Page 88 - Ad Hoc Report June 2018
P. 88

 44 2 0 1 7
continuing growth on ‘other’ judiciary accounts.”160
The Subcommittee Report recognized that there were budgetary conflicts in
the placement of the CJA Program within JCUS. Under “Program-Wide Concerns” the report stated, “There are inherent tensions in the appropriations process.”161 The report listed the same concerns voiced by many witnesses to the Committee:
Independence concerns are raised by the judiciary’s responsibility to request appropriations for the operation of both the courts and the Defender Services program. Questions could arise about whether enough time is spent discussing Defender programs and issues with Appropriations Committee staff and whether there is an inherent conflict in having to advocate for funding for both court operations and defender services.
The Report posed several questions about the placement of the CJA program, and concluded that the Defender Services program should not advocate inde- pendently for its own budget, as “the Defender Services program needs a buffer with Congress,” and “if Defender Services presented its own budget request it would be perceived as self-serving.”162 Additionally, answering why the CJA budget should be subject to revision by the Budget Committee, the report suggested, “These revisions are necessary control measures to ensure the overall judiciary budget request is credible.”163
Despite the conflict-of-interest concerns and recognition that the needs
of the judiciary might be funded at the expense of the CJA program, the 2005 Subcommittee Report ultimately found that in regard to cost containment, removing the defense system from the JCUS structure “would not provide any advantage to the judiciary in terms of securing more funding for its other accounts. Nor would it provide any funding advantage to the Defender Services program.”164
In January 2016, Judge John Gleeson testified before the Committee at its Miami hearing. On the subject of the 2005 Subcommittee Report, he told the Committee:
We were asked as part of cost containment to look into this and address a number of fulcrum of that decision was a represen- tation from the Budget Committee that we accepted. And that is that having the defender program as part of the judiciary had no impact on the defender program budget. That is to say it was not the case that a dollar into the defender budget was perceived as a dollar out of the other spending programs. I don’t think that’s true.165
160 Id.at9–10.
161 Id.at15(emphasisinoriginal).
162 Id.at25.
163 Id.
164 Id.at28.
165 JudgeJohnGleeson(ret.),E.D.N.Y.,PublicHearing—Miami,Fla.,Panel3,Tr.,at40–41.
No recommendation presented herein represents A D H O C C O M M I T T E E T O R E V I E W T H E C R I M I N A L J U S T I C E A C T the policy of the Judicial Conference of the United States unless approved by the Conference itself.

   86   87   88   89   90