[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.