Introduction This report focuses on FY2020 discretionary appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. At issue for Congress are determining the amount of funding for agencies and programs in the bill, and the terms and conditions of such funding. Currently, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies generally are receiving appropriations at the FY2019 level (in Division E of P.L. 116-6 ). Continuing appropriations are being provided because no regular appropriations were provided before the start of the 2020 fiscal year (on October 1, 2019). Division A of P.L. 116-59 provided continuing appropriations through November 21, 2019. The House and Senate passed a measure ( H.R. 3055 ) extending continuing appropriations through December 20, 2019, unless full-year appropriations are enacted sooner. The President signed that measure on November 21, 2019. For FY2020, President Trump sought $32.47 billion for agencies in the Interior bill, including $2.25 billion for wildfire suppression under a discretionary cap adjustment. The House included FY2020 appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies in Division C of H.R. 3055 , as passed on June 25, 2019. The measure contained a total of $39.59 billion, including $2.25 billion for wildfire suppression under the discretionary cap adjustment. In earlier action, on June 3, 2019, the House Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 3052 (accompanied by H.Rept. 116-100 ). Similar to H.R. 3055 as passed by the House, H.R. 3052 also contained a total of $39.59 billion, including $2.25 billion for wildfire suppression under the discretionary cap adjustment. The Senate included FY2020 appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies in Division C of H.R. 3055 , as passed on October 31, 2019. The measure contained a total of $38.11 billion, including $2.25 billion for wildfire suppression under the cap adjustment. In earlier action, on September 26, 2019, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 2580 (accompanied by S.Rept. 116-123 ). Similar to H.R. 3055 as passed by the Senate, S. 2580 also contained a total of $38.11 billion, including $2.25 billion for wildfire suppression under the discretionary cap adjustment. This report first presents a short overview of the agencies and other entities funded in the bill. It then describes the appropriations requested by President Trump for FY2020 for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies. Next, it briefly compares the total appropriations enacted for FY2019, requested by the President for FY2020, passed by the House for FY2020, and passed by the Senate for FY2020. Finally, this report compares funding enacted for FY2019, requested by the Administration for FY2020, passed by the House for FY2020, and passed by the Senate for FY2020 for selected agencies and issues that have been among those of particular interest to Congress. They include the Bureau of Land Management, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, Indian Affairs, Indian Health Service, Land and Water Conservation Fund, National Park Service, Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program, Reorganization of the Department of the Interior, Smithsonian Institution, U.S. Geological Survey, and Wildland Fire Management. This report will be revised to reflect further congressional action on FY2020 Interior appropriations. Appropriations are complex. Budget justifications for some agencies are large, often a few hundred pages long, and contain numerous funding, programmatic, and legislative changes for congressional consideration. Further, appropriations laws provide funds for numerous accounts, activities, and subactivities, and the accompanying explanatory statements provide additional directives and other important information. This report does not provide in-depth information at the account and subaccount levels, nor does it generally detail budgetary reorganizations or legislative changes enacted in law or proposed for FY2020. For information on a particular agency or on individual accounts, programs, or activities administered by a particular agency, contact the key policy staff listed at the end of this report. In addition, for selected reports related to appropriations for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, such as individual agencies (e.g., National Park Service) or cross-cutting programs (e.g., Wildland Fire Management), see the "Interior & Environment Appropriations" subissue under the "Appropriations" Issue Area page on the Congressional Research Service (CRS) website. Overview of Interior, Environment, and RelatedÂ Agencies The annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill includes funding and other provisions for agencies and programs in three federal departments and for numerous related agencies. The Interior bill typically contains three primary appropriations titles and a fourth title with general provisions. Title I provides funding for most Department of the Interior (DOI) agencies, many of which manage land and other natural resource or regulatory programs. Title I also typically includes general provisions related to DOI agencies. Title II contains appropriations and administrative provisions for EPA. Title III, Related Agencies, currently funds 23 agencies in other departments, such as the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture and the Indian Health Service in the Department of Health and Human Services; arts and cultural agencies, including the Smithsonian Institution; and various other organizations and entities. Title III also contains administrative provisions for some agencies funded therein. A fourth title of the bill, General Provisions, typically contains additional guidance and direction for agencies in the bill. In addition, in the FY2019 appropriations law, Title IV also included appropriations for EPA. Selected major agencies in the Interior bill are briefly described below. Title I. Department of the Interior7 DOI's mission is to conserve and manage the nation's natural resources and cultural heritage; provide scientific and other information about those resources and natural hazards; and exercise trust responsibilities and other commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities. There are eight DOI agencies and two other broad accounts funded in the Interior bill that carry out this mission. Hereinafter, these agencies and broad accounts are referred to collectively as the 10 DOI "agencies." Not including the two broad accounts, the DOI agencies funded in the Interior bill include the following: The Bureau of Land Management administers about 246 million acres of public land, mostly in the West, for diverse uses such as energy and mineral development, livestock grazing, recreation, and preservation. The agency also is responsible for more than 700 million acres of federal onshore subsurface mineral estate throughout the nation and supervises the mineral operations on about 60 million acres of Indian trust lands. The U.S. F ish and Wildlife Service administers 89 million acres of federal land within the National Wildlife Refuge System and other areas, including 77 million acres in Alaska. It also manages several large marine refuges and marine national monuments, sometimes jointly with other federal agencies. In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, together with the National Marine Fisheries Service (Department of Commerce), is responsible for implementing the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. Â§Â§1531 et seq.); promoting wildlife habitat; enforcing federal wildlife laws; supporting wildlife and ecosystem science; conserving migratory birds; administering grants to aid state fish and wildlife programs; and coordinating with state, international, and other federal agencies on fish and wildlife issues. The National Park Service administers 80 million acres of federal land within the National Park System, including 419 separate units in the 50 states, District of Columbia, and U.S. territories. Roughly two-thirds of the system's lands are in Alaska. The National Park Service has a dual missionâto preserve unique resources and to provide for their enjoyment by the public. The agency also supports and promotes some resource conservation activities outside the National Park System through grant and technical assistance programs and cooperation with partners. The U.S. Geological Survey is a science agency that provides physical and biological information related to geological resources; natural hazards; climate and land use change; and energy, mineral, water, and biological sciences and resources. In addition, it is the federal government's principal civilian mapping agency (e.g., topographical and geological mapping) and a primary source of data on the quality of the nation's water resources (e.g., streamgaging). The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management manages development of the nation's offshore conventional and renewable energy resources in the Atlantic, the Pacific, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Arctic. These resources are located in areas covering approximately 1.7 billion acres located beyond state waters, mostly in the Alaska region (more than 1 billion acres) but also off all coastal states. The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement provides regulatory and safety oversight for resource development in the outer continental shelf. Among its responsibilities are oil and gas permitting, facility inspections, environmental compliance, and oil spill response planning. The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement works with states and tribes to reclaim abandoned coal mining sites. The agency also regulates active coal mining sites to minimize environmental impacts during mining and to reclaim affected lands and waters after mining. Indian Affairs agencies provide and fund a variety of services to federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and their members. Historically, these agencies have taken the lead in federal dealings with tribes. The Bureau of Indian Education funds an elementary and secondary school system, institutions of higher education, and other educational programs. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is responsible for programs that include government operations, courts, law enforcement, fire protection, social programs, roads, economic development, employment assistance, housing repair, irrigation, dams, Indian rights protection, implementation of land and water settlements, and management of trust assets (real estate and natural resources). Title II. Environmental Protection Agency EPA has no organic statute establishing an overall mission; rather, the agency administers various environmental statutes, which have an express or general objective to protect human health and the environment. Primary responsibilities include the implementation of federal statutes regulating air quality, water quality, drinking water safety, pesticides, toxic substances, management and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes, and cleanup of environmental contamination. EPA also awards grants to assist states and local governments in implementing federal law and complying with federal requirements to control pollution. The agency also administers programs that provide financial assistance for public wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects. Title III. Related Agencies Title III of the Interior bill currently funds 23 agencies, organizations, and other entities, which are collectively referred to hereinafter as the "Related Agencies." Among the Related Agencies funded in the Interior bill, roughly 95% of the funding is typically provided to the following: The Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture manages 193 million acres of federal land within the National Forest Systemâconsisting of national forests, national grasslands, and other areasâin 43 states, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. It also provides technical and financial assistance to states, tribes, and private forest landowners and conducts research on sustaining forest resources for future generations. The Indian Health Service in the Department of Health and Human Services provides medical and environmental health services for approximately 2.6 million American Indians and Alaska Natives. Health care is provided through a system of facilities and programs operated by the agency, tribes and tribal organizations, and urban Indian organizations. The agency operates 25 hospitals, 50 health centers, 26 health stations, and 2 school health centers. Tribes and tribal organizations, through Indian Health Service contracts and compacts, operate another 22 hospitals, 280 health centers, 62 health stations, 134 Alaska Native village clinics, and 6 school health centers. The Smithsonian Institution is a museum and research complex consisting of 19 museums and galleries, the National Zoological Park ("National Zoo"), and 9 research facilities throughout the United States and around the world. Established by federal legislation in 1846 with the acceptance of a trust donation by the institution's namesake benefactor, the Smithsonian is funded by both federal appropriations and a private trust. The National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities make up the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities. The National Endowment for the Arts is a major federal source of support for all arts disciplines. Since 1965, it has awarded more than 145,000 grants, which have been distributed to all states. The National Endowment for the Humanities generally supports grants for humanities education, research, preservation, and public humanities programs; creation of regional humanities centers; and development of humanities programs under the jurisdiction of state humanities councils. Since 1965, it has awarded approximately 63,000 grants. It also supports a Challenge Grant program to stimulate and match private donations in support of humanities institutions. FY2020 Appropriations Components of President Trump's Request For FY2020, President Trump requested $32.47 billion for the more than 30 agencies and entities in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. This total included $2.25 billion for certain wildfire suppression activities under an adjustment to discretionary spending limits for FY2020. Budget authority designated for those activities would cause the spending limits to be adjusted, making it effectively not subject to the limits. For the 10 major DOI agencies in Title I of the bill, the request was $11.75 billion, or 36.2% of the $32.47 billion total requested. For EPA, funded in Title II of the bill, the request was $6.22 billion, or 19.2% of the total. For the 23 agencies and other entities currently funded in Title III of the bill, the request was $14.50 billion, or 44.7% of the total. Appropriations for agencies vary widely for reasons relating to the number, breadth, and complexity of agency responsibilities; alternative sources of funding (e.g., mandatory appropriations); and Administration and congressional priorities, among other factors. Thus, although the President's FY2020 request covered more than 30 agencies, funding for a small subset of these agencies accounted for most of the total. For example, the requested appropriations for three agenciesâEPA, Forest Service, and Indian Health Serviceâwere more than half (59.2%) of the total request. Further, more than three-quarters (76.2%) of the request was for these three agencies and two others, National Park Service and Indian Affairs. For DOI agencies, the FY2020 requests ranged from $121.7 million for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement to $2.77 billion for Indian Affairs. The requests for 5 of the 10 agencies exceeded $1 billion. Nearly half (47.0%) of the $11.75 billion requested for DOI agencies was for two agenciesâIndian Affairs ($2.77 billion) and the National Park Service ($2.74 billion). For Related Agencies in Title III, the requested funding levels exhibited even more variation. The President sought amounts ranging from no funding for two entitiesâgrants under National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs and the Women's Suffrage Centennial Commissionâto $7.09 billion for the Forest Service. The Indian Health Service, with a request of $5.91 billion, was the only other agency in Title III for which the President requested more than $1 billion. The next-largest request was for the Smithsonian Institution, at $978.3 million. By contrast, the other 20 Title III entities each had requests of $154.1 million or less, including 12 with requests of less than $11 million each. Figure 2 identifies the share of the President's FY2020 request for particular agencies in the Interior bill. Overview of FY2020 Requested, House-Passed, and Senate-Passed Appropriations Compared with FY2019 Enacted Appropriations For FY2019, the total enacted appropriation for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies was $37.19 billion. This total included $35.61 billion in regular appropriations and $1.58 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster relief. The disaster relief monies were provided to several agencies for various purposes. The FY2019 appropriation did not include a discretionary cap adjustment for wildfire suppression. As noted, for FY2020, the President sought $32.47 billion for agencies in the Interior bill, including $2.25 billion for wildfire suppression under a discretionary cap adjustment. The President's FY2020 request would be $3.14 billion (8.8%) lower than the FY2019 regular enacted appropriation of $35.61 billion and $4.72 billion (12.7%) lower than the FY2019 total appropriation of $37.19 billion. On June 25, 2019, the House passed H.R. 3055 with $39.59 billion (in Division C) for agencies in the Interior bill. This total included $2.25 billion for wildfire suppression under the cap adjustment. The FY2020 House-passed total is higher than the FY2019 enacted total, the FY2020 requested amount, and the FY2020 Senate-passed level. Specifically, the House-passed amount is $2.40 billion (6.4%) higher than the FY2019 total of $37.19 billion in regular and emergency appropriations, $3.98 billion (11.2%) higher than the FY2019 total of $35.61 billion in regular appropriations, $7.12 billion (21.9%) higher than the FY2020 President's request of $32.47 billion, and $1.48 billion (3.9%) higher than the FY2020 Senate-passed amount of $38.11 billion. On October 31, 2019, the Senate passed H.R. 3055 with $38.11 billion (in Division C) for agencies in the Interior bill. This total included $2.25 billion for wildfire suppression under the cap adjustment. The FY2020 Senate-passed total is higher than the FY2019 enacted total and the FY2020 requested amount but lower than the House-passed level. Specifically, the Senate-passed amount is $918.8 million (2.5%) higher than the FY2019 total of $37.19 billion in regular and emergency appropriations, $2.50 billion (7.0%) higher than the FY2019 total of $35.61 billion in regular appropriations, $5.64 billion (17.4%) higher than the FY2020 President's request of $32.47 billion, and $1.48 billion (3.7%) lower than the FY2020 House-passed amount of $39.59 billion. Figure 3 depicts the FY2019 enacted regular and emergency supplemental appropriations, the FY2020 appropriations requested by the President, the FY2020 appropriations passed by the House in H.R. 3055 , and the FY2020 appropriations passed by the Senate in H.R. 3055 . It shows the appropriations contained in each of the three main appropriations titles of the Interior billâTitle I (DOI), Title II (EPA), and Title III (Related Agencies). For FY2019 enacted appropriations, it also depicts the appropriations for EPA in the general provisions in Title IV and the emergency supplemental appropriations for several agencies for disaster relief. Table 1 , at the end of this report, lists the appropriations for each agency that were enacted for FY2019, requested by the President for FY2020, passed by the House for FY2020 in H.R. 3055 , and passed by the Senate for FY2020 in H.R. 3055 . Selected Agencies and Programs28 There are many differences among the FY2019 enacted appropriations and the FY2020 funding requested by the President, passed by the House, and passed by the Senate. Selected agencies and programs are highlighted below, among the many of interest to Members of Congress, stakeholders, and the public. For the selected agencies and programs, the discussions below briefly compare FY2019 total funding (regular and supplemental) with FY2020 levels requested by the Administration, approved by the House in H.R. 3055 , and approved by the Senate in H.R. 3055. Excluding FY2019 emergency supplemental appropriations would result in different comparisons for some of the agencies and programs covered below. Bureau of Land Management The Administration sought $1.19 billion for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for FY2020, a decrease of 11.8% from the FY2019 appropriation ($1.35 billion). The request contained lower funding for the main BLM account, Management of Lands and Resources, and for many programs within the account, including rangeland management, wildlife and aquatic habitat management, resource management planning, and deferred maintenance. However, the Administration requested increases for some programs within the account, including management of coal and renewable energy. The Administration did not seek funding for new land acquisition by BLM (from the Land and Water Conservation Fund [LWCF]), and it proposed an overall rescission to the Land Acquisition account for an account total of -$10.0 million. Other accounts would receive level funding under the Administration's request, including management of Oregon and California Grant Lands. For this account, the President also proposed a budget restructuring. The House-passed bill contained $1.41 billion in BLM appropriations; this would be an increase of 4.9% over FY2019. It would increase funding for the Management of Lands and Resources account and for many programs within the account, such as wild horse and burro management and wildlife and aquatic habitat management. The measure also contained additional appropriations for other accounts relative to FY2019, such as Land Acquisition and Oregon and California Grant Lands. The House did not support the budget restructuring for the latter account as proposed in the President's FY2020 request. With $1.40 billion in FY2020 appropriations, the Senate-passed bill would increase BLM appropriations 4.0% over the FY2019 level. The Senate-passed measure included additional appropriations for the Management of Lands and Resources account and generally would provide level or increased funding for programs within the account. The largest increase within the account ($35.0 million, 43%) would be for wild horse and burro management. For other accounts, the Senate-passed bill generally contained funding level or nearly level to the FY2019 enacted appropriation. The Senate did not support the budget restructuring for the Oregon and California Grant Lands account, as proposed in the President's FY2020 request. Environmental Protection Agency31 For FY2019, EPA received $8.06 billion in Title II of the regular appropriations law and another $791.0 million in Title IV of that law, for an FY2019 regular appropriation of $8.85 billion. In addition, EPA received $414.0 million in emergency supplemental appropriations for FY2019, resulting in an FY2019 total appropriation of $9.26 billion. Relative to total FY2019 appropriations of $9.26 billion, EPA would receive a decrease (32.8%) for FY2020 under the Administration's request of $6.22 billion. The request contained lower funding for most accounts, among them Science and Technology; Environmental Programs and Management (including geographic programs); and State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG), including for categorical grants and capitalization grants to states for wastewater infrastructure projects through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) and for drinking water infrastructure grants to states through the Drinking Water SRF. Only the Buildings and Facilities account would receive an increase under the President's request. EPA would receive $9.53 billion for FY2020 under the House-passed bill, an increase (2.9%) relative to total FY2019 appropriations. Most accounts would receive additional funds over FY2019 total appropriations. However, the STAG account and the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Program would receive less funding under the House-passed bill. The Senate-passed bill contained $9.01 billion for EPA for FY2020, a decrease (2.7%) from the FY2019 total appropriation. Relative to FY2019 total appropriations, some accounts would remain level (e.g., Buildings and Facilities), others would increase (e.g., Environmental Programs and Management), and still others would decrease (e.g., State and Tribal Assistance Grants). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service For the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Administration proposed $1.33 billion for FY2020, a reduction of 20.0% from the FY2019 level ($1.66 billion). The Administration sought to reduce funding for all FWS accounts, for instance for Construction (by 88.5%) and Land Acquisition (by 93.0%, with no new acquisitions funded from LWCF). The Resource Management account would be reduced overall (by 2.7%), but the President proposed increases for some programs, including the National Wildlife Refuge System. Citing "higher priorities," the Administration proposed eliminating discretionary appropriations for two FWS accountsâthe Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund and the National Wildlife Refuge Fund. The House-passed bill would reduce FWS funding by 0.5% relative to the FY2019 enacted appropriation, with Construction reduced as under the President's proposal. However, the measure would increase funding for several accounts. They included Resource Management, with additional funds for ecological services and the National Wildlife Refuge System, among other programs; the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund; and Land Acquisition. The House-passed bill also would retain level funding for the National Wildlife Refuge Fund. The Senate-passed bill would reduce FWS funding by 1.8% from the FY2019 enacted level. Some accounts would decrease, including Construction, Land Acquisition, and the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund. Other accounts would increase, including Resource Management, with additional funds for fish and aquatic conservation and the National Wildlife Refuge System, among other programs. The bill would provide level funding for one accountâthe National Wildlife Refuge Fund. Forest Service For FY2020, the Administration requested $7.09 billion (2.1% more) for the Forest Service (FS) than was enacted for FY2019 ($6.94 billion). Within the overall increase, the President proposed higher funding (15.4%) for Wildland Fire Management, including $1.95 billion under a discretionary cap adjustment for wildfire suppression, as noted. The President sought reduced funding for all other FS accounts, including 47.5% less for State and Private Forestry, 15.4% less for Forest and Rangeland Research, and 5.4% less for the National Forest System. The Administration also sought to eliminate funding for some accounts and programs, including Land Acquisition (from LWCF), the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Fund, and certain cooperative forestry programs such as Forest Legacy. For FY2020, the House-passed bill would provide an increase for FS of 10.1% over FY2019. The measure contained $921.8 million in a new accountâForest Service Operationsâfor costs of administrative support functions, including salaries and expenses of employees, leases for buildings and sites where support functions occur, utilities and telecommunications, business services, and information technology. The House Appropriations Committee recommended this new account to eliminate the use of "cost pools" for these support functions. The six major FS accounts would be correspondingly reduced in FY2020 to exclude costs of support functions, as shown in the committee's report. In part because of the proposed new account, the House-passed bill reflects reductions for FY2020 for three of the major FS accounts (Forest and Rangeland Research, National Forest System, and Capital Improvement and Maintenance). However, the appropriation for each of these three accounts, together with funding for related administrative support purposes in the new account, would appear to total more than the FY2019 appropriation for each major account. The Senate-passed bill would provide FS with an increase of 7.6% over FY2019. The measure contained a new Forest Service Operations account, similar to the House-passed bill, but with $953.8 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee supported this new account for certain costs of salaries and expenses, including those funded by "cost pools," to increase transparency and efficiency of agency spending by distinguishing salaries and expenses from other project costs. Other FS accounts would be reduced in FY2020 to exclude costs of support functions captured by the new account, as reflected in the committee's report. In part because of the proposed new account, the Senate-passed bill reflects reductions for several FS accounts from FY2019 levels. Indian Affairs For several years, instructions accompanying annual appropriations acts had encouraged the Secretary of the Interior to consolidate Indian education functions within the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) and present such reorganization in the subsequent fiscal year budget request. For FY2020, the Administration proposed funding the BIE independently from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and submitted a separate budget justification for each bureau. In FY2019 (and earlier years), Indian education was funded in an account with other Indian programs. In proposing a separate budget structure for BIE, the Administration sought to "strengthen BIE as an independent bureau with a separate budget structure to advance ongoing BIE reforms to improve learning and student outcomes" and to reduce overlapping functions between BIA and BIE to "better deliver services to schools, maximize efficiency, and build capacity within BIE." The Administration's proposed budget restructuring makes comparisons with FY2019 somewhat challenging. The combined FY2020 request of $2.77 billion for both bureaus was 9.9% less than the FY2019 enacted amount ($3.08 billion). Many Indian programs would be funded at lower levels, including human services and natural resources management, although some would be funded at higher levels, such as self-governance compacts. Construction (including construction of educational facilities) was the largest dollar decrease in the budget request ($231.4 million less); funding for education programs also would decline. The House-passed measure supported the Administration's request to establish and fund the BIE separately from the BIA. The House-passed measure contained an overall increase of 14.0% relative to FY2019 funding for Indian Affairs. Many programs and activities would be funded at higher levels as compared with FY2019 enacted amounts, including tribal government, natural resources management, and public safety and justice. Construction (including construction of educational facilities) was the largest dollar increase in the House-passed measure ($174.5 million more), and funding for education programs also would increase. The Senate-passed measure also supported the Administration's request to establish and fund the BIE separately from the BIA. The Senate Appropriations Committee expressed support for this separation "in order to improve the quality of education offered to address the performance gap of student's education at BIE-funded schools." The bill would provide an overall increase of 1.6% over FY2019 funding for Indian Affairs. Many programs and activities would be funded at levels similar to FY2019 enacted amounts, including Indian education. However, some programs would receive additional funds, such as contract support costs (to pay tribes for services provided) and self-governance compacts. Other activities would receive lower funding, such as Indian land and water claim settlements and services under the Indian child welfare act. Indian Health Service Under the Administration's FY2020 request, the Indian Health Service (IHS) would receive $5.91 billion, 1.8% more than the FY2019 appropriation ($5.80 billion). While various programs would receive additional funds, the largest dollar increase would be for hospital and health clinics ($215.9 million). The increase for hospital and health clinics included $25.0 million for an initiative seeking to end the Hepatitis C and HIV/AIDS "epidemic in Indian Country" and $25.0 million for adoption and implementation of a new electronic health record system to improve disease management, patient outcomes, opioid tracking, and other aspects of healthcare. Other programs would be reduced under the Administration's request. For example, the Administration proposed no funding for health education, citing other priorities; cutting funding for the construction of health care facilities (31.9%); and reducing appropriations for community health representatives (61.8%) to begin phasing out the program and replacing it with a National Community Health Aide Program. Funding for contract support costs, which helps tribes pay the costs of administering IHS-funded programs, would be nearly level, reflecting IHS's estimated need at the time of the FY2020 budget submission. The House-passed bill for FY2020 contained an increase of 9.3% over FY2019 appropriations for IHS. The measure included relatively stable or higher funding for most activities. Activities that would receive additional appropriations included clinical services, with the largest dollar increase for hospital and health clinics ($273.2 million, 12.7%), including $25.0 million for the Administration's initiative to end the Hepatitis C and HIV/AIDS epidemic. Other programs that would receive increases included alcohol and substance abuse, urban Indian health services, and Indian health professions. The Indian Health Facilities account would increase by 9.7%, with the largest increase for construction of health care facilities. The House bill retained essentially level funding for health education and community health representatives. As under the President's request, funding for contract support costs would be nearly level, and $25.0 million was included for an electronic health record system. The FY2020 Senate-passed measure contained an increase of 4.1% over FY2019 enacted appropriations. The measure included relatively stable or higher funding for most activities. Clinical services would receive additional funds, with the largest dollar increase for hospital and health clinics ($192.4 million, 9.0%). The Indian Health Facilities account also would be funded over the FY2019 level, with a 2.7% increase. As under the President's request, funding for contract support costs would be nearly level. The Senate bill also retained essentially level funding for health education and community health representatives and would provide $3.0 million for an electronic health record system. Land and Water Conservation Fund LWCF has funded land acquisition for the four main federal land management agencies, a matching grant program to states to support outdoor recreation, and other purposes. For FY2019, a total of $435.0 million was appropriated from the LWCF. For FY2020, the Administration did not seek discretionary appropriations for most programs that received appropriations from the LWCF in FY2019. Further, the Administration proposed an overall rescission to LWCF, for a program total of -$23.5 million due to cancelation of prior-year funds for some program components. In support of this reduction, the President cited higher priorities, a need to focus resources on maintaining existing federal lands rather than acquiring additional ones, and a desire to shift funding for the state grant program to mandatory appropriations, among other reasons. The House-passed bill contained a total of $524.0 million in appropriations from the LWCF, a 20.4% increase over FY2019 total LWCF appropriations. The measure included increases for each of the three main activities for which the LWCF has been usedâland acquisition, the state outdoor recreation grant program, and other purposes. The Senate-passed bill, including $29.0 million in rescissions of prior year funding, would provide total appropriations from the LWCF of about $436 million. The FY2020 Senate level would be roughly level with the FY2019 enacted appropriation. National Park Service For FY2020, the Administration requested $2.74 billion, 18.2% less for the National Park Service (NPS) than the total enacted for FY2019 ($3.35 billion). Within the overall reduction, the President proposed cuts for each NPS account, including the Operation of the National Park System, Construction, and the Historic Preservation Fund, as well as many programs. The President proposed the elimination of discretionary funding for some programs, including grants for National Heritage Areas, grants to states for outdoor recreation, line item acquisitions by the NPS (through LWCF), and the Centennial Challenge Program (a matching grant program to encourage donations). The House and Senate approved relatively level funding for FY2020, with a 0.3% increase in the House-passed bill and a 0.1% increase in the Senate-passed bill over the FY2019 enacted appropriation. Both bills included increases for some accounts and programs but decreases for others. As examples, the bills contained increased funds for the Operation of the National Park System, for programs including resource stewardship, park protection, and facility operations and maintenance, though the House-passed measure had higher funding for the account overall and for each of these three programs. Both bills also contained additional funds for Land Acquisition, for activities including grants to states for outdoor recreation and line item acquisitions by the NPS. In contrast, the House- and Senate-passed measures contained lower than the FY2019 total appropriations for Construction and for the Historic Preservation Fund, for instance. Both bills also retained funding for grants for National Heritage Areas and partnerships under the Centennial Challenge Program. Payments in Lieu of Taxes The President's FY2020 request of $465.0 million would reduce (9.7%) the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Program (PILT) from the FY2019 level ($515.1 million). In the FY2020 budget justification, the Administration asserted that the requested level supports "this important program while balancing Departmental funding priorities in a constrained budget environment. For FY2020, the House- and Senate-passed bills would provide for the full statutory funding level, estimated to be $500.0 million, according to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. PILT compensates counties and local governments for nontaxable lands within their jurisdictions. The authorized level for the program is calculated under a formula that considers various factors and varies from year to year. Reorganization of DOI For FY2020, the Administration requested a total of $25.3 million for reorganization of four DOI agencies funded in the Interior bill, namely BLM, FWS, NPS, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The request would be a 79.4% increase over the FY2019 appropriation ($14.1 million) for reorganization of these agencies and Indian Affairs. Under the FY2020 request, the funds would be used for costs to agencies of transitioning to a new unified regional structure, relocating certain staff and functions, and integrating business operations. The House-passed bill did not specify funding for reorganization. In its report on FY2020 legislation, the House Appropriations Committee stated that its recommended funding did not "provide funds requested within the Department's bureaus for the Department Wide Reorganization." The committee expressed an understanding that DOI had not obligated FY2019 funding or provided to the committee information that had been requested related to the reorganization plan and costs. The Senate-passed bill did not make explicit the extent to which funds were included for DOI reorganization. Smithsonian Institution For FY2020, the Smithsonian Institution (SI) would receive $978.3 million under the Administration's request, a decrease of 6.2% relative to FY2019 enacted appropriations ($1.04 billion). However, the request contained funding at or near the FY2019 level for most SI museums and research institutes (with a 0.9% increase for these entities). It also included additional funds (3.5%) for facilities services, which encompasses maintenance, operation, security, and support. In contrast, the request would decrease (27.8%) the Facilities Capital account, which includes planning, design, and revitalization of facilities. Revitalization involves "making major repairs or replacing declining or failed infrastructure to address the problems of advanced deterioration," according to the SI. Major revitalization projects that would be funded under the President's request involve the National Air and Space Museum (part of a multiyear, multiphase renovation), the National Zoo, and the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, among others. The House approved an increase (2.7%) for SI, with funding at or higher than the FY2019 level for most SI museums and research institutes (with a 3.4% increase for these entities). The House bill also included an additional 29.4% for facilities services, with most of the additional funding directed towards maintenance. The House approved a decrease of 27.8% for the Facilities Capital account, as requested by the Administration. The Senate-passed bill contained an increase (0.4%) for SI, with funding at or near the FY2019 level for most SI museums and research institutes (with a 0.5% increase for these entities). For facilities services, the measure included an increase of 2.6%. The Senate would decrease the Facilities Capital account (2.3%) from the FY2019 level. However, the Senate included more funding in the account for revitalization of the National Air and Space Museum than had been requested by the President or approved by the House for FY2020. U.S. Geological Survey The USGS would receive $983.5 million under the Administration's FY2020 request, a decrease of 21.9% relative to its total FY2019 appropriations of $1.26 billion. It is difficult to compare FY2019 enacted and FY2020 requested funding for the agency's eight major activities. This is in part because the Administration proposed a budget restructuring that would reduce USGS budget activities from eight to seven, by eliminating the land resources mission area. The proposed restructuring also would reorganize some programs under the remaining activities. Goals include consolidating similar programs, improving communication, and enhancing integration of information, among others. The House approved a reduction of 1.8% for USGS for FY2020. Within the overall reduction were decreases from the FY2019 level for four of the major activities, among them natural hazards and facilities. However, the House approved increases for the other four major activities, including land resources and core science systems. The House did not adopt the Administration's proposed budget restructuring. The House Committee on Appropriations contended that it "reduces program and funding transparency." The FY2020 Senate-passed bill contained a 3.9% decrease for USGS relative to FY2019 enacted appropriations. The Senate adopted the Administration's proposed budget restructuring. This makes it difficult to compare the FY2020 Senate-passed appropriations and FY2019 enacted appropriations for major activities. For instance, the Senate's 88.0% increase for core science systems was largely due to the transfer in of funding for national land imaging, which includes the Landsat satellite program. In FY2019, national land imaging was funded under the land resources activity, which would be abolished under the restructuring proposed by the President and supported by the Senate. Wildland Fire Management76 For FY2020, the Administration proposed $6.05 billion in appropriations for Wildland Fire Management (WFM) of DOI and FS, including $2.25 billion under a discretionary cap adjustment for wildfire suppression. Of the $2.25 billion, the cap adjustment would allow for $300.0 million for DOI and $1.95 billion for FS. No similar cap adjustment was in effect for FY2019. The President's request would be a 15.4% increase over the total FY2019 enacted level for DOI and FS ($5.24 billion). More specifically, the FY2020 request would increase appropriations by 29.6% for DOI and by 12.3% for FS, primarily for wildfire suppression. Both the House- and Senate-passed totals included $2.25 billion under a discretionary cap adjustment, as requested by the President. It is difficult to make comparisons between appropriations for Wildland Fire Management in FY2019 and appropriations for FY2020 in the House- and Senate-passed bills. This is because the FY2020 House- and Senate-passed amounts for Wildland Fire Management do not include FS appropriations for certain administrative support functions that were included in the FY2019 enacted level (and in the FY2020 President's request for Wildland Fire Management.)


Introduction This report focuses on selected ground electronic warfare (EW) systems. The Department of Defense (DOD) FY2020 budget requests funding for a number of ground EW systems associated with the Army and the Marine Corps. Generally, ground EW capabilities seek to use the electromagnetic spectrum to achieve one of three battlefield effects. First, ground EW systems can be used to defeat Improvised Explosive Devices (IED). This was the focus of the U.S. military's ground EW programs for the past decade and a half. A second role for ground EW can be to defeat Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS). A third role, largely a legacy from the Cold War, can be to jam enemy communications and radars. An overall issue for Congress is whether to approve, reject, or modify DOD's proposals for ground EW programs. These programs also pose a number of potential oversight issues for Congress. Congress's decisions on these issues could affect future U.S. military capabilities and funding requirements. Potential issues for Congress include balancing EW programs between counter-improvised explosive device missions and great power competition, potentially standardizing how different services approach EW funding, and the role new technologies may play in EW operations. Background EW Overview2 Electronic warfare (EW)âsometimes also called electromagnetic maneuver warfare (EMW) âis an integral component of modern warfare, particularly in operations against technologically sophisticated potential adversaries such as Russia and China. EW generally refers to operations that use the electromagnetic spectrum (i.e., the "airwaves") to detect, listen to, jam, and deceive (or "spoof") enemy radars, radio communication systems and data links, and other electronic systems. EW also refers to operations for defending against enemy attempts to do the same. More formally, DOD defines electronic warfare as "[m]ilitary action involving the use of electromagnetic and directed energy to control the electromagnetic spectrum or to attack the enemy." As shown in Figure 1 , DOD divides EW into electronic warfare support, electronic protection, and electronic attack. Electronic warfare support , sometimes also referred to as electronic support measures (ESM), involves listening to an adversary's radar and radio transmissions in an attempt to detect, locate, and understand how to avoid, jam, or deceive those systems. Electronic protection involves limiting the electromagnetic signatures of one's own military equipment and hardening one's own military equipment against the effects of enemy EW operations. Electronic attack (EA) involves jamming and deceiving enemy radars and radio communications and data links. Developing ever-better EW systems is a component of the competition in military capabilities between major military powers. Because EW programs tend to be classified and are sometimes related to intelligence systems and capabilities, these systems are not frequently discussed publicly in much detail. Ground EW systems provide EW support, electronic protection, and electronic attack. For instance, the Marine Corps' Mobile Electronic Warfare Support System categorizes enemy radio signals. Many of the counter-improvised explosive device countermeasures serve in both a protection and attack role by emitting a signal to jam radio communications to "attack" communications while protecting soldiers and marines. Counter-unmanned aerial systems provide a similar function for drones. U.S. Military Ground EW Programs Counter-Improvised Explosive Device (C-IED) In the immediate post-Cold War era, electronic warfare gained prominence as a potential way to mitigate threats from improvised explosive devices (IEDs). During counter-insurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. and allied ground forces suffered many casualties from IEDs. To detonate IEDs, insurgents learned to use cell phones, small two-way radios, and other basic radio communications to maximize the amount of damage. One C-IED method the DOD developed was for EW systems to jam IED communications radio frequencies to prevent them from detonating. From FY2006 through FY2011, the Joint IED Defeat Organization received $18 billion to develop C-IED technologies, including electronic warfare systems. These C-IED techniques included the development of a "man-portable" platform (see Figure 2 ), which supports U.S. forces on foot patrol, without the protection of a vehicle. However, due to power constraints, these types of C-IEDs provide jamming in a limited area; the jammers use batteries that are heavy and must be carried. DOD also procured C-IED jamming systems for vehicles, such as the Duke Version 3 system ( Figure 3 ), which can be installed on nearly any vehicle, though typically it is installed on the Humvee or the Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle. Although these vehicular-based C-IED jammers are more powerful, because they draw power from the vehicle's engine, they are not able to accompany ground forces into buildings or in constricted areas such as alleyways. Thus ground forces require both systems, for mounted (travelling by vehicle) and dismounted (travelling by foot) operations. Counter-Unmanned Aerial Systems (C-UAS) The emergence of unmanned aerial systems (UAS), more commonly called drones, has created unique challenges for U.S. military forces. Both state and nonstate actors have employed drones for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) and certain strike capabilities (particularly large UAS platforms such as the MQ-9 Reaper for U.S. allies or the Wing Loong II developed by the People's Republic of China). Most UAS systems use radio frequencies to operate. Adversaries have used UAS to support ground operations in recent years. The Islamic State (IS, also known as Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)) modified commercial drones to perform reconnaissance and drop small explosives, such as hand-grenades and mortars, on unsuspecting personnel. The Russian military demonstrated its ability to pair EW drones with artillery fire, with devastating effects. According to U.S. intelligence sources, Russian forces used a single drone to provide intelligence for an artillery fire mission in July 2014 that resulted in the destruction of two Ukrainian battalions within minutes. Emerging concepts like "swarming," where many small drones work together to accomplish a task, are also being developed. In 2015, IS demonstrated swarming tactics to attack a Russian airbase in Syriaâthough it is unclear how effective these swarming tactics were against Russian forces. As a result, DOD has developed EW techniques to deny potential adversaries the ability to use drone aircraft. These counter-UAS systems are divided into two categories: systems that detect UAS, and systems that interdict UAS systems kinetically or nonkinetically. Some counter-UAS systems are capable of both detection and attack. According to one analyst, as of February 2018 there were 235 counter-UAS products from 155 manufacturers. These counter-UAS products range from hand-held devices that can jam radio and global positioning system (GPS) signals for point defense (see Figure 4 ) to larger, ground-based systems that can defend larger areas (see Figure 5 ). The latest generation of counter-UASs by the Army and Marine Corps are being developed to destroy targets using directed energy such as lasers. The Army has recently developed vehicle-mounted lasers capable of engaging UAS. In 2018, the Army tested the Mobile Expeditionary High Energy Laser (MEHEL), a 5 kilowatt (kW) laser, which is placed on a Stryker-armored vehicle (see Figure 6 ). This laser has demonstrated being capable of destroying small drones in flight. The Army is planning to test a more powerful 10kW laser, and anticipates upgrading to a 50 kW laser, capable of destroying rockets, artillery, and mortars, by 2022. The Army plans to translate these technology demonstrators into future air defense systems by the mid-2020s. However, several challenges remain for the Army to field laser technologies. The first challenge is to develop a sufficient energy source that can fit into relatively small spaces. Some of the first lasers required a large power source housed in a semi-truck trailerâa power system too large to be practical for operational forces. The second challenge is providing sufficient power so that a laser beam can travel long distance. Light quickly diffuses in the atmosphere, thereby limiting the range of the system, particularly for lower-powered lasers. Similarly to the Army, the Marine Corps is developing its own counter-UAS systems through the ground-based air defense (GBAD) program. In June 2019, the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab announced the first laser-approved operations, named the Compact Laser Weapons System (CLaWS) (see Figure 7 ). According to the Marine Corps, the CLaWS program is a rapid prototyping effort to provide an affordable solution for the C-UAS challenge. The Marine Corps is also procuring the Marine Air Defense Integrated System (MADIS) as part of its GBAD future weapons system. MADIS is a C-UAS system designed to be integrated onto the Joint Tactical Light Vehicle. In the FY2020 budget request, the Marines requested procurement funding to integrate 28 MADIS systems into the service's vehicle fleet. Communications Jamming Advances in networking sensors and computing power have made using the electromagnetic spectrum for communications an important task in any military operation. These networks allow a military to develop a comprehensive picture of the battlespace and enable forces to effectively coordinate attacks. Disrupting an enemy's communications systems limits their ability to command forces and maintain battlespace awareness. Both the Army and the Marine Corps have developed several programs to deny potential adversaries access to their communications networks. The Army's primary communications jammer is the EW tactical vehicle (EWTV), a modified mine-resistant ambush protected vehicle that incorporates a variant of the CREW Duke system (see Figure 8 ). According to the Army, the EWTV was "developed to provide Army EW Teams with the ability to sense and jam enemy communications and networks from an operationally relevant range at the brigade combat team level." The Army states that the EWTV is designed to provide electronic attack capabilities for brigade combat teams. To manage electronic attack and electronic support capabilities, the Army uses the EW planning and management tool (EWPMT). This system is often installed between the antennae and radio transceiver. The EWPMT allows operators to neutralize and exploit enemy signals through a computer program called Raven Claw. The software gives EW commanders a comprehensive view of the electromagnetic spectrum, allowing them to detect and jam enemy communications systems and radars. Marine Corps radio battalions primarily employ the Communication Emitter Sensing and Attack System (CESAS) II to jam communications systems. According to a project officer, the CESAS II "has the ability to operate in a larger frequency range, covering a much larger portion of the communications spectrum [high frequency, very high frequency, and ultra high frequency]." CESAS II comes in two variants: a vehicle-transportable version (see Figure 9 ) and a man-portable system. According to Marine Corps Systems Command, CESAS II reduces the weight of the vehicle jammer from 1,300 pounds to 670 pounds; the man-portable version weighs 180 pounds. The Marine Corps declared initial operational capability in July 2016 and plans to declare full operational capability in FY2021. The AN/MLQ-36 Mobile Electronic Warfare Support System (MEWSS) is another vehicle the Marine Corps uses to jam communications and other electronic transmissionsâsuch as radar. The Marine Corps fields 12 MEWSSs, which are modified light-armored vehicles procured in 1987. The MEWSS has received a series of upgrades, including a program called the MEWSS Product Improvement Program, which added a 9-meter extendable mast. EW in the Current Strategic Environment During the Cold War, competition in EW capabilities was an ongoing and significant component of the overall competition in military capabilities between the U.S.-led NATO alliance and the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact alliance. The end of the Cold War and the shift in the early 1990s to the post-Cold War eraâa period that featured reduced tensions between major powers and a strong U.S. military emphasis on countering terrorist and insurgent organizationsâmay have led to a reduced emphasis in U.S. defense plans and programs involving EW related to so-called high-end warfare, meaning high-intensity warfare against technologically sophisticated adversaries. The perceived shift in the international security environment from the post-Cold War era to an era of renewed great power competition has led to a renewed focus on EW in U.S. defense planning and programming. In particular, U.S. defense planning has focused on aspects of EW related to high-end warfare, and to concerns among some observers that the United States needs to strengthen its EW capabilities as part of its overall effort to preserve U.S. qualitative military superiority over potential adversaries such as Russia and China. China and Russia have developed sophisticated anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) systems to deny U.S. military forces many advantages; Chinese and Russian EW systems are considered A2/AD systems that deny the U.S military access to their communication and command and control. DOD notes that Russia has emphasized EW in its military modernization effort. Russia reportedly has employed EW as part of its military operations in Ukraine and Syria. DOD similarly states that China recognizes the importance of EW in modern military operations and is developing its EW capabilities as an integral part of its broad-based military modernization effort. China encouraged greater integration between its civil and military technological and industrial bases, which may enable its EW capabilities to benefit from the sophistication of its extensive civilian electronics industry. Overview of Russian EW Capabilities and Operations For more than a decade, the Russian military has focused on modernizing its forces, with a particular emphasis on command, control, communications, and computers (C4) and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) systems, of which EW plays an important part. According to military analyst Robert McDermott, the Russian military views electronic warfare as a "type of armed struggle using electronic means against enemy C4ISR to 'change the quality of information,' or using electronic means against various assets to change the condition of the operational environment." McDermott describes a close relationship between Russian signals intelligence forces and EW forces, where several EW units perform signals intelligence (SIGINT) functionsâsimilar to U.S. ground force organizations such as the Marine Corps' Radio Battalions. What distinguishes Russian EW organizations, he claims, is also a close relationship with air defense and artillery. According to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the Russian military first tested its military modernization efforts in the Georgian war in 2008. DIA notes that "Russian military limitations were fully on display during the August 2008 "five-day war" with Georgia. Russian forces prevailed and defeated their relatively weak Georgian opponents, but after-action analysis by the Russian military highlighted many failings." Based on this operational experience, Russian forces began instituting what is termed the "New Look Program." According to the DIA, [p]artially-manned Soviet-style divisions were reorganized into what were planned to be fully-manned brigades; officer ranks were trimmed from 350,000 billets to initially 150,000, although later the number rose to 220,000; the contract manning effort was reshaped and reinvigorated, with a goal of 425,000 professional enlisted personnel in the force by 2017; the six extant military districts were reshaped initially into four joint strategic commands, which controlled all military assets in their areas in peace and war; and lastly, a massive state armaments program was initiated, allocating 1.1 trillion rubles over 10 years, aiming at fielding a Russian military with 70% new or modernized equipment by 2020. Investments in EW, through the New Look Program, have been significant. Since 2008, Russian military forces have continued to transform EW capabilities and organizations. There are some clues in the many statements by the defence ministry and senior EW officers that indicate the modernisation of EW is based on examining how such capability has been exploited by the US and NATO in military operations over the past two decades. There also appears to be some influence based on US Prompt Global Strike and developments in US and NATO high-precision weapons that is pushing the defence ministry to plan for countering these. At the outset, despite the opaque nature of the overall aims of the procurement processes, one statement that stands out is from the leadership of KRET, aware of the underlying drivers behind the need for modern EW systems in Russia's military. Indeed, by November 2016, the First Deputy General Director of KRET, Vladimir Mikheyev, referred to the "National Strategic EW System" as an "asymmetric response to the network centric system of combat operations" on the Murmansk -BN as a key part of the subsystem. The Murmansk -BN has a reported range of 5,000 km, is deployed on seven trucks, and monitors activity on airwaves, intercepting enemy signals with a broad jamming capability; it uses 32-metre-high antennas and has been deployed in Crimea. Mikheyev said the creation of the Russian EW strategic system can be called the "implementation of a network centric defence concept". Additionally, Russian forces have begun introducing EW forces into their main combat arms organizations. Both McDermott and the DIA indicate that each motorized brigade has at least one electronic warfare companyânumbering more than 100 personnelâto provide desired tactical effects (as depicted in Figure 11 ). Appendix A provides an overview of the organization and types of equipment these EW companies use. Overview of Chinese EW Capabilities China has also seen a similar progression in EW capabilities over the past decade. Most defense analysts focus on Chinese aviation, maritime, and anti-space capabilities; however, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) has developed highly capable systems in the ground domain. China has developed a concept of "informationized warfare," which attempts to gain an advantage in information through robust ISR networks, while attempting to deny adversaries access to informationâthus preventing them the ability to command and control forces. To accomplish this goal, the PLA organizes EW functions in a new command called the Strategic Support Force, which includes cyber, psychological, information, and space forces. Most of the focus on Chinese EW operations has been on air, maritime, and the space domains. However, China has developed sophisticated capabilities to counter U.S. forces on the ground as well. According to Jane's Defence Weekly, China has invested substantial resources into science and technology initiatives focused on improving its network and electronic warfare capabilities. These investments include ground-based sensors and jammers, space-based intelligence assets, and a number of airborne jammers. China has also invested in many unmanned systems that can swarm to provide desired effects, including signals intelligence interceptions and electronic attack. Potential Issues for Congress Balance of Ground EW Capabilities . A potential oversight issue for Congress is the balance of EW capabilities the Army and Marine Corps are fielding and plan to procure. During the height of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, EW programming was weighted toward counter-IED programs rather than on countering great power competition. Although U.S. military forces continue to operate in high-threat IED areasâas illustrated by recent casualties in Afghanistanâthese programs do not necessarily provide the necessary protection against potential Russian or Chinese weapons systems. Both services have acknowledged that they require new investments to support command and control in an electromagnetically contested environment. Congress may review how both the Marine Corps and Army allocate resources to counter the IED threat, while working to ensure that ground services are prepared to counter emerging threats. Part of the capabilities balance is overlapping programs between the Army and Marine Corps. As both the Army and Marine Corps have EW programs with similar functions. For instance, both services are developing competing C-UAS programsâthe Army MEHL and the Marine Corps CLaWSâthat appear to have similar capabilities. C-IED programs, on the other hand, are joint programs in which one service develops a solution that other services can procure (thus all DOD services use the same programs which can have efficiencies for sustainment). Congress may examine if it is worthwhile for the Army and Marine Corps to develop competing programs, or if funding competing programs allows technology research and development (R&D) to make greater progress. Funding of Programs . Funding for EW systems can be difficult to track due to the complexity and classification of EW programs. One challenge associated with ground EW funding is that both the Army and the Marine Corps use research and development appropriations to potentially fund procurement activities due to the relatively fast-paced changes to electronic components. A second, but related, challenge is tracking EW programs when they transition from development to procurement. Part of the challenge is that the procurement activities for EW systems can be relatively small compared with larger weapons systems. As a result, DOD procurement activities do not necessarily disclose these components from the larger acquisition, making it difficult to track both a breakout of EW components associated with larger systems (e.g., the M1 Abrams main battle tank) and the total dollar figure associated with EW procurement activities for the Army and Marine Corps. The Marine Corps and the Army use different funding policies to maintain EW programs. Many of the Army's EW capabilities, as either demonstrators or prototypes, receive R&D funding. As a result, funding for these programs is generally seen as inconsistent and lacking plans for sustainment. The Marine Corps' programs, on the other hand, are programs of record, receiving both R&D and procurement funding. By making these systems programs, the Marine Corps seeks to provide predictable funding for systems over long periods of time. However, these systems are developed through the acquisition system and therefore might not be at the forefront of technological advances. Emerging Technologies . Emerging technologies may change how the Army and Marine Corps conduct EW. Some experts argue that advances in electronics are already changing how ground forces perform electronic warfare, particularly with continuously improving active electronically scanned arrays and new software defined radios. Some argue that these advances in electronics, paired with artificial intelligence, could allow for some automated decision making. These algorithms could help manage the electromagnetic spectrum by making spectrum allocation decisions, determine when adversaries are jamming (or denying) a frequency band, and automatically develop a jamming plan to deny adversaries access by looking at trends in their electronic emissions. Artificial intelligence algorithms could also enable EW systems to locate and engage small unmanned aerial systems by using data sources to help identify radar contacts (versus environmental clutter from clouds or animals) and electronic emissions. Neither the Army nor the Marine Corps have publicly stated that they plan to use artificial intelligence for managing electromagnetic spectrum operations or electronic warfare. New materials are changing the size, weight, power, and cooling of electronics components and power supplies. Electronics are smaller and require less power, and therefore smaller batteries. These new electronics emit less heat because of their reduced consumption of energy, requiring less cooling to maintain ideal temperatures, further reducing energy consumption. Battery technology is improving energy density. These designs provide similar electrical power outputs while reducing their size and weight, making it easier to develop man-portable electronics (such as the Thor C-IED system and the CESAS II jammer). Furthermore, advances in electronics allow for new waveforms using advanced electronically scanned array (AESA) antennas and other designs. As new materials emerge, DOD may request additional funding to upgrade EW systems and potentially procure AESA technology to more effectively jam enemy communications and radar systems. Quantum technologies could potentially change electronic warfare. Emerging developments in quantum communications and quantum radars will likely change how the military communicates and observes enemies. Quantum technologies will likely have an impact on EW; however, the exact impact they will have on executing EW operations remains unclear. Appendix A. Russian EW Company Equipment