to Federal law enforcement 
officers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator 
Hatch to introduce a bill that will take steps to enhance the 
retirement benefits granted to Assistant U.S. Attorneys who serve all 
Americans in a critical law enforcement role. Representative Delahunt 
is introducing companion legislation in the House. I would like to 
acknowledge the significant efforts made by the National Association of 
Assistant United States Attorneys in developing this legislation.
  There are approximately 5,500 Assistant U.S. Attorneys in 93 offices 
throughout the U.S. all of whom are serving on the front lines to 
uphold the rule of law. Having served as a prosecutor for many years in 
Vermont, I know well the integral role prosecutors play in the 
administration of justice and keeping our communities safe. Federal 
prosecutors are a crucial component of our justice system, and this 
legislation recognizes the important contributions these men and women 
make in the enforcement of our Federal laws.
  Probation officers, deputy marshals, corrections officers, and even 
corrections employees not serving in a law enforcement role receive 
benefits greater than those received by Assistant U.S. Attorneys. This 
is a disparity that should be remedied. By making the appropriate 
adjustments provided in this legislation, Congress would also help the 
Federal justice system retain experienced prosecutors. Of all the 
prosecutors who leave the government for the private sector, 60 to 70 
percent do so with experience of between 6 and 15 years. With the 
Department of Justice's rapidly expanding role in combating terrorism, 
financial fraud, and other pressing national law enforcement 
challenges, we cannot afford to lose the experienced men and women who 
serve in this vital position. And by enhancing the retirement benefits 
for these prosecutors, we make service as an Assistant U.S Attorney a 
more attractive path for talented young lawyers who are considering 
public service.
  This legislation also makes substantial efforts to defray the cost to 
the Federal Government of providing enhanced retirement benefits to 
Assistant U.S. Attorneys and to make our justice system operate more 
efficiently. The bill includes important provisions that would assist 
the Department of Justice in recovering money owed to the Federal 
Government as a result of judgments and other fines. By bolstering the 
Department's ability to collect the funds it is rightfully owed, 
resources would be made more available to provide the parity in 
retirement benefits sought by Assistant U.S. Attorneys. The result of 
this innovative effort to fund these benefits in an alternative manner 
is that the Department of Justice will, through its duties as the 
Nation's law enforcement agency, be able to provide the benefits its 
employees deserve at little or no cost to the taxpayer.
  With the introduction of this legislation, we signal that prosecutors 
in our society fulfill a critical and valuable role. By enacting it, 
Congress can send the message that the service of these prosecutors is 
an indispensable component of our Federal justice system. I hope all 
Senators will join us in supporting this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2786

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Enhanced Restitution 
     Enforcement and Equitable Retirement Treatment Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.

                  TITLE I--ENHANCED FINANCIAL RECOVERY

Sec. 101. Unpaid fines and restitution.
Sec. 102. Remission of criminal monetary penalties.
Sec. 103. Prioritization of restitution efforts.
Sec. 104. Imposition of civil late fee.
Sec. 105. Increase in the amount of special assessments.
Sec. 106. Enhanced financial recovery fund.
Sec. 107. Effective dates.

[[Page S11435]]

  TITLE II--EQUITABLE RETIREMENT TREATMENT OF ASSISTANT UNITED STATES 
                               ATTORNEYS

Sec. 201. Retirement treatment of assistant United States attorneys.
Sec. 202. Provisions relating to incumbents.
Sec. 203. Agency share contributions.
Sec. 204. Effective date.

                  TITLE I--ENHANCED FINANCIAL RECOVERY

     SEC. 101. UNPAID FINES AND RESTITUTION.

       (a) In General.--Section 3612 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsections (d), (e), (g), (h), and (i); 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d) Imposition of Late Fee.--
       ``(1) In general.--A late fee shall be imposed upon a 
     defendant if fines or restitution obligations of the 
     defendant totaling not less than $2,500 unpaid as of the date 
     specified in subsection (f)(1). The late fee imposed under 
     this paragraph shall be 5 percent of the unpaid principal 
     balance for an individual and 10 percent for any other 
     person.
       ``(2) Allocation of payments.--
       ``(A) Fine.--Subject to subparagraph (C), if a late fee is 
     imposed under paragraph (1) for a fine--
       ``(i) an amount equal to 95 percent of each payment made by 
     a defendant shall be credited to the Crime Victims Fund 
     established under section 1402 of the Victims of Crime Act of 
     1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601) or as otherwise provided in that 
     section; and
       ``(ii) an amount equal to 5 percent of each payment shall 
     be credited to the Department of Justice Enhanced Financial 
     Recovery Fund established under section 106 of the Enhanced 
     Restitution Enforcement and Equitable Retirement Treatment 
     Act of 2009.
       ``(B) Restitution.--Subject to subparagraph (C), if a late 
     fee is imposed under paragraph (1) for a restitution 
     obligation--
       ``(i) an amount equal to 95 percent of each payment shall 
     be paid to any victim identified by the court; and
       ``(ii) an amount equal to 5 percent of each payment shall 
     be credited to the Department of Justice Enhanced Financial 
     Recovery Fund established under section 106 of the Enhanced 
     Restitution Enforcement and Equitable Retirement Treatment 
     Act of 2009.
       ``(C) Order of payments.--Payments for fines or restitution 
     shall be applied first to the principal and, if any, the late 
     fee under paragraph (1). If the amount due on either the 
     principal or the late fee has been paid in full and the other 
     amount due remains unpaid, all payments for fines or 
     restitution shall then be applied to the other unpaid 
     obligation. If the principal and the late fee have been paid 
     in full, all payments for fines or restitution shall then be 
     applied to interest.
       ``(3) Definitions.--In this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `fines or restitution obligations' does not 
     include any amount that is imposed as interest, costs, or a 
     late fee;
       ``(B) the term `principal' does not include any amount that 
     is imposed as interest, penalty, or a late fee; and
       ``(C) the term `restitution' includes any unpaid balance 
     due to a person identified in any judgment, or order of 
     restitution, entered in any criminal case.
       ``(e) Waiver of Interest, Penalty, or Late Fees.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Attorney General may waive all or 
     part of any interest or late fee under this section or any 
     interest or penalty imposed under any other provision of law 
     if the Attorney General determines that reasonable efforts to 
     collect the interest, late fee, or penalty are not likely to 
     be effective.
       ``(2) Waiver by court.--The court may waive the uncollected 
     portion of a late fee, upon the motion of the defendant, and 
     a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that--
       ``(A) the defendant has made a good faith effort to satisfy 
     all unpaid fines or restitution obligations;
       ``(B) despite the good faith efforts of the defendant, the 
     defendant is not likely to satisfy the obligations within the 
     time provided for under section 3613 of this title; and
       ``(C) the continued collection of a late fee would 
     constitute an undue burden upon the defendant.''.
       (b) Repeal of Delinquency and Default Provisions.--Section 
     3572 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     subsections (h) and (i).

     SEC. 102. REMISSION OF CRIMINAL MONETARY PENALTIES.

       Section 3573 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 3573. Petition of the Government for modification or 
       remission

       ``(a) In General.--Upon petition of the Government showing 
     that reasonable efforts to collect a fine, restitution 
     obligation, or special assessment are not likely to be 
     effective, the court may, in the interest of justice, remit 
     all or any part of the fine, restitution obligation, or 
     special assessment, including interest, penalty, and late 
     fees.
       ``(b) Victims Other Than the United States.--In the case of 
     a restitution obligation owed to a victim other than the 
     United States, the express and clearly voluntary consent of 
     the victim is required before the court may grant such 
     petition. No defendant shall initiate contact with a victim 
     for the purpose of securing consent to a possible remission 
     except through counsel, the United States attorney, or in 
     such a manner as first approved by the court as safe and 
     noncoercive.''.

     SEC. 103. PRIORITIZATION OF RESTITUTION EFFORTS.

       Section 3771 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding the following subsection:
       ``(g) Guidelines.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall promulgate 
     guidelines to ensure the effective and efficient enforcement 
     of all criminal and civil obligations which are owed to the 
     United States and enforced by the Department of Justice.
       ``(2) Contents.--The guidelines promulgated under paragraph 
     (1) shall require consideration, in making decisions relating 
     to enforcement of criminal and civil obligations which are 
     owed to the United States, of the amount due, the amount 
     collectible, and whether the amount is due to individuals who 
     are not likely to be able to enforce the obligation without 
     assistance from the Department of Justice.''.

     SEC. 104. IMPOSITION OF CIVIL LATE FEE.

       (a) In General.--Section 3011 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 3011. Imposition of late fee

       ``(a) In General.--A late fee shall be imposed on a 
     defendant if there is an unpaid balance due to the United 
     States on any money judgment in a civil matter recovered in a 
     district court as of--
       ``(1) the fifteenth day after the date of the judgment; or
       ``(2) if the day described in paragraph (1) is a Saturday, 
     Sunday, or legal public holiday, the next day that is not a 
     Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.
       ``(b) Amount of Late Fee.--A late fee imposed under 
     subsection (a) shall be 5 percent of the unpaid principal 
     balance for an individual and 10 percent for any other 
     person.
       ``(c) Allocation of Payments.--Subject to subsection (d), 
     if a late fee is imposed under subsection (a)--
       ``(1) an amount equal to 95 percent of each principal 
     payment made by a defendant shall be credited as otherwise 
     provided by law; and
       ``(2) an amount equal to 5 percent of each principal 
     payment shall be credited to the Department of Justice 
     Enhanced Financial Recovery Fund established under section 
     106 of the Enhanced Financial Recovery and Equitable 
     Retirement Treatment Act of 2007.
       ``(d) Order of Payments.--Payments for a money judgment in 
     a civil matter shall be applied first to the principal and, 
     if any, the late fee under subsection (a). If the amount due 
     on either the principal or the late fee has been paid in full 
     and the other amount due remains unpaid, all payments for a 
     money judgment in a civil matter shall be applied to the 
     other unpaid obligation. If the principal and the late fee 
     have been paid in full, all payments for a money judgment in 
     a civil matter shall then be applied to interest.
       ``(e) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `principal' does not include any amount that 
     is imposed as interest, penalty, or a late fee; and
       ``(2) the term `unpaid balance due to the United States'--
       ``(A) includes any unpaid balance due to a person that was 
     represented by the Department of Justice in the civil matter 
     in which the money judgment was entered; and
       ``(B) does not include interest, costs, penalties, or late 
     fees.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for subchapter A of chapter 176 of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to 
     section 3011 and inserting the following:

``3011. Imposition of late fee.''.

     SEC. 105. INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS.

       Section 3013 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
       ``(a) The court shall assess on any person convicted of an 
     offense against the United States--
       ``(1) in the case of an infraction or a misdemeanor--
       ``(A) if the defendant is an individual--
       ``(i) the amount of $10 in the case of an infraction or a 
     class C misdemeanor;
       ``(ii) the amount of $25 in the case of a class B 
     misdemeanor; and
       ``(iii) the amount of $100 in the case of a class A 
     misdemeanor; and
       ``(B) if the defendant is a person other than an 
     individual--
       ``(i) the amount of $100 in the case of an infraction or a 
     class C misdemeanor;
       ``(ii) the amount of $200 in the case of a class B 
     misdemeanor; and
       ``(iii) the amount of $500 in the case of a class A 
     misdemeanor; and
       ``(2) in the case of a felony--
       ``(A) the amount of $100 if the defendant is an individual; 
     and
       ``(B) the amount of $1,000 if the defendant is not an 
     individual.''.

     SEC. 106. ENHANCED FINANCIAL RECOVERY FUND.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury a 
     separate account known as the Department of Justice Enhanced 
     Financial Recovery Fund (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Fund'').
       (b) Deposits.--Notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, 
     United States Code, or any other law regarding the crediting 
     of collections, there shall be credited as an offsetting 
     collection to the Fund an amount equal to--
       (1) 2 percent of any amount collected pursuant to civil 
     debt collection litigation activities of the Department of 
     Justice (in addition to any amount credited under section

[[Page S11436]]

     11013 of the 21st Century Department of Justice 
     Appropriations Authorization Act (28 U.S.C. 527 note));
       (2) 5 percent of all amounts collected as restitution due 
     to the United States pursuant to the criminal debt collection 
     litigation activities of the Department of Justice; and
       (3) any late fee collected under section 3612 of title 18, 
     United States Code, as amended by this Act, or section 3011 
     of title 28, United States Code, as amended by this Act.
       (c) Availability.--The amounts credited to the Fund shall 
     remain available until expended.
       (d) Payments From the Fund To Support Enhanced Enforcement 
     of Judgments.--
       (1) Use for collection.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     Attorney General shall use not less than $20,000,000 of the 
     Fund in each fiscal year, to the extent that funds are 
     available, for the collection of civil and criminal judgments 
     by the Department of Justice, including restitution judgments 
     where the beneficiaries are the victims of crime.
       (B) Allocation.--The funds described in subparagraph (A) 
     shall be used to enhance, supplement, and improve the civil 
     and criminal judgment enforcement efforts of the Department 
     of Justice first, and primarily for such activities by United 
     States attorneys' offices. A portion of the funds described 
     in subparagraph (A) may be used by the Attorney General to 
     provide legal, investigative, accounting, and training 
     support to the United States attorneys' offices in carrying 
     out civil and criminal debt collection activities.
       (C) Limitation.--The funds described in subparagraph (A) 
     may not be used to determine whether a defendant is guilty of 
     an offense or liable to the United States, except 
     incidentally for the provision of assistance necessary or 
     desirable in a case to ensure the preservation of assets or 
     the imposition of a judgment, which assists in the 
     enforcement of a judgment, or in a proceeding directly 
     related to the failure of a defendant to satisfy the monetary 
     portion of a judgment.
       (2) Adjustment of amount.--In each fiscal year following 
     the first fiscal year in which deposits into the Fund are 
     greater than $20,000,000, the amount to be used under 
     paragraph (1)(A) shall be increased by a percentage equal to 
     the change in the Consumer Price Index published by the 
     Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor for the 
     calendar year preceding that fiscal year.
       (3) Limitation.--In any fiscal year, amounts in the Fund 
     shall be available to the extent that the amount appropriated 
     in that fiscal year for the purposes described in paragraph 
     (1) is not less than an amount equal to the amount 
     appropriated for such activities in fiscal year 2006, 
     adjusted annually in the same proportion as increases 
     reflected in the amount of aggregate level of appropriations 
     for the Executive Office of United States Attorneys and 
     United States Attorneys.
       (e) Current Agency Share Contributions.--After expending 
     amounts in the Fund as provided under subsection (d), the 
     Attorney General may use amounts remaining in the Fund to 
     offset additional agency share contributions made by the 
     Department of Justice for personnel benefit expenses incurred 
     as a result of this Act or the amendments made by this Act 
     relating to service as an assistant United States attorney on 
     or after the date of enactment of this Act. The availability 
     of amounts from the Fund shall have no effect on the 
     implementation of title II or the amendments made by title 
     II.
       (f) Retroactive Agency Share Contributions.--After 
     expending amounts in the Fund as provided under subsection 
     (e), the Attorney General may use amounts remaining in the 
     Fund to offset agency share contributions made by the 
     Department of Justice for personnel benefit expenses incurred 
     as a result of this Act or the amendments made by this Act 
     relating to service as an assistant United States attorney 
     before the date of enactment of this Act.
       (g) Rebate of Agency Offsets.--After expending amounts in 
     the Fund as provided under subsection (f), all amounts 
     remaining in the Fund shall be credited, proportionally, to 
     the Federal agencies on behalf of which debt collection 
     litigation activities were conducted that resulted in 
     deposits under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (b) during 
     that fiscal year.
       (h) Payments to the General Fund.--After expending amounts 
     in the Fund as provided under subsection (g), all amounts 
     remaining in the Fund shall be deposited with the General 
     Fund of the United States Treasury.
       (i) Definition.--In this section, the term ``United 
     States''--
       (1) includes--
       (A) the executive departments, the judicial and legislative 
     branches, the military departments, and independent 
     establishments of the United States; and
       (B) corporations primarily acting as instrumentalities or 
     agencies of the United States; and
       (2) except as provided in paragraph (1), does not include 
     any contractor of the United States.

     SEC. 107. EFFECTIVE DATES.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in this section, this 
     title and the amendments made by this title shall take effect 
     30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Criminal Cases.--The amendments made by section 105 and 
     subsection (d) of section 3612 of title 18, United States 
     Code, as added by section 101 of this Act, shall apply to any 
     offense committed on or after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, including any offense which includes conduct that 
     continued on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Civil Cases.--The amendments made by section 104 shall 
     apply to any case pending on or after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.

  TITLE II--EQUITABLE RETIREMENT TREATMENT OF ASSISTANT UNITED STATES 
                               ATTORNEYS

     SEC. 201. RETIREMENT TREATMENT OF ASSISTANT UNITED STATES 
                   ATTORNEYS.

       (a) Civil Service Retirement System.--
       (1) Assistant united states attorney defined.--Section 8331 
     of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (30), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (31), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(32) `assistant United States attorney'--
       ``(A) means an assistant United States attorney appointed 
     under section 542 of title 28; and
       ``(B) includes an individual--
       ``(i) appointed United States attorney under section 541 or 
     546 of title 28;
       ``(ii) who has previously served as an assistant United 
     States attorney; and
       ``(iii) who elects under section 202 of the Enhanced 
     Restitution Enforcement and Equitable Retirement Treatment 
     Act of 2009 to be treated as an assistant United States 
     attorney and solely for the purposes of this title.''.
       (2) Retirement treatment.--Chapter 83 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding after section 8351 the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 8352. Assistant United States attorneys

       ``An assistant United States attorney shall be treated in 
     the same manner and to the same extent as a law enforcement 
     officer for purposes of this chapter, except as follows:
       ``(1) Section 8335(b)(1) of this title (relating to 
     mandatory separation) shall not apply.
       ``(2) Section 8336(c)(1) of this title (relating to 
     immediate retirement at age 50 with 20 years of service as a 
     law enforcement officer) shall apply to assistant United 
     States attorneys except the age for immediate retirement 
     eligibility shall be 57 instead of 50.''.
       (3) Technical and conforming amendments.--
       (A) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter 
     83 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 8351 the following:

``Sec. 8352. Assistant United States attorneys.''.

       (B) Mandatory separation.--Section 8335(a) of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``8331(29)(A)'' 
     and inserting ``8331(30)(A)''.
       (b) Federal Employees' Retirement System.--
       (1) Assistant united states attorney defined.--Section 8401 
     of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (35), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (36), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(37) `assistant United States attorney'--
       ``(A) means an assistant United States attorney appointed 
     under section 542 of title 28; and
       ``(B) includes an individual--
       ``(i) appointed United States attorney under section 541 or 
     546 of title 28;
       ``(ii) who has previously served as an assistant United 
     States attorney; and
       ``(iii) who elects under section 202 of the Enhanced 
     Restitution Enforcement and Equitable Retirement Treatment 
     Act of 2009 to be treated as an assistant United States 
     attorney and solely for the purposes of this title.''.
       (2) Retirement treatment.--Section 8402 of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) An assistant United States attorney shall be treated 
     in the same manner and to the same extent as a law 
     enforcement officer for purposes of this chapter, except as 
     follows:
       ``(1) Section 8425(b)(1) of this title (relating to 
     mandatory separation) shall not apply.
       ``(2) Section 8412(d) of this title (relating to immediate 
     retirement at age 50 with 20 years of service as a law 
     enforcement officer) shall apply to assistant United States 
     attorneys except the age for immediate retirement eligibility 
     shall be 57 instead of 50.''.
       (c) Mandatory Separation.--Sections 8335(b)(1) and 
     8425(b)(1) of title 5, United States Code, are each amended 
     by adding at the end the following: ``This subsection shall 
     not apply in the case of an assistant United States 
     attorney.''.

     SEC. 202. PROVISIONS RELATING TO INCUMBENTS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``assistant United States attorney'' means an 
     assistant United States attorney appointed under section 542 
     of title 28, United States Code; and
       (2) the term ``incumbent'' means an individual who, on the 
     date of enactment of this Act--
       (A) is serving as an assistant United States attorney;
       (B) is serving as a United States Attorney appointed under 
     section 541 or 546 of title 28, United States Code; or

[[Page S11437]]

       (C) is employed by the Department of Justice and has served 
     at least 10 years as an assistant United States attorney.
       (b) Notice Requirement.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Department of Justice 
     shall take measures reasonably designed to provide notice to 
     incumbents on--
       (1) their election rights under this title; and
       (2) the effects of making or not making a timely election 
     under this title.
       (c) Election Available to Incumbents.--
       (1) In general.--An incumbent may elect, for all purposes, 
     to be treated--
       (A) in accordance with the amendments made by this title; 
     or
       (B) as if this title had never been enacted.
       (2) Time limitation.--An election under this subsection 
     shall not be effective unless the election is made not later 
     than the earlier of--
       (A) 180 days after the date on which the notice under 
     subsection (b) is provided; or
       (B) the date on which the incumbent involved separates from 
     service.
       (3) Failure to elect.--Failure to make a timely election 
     under this subsection shall be deemed--
       (A) for an assistant United States attorney, as an election 
     under paragraph (1)(A); and
       (B) for any other incumbent, as an election under paragraph 
     (1)(B).
       (d) Limited Retroactive Effect.--
       (1) Effect on retirement.--In the case of an incumbent who 
     elects (or is deemed to have elected) the option under 
     subsection (c)(1)(A), all service performed by that 
     individual as an assistant United States attorney shall--
       (A) to the extent performed on or after the effective date 
     of that election, be treated in accordance with applicable 
     provisions of subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of 
     title 5, United States Code, as amended by this title; and
       (B) to the extent performed before the effective date of 
     that election, be treated in accordance with applicable 
     provisions of subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of 
     title 5, United States Code, as if the amendments made by 
     this title had then been in effect.
       (2) Creditable service.--All service performed by an 
     incumbent under an appointment under section 515, 541, 543, 
     or 546 of title 28, United States Code and while concurrently 
     employed by the Department of Justice shall be credited in 
     the same manner as if performed as an assistant United States 
     attorney.
       (3) No other retroactive effect.--Nothing in this title 
     (including the amendments made by this title) shall affect 
     any of the terms or conditions of an individual's employment 
     (apart from those governed by subchapter III of chapter 83 or 
     chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code) with respect to 
     any period of service preceding the date on which such 
     individual's election under subsection (c) is made (or is 
     deemed to have been made).
       (e) Individual Contributions for Prior Service.--
       (1) In general.--An individual who makes an election under 
     subsection (c)(1)(A) shall, with respect to prior service 
     performed by such individual, deposit, with interest, to the 
     Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund the difference 
     between the individual contributions that were actually made 
     for such service and the individual contributions that would 
     have been made for such service if the amendments made by 
     this title had then been in effect.
       (2) Effect of not contributing.--If the deposit required 
     under paragraph (1) is not paid, all prior service of the 
     incumbent shall remain fully creditable as law enforcement 
     officer service, but the resulting annuity shall be reduced 
     in a manner similar to that described in section 
     8334(d)(2)(B) of title 5, United States Code.
       (3) Prior service defined.--In this subsection, the term 
     ``prior service'' means, with respect to any individual who 
     makes an election (or is deemed to have made an election) 
     under subsection (c)(1)(A), all service credited as an 
     assistant United States attorney, but not exceeding 20 years, 
     performed by such individual before the date as of which 
     applicable retirement deductions begin to be made in 
     accordance with such election.
       (f) Regulations.--The Office of Personnel Management shall 
     prescribe regulations necessary to carry out this title, 
     including provisions under which any interest due on the 
     amount described under subsection (e) shall be determined.

     SEC. 203. AGENCY SHARE CONTRIBUTIONS.

       (a) In General.--The cost for current agency share 
     contributions for personnel benefits incurred as a result of 
     this Act or the amendments made by this Act may be paid from 
     the Enhanced Financial Recovery Fund. If in any fiscal year 
     the Fund does not have a sufficient amount on deposit to 
     satisfy the cost for current agency share contributions for 
     personnel benefits incurred as a result of this Act or the 
     amendments made by this Act, the amount of the insufficiency 
     shall be due the next fiscal year.
       (b) Retroactive Agency Share.--The cost for retroactive 
     agency share contributions for personnel benefits incurred as 
     a result of this Act or the amendments made by this Act may 
     be paid from the Enhanced Financial Recovery Fund. 
     Notwithstanding section 8348(f) or section 8423(b) of title 
     5, United States Code, an amount equal to the amount 
     remaining in the Enhanced Financial Recovery Fund in any 
     fiscal year, after the amounts credited to the Fund have been 
     expended to satisfy the requirements of subsections (d) and 
     (e) of section 106 of this Act, shall be credited toward the 
     cost for retroactive agency share contributions for personnel 
     benefits incurred as a result of this Act or the amendments 
     made by this Act until such cost, along with accumulated 
     interest, has been satisfied in full.
       (c) Use of Funds.--Funds appropriated for the Department of 
     Justice shall not be used to pay for the additional cost for 
     current or retroactive agency share contributions for 
     personnel benefits incurred as a result of this Act or the 
     amendments made by this Act except as directed by the 
     Attorney General.

     SEC. 204. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--This title shall take effect on the date 
     of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Incumbents.--In the case of an incumbent who elects (or 
     is deemed to have elected) the option under section 
     202(c)(1)(A) of this title, the election shall not take 
     effect until 24 months after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, except as follows:
       (1) An incumbent with at least 30 years of service as an 
     assistant United States attorney may choose to have the 
     election take effect at any time between 6 and 24 months 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) An incumbent with at least 25 years of service credited 
     as an assistant United States attorney may choose to have the 
     election take effect at any time between 12 and 24 months 
     after the enactment of this Act;
       (3) An incumbent with at least 20 years of service credited 
     as an assistant United States attorney may, with the approval 
     of the Attorney General, choose to have the election take 
     effect at any time between 6 and 24 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act; and
       (4) An incumbent with at least 20 years service credited as 
     an assistant United States attorney and who is currently 
     serving under an appointment under section 541 or 546 of 
     title 28, United States Code, may choose to have the election 
     take effect at any time between the enactment of this Act and 
     24 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself, Mrs. Gillibrand, and Mr. Kaufman):
  S. 2789. A bill to establish a scholarship program to encourage 
outstanding undergraduate and graduate students in mission-critical 
fields to pursue a career in the Federal Government; to the Committee 
on Finance.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, since arriving in the Senate in 1999, I 
have made improving the Federal workforce a priority. In that time, I 
have served as both chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the 
District of Columbia, and have participated in many hearings to examine 
the personnel needs of the Federal Government. In fact, I recently 
attended my 52nd hearing examining Federal human capital issues.
  As my colleagues surely know, over the next several years the Federal 
workforce will experience an unprecedented demographic transition. By 
December 2012, 250,000 Federal employees are expected to retire. To 
maintain current staff levels amidst the impending wave of Baby Boomer 
retirements, and to cope with the increasing workload being placed on 
civil servants by Congress and the administration, more than 600,000 
positions will need to be filled over this time period.
  This hiring challenge will be particularly significant for those 
positions designated by Federal agencies as ``mission-critical,'' or 
necessary for carrying out basic agency responsibilities. In its 
recently released survey of the coming hiring challenge, Where the Jobs 
Are, the Partnership for Public Service estimates that 273,000 new 
public servants--from doctors to intelligence analysts, program 
managers to police officers--will need to be brought on board to 
maintain current staffing levels, a 40 percent increase from the 
previous 3-year period.
  Successfully meeting this human capital challenge will require a 
sustained, multi-pronged effort addressing a host of issues. The 
Federal hiring process needs streamlining, improvements must continue 
in the processing of security clearances, and agencies will need to 
approach future hiring decisions in a strategic fashion rather than a 
tactical, reactive one.
  No matter how effectively the Federal hiring process is planned for 
and managed, however, an effective workforce cannot be built in the 
absence of talented individuals willing to pursue careers in public 
service. The need for well-qualified young people with aspirations to 
careers in public service is particularly important for mission-

[[Page S11438]]

critical occupations, which tend to require highly specialized skill 
sets that too often are in short supply.
  At the same time, the average debt load undergraduate and graduate 
students must bear to finance their education continues to increase. As 
a result, many young Americans who would otherwise be eager to join the 
civil service are prevented from doing so.
  In an effort to help established a talent pipeline for such mission-
critical positions, today I join with the distinguished Senator from 
New York, Senator Gillibrand, and the distinguished Senator from 
Delaware, Senator Kaufman, to introduce legislation aimed at 
encouraging and enabling young people with valuable, mission-critical 
skills to pursue careers in public service.
  The Roosevelt Scholars Act of 2009 would establish a foundation named 
in honor of our 26th President and a principal architect of the modern 
civil service, Theodore Roosevelt. The Theodore Roosevelt Scholarship 
Foundation would be charged with awarding scholarships to outstanding 
undergraduate and graduate students pursuing fields of study identified 
by Federal agencies as mission-critical. In return for tuition support 
and a small stipend, selected students--dubbed Roosevelt Scholars--
would be required to engage in 3 to 5 years of service with a Federal 
agency in need of an individual with a Roosevelt Scholar's unique skill 
set. Scholarships would be provided through the Theodore Roosevelt 
Memorial Scholarship Trust Fund, whose endowment would eventually 
provide a self-sustaining funding mechanism for Roosevelt Scholarships.
  I am pleased to be joined in offering this legislation by 
enthusiastic partners. Senator Gillibrand is a strong supporter of 
encouraging Americans to pursue careers in public service, and I am 
thankful for her diligent work in advancing this legislation. Likewise, 
Senator Kaufman has demonstrated his strong support of our Nation's 
civil servants by his frequent appearances on the floor of this chamber 
to recognize the accomplishments of outstanding Federal employees. And 
on the other side of the Capitol Rotunda, Representatives David Price 
and Michael Castle are already hard at work promoting this important 
legislation.
  The higher education community has been quick to see the promise 
offered by the Roosevelt Scholars Act. More than 100 public and private 
universities have endorsed this legislation, and the list continues to 
grow.
  I will be the first to tell my colleagues that problems as daunting 
as those facing the Federal workforce are not solved overnight. I have 
learned from 18 years as a public executive--first as mayor of 
Cleveland, then as Governor of Ohio--that progress on such challenges 
is made incrementally. Opportunities offered by legislation like the 
Roosevelt Scholars Act are important components in a larger strategy.
  I urge my colleagues to join in cosponsoring the Roosevelt Scholars 
Act, and look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and 
Senate to provide young people the opportunity to pursue a career in 
public service as Roosevelt Scholars.

                          ____________________