[House Report 107-189]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    107-189

=======================================================================



 
        REPORT ON THE OPERATIONS OF THE STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE

                                _______
                                

 August 2, 2001.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 2048]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 2048) to require a report on the operations of the 
State Justice Institute, having considered the same, reports 
favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the 
bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     1
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     2
Hearings.........................................................     4
Committee Consideration..........................................     4
Vote of the Committee............................................     4
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     5
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     5
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     5
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................     5
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................     6
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.......................     6
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............     6
Markup Transcript................................................     7

                          Purpose and Summary

    The purpose of H.R. 2048 is to require the Attorney 
General, in consultation with the State Justice Institute 
(``SJI'' or ``the Institute''), to submit a report to the House 
and Senate Committees on the Judiciary regarding the 
effectiveness of the Institute in fulfilling its missions, 
which include providing funds to improve the quality of justice 
in State courts, facilitating enhanced coordination between 
State and Federal courts, and developing solutions to common 
problems faced by all courts. The report would be done in 
consultation with SJI, and would be due not later than October 
1, 2002.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    Congress created SJI in 1984.\1\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Pub. L. No. 98-620, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 10701, et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Operations of the Institute

    The Institute operates according to the following relevant 
sections of title 42 of the U.S. Code:

        (1) LSec. 10702. Establishment and Duties. Congress 
        established SJI as a private nonprofit corporation. 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 nonprofits which support State courts. SJI also 
        fosters coordination and cooperation with the Federal 
        judiciary in areas of mutual concern. The Institute may 
        not duplicate the work or functions of existing 
        nonprofit organizations.

        (2) LSec. 10703. Board of Directors. An 11-person 
        (voting) Board of Directors supervises SJI. The Board 
        is comprised of six judges, a State court 
        administrator, and four members from the public sector, 
        no more than two of whom shall be members of the same 
        political party. The President appoints the Board with 
        the advice and consent of the Senate. Board members 
        serve 3-year terms. The chief responsibility of the 
        Board is to develop policy and funding priorities for 
        SJI. Board members serve without compensation.

        (3) LSec. 10704. Officers and Employees. The Board 
        appoints a Director to supervise the administration of 
        SJI. The Director is empowered to hire and fire staff. 
        SJI currently employs 19 individuals.

        (4) LSec. 10705. Grants and Contracts. The Institute 
        awards grants and enters into cooperative agreements or 
        contracts to conduct research, demonstrations, or 
        special projects that enhance the operation of State 
        courts and that provide technical assistance and 
        training in support of these activities. SJI functions 
        as a national clearinghouse for information related to 
        the operations of State courts. Section 10705 imposes a 
        statutory duty on the Institute to monitor and evaluate 
        any program supported by SJI funds.

        (5) LSec. 10706. Restrictions on Certain Activities. 
        The Institute may not use funds to support any program 
        that advocates particular nonjudicial public policies 
        or encourages nonjudicial political activities.

        (6) LSec. 10710. Records and Reports. The Institute is 
        authorized to require all grant recipients to maintain 
        records associated with the awarding of grants. Records 
        developed by SJI which evaluate grant recipients are to 
        remain on file for inspection by the public for 5 
        years.

        (7) LSec. 10711. Audits. SJI is audited annually. The 
        resulting report is filed with the General Accounting 
        Office.

        (8) LSec. 10712. Report by Attorney General. The 
        Attorney General was required to submit a report 
        evaluating the effectiveness of SJI on October 1, 1987 
        (infra).

                    The 1987 Attorney General Report

    Section 10712 of the original authorizing legislation, 
which took effect on October 1, 1985, required the Attorney 
General to submit a report governing the effectiveness of SJI 
operations by October 1, 1987, to the House and Senate 
Committees on the Judiciary. (In fact, H.R. 2048 simply amends 
Sec. 10712 by changing the reporting date to October 1, 2002.) 
Since SJI did not become operational until fiscal year 1987, 
however, the report submitted by former Attorney General Meese 
is of limited value in assessing the operations of the 
Institute.
    Still, the report praised SJI start-up activities in the 
following summation: ``Although the Institute has only recently 
begun implementation of its program, much has been accomplished 
since it began operation. The Institute has made diligent 
efforts to develop and implement effective policies, 
procedures, and guidelines. . . .'' \2\ With regard to 
oversight, the report also noted that the Institute had 
established ``. . . an effective system of internal control by 
developing procedures and guidelines for its staff and grantees 
that ensure its resources are protected against fraud, waste, 
abuse, and mismanagement.'' \3\ The report concluded by noting 
that a full assessment of SJI activities could not be made 
until grants had been awarded and other program activities 
implemented.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Report of the Att'y Gen. to the House and Senate Committees on 
the Judiciary Regarding the Effectiveness of the State Justice 
Institute at 2 (Oct. 1, 1987).
    \3\ Id. at 7.
    \4\ Id. at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        May 3, 2001, Committee Staff Meeting with SJI Officials

    Majority and minority Committee staff, including the former 
Chief Oversight Counsel, met with the Director of SJI and his 
Deputy on May 3, 2001. The purpose of the meeting was to 
educate staff about SJI operations.
    Topics broached during the meeting include the following:

        (1) SJI officials stated that other State-based legal 
        entities receive Federal funding, citing programs that 
        assist the Legal Services Corporation, State 
        prosecutors, and the police (COPS).

        (2) State court judges and other advocates have 
        historically been weak at lobbying for 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.

        (3) 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 record-
        keeping, document-imaging, etc.

        (4) Each State has at least one library that functions 
        as a repository for SJI products.

        (5) As noted, the authorizing statute provides for 
        regular audits of SJI. In addition, the Institute 
        conducts its own oversight of grantees. 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.

              Relation of H.R. 2048 to SJI Reauthorization

    Congress last enacted an SJI authorization bill in 1992 for 
a 4-year authorization that expired in fiscal year 1996.\5\ 
During the past 9 years, the appropriators have normally 
allocated roughly $7 million in funding for the Institute. 
Consistent with this practice, the most recent House mark 
contains $6,835,000 in funding for SJI operations in Fiscal 
Year 2002. \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Pub. L. No. 102-572, title VIII, Sec. 801, Oct. 29, 1992.
    \6\ H.R. 2500, 107th Cong., 1st Sess. (2001). See also H.R. Rep. 
No. 139, 107th Cong., 1st Sess. 134 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    House appropriations staff have stated a preference that 
the Judiciary Committee move a study bill such as H.R. 2048 in 
advance of (not in tandem with) authorizing legislation. The 
request is logical, since the Attorney General's report might 
contain recommendations that will later assist the Committee in 
drafting an authorization.
    Proceeding first with the study is consistent with the 
Chairman's directive to conduct vigorous Committee oversight. 
Any recommendations set forth in the study, once completed, 
will better inform the drafting of authorizing legislation, 
which dovetails with the Chairman's desire that the Committee 
remain vigilant in asserting its subject matter jurisdiction.

                                Hearings

    No hearings were held on H.R. 2048.

                        Committee Consideration

    The Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual 
Property did not conduct a markup of H.R. 2048. On July 24, 
2001, the Committee met in open session and ordered favorably 
reported the bill H.R. 2048 without amendment by voice vote, a 
quorum being present.

                         Vote of the Committee

    There were no recorded votes on H.R. 2048.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules on the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    H.R. 2048 does not authorize funding. Therefore, clause 
3(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives 
is inapplicable.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of House rule XIII is inapplicable because 
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or 
increased tax expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to the bill, H.R. 2048, the following estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, July 26, 2001.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2048, a bill to 
require a report on the operations of the State Justice 
Institute.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Lanette J. 
Walker, who can be reached at 226-2860.
            Sincerely,
                                  Dan L. Crippen, Director.

Enclosure

cc:
        Honorable John Conyers Jr.
        Ranking Member
H.R. 2048--A bill to require a report on the operations of the State 
        Justice Institute
    H.R. 2048 would require the Attorney General to submit a 
report on the effectiveness of the State Justice Institute to 
the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives by October 1, 2002. Based on information from 
the Department of Justice, CBO estimates that it would cost the 
agency less than $500,000 in fiscal year 2002 to write and 
distribute the report. Because this bill would not affect 
direct spending or receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures would not 
apply. H.R. 2048 contains no intergovernmental or private-
sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
and would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal 
governments.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Lanette J. 
Walker, who can be reached at 226-2860. This estimate was 
approved by Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant Director for Budget 
Analysis.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in article 1, section 8, clause 18 of the 
Constitution.

               Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion

     Sec. 1. Report by Attorney General on State Justice Institute

    Section 1 amends Sec. 213 of the State Justice Institute 
Act of 1984 by requiring the Attorney General, in consultation 
with the Institute, to submit a report to the House and Senate 
Committees on the Judiciary regarding the effectiveness of the 
Institute in fulfilling its missions, which include providing 
funds to improve the quality of justice in State courts, 
facilitating enhanced coordination between State and Federal 
courts, and developing solutions to common problems faced by 
all courts. The report would be done in consultation with SJI, 
and would be due not later than October 1, 2002.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

         SECTION 213 OF THE STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE ACT OF 1984

                       report by attorney general

    Sec. 213. [On October 1, 1987] Not later than October 1, 
2002, the Attorney General, in consultation with the Federal 
Judicial Center, shall transmit to the Committees on the 
Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives a 
report on the effectiveness of the Institute in carrying out 
the duties specified in section 203(b). Such report shall 
include an assessment of the cost effectiveness of the program 
as a whole and, to the extent practicable, of individual 
grants, an assessment of whether the restrictions and 
limitations specified in sections 207 and 208 have been 
respected, and such recommendations as the Attorney General, in 
consultation with the Federal Judicial Center, deems 
appropriate.

                           Markup Transcript



                            BUSINESS MEETING

                         TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2001

                  House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr. (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Committee will be in order. A 
working quorum is present.
    Now, pursuant to notice, I call up the bill H.R. 2048, a 
bill to require a report on the operations of the State Justice 
Institute for purposes of markup.
    [The bill, H.R. 2048, follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman 
from California, Mr. Coble, to move its recommendation to the 
full House and to insert his statement in the record.
    Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, that's the gentleman from North 
Carolina. The other Howard is from California.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay.
    Mr. Coble. You inadvertently said California.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I'm sorry.
    Mr. Coble. That's okay.
    Mr. Chairman, as you pointed out, this bill I think will 
generate very little extended dialogue. The Congress 
established the State Justice Institute as a private, nonprofit 
corporation----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Can the gentleman put his statement 
in the record, so we can get all of your bills done----
    Mr. Coble. If we all promise to read it.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner [continuing]. The PTO bill.
    Mr. Coble. I will indeed.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Coble follows:]
 Prepared Statement of the Honorable Howard Coble, a Representative in 
               Congress From the State of North Carolina
    Mr. Chairman, Congress established the State Justice Institute 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 nonprofits which 
support 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.
    The 1984 legislation which created the Institute required the 
Attorney General to submit a report governing the effectiveness of SJI 
operations by October 1, 1987, to the House and Senate Committees on 
the Judiciary. Since SJI did not become operational until fiscal year 
1987, however, 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.
    Mr. Chairman, this is a noncontroversial bill that 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 Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, all Members may 
put statements in the record.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman from California 
wish to say anything in addition?
    Mr. Berman. Yes, I wish to put my statement in the record 
in support of this excellent legislation.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Berman follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative 
                in Congress From the State of California
    Mr. Chairman,
    Thank you for agreeing to markup H.R. 2048 today.
    I believe my colleagues should support H.R 2048.
    H.R. 2048 requires the Attorney General, in consultation with the 
SJI, to submit a report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees 
regarding effectiveness of the SJI. The report would be due no later 
than October 1, 2002.
    The SJI appears to be a useful project. 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.
    The ultimate purpose of the SJI report mandated by H.R. 2048 is to 
aid Congress in deciding whether to reauthorize the SJI. The SJI was 
last re-authorized in 1992, and that authorization expired in fiscal 
year 1996. While the Appropriations Committees have continued to 
appropriate approximately $7 million annually for the SJI, it is the 
responsibility of this Committee to reauthorize the SJI if it sees fit.
    The Attorney General issued a study of SJI's effectiveness in 1987, 
but this report provides little useful information as the SJI did not 
become operational until 1987. Thus, a new report should help inform 
our decision on reauthorization of the SJI.
    In short, H.R. 2048 is a good bill, and I ask my colleagues to vote 
in favor of it.
    I yield back the balance of my time.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. Are there amendments to the 
bill?
    There are no amendments.
    A reporting quorum is present. The question occurs on the 
motion to report the bill H.R. 2048 favorably.
    All in favor will say aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the bill 
is favorably reported.
    Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to move to go 
to conference pursuant to House rules.
    Without objection, the staff is directed to make any 
technical and conforming changes, and all Members will be given 
2 days, as provided by House rules, in which to submit 
additional dissenting minority or supplemental views.

                                

