Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I object.

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 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will be happy to yield without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

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.

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----

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.

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.

Mr. DORGAN. Absolutely.

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. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.

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. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.

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.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, 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 and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, let me again say the reasons that were clearly laid out were inappropriate reasons. The very specific project my colleague described as the problem--at least one of the problems--it turns out he would know, because he has received written notice from the Corps of Engineers, that they do not have the legal authority to do that which he demands. So I do not know. I do not know where you go from here. If facts do not matter in this place, then I guess we have a fact-free debate and one does what they want to do without regard to the consequences. The consequence in this case--the negative consequence is for a soldier, a patriot who has gone to war for this country is now, in my judgment, being treated unbelievably unfairly by at least one Senator. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Thursday, April 22, 2010 at 2:15 p.m. in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on a discussion draft of the ``Indian Energy Promotion and Parity Act of 2010''. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 202-224-2251. committee on rules and administration

Mr. DORGAN

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 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.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this morning I was looking at something I have had on my desk for a long while. I was thinking about words and words that matter because there have been a lot of words recently about the issue of financial reform or Wall Street reform, how it is done, when it is done, whether it is done. I was thinking about the use of words and that words do not mean what they used to mean. I went back, because I have kept this on my desk for a long time, to something that was sent out widely across the country. It was from something called GOPAC. It was kind of the start or at least the genesis of the collapse of comity and the use of good language and so on. This was sent out widely around the country to several thousand people. It said: We have heard all these candidates across the country say: I wish I could speak like Newt--meaning Newt Gingrich. I wish I could speak like Newt. Then it said in the language that it sent out to people: You can speak like Newt Gingrich. It said: We have actually done a lot of work developing polling on contrasting words, and if you would like to speak like Newt Gingrich, here is some help for you. Here are words. Then they sent this out. It says: Apply these words to your opponent, to their record, to their proposals, their party. They have a long list of words: sick, lie, betray, traitors, pathetic, threaten, corruption, punish, corrupt, cheat, steal, abuse of power. Use these words when you describe your opponents. They said: Here are the positive words you should use when you talk about yourself: pro-flag, pro-children, pro-environment, liberty, principal, pioneer, truth, moral, courage, family. And the list goes on. I thought when I received this a long while ago how unbelievably pathetic it was that there were merchants of destructive politics marketing this trash around the country. Yet they were and have for a long time. It is the case that they use pollsters to do this, to tell everyone what kinds of words exist that will motivate both negatively and describe your opponents--sick, pathetic, lie, betray--and what words would positively motivate your supporters. I was thinking about that, and I dug that out just because in recent days and weeks we have seen examples of language that matters and instructions by people of how to use language, even though it does not apply, to describe your position. I was interested in seeing the results of a pollster who described the way to attack financial reform. Again, it was not in the same way of the GOPAC polling to find the most destructive way you could describe something, but it was similar in the sense of, how would you construct something, notwithstanding the facts--how would you construct something to make an impression about something no matter what the facts might be. This is from some polling work that was done. It says: Frankly, the single best way to kill any legislation is to link it to the big bank bailout. The words that would matter are these: No matter what the circumstances are, the single best way to kill any legislation is to link it to the big bank bailout. Words that work: ``taxpayer-funded bailouts,'' ``reward bad behavior,'' ``taxpayers should not be held responsible,'' ``if a business is going to fail, no matter how big, let it fail.'' If these words sound familiar, it is because you have heard them all on the floor of the Senate in recent days and you have heard them on television a lot in recent days. It is the issue of, how do you develop language that motivates people, notwithstanding the set of facts. ``It is not reform''--again quoting from the polling work--``it's the stop big bank bailout bill.'' That is important. This is not a reform bill; it is to stop the big bank bailout. What we have here is the battle of polling. How can you describe words that work, language that works, notwithstanding the set of facts you might be discussing? Ultimately, if we are going to effectively deal with Wall Street reform, reforming our financial system, it is not going to be with a battle of pollsters; it is not going to be regurgitating what one reads--here is how you motivate someone using these words. It is going to be that we think through what happened and then understand what do we do to make sure this cannot and does not happen again. We hear a lot of talk about the need for bipartisanship. I would love to see that. I would love to see bipartisanship on specifically the kinds of remedies that have teeth, that are effective, and that are going to prohibit that which has happened to this country from ever happening again. That will not be done, in my judgment, by deciding to step back a ways and use a light touch. I am for the right touch; I am not for a light touch. I have seen the light touch for a decade now, or at least a substantial portion of the last decade. We have had agencies, the SEC, and others in a deep Rip Van Winkle sleep. In fact, we had people come to the SEC who noticed what some folks were doing to bilk taxpayers and investors and nobody did anything. I was here when new regulators came to town and said: You know what. We are going to be willfully blind for a while. It is a new day. The fact is, regulation is not a four-letter word. The free market system works, but it works when there is a referee. The referees with the striped shirts and whistles are needed to call the fouls because there are fouls from time to time in the free market system. That is why we have regulatory capability and authority. So the question of what kind of financial reform or Wall Street reform is developed is not going to be about the language of financial reform--which is what this is about, a document that has been distributed and that I heard quoted many times now in recent days. It is not going to be about the language but about the specific set of policies that will prevent what happened to this country from ever happening again. I will come and talk about some of that, but I did want to say I was thinking about the issue of the use of words, and I find it pretty interesting to listen to the use of specific words and to listen to the menu of the language of financial reform that comes from the pollsters and then comes straight out of the mouths of others very quickly. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Illinois knows who has a hold on that nomination.

Mr. DORGAN. No, I do not. The reason I asked the question is these holds are, in some cases, anonymous. I spoke earlier today about a hold on a promotion for one of the generals in the Army to be a major general that has now been held up for nearly 6 or 7 months by Senator Vitter. I use his name because I told him I was going to because he is demanding of this general something the general cannot do. I mean, that is an example. We happen to know where that hold is from. But of these other 100-plus nominations, they sit here, day after day, month after month, and someone has put a hold on them for some reason. If I might mention one other, the woman who was to head the GSA, that was vacant for nearly a year because of a hold of one Senator, and when we finally got around to voting for her, it was 94 to zero. The Senator who held her up for a year even voted for her. That is the kind of game that is being played. It is unfair.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, while we are waiting, I want to speak about two issues. First is something called the Cobell settlement, which perhaps many will not know about. It is the settlement of a class action lawsuit against the federal government for mismanaging the trust accounts of American Indians for well over a century. The trust accounts for American Indians come from property that belonged to the Indians that the federal government holds in trust. The trust was managed by the U.S. Interior Department and many accounts over a long period of time were mismanaged. Revenue from oil wells, from extraction of minerals, and revenue from leasing lands for cattle never showed up in the accounts or mailboxes of the Indians who owned the property. Many of these Indians and members of the class action have long since passed away, not having survived the 14 years of this lawsuit. The lawsuit has been ongoing for some 14 years now, and the Federal court has become very impatient while waiting for Congressional approval. At long last, the Interior Secretary, Secretary Salazar, negotiated an agreement to settle the Cobell suit. Friday, April 16th, is the third date which the court set for Congress to act on this settlement. We will miss this date just as we missed the first two dates. The court has just now indicated that it will approve a fourth date by which the Congress must act to approve this settlement of Indian claims. The judge has also indicated that if Congress does not act, he will invite some Members of the Congress to his court to talk about why action was not taken. That would probably be an interesting constitutional issue. In any event, the judge in this case is very impatient and wants to see the settlement approved by Congress. The first Americans, Indians who are owed this money and for whom the settlement was acceptable and, the Interior Secretary, who has called me many times urging approval of the settlement, are also very impatient. I hope we will not miss a fourth deadline established by the Federal court. Republicans and Democrats in this Chamber and in the House of Representatives have an obligation. Literally, money was stolen from American Indians, from property they owned and the income from that property that was supposed to go for their assistance and living conditions because it was owned by them, and in many cases these accounts were mismanaged, and in some cases the money was stolen. This settlement, which will be paid from the United States Judgement Fund, is fair and is long overdue. It will settle a lawsuit that has languished for about 14 years. I hope, in working with the House of Representatives, we will not miss another deadline. Perhaps if we do, the judge will ask some Members of Congress to visit with him. We will see what happens as a result of that. Mr. President, on another matter, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 more minutes as in morning business.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would not criticize another Member of the Senate on the floor of the Senate--certainly not by name--unless I first had told the Senator I was intending to do so. I have done that, and I will shortly explain why. There is a man named GEN Michael Walsh, a commander in the Corps of Engineers. He is an extraordinary general. He is a one-star general, a brigadier general, and he has been recommended for the rank of major general. That recommendation was made nearly 6 months ago. Six months ago, the Armed Services Committee, with the support of Senator Levin, the chairman, and Senator John McCain, the ranking member, unanimously approved the promotion to major general for Michael Walsh. Six months ago that action was taken in the committee. There has been no major general rank for General Walsh because it has been held up on the Senate floor, with what is called a hold, by a Member of the Senate, Senator Vitter from Louisiana. The fact is, this is an extraordinary general, a general who has been to war. This is a general who went to Iraq to fight for this country. This general has 30 years of distinguished service to America, a patriot. He doesn't make the policy at the Corps of Engineers. This is a commander who executes the policy at the Corps of Engineers. My colleague, in letters to the Corps of Engineers, is upset with the Corps of Engineers and is demanding they do certain things that the Corps in some cases cannot and in other cases will not do because it is unwise. Some of the demands have been met where the Corps believed it was appropriate, although it has not been funded yet because that has to be done by the Appropriations Committee. The Corps cannot meet other demands. I opposed one of the significant ones brought to the Appropriations Committee, and upon my opposition, the full Appropriations Committee voted against it. So it is not going to happen. But to hold up a general's rank to major general, hold up his promotion and have him now 6 months behind other generals both in pay and promotion and opportunity is just unfair. It is just not fair. This is not someone who can fix the aches and pains and ills and concerns of my colleague from Louisiana. This is a general who is a patriot and has served this country for 30 years. I don't think he ought to be used as a pawn in some concerns about water policy or concerns about issues in New Orleans or Louisiana dealing with flood control and responding to the needs of that city and that State. As chairman of the committee that funds energy and water programs, I can tell you that we have sent billions and billions of dollars down to Louisiana and to New Orleans--I am proud to have done it--in order to say, after Hurricane Katrina and during the rebuilding, to the people of Louisiana: You are not alone, we are with you. We have spent a lot of money doing that. I am proud to have been a part of that. But the demands that are required now by Senator Vitter in order for him to lift a hold on the move to the rank of major general for a one- star general who has served this country for 30 years and fought in Iraq, in my judgment, are unfair. We should not hold a general's promotion and career hostage to the demands of one Member of the Senate. That is exactly what has happened for 6 months. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a January 13 letter from my colleague to the Corps of Engineers. It is a letter from my colleague, Senator Vitter; a March 12 letter in response to that letter by the Corps of Engineers to Senator Vitter; a March 16 letter to the Corps of Engineers from Senator Vitter; and, finally, a March 19 letter back to Senator Vitter from the Corps of Engineers.

Mr. DORGAN. Simply, GEN Michael Walsh is someone I have known for a long time. He is an extraordinary soldier and a patriotic American who doesn't deserve, and never deserved, to have his promotion derailed for 6 months by one Member of the Senate. That is not fair. That is using this person, this patriot, as a pawn in trying to extract from the Corps of Engineers something the Appropriations Committee has already voted against, in one case. In other cases, it is something that the Corps of Engineers cannot legally do without authorization from Congress. We cannot do that to soldiers who have served their country. That is not fair. I am not going to ask consent today because my colleague, Senator Levin, previously asked consent, and Senator Coburn from Oklahoma, on behalf of Senator Vitter, the other day objected to this promotion. But I will ask my colleague from Louisiana to stand down on this and give this soldier the respect and honor and the due that is owed him by the Congress. The Armed Services Committee, with its chairman and ranking Republican member, unanimously decided that this good soldier should be promoted to the rank of a two-star general. That was 6 months ago. Six months later, he is a pawn on the floor of the Senate held by one person trying to extract from the Corps of Engineers some things that the Corps cannot possibly do, and some things that are not wise to do, and I would not support in any event. As I said when I started, I would not come to the floor of the Senate and criticize a colleague without first informing him of that criticism. I did that. I don't take any measure of satisfaction in criticizing a colleague. But I will tell you this: What happened to this general is just flat wrong. There is no way for anybody in this Congress to justify holding this general hostage for 6 months in his promotion to major general. I ask my colleague from Louisiana to end this hold, to give this soldier his due. This soldier has earned his second star, and 6 months ago this Congress should have voted in response to the unanimous vote by the Armed Services Committee to give this soldier his second star. I hope that soon my colleague will delete that hold so my colleague from Michigan can seek unanimous consent to do right by GEN Michael Walsh. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.