[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 55 (Monday, April 19, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2401-S2404]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


      Unanimous Consent Request--Nomination of BG Michael J. Walsh

  I ask unanimous consent--and I have notified the minority--that the 
Senate proceed to Executive Calendar No. 526, the nomination of BG 
Michael J. Walsh to be major general; that the nomination be confirmed 
and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that no further 
motions be in order; and that the President be immediately notified of 
the Senate's action.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Reserving the right to object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I wish to make very clear that I do not 
oppose this nominee, and I say to Senator Dorgan that I have no problem 
with what he is doing. I have been asked on the part of Senator Vitter 
to object, so I must object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Iowa is 
acting on behalf of another Senator. I must say I think it is incumbent 
on the other Senator to be here and make this objection himself. I know 
the rules do not require that, but I think the rules at this point are 
derelict in terms of this circumstance.
  We have a general in the U.S. Army who has served this country well 
whose career is now on hold. It is on hold because one person is 
demanding that the Corps of Engineers do certain projects for New 
Orleans and the State of Louisiana. In any event, this general cannot 
do them.
  I chair the subcommittee that funds the energy and the water 
programs. As the chairman of the subcommittee that funds all of the 
water programs, I can tell the Presiding Officer that billions and 
billions of dollars have been sent to Louisiana and to New Orleans. I 
have supported all of that because they were hit with a devastating 
hurricane called Katrina. It caused dramatic injury to life and limb. 
No area of the country has been hit harder.
  I include myself among all of those who say we have a responsibility 
and have begun to meet that responsibility in the most significant way 
that has been done for any State in this Nation at any time. I have 
been proud to do that. But what the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter, 
is demanding from the Corps of Engineers in a number of cases the Corps 
cannot legally do and in other cases the Corps will not do because the 
Appropriations Committee has already voted against it in a recorded 
vote.
  To hold up the nomination to major general of a distinguished Army 
general for all of these months because one Senator is upset is 
horribly unfair to this general, Michael Walsh. I know him. I like him. 
He deserves his second star. The Armed Services Committee unanimously 
has said he deserves a second star. He does not have it. Now many 
months later, month after month, one Member of this Senate, Senator 
Vitter, has decided to extract from the career of this officer some 
penalty because he will not do something he cannot do. It is 
unbelievable to me.
  I say to my colleague, if he wishes to object, I will come tomorrow. 
I will set a time. I wish he would come to the floor and object to my 
request and tell us why he believes this general can do that which the 
general does not have the authority to do. If he finally understands 
that this general cannot do what Senator Vitter wishes him to do, I 
hope Senator Vitter will stand aside and decide not to interrupt the 
fine career of this great military general.
  I will not speak more about this, but I will come to the floor 
tomorrow, and I will notify his office when I am going to be here. I 
hope perhaps he will not have others come and object for him. Perhaps 
he would bother to come to the floor and explain to this general, 
explain to the U.S. Army and the American people why this general, 
having served 30 years and served in wartime, is not able to get his 
second star and has had to wait month after month and more. It is 
unfair, it is wrong, and it needs to be corrected.
  Let me again say that I believe 93 to 100--I am not sure of the 
number today; last week, it was 93; all of these nominations: Winslow 
Lorenzo Sargeant to be Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration, reported out of the committee on September 16 last 
year, not acted on; Brian Hayes, National Labor Relations Board, 
reported out October 21 last year--the list goes on and on.
  I guess it is a strategy--not just on this but virtually on 
everything--to object. In fact, there was one person on this list who 
is coincidentally from my State. That person was a nominee for the 
General Services Administration. Her name was Martha Johnson. Martha 
Johnson was nominated to be the head of GSA. GSA is the Federal agency 
that manages more property than any agency in the world. It manages all 
of

[[Page S2404]]

the Federal property. One Senator put a hold on Martha Johnson's 
nomination. The result was there was not someone to run the General 
Services Administration for almost a year; I believe it was 10 months. 
Then, when we finally invoked cloture after great length, the vote on 
this nomination was 96 to 0. Not even the person who put the hold on 
for almost a year voted no. Everybody voted yes. The result was a 
Federal agency that desperately needed leadership did not have 
leadership for almost a year. Why? Because one Senator said: I am going 
to put a hold on this nomination because of some building someplace. 
They were upset about something. The result is that everybody pays. All 
the American taxpayers pay because we did not have the leadership in an 
agency that desperately needed the leadership. That is just an example.
  It has been so unbelievably disappointing to see what is going on in 
the Chamber with all of these issues. I am almost inclined to think we 
should go through one by one and have 93 unanimous consent requests. 
Perhaps I will do that tomorrow or the next day. I know others will as 
well.
  I guess if you object to everything, including having government work 
the way it is supposed to work, effectively and efficiently on behalf 
of the taxpayers in these agencies that need leadership--I do not quite 
understand why you come to the Senate if you believe the only answer is 
no. It does not need to be someone who decides the only answer is no in 
every circumstance.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes in 
morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.