EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS -- (Senate - May 24, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. STEVENS. I say to my friend from Hawaii that it is my understanding that the Senator is correct. I am advised that the funding in this bill for Defense Subcommittee matters is identical to that agreed to by the Senate on April 26, 2007, except in three areas. The increase in this bill for the Defense Health program is nearly $1.876 billion while the previous bill would have increased the health program by $2.126 billion. In addition, this bill has reduced funding for the Defense Working Capital Fund by $200 million and reduced the initiative for the Strategic Reserve Readiness Fund by $385 million. Aside from these changes the funding in this bill is exactly the same as previously passed.
Mr. INOUYE. I thank my colleague for that clarification. Therefore, I ask my friend whether he agrees that the allocation of funds that the Congress provided for these defense programs as described in the joint explanatory statement of the committee of conference to accompany H.R. 1591, except for those three areas that he just specified, is exactly the intent of this bill that we are about to pass?
Mr. STEVENS. I agree completely with my good friend. The intent of those of us who oversee the Defense Department and the drafting of this bill was to provide funds as specified in the joint explanatory statement which accompanied H.R. 1591.
Mr. INOUYE. Again, I thank my colleague. If I could make another inquiry, the Congress also included items in House Report 110-60 and Senate Report 110-37 which provided guidance to the Defense Department on several items in this bill. Would the Senator from Alaska agree with me that the intent of the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense was that the guidance in these reports should be adhered to except in those areas that were altered in this bill or those areas that were addressed to the contrary in the joint explanatory statement to H.R. 1591?
Mr. STEVENS. I concur in the Senator's assessment. The Defense Subcommittee reviewed many matters before it prepared Senate Report 110-37 regarding the supplemental appropriations request before the Senate. In putting together H.R. 2206, our intent was to continue the guidance that the Senate included in its report. In addition, we have concurred in the guidance of House Report 110-60 except in those areas specifically noted in the joint explanatory statement which accompanied H.R. 1591.
Mr. INOUYE. I thank my friend. Then would you agree with me that it is our intent that the Defense Department should adhere to the guidance under the conditions which you and I have described above?
Mr. STEVENS. I say to my friend I agree with his assertion. I share his view that the Department of Defense should use the two committee reports and the joint explanatory statement of the committee of conference accompanying H.R. 1591 to discern the will of Congress in respect to this bill H.R. 2206.
Mr. INOUYE. I appreciate the comments of my friend, the Senator from Alaska, and concur. It is our view and intent that the Defense Department shall adhere to the funding allocation and comply with the guidance in the above described reports in interpreting the will of the Congress with respect to H.R. 2206, except in those few areas which are also described above. I thank the Senator from Alaska for his time and cooperation in this matter.