[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.