[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[House]
[Page 16400]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 16400]]

  REQUIRING A REPORT ON THE OPERATIONS OF THE STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 2048) to require


a report on the operations of the State Justice Institute.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2048

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

     SECTION 1. REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL ON STATE JUSTICE 
                   INSTITUTE.

       Section 213 of the State Justice Institute Act of 1984 (42 
     U.S.C. 10712) is amended by striking ``On October 1, 1987'' 
     and inserting ``Not later than October 1, 2002''.

  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).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2048, the bill 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  H.R. 2408 will require the Attorney General to submit a report to the 
House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary regarding the 
effectiveness of the State Justice Institute. This report would be due 
by October 1, 2002.
  Congress established SJI as a private, nonprofit corporation in 1984. 
Its stated purpose is to further the development and adoption of 
improved judicial administration in State courts. SJI is to accomplish 
this goal by providing funds to State courts and other national 
organizations or nonprofit organizations which support the State 
courts. SJI also fosters coordination and cooperation with the Federal 
judiciary in areas of mutual concern.
  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. As noted, H.R. 2048 would require the 
Attorney General to study the operations of the institute and release a 
report on its effectiveness. After 14 years and $165 million in grants, 
it is now more appropriate to take a closer look at the efficiency and 
effectiveness of this institute and the project it supports.
  Madam Speaker, this concludes my description of the bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time I may consume.
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2048. This bill 
was marked up and favorably reported by voice vote by the Committee on 
the Judiciary on July 24. It is wholly non-controversial.
  It requires the Attorney General in consultation with the State 
Justice Institute to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees 
on the Judiciary regarding the effectiveness of the institute. The 
report will be due no later than October 1, 2002.
  The SJI is a useful project. Congress created it 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 was last reauthorized in 1992. That expired in fiscal year 
1996.
  While the Committee on Appropriations has continued to appropriate 
approximately $7 million annually for the State Justice Institute, it 
has not been formally reauthorized since 1996 by the authorizing 
committee of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  The ultimate purpose of the SJI report mandated by this legislation 
is to aid Congress in reauthorizing the SJI. With the information from 
this report, Congress can ensure that SJI reauthorization is 
accomplished with all due diligence.
  The Attorney General did issue a study of its effectiveness in 1987, 
but this report provides little information, as the SJI did not become 
operational until 1987. So we need a new report to help inform future 
legislation to reauthorize it.
  H.R. 2048 is a good bill, and I ask my colleagues to support it.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
  Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) pretty 
well laid this out.
  I would just indicate that by noting that the 1984 legislation which 
created the institute required the Attorney General to submit a report 
governing the effectiveness of the State Justice Institute's operations 
by October 1, 1987, to the House and Senate Committees on the 
Judiciary. Since SJI did not become operational until fiscal year 1987, 
the report submitted by former Attorney General Meese is of limited 
value in assessing the operations of the institute.
  H.R. 2048 simply changes the due date for a report that will be 
identical in scope to the 1987 study. Unlike the previous effort, 
however, the study that will emanate from H.R. 2048 will be based on at 
least 14 years' worth of operations at the institute. As a result, 
Congress should have the first real comprehensive evaluation of the 
effectiveness of SJI by October 1, 2002.
  Madam Speaker, this is a noncontroversial bill, as has been 
indicated. It promotes good government. While I am impressed with SJI 
operations to date, all Federal entities should be accountable to the 
taxpayers. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam 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. 2048.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________