[House Report 108-285]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
108th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 108-285
======================================================================
STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE REAUTHORIZATION ACT
OF 2003
_______
September 25, 2003.--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. 2714]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 2714) to reauthorize the State Justice Institute,
having considered the same, report favorably thereon without
amendment and recommend 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..................................... 4
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 4
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 4
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 5
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 6
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion....................... 6
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 7
Markup Transcript................................................ 8
Purpose and Summary
H.R. 2714, the ``State Justice Institute Reauthorization
Act of 2003,'' authorizes the operations of the State Justice
Institute (``the Institute'' or ``SJI'') for Fiscal Years 2005-
08. The Institute allocates grant money to state courts and
other entities that support their operations.
Background and Need for the Legislation
IN GENERAL
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. 10701, et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sustaining the Institute's operations is necessary because
the states, as a practical matter, devote the great majority of
their judicial funding to address personnel, construction, and
maintenance needs. They simply lack the resources to develop
programs that improve the administrative efficiency and overall
productivity of their courts.
SJI serves a Federal interest precisely because it makes
state courts more efficient. State courts are the primary fora
in which the vast majority of lawsuits are resolved. In
fulfilling that mission, state courts address Federal
constitutional and statutory issues everyday. For example,
every state court criminal case raises a variety of Federal
constitutional issues.
In sum if litigants largely resolve their legal differences
at the state level--including those that involve Federal
issues--then Congress promotes a Federal interest by supporting
SJI.
OPERATIONS OF THE INSTITUTE
The Institute operates according to the following relevant
sections of title 42 of the U.S. Code:
Sec. 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 other existing
nonprofit organizations.
Sec. 10703. Board of Directors. An 11-person 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.
Sec. 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 seven individuals.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 10711. Audits. SJI is audited annually. The
resulting report is filed with the General Accounting
Office.
Sec. 10712. Report by Attorney General. The Attorney
General was required to submit a report evaluating the
effectiveness of SJI on October 1, 1987.
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. 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's 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
107TH CONGRESS: H.R. 2048 AND THE 2002 ATTORNEY GENERAL REPORT
In the 107th Congress, then Subcommittee Chairman Coble
introduced H.R. 2048, to examine whether SJI's authorization
should be extended. H.R. 2048 required the Attorney General, in
consultation with the Federal Judicial Center, 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.
Following enactment of H.R. 2048,\5\ the Attorney General
submitted his report in November 2002. His analysis of SJI
operations is positive; he specifically notes that the
Institute has been ``effective'' and has complied with its
statutory mission. Importantly, the Attorney General observes
that ``[s]ome degree of support for state court innovation and
improvement is a Federal interest.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Now Pub. L. No. 107-179.
\6\ Report of the Att'y Gen. to the House and Senate Committees on
the Judiciary Regarding the State Justice Institute at 32 (November
2002) (hereinafter 2002 Attorney General Report ).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearings
No hearings were conducted on H.R. 2714.
Committee Consideration
On July 22, 2003, the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet,
and Intellectual Property met in open session and ordered
favorably reported the bill H.R. 2714 without amendment, by
voice vote, a quorum being present. On September 10, 2003, the
Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported
the bill H.R. 2714 without amendment, by voice vote, a quorum
being present.
Vote of the Committee
In compliance with clause 3(b) of Rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee notes that there
were no recorded votes during the Committee consideration of
H.R. 2714.
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 of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives 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. 2714, the following estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under the section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974:
September 24, 2003.
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. 2714, the State
Justice Institute Reauthorization Act of 2003.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Lanette J.
Walker (for federal costs) and Melissa Merrell (for the state
and local impact).
Sincerely,
Douglas Holtz-Eakin.
Enclosure.
H.R. 2714--State Justice Institute Act Reauthorization Act of 2003
H.R. 2048 would authorize the appropriation of $7 million a
year over the 2005-2008 period for the State Justice Institute
to make grants to state and local courts for improvements in
court management systems, compiling statistical data, training
programs for judges, and other purposes. Based on historical
spending patterns of the institute, CBO estimates that
implementing H.R. 2714 would cost $20 million over the 2005-
2008 period, assuming appropriation of the specified amounts.
Enacting H.R. 2714 would have no effect on direct spending or
receipts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-------------------------------------------------
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Authorization level........................................... 0 7 7 7 7
Estimated outlays............................................. 0 2 5 6 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2714 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. It
would impose no costs on local or tribal governments, and state
governments would benefit from grants awarded by the State
Justice Institute for programs and activities to enhance the
administration of the state court systems. Assuming
appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that
about $14 million in grants (of the estimated total spending of
$20 million over the 2005-2008 period) would be provided to
benefit the operation of state courts.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Lanette J.
Walker (for federal costs) and Melissa Merrell (for the state
and local impact). This estimate was approved by Peter H.
Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
Performance Goals and Objectives
Enactment of H.R. 2714 would enable SJI to continue to
fulfill its statutory obligations as set forth in 42 U.S.C.
10702 et seq. By all accounts, including congressional
oversight of its operations and the findings of the 2002
Attorney General Report, SJI is well-run and has contributed to
the improved efficiency and productivity of state courts.
The 2002 Attorney General Report also made specific
recommendations that the Committee expects SJI to adopt.\7\
Based on a KPMG audit of the Institute in March of that same
year, these suggestion include that SJI do the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Id. at 33-34.
LTake steps to increase the awareness of SJI's
work, including advertising with appropriate membership
organizations and publications; developing branding of
SJI; obtaining the services of a public relations
specialist to disseminate information about SJI's
projects; allowing interested parties to [subscribe to
automatic notification] of new SJI grant projects;
expanding the Internet site; redesigning the concept of
the State Designated Libraries to reach members of each
state court system; maintaining hard copies of
products; establishing a process to send information
packets to new judges; holding fora on the Internet on
each new product; and requiring grantees to have a
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
marketing plan for their grant product.
LTake steps to increase the involvement of
state court members with SJI's work and encourage them
to take action based on their involvement, including
tracking products requested, sending follow-up messages
to requesters, and engaging those who express interest
in implementation workshops; setting aside a portion of
grant monies for grantees to assist court systems to
implement the grant products; using the Internet to
host discussion groups of bulletin boards on each
product; and holding implementation workshops using the
Internet.
The Committee looks forward to evaluating SJI's progress in
meeting these performance goals and objectives in the years to
come.
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 I, section 8, of the Constitution.
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion
Sec. 1. Short Title. The Act may be cited as the ``State
Justice Institute Reauthorization Act of 2003.''
Sec. 2. Authorization of Appropriations. Section 2
authorizes to be appropriated for SJI operations $7 million
annually for Fiscal Years 2005 through 2008. (Given the late
hour in the present budget and appropriations cycle, H.R. 2714
probably will not be enacted in advance of the relevant
appropriations vehicle for Fiscal Year 2004. However, the
committee anticipates that the Institute will secure an
appropriation for Fiscal Year 2004.)
Appropriated funds under Section 2 are to remain available
until expended. The last two bills reauthorizing the Institute
contained such language, which reflects the reality that no
grant agency can fully expend all of its funds in the year of
appropriation.
In addition, the Committee notes the existence of relevant
funding sources, including the Crime Victims Fund and the
Violence Against Women Act, that could greatly supplement SJI's
budget. Given the scarce discretionary resources presently
available to Congress, the Committee strongly recommends that
SJI vigorously pursue these other options as a means to sustain
its operations.
Sec. 3. Technical Amendments. Section 3 authorizes the
Institute to purchase goods and services from the General
Services Administration (GSA). Because SJI is not a Federal
agency, it is not legally authorized to procure goods and
services from GSA. In some instances, however, this exclusion
can create unnecessary hardships (e.g., SJI could not purchase
GSA storage boxes to transfer its records to the National
Archives).
Section 3 would extend Federal health insurance benefits to
five SJI employees. Congress chose to deny these benefits to
non-federal agency workers in 1988 \8\ (the two most senior SJI
employees were ``grandfathered'' under the old law and not
affected). This provision has produced hardships for the
affected individuals and potentially compromises the ability of
the organization to retain the bulk of its minuscule workforce.
SJI argues that extending these benefits to all of its
employees would enable the Institute to reduce its
administrative costs significantly and thereby strengthen its
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 5 U.S.C. 8914.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, Section 3 clarifies that meetings of the Executive
Committee of the Board of Directors are to be open to the
public only on such occasions as the Board delegates this
authority to the Committee. This clarification is consistent
with the terms of the Government in the Sunshine Act \9\ and
will enable the Institute to exercise greater control over its
meetings while allowing appropriate public access to its
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 5 U.S.C. 552(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE ACT OF 1984
* * * * * * *
TITLE II
* * * * * * *
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Sec. 204. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(j) All meetings of the Board, any executive committee of
the Board (on any occasion on which that committee has been
delegated the authority to act on behalf of the Board), and any
council established in connection with this title, shall be
open and subject to the requirements and provisions of section
552b of title 5, United States Code, relating to open meetings.
* * * * * * *
OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
Sec. 205. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) The Institute may purchase goods and services from the
General Services Administration in order to carry out its
functions.
(d)(1) * * *
(2) Officers and employees of the Institute shall be
considered officers and employees of the United States solely
for the purposes of the following provisions of title 5, United
States Code: Subchapter I of chapter 81 (relating to
compensation of work injuries); chapters 83 and 84 (relating to
civil service retirement); chapter 87 (relating to life
insurance); and chapter 89 (relating to health insurance),
notwithstanding section 8914 of such title. The Institute shall
make contributions under the provisions referred to in this
subsection at the same rates applicable to agencies of the
Federal Government.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 215. There are authorized to be appropriated to carry
out the purposes of this title $20,000,000 for fiscal year
1993, $20,000,000 for fiscal year 1994, $25,000,000 for fiscal
year 1995, and $25,000,000 for fiscal year 1996. Amounts
appropriated for each such year are to remain available until
expended.]
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.
* * * * * * *
Markup Transcript
BUSINESS MEETING
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2003
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James
Sensenbrenner, Jr. [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
[Intervening business.]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. And now the last bill on the agenda
is the adoption of H.R. 2714, the ``State Justice Institute
Reauthorization Act of 2003.''
[The bill, H.R. 2714, follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The chair recognizes the gentleman
from Texas, Mr. Smith, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on Courts, the
Internet and Intellectual Property reports favorably the bill
H.R. 2714 and moves its favorable recommendation to the full
House.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the bill will be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith,
to strike the last word.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Congress established the State Justice Institute as a
private, nonprofit corporation in 1984. Its purpose is to
improve judicial administration in State courts. SJI
accomplishes this goal by providing funds to State courts and
other national organizations or nonprofits that support State
courts.
SJI also fosters cooperation with the Federal judiciary in
areas of mutual concern. Since its creation in 1987, the
Institute has awarded more than $125 million in grants to
support over 1,000 projects.
Pursuant to oversight legislation passed in the previous
Congress, the Attorney General, in consultation with the
Federal Judicial Center, conducted a review of SJI operations
and reported his 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.''
SJI has earned the support of this Committee through a
reauthorization. That is the purpose of H.R. 2714. 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 contained
such language, which reflects the reality that no grant agency
can fully expend all of its funds in the year of appropriation.
Section 3 of H.R. 2714 authorizes 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 GSA. In some
instances, this exclusion can create unnecessary hardships. To
illustrate, SJI recently was denied the ability to purchase GSA
storage boxes to transfer its records to the National Archives.
Section 3 also extends Federal health insurance benefits to
five SJI employees. Congress chose to deny these benefits to
non-Federal agency workers in 1988. This provision has produced
hardships for the affected individuals and compromises the
ability of the organization to retain its small workforce. SJI
argues that extending these benefits to all of its employees
would enable the Institute to reduce its administrative costs
significantly and thereby strengthen its operations.
The Committee on Government Reform has been notified of
this provision and, to date, has not objected to its inclusion
in the bill.
In sum, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2714 is a noncontroversial bill
that allows our Subcommittee to plant a jurisdictional flag and
support a small, but important, organization that assists our
State court systems, and I urge my colleagues to support the
bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr.
Berman?
Mr. Berman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the
last word.
I endorse the reauthorization of the State Justice
Institute and urge my colleagues to pass this bill. The SJI
does important work. I've been told that by judges. The
Attorney General gave high marks to the State Justice Institute
in a report issued last year.
They are facilitating enhanced coordination between State
and Federal courts and work on solutions common to problems
faced by all of our courts. The last time we reauthorized the
Institute was 1992. The Appropriations Committees have
continued to fund it, but I think it's our responsibility to
reauthorize this, and I urge us to move this legislation.
Thank you.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, all Members'
opening statements will be placed in the record at this point.
Are there amendments?
[No response.]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. There are no amendments.
The question occurs on the motion to report the bill H.R.
2714 favorably. The chair notes the presence of a reporting
quorum.
All of those in favor will say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The motion to
report favorably is agreed to.
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 the rules,
in which to submit additional dissenting, supplemental or
minority views.
This concludes the matters on the agenda before the
Committee. The chair thanks the Members for their cooperation,
and the Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:29 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]