[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 58 (Thursday, April 22, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2541-S2542]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Stalled Nominations

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I know we have a vote scheduled at 12 
noon on a nomination. I know that is but 1 of 100 nominations that are 
on the calendar awaiting action by the Senate. It is probably not very 
surprising that people do not think much of this place when we cannot 
get nominations through, we cannot get business done. But people should 
understand the reason there are 100 nominations waiting on this 
calendar is because the minority has decided to say no to everything, 
just to dig in their heels and decide they are not going to cooperate 
on anything.
  This afternoon I will again come to the floor and ask unanimous 
consent on the nomination of GEN Michael Walsh. I just wanted Senator 
Vitter from Louisiana to be aware that I intend to do that again.
  Let me say I am going to be back this afternoon to talk about the 
START treaty and also to talk about financial reform and a couple of 
issues that are important to me, particularly the issue of too big to 
fail and the issue of, what I call just gambling on naked credit 
default swaps. I will talk about both of those this afternoon.
  But when I come this afternoon, I am going to ask unanimous consent 
on the nomination or the promotion of General Walsh. Let me again 
describe why this is important.
  General Walsh is a decorated American soldier, served 30 years in the 
U.S. Army. He now commands a division of the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers. He has served in wartime. He has served in Iraq. Six months 
ago, on a bipartisan vote, unanimous vote, the Armed Services Committee 
decided to promote this general to major general, give this one-star 
general a second star. And 6 months later, this general has not been 
promoted. This person with a distinguished Army career has not received 
his promotion. His promotion has been derailed by one Member of the 
Senate. That Member has the right to object, and so he has objected to 
the promotion for this general.
  My point has been that the objection to promoting a general with a 
distinguished wartime record and a distinguished record for 30 years is 
an objection based on a demand from one Member of the Senate that the 
Corps of Engineers do something that the Corps of Engineers has already 
told the Senator it does not have legal authority or legal ability to 
do.
  As I have indicated on two other occasions, I do not come to the 
floor to criticise another Member by name. I have never done that 
before by name. But I did tell Senator Vitter from Louisiana that I 
intended to do that. As a matter of courtesy, I wanted him to know. I 
think it is wrong. I think it is a horribly bad decision for him to 
decide that he is going to hold up the promotion of a general who 
served this country for 30 years because he is demanding certain things 
for New Orleans and Louisiana the Corps of Engineers says it cannot do 
and does not have the legal authority to do.
  Let me say as the chairman of the subcommittee that funds all of the 
water issues, and there are plenty of water issues in Louisiana--I know 
because I have been involved in it--we have sent billions and billions 
and billions of dollars of the American taxpayers' money to New Orleans 
and Louisiana in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. I am pleased we 
have done that because they were hit with an unprecedented natural 
disaster called Hurricane Katrina.
  So I was one of those who helped, who helped do some of the lifting 
to get the money to New Orleans and Louisiana. But our colleague 
indicated the other day that he is unhappy with the U.S. Government's 
response down in Louisiana.
  Well, I would simply say to the folks in New Orleans and Louisiana: 
You know what life would be like were this money and were the Corps not 
down there with the billions of dollars that have now been spent. I 
think it is important to understand the value of that cooperation and 
the value of that partnership.
  I understand there are some things about which people disagree. One 
of the issues raised by my colleague is an issue of the pumping 
stations down there. There is a disagreement about how they should 
proceed. He is demanding they proceed with a study in the manner that 
he determines it should proceed. My point is, the Appropriations 
Committee has already voted against that and said: We will not do it. 
No. 1, it costs more; and, No. 2, it provides less flood protection. So 
we are not going to do that.
  To demand that be done, which the Corps does not have the authority 
to do at this point, and as leverage for that demand to hold up for 6 
months the promotion of a distinguished soldier who has served in 
wartime, I think, is unbelievable.
  So this afternoon I will come again and ask unanimous consent once 
again that this soldier get the promotion that he is owed and deserves. 
Senator John McCain, Senator Carl Levin, the ranking member and the 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, both support this promotion. 
The entire Armed Services Committee voted for it unanimously, and yet 6 
months later this soldier is not promoted.
  I can understand people using a lot of leverage around here for 
various things. I have used some leverage myself on certain things. But 
I do not understand someone using the career of a soldier to make 
demands that cannot possibly be met. If he continues to do that for 6 
or 16 months, the situation will be the same as it is now because the 
Corps of Engineers cannot do what the Senator from Louisiana is 
demanding they do.
  It is simply, in my judgment, using this soldier's career as a pawn. 
That is terribly unfair to any uniformed soldier who serves this 
country, especially a soldier who has gone to war for this country. So 
this is fair notice that I will ask unanimous consent. I assume it will 
be somewhere in the 4 or 5 o'clock range today. My expectation is that 
the Senator from Louisiana will be on the Senate floor at that point. 
My hope is he would not object.
  Finally, at long last, my hope is that he will allow the Senate to do 
the right thing and give this soldier's career and this soldier's 
promotion the due that it is owed by this Senate.
  As I said, I am going to come back later today. I want to talk at 
some length about the START treaty, which I think is very important. I 
was in Moscow, Russia, within the last week and a half taking a look at 
global

[[Page S2542]]

threat reduction initiatives that we are working on with the Russians. 
It is very important that this START treaty be ratified by the Senate. 
I note that there are some of my colleagues saying: The only way we 
will ratify the START treaty, the only way we would support that and 
not block that would be if we get dramatic new monies for new nuclear 
weapons or something of the sort.
  So I am going to talk about that today. I also am going to talk about 
the financial reform bill, which is now staring us in the face, and 
about, as I mentioned, the issue of something that sounds like a 
foreign language, but it is not: naked credit default swaps. That is 
not a foreign language; that is flatout gambling that has been done by 
the largest financial firms in the country that steered America right 
into the ditch. It is very important they be dealt with, and dealt with 
the right way in financial reform.
  Also, I am going to talk about the issue of too big to fail. In my 
judgment, if you are determined to be too big to fail, then, in my 
judgment, you are too big. I believe divestiture is an important part 
of the solution to that. I will talk about that more this afternoon.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.