Introduction Congress has long been interested in the status of indigenous peoples abroad. In 1992, the 102 nd Congress enacted H.R. 5368 ( P.L. 102-391 ) requiring the State Department's annual human rights report to "describe the extent to which indigenous people are able to participate in decisions affecting their lands, cultures, traditions and the a llocation of natural resources, and assess the extent of protection of their civil and political rights." Issues relating to indigenous peoples periodically have been considered in hearings focused on such issues as environmental protection, energy opportunities, and security cooperation. This report provides statistical information on indigenous peoples in Latin America, including populations and languages, socioeconomic data, land and natural resources, human rights, and international legal conventions. Resource lists for each section (languages; socioeconomics; land and resources; international organizations; and human rights) are available in the tables of Appendix A . Table B-1 lists national agencies that oversee indigenous affairs in each country. Terms Definitions of indigenous peoples vary. The United Nations (U.N.) has not adopted an official definition, but instead relies on self-identification to categorize indigenous populations around the world; many countries do the same. However, the U.N. web page dedicated to indigenous peoples does state "indigenous peoples are inheritors and practitioners of unique cultures and ways of relating to people and the environment. They have retained social, cultural, economic and political characteristics that are distinct from those of the dominant societies in which they live." The annex of the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states "indigenous peoples have suffered from historic injustices as a result of, inter alia , their colonization and dispossession of their lands, territories and resources." The Organization of American States' (OAS) American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples repeats the U.N. Declaration language and adds "indigenous peoples are original, diverse societies with their own identities that constitute an integral part of the Americas." According to OAS estimates, there are more than 50 million people of indigenous descent in the Western hemisphere. This report examines those living in Latin American and the Caribbean. According to the Manual for National Human Rights Institutions that accompanied the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, "indigenous peoples have argued against the adoption of a formal definition at the international level, stressing the need for flexibility and for respecting the desire and the right of each indigenous people to define themselves.â¦ As a consequence, no formal definition has been adopted in international law. A strict definition is seen as unnecessary and undesirable." In counting distinct groups, this report uses the term "indigenous groups" rather than "tribe," "nation," "ethnic minority," or "sociolinguistic group." A 2019 United Nations report included sections titled "the need for disaggregated data" and "the persistent invisibility of indigenous peoples" to address data limitations regarding indigenous people around the globe. However, the report notes progress in Latin America: "only two censuses included self-identification criteria in the 1990 round, but by the 2010 round such criteria were present in 21 of them." Despite some advances, the sources cited in this report contain data limitations, which are discussed in Appendix A . The countries listed in each table or graph may differ from others in this report based on the information available in the sources. Population Data Latin America is home to 29-45 million indigenous people according to several studies that provided estimates for around 2010. The World Bank stated in a report that "official data on indigenous people are not conclusive, as many technical and sociological difficulties persist in census data collection. Other sources based on estimates and unofficial data refer to 50 million indigenous inhabitants in Latin America (about 10 percent of the total population). For this report, however, we will refer to the officialâalbeit imperfectânumbers provided by the national censuses [41.81 million]." Figure 1 illustrates the total number of indigenous people and their share of the total population according to three sources: a 2009 UNICEF report, a 2015 report from the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), and a 2015 World Bank Report. Census projections forecast indigenous population increases in many countries in part due to populations that are younger on average than non-indigenous populations and in part due to an increase in self-identification. Table 1 shows a breakdown by country of indigenous populations and their share of the overall population. CRS created the following tables from several sources; publication dates and methodologies differed. The countries listed in each table may differ from others in this report based on the information available in the sources. Figure 2 illustrates the range of estimates regarding the indigenous population as a percentage of the general population in each country. Bolivia's steep decrease in the indigenous population reflects "reasons that probably have more to do with discrepancies in how the data were collected between the last two censuses than with a real trend to negative growth," according to the World Bank. More generally, differences in data collection between censuses and across countries make it difficult to estimate population increases. Indigenous Groups and Languages To raise awareness and mobilize action, the U.N. declared 2019 the International Year of Indigenous Languages, yet figures on indigenous groups and languages vary among sources. Figure 3 shows the total number of indigenous groups in Latin America as identified by three sources. A 2009 UNICEF report identified a total of 655 indigenous groups in Latin America. The 2014 ECLAC report cites 826 indigenous groups in Latin America although it does not provide a country breakdown. Of these 826, about 200 indigenous groups live in voluntary isolation, which is defined by an Inter-American Commission on Human Rights report as groups that "do not maintain sustained contacts with the majority non-indigenous population." The World Bank's 2015 report identifies 772 indigenous groups in Latin America. According to several sources, indigenous languages number fewer than the number of indigenous groups across the region (see Figure 4 ). The 2015 World Bank report found 558 indigenous languages across 20 countries of Latin America, while a 2009 UNICEF report found 551 languages across the same 20 countries. Of these 551, the latter report found that 111 languages are vulnerable to extinction although five (Quechua, Nahuatl, Aymara, Yucatan Maya, and Ki'che') had over a million speakers each. In 2019, the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL International) reported 880 indigenous languages are spoken across the same 20 Latin American countries. Table 2 shows a breakdown of Latin America's indigenous groups and languages by country according to two sources. CRS created the table from several sources; publication dates and methodologies differed. The countries listed in each table may differ from others in this report based on the information available in the sources. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately 15,000-19,000 indigenous language speakers from Latin America reside in the United States. Additional resources about indigenous groups and languages can be found in Table A-1 . Socioeconomic Data In a 2015 publication, the World Bank found that 43% of indigenous people in Latin America are poor (living on less than $5.50 a day in 2011 purchasing power parity prices or PPP), and 24% are extremely poor (living on less than $1.90 a day in 2011 PPP prices), more than twice the rates for non-indigenous people. The report also documented education gaps were across the region. Drawing from another World Bank resource, Figure 5 compares rates of indigenous peoples living on less than $5.50 a day compared to the general population in select countries of Central and South America. The World Bank provides statistics on access to various services and opportunities for indigenous peoples in select countries of Central and South America, last updated in October 2018. The following graphs compare indigenous rates of access to these amenities compared with the general population rates by country ( Figure 6 , electricity; Figure 7 , internet; Figure 8 , home ownership; Figure 9 , sewage; and Figure 10 , water). The World Bank also provides labor and education statistics for indigenous peoples in select countries of Central and South America, last updated in October 2018. The following graphs compare indigenous rates compared with general population rates by country ( Figure 11 , literacy; Figure 12 , school attendance; Figure 13 , unemployment; and Figure 14 , low-skill and high-skill employment). In the appendix, Table A-2 lists resources relating to the socioeconomic standing of indigenous peoples in Latin America. Land and Natural Resources A 2017 World Resources Institute (WRI) report states "the precise amount of communal land is not known, but many experts argue that at least half of the world's land is held by Indigenous Peoples and other communities. Some estimates are as high as 65 percent or more of the global land area." The WRI goes on to specify that "globally, Indigenous Peoples and local communities have formal legal ownership of 10 percent of the land, and have some degree of government-recognized management rights over an additional 8 percent." The United Nations' Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean's (ECLAC) 2014 report Guaranteeing indigenous people's rights in Latin America: Progress in the past decade and remaining challenges states that "over the past decade, booming international demand for primary goods (minerals, hydrocarbons, soybeans and other agricultural commodities) has boosted economic growth in the countries of Latin America but has had its cost in the form of a growing number of environmental, social and ethnic conflicts involving extractive industries located in or near indigenous territories." According a 2012 Forest Peoples Programme global report, "[A]n estimated 350 million people live inside or close to dense forests, largely dependent on these areas for subsistence and income, while an estimated range of 60 million to 200 million indigenous people are almost wholly dependent on forests." For the region of Mexico, Central and South America, the report estimates 42-48 million indigenous peoples and 21-26 million forest peoples. Some but not all indigenous peoples are also forest peoples. Some countries did not have population figures for forest people. A 2018 Science article classifies drivers of global tree cover loss using satellite imagery. In Latin America, deforestation accounts for over half of the tree cover loss, shifting agriculture about a third, and, to a smaller degree, forestry, wildfire, and urbanization. In the 2015 report Indigenous Peoples, Communities of African Descent, Extractive Industries , the IACHR wrote that "through the implementation of its monitoring mechanisms, the Commission has consistently received information evidencing the human, social, health, cultural and environmental impacts of [extraction, exploitation, and development activities concerning natural resources] on indigenous peoples and Afrodescendent communities. Many extractive and development activities in the hemisphere are implemented in lands and territories historically occupied by indigenous and Afro-descendent communities, which often coincide with areas hosting a great wealth of natural resources." Table A-3 lists resources about indigenous peoples' lands and natural resources in Latin America. While the titles may not exclusively focus on indigenous peoples, the industries' impact on indigenous people is a part of the analysis of each resource. Human Rights and Multilateral Instruments Various international human rights mechanisms protect the rights of indigenous peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean. Table 3 identifies those countries that have ratified or voted in favor of the following three multilateral instruments on indigenous peoples' rights: International Labor Organization's Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169). 26 The convention includes sections on land; recruitment and conditions of employment; vocational training, handicrafts and rural industries; and social security and health; education and means of communication. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). 27 The 2007 declaration covers such topics as self-determination or autonomy; land and environment; employment; religion; language and media; education; discrimination and violence; and health. American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (ADRIP). 28 The 2016 declaration approved by the Organization of American States includes sections on human and collective rights; cultural identity; organizational and political rights; and social, economic and property rights. The United Nations has a Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and in 2001 created the Special Rapporteurship on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which promote the rights of indigenous peoples across the globe. In 1990, the Organization of American States created the Rapporteurship on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to promote the rights of indigenous peoples throughout the Western Hemisphere. Table A-4 provides additional resources about the work of international organizations with indigenous peoples. In a 2000 report, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) wrote "concern for the human rights of indigenous peoples and their members has been a constant feature in the work of the Commission." The IACHR has tracked its work involving indigenous peoples. It hosts multiple sessions per year to hold hearings regarding human rights issues affecting a particular country or subregion of the Western Hemisphere. One of the categories for hearings is the rights of indigenous peoples. Table 4 shows the number of IACHR hearings by country involving indigenous peoples' rights. It also shows the number of Inter-American Court of Human Rights cases brought by indigenous peoples against countries. In the appendix, Table A-5 lists publications that document various human rights issues confronting indigenous peoples. CRS also publishes a number of reports with country-specific information on indigenous peoples' human rights issues. Appendix A. Data Sources and Resources Lists The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and FundaciÃ³n para la EducaciÃ³n en Contextos de MultilingÃ¼ismo y Pluriculturalidad (the Foundation for Education in Multilingual and Multicultural Contexts or FUNPROEIB) gathered data in 21 Latin American and Caribbean countries in 2009 for its report in two volumes titled Atlas SociolingÃ¼Ãstico de Pueblos IndÃgenas en AmÃ©rica Latina . The report notes the limitations of using national censuses. In 2014, the United Nations' Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) gathered population data from 17 Latin American countries using national censuses for Guaranteeing Indigenous People's Rights in Latin America: Progress in the past Decade and Remaining Challenges . The report notes that most countries ask people to self-identify as indigenous with the exception of Peru, which asks people if they speak an indigenous language. In 2015, the World Bank gathered data in 16 countries using national censuses and household survey data in order to publish Indigenous Latin America in the Twenty-First Century: the First Decade . The report notes that the definition of who is indigenous has become increasingly controversial and "underscores the complexity of identifying indigenous people across the region and argues that the conditions of indigeneity vary over time and are, in some cases, context- and country-specific." The current edition of Ethnologue documents language counts for each country and divides them into indigenous and non-indigenous categories. Indigenous languages figures were used in Table 2 as non-indigenous is defined as "a language that did not originate in the country, but which is now established there either as a result of its longstanding presence or because of institutionally supported use and recognition." Only living languages were included in the count, not languages classified as extinct. Ethnologue's "about" section provides details on the methodology, language names, and status of usage. The World Bank's Latin America and Caribbean Equity Lab provides data on poverty, access to services, education and labor (last updated in October 2018). The World Bank notes that ethnic identity is based on self-reported data. Statistics may vary from official statistics reported by governments as the World Bank uses SEDLAC, "a regional data harmonization effort that increases cross-country comparability." The web page of the Inter-American Commission's Human Rights Rapporteurship on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples provides detailed information on hearings and court cases related to indigenous peoples' rights. The data on drivers of forest loss in Latin America are from: Philip G. Curtis, Christy M. Slay, Nancy L. Harris, Alexandra Tyukavina, Matthew C. Hansen, "Classifying drivers of global forest loss," Science , Vol. 361, Issue 6407, pp. 1108-1111, September 14, 2018, at https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6407/1108 . There are multiple methodologies for each driver of forest loss using map-based estimates and sample-based estimates. For each table below, sources are listed in reverse chronological order with the year in parentheses following the title. Multiple sources from the same year are listed alphabetically as are sources without a publication date, such as websites. Some sources are global, with a section dedicated to Latin America. Appendix B. National Agencies of Indigenous Affairs


Introduction Congress has shown an interest in the Department of Defense's (DOD's) electronic warfare (EW) portfolio, requiring an independent assessment of EW plans and programs in the FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This report addresses U.S. military EW funding across research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) and procurement appropriations. Using the FY2019 through FY2021 budget request documents, this analysis compares funding profiles between fiscal years, as well as projected funding across the future years defense program (FYDP). Using unclassified sources, CRS estimates that DOD seeks to invest approximately $9.7 billion in FY2021 funding for EW programs. Discussion of specific EW-related programs, as well as an overview of electronic warfare, are outside the scope of this report. The following analysis looks at EW funding identified by the DOD's EW Executive Commission (EW EXCOM). The EW EXCOM identified a series of RDT&E program elements from three of the military services (Air Force, Army and Navy), as well as several defense agencies (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Defense Information Systems Agency, the Joint Staff, Office of the Secretary of Defense Operational Test and Evaluation, and U.S. Special Operations Command). Using the program elements identified, this analysis extrapolates procurement funding to provide an overview of DOD investments in electronic warfare in FY2019 and FY2020 and requested investments in FY2021. EW in Support of the National Defense Strategy Over the past two decades, China and Russia have seen U.S. military command and control, intelligence surveillance, and reconnaissance (C2ISR) networks as a critical capability that they must develop capabilities against which to effectively compete. Both countries, as a result, have invested heavily in EW-related systems. According to one analyst, the Russian military views electronic warfare as a "type of armed struggle using electronic means against enemy C4ISR [command, control, communications, computers] to 'change the quality of information,' or using electronic means against various assets to change the condition of the operational environment." Similarly, China has developed sophisticated EW capabilities to disrupt and deny adversary access to command and control systemsâparticularly space-based systems. Not only has the Chinese military been developing new systems, but it routinely exercises with them. In its most recent annual report to Congress, DOD documented at least four major exercises the People's Liberation Army used to test and demonstrate their capabilities. The National Defense Strategy Commission , an independent Congressional commission charged with evaluating the DOD's National Defense Strategy, identified EW as a critical capability to achieve the goals of the National Defense Strategy. Similarly, in its FY2019 through FY202 1 Defense Budget Overview request documents, DOD identified EW as a priority to improve platform and network survivability; provide advanced jamming techniques to disrupt radars, communications, and command and control systems; and provide measures to defend the space domain and maintain power projection forces. Methodology The Executive Branch and the Congress have placed a higher priority on EW programs in recent years. In 2015, the Deputy Secretary of Defense established the EW EXCOM âco-chaired by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (USD A&S) and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffâto identify emerging EW technologies. The FY2017 NDAA required the EW EXCOM to develop an EW Strategy. In its strategy, the EW EXCOM identified program elements and projects with EW facets in each of the services' and Defense-wide Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) appropriations. It did not, however, identify procurement lines due to complexity and classification issues . Furthermore, some program elements the EXCOM identified might not clearly refer to EW capabilities, like DARPA's Electronics Technology. Other program elements that support EW operations, however, such as the Navy's E-2D Hawkeye, are not included in the EXCOM's program list. With these methodological limitations, this report treats the EW EXCOM's list of 65 program elements and projects as encompassing DOD EW programs. The following analysis compares the FY2019 budget request for these programs with the FY2020 and FY2021 requests. The analysis includes funding for the Army, Navy, Air Force, DARPA, Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), the Joint Staff, Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), Operational Test and Evaluation (OT&E), and Special Operations Command (SOCOM), using program elements identified by EXCOM in its strategy document, which are aggregated at the department or agency level. The FY2021 request includes Space Force programs, which had been part of the Air Force request in prior years. Though the EW EXCOM did not identify EW procurement programs, DOD procurement justification documents (P-40s) identify related research and development program elements. Using the Defense Technical Information Center investment budget search tool, this analysis identified the associated EW procurement programsâ28 in FY2019, 36 in FY2020, and 33 in FY2021. Some research and development effortsâsuch as the F/A-18 Hornet fighter jet and MQ-9 Reaper droneâdid not differentiate funding for EW-specific procurement and therefore included procurement for aircraft. These procurements were excluded so as not to artificially inflate the funding profile. Based on the RDT&E profiles and program element searches, CRS did not identify DISA, Joint Staff, OSD, and DARPA programs with procurement appropriations. DOD has stated that it has prioritized EW funding above other programs. This report compares funding requests between the three fiscal years to assess if DOD seeks to increase funding of the EW portfolio (by increasing funding), decrease funding, or keep the portfolio relatively unchanged. To assess these changes, the percentage change from FY2019 to FY2020 is calculated for each appropriations category, and then compared to an overall DOD percentage change. EW Research and Development Funding FY2019 RDT&E Funding Table 1 , above, provides an overview of the FY2019 EW RDT&E funding request, FY2019-enacted funding, and projected funding for EW program elements in each of the departments and agencies. The FY2019 request serves as a baseline to compare how DOD changed its funding priorities for FY2020. Of note, DOD requested $5.53 billion in EW RDT&E for FY2019 and planned on spending approximately $24.5 billion across the FYDP. The Navy requested the most funding in FY2019 ($2.44 billion), followed by the Air Force ($1.14 billion), the Army ($859.7 million), DARPA ($740 million), and other organizations ($341 million). EW funding was anticipated to peak in FY2019 then curtail through FY2022, followed by a slight increase in FY2023. Figure 1 , above, shows the difference between the Administration's FY2019 DOD request and the enacted amount of EW RDT&E. DOD requested a total of approximately $5.5 billion in FY2019; Congress enacted approximately $5.8 billion, $263 million above the requested amount. Of particular note, OSD OT&E received additional funding for subsequent testing. The largest increases between the FY2019 request and enacted levels were for "Other" agenciesâprimarily Operational Test and Evaluationâand the Army. The Navy and DARPA saw slight decreases from their requested levels. FY2020 RDT&E Funding Table 2 provides the FY2020 request and projected future year funding levels for EW RDT&E appropriations in DOD's FY2020 budget request. Of particular note, the Administration's DOD budget requested $504 million in additional RDT&E funding for FY2020 compared with the FY2019 request. While it would follow a trend line similar to FY2019's projection, DOD's plan adds additional money to EW capabilities in each of the out-years of the FYDP. This increase can primarily be attributed to the Navy's start of the Next Generation Jammer-Low Band program, as well as the Army's renewed focus on EW capabilities. Figure 2 provides a comparison between requested and appropriated amounts by military department for FY2020. There was an overall increase in $140 million in EW research and development efforts. The Air Force received approximately $139 million in additional funding compared to the requested amount, with the largest increases for Advanced Aerospace Sensor Technologies and EW Quick Reaction Capabilities. The Navy received an additional $58 million for EW research and development efforts, including more funding for the F/A-18 Infrared Search and Track development and Shipboard Information Warfare Exploitation programs. These increases were partially offset by a $31 million reduction in DARPA funding for EW research and development and a $26 million reduction in Army funding for such efforts. DARPA programs all saw relatively small decreases in funding. Army funding decreases included reductions to assured Precision, Navigation and Timing equipment development. FY2021 Request The FY2021 RDT&E request includes approximately $5.7 billion across all military departments and agencies. The Navy requested the most, following a similar trend in FY2019 and FY2020. The Army requested the second most, replacing the Air Force in prior years. Table 3 provides an overview of the FY2021 request. The Army increased EW RDT&E funding by $305 million when comparing what was projected from the FY2020 request and what was requested in FY2021. The Air Force experienced the most changes, restructuring several program elements and transferring others to the Space Force. The top three programs that received increased funding include (1) the Army's Rapid Capability Development and Maturation program (increased by $247 million compared to the FY2020 projection for FY2021), (2) the F/A-18 Infrared Search and Track (IRST) development (increased $168 million), and (3) the Eagle Passive Active Warning System (increased by $146 million). Programs that saw the largest reductions include the B-2 Defensive Management System (reduced by $164 million), DARPA's Sensors and Processing Systems program (reduced by $142 million), and the Space Force's Protected Tactical Satellite Communications (reduced $48 million). FY2019 Request Through FY2021 Request RDT&E Funding Comparison CRS assesses that the FY2021 request includes 93 program elements associated with electronic warfare and 157 related projects. This represents a slight increase from previous years, partly as a result of the newly established Space Force, the Air Force restructuring research projects, and the Army's restructuring of programs. Figure 3 depicts funding projections from the FY2019, FY2020, and FY2021 requests. The FY2021 request aligns closely with the FY2020 request, reducing funding by $104 million from projections in FY2020. The FY2021 request projects $25.6 billion over five years; FY2019 projected $24.6 billion over the FYDP, FY2020 similarly projected $25.6 billion. DOD has increased planned EW RDT&E funding from $4.9 billion in its FY2019 request to $5.6 billion in its FY2020 request, then down to $5.5 billion in the FY2021 request. The FY2021 request represents an 11.7% increase in funding when compared to FY2019 projections, but a 1.7% decrease from the projected funding from FY2020 request. The overall change from FY2019 to FY2021 (11.7%) is double the requested 4.9% increase in overall DOD funding from FY2019 to FY2020. EW Procurement Funding FY2019 Procurement Funding Table 4 , above, provides an overview of the FY2019 EW procurement request along with enacted procurement appropriations. Overall, the Administration requested $4.55 billion for EW-related procurement activities. The Navy requested the most ($2.43 billion), followed by the Air Force ($919 million) and the Army ($743 million). Funding was projected to decline through FY2021 before increasing in FY2022 and FY2023, as a result of the first increment of the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) entering production. The NGJ is a series of jamming pods designed to disrupt air defense radars and comminutions, replacing the Vietnam-era ALQ-99 jammers. Congress added $431 million in appropriations, representing a 9.5% increase over what the Administration requested. Figure 4 provides the differences between what was requested versus enacted. Of note, the Air Force received an additional $444 million over the requested amount due to Congress funding an additional EC-37B aircraftâwhich is designed to jam air defense radars and command and control systemsâas well as increases to combat training ranges and simulations and adjustments to the F-15 defensive systems. The Navy and SOCOM saw minor decreases in appropriations. FY2020 Funding The Administration requested $4.56 billion in EW procurement for FY2020, adding an additional $303 million compared to what was planned in FY2019. Table 5 provides an overview of the overall FY2020 request. The Navy again requested the largest amount ($2.44 billion), followed by the Air Force ($1.21 billion) and the Army ($574 million). The Air Force's request increased the most (by $306 million) compared with what had been planned for FY2020 in the previous FY2019 request, followed by the Army (by $224 million). This requested increase can be partially attributed to the Army starting a new program for Assured Positioning, Navigation and Timing and the Air Force's transition of the E-11 Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) to a program of record and increases to E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) modifications. FY2021 Request Procurement for EW equipment was $4.2 billion. The Navy and the Air Force requested the largest proportions of the request, following similar trends identified in FY2019 and FY2020. New to the FY2021 request was funding for the Space Forceâthe newest military service and authorized in the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act ( P.L. 116-92 ). Table 6 provides an overview of the FY2021 procurement request. Procurement in FY2021 is the lowest of the three fiscal years tracked in this report, only slightly higher than funding levels projected from the FY2019 request. There are a few trends to highlight from the FY2021 request. First, Navy procurement saw the largest decreases. The primary programs with significant reductions include MQ-4 Triton procurement (reduced $543 million compared to projections for FY2021 from the FY2020 request), MQ-4 Triton procurement (reduced $373 million), and AN/ALQ-32s (reduced $159 million). Procurement for Assured Precision Navigation, and Timing (PNT) equipment (increased $93 million), Patriot Modifications (increased $85 million), and the Integrated Fire Protection (IFPC) Family of Systems (increased $46 million) received the largest increases compared to the FY2020 request. The funding data suggest the Navy is reevaluating its EW programs, particularly for the surface fleet. FY2019 Request through FY2021 Request Procurement Funding Comparison The FY2021 request included approximately $3.7 billion to procure electronic warfare capabilities. This represents a 22.5% reduction in procurement funding compared to what was projected for FY2021 in the FY2020 request ($4.8 billion). The FY2021 FYDP projects $22.8 billion in funding over the next five years; this is compared to the FY2019 FYDP, which projected $22.5 billion, and the FY2020 FYDP, which projected $26.3 billion. Figure 5 depicts each of the FYDPs as a comparison. Figure 5 illustrates the differences between the Administration's plans for EW procurement from FY2019 to FY2021. The FY2020 request added an additional $5.23 billion across the FYDP compared with the FY2019 FYDP. FY2021 added $94 million compared to the FY2019 request, but reduced procurement by $491 million compared to projections from the FY2020 request. The Navy observed the largest decrease in procurement funding, resulting in a reduction of $489 million. The Air Force saw a reduction of $81 million as well, primarily due to the introduction of the Space Force. The Army saw the largest increase, approximately $53 million. It might be argued that DOD is making EW procurement a priority, which is aligned with the strategic direction in the National Defense Strategy and recommendations by the National Defense Strategy Commission. DOD requested an additional 4.9% increase in funding compared to what it projected in FY2019. EW procurement, however, increased by 7.1% from the FY2019 request compared to what was requested in FY2020âa 2.2% increase over the DOD request. Comparison of RDT&E and Procurement Funding Figure 6 , above, shows the relationship between RDT&E and procurement. Some might be concerned looking exclusively at the planned funding levels for RDT&E since this appropriation declines over the FYDP. However, several programs currently receiving RDT&E fundingâsuch as the NGJ and the E-11 BACNâtransition from being developmental programs to fielded systems. Also of note, it appears that the Administration may have changed its plans on fielding new programs. Based on funding projections the Administration plans on accelerating the Next Generation Jammer quicker than previously anticipated. In addition, it appears the Administration decided to accelerate the F-15 electronic warfare systems (F-15 EPAWS). The increase in planned procurement funding in FY2020 is particularly significant compared to the planned funding profile in FY2019. Combining both appropriations, DOD requested an additional $662.5 million for EW in FY2021 compared to what it had initially projected in the FY2019 request; however, the FY2021 request is $591.3 million lower than had been projected from the FY2020 request. This represents a 7.3% increase in the portfolio from FY2019 projections but a 5.7% decrease compared to projections from the FY2020 projections. Potential Issues for Congress EW Funding Levels One potential issue for Congress is the overall funding level for EW programs. DOD requested approximately $9.7 billion dollars in FY2021 for the EW portfolio, based on unclassified budget request documents. Historically, individual EW programs have not been generally seen as large enough for in-depth congressional scrutiny; however, combined, these programs represent funding levels nearly as much as an aircraft carrier ($12.5 billion in total procurement for CVN-80) or the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter procurement ($10.7 billion in FY2019). Congress may ask whether $10.2 billion is sufficient for DOD to execute its missions, or, conversely, whether this funding level is too much. Second, Congress may ask whether each of the military services is funding unique programs, or whether there are overlapping programs that provide similar capabilities. To understand these questions, Congress may consider a historical perspective on how much the DOD allocated for EW to compare if current funding exceeds or under resources the portfolio. A second metric Congress may potentially consider using is the ratio of spending for procurement and RDT&E appropriations to understand where in the lifecycle EW programs currently are, and if the current portfolio is an anomaly. Many EW programs are highly classified due to their close relationship with intelligence and command and control programs. As a result, there is potentially insufficient unclassified information to assess how much DOD is currently spending on EW. This limitation of data presents a potential oversight issue for Congress. Challenges with Appropriations Usage Some have argued that DOD has not adequately prioritized EW over the past several years. The budget projections described above may support the argument that DOD is now prioritizing investment in EW funding. Congress may consider whether DOD uses research and development funding to procure new electronic components. Congress might consider requiring DOD to report all EW-related funding for procurements, as well as ensuring that DOD is not procuring new or advanced electronics through other appropriations. The EW EXCOM has stated that many procurement programs have EW-related spending, and it is difficult and complex to differentiate among them . As a result, this report does not include all EW-related procurement programs, and therefore does not account for all EW funding. If Congress maintains interest in EW procurement, it may consider requiring DOD to report all EW-related procurement programs, as well as to break out specific EW-related initiatives within a larger procurement program. Assessing EW Plans and Programs Congress has shown an interest in developing a comprehensive assessment of EW plans and programs across each of the DOD services and agencies. The FY2019 NDAA ( P.L. 115-232 ) required DOD to contract with a scientific organization to perform an independent assessment of DOD-related EW plans and programs. According to the legislation, this assessment identified U.S. programs, orders of battle and doctrine; analyze adversary programs, orders of battle and doctrine; and make recommendations for how the U.S. military might counteract adversary plans and programs. The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments delivered the NDAA mandated study in December 2019; however, the FY2020 NDAA required a similar study to be performed. In addition to requesting an independent assessment of EW programs and plans, the FY2019 NDAA required DOD to update its Electronic Warfare Strategy from 2017 and submit it to Congress. Congress has expressed concern that DOD has not synchronized its efforts to ensure its dominance in the electromagnetic spectrum. For DOD to remain competitive, Congress directed the Secretary of Defense and a senior designated official to develop a process and procedure to integrate and enhance EW mission areas across DOD (i.e., to ensure each of the services cooperates and is integrated in the Joint force, as opposed to having service-specific solutions). This section of the NDAA requires DOD to develop a "defense-wide strategy, planning, and budgeting [process and procedures] with respect to conduct of such operations [electronic attack] by the Department, including activities conducted to counter and deter such operations by malign actors." The strategy was delivered in 2019; however, much of the detail of this particular strategy is classified.


Introduction Congress is considering federal funding for infrastructure to revive an economy damaged by Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). This is not the first occasion on which Congress has considered funding infrastructure for purposes of economic stimulus. This report discusses the economic impact of the trans portation infrastructure funding that was provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA; P.L. 111-5 ). Enacted on February 17, 2009, ARRA was a response to the recession that officially ran from December 2007 through June 2009. This "Great Recession" proved to be the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The recession was relatively deep and the recovery relatively slow. The unemployment rate, for example, rose from 4.4% in May 2007 to 10% in October 2009, and did not fall below 6% again until September 2014. ARRA was the largest fiscal stimulus measure passed by Congress in reaction to the Great Recession. When enacted, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the law would cost the federal government $787 billion from FY2009 through FY2019. Of this amount, infrastructure accounted for approximately $100 billion to $150 billion (13% to 19%), depending on how the term is defined (see text box, 'What is Infrastructure?'). Of the original $787 billion cost estimate, programs administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) received a total of $48.1 billion, about 6% of the total. Other public works infrastructure funding in ARRA included $4.6 billion for Army Corps of Engineers projects, some of which were related to waterborne transportation; $4 billion for state clean water revolving funds; $2 billion for state drinking water revolving funds; and $2.5 billion for four major federal land management agencies. Authority for state and local governments to issue tax credit bonds for capital spending represented an additional federal subsidy of about $36 billion. These figures do not include ARRA funding for federal government buildings and facilities, communications technologies, and energy systems. As is the case with most federal infrastructure investment, the infrastructure support authorized in ARRA was provided in four different ways: direct spending on infrastructure the federal government owns and operates, including roads and bridges on federal lands and the air traffic control system; grants to nonfederal entities, especially state and local agencies such as state departments of transportation and local public transportation authorities; tax preferences to provide incentives for nonfederal investment in infrastructure, such as the authority granted state and local governments to issue bonds to finance capital spending on infrastructure; and credit assistance to nonfederal entities, such as loans and loan guarantees to public and private project sponsors. Transportation Infrastructure Funding in ARRA ARRA funding represented a 72% supplement to DOT's regular FY2009 funding of $67.2 billion. More than half of the DOT spending authorized in ARRA was for highways. The highway funding was predominantly distributed by formula, and, like most of the other funding, had to be obligated by the end of FY2010â19 months after the date of enactmentâand expended by the end of FY2015. Most of the funding for public transportation was also distributed by formula; the major exception was $750 million for the Federal Transit Administration's existing Capital Investment Grant program. The $8 billion for high-speed and intercity rail projects was an entirely new discretionary program. ARRA also created an entirely new discretionary program whose explicit purpose was economic stimulus, Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grants, which could be used for a wide range of transportation projects ( Table 1 ). For most of these programs, the ARRA grants did not require any local match. States were required to certify that they would use these grants to supplement their planned transportation spending, rather than substituting the additional funding for their planned spending. This was known as maintenance-of-effort certification. Observations on the ARRA Experience Infrastructure Spending Is Slower Than Other Types of Stimulus The timing of expenditures of ARRA transportation funding demonstrated that infrastructure funding is generally expended more slowly than other types of assistance, such as unemployment compensation, Medicaid payments, and Social Security payments. Of the funding allocated to DOT, about 9% was spent within the first six months or so of availability, compared with 44% of unemployment compensation ( Table 2 ). The majority of DOT's ARRA funding was spent in FY2010 (37%) and FY2011 (24%). Another 11% was spent in FY2012. As with regular federal funding provided though DOT programs, ARRA funding was provided on a reimbursable basis. State and local governments had to complete an eligible project, or a defined part of a project, before receiving federal payment, so at least some of the intended economic effects, such as wage payments and orders for construction materials, had occurred prior to each transfer of federal grant funds to a recipient. There was a good deal of criticism of infrastructure spending as an economic stimulus, asserting that the expenditures were too slow. The Obama Administration emphasized that the money could be used for "shovel-ready" projects, but critics complained that there is "no such thing as shovel ready." CBO data show that almost half of DOT's ARRA funding was spent within about 18 months of enactment. The Obama Administration argued that the relatively slow expenditure of infrastructure funding could offer advantages in a deep and long economic downturn, such as the Great Recession, by noting that different types of stimulus affect the economy with different speeds. For instance, aid to individuals directly affected by the recession tends to be spent relatively quickly, while new investment projects require more time. Because of the need to provide broad support to the economy over an extended period, the Administration supported a stimulus plan that included a broad range of fiscal actions. Characteristics of Infrastructure Funding Can Affect Expenditure Timing Although the ARRA infrastructure funding was expended more slowly than most other types of support provided in the law, there were major differences in the rate of expenditures among infrastructure programs. Much of the highway and transit funding was distributed by DOT agencies to their usual grantees via existing formula programs, and was therefore available for use relatively quickly. Similarly, the Federal Aviation Administration distributed airport funds through the existing Airport Improvement Program, and the Maritime Administration awarded grants through its existing Assistance to Small Shipyards Program. More than 50% of funding for these programs was expended by grantees by January 2011, less than two years after the enactment of ARRA ( Table 3 ). Discretionary funds for programs established in the law, such as for the high-speed rail program and TIGER grants, took much longer to distribute and to use because DOT had to design the programs, issue rules, advertise the availability of funds, and wait for applications. Congress recognized that setting up new programs would take some time by including longer obligation deadlines in the law. High-speed rail funding was expended particularly slowly. DOT data showed that three years after ARRA enactment, 8% of high-speed rail funding had been expended. High-speed rail had been studied for decades, but there were almost no plans or projects that were ready for implementation. In addition, unlike other parts of DOT, the Federal Railroad Administration was inexperienced at administering large amounts of grant funds. A major exception to the general distinction between the timing of formula and discretionary program expenditures was the ARRA funding for the Federal Transit Administration's Capital Investment Grant (CIG) Program. The CIG Program, also known as New Starts, funds the construction of new fixed-guideway public transportation systems and the expansion of existing systems. Eligible projects include transit rail, such as subway/elevated rail (heavy rail), light rail, and commuter rail, as well as bus rapid transit and ferries. The agency has discretion in selecting projects to receive funds and in determining the federal contribution to each approved project. ARRA provided $750 million for the CIG Program. The Federal Transit Administration distributed these funds to 11 projects already under construction that "demonstrated some contract capacity to absorb additional revenues." The money was given to local transit authorities as various construction activities were completed. According to DOT, 63% of these funds were spent within one year of the ARRA's enactment and 100% were spent within two years. In general, it was easier for state and local agencies to quickly spend funds on the types of small-scale projects that are typically made possible by formula funds. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that more than two-thirds of highway funds were committed for pavement improvement projects, such as resurfacing, reconstruction, and rehabilitation of existing roadways, and three-quarters of transit funds were committed to upgrading existing facilities and purchasing or rehabilitating buses. Funding for airports was used to rehabilitate and reconstruct runways and taxiways, as well as to upgrade or purchase air navigation infrastructure such as air traffic control towers and engine generators. The Level of Infrastructure Investment Can Depend on Nonfederal Entities Public spending on transportation, measured in inflation-adjusted 2017 dollars, has been on a downward trend since peaking in 2003 ( Figure 1 ). Infrastructure funding provided by ARRA interrupted that trend, buoying total spending in 2010 and 2011. Except for 2009, however, state and local expenditures, which make up around 75% of total infrastructure expenditures, continued to fall. State and local spending on transportation infrastructure, adjusted for inflation, was 8% lower in 2013 than in 2007, reflecting the long-term damage the Great Recession did to state and local budgets. As the stimulus from ARRA faded, 2013 saw the lowest spending on these major infrastructure systems since the late 1990s. In some infrastructure sectors, such as highways, the growth in federal spending due to ARRA did not outweigh the decline in state and local government spending. Consequently, highway infrastructure spending fell over the period 2009 through 2013 ( Figure 2 ). Of course, there is no way to know exactly how highway spending would have changed in the absence of ARRA. Federal spending would have been lower, but it is possible that state and local government spending would have been higher if federal funding had not been available. Maintenance-of-Effort Requirements Were Difficult to Enforce Because of the Great Recession, state and local governments experienced a dramatic reduction in tax revenue even as demand for government services increased. For this reason, many jurisdictions found it difficult to maintain pre-recession levels of spending for at least some types of transportation infrastructure, leaving the possibility that additional federal dollars would simply replace state and local dollars. The federal share of transportation projects using ARRA funds was generally 100%, but states were required to certify that they would spend amounts already planned. This maintenance-of-effort requirement was in force from ARRA's enactment in February 2009, by which time the recession had been under way for over a year, through September 30, 2010. In its analysis of ARRA, GAO found that the maintenance-of-effort requirements in transportation were challenging to comply with and to administer. For example, governors had to certify maintenance of effort in several transportation programs, some administered by the state and some administered by local governments and independent authorities. Within each state, these various programs typically had different and complex revenue sources. In many cases, states did not have a way to identify planned expenditures. Because of ambiguities in the law and practicalities that come to light with experience, DOT issued maintenance-of-effort guidance to the states seven times in the first year after ARRA enactment. Some research on the effects of highway funding in ARRA on state highway spending found that, despite the maintenance-of-effort requirement, there was substantial substitution of federal dollars for state dollars. One analysis found that for every dollar of federal aid in ARRA for highways, on average, overall spending increased by 19 cents, meaning states decreased their own spending by 81 cents. Employment Effects Were Modest In many infrastructure sectors, the employment effects of ARRA funding were relatively modest. In highway construction, for example, employment dropped sharply from the end of 2007 through 2009. There was a slight increase through 2010, presumably related to the ARRA funding, but a sustained increase in employment did not begin again until 2015. The number of highway construction workers reached pre-recession levels in 2018 ( Figure 3 ). Although employment in highway construction was much higher before the recession began in late 2007, employment might have fallen further in the absence of ARRA funding. The transportation funding in ARRA, therefore, may have allowed state and local governments to maintain a certain level of employment in the transportation construction sector. Additionally, it likely permitted state and local governments to maintain employment in other, nontransportation, sectors by shifting state expenditures from transportation to other purposes. The slow recovery of highway construction jobs suggests the sector could have productively absorbed more funding after the ARRA funding had largely been expended, particularly during the 2013, 2014, and 2015 construction seasons. Financing Infrastructure May Leverage State Resources The financial crisis and the accompanying recession affected state and local credit markets. Among other things, declines in employment and business activity made it difficult for state and local governments to raise funds through the sale of tax-exempt municipal bonds whose repayment depended on tax revenue. Limited access to financing or to financing at much higher costs may have contributed to a decline in state and local government infrastructure investment. In more normal economic times, municipal bonds account for about 10% of the capital invested in highways and public transportation. In response to the problems in the municipal credit markets, ARRA included the Build America Bond (BAB) program, which permitted state and local governments to issue tax credit bonds from April 2009 through the end of 2010 to raise funds that could be used for any type of capital investment. Unlike traditional municipal bonds, which provide a subsidy to bondholders by exempting interest payments from federal income taxation and thereby allow issuers to sell bonds at low interest rates, BABs offered a higher taxable yield to investors; the federal government subsidized 35% of the issuer's interest costs. This subsidy rate was generally seen as generous, thereby reducing borrowing costs for state and local governments. Because the interest on BABs was taxable, the bonds were attractive to investors without federal tax liability, such as pension funds, enlarging the pool of possible investors. The taxable bond market is about 10 times the size of the traditional tax-exempt bond market. This larger market may have contributed to the reduction in borrowing costs. BABs were also considered more efficient than traditional municipal bonds because all of the federal subsidy went to the state or local government issuer. With traditional tax-exempt municipal bonds, some of the subsidy goes to investors. There were 2,275 BAB issuances over the 21 months of eligibility, for a total of $181 billion. About 30% of BAB funding went to educational facilities, followed by water and sewer projects (13.8%), highways (13.7%), and transit (8.7%). Without the BAB program, some of this capital would have been raised using traditional tax-exempt bonds, although likely at a higher cost to state and local government issuers. The Department of the Treasury stated that BAB issuance surged in the last quarter of 2010, suggesting that issuers were accelerating the timing of capital financings and, thus, capital investment. Although BABs had a generous subsidy rate relative to other municipal bonds, their structure ensured that issuers paid 65% of the interest costs, effectively requiring state and local governments to pay a larger share of infrastructure costs than under ARRA grant programs. Because the federal subsidy is paid to the issuer as the interest is due to the investor, the cost to the federal government of BABs was spread over the subsequent years ( Table 2 ). Stimulus-Funded Projects Can Provide Transportation Benefits Because the purpose of ARRA was to stimulate the economy, the law included time limits on the obligation and expenditure of transportation funds. As noted earlier, about half of the transportation funds appropriated by ARRA were expended by the end of FY2010, within 20 months of the law's enactment. Much of this funding went to routine projects such as highway paving and bus purchases that were quick to implement. Larger projects that required more detailed environmental reviews and complex design work were not "shovel-ready," leading to assertions that ARRA did not "fund investments that would provide long-term economic returns." In its examination of ARRA transportation expenditures, GAO found that the focus on quick implementation did change the mix of highway projects chosen. Some state officials stated that the deadlines "prohibited other, potentially higher-priority projects from being selected for funding." However, others noted that ARRA funding allowed them to complete so-called "state-of-good-repair" projects, presumably leaving greater financial capacity to undertake larger projects in the future. Furthermore, economic research shows that smaller state-of-good-repair projects often have higher benefit-cost ratios than new, large "game changing" projects whose benefits are often more speculative. In its biennial examination of the highway and public transportation systems, DOT typically finds that, for the United States as a whole, too little is spent on state-of good-repair projects versus building new capacity. In its latest report, DOT examined actual spending in 2014 and various investment scenarios for the period 2015 through 2034. DOT found that state-of-good-repair spending was 76% of total highway spending in 2014, whereas to maximize economic benefits about 79% should go to such projects. For public transportation, DOT found that 64% to 74% of total infrastructure spending should be devoted to state-of-good repair projects, whereas 60% was used for that purpose in 2014.