Congressional Record, Volume 156 Issue 58 (Thursday, April 22, 2010)

[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 58 (Thursday, April 22, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2550-S2553]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I had informed my colleague from Louisiana
that I would come to the floor to once again ask unanimous consent on
an issue he has been holding or blocking, and it is the issue of the
promotion of General Walsh, a distinguished American soldier who has
served his country for 30 years and served in wartime, who has been
approved to have a promotion to the rank of major general by the Senate
Armed Services Committee, and that committee approved that promotion
unanimously, the committee headed by Senators Carl Levin and John
McCain. Both strongly support the promotion of General Walsh. That
support was given and the notice of promotion was voted on by the Armed
Services Committee in September of last year.
This soldier's career has been put on hold by the hold of one
Senator, the Senator from Louisiana. I informed him that I would speak
on the floor on this, so I am not being impolite. I normally would not
speak of another person solely on the floor of the Senate. Yet the
Senator from Louisiana is the one who has exhibited the hold to prevent
the promotion of this soldier.
I know this soldier. That is not why I am on the floor. I know
General Walsh. He commands the Mississippi Valley Division of the Corps
of Engineers and does a great job, in my judgment. But, again, his
career has been stalled by the actions of one Senator.
That Senator indicates there are certain demands he has of the Corps
of Engineers and unless they are met, he will not allow this soldier to
be promoted. The point is, this solder executes; this solder is not
making policy in the Corps of Engineers, and he cannot do what the
Senator from Louisiana demands he do. The Corps of Engineers does not
have the legal authority to do what the Senator from Louisiana demands
he do.
I have put in the Record the two letters the Senator from Louisiana
has given to the Corps of Engineers making certain demands. I have put
in the Record the response from the Corps of Engineers.

I believe 2 days ago when we had this discussion that my colleague
from Louisiana indicated the corps had missed 14 deadlines or deadlines
on 14 reports and he was not happy with the Corps of Engineers. I went
back and found out what that was about. Let me just say that 10 of
those 14 reports dealt with the Louisiana coastal area. All of those
reports were authorized in WRDA 2007. Prior to initiating the studies,
the corps was required by other law that exists to execute a
feasibility cost-sharing agreement with the State of Louisiana. To cost
share the study would result in the feasibility report. At the State of
Louisiana's request, the corps did not execute this agreement until
June of 2009. I can describe the other four as well.
But to come to the floor and suggest that somehow the Corps of
Engineers is slothful and indolent, or at least slothful, for missing a
deadline on reports, 10 of which they missed because the State of
Louisiana requested they be delayed--I don't know, it seems to me that
this may not be on the level.
Let me make one final point. When a natural disaster hit Louisiana
and New Orleans, I was one of those who cared a lot about reaching out
to say: You are not alone. And it was not just me; it was all of my
colleagues. But I chair the subcommittee that provides the majority of
the funding for this. We provided all of the funding for the Corps of
Engineers. The fact is, we have put--listen to this--$14 billion--$14
billion--into New Orleans and Louisiana. I am proud of having done it.
It is what we ought to do as a country. But I must say that it wears
out the welcome a bit for someone to come to the floor to disparage the
Corps of Engineers and the efforts of the Corps of Engineers. That $14
billion--much of that runs through the Corps of Engineers, and I wonder
where that city and that State would be without the Corps of Engineers
to be engaged with them in these battles.
So let me say to my colleague from Louisiana that demands being made
of the Corps of Engineers that the corps cannot possibly comply with
because the law will not allow them to comply are demands that are
never going to be met. To hold up the career of one distinguished
soldier who has served in wartime because the corps cannot meet demands
required by the Senator from Louisiana is unfair. It is always and will
always be a disservice to uniformed soldiers anywhere to hold hostage
promotions of soldiers in order to get demands that cannot possibly be
satisfied.
So I am going to once again ask unanimous consent that the nomination
that has existed on this calendar since September of last year to
promote a distinguished soldier who has a distinguished record--I am
going to ask once again that, at long last, perhaps my colleague will
relent and allow the promotion to proceed and allow this soldier's
career to continue.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Executive Calendar
No. 526, the nomination of BG Michael J. Walsh; that the nomination be
confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, any
statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record, and the
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, as my colleague knows, I object. Let my
say why I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, may I proceed?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Mr. VITTER. Let me explain why I object, as I have explained very
openly, very clearly every step of the way. Michael Walsh is one of the
top nine officers of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He is part of
the key leadership.
Senator Dorgan is a fierce, active, vocal defender of that
bureaucracy, but before he continues and plunges into

[[Page S2551]]

that fierce and vocal defense, I suggest he step back for just a minute
and truly think about and understand what he is defending. Before he
accepts every suggestion, every argument of the Corps of Engineers'
bureaucracy, I suggest he step back and look at the history of the
corps and look at the source he is accepting as gospel truth.
Senator Dorgan mentioned Hurricane Katrina, called it a great natural
disaster. It was a great natural disaster, a horrible natural disaster.
It was also a horrible manmade disaster because if we want to talk
about the greatest damage--not the only damage but the greatest
damage--inflicted upon the country from Hurricane Katrina--the flooding
of the city of New Orleans--that was manmade by the Corps of Engineers.
That was due directly to the design flaws of the outfall canals in
New Orleans by the Corps of Engineers. The Corps of Engineers has
admitted this, and we have laid that out in congressional testimony
since Katrina. The problem is, no one in that bureaucracy has ever been
held accountable for that. I don't want to focus on looking back. The
even greater problem is looking forward because that bureaucracy has
not fundamentally changed.
I challenge my distinguished colleague, Senator Dorgan, to spend half
as much time working with others to change the truly broken bureaucracy
of the Corps of Engineers, spend half as much time as he has spent as a
fierce, active, and vocal defender of that broken bureaucracy.
I am fighting for that change. I will continue to fight for that
change. I will use every tool available to me as a Senator to do so.
For instance, in the last WRDA bill, I worked very hard to craft
language to include in the bill the Louisiana Water Resources Council,
an outside peer review body, to bring outside, independent expertise
and analysis to work with the corps on key projects following Hurricane
Katrina. That was included in the 2007 WRDA bill. It passed into law.
Do my colleagues know what the corps did to implement that? Nothing. Do
they know how they acted to move that forward, an absolute, clear,
statutory authorization from Congress? They did nothing. They said they
are not going to do it.
Finally, I got them to change their tune. Finally, they are committed
to beginning to move forward 3 years later, but I had to get their
attention through this scenario.
Unfortunately, that is not the only item on which they have ignored
mandates from Congress and ignored pressing needs all around the
country, including my part of the country. I tried to pinpoint specific
items where they were not living up to their mandate or to Congress's
direction. I could have listed dozens. Instead, I focused on nine
specific items. I worked closely with the corps, had several meetings
discussing those items in an abundance of trying to work with them
toward resolution. After that, I focused on three of the nine, rather
than all nine. I laid out why they did have the authority to move
forward in some positive way on all that. I am going to continue to do
so until we get real, positive change at the corps and real, positive
progress on these important issues.
The Senator's main argument, apparently spoon-fed by the corps, is
that the corps has no authority to do anything in these areas, no
authorization language from Congress. That is flat wrong. Again, before
the distinguished Senator simply accepts every little e-mail, every
little memo the corps feeds him, perhaps he should consider the source
of that information. If the corps was always right, New Orleans would
have never flooded. If everything the corps said was good and true and
gospel, we would never have had those billions of dollars of damage in
terms of the catastrophic flooding of New Orleans caused solely by
breaches in canals which were design flaws of the Corps of Engineers.
Let me go through a few specifics and explain--I have done this with
the corps over and over--the authority they do have. One of my top
concerns--
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. VITTER. I will yield when I am through. One of my top concerns is
the critical outfall canals in New Orleans. It was the breaches in
those canals that led to 80 percent of the catastrophic flooding of New
Orleans. It was those breaches that were caused by design flaws of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. All I am asking under this category is
that the corps do a risk/cost analysis of the different options they
have identified in terms of fixing the outfall canals.
The reason I am concerned about the path they are moving down, which
is their option 1, is that I truly believe it is much less safe and
much less robust than their identified option 2. It is not only I who
believes that. It is the corps who admits it. In the corps' report to
Congress, which we mandated, the corps itself said: Option 2--that is
the option they are rejecting--is generally more technically
advantageous and may be more effective operationally over option 1
because it would have greater reliability and further reduces the risk
of flooding.
In addition, Chris Accardo, the corps' chief of operations in New
Orleans, said he is in favor of option 2 over option 1, absolutely.
In light of that, all I am asking, with the rest of the Louisiana
delegation, with all the affected communities in southeast Louisiana,
is that the corps perform a risk/cost analysis comparing these
different options before they forge ahead building the option they
themselves admit is less safe, less dependable.
It is also important to note that the corps clearly has authorization
from Congress to do this study. General Van Antwerp, in my office,
clearly said they do. They have authorization. They have authority.
They can do the study. They are not going to do it. Why don't we
compare these options, the relative risk and the relative cost, before
the Corps of Engineers plunges ahead to build the option they
themselves say is less secure and less safe?
The second key issue I have focused on in my letters to the corps is
the mandated AGMAC project, including the buildup of protection banks
in Vermilion Parish to give that parish greater protection from storm
surge. They were devastated during Hurricane Rita, in particular, and
also in significant events since then. Again, the corps has authority
to do this project. This project is in the WRDA bill. The corps says:
We have busted our spending limits. We have explained to them various
ways they can solve that problem by using O&M funds, exactly as they
have used O&M funds for bank buildup in the MRGO project. We have given
them another route, to use the CWPPRA program in conjunction with the
WRDA-mandated project. The corps' response has been pretty simple. Its
response has been: No, we don't want to do it.
Third and finally, the other big concern I have highlighted and the
most obvious case of the Corps of Engineers ignoring the mandate of
Congress, not having authorization, actively ignoring the mandate of
Congress, is the critical Morganza to the gulf flood protection
project. That project was initiated in 1992, 18 years ago. Senator
Dorgan, the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, wants to say that
the corps has no authority in this area. This project was included in
three different water resources bills, once, then twice, and then a
third time. Every step of the way, the corps has come up with excuses
why they cannot move forward. Under their present plan, they are
restudying the project, and that restudy is due in December 2012. There
is one little problem with that. That will be after the next water
resources bill, which we hope to pass in 2011. All the people of
LaFourche and Terrebone Parishes who are going without adequate
protection, who are in danger every additional hurricane season, having
missed three WRDA trains because of the foot-dragging of the corps, now
under the corps' present plan, they will miss a fourth.
We wish to talk about authorization from Congress. Is specific, full
construction authorization in three WRDA bills not good enough? If that
is not good enough, I don't know how to meet the corps' criteria.
If those three particular concerns are not enough, we can expand the
list. In an attempt to work with the corps, in an attempt to find
resolution, I have narrowed the list. I have tried to compromise. I
have offered to meet with them. I am offering to meet with them again,
as I have done consistently throughout the process. But if narrowing
the list is going to be held

[[Page S2552]]

against me, we can expand the list. How about the final report of the
Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration effort, a comprehensive
analysis mandated in Public Law, an emergency appropriations bill after
Hurricane Katrina? It was due in December 2007. It is not finished. It
is not delayed because of the State of Louisiana. It is delayed because
of the corps.
I know Senator Dorgan is anxious for a promotion of the corps
leadership. I have to say, I am anxious for this critical report that
was due in December 2007. We haven't seen it.
Is that not good enough? How about the Louisiana Water Resources
Council I talked about? That was mandated in the 2007 WRDA bill. The
corps has not produced it yet. It wasn't just authorized; it was
mandated. It is not up and running. Senator Dorgan is anxious for a
promotion for the pristine corps leadership. I am anxious for that.
How about the establishment of a Coastal Louisiana Ecosystem
Protection and Restoration Task Force? That was mandated in the 2007
WRDA. We haven't seen that yet. The integration team under that task
force was a separate team mandated in the 2007 WRDA, 3 years ago.
Nowhere to be seen. That is not being held up by the State. That is the
corps. Clear authorization, clear mandate, nowhere to be seen.
How about a comprehensive plan for protecting and preserving the
Louisiana coast? That was due in November 2008. That was mandated in
the 2007 WRDA. It is not being held up by the State, but it is nowhere
to be seen. Senator Dorgan is anxious for promotion for the pristine
corps leadership. I am anxious for this important work to protect
Louisiana citizens.
That is not the whole list. How about the Mississippi River Gulf
Outlet Ecosystem Restoration Plan? That was due in May of 2008. We
haven't seen it. It has not been submitted. It is a corps report, not a
State of Louisiana report. Nowhere to be seen.
How about section 707 of the WRDA? That actually mandates that the
State can get credit from one project and it can be transferred to
another project. It is in clear language. The corps says they are not
going to do it. You want clear authorization? We have it. The corps is
ignoring it.
How about section 7006 in the same 2007 WRDA. That requires that five
construction reports be submitted to Congress to move forward with key
projects authorized in that WRDA, five critical projects. They are
authorized in the WRDA bill. They can't move forward until those
construction reports are submitted by the corps.
We have not seen the first thing of any of those five reports. The
State is not holding them up. We are waiting on the corps. The
distinguished Senator is anxious about a promotion for the pristine
corps leadership. Well, great. I am anxious to see that mandated
report.
We can go on and on. The point is----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional
minutes.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague from Louisiana describes me
as anxious. I will tell you what I am anxious about. I am anxious to
have a Member of this Senate stop using a U.S. soldier and the
promotion of a soldier as a pawn to meet certain demands. I am anxious
never to see that happen again.
We are talking about a soldier who has served in wartime, has served
30 years, who, 6 months ago, was supposed to have been promoted by a
unanimous vote of the Armed Services Committee under the leadership of
Carl Levin and John McCain. Six months later, that soldier's career is
on hold because of one Senator.
I wish to say this. I think it was Will Rogers who said: It is not
what he says that bothers me. It is what he says he knows for sure that
just ain't so. I have just heard the most unbelievable amount of
fiction on this floor. Let me describe some of it. My colleague has
just gone through a tortured lesson in the most unbelievable
interpretation of the authority and the law with respect to the Corps
of Engineers.
I said when I started today that we have put $14 billion into New
Orleans and Louisiana. I have been proud to be a part of that as
chairman of the subcommittee on Appropriations that actually funds
these issues--$14 billion. But I will say to my colleague, my colleague
is fast wearing out his welcome with me and I expect the Corps of
Engineers with this kind of behavior.
I do not normally do this personally, but I tell you what, when a
soldier serves his country and then my colleague says to that soldier:
I am not going to allow you to be promoted until the Corps of Engineers
does what I demand, when, in fact, the Corps of Engineers cannot
legally do what he demands, then I say that is using a soldier's
promotion as a pawn, and I think that is unbelievably awful to do.
I wish to say this. My colleague described--in fact, he said I was
using information the corps feeds me. He went into a whole series of
pieces of language, suggesting we have all swallowed the minnow
somehow.
Let me say this. On the first item my colleague raised, he forgot to
make one important point. He said: I demand they do this. That is the
first issue of his letter to the Corps of Engineers--the outfall canals
and pump to the river. I demand they do this, he said. Well, they
cannot do that, actually. What he is proposing, by the way, for his
State and his city is to spend more money for less flood protection.
That is what he is proposing.
The corps will not do it, and I will tell you why. He knows why, but
he would not tell the rest of the folks here. But we actually had a
vote on that in the Senate Appropriations Committee. Guess how that
vote came out. The majority of the Democrats and the Republicans on the
Appropriations Committee said: We do not intend to spend more money for
less flood control protection. We do not intend to do that. We voted
no. It is just one little piece of information my colleague left out on
the floor of the Senate. Convenient perhaps, but, nonetheless, he left
it out.
I am not going to go through this. We have the majority leader and
the minority leader on the floor. But I offered, as a courtesy, to tell
the Senator from Louisiana when I was coming to the floor today. He did
not extend the same courtesy to me when I asked him to yield so I could
make a point about the vote, so I will not be extending that courtesy
in the future.
I am going to come to the floor again on a unanimous consent request
saying: Let's have one person in this Senate stop using the promotion
of a dedicated, decorated, American soldier as a pawn in order to meet
demands that the Corps of Engineers cannot meet. My colleague seems to
think somehow that the Corps of Engineers is something, an organization
without merit. I will say this to him: There are plenty of things wrong
with, I suppose, every government agency and every government
organization.
But I will say this. If you know much about the Corps of Engineers,
you are not going to want to be in a big flood fight without them as a
partner. Oh, they have made mistakes, I tell you. But nobody has had
more floods than we have had in North Dakota, I expect, over a long
period of time, and I wish to see the corps as a partner in the flood
fight because they are good. They know what they are doing.
Yes, they have made mistakes. But when my colleague comes to the
floor of the Senate and says there are 14 reports, the Corps of
Engineers blew it--14 reports--they cannot meet any deadlines, he does
not tell the rest of the story. I went and checked on those 14 reports.
Let me describe 10 of them. I will not describe the other four because
it would take some time. But for 10 of the reports the deadline was not
met on, it was because the reports required there be the execution of a
feasibility cost-sharing agreement with the State of Louisiana, and at
the request of the State of Louisiana, the corps did not execute the
agreement until June of 2009.
So my colleague criticizes the Corps of Engineers, calls them a bunch
of elitists. He says they miss all these deadlines. Well, at least on
10 of the deadlines the State of Louisiana asked them not to proceed
with respect to that agreement until June of 2009. That is
fundamentally unfair--fundamentally unfair.
With respect to Morganza to the gulf--and I could go through a whole

[[Page S2553]]

list of things to demonstrate that--as much as my colleague would like
for the corps to have complete authority and funding to do everything
he would like and then for them to say: Yes, absolutely, whatever you
like, we are willing to do--as much as he would like that, he is flat
out dead wrong when he says they have the authority to do these things.
I put the demands in the Record, two letters from my colleague. They
are in the Record and I have read and will read--but I will not do it
now because my colleagues are here and waiting to speak.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will my friend yield for a unanimous consent
request and then the Senator will maintain the floor?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield without losing my
right to the floor.
Mr. REID. I will say to my friend, we have 99 other holds, but this
one, I will have to acknowledge, is a little egregious. One of our
finest military people is being held up for this. There are ways we can
move around this, and we will do it as quickly as we can with cloture.
I appreciate my friend yielding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the majority leader is
recognized.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional
seconds.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have to get this done. OK.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

____________________