Pentagon Submits Budget, And Services Ask for More

"The Air Force doesn't have the money for the C-17s," said a senior Air Force official familiar with the issue, adding that "if someone wants to give it to us, we'll certainly take it." Said another senior Air Force official: "If we had the money, we would retire the C-5s and build C-17s."

The Air Force instead has already started upgrading the C-5, at a multibillion-dollar cost, but Air Force officials say the work, by Lockheed Martin, is now under review because it is well over budget.

Boeing has also been lobbying for the C-17s. The company and its employees gave more than $72,000 in campaign contributions over the past two years to the six Republicans and one Democrat who sponsored the earmark, according to federal campaign finance records. In total, nearly 50 members of Congress wrote letters supporting the 10 additional C-17s.

Despite the Pentagon's decision to close the production line, Boeing said this year that it was prepared to risk millions of dollars to keep its C-17 line open because the company was getting indications from Capitol Hill that orders for 30 C-17s would be coming. The company made that decision without receiving an official response from the Air Force to its unsolicited proposal for the additional planes.

"Boeing's decision was also based on public statements by Air Force officials that they might consider procuring additional C-17s if Congress allowed the Air Force to retire a number of older, unreliable C-5s," said Boeing spokesman Douglas Kennett.

The C-17, the smaller of the two planes, first flew in 1991. The plane has a crew of three, a maximum range of 2,400 nautical miles without refueling and a maximum payload capability of 170,900 pounds. The C-5, in contrast, first flew in 1970, has a crew of seven, a range of 2,650 nautical miles without refueling and a payload capability of 270,000 pounds.

Akin said Congress was put in the position of playing a "high-stakes poker game" to prevent Boeing from shutting down the C-17 assembly line -- it would cost taxpayers far more to restart it in the future -- while also figuring out the Air Force's needs.

He said the Air Force has traditionally preferred to spend money on planes that control the skies -- such as the F-22 fighter jet -- rather than those that transport supplies, vehicles and people, such as the C-17.

Rep. Russ Carnahan (D), Akin's colleague from Missouri, also sponsored the earmark, in part to protect the jobs of about 2,000 St. Louis workers who produce C-17 parts. "There was a general belief out there that they didn't request these at a time when they clearly are needed and wanted because they were confident that Congress would do it," Carnahan said.

So far, no similar language has been added to the Senate version of the bill. Moreover, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.) wrote to the Air Force in July alleging that the service may have inappropriately encouraged Boeing to keep the C-17 line open as part of a ploy to build them outside normal budgetary processes.

Carper, a supporter of upgrading the C-5, said that if C-17s are the Air Force's priority, the service should put them in the budget. He said that the military services like new weapons systems more than they like old ones because they "like to have new toys."

In September, McCain urged the Defense Department's inspector general to investigate, writing in a letter dated Sept. 11 that he is "troubled by the Air Force's apparent disregard for proper acquisition policy, practice and procedure and seeming eagerness to further contractors' interests," particularly when dealing with a program that is not part of the president's budget.

Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne responded in late August that there are reviews underway to determine whether some of the C-5s should be replaced with C-17s. "This review is preliminary only and my staff has not reached any conclusions regarding its suitability or affordability," Wynne wrote in the letter. "I am aware of no commitments that the Air Force or the Department has made to the prime contractor regarding future C-17 production."

Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, said the congressional sponsors are "not ashamed of the earmarks, they're proud of them." She said that "it's part of the fellowship between the service, the contractor and their patrons in the Congress, and they work very hard not to leave anyone hanging out to dry."

While such a large earmark might help protect thousands of jobs at Boeing and its subcontractors, it could easily pull money away from more important weapons needs, Brian said.

Staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.