Download Locations
Summary
A total of 213 C-17s have been procured through FY2009, including eight that were procured in the FY2009 supplemental appropriations act (H.R. 2346/P.L. 111-32 of June 24, 2009). The Administration's proposed FY2010 defense budget proposed to end C-17 procurement and did not request any funding for the procurement of additional C-17s. The Administration argues that enough C-17s have now been procured to meet future operational needs. Supporters of procuring additional C-17s in FY2010 believe additional C-17s will be needed to meet future operational needs. The issue of how much airlift capability will be needed in the future is currently being examined in a congressionally mandated study being done by the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) and in a separate Department of Defense (DOD) study called the Mobility Capabilities and Requirements Study 2016 (MCRS-16), which is due to be completed by the end of 2009. FY2010 defense authorization bill: The conference report (H.Rept. 111-288 of October 7, 2009) on the FY2010 defense authorization act (H.R. 2647/P.L. 111-84 of October 28, 2009) authorizes no funding for the procurement of additional C-17s. Section 137 of the act prohibits the Secretary of the Air Force from proceeding with a decision to retire C-5As in any number that would reduce the active inventory of C-5s below 111 until certain conditions are met, and require the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the issue of C-5 retirement. Section 138 requires the Secretary of the Air Force, in coordination with the Director of the Air National Guard, to submit to the congressional defense committees, at least 90 days before a C-5 airlift aircraft is retired, a report on the proposed force structure and basing of C-5 and C-17 aircraft. Section 139 amends 10 USC 8062(g)(1) to state that the Secretary of the Air Force shall maintain a total inventory of not less than 316 C-5s and C-17s. If the current force of 111 C-5s were retained, this provision would support a C-17 force of not less than 205 C-7s--the number procured through FY2008. FY2010 DOD appropriations bill: The House Appropriations Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 111-230 of July 24, 2009) on H.R. 3326, recommended $762.6 million in procurement funding for the C-17 program, including $674.1 million for the procurement of three C-17s. The paragraph in the bill that makes funding available for the procurement of Air Force aircraft states that the funds are made available, "Provided, That no funds provided in this Act for the procurement or modernization of C-17 aircraft may be obligated until all C-17 contracts funded with prior year ‚Aircraft Procurement, Air Force' appropriated funds are definitized." The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 111-74 of September 10, 2009) on H.R. 3326, recommended $2,588.5 million in procurement funding for the C-17 program, including $2,500.0 million for the procurement of 10 C-17s. S.Amdt. 2558, proposed on September 29, 2009, would strike from H.R. 3326 funding for C-17 procurement in excess of the amount requested by administration (i.e., it would strike the $2.5 billion in the bill for the procurement of 10 C-17s) and make that funding available instead for operation and maintenance in accordance with amounts requested by the administration, and for the Operation and Maintenance, Army account for overseas contingency operations. On September 30, the Senate considered S.Amdt. 2558. A point of order was raised with respect to the amendment. The Senate, by a vote of 34 to 64 (Record Vote Number 303), rejected a motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to the amendment, and the amendment was ruled out of order. On October 6, a new amendment--S.Amdt. 2580--was proposed to strike from H.R. 3326 funding for C-17 procurement in excess of the amount requested by the administration. This amendment was structured to avoid the point of order that was raised with respect to S.Amdt. 2558. On October 6, the Senate rejected S.Amdt. 2580 by a vote of 30 to 68 (Record Vote Number 312).





