through september of next year. the bill authorizes just over $33 billion for faa programs and policies that includes new consumer protections for airline passengers and federal regulations for drones. last week president obama signed a short-term extension that would last until july 2016. live coverage by the senate now on c-span c-span2. the chaplain: let us pray. gracious god, each blessing we receive is a gift from you. thank you for the blessings of life, liberty, and love. thank you also for the blessing of salvation that we receive by grace through faith.

today, empower our senators to live a life rooted in your grace. liberate them from guilt, fear, and division. give them the wisdom to rely on your love, as they seek to live faithfully for your glory. may the good they accomplish because of you lead them away from pride or boasting. may they always point to you as the source of all that is good. we pray in your holy name. amen. the president pro tempore: pleae join me in reciting the pledge f allegiance to our flag.

i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presidin the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, the bipartisan f.a.a. reauthorization act is the product after collaborative committee process in a senate that's back to work. it was guided and formed by a series of substantive committee hearings, contains ireds from committee members on both sides of the aisle and because republicans and democrats were given a stake in the outcome, it passed the commerce committee it on a voice vote. senator thune is the chair of that committee. senator ayotte is the chair of the committee's aviation panel. we recognize key players like these for their many months of hard work, hearings, and

collaboration. we recognize the ranking member, senator nelson, and cantwell, and committee members from both sides for their contributions as well. the bipartisan f.a.a. reauthorization act will support american jobs and help american manufacturing. it will improve safety in the skies and security in our airports. it contains commonsense reforms for passengers, too. in fact, a consumer columnist for "the washington post" dubbed it -- quote -- "one of the most passenger-friendly federal aviation administration reauthorization bills in a generation." for instance, to the extent an airline charges fees for things like baggage or cancellations or changes, this bill will help ensure that they provide it in a clear standard format people can actually understand. it will allow passengers to get refunds for services they purchase but don't receive, like if they've been charged a bag

fee and the bag doesn't make it. it will give passengers more peace of mind when they travel directing the f.a.a. toupdate the contents of on-board emergency medical kits and it maintain rural access in states like kentucky. the act achieves all of this without imposing the kind of overregulation that takes away choices from consumers and threatens service. it does everything i mentioned without raising taxes or fees on travelers. it's a balanced bill. that doesn't mean some colleagues won't have ideas or amendments they he they'd like to have considered. in the wake of brussels, i know some have expressed interest in security-related amendments, but in order to even have an opportunity to work through an additional -- additional ideas or amendments, we must first get on the bill, and i'm optimistic, after talking to the democratic leader, that we will do that in a few lours. so if colleagues are serious about having the opportunity for

amendments of any kind, here's what it means today. let's continue doing our job. we'll vote today to get on the bill and move ahead. now, on other matter, today the administration will unveil a set of regulations many believe will make it harder for low- to middle-class families to save for retirement. the regulation has been a long time coming, and there will be changes made from what was initialingly proposed. -- initially proposed. however, the fundamentals are likely to remain the same. if that's the case, then here's what we can sail safely say. some have estimated that investment fees could more than double under this regulation. here'here's what that could mea: access to critical retirement advice for those who can afford it and restricted access to affordable advice for too many lower- and middle-class americans. it sounds a lot like obamacare. here's why.

like obamacare, it threatens to up end an entire industry, threatens to increase cost and decrease access, and threatens to hurt the very people it's aimed at helping. this regulation could have the effect of discouraging investment advisors from taking on clients with smaller accounts. what that means is that smaller savers -- everyday americans trying to plan for their future -- could have less access to sound investment advice. one report projects the rule could cost middle-class families $800 billion in lost savings over the next decade. and already, mr. president, i've heard from kentuckians who fear the negative repercussions this rule could have. one financial advisor in my state shared with me his concerns about how the rule, as proposed, could impact his clients. there's the single mom with a daughter in college who he fears could see significant investment fee increases under the rule.

increases she simply cannot afford. the small business which could have a harder time assessing investment advice, potentially leading it to stop offering retirement plans to employees altogether. and the retirees living off their life savings who could seereductions in their fixed incomes because of potential increases in investment costs. from its initial proposal at a campaign of this style event to its rollout today, this regulation seems to have always been more about politics than good policy. according to a report released by the senate homeland and government affairs comirks the administration seems to have -- quote -- "disregarded concerns and declined to implement recommendations from career, nonpartisan staff and initials." chairman johnson's report goes on to say the administration -- quote -- "frkly prioritized the completion of the rule-making process at the expense of

thoughtful deliberation." america's middle class deserves responsible solutions, not far-reaching regulations that could jeopardize the retirement security of the very people it purports to help. mr. reid: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: thank you very much. the last 12 hours or so the republican leader and i have had some very productive discussions on the f.a.a. bill and the associated tax title. those discussions have been productive, as the republican leader said. and so i say to all my members, we're going to go ahead and support invoking cloture on this part of the bill. we're going to proceed to this legislation. we should know in a few hours

how much of the postcloture time will have to be used. i hope not very much. i hope we can get right to offering amendments. as the republican leader said, nelson and thune, the managers of that, will manage this bill, and the committee did a good job. there are some airport security measures in the bill. i think that we need to do more, but what they did is certainly a step in the right direction. so there will be amendments dealing with airport security coming from our side. there could be some other amendments, but we will see. but i do hope that we can yield back whatever time is left on the bill. i hope we can do that no later than this afternoon. mr. president, i commend the administration for the rule that was issued dealing with the fiduciary duties on investments.

these advisors on investments will do a better job for consumers because of this rule. this issue is so important that it's -- it will save consumers, consumers, at least $17 billion a year. not over ten years, but a year. so that is something that's very, very important. i hope people understand that. mr. president, yesterday the assistant republican leader made an interesting statement as he spoke to reporters off the senate floor. this is what he said -- and i quote -- "even though this is an election year, it's no excuse for not getting the people's work done." close quote. we all agree. on this side of the aisle, we all agree. this is -- even though this is an election year, it's no excuse for not getting the people's work done. i didn't write that for the republican whip, but i could

have. it couldn't have been any better had i tried to write it. so, mr. president, that's why senate republicans should put aside election-year politics and do their job regarding president obama's nominee to the supreme court judge garland, hopefully to be justice garland soon. and what is that job? as the republican lead said a decade ago -- and i quote -- "our job is to react to the nomination in a respectful and dignified way. at the end of the process, to give that person a up-or-down vote, as all nominees of majority support have gotten through the history of the country. it's not our job to determine who ought to be picked." close quote. so says the senior senator from kentucky. by the republican leader's own admission, our job is to carry out a respectful nomination process. that means hearings. and at the end of the process we must give the nominee an up-or-down vote. that's our job, and we should do

it. would the chair announce what we're going to be doing for the remainder of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to h.r. 636, which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to the consideration of h.r. 636, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to permanently extend increased expensing limitations and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, for weeks now we have seen democrat senators come to the floor and attack the chairman of the senate judiciary committee. the tone of these attacks against senator grassley have been vicious and they have been very personal.

i believe democrats have embarrassed themselves and they have really done a disservice to their constituents and to the united states senate. senator grassley is an outstanding public servant. he has been relentless in representing the interests and the views of the people of his home state of iowa. he has not missed a vote in 27 years. he holds town hall meetings in every one of iowa's 99 counties every single year. that's how seriously chuck grassley takes his responsibility to serve and to represent the people of his home state. every other member of this body should be trying to copy his example, not come to the floor to criticize him or take cheap

shots, as the democrats have been doing in an attempt for political gain. what senator grassley wants should be the same thing that all of us want when it comes to momentous decisions. decisions like who will have a lifetime appointment to the supreme court of the united states. he wants to give the people a voice. that's what senator grassley wants for the people of iowa and that's what i want for the people of wyoming. senator enzi and i had a telephone town hall meeting last month talking to people around the state of wyoming. the great majority of the folks in wyoming agree with senator grassley, agree with senator enzi, agree with me about the next supreme court justice and giving the people a voice. this isn't just something that republicans are making up because we don't like this nominee, although there was plenty not to like.

it's what past chairmen of the senate judiciary committee have done, democrats as well as republicans. in 1992, senator joe biden, now vice president joe biden, but then-senator joe biden came to the senate floor to explain his rule called the biden rule and what it had to do with supreme court nominations. on this senate floor joe biden said that once the presidential election is underway, he said -- quote -- "action on a supreme court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. current vice president joe biden as a senator. joe biden's words, former chairman of the senate judiciary committee. the same position that senator chuck grassley currently holds. senator biden at the time said

the temporary vacancy on the court was, as he said, quite minor. quite minor, he said, compared to the cost to the nominee, the president, the senate and our nation would have to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight. senator biden was one of the democrats who voted to filibuster samuel alito's nomination to the supreme court. so was senator pat leahy, who once also chaired the senate judiciary committee. senator obama and senator harry reid -- that's right, barack obama, current president of the united states, then-senator obama. senator harry reid, once majority leader, now minority leader, voted for that filibuster. back in 2005, when senator reid was, again, the democrat leader, he said nowhere in the constitution does it say the senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote.

senator reid even went so far as to unilaterally change the rules of the senate on nominations a few years ago. he was in the majority then. now he is in the minority. so that's what democrats have done, what they've said, what they've said about things like nominations to the supreme court and other important jobs for the country. we have elections in this country for a reason. and so we can hear directly from the people what they think and how they want us to act on their behalf. in 2014, the american people rejected the path that the democrats in washington were taking. they put republicans in charge of the house and the senate because they wanted us to act as a check and a balance on what president obama was doing. democrats want to ignore the will of the people on this supreme court nomination. the president wants to say it's

his decision and his alone. well, it's not just his decision. now that the election season is upon us, it should be the people's decision. republicans understand that. senator grassley clearly understands that. and democrats actually used to understand it. we need -- we need to give the people a voice. mr. president, i would also like to speak today briefly about something going on in my home state of wyoming. late last week two of our states largest coal mines announced that they will let go 15% of their workers. 465 families. 465 families now living with the terrible pain of loss of a job. wyoming has seen thousands of

hardworking men and women lose their jobs in the energy industry over the past few years, people working in oil, in gas, and in coal. now, democrats in washington should never forget that the regulations that they and this administration impose have real impact on real people. when members of congress focus obsessively -- and it's a misguided obsession -- focus obsessively on ideas like climate change, they do grave damage to the hardworking families all across this country who are trying to provide energy for america and provide for their families. when democrat presidential candidates say that they want to keep our resources in the ground, they send shock waves through communities that depend on energy jobs.

when the obamacare promotes green energy at any cost, it does great harm to americans who are working to produce red, white, and blue energy. seven years of overregulation has taken their toll on coal country. the obama administration has taken away these people's jobs and now it is going and trying to take away their dignity. because their job is related to a person's aoeup -- identity and dignity in so many ways. my goal is to make american energy as clean as we can as fast as we can without raising costs and causing pain to american families. now that means investing in new ways to develop wyoming's incredible energy resources and finding new markets for these resources. energy is known as the master resource. it is the master resource for a

reason. and america can provide and produce the energy we need for a strong economy as well as a healthy environment. there are bipartisan ideas and bills here in the senate to help us do both. we should never give up on that goal. american energy production has powered our economic recovery and has been the workhorse for the american economy for the last seven years through the economic recovery. it's time for us here in the senate, here in the country, certainly here in washington, to return that favor and to help get these americans back to work. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? -p. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming.

a senator: i'd ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 55, h.r. 636, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to increase expensing limitations and for other purposes signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to h.r. 636, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to permanently extend increased expensing limitationed and for other purposes shall shall brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 98, the nays are zero. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator fr iowa. mr. grassley: i come to the floor today to tell a story about how a distinguished naval

career was ruined by abuse of suspected whistle-blowers. the end result is a mixed bag of good and bad. in doing oversight of the defense department, whistle-blower cases, i have learned a difficult lesson. as hard as we may try, whistle-blower cases rarely have good outcomes. now, true, a wrong may be made right. a measure of justice may have been meted out, but the victims, the whistle-blowers have been left out in the cold. they may never get the remedies they seek and deserve. at the center of this case is an honored naval officer, rear admiral brian l.losey.

he can only blame himself for what happened. no matter how you cut it, though, the destruction of a distinguished military career, especially one devoted to hazardous duty and special operations is very unfortunate, and very sad as well. yet, that's accountability's harsh reality. this admiral broke the law and must now pay the price. in the end, under pressure from several quarters, secretary of navy ray mabus was forced to deny admiral losey his second star. this promotion was hanging fire

for five long years, mostly because of ongoing investigations. admiral losey had allegedly retaliated against several whistle-blowers. if the secretary of navy and the navy's top brass had their way, admiral losey would be wearing that second star today. but late last year, it got tossed into a boiling called -- caldron. mounting opposition was coming from four different directions. first, on november 13 last year, after learning about the controversy, a bipartisan group of senators weighed in with a request for all the reports on the losey matter. the requests came from senators wyden, kirk, boxer, johnson, markey, mccaskill and baldwin,

along with this senator from iowa. we happen to be members of the whistle-blower protection caucus. other senators also made similar requests for those reports. the second operation on decembed four of the five department of defense office of inspector general reports on that investigation. one is still being reviewed, and i'll tell you about that particular report in a minute. in reviewing these documents, we quickly realized that admiral losey seemed to be a serial retaliator of whistle-blowers. the evidence was overwhelming. he allegedly broke the law. it all began july, 2011, at the

norfolk naval base travel office. there was a minor dispute over who should pay for his daughter's airline ticket to germany. as a coast guard academy cadet, that daughter was not entitled to travel as a dependent at taxpayers' expense. although admiral losey, his wife and staff allegedly pestered the travel office to pay for the ticket. admiral losey eventually purchased it with his own money. nonetheless, this incident triggered a hotline complaint on july 13, 2011. admiral losey was informed of the complaint two months later. and then from that point, it was all downhill. after learning of the anonymous

hotline tip, admiral losey was reportedly lived. he saw it as an act of disloyalty and --quote, unquote -- a conspiracy to undermine his command. he reportedly developed a list of suspects and began punitive hunt for -- began a punitive hunt for moles. reports indicate he was determined to find out who blew the whistle, and when he did, he allegedly said he -- quote -- would cut the head off this snake and end this. end of quote. so in his drive to root out moles, he created a toxic environment in his command. his seemingly reckless behavior and blatant disregard for the law and well-being of his subordinates led to his

downfall. the end result of the admiral's misguided search for moles were a series of reprisals against suspected, just suspected whistle-blowers. his choice of suspects was gravely mistaken. no one, in fact, had blown the whistle, yet each was allegedly subjected to adverse personnel action at his direction and with his concurrence. his targets were mostly senior members of his command staff at constitute -- at stuttgart, germany. the person who actually blew the whistle worked at the travel office, norfolk, virginia. clearly, this was a case of misdirected retaliation which makes his alleged abuses even more egregious.

as soon as senators finished reviewing these reports and started asking pointed questions, the navy knew the watchdogs were on the case. the navy brass went to general quarters. according to reports in "the washington post," the top brass turned up the pressure. they arbitrarily dismissed the inspector general's findings and put the promotion on a fast track. now, the third part of this story. my good friend from oregon, senator ron wyden, on december december 18 last year upset the apple cart. he placed a hold on pending nomination for the new under secretary of the navy, dr. davidson. his hold was not directed at dr.

instead, it was directed at admiral losey's pending promotion. he had grave concerns about revelations in these inspector generals reports. his hold restored much-needed leverage lost when the senate confirmed the admiral's promotion in december, 2011. he wanted the secretary of the navy to reconsider the promotion, so i commend my friend from oregon for taking this action because it was an immediate game changer. fourth, on january 14, 2016, there came a bolt out of the blue. the senate armed services committee fired a shot across the bow that stopped the navy dead in the water. the committee letter to the secretary of the navy began with

damaging assessment. after reviewing the investigative report, we, meaning the committee, maintained deep reservations about admiral losey's ability to successfully perform as a two-star admiral. this was the death knell, but the committee's condemnation didn't end there. if it had known in 2011 what it knew in january of this year, the committee said it would never have confirmed admiral losey's nomination in the first place. the inspector general's damaging investigative report had turned its earlier assessment upside-down. the committee then slammed the door very shut.

the committee urged the secretary of the navy to use his authority to deny the promotion. there was no gentle nudge. this letter effectively ended admiral losey's career. the secretary of the navy had run out of options. the secretary had to do what he had to do. the committee of jurisdiction had laid down the law. the admiral should not be promoted, end of story. admiral losey will now step down as leader of the naval special war command and retire. the committee's ground breaking letter was signed by chairman senator mccain and ranking member senator reed. this letter -- what's important about this letter is that it's a very sharp departure from the

armed services committee in the past of questioning a lot of these things that go on in the defense department. during the course of my oversight work, i have had several beefs with this committee over issues exactly like this. all were about the need to hold senior officers accountable for alleged misconduct based on evidence in inspector general reports. the response back then was very different from what i see here today, the work of the committee here. i see this letter as a breakthrough. i see it as a masterpiece. i'm proud of the armed services committee. this about-face came under new leadership, and i hope it signals the dawning of a bright new day. so it shouldn't surprise you that i would thank chairman

mccain and thank ranking member reed from the bottom of my heart for this outstanding leadership. their actions then sends a message to whistle-blowers. reprisals will not be tolerated. that's a real morale booster for all whistle-blowers suffering under the weight of reprisals. and what i know about whistle-blowers, most of them are very patriotic people. they just want the government to do -- to follow the law and spend the money appropriately. they just want the government to do what the government's supposed to do, and when they see it isn't being done and they work up the chain of command and they don't see any changes, then they -- they come to members of the senate and the congress. so i thank them again for having the courage to do the right

thing. holding such a distinguished naval officer accountable was no easy task. to the contrary, it was as difficult as they get. mr. president, now that the question of the admiral's promotion has been laid to rest, i would like to turn to that unfinished business that i earlier referred to, the two scope of the admiral's retaliation actions is still being requested because there's a fifth report out there. the focus of the fifth and final report of the losey investigation, it's more like a phantom than a real report. over 1,150 days have passed since this investigation began and is still not finished.

it should be a piece of cake. the cast of characters, the facts, the evidence and the findings should be essentially the same as in other losey reports published long ago. so i ask what's really going on here. i have received several anonymous tips. what i hear is very disturbing. this report is allegedly being doctored causing bitter internal dispute over across the river. on one side are the investigators just doing their job. they appear as you would expect them to be to be guided by the evidence. on the other side is top management at the defense

department. they appear very eager to line up with the navy's decision to arbitrarilily dismiss evidence from the get go. the findings in the draft report substantiated reprisal allegations against admiral losey consistent with the other reports. top management initially concurred with those findings. so then what's wrong? why not issue the report? however, in response to alleged pressure from the secretary of navy's office, they caved and agreed to take losey out of the report. how could they get such a bad case of weak knees. the evidence staring them in the face seems irrefutable, rock

solid. plus, it just just reaffirmed by an unlikely source, the u.s. air force because two air force officers were allegedly involv involved. the air force had to conduct its own review. the air force also found the evidence very compelling. so as a result, the air force officer who was admiral losey's command attorney reportedly faces potential legal trouble. he allegedly facilitating the admiral's retaliatory actions against the whistle-blowers. the other officer will retire. despite the red flags and the need for caution, caution has been tossed to the wind. on march 31, 2015, deputy inspector general marguerite

garrison gave the navy a green light to proceed. she notified admiral losey by letter that he was -- this is a quote -- he was no longer a subject of the investigation." end of quote. now, how could she do such a thing with all the other evidence already out there in the other four reports and what we think we know in this report that's not public? at that point in time admiral losey's alleged retaliation was the centerpiece of the report. true, it was a draft report in the midst of review. true, there were questions about admiral losey's role. yet after the passage of one year, the dispute remains unresolved. the report is still in draft. and obviously mired in controversy. mr. president, i think this all shows that there's something

rotten at the pentagon. to send such a letter which was inconsistent with the evidence in an unfinished report seems inappropriate. the garrison letter set the stage for then what's followed. and i'll tell you what followed. to conform with the garrison letter the findings in the draft report had to be allegedly changed from substantiated to not substantiated. the investigators, thank god, dug in their heels and stood their ground. the evidence was apparently on their side. in early december last year as the losey promotion issue reached a critical juncture, top management allegedly, -- quote,g

of the findings to substantiated to not substantiated. the investigators were also allegedly directed to change facts and evidence to fit desired findings. in other words, keep pieces of evidence had to be allegedly actually removed to ensure that the evidence presented in the report was aligned with a specified conclusion -- with specified conclusion. these are very serious allegations deliberately falsifying information in an official report constitutes a potential violation of law. if the directed rewrite of this report really happened and if it is allowed to stand, it could undermine the integrity of the whole investigative process.

the new acting defense department inspector general, mr. glen fine, who i know from a similar position in the justice department to be a pretty good inspector general, he needs to grab the bull by the horns in this case, and he's got the authority to do it. he needs to call the top officials involved on the carpet. this would include mrs. garrison, her deputy, director neilgen tolllock and deputy director michael shanker, mr. -- the i.g. needs to ask them to he can't plain and justify -- to explain and justify these actions. next, he needs to ask the investigators to present their side of the story. then he needs to in a very independently and objective way

objectively weigh the evidence and figure out what needs to be done to get this solved and get this report out. and i think that mr. fine has that capability of being independent and objective, and i ask him to do that. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the minority leader -- democratic

leader. mr. reid: it's my understanding we're in a quorum call. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. reid: i would ask unanimous consent it be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i'm here to dendz chief justice john roberts -- roberts. i'm here because he has been attacked without cause by the chairman of the judiciary committee. yesterday afternoon, the senior senator from iowa hit a new low in trying to justify his unprecedented obstruction of president obama's supreme court nomination, judge merrick garland. the chairman of the judiciary committee accused chief justice john roberts of being -- quote -- part of the problem, close quote. when it comes to politicization of the supreme court, that is without any foundation. i don't agree with the chief justice on every opinion that he's rendered or, frankly, do i agree with a