Home Portal Blog Links
Go Back   Military Forum > Military Forums: General Discussion > Armed Forces Discussions > Marine Corps Forums > Air Wings and Aviation Elements

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-12-2006, 08:50 AM   #1 (permalink)
Marine
MSgt USMC Ret

 
USMCRET6391's Avatar
 
Group:
Lieutenant General

USMCRET6391Marine is USMCRET6391 isimli üyemiz çevrimdışıdır. (Offline)
AKA: Top
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 9,545
Threads: 3537
UserID: 69
User Info
United_States  marine_corps  male  taurus  

My current mood: Happy
Reputation +/-Power: 16
Points: 276
USMCRET6391 is a jewel in the roughUSMCRET6391 is a jewel in the roughUSMCRET6391 is a jewel in the rough
USMCRET6391Marine is USMCRET6391 isimli üyemiz çevrimdışıdır. (Offline)  

V-22 Funding Status Still Murky

InsideDefense.com NewsStand | Christopher J. Castelli | May 11, 2006

The $109 billion version of the fiscal year 2006 emergency spending bill passed by the Senate May 4 includes $230 million to buy three V-22 Ospreys for the Marine Corps from Bell Helicopter Textron and Boeing, but it remains unclear whether money to buy these aircraft will make it into law.

President Bush recently threatened to veto the Senate Bill if it contained more than $92.2 billion. There will surely be pressure to eliminate some of the numerous spending measures added by the Senate when lawmakers meet in the upcoming conference process to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. The $92 billion version passed by the House in March did not earmark any money for V-22s.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued a strongly worded statement criticizing the Senate bill on May 3.

“The Senate emergency spending bill represents a huge spending spree, but the big losers will be the American taxpayers stuck with the tab,” Hastert and Boehner said. “President Bush requested $92 billion for the war on terror and some hurricane spending. The House used fiscal restraint and stayed within the president's request for true emergency spending. We support the president's threat to veto the wayward spending bill. The American people don't deserve a special interest shopping cart disguised as a supplemental.”

The V-22 funding was not part of the emergency spending request that the Office of Management and Budget sent Congress earlier this year. But the Senate Appropriations Committee added the $230 million when it marked up its $109 billion version of the bill last month.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) subsequently offered an amendment to cut the $230 million from the bill. It was part of Coburn's broader crusade to limit spending in the bill. On May 2, he formally withdrew the amendment, but maintained his opposition to funding these aircraft in the bill. Coburn argued there is “no emergency need to order these planes.”

He continued, “This plane is manufactured in Texas and Pennsylvania. The Pentagon did not request this. The President did not request it. What we have is people requesting it.”

Coburn noted the V-22 program has suffered numerous problems -- most have been corrected but some still remain, he added. Further, he argued the program ought to be funded in the regular defense budget, which is subject to oversight by both congressional authorizers and appropriators.

“We have a plane that has not met performance tests yet, has not been battle proven, and we are adding three airplanes for which some would raise a good question as to whether it ought to be done in this way,” the senator said. “It ought to be done through an authorization and through the regular process.”

Coburn continued, “This is the problem with earmarks. We are adding something that is not authorized, a plane that has had tremendous developmental difficulties, that the Pentagon does not want, the president does not want, yet we want. Why do we want it? Because, for some reason, we end up either employing more people on something that may not eventually work to the military's satisfaction or we get benefits from it in terms of political expediency. I believe it is the wrong way to go.”

Before the Bush administration sent the supplemental bill to Congress, the Marine Corps sought in discussions with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to have $230 million included for the Ospreys, Marine Corps spokesman Capt. Jerome Bryant acknowledged to Inside the Navy . The Pentagon endorsed the idea, but the Office of Management and Budget rejected it, so it was not part of the official request that went forth to Capitol Hill, Bryant indicated.

At some point thereafter, in response to a query from Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), chairman of the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Michael Hagee sent a letter to Stevens noting the service could use $230 million to buy three Ospreys to replace CH-46 helicopters. Bryant and Stevens' spokeswoman, Courtney Boone, both declined to release a copy of the letter.

Similarly, on the FY-07 unfunded requirements list the Marine Corps submitted to lawmakers in response to a congressional request, the service included $154 million to buy two Ospreys to replace CH-46 helicopters.

-Top
USMCRET6391 isimli üyemiz çevrimdışıdır. (Offline)  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links

» Support the Site!

Military Gear - Military Ltd Gear - Infantrymen Gear - Ranger Gear - Single Servicemen
Reply

Tags
funding, murky, status, v22



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



New To The Site? Need Information?

 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., SEO by vBSEO 3.1.0
Designed by MilitaryDesign.Com
MilitaryLtd.com, GoInfantry.Com, Infantrymen.Net, Infantrymen's Military Forum are © 2000-2008 MilitaryLtd.Com. All Rights Reserved.
Any copying, redistribution or retransmission of any of the contents or images without express written consent is expressly prohibited.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253