Congressional Record, Volume 156 Issue 56 (Tuesday, April 20, 2010)

[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 56 (Tuesday, April 20, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2460-S2462]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I indicated yesterday, when I asked
unanimous consent on a nomination, that I would be back on the floor
today at 4:30. So following this vote I wanted to come to the floor to
once again ask unanimous consent. I told my colleague from Louisiana,
Senator Vitter, that I was going to do this. I told him last week when
I came to speak about this. I said I don't, under any conditions, come
to the floor of the Senate wanting to be critical of another Senator.
That is not something I enjoy doing. In this case, I explained to
Senator Vitter that I was going to be critical of something he has done
and I felt it appropriate and as a matter of courtesy I should tell my
colleague from Louisiana what I was going to do.
Let me describe the circumstance. It bothers me a lot. I am pretty
unhappy about it and so should all of my colleagues be unhappy. There
is a man named GEN Michael Walsh, a soldier who served this country for
30 years. He served in wartime. I know him, know him fairly well. I am
not related to him. I don't have anything other than a professional
relationship because I have seen his work in the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. He is an extraordinary guy.
He was recommended unanimously by the Armed Services Committee,
Senator Levin and Senator McCain and the unanimous vote of the Armed
Services Committee, to be promoted from a one-star general to a two-
star major general. That was last year.
It has dragged on now for nearly 6 months and this soldier has not
been promoted because the nomination to promote him, which came from
the Armed Services Committee unanimously, has been held up by one
Senator. That is Senator Vitter from Louisiana.
I understand that Senator Vitter is holding this nomination up all of
these months because he is demanding certain things from the Corps of
Engineers for his home State.
Regrettably, it represents a list of things, for the most part, that
the Corps of Engineers cannot do--they don't have the legal authority
to do, they don't have the funding, they don't have the authorization
to do. In any event, the general we are talking about, General Walsh,
doesn't make policy for the corps on whether to do these things, even
if they have the authority. He does policy. That is what the job of
this general is. He is the commander of the Mississippi Valley Division
of the Corps of Engineers. He spent a tour in Iraq for this country. He
has done a lot of work not only in a war zone but all around the
country, has a distinguished 30-year career. Yet despite the fact that
last October, he was to have been promoted to major general, this
soldier's professional life is on hold because of the actions of one
Senator.
I say to my colleague from Louisiana, this is fundamentally unfair to
General Walsh. It is fundamentally unfair. It is not the way we should
treat soldiers. The demands that are being made of the Corps of
Engineers are demands the corps cannot meet. I put the exchange of
letters in the Congressional Record. There are two letters from my
colleague, Senator Vitter, and two responses from the Corps of
Engineers. They make it clear that the Senator from Louisiana is asking
something the corps cannot possibly do. He has made six or eight
requests. I believe the corps has indicated they will proceed on two of
them because they do have the authority. The others they cannot because
they are not authorized. They don't have money, and they don't have the
legal capability.
This is 1 out of 100 nominations that is being held up, 1 out of 100
on the Executive Calendar. This person is someone I know, a one-star
general who deserves to be a two-star general. That is what Senator
McCain and Senator Levin believe. Unanimously, the Armed Services
Committee reported this out last September. This soldier's career is on
hold because one Senator is demanding of the corps something the corps
cannot and will not be able to do. It does not have the legal authority
and does not have the funding and does not have the authorization to do
it.
I am here to make a unanimous consent request again. I ask of my
colleague from Louisiana if at long last he might allow this nomination
to proceed. This general should not be a one-star general. He should
have, last September, been a two-star general because unanimously the
Armed Services Committee believed he was owed that and deserved that
promotion in rank. Months and months and months and months later, this
general has had his career stalled by the actions of one Senator.
My hope is that today perhaps that Senator will tell us he will lift
that hold and that we will be able to give the second star to General
Walsh, a patriot, a soldier, someone who served this country in wartime
and does not deserve what has happened to him in the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, let me join my colleague from North
Dakota in making a plea to the Senator from Louisiana. As the Senator
from Louisiana knows, I am chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
Our committee operates on a bipartisan basis. I see one other member of
the committee sitting on the floor; in fact, two other committee
members are on the floor, including the Presiding Officer. I know they
would confirm what I am saying. We should keep our uniformed military
officers out of any kind of political crossfire. They don't make these
decisions. They put on the uniform of the United States. They give
their lives. Their families support them. The least we can do is give
them bipartisan support. We do that on this committee.
This nomination was approved and put on the calendar on October 27.
This is a document we call the Executive Calendar of the Senate. It is
printed every day. This general has been sitting here now, MG Michael
J. Walsh, since October 27. The Senator from Louisiana has expressed
himself to the Corps of Engineers. He has made his arguments. This
general cannot do what the Senator from Louisiana is asking for. No. 1,
he can't do it because the corps has told the Senator they don't have
the authority to do what he wants them to do in terms of these three
projects. In any event, this general does not have the authority within
the corps to make these kinds of decisions, even if the corps had the
authority to approve these projects.
As chairman of the committee, I know I am speaking not only for
myself, I am speaking for every member of the committee who has voted
for this general's nomination. I know I am speaking for Senator McCain,
who has told me specifically that I can invoke his name in support of a
plea to the Senator from Louisiana to no longer hold this nomination.
It cannot achieve what the Senator from Louisiana wants to achieve. It
is a terrible message to the men and women in uniform that a nomination
such as this is obstructed because there is a request from one Senator
for some projects for his State which the corps cannot approve,
according to the letter which the corps has sent to the Senator from
Louisiana.
I join my friend from North Dakota. On behalf of the Armed Services
Committee, I make this plea. I spoke to the Senator from Louisiana a
number of months ago. He indicated to me that he just needed a few more
weeks. He thought he could straighten this out in a few more weeks. A
couple months

[[Page S2461]]

have now passed since that conversation. I would make this plea as
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, but I know, representing the
unanimous view of the committee, that this man, this soldier, this
general should not have his promotion held up for these kinds of
reasons or any kind of reason, as far as I am concerned, but surely not
a reason where he himself is personally involved. Once in a while we
will disagree with a nomination, including of a uniformed officer,
where we have problems with that uniformed officer's activities,
something they may have done that we disapprove of--rarely, but it
happens. But in this case, this has nothing to do with this officer.
The objection or the effort of the Senator from Louisiana has nothing
to do with this officer. It is not this officer who is blocking
anything the Senator from Louisiana wants.
I join this plea the Senator from North Dakota has made. I know he
will be making a unanimous consent request. I will be joining in that
request when he makes it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I do object. General Walsh today, before
any promotion, is one of nine leading officers of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. He is part of that leadership. I am happy my two
colleagues are satisfied with his leadership and the corps' leadership
and how that agency is being run. I can tell them, as a Senator from
Louisiana, I am absolutely not satisfied with their leadership and how
that agency is being run at all.
Since Hurricane Katrina, there were 14 major report deadlines put on
the Corps of Engineers, required of the corps. The corps missed all 14
of those major deadlines. Today, as we speak, the corps is still
actively missing and has failed to respond to 13 of the 14, having
accomplished 1 many months late.
I have brought nine significant issues before the Corps of Engineers
in conversations with them, not minor projects, major issues with
regard to hurricane recovery and hurricane and flood protection. I have
outlined the authority they have to do constructive things under each
of those categories. They have not responded in a positive or timely
way on eight of those nine issues.
One of those issues is a particularly good example. That is the
Morganza to the gulf hurricane protection project. That is a vital
hurricane protection project that would protect significant portions of
south Louisiana that was originally proposed in 1992. The Senators want
to talk about authority from Congress. That project has been authorized
by Congress three different times in three different water resources
bills. Yet the corps continues to drag its feet and is still not moving
forward toward full implementation of that project, after three
specific authorizations by Congress, 18 years later.
I am sorry the corps leadership is frustrated with an 18-day delay or
an 18-week delay. But I suggest they try 18 years on for size. That is
how long the people of Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes, many folks
throughout Louisiana, have been waiting on the Corps of Engineers.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, let me say to my colleague from
Louisiana, if he will stay in the Chamber--let the record note he has
left the Chamber--there is no State, none that has received more help
more consistently from this Chamber, from the American people, and,
yes, from the Corps of Engineers in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
That State and the city of New Orleans were leveled. It was an
unbelievable catastrophe for the Senator's State and for his city. But
after billions and billions and billions of dollars that has come from
this Congress and, yes, from my subcommittee, the subcommittee on
appropriations I chair, I think it would be nice for a change to hear
that maybe the Corps of Engineers, the Senate, and the American people
have been a great help to New Orleans and to Louisiana.
Let me describe what my colleague just said on the floor, why this is
such an unbelievable mistake for him to make. He says, just to pick an
example: Well, the Morganza to the gulf issue is a perfect example of
how the corps simply will not do what it is supposed to do. It has been
authorized three times, he says, on and on.
Let me read what the Corps of Engineers says and let me tell my
colleagues what I know as an appropriator. The Corps of Engineers is
not authorized to construct the Houma lock, which is what he wants in
this Morganza to the gulf--the Houma lock, as an independent,
freestanding project--or separable elements of the Morganza to the gulf
project. An additional authorization will have to be required to
construct the Morganza to the gulf project in accordance with the new
design criteria.
My colleague might not like that. I understand that. There are a
whole lot of things he doesn't like. But it is a fact. He cannot
possibly go to sleep believing that holding up the promotion of a
soldier who has gone to war for his country because of something that
soldier can't do that he demands be done, he cannot possibly sleep easy
believing that is the right course of action. It is not the right
course of action. This is but 1 of 100 names on the Executive Calendar
to date, 100. This was put on the calendar nearly 6 months ago for a
general who has an unblemished record, has served America for 30 years,
gone to war for this country, and was told by the Armed Services
Committee, Republicans and Democrats unanimously by Senator Levin and
Senator McCain: You deserve a promotion to the second star as a major
general. But 6 months later, this is not a major general.
This soldier has lost his promotion for the last 6 months because of
one Senator saying: I am going to use this soldier as a pawn in my
concerns and demands about the Corps of Engineers.
I could go through the rest of these demands. In fact, let me go
through a couple, if I might. Outfall canals and pump to the river. He
is making demands about that. Let me tell you about that. We had a vote
on this. He lost. He doesn't like it. The Appropriations Committee, the
full committee, voted and he lost. Why did he lose? Because what he
wants to do is the most costly approach that will provide less flood
protection for New Orleans. So you want to spend more money for less
protection? No, the Appropriations Committee voted on that. I led the
opposition. The appropriations subcommittee voted no. He is demanding
holding up, by the way, the promotion for this major general. He is
demanding it be done. The Corps of Engineers says if Congress
appropriates the funds for this study, we will do it. But there are no
funds appropriated.
Why? Because we voted against it. That is why. Unbelievable. And the
list goes on. Ouachita River levees. The authorization for this project
specifies that the levee maintenance is a nonfederal responsibility.
Congress has not enacted a general provision of law that would supplant
this nonfederal responsibility or that would allow the Corps to correct
levee damages that are not associated with flood events.
That is just two. I mentioned three with Morganza. The fact is, we
have a circumstance here where a soldier deserves a promotion, and that
promotion is being held up because we have a Senator who is demanding
things the Corps of Engineers cannot do. That is unbelievable to me. I
do not come here very often getting angry about what a colleague does.
Everybody here has their own desk. Everybody comes here with their own
election and their own support. But I am saying this to you: These
demands and using a soldier's promotion as a pawn in demands of the
Corps that the Corps cannot do is just fundamentally wrong, and I do
not know how someone can sleep doing it.
Madam President, I have not yet made the consent request. I would
alert my----
Mrs. McCASKILL. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield. But I do intend to make a unanimous
consent request. I have not made it. So I would alert the folks who are
here that I will be doing that momentarily.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mrs. McCASKILL. It is my understanding, through the Chair, that there
are dozens and dozens of these holds that are secret and nobody knows
what demands are being made or why. We do not know.

[[Page S2462]]

In this instance, it is my understanding that this Senator has
proclaimed publicly why he is holding it. Is my understanding correct
about that, I say to the Senator.
Mr. DORGAN. That is correct, I think perhaps boasting about it. He is
saying: I have to do this for my State. But there is nothing he can
gain for his State because the Corps of Engineers cannot move on these
issues. They do not have the authority. They do not have the legal
capability. The result is, this soldier, whose promotion he is holding
up, meanwhile is wafting in the wind for 6 months and loses his
promotion.
Mrs. McCASKILL. That is the part I want to inquire about. Let's just
say hypothetically, if the Army Corps of Engineers succumbed to what
the Senator is asking and said: OK, you are going to hold up this brave
soldier's promotion that he deserves because you want something for
your State--if they did that, would that not be illegal?
Mr. DORGAN. Absolutely.
Mrs. McCASKILL. So what he is saying is, he is asking the Army Corps
of Engineers to do something that is illegal, and if they refuse to do
something that is illegal, he is going to refuse to allow a soldier's
promotion to go through? Am I actually getting that right?
Mr. DORGAN. I say to the Senator, I believe you have it pretty close
to right. As I understand it, the Senator is demanding things of the
Corps of Engineers that they do not have the legal authority to do.
Until they do them, he is going to hold up the promotion of General
Walsh, which I think--it is unbelievable to me that someone would do
that.
Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator would yield further?
Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Let me read to you from the March 19 letter from the Corps
on this issue. The Senator from Louisiana said the example he wanted to
use was something called the Morganza project. That is the example. He
said, let me just give you one example. Three times, he says, this
project has been authorized.
Well, this is what the Corps says relative to Morganza. OK. This is
in writing, a letter to Senator Vitter:

The Corps does not have authority to implement the Houma
Navigation Lock as an independent project. Section 425 of
WRDA 1996 authorized a study of an independent lock, but did
not authorize construction. Section 425 in part read . . .
``The Secretary shall conduct a study of environmental, flood
control, and navigation impacts associated with the
construction of a lock structure in the Houma Navigation
Canal as an independent feature of the overall damage
prevention study being conducted under the Morganza,--

That is his project--

Louisiana, to the Gulf of Mexico feasibility study.'' The
Corps conducted a study in response to Section 425, but that
study did not recommend construction of an independent Houma
Navigation Lock feature due to uncertainties of benefits and
concerns over justification of an independent lock structure.

That is their answer. They do not have the authority to do it.
Again, I know the Senator from Missouri is on the committee, so she
understands that we act in a bipartisan way. We try to protect and
defend and support the uniformed members of the U.S. military. We have
unlimited bipartisan support for what they do for us, and this is the
response--a hold on a nomination because the Corps will not do
something they are not authorized to do?
I think it is so unacceptable, I made this unanimous consent request
about 2 months ago. The Senator from Louisiana objected then. He said
to give him a few more weeks. He thinks he could work it out. Those few
weeks have long gone. So I very much support the effort of the Senator
from North Dakota here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, it is unbelievable to me that we have
100 of these. This is one I am particularly concerned about because I
think it misuses a soldier's promotion in pursuit of something that
really cannot be done by an agency, and I regret this is happening.
This should not happen. And how on Earth are we going to find ways to
work together in this place if this is the way we do business?
This makes no sense to me. It is not fair to a soldier. People
listening to this would understand somebody demanding that an agency do
something it cannot do in exchange for releasing a hold on a soldier's
promotion? Is that what we have come to here? I hope not.
So my intention is to offer a unanimous consent request. My
understanding is, someone is----
Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield?
Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. LEVIN. I think the Senator from Delaware has a unanimous consent
request which has been cleared. I wonder, just to make sure the Senator
from Louisiana does have notice--apparently, he has been notified there
is going to be a unanimous consent request.
Mr. DORGAN. I would be happy to have the Senator from Delaware do his
request. I would say, however, that the Senator from Louisiana was on
the floor, and I would have hoped he would have stayed on the floor to
object to something that deals with the holdup he has made on this
nomination. But apparently he has left the floor.
So let me yield to the Senator from Delaware for his unanimous
consent request, and then I will propound a unanimous consent request
on the subject just discussed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, April 21,
following a period of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive
session to consider Executive Calendar No. 699, the nomination of
Christopher Schroeder to be an Assistant Attorney General; that there
be 3 hours of debate with respect to the nomination; that upon the use
or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of
the nomination; that upon confirmation, the motion to reconsider be
considered made and laid upon the table; further, that the cloture
motion with respect to the nomination be withdrawn; provided that upon
disposition of the Schroeder nomination, the Senate then proceed to
Executive Calendar No. 578, the nomination of Thomas Vanaskie to be a
U.S. circuit judge for the Third Circuit; that there be 3 hours of
debate with respect to the nomination; that upon the use or yielding
back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the
nomination; that upon confirmation, the motion to reconsider be
considered made and laid upon the table; that the cloture motion with
respect to the nomination be withdrawn; provided further that on
Thursday, April 22, following a period of morning business, the Senate
proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 607,
the nomination of Denny Chin to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Second
Circuit; that there be 60 minutes for debate with respect to the
nomination; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate
proceed to vote on confirmation of the nomination; that upon
confirmation, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon
the table; with the cloture motion withdrawn, and the President be
immediately notified of the Senate's action with respect to the above-
referenced nominations; with all time covered under this agreement
equally divided and controlled between Senators Leahy and Sessions or
their designees; finally, the Senate then resume legislative session.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Under the previous order, the cloture motions on the Schroeder,
Vanaskie, and Chin nominations are withdrawn.
Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I yield to the Senator from North
Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.