[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Pages 27256-27257]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                HOMELAND SECURITY FEDERAL WORKFORCE ACT

  Mr. BENNETT. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 240, S. 589.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 589) to strengthen and improve the management of 
     national security, encourage Government service in areas of 
     critical national security, and to assist Government agencies 
     in addressing deficiencies in personnel possessing 
     specialized skills important to national security and 
     incorporating the goals and strategies for recruitment and 
     retention for such skilled personnel into the strategic and 
     performance management systems of Federal agencies.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I support passage of the Homeland Security 
Federal Workforce Act, S. 589, and urge favorable Senate action and 
swift House adoption, as well. Senators Akaka and Durbin deserve great 
credit for developing this legislation last Congress with Senator 
Thompson and pursuing it to passage this year.
  I share their concern that we need to do more to recruit and retain 
outstanding personnel in our pursuit of national security. I believe 
that includes our law enforcement personnel. For the last two 
Congresses I have sponsored the Federal Prosecutors' Retirement Benefit 
Equity Act, which is now S. 640. That bill, which is cosponsored by 
Senators Hatch, Mikulski and Durbin, would correct an inequity that 
exists under current law whereby Federal prosecutors receive 
substantially less favorable retirement benefits than nearly all others 
involved in the federal criminal justice system. We have proposed that 
Assistant United States Attorneys be included as law enforcement 
officers under the Federal Employees' Retirement System and Civil 
Service Retirement System. I urge the Republican chairs of the 
Government Affairs Committee and the Subcommittee on Oversight of 
Government Management, the Federal workforce, and the District of 
Columbia to make enactment of that measure a priority rather than allow 
it to continue to languish without action year after year.
  Similarly, I am a cosponsor of the Law Enforcement Officers 
Retirement Equity Act, S. 819, which was introduced by Senator Mikulski 
and is cosponsored by Senators Sarbanes and Campbell. This measure 
would include Customs agents, Treasury agents, and Homeland Security 
agents whose duties include the investigation or apprehension of 
suspected or convicted individuals and who are authorized to carry a 
firearm within the definition of ``law enforcement officer'' for 
purposes of retirement benefits equity. This measure, likewise, is one 
that has been introduced and reintroduced but that

[[Page 27257]]

has not received attention from the Government Affairs Committee or 
Subcommittee. In the interest of fairness and in recognition of the 
sacrifices that our officers make every day on our behalf, I urge 
attention to this measure.
  I also note that last Congress the Senate Judiciary Committee 
favorably reported the Innocence Protection Act of 2002, which included 
provisions on student loan forgiveness. The bill would have established 
a program under which full-time prosecutors and public defenders could 
apply for repayment assistance of the Federal Stafford loans and would 
have extended the Perkins loan forgiveness program to include public 
defenders. I commend Senator Durbin for his strong leadership in these 
matters. Unfortunately, those improvements and encouragements to young 
lawyers were blocked and are not yet enacted. They need to be. We must 
ensure that full-time public defenders have equivalent eligibility if 
the public defense function is to fulfill its constitutionally required 
role in our criminal justice system.
  Specifically, with respect to the Homeland Security Federal Workforce 
Act that we consider today, I believe the program it establishes for 
student loan repayment can be an important incentive for our national 
security programs and understand those to include our law enforcement 
agents and officers. I regret that the substitute amendment lowers the 
maximum amount of loan repayment from $80,000 to $60,000 but believe it 
is an important start and should be used broadly as an incentive to 
both recruit and retain our national security employees. According to 
Dr. Paul Light of the Brookings Institution Center for Public Service, 
in 2002 the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense 
together awarded student loan repayment to only seven employees. To 
have its intended effect to recruit and retain outstanding talent to 
government service, especially national security positions that include 
law enforcement, we need to have a broad-based incentive through loan 
forgiveness. Student loans, include law school loans, that saddle 
talented and public-spirited graduates are a key reason so many opt for 
higher paying jobs in the private sector. An effective program of 
student loan forgiveness can help counterbalance that pressure.
  I regret that the bill as written limits its application to executive 
departments like the Department of Justice and does not include Federal 
courts, which oversee our federal public defenders. Our prosecutors and 
our public defenders need this assistance and incentive to join and 
remain as critical components of the criminal justice system. To skew 
programs to help only one side of the criminal justice system is 
shortsighted and unfair. For more information on this important topic 
of loan forgiveness, I urge consideration of pages 37 through 40 of 
Senate report 107-315.
  I am concerned that the Bush administration and its Office of 
Personnel Management will adopt an unreasonably restrictive view of 
those Federal employees who contribute to our national security. As I 
read the substitute amendment, the determination of national security 
positions is left to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland 
Security, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General and the 
other agency heads. That decision no longer is intended to reside with 
the Director of the Office of Personnel Management. That is an 
improvement. I hope that it will lead to a more broadly-based 
determination of the employment positions eligible for the student loan 
repayment program to include all who contribute to our national 
security.
  I also look forward to enactment of the fellowship program provided 
by the bill and the strengthening of our national security workforce. I 
have been extremely disappointed by the efforts made at the Department 
of Justice to fulfil the mandates of the USA PATRIOT Act with respect 
to improving our workforce. As I detailed recently in connection with 
the confirmation hearing for the nominee to be the Deputy Attorney 
General, the Attorney General has yet to give us a straight answer with 
respect to hiring the necessary Arabic translators. That was a need I 
identified within days of the September 11, 2001 attacks and insisted 
be addressed in the PATRIOT Act. Over the last 2 years the Department 
has been both evasive and inconsistent in its answers regarding 
implementation of those provisions in that Act. Recently the FBI has, 
again, put out the call for assistance and additional translators. 
While Senator Voinovich may be correct that these provisions in the 
bill may be necessary, it is my hope that they will encourage the 
administration to do that which it could have done but has not under 
existing authority.
  The administration has a long way to go to provide for our national 
security. I support this bill as another bipartisan effort by the 
Senate to help it along the way.
  Mr. BENNETT. I ask unanimous consent that the Collins substitute 
amendment which is at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, 
be read the third time and passed; the motion to reconsider be laid 
upon the table; and any statements relating to the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2114) was agreed to.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  The bill (S. 589), as amended, was read the third time and passed.

                          ____________________