Page 89 - Ad Hoc Report June 2018
P. 89

 When a Committee member asked Judge Gleeson whether he believed this was a departure from the time when the report was written, Judge Gleeson stated, “I don’t think it was true then, but we accepted it as true.” 166 He told the Committee, “I think there should be fundamental structural change. I think wresting the obligation, the responsibility to deliver indigent defense away from the judiciary is a good idea.”167
Congressional Advocacy for Funding the CJA
It is this Committee’s understanding that the Prado Report recommendations for an independent defense entity faltered in part due to concerns that Congress would not adequately fund such an agency. That concern was given careful consideration by our Committee which examined the following funding issues:
ffWhat actual budget/funding advantages and protections are provided by continuing to house the CJA within the judiciary;
ffWhether the CJA budget suffers under a structure whereby CJA funding requests are contained within, and are in competition with, the overall funding for the entire judiciary; and
ffHow Congress would receive budget advocacy by defenders.
The evidence examined by the Committee suggests that while the judiciary contin- ues to be committed to obtaining adequate funding, judicial advocacy for public defense can be undermined by a focus on other judiciary priorities. While the insti- tutional prestige of the third branch certainly benefits the CJA program, this advan- tage is insufficient to outweigh deficits that result from the divergent missions and funding needs of the judiciary and the CJA.
The Current Practice of Advocacy for CJA Budgets
Funding for the judiciary is included each year in the Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) Appropriations bill. In any given year, either the House or Senate Appropriations FSGG Subcommittee may hold hearings concern- ing the judiciary budget. As described above, the Chair of the Judicial Conference’s Budget Committee and the Director of the AO represent the judiciary before con- gressional appropriations committees. BAPO’s Financial Liaison and Analysis Staff (“Financial Liaison Staff” or “FLS”) also work with congressional staff advocat-
ing for the judiciary’s appropriations request. Conversely, the Defender Services Committee, DSO, and defenders have no Judicial Conference-approved role in sep- arately advocating for the Defender Services account, which is one of four separate accounts that make up the main part of the judiciary’s appropriation request.168 The
166 Id.at41.
167 Id.at40.
168 TheSalaryandExpenses(S&E),JurorsFee,CourtSecurity,andDefenderServicesaccountsarethe four most often discussed when speaking about judiciary funding. There are also accounts for the AO, the Federal Judicial Center, the United States Sentencing Commission, and the Supreme Court. While these are sent with the other four requests, the Judicial Conference is not involved in those four accounts.
No recommendation presented herein represents
the policy of the Judicial Conference of the United 2 0 1 7 R E P O R T O F T H E 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 45
 States unless approved by the Conference itself.

   87   88   89   90   91