[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.
____________________