---

Mr. Martinez: Mr. President, I want to use some of the minority time in morning business this morning to discuss H.R. 1591, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2007. We are here now, some 73 days after the President sent us the emergency wartime spending request, and 73 days later we are still waiting to send to our troops the resources they desperately need while they are in harm's way.

On March 23 the House passed their version of the bill, and on March 29 the Senate did as well. We are now in the middle of April and the two bodies have yet to meet to work out their differences. More distressing still, the House has yet to even name conferees.

I know yesterday the leaders of the Congress had a meeting with the President to discuss the progress, or maybe the lack of progress, on this bill. In the 10 weeks since the Congress began consideration, we have turned a bill intended to fund troops into a bill that seeks to put a hasty and misguided withdrawal deadline from Iraq. In addition to that, not only does it not prioritize the war funding and leave it at that, but it also contains about $20 billion in projects that are neither emergencies and, most of all, are not related to the war effort.

In addition to that, it is clear from the conversations that leaders have had with the President that in this current form this bill will be vetoed. So where are we today then? We clearly have a bill that is going to be unacceptable to the Executive. We still have not even conferenced on the bill. And worse yet, the Democratic leadership shows no signs of changing the path on which they are set, which is one that attempts to put an artificial deadline on the commanders on the ground and attempts to put other restrictions on their ability to fight the war from the ground as they best see fit.

So at the end of the day, we should not be using a war supplemental, at a time of war, when our troops are in harm's way, to do things such as put $25 million for spinach farmers--that is not an emergency, that does not relate to the war effort, $75 million for peanut storage. Again, I am sure peanuts being stored is an important thing, but is it a wartime supplemental issue? Is it an emergency? No. And $250 million for a dairy subsidy. We all enjoy ice cream, but do we need to have an emergency appropriation in order to subsidize diary farmers? Do we need to have an emergency appropriation for the war with bin Ladin now with this kind of special interest pork?

There is $3.5 million in this bill for Capitol tours. They are important, too. They are not an emergency. They certainly do not relate to the war. And $2 million for the University of Vermont.

The President has said:

The longer Congress delays, the worse the impact on the men and women of the armed forces [will be]. Our troops, [the President said] should not be trapped in the middle.

I think that is true. I think it is very important that we move this process forward and that we allow for the troops on the ground to receive the kind of funding they desperately need to continue the fight forward.

There is something here we must recognize. Whenever the Congress does not timely fund an agency or department of the Federal Government, then we need to find ways in which to get the job done. I can remember, during my days in the Cabinet, that as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, it is very disruptive for a stream of funding for a given project to be disrupted, because then you have to make amends in order to continue to pay your bills, bills you are obligated to pay, while at the same time having to rob Peter to pay Paul.

It is the most inefficient way to run Government. It is more costly than any other way of doing it and, most of all, when you are dealing with our Armed Forces, it has dire consequences.

Here are a couple of things that are wrong with the situation we are in today: We are delaying for no good reason. Secondly, we are attempting to impose a political deadline on a bill that is intended to provide the troops the resources they need to continue to fight the war.

The Iraq Study Group has been cited as having some good guidance on the way forward. The experts in that group, the Iraq Study Group--I know they are quoted frequently by my friends on the other side of the aisle, but we can't be too selective about what we choose to like from the Iraq Study Group and what we don't.

The Iraq Study Group says that: Near-term results--and this is referring to an untimely or an early withdrawal--would result in a significant power vacuum.

Unquestionably, if we withdraw untimely, there will be a power vacuum in Iraq. There will be greater human suffering, and the region will be destabilized, and a threat to the global economy would also be a part of what the Iraq Study Group found would be the result of a hasty withdrawal.

Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory.

Make no mistake about that. The Iraq Study Group said: Our premature departure from Iraq, leaving a power vacuum, will provide al-Qaida with a victory of historic proportions.

If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return.

This is the Iraq Study Group. This is what they are saying about an untimely and hasty withdrawal from Iraq. There is no question there would be a power vacuum left, not only within Iraq but also in the region. And as a result of that, only those who do not wish us well and who are, frankly, the enemies of our country today would find this vacuum a great opportunity as a way that they could then descend. So there would be a power vacuum within the country, which would surely be filled by the radical elements of the society, who are not the ones who were elected by the people but are the ones who will have the ability, through their own thuggery and armed intervention, by their own militias, to take over the country.

The factional killings would rise even higher than they are today, and then the region will be destabilized, because there is no question that Iran would move into this power vacuum created by the hasty departure of the United States, the only stabilizing force in that area at the moment.

In addition, we would find the other countries in the region, the Sunni states, the moderate Sunni states that are friendly to us, would find this situation untenable. They would then have to act. I think the whole region would be in greater chaos than it is today. This would then necessitate a return of the United States into Iraq in a way that would be, frankly, undesirable.

So what are we doing today? Well, I am not one of those who believes we owe a commitment for the end of time and to all time. But I do not think we are at the point in time when retreat is the only option. Retreat will be followed by defeat, and all of those consequences are not what we want to see.

At this point in time we have two top-rated commanding officers in the field. General Petraeus has been on site a scant couple of months. His plan for this surge, his plan to try to pacify Baghdad, is underway, and while there are daily setbacks, and last night, this morning, we received the news of yet more fighting and more killing and more bombs, the fact is there are some overall trends that seem to be moving in a more positive direction.

Lieutenant General Odierno, who is the commanding general of the Multinational Corps in Iraq, reported on a number of aspects of military progress. He said: "We are seeing a drop in sectarian murders in Baghdad and some displaced families are returning to the city."

Again, these are modest signs of something going in the right direction.

The number of caches we are finding per week has doubled since February.

All of the troops of this reinforcement action that many choose to call a surge have yet to be on the ground. The capacity of the Iraq security forces continues to grow. There are currently 10 Iraqi divisions, 8 of which have transitioned to Iraqi control. I believe yesterday another province was turned over to Iraqi control, the Iraqi forces. Security across Al Anbar has dramatically improved. The people of Al Anbar are fighting back and winning against al-Qaida. And I think that is true. We are receiving unparalleled and unprecedented cooperation from the locals in that area to help us defeat al-Qaida.

This, make no mistake about it, is a fight with al-Qaida. There may be sectarian and factional fighting in Iraq, and certainly in Baghdad, but in Al Anbar we are fighting al-Qaida.

Last week in Ramadi, there were nine attacks in total. During this same week a year ago there were 84 attacks. In the north, petroleum products from the Baiji oil refinery have increased 20 percent in the last 6 weeks alone, due to the Iraq security force's effort to protect the distribution tankers.

The bottom line is, there is a drop in murders, there is an increase in finding arms caches, there is an increase in the Iraqi forces continuing to take control of their own country, there is a decrease in attacks, and there is an increase in oil production. It is a perfect picture but certainly something that seems to be moving in a direction that is more desirable.

The emergency supplemental is vital to the troops and vital to our national security. The operations in Iraq over the next several months will determine our future efforts in Iraq and in that part of the world. We do not have the luxury of delaying these funds. You see, it would be a self-fulfilling prophecy not to properly fund the troops, to require that the rotations that are planned not take place; that the National Guard--we value so much the training. And I keep hearing in the Armed Services Committee repeated questions: Are our troops properly trained before they are sent into battle?

Well, we find that right now home State training of National Guard units had to be suspended because of the supplemental not being funded, and deployment of all military units is going to have to be slowed.

In other words, there are people who are part of our Armed Forces who have been in Iraq, who have served their time, who are expecting to come home. Their time of coming home is going to be delayed because their replacement will not have the resources to get back into the fight.

The administration's position on the bill is that the war supplemental should remain focused on the needs of the troops and should not be used as a vehicle for adding on emergency spending, and also for policy proposals that I find are more destined to make a difference in the political fight than they are in the fight against the enemies of our country.

Mr. President, I conclude by reading a letter that was written by Army LTC Charles P. Ferry, regarding the death of his comrade, his follow soldier, Army Ranger SSG Joshua Hager, a young man who died in the service of his country.

The lieutenant colonel wrote:

On February 22, 2007, the Scout Platoon and I were conducting a vehicle movement at night along a route we had traveled many times before. Joshua and the rest of the Scouts had every inch of this road memorized. About halfway to our destination, Joshua's vehicle was struck by a large, deeply buried improvised explosive device (IED). Joshua was instantly killed by the blast, and the two other Scouts in the vehicle were wounded.

The lieutenant colonel continues to write:

I have been in the Army for about 23 years and served in numerous Infantry, Special Forces, and Ranger Battalions. I have served about three years collectively in combat in Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and Staff Sergeant Joshua Hager is one of the best Sergeants I have ever served with and I trusted my life with him. He was the consummate professional and the absolute standard bearer for his platoon. He died doing what he loved and what he was very good at and I was proud to serve with him. I hope and pray that our Nation will always appreciate the ultimate sacrifice he and his family have made. I will never forget Joshua and I carry his memory burned into my heart as we continue to fight in the city of Ramadi.

I have spoken with the father of Sergeant Hager. We talked a number of times about his son and his son's beliefs. I cannot imagine the pain Mr. Hager feels, but I can tell you what he did say to me. The message from Joshua's father that he wanted me to relay here was Joshua understood his mission. He understood what he was over there fighting for. He knew this was a war worth fighting, and worth winning.

Young Joshua Hager told his dad these things and added:

I'll stay in Iraq for another year or however long it takes to defeat the enemy--so that my son won't have to fight this battle when he grows up.

That statement, I believe, embodies the spirit of our soldiers in the field. They get it. They know their mission. We should know ours as well. We ought to get to work. We ought to strip out of this bill the timelines that would constrain and tie the hands of our military commanders. We should strip the pork, the unnecessary, nonemergency, nonwar-related pork that is in the bill, and send a clean bill to the President that he might sign it and get the resources to the troops they so desperately need, not only in Iraq but just as well as back here at home as we continue to attempt to keep our National Guard properly trained and properly prepared.

This is a difficult issue. I know very much how much this issue can divide our country. But I also know how very important it is to those of us who I believe clearly understand the threat our country faces in the global war on terror, the issues that relate to the security of this Nation, and the very difficult situation we find ourselves in. We should not make this situation more difficult by injecting domestic politics into the atmosphere.

I do believe it is very important that we continue to fund the troops, that we give the troops our support and our backing, and we do so in a timely manner.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The Acting President pro tempore: The clerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mrs. Lincoln: I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Obama): Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mrs. Lincoln: Mr. President, I know the Republican side has additional time remaining. That will be reserved for them. I wish to speak under the Democratic time.

The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.