[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 16 (Thursday, January 26, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E190]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                        AIRLIFT ENHANCEMENT ACT

                                 ______


                          HON. ELIZABETH FURSE

                               of oregon

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 26, 1995
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, the legislation I have introduced today with 
bipartisan support calls for ending the C-17 program after this year's 
buy is completed, providing the Air Force a total of 40. In addition, 
my bill calls for putting in place a serious program to use more 
affordable, already developed aircraft to fill the remaining airlift 
need.
  Under DOD's current C-17 only plan, we will actually encounter an 
airlift deficit as the planned retirement of C-141's continues. The 
cost of the C-17 program has increased 41 percent--$16 billion--from 
the original estimate of $190 million per plane. Based on past 
experience, there is every reason to believe that the C-17's program 
cost will continue to rise. DOD's current estimate is $22.5 billion for 
40 planes, or $563 million each.
  The Rand Corp., GAO, CBO, and DOD's cost and operational 
effectiveness analysis have all recently presented airlift options that 
would enable savings of 8-10 billion dollars or more compared to a 
fleet of 120 C-17's.
  GAO released its report today, ``C-17 Aircraft: Cost and Performance 
Issues,'' responding to the fiscal year 1994 Defense Authorization Act 
request for its assessment of the C-17's original justification and the 
effect of technical problems and cost increases on its ability to 
achieve original program requirements.
  The report states, ``Changes in the C-17's intended role, the results 
of DOD's cost and operational effectiveness analysis, and continued 
program cost growth lead us to conclude that a 120-aircraft C-17 
program is not the most cost-effective way to meet airlift 
requirements.''
  Secretary of Defense Perry said yesterday that if a balanced budget 
amendment is approved, the Pentagon will face very major budget cuts 
and have an even smaller force than it does now. He went on to say that 
a smaller force means the Pentagon would no longer be able to carry out 
its two-MRC strategy.
  Requirements for the first 30 days of an MRC drives our airlift 
planning. If we will be forced for budgetary reasons to reconsider the 
two-MRC strategy, the overpriced C-17 sacred cow--for which reasonable 
alternatives exist--needs to be one of the first items re-examined.
  Among those alternatives are commercial widebodies such as 747's or 
MD-11's, the existing C-5, and extending the service life of our C-
141's.
  The C-17 continues to experience technical problems. Today's GAO 
report details severe airflow problems that prevent the plane from 
executing one mission the Army has considered critical: simultaneous 
airdrops of paratroopers and equipment. The problem of turbulence 
inside the plane that occurs when the cargo door, ramp, and side troop 
doors are open persists. Even after the 18th plane was delivered to the 
Air Force earlier this month, those simultaneous drops continue to be 
suspended.
  I am pleased that Senator Bumpers has introduced similar legislation 
in the Senate.
  This bill could save taxpayers more than $10 billion and meet our 
aircraft needs with more cost-effective alternatives. Throwing money at 
this plane that can not deliver what it promised is irresponsible in 
today's austere fiscal environment. We have cheaper alternatives that 
will keep our military strong. Every day we wait to implement them 
costs taxpayers millions of dollars.


                          ____________________