Jeremiah Gertler
Specialist in Military Aviation
The largest procurement program in the Department of Defense (DOD), the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), also called the Lightning II, is a new aircraft being procured in different versions for the United States Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy. Current DOD plans call for acquiring a total of 2,456 JSFs. Hundreds of additional F-35s are expected to be purchased by several U.S. allies, eight of which are cost-sharing partners in the program.
The F-35 promises significant advances in military capability. Like many high-technology programs before it, reaching that capability has put the program above its original budget and behind the planned schedule.
The administration’s proposed FY2011 defense budget requested about $6.8 billion in procurement funding for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. This would fund the procurement of 23 F-35As for the Air Force, 13 F-35Bs for the Marine Corps, and seven F-35Cs for the Navy.
The administration’s proposed FY2011 defense budget also proposed terminating the F-35 alternate engine program, which is intended to develop the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 engine as an alternative to the Pratt and Whitney F135 engine that currently powers the F-35. The F-35 alternate engine program has emerged as a major item of debate on the FY2011 defense budget.
FY2010 defense authorization act: The conference report on the FY2010 defense authorization act authorizes funding for procuring a total of 30 F-35s in FY2010, as requested. The report authorizes $430 million in Air Force and Navy research and development funding for continued development of the F136 alternate engine, and $130 million in Air Force advance procurement funding to begin F136 procurement. Section 131 of the act requires a report on the procurement of “4.5”-generation fighters that is to include, among other things, “a discussion regarding the availability and feasibility of procuring F-35 aircraft to proportionally and concurrently recapitalize the Air National Guard during fiscal years 2015 through fiscal year 2025.” Section 217 requires future DOD budgets to provide separate line items for the F-35B and F-35C within the Navy aircraft procurement account and the Navy research and development account. Section 244 requires, for the period 2010-2015, an annual Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the status of the F-35 program.
FY2010 DOD appropriations bill: The explanatory statement on the final version of H.R. 3326 includes $6,840.5 million for 30 F-35s in 2010. Additionally, the statement contains $430 million in Navy and Air Force research and development funding for continued development of the F136 alternate engine, and $35 million in Air Force procurement funding designated for the alternate engine program.
Latest Developments: On September 16, 2010, the Senate Appropriations Committee funded 32 F-35s, 10 fewer than the Administration requested.
The report on the House-passed version of the FY2011 defense authorization bill included language limiting procurement to 30 F-35s pending certification that the F-35 had achieved certain testing parameters. The Senate Armed Services Committee-reported version of the bill required similar, but different achievements, but did not withhold funding.
Date of Report: November 10, 2010
Number of Pages: 54
Order Number: RL30563
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Jeremiah Gertler
Specialist in Military Aviation
For four successive years, Congress has rejected administration proposals to terminate the program to develop the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 engine as an alternative to the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine that currently powers the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The administration’s FY2011 budget submission again proposes to terminate the program.
The alternate engine program began in FY1996, when defense authorization conferees directed the Department of Defense (DOD) to ensure that the JSF (then “JAST”) program “provides for adequate engine competition.” Through FY2009, Congress has provided approximately $2.5 billion for the Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine program. The program is projected to need an additional $1.9-2.9 billion through 2016 to complete the development of the F136 engine.
Critics of the proposal to terminate the F136 alternate engine argue that termination was driven more by immediate budget pressures on the department than the long-term pros and cons of the F136 program. They argue that engine competition on the F-15 and F-16 programs saved money and resulted in greater reliability. Some who applaud the proposed termination say that singlesource engine production contracts have been the norm, not the exception. Long-term engine affordability, they claim, is best achieved by procuring engines through multiyear contracts from a single source.
Canceling the F136 engine poses questions on the operational risk—particularly of fleet grounding—posed by having a single engine design and supplier. Additional issues include the potential impact this termination might have on the U.S. defense industrial base and on U.S. relations with key allied countries involved in the alternate engine program. Finally, eliminating competitive market forces for DOD business worth billions of dollars may concern those seeking efficiency from DOD’s acquisition system and raises the challenge of cost control in a singlesupplier environment.
Continuing F136 development raises issues of impact on the F-35 acquisition program, including possible reduction of the numbers of F-35s that could be acquired if program funds are used for the alternate engine. It also raises issues of the outyear costs and operational concerns stemming from the requirement to support two different engines in the field.
FY2011 defense authorization bill: In markup on May 19, 2010, the House Armed Services Committee added $485 million to continue the alternate engine program, and passed language that would limit F-35 procurement to 30 aircraft and prohibit DOD from spending 25% of its F- 35 budget until all alternate engine funds had been obligated. On May 27, 2010, the House voted to defeat an amendment that would have eliminated funding for the alternate engine.
On May 28, 2010, the White House released a statement from the President stating he “will veto any such legislation so that it can be returned to me without those provisions” if the funding for a second engine remained in the bill. The version of the authorization report reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee does not include such funding.
FY2011 DOD appropriations bill: The House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee report included $450 million for the F-35 alternate engine. The Senate Appropriations Committeereported version of the bill, released September 16, 2010, included no such funding.
Date of Report: November 10, 2010
Number of Pages: 62
Order Number: R41131
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Charles Doyle
Senior Specialist in American Public Law
Obstruction of justice is the frustration of governmental purposes by violence, corruption, destruction of evidence, or deceit. It is a federal crime. In fact, it is several crimes. Obstruction prosecutions regularly involve charges under several statutory provisions. Federal obstruction of justice laws are legion; too many for even passing reference to all of them in a single report.
The general obstruction of justice provisions are six: 18 U.S.C. 1512 (tampering with federal witnesses), 1513 (retaliating against federal witnesses), 1503 (obstruction of pending federal court proceedings), 1505 (obstruction of pending Congressional or federal administrative proceedings), 371 (conspiracy), and contempt. In addition to these, there are a host of other statutes that penalize obstruction by violence, corruption, destruction of evidence, or deceit.
Moreover, regardless of the offense for which an individual is convicted, his sentence may be enhanced as a consequence of any obstruction of justice for which he is responsible, if committed during the course of the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing for the offense of his conviction. The enhancement may result in an increase in his term of imprisonment by as much as four years.
This is an abridged version of CRS Report RL34303, Obstruction of Justice: An Overview of Some of the Federal Statutes That Prohibit Interference with Judicial, Executive, or Legislative Activities, without the footnotes, quotations, or citations to authority found in the longer report.
Date of Report: November 5, 2010
Number of Pages: 10
Order Number: RS22783
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Andrew Feickert
Specialist in Military Ground Forces
The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV) is an armored amphibious vehicle program that originated two decades ago to replace the 1970s-era Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV). Like current AAVs, the EFV is designed to roll off a Navy amphibious assault ship, move under its own power to the beach, and cross the beach and operate inland. The EFV has experienced a variety of developmental difficulties, resulting in significant program delays and cost growth. The EFV is currently in its second systems design and development (SDD) phase attempting to improve the EFV’s overall poor reliability and performance that it demonstrated during its 2006 operational assessment. If the EFV passes the current SDD in early 2011, it is expected to begin initial production if DOD has not cancelled the program and if it is fully funded.
The improvised explosive device (IED) threat that has plagued operations in Iraq and Afghanistan was not envisioned in 1988 when the EFV program was initiated. The EFV’s low ground clearance and flat bottom make it particularly vulnerable to IEDs; this has raised congressional concern that the EFV, as currently designed, would provide inadequate protection to transported Marines. Another change to the battlefield is the proliferation of longer-ranged, shore-based, antiship cruise missiles (ASCMs) which put the Navy’s amphibious ships disembarking EFVs at their 25-mile operating limit vulnerable to attack.
These battlefield evolutions, as well as the EFV’s program delays and rising costs, and the decision to acquire only 573 vehicles (the original requirement was 1,025) have resulted in many defense experts and officials questioning the need for the EFV. Although some question the EFV’s relevance, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that the EFV passed its December 2008 Critical Design Review (CDR) and, with 94% of the system’s design models releasable, that EFV’s critical technologies were mature and its design is stable. The EFV is currently undergoing operational testing, and the Marines should receive the final two prototypes by October 2010 with testing scheduled to run through late January 2011. If the EFV is cancelled, there are possible alternative solutions, including upgrading current AAVs as well as exploring the adaptability of candidate vehicles being considered under the Marine Personnel Carrier (MPC) program for amphibious assault operations. The DOD, the Navy, and the Marines are currently conducting separate studies examining Marine Corps roles and missions, force structure, and equipment, and the results could have a significant impact on the future of the EFV.
Congress has expressed its concern over the EFV’s vulnerability to IEDs during a number of hearings. The House and Senate Armed Services Committees have recommended fully funding the President’s FY2011 EFV budget request of $242.8 million for Research, Technology, Development, and Evaluation (RDT&E) funds. The Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee has recommended providing funding to cancel the EFV program. The subcommittee recommended cutting $204 million from the FY2011 $243 million budget request and added $185 million to cancel the program. If the EFV program is continued, it will require $866.7 million in research and development and $10.226 billion in procurement funding for a total of $11.163 billion to complete the program and field 573 EFVs. Each EFV is expected to cost about $24 million apiece.
Potential issues for congressional consideration include the vulnerability of the Navy’s amphibious fleet and EFVs, the potential ramifications if the EFV fails its second round of operational testing, and what role to take in ongoing Marine Corps studies that could be used to determine the fate of the EFV program.
Date of Report: November 9, 2010
Number of Pages: 14
Order Number: RS22947
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Jody Feder
Legislative Attorney
In 1993, after many months of study, debate, and political controversy, Congress passed and President Clinton signed legislation establishing a revised “[p]olicy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces.” The new legislation reflected a compromise regarding the U.S. military’s policy toward members of the Armed Forces who engage in homosexual conduct. This compromise, colloquially referred to as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT),” holds that “[t]he presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion which are the essence of military capability.” Service members are not to be asked about, nor allowed to discuss, their sexual orientation. This compromise notwithstanding, the issue has remained both politically and legally contentious. This report provides a legal analysis of the various constitutional challenges that have been brought against DADT; for a policy analysis, see CRS Report R40782, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”: Military Policy and the Law on Same-Sex Behavior, by David F. Burrelli.
Constitutional challenges to the former and current military policies regarding homosexual conduct followed in the wake of the new 1993 laws and regulations. Based on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick that there is no fundamental right to engage in consensual homosexual sodomy, the courts had uniformly held that the military may discharge a service member for overt homosexual conduct. However, the legal picture was complicated by the Court’s 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which overruled Bowers by declaring unconstitutional a Texas law that prohibited sexual acts between same-sex couples. In addition, unsettled legal questions remain as to whether a discharge based solely on a statement that a service member is gay transgresses constitutional limits. Meanwhile, in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, a federal district court held for the first time that DADT is unconstitutional on its face, but it is unclear whether this decision will stand on appeal. Likewise, in Witt v. United States Department of the Air Force, another federal district court recently held that DADT was unconstitutional as applied to a service member who had been discharged for homosexual conduct and ruled that the service member should therefore be reinstated.
In recent years, several Members of Congress have expressed interest in amending DADT. At least two bills that would repeal the law and replace it with a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation—H.R. 1283 and S. 3065—have been introduced in the 111th Congress. Other proposed legislation in the 111th Congress includes H.R. 4180, which would protect service members who disclose their sexual orientation to a Member of Congress, and H.R. 4902, which would establish additional research, study, and reporting requirements for the Department of Defense (DOD) working group currently reviewing issues that may arise if DADT is repealed. The working group was established in February 2010 by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who simultaneously directed DOD to review regulations regarding DADT and to propose any changes that would allow DOD to “enforce the law in a fairer and more appropriate manner.” Based on this review, Secretary Gates announced revisions to the DADT regulations in March 2010 that will ease certain requirements for discharging service members pursuant to DADT. More recently, both the full House of Representatives and the Senate Armed Services Committee approved amendments to the 2011 defense authorization bill (H.R. 5136; S. 3454) that would repeal DADT if certain conditions are met, although the bill failed to pass the full Senate in a recent procedural vote.
Date of Report: November 2, 2010
Number of Pages: 17
Order Number: R40795
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Posts
