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.