Introduction This report provides an overview of the judiciary's FY2020 budget request, as well as information about Congress's consideration of the judiciary's request. The first section of this report includes subsections covering each major action involving the judiciary's FY2020 budget request, including the initial submission by the President of the judiciary's request on March 11, 2019; a hearing held on March 7, 2019, by the House Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee on the budget request for the U.S. Supreme Court; the House subcommittee markup on June 3, 2019; the House Appropriations Committee markup on June 11, 2019; passage by the House on June 26, 2019; the Senate subcommittee markup on September 17, 2019; the Senate Appropriations Committee markup on September 19, 2019; enactment of a continuing resolution on September 27, 2019 ( P.L. 116-59 ); enactment of a second continuing resolution on November 21, 2019 ( P.L. 116-69 ); and enactment of FY2020 appropriations for the judiciary in the FY2020 Consolidated Appropriations Act ( P.L. 116-93 , December 20, 2019). The second section of the report provides information about the specific discretionary appropriations requested by the judiciary for FY2020, as well as information about the mandatory appropriations and administrative provisions included in the appropriations process. The third section provides information about the various courts, judicial entities, and judicial services that are covered by appropriations for the judiciary. The report also identifies some of the courts and judicial services that are not covered by such appropriations (but are covered by other appropriations bills). Finally, the report provides information about ongoing policy issues affecting the judiciary that may be of interest to Congress during FY2020. FY2020 Consideration: Overview of Actions This section provides an overview of the major actions involving congressional consideration of FY2020 judiciary appropriations. The final status of FY2020 judiciary appropriations is summarized in Table 1 . Submission of FY2020 Budget Request on March 11, 2019 The President's proposed FY2020 budget request was submitted on March 11, 2019. It contained a request for $8.29 billion in new budget authority for judicial branch activities, including $7.62 billion in discretionary funds and $669.8 million in mandatory funding for judges' salaries and judicial retirement accounts. By law, the judicial branch appropriations request is submitted to the President and included in the budget submission without change. Appropriations for the judiciary comprise approximately 0.2% of total budget authority. Subcommittee Hearings on the Supreme Court's FY2020 Budget Request The Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee held hearings on the FY2020 budget request of $106.8 million for the U.S. Supreme Court. This request was included in the judiciary's overall FY2020 budget request of $8.29 billion and represents approximately 1.3% of that total. Associate Justices Samuel A. Alito and Elena Kagan testified before the subcommittee regarding the Supreme Court's budgetary request. It was the first public hearing since 2015 regarding the Supreme Court's budget. According to Representative Mike Quigley (IL), chairman of the subcommittee, it is his "intent to hold a hearing with the Supreme Court at least once a year to discuss the resources needed for the highest court" and to hear the Justices' "thoughts regarding America's court system." He also expressed his view that "hearings such as this one is a great way for the public to get more exposure to our third branch." One issue raised during the subcommittee's hearings was the use of cameras or video recordings in Supreme Court proceedings. In his opening remarks, Chairman Quigley stated that "one government institution remains closed to the public eyeâthe U.S. Supreme Court" and "due to antiquated practices and policies, we have no video record" of the Court's most important decisions. He further stated that "it is not unreasonable for the American people to have an opportunity to hear firsthand the arguments and opinions that will shape their society for years to come." Justice Alito, in response, stated that while the Court wants as much access for the public as possible, it does not "want access at the expense of damaging the decision-making process." Similarly, Justice Kagan stated that cameras might adversely affect the way the Court functioned. She emphasized that the kind of questioning a Justice uses in the courtroom might be taken out of context in a video broadcast. For example, video of Court proceedings shown by a news program might cause viewers to perceive that a Justice has a particular view or opinion on an issue when, instead, the Justice is playing devil's advocate and posing challenging questions to one or both sides in a case. Other issues discussed or mentioned at the subcommittee hearing include cost-cutting measures the Court has undertaken by revising existing contracts and cutting back on discretionary spending in order to meet the cost-of-living adjustment for federal employees; the priority the Court has placed on enhancing its physical and cybersecurity with previous funds appropriated by Congress; the implementation of a new electronic case filing system; and a revamp of the Court's website to make it more user-friendly and highlight important information (e.g., the current term calendar). Justice Alito also noted in his testimony that the Court was not requesting any new programmatic increases in funds. House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government Markup On June 3, 2019, the House subcommittee held a markup of the FY2020 Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) bill. The subcommittee, by voice vote, recommended a total of $7.51 billion in discretionary funds for the judiciary. House Appropriations Committee Markup On June 11, 2019, the House Appropriations Committee held a markup of the FY2020 FSGG bill. The committee recommended $7.51 billion in discretionary funds for the judiciary. The $7.51 billion in discretionary funding recommended for the judiciary represents approximately 31% of the total $24.55 billion in discretionary funding included in the entire FSGG appropriations bill (which also funds such entities as the Department of the Treasury, the Executive Office of the President, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Small Business Administration). The FY2020 FSGG bill was ordered reported by a roll call vote of 30-21 ( H.R. 3351 , H.Rept. 116-122 ). No amendments were offered during the committee markup that were related to the judiciary. The House report that accompanied the committee's markup addressed the issue of video access to Supreme Court proceedings, which had been discussed at the subcommittee's hearings on the Supreme Court's FY2020 budget request. The committee stated that "providing the American people with the opportunity to access Supreme Court arguments in real time via video and/or live audio would greatly expand the Court's accessibility to average Americans and provide historical and educational value." Consequently, the committee encouraged the Court "to take steps to permit video and live audio coverage in all open sessions of the court unless the Court decides that allowing such coverage in any case would violate the due process of one or more of the parties before the Court." Passage by the House The FSGG appropriations bill was passed by a roll call vote of 224-196 in the House on June 26, 2019. No amendments were offered during House consideration that were related to the judiciary. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government Markup On September 17, 2019, the Senate subcommittee held a markup of the FY2020 Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) bill and approved it by voice vote. The subcommittee recommended a total of $7.42 billion in discretionary funds for the judiciary. Senate Appropriations Committee Markup On September 19, 2019, the Senate Appropriations Committee held a markup of the FY2020 FSGG bill. The committee recommended $7.42 billion in discretionary funds for the judiciary. The $7.42 billion in discretionary funding recommended for the judiciary represents approximately 31% of the total discretionary funding included in the entire FSGG appropriations bill (which also funds such entities as the Department of the Treasury, the Executive Office of the President, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Small Business Administration). The FY2020 FSGG bill was ordered reported by a roll call vote of 31-0 ( S. 2524 , S.Rept. 116-111 ). No amendments were offered during the committee markup that were related to the judiciary. The Senate report that accompanied the committee's markup emphasized that it "is imperative that the Federal judiciary devote its resources primarily to the retention of staff." Additionally, the report stated that "it is also important that the judiciary contain controllable costs such as travel, construction, and other expenses." The Senate report did not address the issue of video access to Supreme Court proceedings, which had been discussed at the House subcommittee's hearing on the Supreme Court's FY2020 budget request. Enactment of First Continuing Appropriations Resolution Final enactment of the judiciary's budget did not occur prior to the beginning of FY2020. Consequently, the judiciary was funded through November 21, 2019, by the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2020. The act passed the House on September 19, 2019, and the Senate on September 26, 2019. It was signed by the President on September 27, 2019. Enactment of Second Continuing Appropriations Resolution Final enactment of the judiciary's budget did not occur prior to November 22, 2019. Consequently, the judiciary was funded from November 22, 2019, through December 20, 2019, by the Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2020. The act passed the House on November 19, 2019, and the Senate on November 21, 2019. It was signed by the President on November 21, 2019. Final Enactment of FY2020 Regular Appropriations for the Judiciary Enactment of the judiciary's budget for FY2020 was included in the FY2020 Consolidated Appropriations Act. The total amount in discretionary funds appropriated for the judiciary was $7.49 billion, and the amount in mandatory funds provided for the judiciary was $705.48 million. The act passed the House on December 17, 2019, and the Senate on December 19, 2019. It was signed by the President on December 20, 2019. Enactment of Supplemental Appropriations for Response to COVID-19 On March 27, 2020, the House passedâand the President signedâthe Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) to address the nationwide impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). The act, in part, provides funding for the federal judiciary to respond to the pandemic. Specifically, the CARES Act makes appropriations to the federal judiciary "to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally." By law, Congress designated such appropriations to be for an emergency requirement. The three judiciary accounts that received funds under the act include the Supreme Court of the United StatesâSalaries and Expenses account ($500,000); the Courts of Appeals, District Courts, And Other Judicial ServicesâSalaries and Expenses account ($6 million); and the Defender Services account ($1 million). FY2020 Judiciary Budget Request Discretionary Appropriations The judiciary's FY2020 discretionary budget request totaled $7.62 billion and represented a 5.1% increase from the $7.25 billion in discretionary appropriations enacted by Congress for FY2019. Table 2 lists, for each account included in the judiciary's discretionary budget, (1) the amount enacted by Congress for FY2019, (2) the judiciary's FY2020 request, (3) the FY2020 amount that passed the House, (4) the FY2020 amount that was reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, and (5) the FY2020 enacted amount. Three Largest Discretionary Accounts for FY2020 Of the judiciary's FY2020 total discretionary request for $7.62 billion (see the second column in Table 2 ), the greatest percentage was for the Salaries and ExpensesâCourts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services accountârepresenting 70.6% of the request. The second-greatest percentage was for the Defender Services account, representing 16.2% of the total discretionary request. The third-greatest percentage was for the Court Security account, representing 8.4% of the request. The remaining 4.8% of the FY2020 discretionary request was for the other accounts listed in the table. Similarly, of the $7.49 billion that was enacted by Congress for the judiciary's FY2020 budget, the greatest percentage was for the Salaries and ExpensesâCourts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services account (see the final column in Table 2 )ârepresenting 70.1% of the enacted amount. The second-greatest percentage was for the Defender Services account, representing 16.5% of the total enacted amount. The third-greatest percentage was for the Court Security account, representing 8.5% of the enacted amount. The remaining 4.8% of the FY2020 enacted amount was for the other accounts listed in the table. Three Largest Percentage Increases from FY2019 Enacted Amounts Of the accounts listed in Table 2 , the largest percentage increase between the amount enacted in FY2019 and the amount requested by the judiciary for FY2020 was for the Defender Services accountâa 7.3% increase from the FY2019 amount enacted to the FY2020 request. The second-greatest increase was for the Vaccine Injury Trust Fund account, a 6.3% increase. The third-greatest increase was for the Court Security account, a 5.6% increase. Of the same accounts listed in the table, the largest percentage increase between the amount enacted in FY2019 and the amount enacted by Congress for FY2020 was for the Fees of Jurors and Commissioners accountâa 7.6% increase from the FY2019 enacted amount. The second-greatest increase was for the Defender Services account, a 7.3% increase. The third-greatest increase was for the Vaccine Injury Trust Fund account, a 7.1% increase. Percentage of Judiciary's FY2020 Request Enacted by Congress Overall, Congress enacted $7.49 billion, or 98.2%, of the judiciary's FY2020 budget request of $7.62 billion. Additionally, the enacted FY2020 amount for each account was, in each case, at least 95% of the judiciary's FY2020 request for that account. For example, for the Supreme CourtâBuilding and Grounds account, Congress provided $15.6 millionârepresenting 95.1% of the judiciary's FY2020 request of $16.4 million. Altogether, for seven accounts, Congress appropriated less than the amount requested by the judiciary in its FY2020 budget submission. For two accounts, Congress passed the same amount as was requested by the judiciary. And for three accounts, Congress appropriated more than the amount requested by the judiciary in its FY2020 budget submission. The federal courts, judicial entities, and judicial programs funded by the various accounts listed in Table 2 are discussed below in greater detail in the section of the report titled Courts, Programs, and Other Items Funded by the Judiciary Budget . Discretionary Appropriations in Recent Years FY2019 FY2019 judiciary funding was provided in Division D, Title III, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P.L. 116-6 ), which was enacted on February 15, 2019. The act provided $7.25 billion in discretionary funds for the judiciary. FY2018 FY2018 judiciary funding was provided in Division E, Title III, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 ( P.L. 115-141 ), which was enacted on March 23, 2018. The act provided $7.11 billion in discretionary funds for the judiciary. FY2017 FY2017 judiciary funding was provided in Division E, Title III, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 ( P.L. 115-31 ), which was enacted on May 5, 2017. The act provided $6.93 billion in discretionary funds for the judiciary. Use of Nonappropriated Funds The judiciary also uses nonappropriated funds to help offset its funding requirements. The majority of these nonappropriated funds are from the collection of fees, primarily court filing fees and fees associated with obtaining case and docket information online from various federal courts. These monies are used to offset expenses that would otherwise be covered by the discretionary Salaries and Expenses subaccount for the courts of appeals, district courts, and other judicial services. The numbers presented in this report reflect the net resources for the judiciary, and do not include these offsetting nonappropriated funds. Mandatory Appropriations Mandatory appropriations are used to meet the constitutional and statutory obligations associated with the salaries and expenses of certain types of judgeships (and, consequently, are not considered discretionary appropriations for the judiciary). Such mandatory appropriations fall into two categories: (1) funds used to pay the salaries of Article III judges (Supreme Court Justices, U.S. courts of appeals judges, etc.) and certain other types of federal judges (e.g., bankruptcy judges); and (2) funds used for several judicial retirement accountsâspecifically, the Judicial Officers' Retirement Fund (28 U.S.C. Â§377(o)); the Judicial Survivors' Annuities Fund (28 U.S.C. Â§376(c)); and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judges' Retirement Fund (28 U.S.C. Â§178(1)). The mandatory appropriations enacted for FY2020 totaled $705.5 million. Of the FY2020 mandatory amount, $465.4 million, or 66.0%, is for salaries and expenses associated with judgeships that the judiciary is constitutionally (or statutorily) required to pay. The remaining $240.1 million (or 34.0% of FY2020 mandatory appropriations) was to provide for judicial retirement funds. There was a similar breakdown in the use of mandatory funds for FY2019. Of the $637.0 million in mandatory appropriations provided for FY2019, $425.3 million (or 66.8%) was to fund the salaries and expenses associated with Article III judges and certain other types of federal judges. The remaining $211.7 million (or 33.2% of FY2019 mandatory appropriations) was to provide for judicial retirement funds. Administrative Provisions The judiciary's FY2020 request also contained administrative provisions related to (1) the authorization of salaries and expenses for the judiciary's use of experts and consultant services; (2) allowing the transfer between judiciary accounts of up to 5% of any appropriation, with some accounts prohibited from increasing by more than 10% as a result of any such transfer of appropriations; (3) a limitation of $11,000 for official reception and representation expenses incurred by the Judicial Conference of the United States; (4) language enabling the judiciary to contract, under certain circumstances, for repairs costing less than $100,000; (5) the continuation of a court security pilot program; and (6) a one-year extension of various temporary judgeships. The bill passed by the House included each of these six provisions. The bill, however, specified that no judiciary account, "except in certain circumstances," may increase by more than 10% as a result of the transfer of appropriations between judiciary accounts. The Senate committee-reported bill included each of these six provisions. The bill, however, limited (similar to the House bill) "to 10 percent the amount that may be transferred into any one appropriation." The final enacted FY2020 appropriations for the judiciary included each of the six administrative provisions. In terms of the second provision identified above, the enacted bill allows the transfer between judiciary accounts of up to 5% of any appropriation, with some accounts prohibited from increasing by more than 10% as a result of any such transfers. Any transfer that occurs must also be treated as a reprogramming of funds under the act and meet certain other requirements. Courts, Programs, and Other Items Funded by the Judiciary Budget U.S. Supreme Court The U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter in the federal court system. Congress has authorized nine judgeships for the Court. Among the nine Justices on the Court, one is also appointed as Chief Justice of the United States. Justices are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. U.S. Courts of Appeals U.S. courts of appeals, or circuit courts, take appeals from U.S. district court decisions and are also empowered to review the decisions of many administrative agencies. When hearing a challenge to a district court decision from a court located within its geographic circuit, the task of a court of appeals is to determine whether or not the law was applied correctly by the district court. Cases presented to U.S. circuit courts are generally considered by judges sitting in three-member panels (circuit courts do not use juries). The nation is divided into 12 geographic circuits, each with a U.S. court of appeals. There is also one nationwide circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (discussed in the text below). Altogether, 167 judgeships for these 12 regional circuit courts are currently authorized by law. The First Circuit (comprising Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico) has the fewest number of authorized judgeships, 6, while the Ninth Circuit (comprising Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington) has the most, 29. U.S. circuit court judges are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Such appointments are considered to be effective for life (under Article III of the U.S. Constitution), meaning judges remain in office until they die, assume senior status, resign, retire, or are removed by Congress through the process of impeachment. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit This court has nationwide jurisdiction over certain types of cases, including international trade, government contracts, patents, trademarks, certain money claims against the United States government, federal personnel, veterans' benefits, and public safety officers' benefits claims. The court also reviews certain administrative agency decisions. In FY2018, the court's jurisdiction consisted of "administrative law cases (20%), intellectual property cases (67%), and cases involving money damages against the United States government (13%)." There are 12 judgeships authorized for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Judges serving on the Federal Circuit are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Such appointments are considered to be effective for life (under Article III of the U.S. Constitution), meaning judges remain in office until they die, assume senior status, resign, retire, or are removed by Congress through the process of impeachment. U.S. Court of International Trade This court has nationwide jurisdiction over civil actions related to the customs and international trade laws of the United States. Most of the cases heard by the court "involve antidumping and countervailing duties, the classification and valuation of imported merchandise, actions to recover unpaid customs duties and civil penalties, and various actions arising generally under the tariff laws." In 2018, the court reported a total of 242 case filings. There are nine judgeships authorized for the U.S. Court of International Trade. Judges serving on the Court of International Trade are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Such appointments are considered to be effective for life (under Article III of the U.S. Constitution), meaning judges remain in office until they die, assume senior status, resign, retire, or are removed by Congress through the process of impeachment. U.S. District Courts (Including Territorial Courts) District courts are the federal trial courts of general jurisdiction. These trial courts determine facts and apply legal principles to resolve disputes. Trials are conducted by a district court judge or, in some cases, a magistrate judge. Each state has at least one district court (there is also one district court in each of the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands). States with more than one district court are divided into judicial districts, with each district having one district court. For example, California is divided into four judicial districtsâeach with its own district court. Altogether there are 94 district courts. At present, there are 677 district court judgeships authorized by law. Congress has authorized between 1 and 28 judgeships for each district court, with district courts serving more populous areas generally having more authorized judgeships. Among judicial districts with Article III judgeships, the Eastern District of Oklahoma (Muskogee) has the fewest number (with 1 authorized judgeship), while the district courts located in the Southern District of New York (Manhattan) and the Central District of California (Los Angeles) have the greatest number (each with 28 authorized judgeships). U.S. district court judges are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Such appointments are considered to be effective for life (under Article III of the U.S. Constitution), meaning judges remain in office until they die, assume senior status, resign, retire, or are removed by Congress through the process of impeachment. Territorial district court judges, serving the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, are also appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate (under Article IV of the U.S. Constitution). These appointments, however, are not effective for life but are for a fixed 10-year term in office. U.S. Magistrate Judges Certain types of trials and proceedings held by district courts can also be conducted by magistrate judges. A district court judge may refer certain matters to a magistrate judge (e.g., a magistrate judge may be assigned to hold a pretrial conference or an evidentiary hearing). A magistrate judge may also conduct any type of civil trial as long as the parties consent (i.e., there is consent jurisdiction ), and they may also preside over all misdemeanor criminal trials as long as a defendant has waived his right to a trial before a district judge. Magistrate judges cannot preside over felony criminal cases (but can handle pretrial matters and preliminary proceedings in such cases). As of September 2018, the Judicial Conference has authorized 547 full-time magistrate judge positions, 29 part-time positions, and 3 combination clerk/magistrate judge positions. Magistrate judges are non-Article III judges appointed by district court judges. Full-time magistrate judges serve a term of eight years and may be reappointed. In 2018, magistrate judges disposed of a total of 1,219,163 mattersâthis included 348,421 civil matters that had been referred to them by district court judges; 17,112 civil cases in which they were the presiding judges for all proceedings by consent of the parties; 213,964 felony pretrial matters (e.g., disposing of certain types of motions); and 426,865 felony preliminary proceedings (e.g., search warrant applications). Other matters disposed of by magistrate judges included Class A misdemeanor cases, petty offense cases, and cases brought by prisoners (involving, for example, habeas corpus petitions and civil rights claims). The number of magistrate judge positions is determined by the Judicial Conference of the United States. A magistrate judge is appointed by majority vote of the active district court judges serving on the court to which the magistrate judge would serve. A full-time magistrate judge serves a term of eight years and may be reappointed. U.S. Bankruptcy Courts Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters (i.e., a bankruptcy case cannot be filed in state court). Bankruptcy courts are units of the federal district courts and exercise jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters as granted by statute and referred to them by their respective district courts. In 2018, debtors filed a total of 773,375 bankruptcy petitionsâa 2% decline from 2017. Of all petitions filed in 2018, nonbusiness (mostly consumer) petitions accounted for approximately 97% and business petitions accounted for 3%. As of September 2018, there were a total of 350 bankruptcy judgeships authorized by Congress (i.e., the number of bankruptcy judges is determined by Congress). Bankruptcy judges are non-Article III judges appointed by the court of appeals for the circuit where the bankruptcy court is located. Judges are appointed for a term of 14 years and may be reappointed. U.S. Court of Federal Claims This court had nationwide jurisdiction over various types of monetary claims against the federal government, including "those involving tax refunds, federal taking of private property for public use, pay and dismissal of federal civilian employees, pay and dismissal of military personnel, land claims brought by Native Americans and/or their tribe(s), contract disputes, bid protests, patents and copyright, congressional reference, and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act." Each January, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Â§791(c), the clerk of the Court of Federal Claims submits to Congress a statement of all the judgments rendered by the court. The statement "notes the names of the claimants, the amounts, the dates of entry and nature of the claims, and the disposition for all judgments rendered the previous fiscal year." In 2018, filings increased in the court by 16% to 2,224. The increase was due, in part, to a 223% increase in cases involving taken property and a 30% increase in contract/injunction cases. The court consists of 16 non-Article III judges who are appointed for a term of 15 years by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Probation and Pretrial Services Federal probation and pretrial services officers investigate and supervise defendants and offenders within the federal criminal justice system. A pretrial services officer "supervises defendants awaiting trial who are released" and provides reports "upon which the court can determine the conditions of release or detention while criminal cases are pending adjudication." A probation officer "provides the court with reliable information concerning the offender, the victim, and the offense committed, as well as an impartial application of the sentencing guidelines." Officers also "supervise offenders sentenced to probation, as well as offenders coming out of federal prison who are required to serve a term of supervised release." In 2018, pretrial services officers prepared 95,442 pretrial services reports for judgesâan increase of 12% from 2017. Of these reports, 97% were prebail reports. Additionally, officers provided pretrial services supervision for approximately 23,600 defendantsâan increase of 2% from 2017. Such supervision included providing various support services (e.g., substance abuse treatment and location monitoring) and informing the courts and U.S. attorneys of any apparent violations of release conditions. In 2018, a total of 129,706 individuals were under postconviction supervision by probation officersâa decrease of 4% from 2017. Of those under postconviction supervision, 47% had been convicted of drug offenses; 18% had been convicted of property offenses; and 14% had been convicted of firearms offenses. Federal probation officers also prepared 67,039 presentence investigative reportsâan increase of 5% from 2017. Defender Services The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to representation by counsel in serious criminal proceedings. The federal judiciary has, historically, exercised "responsibility for appointing counsel in federal criminal proceedings for those unable to bear the cost of representation." This account in the judiciary budget funds the operations of federal defender organizations responsible for providing representation to defendants financially unable to retain counsel in federal criminal proceedings. At present, there are 81 authorized federal defender organizations that employ more than 3,700 lawyers, investigators, paralegals, and support personnel. This account also provides funds to reimburse the services of private appointed counsel (i.e., panel attorneys ) in federal criminal proceedings. The rates paid to panel attorneys cover both attorney compensation and office overhead. There are case maximum amounts that limit the compensation paid to a panel attorney based on the type of case to which he or she is appointed. Consequently, the costs associated with this account are driven, in part, by the number and type of prosecutions brought by U.S. Attorneys offices. Court Security This account provides for protective guard services and security systems and equipment for United States courthouses and other facilities housing federal court operations. The majority of funding for court security is transferred to the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), which is responsible for ensuring "the safe and secure conduct of judicial proceedings" and for providing "protection for federal judges, other court officials, witnesses, jurors, the visiting public and prisoners." At present, the Marshals protect 711 judicial facilities and approximately 2,200 federal judges. The Marshals also have protective responsibility for approximately 26,000 federal prosecutors and court officials. In FY2018, the Marshals assessed or handled 4,542 threats and inappropriate communications against protected persons. As part of its mission to protect the federal judicial process, the U.S. Marshals Service administers the Judicial Facility Security Program (funded by the Court Security account). The program "oversees the daily operation and management of security services performed by approximately 5,300 court security officers" and "installs and maintains security systems for the protection of federal courthouses and other judicial facilities." Fees of Jurors and Commissioners This account in the judiciary's budget funds the fees and allowances provided to petit and grand jurors and compensation for jury and land commissioners. Petit jurors serve on a trial jury, while grand jurors serve on a grand jury. Petit jurors are paid $50 per day but can, after serving 10 days on a jury, receive up to $60 per day. Grand jurors are also paid $50 per day but can, after serving 45 days on a grand jury, receive up to $60 per day. Petit and grand jurors are also reimbursed for reasonable transportation expenses and parking fees. Jurors can receive a subsistence allowance that covers their meals and lodging if they are sequestered during their service. A jury commissioner is appointed in some cases to work with the clerk of court to manage the random selection of petit and grand jurors. The compensation paid to a jury commissioner is $50 per day (plus the reimbursement of reasonable expenses related to his or her service). According to the U.S. Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, "costs associated with this account can be unpredictable and are driven by the number of jury trials, the length of those trials, and statutory rates for reimbursement paid to jurors." Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 created a program to provide compensation to people found to be injured by certain vaccines. The program "is designed to encourage vaccination by providing a streamlined system for compensation in rare instances where an injury results from vaccination" and provides "an alternative to traditional products liability and medical malpractice litigation for persons injured by their receipt or one or more of the standard childhood vaccines." The program, according to the Department of Justice, "has succeeded in providing a less adversarial, less expensive, and less time-consuming system of recovery than the traditional tort system that governs medical malpractice, personal injury, and product liability cases." The Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund provides funding for the compensation program, covering claims related to vaccine-related injuries or deaths for covered vaccines administered on or after October 1, 1988. An individual who believes he or she has been injured by a covered vaccine can seek compensation from the fund by filing a claim against the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Since the program began in 1988, over 6,000 individuals have received more than $3.9 billion (combined) for such claims. The Department of the Treasury manages the fund's investments and produces a monthly Vaccine Injury Compensation Report . Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts The Administrative Office of U.S. Courts (AO) "is the agency within the judicial branch that provides a broad range of legislative, legal, financial, technology, management, administrative, and program support services to federal courts." A main responsibility of AO is to provide staff support and counsel for the Judicial Conference, the national policymaking body for the federal courts, and the Conference's committees. With input from the Judicial Conference, AO also develops the annual judiciary budget for submission by the President and approval by Congress. Federal Judicial Center As the federal judiciary's research and education entity, the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) "develops orientation and continuing education programs for judges and other court personnel. It also studies judiciary operations and recommends to the Judicial Conference how to improve the management and administration of the federal courts." The operations of the FJC are "overseen by a board of directors whose members are the Chief Justice, the director of the Administrative Office, and seven judges chosen by the Judicial Conference." United States Sentencing Commission The United States Sentencing Commission is an independent agency that is located within the federal judiciary. It was created by Congress in 1984 "to reduce sentencing disparities and promote transparency and proportionality in sentencing." As such, the commission establishes and amends sentencing guidelines for the federal criminal justice system, as well as "monitors sentencing recommendations by probation officers and operates an information center on sentencing practices." The commission consists of seven voting members appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, with members serving staggered six-year terms. No more than four members of the commission can be members of the same political party, and at least three members must be federal judges. In order for a sentencing guideline to be amended, the amendment must receive the affirmative votes of four members of the commission. The commission has a staff of approximately 100 employees. The commission is also advised by "four standing advisory groups representing the views of practitioners, probation officers, victims, and tribal lands." The purpose, in part, of the advisory group representing the views of tribal lands is to provide the commission "its views on federal sentencing issues related to American Indian defendants and victims and to offenses committed in Indian Country." Selected Courts Not Funded by the Judiciary Budget Three specialized courts within the federal court system are not funded under the judiciary budget: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (funded in the Department of Defense appropriations bill), the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (funded in the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies appropriations bill), and the U.S. Tax Court (funded under Independent Agencies, Title V of the FSGG bill). Additionally, federal courthouse construction is funded within the General Services Administration account under Independent Agencies, Title V of the FSGG bill. Selected Ongoing Policy Issues for FY2020 Number of U.S. District and Circuit Court Judgeships Congress determines through legislative action both the size and structure of the federal judiciary. Consequently, the creation of any new permanent or temporary U.S. circuit and district court judgeships must be authorized by Congress. The Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking body of the federal courts, makes biennial recommendations to Congress that identify any circuit and district courts that, according to the Conference, require new permanent judgeships to appropriately administer civil and criminal justice in the federal court system. In evaluating whether a court might need additional judgeships, the Judicial Conference examines whether certain caseload levels have been met, as well as court-specific information that might uniquely affect a particular court. The Judicial Conference's most recent recommendation, released in March 2019, calls for the creation of five permanent judgeships for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (composed of California, eight other western states, and two U.S. territories). The Conference also recommends creating 65 permanent U.S. district court judgeships, as well as converting 8 temporary district court judgeships to permanent status. According to the Judicial Conference, since the enactment of the most recent omnibus judgeship bill in 1990 ( P.L. 101-650 ), the number of U.S. circuit court judgeships has remained at 179 while appellate court case filings increased by 15% through the end of FY2018. During this same time period, Congress enacted legislation that increased the number of permanent and temporary district judgeships by 4% (from 645 to 673) while district court case filings increased by 39%. In terms of specific types of cases, civil cases increased by 34% during the same period, and cases involving criminal felony defendants increased by 60%. The House Appropriations Committee, in its report that accompanied the committee's passage of the FSGG funding bill, noted that the Judicial Conference recently recommended the creation of a "significant number of new Article III judgeships" for the nation's circuit and district courts. The committee also expressed its concern that, "absent executive and congressional action to fill existing judicial vacancies and the passage of comprehensive bipartisan legislation to create new judgeships, the ability of the federal courts to administer justice in a swift, fair, and effective manner could be compromised." Judicial Security There is ongoing congressional interest in the safe conduct of court proceedings and the security of federal judges. Congress has, in the past, appropriated funds specifically to enhance the personal security of judges. For example, an FY2005 supplemental appropriations act included a provision providing funds for home intrusion detection systems for federal judges. Additionally, the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007 included various measures to enhance security for judges and court personnel, as well as courtroom safety for the public. The act, for example, amended 18 U.S.C. Â§930(e)(1) to prohibit the possession of dangerous weapons (other than firearms, which were already prohibited) in federal court facilities. The judiciary works closely with the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) to ensure that adequate protective policies, procedures, and practices are in place for the federal courts. As discussed in the text above, the Marshals are largely responsible for protecting federal courthouses, judges, and other judicial employees. In FY2018, after the USMS assessed the level of danger in explicit threats and inappropriate communications directed at judges and other court officers, there were 531 predicated protective investigations opened "based on the presence of or potential for criminal activity." The House Appropriations Committee, in the report accompanying its markup of the FY2020 judiciary budget, stated that the committee considers it a priority to improve the physical security of federal judicial facilities and "to ensure the integrity of the judicial process." Cost Containment by the Judiciary The judiciary continues the cost containment initiatives that it began in 2004.Â Specific areas of focus for containing costs include office space rental, personnel expenses, information technology, and operating costs. The Senate report that accompanied the Appropriations Committee's markup addressed the issue of cost containment, stating that the "judicial branch is subject to the same funding constraints facing the executive and legislative branches. It is imperative that the Federal judiciary devote its resources primarily to the retention of staff. Further, it is also important that the judiciary contain controllable costs such as travel, construction, and other expenses." Of particular focus by the judiciary is an effort to cut costs associated with office space and rental payments. The Administrative Office of U.S. Courts (AO) announced in December 2018 that the federal judiciary "has succeeded dramatically in its five-year quest to reduce building space and rent costs, exceeding its original reduction goals by nearly 30 percent." Additionally, AO noted that "rent has been cut more than $36 million a year," with additional savings anticipated in the future. In its FY2020 budget summary, the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts (AO) emphasized that, as of September 30, 2018, approximately 1.1. million usable square feet had been removed from the judiciary's rent bill. Examples of the judiciary's space reduction campaign include the following: The bankruptcy court for the District of New Hampshire "was relocated from leased space in Manchester into the District Court in Concord, NH. Savings: 20,000 square feet." In New York, the bankruptcy court in Buffalo "relocated into the district courthouse. In Manhattan, the Bankruptcy Court reduced space by digitizing paper records. Combined savings: 39,000 square feet." The bankruptcy court in San Francisco "saved over 25,000 square feet and $1.5 million in annual rent by moving into the Phillip Burton Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse." Courthouse "library reductions in Camden, NJ; Wilmington, DE; Harrisburg, PA; Philadelphia; and U.S. Virgin Islands saved over 18,000 square feet." The Sixth Circuit's library headquarters in Cincinnati "relocated to space formerly used for Clerk's Office file storage. Total savings: 15,000 square feet." Courthouses for which there was no permanently assigned judge, that is, non resident courthouses , "were closed in Bryson City, NC; Wilkesboro, NC; Beaufort, SC; and Parkersburg, WV. Total savings: over 35,000 square feet." "In Miami, 33,000 square feet and $900,000 in annual rent were saved by relocating the Bankruptcy Court into the C. Clyde Atkins U.S. Courthouse. Two magistrate judges were relocated, and a circuit library and jury assembly area were vacated." The Administrative Office of U.S. Courts also noted that, in addition to space reduction, the judiciary has "undertaken significant efforts to develop alternative organizational models that may result in cost savings, including expanding shared administrative services within and among" district courts. The House Appropriations Committee noted in its report that it recognizes the judiciary's "cost containment efforts over the past 12 years and is pleased with the [its] savings and cost avoidance." The committee noted, specifically, that the reduction of usable square feet from the judiciary's rent bill "equates to an annual cost avoidance of nearly $36,000,000 and $105,000,000 over the past five years."


Introduction This report provides analysis of relevant background information and considerations for Congress associated with ongoing Department of Defense (DOD) efforts to obtain enterprise-wide cloud computing services through the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) Cloud acquisition program. In September 2017, then-Deputy Secretary of Defense (DSD) Patrick Shanahan issued a memorandum calling for the accelerated adoption of a DOD enterprise-wide cloud services solution as a key component of ongoing DOD modernization efforts. DOD views this adoption process as a two part effort: in the first phase, DOD is seeking to acquire a cloud services solution accessible to the entirety of the Department that can support Unclassified, Secret, and Top Secret requirements, focusing on commercially available cloud service solutions, through the JEDI Cloud acquisition program. In the second phase, DOD seeks to transition selected existing data and applications maintained by the military departments and agencies to the cloud. Background What Is Cloud Computing? Broadly speaking, cloud computing refers to the practice of remotely storing and accessing information and software programs on demand through the internet, instead of storing data on a computer's hard drive or accessing it through an organization's intranet. It relies on a cloud infrastructure , a collection of hardware and software that may include components such as servers and a network. This infrastructure can be deployed privately to a select user group, publicly through subscription-based commercial services available to the general public, or through hybrid deployments that combine aspects of both private and public cloud infrastructure. Cloud computing capabilities are delivered to end users through three main service models: Software as a Service (SaaS) , which provides end users with access to software applications hosted and managed by the cloud computing provider (such as Dropbox, Slack, or Google web-based applications); Platform as a Service (PaaS) , which provides end users with the ability to construct and distribute web-based software applications through a common interface hosted and managed by the cloud computing provider (such as Google App Engine, Amazon Web Services Elastic Beanstalk, Microsoft Azure, and Oracle Cloud); and Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) , which provides end users with remote access to infrastructure componentsâsuch as servers, virtual machines, and storageâmaintained by the cloud computing provider (such as Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud, Google Compute Engine, and Microsoft Azure). Many major cloud vendors, such as Microsoft and Amazon, are increasingly offering products and services that combine aspects of these service models. Cost, efficiency, accessibility, agility of improvements, security, and reliability are all considerations in public and private sector decisions about cloud service adoption. For a more in-depth discussion of these factors and cloud computing characteristics, deployment models, and service models, see CRS Report R42887, Overview and Issues for Implementation of the Federal Cloud Computing Initiative: Implications for Federal Information Technology Reform Management , by Patricia Moloney Figliola and Eric A. Fischer. What Is the Current Status of DOD's Adoption of Cloud Services? Since the establishment of the Federal Cloud Computing Initiative (FCCI) in 2009, the federal governmentâincluding DODâhas actively worked to shift portions of its information technology (IT) needs to cloud-based services through strategies such as "Cloud First," which required federal agencies to prioritize the use of cloud-based solutions whenever a secure, reliable, and cost-effective option existed. This move was intended in part to reduce the total investment by the federal government in physical information technology (IT) infrastructureâthrough actions such as reducing or eliminating data storage at agency-owned and operated data centersâas well as capitalizing on other advantages of cloud adoption. DOD efforts to acquire cloud services have been ongoing; however, DOD has described its current cloud services use as "decentralized" and "disparate," creating "additional layers of complexity" that impede shared access to common applications and data across the Department. As of mid-2018, DOD reported maintaining more than 500 public and private cloud infrastructures that support Unclassified and Secret requirements. DOD has also acknowledged that its prior lack of "clear guidance on cloud computing, adoption, and migration," as well as acquisition guidance that allowed DOD components to independently pursue the procurement of cloud-based services, has led to "disjointed implementations with limited capability, siloed data, and inefficient acquisitions that cannot take advantage of economies of scale." What Is DOD's Current Cloud Strategy? DOD publicly released its current "Cloud Strategy" in February 2019. As part of its cloud strategy, DOD identifies the need to adopt cloud computing services across the Department as a priority, and articulates its intent to develop a "multi-cloud, multi-vendor â¦ ecosystem composed of a General Purpose and [multiple] Fit For Purpose" (see Figure 1 ) clouds. DOD anticipates that the JEDI Cloud acquisition program will ultimately lead to a foundational enterprise-wide "General Purpose" cloud suitable for the majority of DOD systems and applications, enabling DOD to offer IaaS and PaaS at all classification levels. "Fit For Purpose" clouds, on the other hand, are envisioned as task-specific "commercial solution[s]"âsuch as the ongoing Defense Enterprise Office Solutions (DEOS) SaaS acquisition program that will create a cloud-based replacement for certain DOD software-based applications such as email and instant messaging servicesâor "on-premises cloud solution[s]," such as DISA's milCloud 2.0, which provides IaaS, to be used in limited situations where the "General Purpose" cloud cannot adequately support mission needs." What Acquisition Policies Apply to DOD Procurement of CloudÂ Services? While the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) does not explicitly provide acquisition guidance for cloud computing services, certain sections (e.g., FAR Part 39, Acquisition of Information Technology or FAR Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items ) may apply depending on the specific acquisition strategy for a particular contract. Certain other government-wide acquisition policies for cloud services, such as the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) security assessment process, apply. DOD-specific policies for acquiring cloud services are prescribed in part by Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Subpart 239.76, which states that DOD must generally acquire cloud services using commercial terms and conditionsâsuch as license agreements, end user license agreements, terms of service, or other similar legal instrumentsâconsistent with federal law and DOD's needs. A contract to acquire cloud services may generally only be awarded to a provider with provisional Defense Information Security Agency (DISA) authorization to provide such services, consistent with the current version of the DOD Cloud Computing Security Requirements Guide (SRG). To maintain legal jurisdiction over information and data accessed via a cloud services solution, all data stored and processed by or for DOD must reside in a facility under the exclusive legal jurisdiction of the United Statesâmeaning that cloud computing service providers are generally required to store government data that is not physically located on DOD premises at locations within the United States or outlying areas of the United States. All cloud services must have an Authorization to Operate (ATO), an official decision made by a senior official that explicitly accepts any associated operational risks (i.e., risks to organizational operations or assets; individuals; other organizations; or the United States). An ATO is based on the implementation of an agreed-upon set of security controls. The 2014 DOD Memorandum Updated Guidance on the Acquisition and Use of Commercial Cloud Computing Services authorized the direct acquisition of cloud services by DOD components, and provided additional guidance for the acquisition of commercial cloud services. The JEDI Cloud Program Why Does DOD Require the JEDI Cloud? In the unclassified summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS), the Department articulates the need for significant DOD investment in key technology capabilities such as "cyber defense, resilience, and the continued integration of cyber capabilities into the full spectrum of military operations," as well as "military application of autonomy, artificial intelligence, and machine learning" in order to maintain military superiority against near-peer adversaries such as China and Russia. The Department views the cloud computing and data storage capabilities to be acquired through the JEDI Cloud procurement as providing "foundational technologies" for these investments. The Joint Chiefs of Staff has also stated that "efforts for accelerating [cloud adoption] are critical in creating a global, resilient, and secure information environment that enables warfighting and mission command." DOD Chief Information Officer (CIO) Dana Deasy has further contended that the Department requires an enterprise-wide cloud "that allows for data-driven decision making [and] enables DOD to take advantage of our applications and data resources," in part to provide worldwide support for DOD operations. In recent public statements DOD CIO Deasy, as well as Lt. Gen. Bradford J. Shwedo, Director for Command, Control, Communications and Computers/Cyber of the J6 Command, Control, Communications, and Computers (C4) and Cyber Directorate of the Joint Staff, have also emphasized that delays in pursuing the capabilities included in the JEDI Cloud procurement may adversely affect ongoing Department activities, such as the recently established Joint Artificial Intelligence Center, which seeks to accelerate the delivery of artificial intelligence-enabled capabilities to DOD. Who Has Responsibility for the JEDI Cloud Program Within DOD? Initially, the Cloud Executive Steering Group (CESG) oversaw DOD's cloud adoption initiative. The CESG, established in September 2017, reported directly to the Deputy Secretary of Defense (DSD). The CESG was originally chaired by Ellen Lord, then the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD (AT&L)). At first, the CESG included the Director of the Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO), the Managing Partner of the Defense Innovation Unit Experimental (DIUx, now known as the Defense Innovation Unit, or DIU), the Director of the Defense Digital Service (DDS), and the Executive Director of the Defense Innovation Board (DIB) as voting members (see Table 1 ). The DDS Director was tasked with leading phase one of DOD's cloud adoption initiative: the JEDI Cloud program. In January 2018, the DSD announced changes to the membership and leadership of the CESG; the Deputy Chief Management Officer (DCMO; Jay Gibson, who was serving as DCMO at the time, would later become DOD's first CMO) would chair the group, with the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) and the DOD CIO added to the group's members. In June 2018, the DSD announced that the DOD CIO, as the principal staff assistant and senior advisor to the Secretary of Defense for information technology, would oversee all aspects of DOD's cloud adoption initiative, to include the JEDI Cloud acquisition program. The Cloud Computing Program Office (CCPO), which was established by DDS to serve as the program office for the JEDI Cloud program, was also transitioned to the Office of the CIO at that time. What Is the Current Status of the JEDI Cloud Contract? A Request for Information (RFI) for the JEDI Cloud program was issued in October 2017; the Department held an industry day event and issued a draft Request for Proposal (RFP) in early March 2018, with a second draft RFP issued in April 2018. The final JEDI RFP was issued on July 26, 2018, and closed on October 9, 2018. In early April 2019, DOD announced that the Department had completed an initial downselect from four qualified proposals submitted by IBM, Amazon Web Services, Microsoft, and Oracle America. Amazon Web Services and Microsoft remain in contention for the contract. The Department is in the final stages of evaluating proposals, and originally anticipated announcing a contract award decision in August 2019. However, Secretary of Defense Dr. Mark T. Esper is reportedly currently reviewing the JEDI Cloud program, which may delay the award. DOD requested $61.9 million in funding for the JEDI Cloud acquisition program for Fiscal Year (FY) 2020. How Is the JEDI Cloud Contract Structured? Through the JEDI Cloud contract, DOD intends to conduct a full and open competition that will result in a single award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) firm-fixed price contract for commercial items (i.e., IaaS and PaaS). DOD wants the JEDI Cloud to provide worldwide cloud computing servicesâincluding in austere environmentsâcomparable to those made available through commercial cloud services. Accordingly, the Department has specified that an offeror does not need to maintain dedicated or exclusive infrastructure for unclassified services. However, offerors must comply with the JEDI Cloud Cyber Security Plan, and must provide dedicated, exclusive infrastructure for classified services. DOD is further requiring any successful offeror to provide rapid deployment of new commercially available cloud-related services to JEDI Cloud users, and expects ongoing parity with public commercial prices. DOD indicated that the minimum guaranteed award is $1 million. The contract is expected to have a maximum ceiling of $10 billion across a potential 10-year period of performance. Under an ID/IQ contract, the government is only required to purchase the minimum amount specified in the contract, and may ultimately choose not to reach the contract ceiling. The contract period of performance is structured as a two-year base ordering period, with three additional option periods (two three-year options and one two-year option), for a potential total of 10 years (see Table 1 ). What Is the Source Selection Process for the JEDI Cloud Contract? DOD indicated that it will award the JEDI Cloud contract to the offeror whose proposal meets specified requirements and represents the best value to the government, based on a two-step evaluation process. In the first step, offerors were evaluated against seven performance-based criteria (see Figure 2 for a full listing).3 Proposals were deemed acceptable or unacceptable for each individual sub-factor as considered sequentially: a judgement of unacceptable immediately disqualified a proposal from further consideration. For example, performance sub-factor 1.1, "Elastic Usage," requires offerors to provide summary data for the months of January and February 2018 in order to demonstrate that additional traffic generated by unclassified usage of the JEDI Cloud would not represent a majority of a proposed solution's commercially available network, computational, and storage capacity. Performance sub-factor 1.2, "High Availability and Failover," in part requires offerors to have no fewer than three existing physical data centers at least 150 miles apart within the United States or outlying areas of the United States. If a proposal received a mark of "acceptable" for each sub-factor, it proceeded to the second phase of the source selection process, where it was then evaluated against five additional technical factors, together with submitted price proposals, to determine a "competitive range" of offerors. Qualifying offerors within the competitive range were next evaluated against two additional factors: the offeror's approach to meeting small business participation goals and a demonstration of the proposed solution's capabilities. Reactions from Observers and Congress How Has Industry Reacted? DOD received more than 1,500 comments in response to its draft RFPs. Companies including Amazon Web Services, Google, IBM, and Microsoft initially expressed interest in competing for the JEDI Cloud contract. However, DOD's acquisition strategy also sparked resistance from those who opposed DOD's intent to award the contract to a single company. This concern led some industry associations to publicly contest a single award, arguing that it would be inconsistent with broader federal cloud computing implementation guidance, and could unfairly restrict future competition for DOD cloud services. For example, the trade group ITAPS (IT Alliance for Public Sector) sent a letter to the House and Senate Armed Services committees stating in part that the deployment of a single cloud conflicts with established best practices and industry trends in the commercial marketplace, as well as current law and regulation, which calls for the award of multiple task or delivery order contracts.... Further, the speed of adoption of innovative commercial solutions, like cloud, is facilitated by the use of these best practices. In October 2018, Google announced that it would not be submitting a bid for the contract, citing possible conflict with its corporate principles, along with DOD's plans to award the contract to a single vendor, among its reasons for withdrawing. GAO Bid Protests and U.S. Court of Federal Claims Case Oracle America and IBM both filed pre-award bid protests with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) against the JEDI Cloud solicitation; GAO denied Oracle America's protests on November 14, 2018, and dismissed IBM's protests on December 11, 2018. Subsequently, Oracle America filed a bid protest lawsuit with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. In filings associated with its bid protest lawsuit, Oracle America in part alleged that (1) the performance-based criteria include in the first step of the contract source selection process were "unduly restrictive and arbitrary" and (2) the JEDI Cloud acquisition process was unfairly skewed in favor of Amazon Web Services through potential organizational conflicts of interest associated with three former DOD employees, each of whom was involved to greater or lesser degrees in the early development of the program. Two of these former DOD employees were subsequently employed by Amazon Web Services. These claims attracted significant media and congressional attention. DOD investigations determined that Amazon Web Services had no unmitigated organizational conflicts of interest, and established that the actions of the individuals identified by Oracle America did not negatively impact the procurement or grant Amazon Web Services an unfair competitive advantage. However, the investigations did identify individual violations of ethical standards established by FAR Part 3.101-1, which directs government procurement activities to be "conducted in a manner above reproach," and for government employees to strictly "avoid â¦ any conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of interest in Government-contractor relationships." These findings were reportedly referred to the DOD Inspector General for further review. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled against Oracle America in a July 12, 2019, decision, finding in part that sub-factor 1.2 of the sequentially considered performance-based criteria included in the Department's source selection process was "enforceable," and noting that as Oracle America admitted that its services did not "meet that criteria at the time of proposal submission, [the Court] conclude[s] that it cannot demonstrate prejudice as a result of other possible errors in the procurement process ." How Has DOD Responded to Industry Concerns? Potential for Restriction of Future Competition DOD officials have repeatedly described JEDI Cloud as a test model for DOD's future transition of legacy information technology systems to the cloud and have stressed that it is not intended to be a final solution. DOD CIO Dana Deasy has also highlighted the Department's lack of experience in deploying an enterprise-wide cloud solution, arguing that "starting with a number of firms while at the same time trying to build out an enterprise capability" would "double or triple" the technical complexity of the program. In the Department's May 2018 report to Congress, DOD indicated that the JEDI Cloud contract would include multiple mechanisms to â¦ maximize DOD's flexibilities going forward â¦ the initial base ordering period is limited to 2 years, which will allow for sufficient time to validate the operational capabilities of JEDI Cloud and the DOD enterprise-wide approach. Option periods ... will only be exercised if doing so is the most advantageous method for fulfilling the DOD's requirements when considering the market conditions at the time of option exercise. As detailed in the JEDI Cloud RFP, offerors submitting a proposal to DOD were required to provide detailed transition and data portability plans, to include the complete set of processes and procedures necessary to extract all relevant data (such as system and network configurations, activity logs, source code, etc.) from the JEDI Cloud environment and systematically migrate to another cloud environment. Use of a Single-Award Contract Section 2304a of Title 10, U.S. Code establishes a preference for making multiple awards for task or delivery order contracts, and separately prohibits DOD from awarding task or delivery order contracts exceeding $112 million (including all option periods) to a single source unless the head of the agency determines in writing that one or more of four specified circumstances apply. DOD detailed the rationale for using a single-award ID/IQ contract for the JEDI Cloud procurement, pursuant to 10 U.S.C.2304a(d)(4) and the provision's implementing FAR requirements, noting that while the FAR establishes a general preference for multiple award ID/IQ contracts, the FAR also establishes that a contracting officer must not use a multiple award approach if one or more of six conditions apply. Accordingly, the JEDI Cloud contracting officer determined that more favorable terms and conditions, including pricing, would be provided through a single award; the expected higher cost of administering multiple contracts "outweigh[ed] the expected benefits of making multiple awards" with a DOD-estimated additional cost of $500 million associated with administering multiple contracts; and multiple awards would not be in the best interests of DOD in this particular instance, as a multi-cloud environment could potentially "create seams between clouds that increase security risks â¦ frustrate DOD's attempts to consolidate and pool data â¦ [and could] exponentially increase the technical complexity require to realize the benefit of cloud technology." Together with the JEDI Cloud RFP, the Department also released its determination pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2304a(d)(3), which prohibits DOD from awarding large task or delivery order contracts to a single source unless a senior official determines if at least one of four exceptions to the prohibition is present, that the JEDI Cloud contract provides only for firm-fixed price task orders or delivery orders for services for which prices are established in the contract for the specified tasks to be performed. However, the JEDI Cloud contract will also contain pricing related clauses intended to allow the Department to benefit from future marketplace competition driving commercial sector cloud services pricing downward, and to provide DOD with access to new cloud services as they become available to the commercial market the contract automatically lower DOD's prices when the contractor's public commercial prices are lowered. The lower unit price is fixed. â¦ [T]o achieve commercial parity over time, the contract contemplates adding new or improved cloud services to the contract. The new services clause requires â¦ approval for the addition of new services and includes mechanisms to ensure that the fixed unit price for the new service cannot be higher than the price that is publicly available in the commercial marketplace in the continental United States. This same clause requires that, if a service â¦ is eliminated from the Contractor's publicly available commercial catalog, the Contractor shall offer replacement service(s) â¦ at a price no higher than, the service being eliminated. As with any other cloud offering, once the new service is added to the catalog, the unit price is fixed and cannot be changed without contracting officer approval. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims questioned DOD's use of the 10 U.S.C. 2304a(d)(3) exception for firm fixed-price task or delivery orders in its determination in tandem with the JEDI Cloud contract's price adjustment clauses, noting that "prices for new, additional services to be identified and priced in the future, even if they may be capped in some cases, are not, by definition, fixed or established at the time of contracting." What Actions Has Congress Taken? Legislative Action in the 115th Congress Authorizations Section 1064 of P.L. 115-232 , the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2019, required the DOD CIO to conduct activities supporting DOD's cloud adoption initiative: developing an approach to rapidly acquire advanced network capabilities, including software-defined networking, on-demand bandwidth, and aggregated cloud access gateways, through commercial service providers; and conducting an analysis of existing systems and applications that would be migrated to the JEDI Cloud environment. Section 1064 required the DOD CIO to submit a report on the current status and anticipated implementation of DOD's cloud adoption initiative, and limited the use of authorized FY2019 funds for DOD's cloud adoption until the required report's submission. The Department submitted the required report in January 2019. Section 1064 further required DOD to complete an assessment to determine whether an information system or application is already, or can and would be cloud-hosted, prior to approving any new system or application for development or modernization. Finally, and pointedly, Section 1064 requires the Deputy Secretary of Defense to "ensure that the acquisition approach of the Department [for the JEDI Cloud procurement] continues to follow the [FAR] with respect to competition." In the conference report accompanying the FY2019 NDAA ( H.Rept. 115-874 ), the conferees emphasize the importance of modernizing networks by adopting advancing [sic] commercial capabilities to achieve DOD's cloud transition and enterprise efficiency goals. â¦ The conferees encourage the Department to continue to ensure that cloud technologies are technically suitable, appropriately tested for security and reliability, and integrated with other DOD information technology efforts so as to optimize effective and efficient procurement of such technologies and services and their performance in support of DOD missions. Finally, the conferees note that although transparency and information sharing by the Department on the Cloud Initiative has slightly improved, it continues to be insufficient for conducting congressional oversight. The conferees expect the Department to improve communication with Congress on this issue and will consider additional legislation if an improvement is not seen. Appropriations Section 8137 of P.L. 115-245 , which provided FY2019 DOD appropriations, prevented the obligation or expenditure of FY2019 funds to "migrate data and applications to the proposed [JEDI] ... cloud computing services" until 90 days after the Secretary of Defense submitted (1) a plan to establish a DOD-wide budget accounting system for funds requested and expended for cloud services, as well as funds requested and expended to migrate to a cloud environment; and (2) a detailed description of DOD's strategy to implement enterprise-wide cloud computing to the congressional defense committees. The Department submitted the required report in January 2019. Proposed Legislative Action in the 116th Congress Authorizations The House Armed Services Committee report ( H.Rept. 116-120 ) accompanying the House-passed FY2020 NDAA ( H.R. 2500 ), includes the committee's commendation for DOD's cloud strategy Cloud infrastructure, such as [JEDI], allows users to access information from anywhere at any time, effectively removing the need for the user to be in the same physical location as the hardware that stores the data. â¦ The ability of cloud infrastructure to scale ensures that the Department efficiently manages and modernizes its information technology needs and demands. The committee endorses the Department's strategy and concept for a flexible enterprise cloud architecture that enshrines the need and value for both general purpose and fit-for-purpose cloud solutions through a multi-cloud, multi-vendor approach. Section 1035 of S. 1790 , the Senate-passed FY2020 NDAA, would specify that the DOD CIO and the DOD Chief Data Officer, in consultation with the J6 Command, Control, Communications, and Computers (C4) and Cyber Directorate of the Joint Staff and the DOD CMO, must develop and issue DOD-wide policy and implementing instructions regarding the transition of data and applications to the cloud. Such a policy would be required to "dramatically improve support to operational missions and management processes, including by the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies." In its "Items of Special Interest" for Title XVI ("Strategic Programs, Cyber, and Intelligence Matters"), the Senate Armed Services Committee report ( S.Rept. 116-48 ) for the FY2020 NDAA notes the committee's understanding for the "potential of commercial clouds to provide cost-effective, state-of-the-art capabilities," but highlights the committee's view that tDOD must be able to "conduct cybersecurity testing" for commercial cloud products and services, "including threat-realistic cyberattacks, to assess the cybersecurity of the Department's data and the cyber defense response to the attacks." The report directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a related briefing to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, and recommends the inclusion of information regarding independent cyber assessments for commercially provided infrastructure in Director of Operational Test and Evaluation annual reports. Appropriations The House Appropriations Committee report ( H.Rept. 116-84 ) accompanying H.R. 2968 , the House-passed FY2020 Department of Defense appropriations act, highlights the committee's skepticism of DOD's pursuit of a "single vendor contract strategy" for the JEDI Cloud procurement The Committee continues to be concerned with this approach given the rapid pace of innovation in the industry and that this approach may lock the [DOD] into a single provider for potentially as long as ten years. Since the [DOD] adopted its single vendor strategy in 2017, other federal agencies â¦ have decided to pursue a multiple vendor cloud strategy as recommended by the [OMB] "Cloud Smart" strategy â¦ the Committee believes the [DOD] is deviating from established OMB policy and industry best practices, and may be failing to implement a strategy that lowers costs and fully supports data innovation for the warfighter. Accordingly, the House Appropriations Committee report would direct that no funds may be obligated or expended to migrate data and applications to the JEDI Cloud until the DOD CIO provides a report to the congressional defense committees expanding on the Department's plans to transition to a "multi-cloud, multi-vendor" environment. The DOD CIO would be directed to provide a listing of anticipated contracting opportunities for the acquisition of commercial cloud services by the Department over the next two years, to include specified elements such as planned contract type and structure; whether the procurement is anticipated to be conducted as a full and open competition or as a sole source award; the estimated timeframe for the release of related solicitations; and the estimated maximum contract value and period of performance, including option periods. The DOD CIO would also be directed to submit quarterly reports on the implementation of its cloud adoption and implementation strategy to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, beginning 30 days after the enactment of a FY2020 defense appropriations act. Other Congressional Actions Various Members of Congress have also individually and collectively advocated for the Department to take certain actions relating to the JEDI Cloud procurement. For example, some Members have urged DOD to delay or postpone awarding the JEDI Cloud contract to accommodate an alternate acquisition strategy, or the conclusion of the DOD Inspector General's investigation into the potential violations of ethical standards by former DOD employees. Other Members have supported DOD's acquisition strategy, advocating for the Department to award the JEDI Cloud contract as soon as possible. Considerations for Congress Significant attention has focused on DOD's intent to award the JEDI Cloud contract to a single company. Some observers contend that an initial single award appears to contradict broader federal cloud computing implementation guidance and industry best practices that stress the importance of multi-cloud solutions. Other experts point to the implementation approaches identified by DOD's Cloud Strategy as an indication that the Department expects the JEDI Cloud to serve certain enterprise-wide functions, performing as one component of a broader multi-cloud, multi-vendor system. Some observers, however, have concluded that the JEDI Cloud requirements are misaligned with DOD's Cloud Strategy, and have urged the Department to rescind and revise the JEDI Cloud RFP. Those opposed to DOD's use of a single-award contract for the JEDI Cloud program have suggested that a single-award contract could potentially restrict future competition for enterprise-wide DOD IaaS and PaaS cloud services. Supporters of DOD's approach argue that the JEDI Cloud program's requirement for offerors to develop platform-agnostic applications and data schema suggests that the Department will be well equipped to migrate from any service environment developed under the JEDI Cloud contract to another such environment. Potential considerations for Congress concerning the ongoing JEDI Cloud acquisition process, as well as any follow-on efforts, include the following issues. Oversight of Option Exercise for the JEDI Cloud Contract As DOD has indicated that it believes the initial two-year base ordering period is sufficient time to validate the JEDI Cloud test model, Congress may consider directing DOD to provide detailed rationale and justification for any extension of the JEDI Cloud contract prior to the exercise of contract options. At the time of option exercise, Congress may also consider directing the Department to report on any notable lessons learned or challenges experienced in the execution of the JEDI Cloud contract. As emphasized in the conference report accompanying the FY2019 NDAA ( H.Rept. 115-874 ), Congress may also wish to monitor the extent to which the Department has "improved communication with Congress" to enable sufficient congressional oversight of the JEDI Cloud program and DOD's cloud adoption initiative. Procurement Integrity The U.S. Court of Federal Claims decision agreed with the Department's finding that the actions of the individuals identified by Oracle America in its bid protest lawsuit did not negatively impact the procurement or grant Amazon Web Services an unfair competitive advantage. However, the individual violations of ethical standards for federal employees involved in the acquisition of goods and services for the U.S. governmentâwhich generated the appearance of unresolved conflicts of interestâidentified by DOD in the course of its investigations delayed the JEDI Cloud procurement process. The FAR directs government procurement activities to be "conducted in a manner above reproach," and for government employees to strictly "avoid â¦ even the appearance of a conflict of interest." Congress may accordingly consider directing DOD to examine the current emphasis on ethical conduct and the Procurement Integrity Act in education, training, and qualification requirements for designated acquisition positionsâas well as considering the need to include equivalent training for DOD servicemembers and civilian employees outside of the defense acquisition workforce who may provide technical expertise or other support for procurement programsâand determine what, if any, changes should be made to associated curriculum and certification requirements.