[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 30 (Wednesday, March 10, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H942-H944]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2004

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 2714) to reauthorize the State Justice Institute, as 
amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 2714

       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 ``State Justice Institute 
     Reauthorization Act of 2004''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 215 of the State Justice Institute Act of 1984 (42 
     U.S.C. 10713) is amended to read as follows:


                   ``Authorization of appropriations

       ``Sec. 215. There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out the purposes of this title, $7,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. Amounts appropriated 
     for each such year are to remain available until expended.''.

     SEC. 3. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Status of Institute.--Section 205(c) of the State 
     Justice Institute Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10704(c)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) The Institute may purchase goods and services from 
     the General Services Administration in order to carry out its 
     functions.''.
       (b) Status as Officers and Employees of the United 
     States.--Section 205(d)(2) of the State Justice Institute Act 
     of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10704(d)(2)) is amended by inserting ``, 
     notwithstanding section 8914 of such title'' after 
     ``(relating to health insurance)''.
       (c) Meetings.--Section 204(j) of the State Justice 
     Institute Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10703(j)) is amended by 
     inserting ``(on any occasion on which that committee has been 
     delegated the authority to act on behalf of the Board)'' 
     after ``executive committee of the Board''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Berman) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).

                              {time}  1200


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2714, the bill 
currently under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress established the State Justice Institute as a 
private nonprofit corporation in 1984. Its purpose is to improve 
judicial administration in the State courts. SJI accomplishes this goal 
by providing funds to State courts and to other national organizations 
or nonprofits that support State courts. SJI also fosters cooperation 
with the Federal judiciary in areas of mutual concern.
  Pursuant to oversight legislation passed in the previous Congress, 
the

[[Page H943]]

Attorney General, in consultation with the Federal Judicial Center, 
conducted review of the SJI operations and reported its findings to 
Congress late last year. The results are encouraging. The Attorney 
General noted that the Institute has been effective and has complied 
with its statutory mission, and observed that support for State court 
innovation and improvement is a Federal interest.
  Mr. Speaker, based upon the beneficial work SJI has done, I believe 
it should be afforded a congressional reauthorization, and that is the 
purpose of this bill. More specifically, section 2 of the bill 
authorizes $7 million annually for SJI operations over a 4-year cycle. 
Appropriated funds under section 2 are to remain available until 
expended. The last two bills reauthorizing the Institute contain such 
language which reflects the reality that no grant agency can fully 
expend all of its funds in the year of appropriation.
  In addition, section 3 of the bill authorized the Institute to 
purchase goods and services from the General Services Administration. 
Because SJI is not a Federal agency, it is not legally authorized to 
procure goods and services from the GSA. In some instances, this 
exclusion can create unnecessary hardship. To illustrate, SJI was 
recently denied the ability to purchase GSA storage boxes to transfer 
its records to the National Archives.
  Mr. Speaker, in sum, the bill represents a modest authorization for a 
small but important organization that assists our State court systems. 
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2714, the State Justice 
Institute Reauthorization Act. As the title indicates, H.R. 2714 
reauthorizes the State Justice Institute, SJI. Reauthorization is 
necessary because Congress last enacted an SJI authorization bill in 
1992 for a 4-year authorization period that expired in fiscal year 
1996. While the Committee on Appropriations has continued to 
appropriate $7 million annually for SJI, Congress should also ensure 
that SJI has the necessary authorization to perform its important work.
  Congress created the SJI in 1984 to provide funds to improve the 
quality of justice in State courts. Congress also directed the SJI to 
facilitate enhanced coordination between State and Federal courts and 
develop solutions to common problems faced by all courts. It appears 
that the SJI has made considerable progress in pursuit of these 
objectives.
  Since becoming operational in 1987, the institute has awarded more 
than $125 million in grants to support over 1,000 projects. Another $40 
million in matching requirements has been generated from other public 
and private funding sources. SJI is necessary because State court 
judges and other advocates have historically been weak at restoring 
resources, especially at the Federal level, from the Department of 
Justice. Most of the resources they receive at the State level are 
devoted for personnel and courthouse construction and maintenance, not 
the educational programs that SJI provides. About one-third of all SJI 
grants are devoted to educating State judges on how to improve the 
operations of their courts. The remaining grants are devoted to 
technology projects such as systems to improve recordkeeping, document 
imaging, et cetera.
  The authorizing statute provides for regular audits of the SJI. The 
Institute conducts its own oversight of grantees, and the practice of 
allowing a grantee to draw money for a project only on a monthly or 
quarterly basis allows SJI to cancel mismanaged projects.
  All familiar with the SJI appear to agree it performs worthy work. 
Federal judges, including Chief Judge Boggs of the 6th Circuit, have 
contacted me to laud the work of the SJI, and in particular, the 
educational programs it runs for judges.
  The Attorney General gave high marks to the SJI in a November 2002 
report which specifically noted that the Institute has been effective, 
has complied with its statutory mission, and observes that some degree 
of support for State court innovation and improvement is a Federal 
interest. It is evident that the SJI deserves reauthorization, H.R. 
2714 will do this. I urge my colleagues to support it today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation will reauthorize the State Justice 
Institute, which is a nonprofit corporation created in 1994 to provide 
grants and other funding to help State courts improve their systems.
  According to the Institute's mission statement, ``Since becoming 
operational in 1987, SJI has awarded over $120 million to support more 
than 1,000 projects benefiting the Nation's judicial system and the 
public it serves. The Institute is unique both in its mission and how 
it seeks to fulfill it.''
  The SJI provides funding for programs which help improve access to 
the courts. It trains and assists courts in child custody, domestic 
violence, juvenile crime, and sexual assault cases. The SJI also works 
to create the use of technology in the courtroom, as well as create 
reforms to reduce the amount of time and money associated with 
litigation.
  By reauthorizing the State Justice Institute, we will provide them 
with $7 million each year for the next 4 years. This money helps 
Americans have access to a more effective and efficient court system. 
The State Justice Institute has been successful in its efforts. We 
should make sure they are able to continue their good work, and this 
bill will do just that. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2714, the 
State Justice Institute Reauthorization Act--legislation to reauthorize 
appropriations for the State Justice Institute through FY 2008.
  Founded by Congress more than a decade ago, the State Justice 
Institute (SJI) was established to support efforts to improve the 
quality of justice in State courts, facilitate better coordination 
between State and Federal courts, and foster innovative, efficient 
solutions to common problems faced by all courts. About one-third of 
all SJI grants are devoted to educating state judges on how to improve 
the operations of their courts. The remaining grants are devoted to 
technology projects such as efforts to improve recordkeeping.
  The Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, Ronald M. George, 
has relayed to me the important work done by the State Justice 
Institute, and I know his views are shared by a great many of the 
nation's top judges. In a 2002 report, the Attorney General of the 
United States also noted that the Institute has been effective and has 
complied with its statutory mission. In addition, he observed that 
support for state court innovation and improvement is a federal 
interest.
  As a Co-Chair of the bipartisan Congressional Caucus on the Judicial 
Branch, I recognize the importance of working in Congress to ensure 
that we maintain a strong and vibrant court system in our country.
  The last time that Congress reauthorized the State Justice Institute 
was in 1992. In the interim, the Appropriations Committee has continued 
to fund the important work of the Institute, and I have urged 
appropriators to support such funding to allow the Institute to 
continue its fine work. It is now time for Congress to act and to 
reauthorize this important program that will continue to improve the 
administration of justice in our courts.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 
2714, the State Justice Institute Reauthorization Act of 2003. I worked 
with my colleagues on the House Judiciary committee to mark this bill 
up in September of last year, and I offered my support at that time. 
This bill will authorize the operations of the State Justice Institute 
(SJI) for Fiscal Years 2005-08 and proposes to allocate grant money to 
state courts and other entities that support their operation. I 
understand that this bill has not been reauthorized since 1996, so this 
bill is indeed timely, as the need certainly does exist.
  Since its inception in 1984 and operation in 1987, the SJI's $125 
million in grants and $40 million in private and other public funds 
have played a role in making the state court system in Houston an 
efficient engine of the administration of justice of which we 
Houstonians are quite proud. Given the urgent need for us to allocate 
energy and resources to our critical infrastructure and to the first 
responders in the context of Homeland security, the insurgence of funds 
to improve the overall flow of work through the state court systems is 
extremely important. For example, during the recent blackouts, those 
agencies and offices that needed this kind of assistance the most had 
to suffer until power was restored. In some instances, the blackouts 
were crippling. If there

[[Page H944]]

had been a real threat of terror in those instances, the areas of 
vulnerability would have translated to disaster. This area of the 
assessment of threat and vulnerability will be best served by the 
provision that requires the Attorney General, in consultation with the 
Federal Judicial Center, to submit a report to the House and Senate 
Committees on the Judiciary as to the success and effectiveness of the 
SJI.
  Furthermore, the authorization of the Institute to procure goods and 
services from the General Services Administration (GSA) will be a boon 
to those administrative areas that are antiquated and non-functioning 
for want of new equipment and resources. Should this bill pass, I would 
look forward to conducting a full assessment of need in Houston and 
make these GSA resources available as soon as possible.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, for the above reasons, I support H.R. 2714 
and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2714, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________