America's Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2015--Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to tell a story about how a distinguished naval career was ruined by abuse of suspected whistleblowers. The end result is a mixed bag of good and bad.

In doing oversight of the Defense Department whistleblower cases, I have learned a difficult lesson. As hard as we may try, whistleblower 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 whistleblowers--have been left out in the cold. They may never get the remedy they seek and deserve.

At the center of this case is an honored naval officer, RADM 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 in Special Operations--is very unfortunate and very sad as well. Yet that is accountability's harsh reality. This admiral allegedly broke the law and must now pay the price.

In the end, under pressure from several quarters, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus was forced to deny Admiral Losey his second star. This promotion was hanging fire for 5 long years, mostly because of ongoing investigations. Admiral Losey had allegedly retaliated against several whistleblowers.

If the Secretary of the 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 cauldron. Mounting opposition was coming from four different directions.

First, on November 13 of 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 Whistleblower Protection Caucus. Other Senators also made similar requests for those reports.

The second operation. On December 2, 2015, we received four of the five Department of Defense Office of Inspector General reports on that investigation. One is still being reviewed, and I will tell you about that particular report in a minute.

In reviewing these documents, we quickly realized that Admiral Losey appeared to be a serial retaliator of whistleblowers. The evidence was overwhelming. He allegedly broke the law.

It all began in 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 2 months later, and then from that point it was all downhill.

After learning of the anonymous hotline tip, Admiral Losey was reportedly ``livid.'' He saw it as an act of disloyalty and ``a conspiracy to undermine his command.'' He reportedly developed a list of suspects and began a punitive hunt for more. Reports indicate he was determined to find out who blew the whistle, and when he did, he allegedly said he ``would cut the head off this snake and end this.''

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 was a series of reprisals against suspected--just suspected--whistleblowers.

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 Stuttgart, Germany. The person who actually blew the whistle worked at the Travel Office in Norfolk, VA. 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 for the third part of this story. My good friend from Oregon, Senator Ron Wyden, on December 18 of last year, upset the apple cart. He placed a hold on the pending nomination for a new Under Secretary of the Navy, Dr. Davidson. His hold was not directed at Dr. Davidson; instead, it was directed at Admiral Losey's pending promotion. He had grave concerns about revelations in the inspector general's 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 Committee on Armed Services fired a shot across the bow that stopped the Navy dead in the water. The committee's letter to the Secretary of the Navy began with this damaging assessment. After reviewing the investigative reports, we--meaning the committee-- ``maintain 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 reports had turned its earlier assessment upside down. The committee then very much slammed the door 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 groundbreaking letter was signed by Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed, and what is important about this letter is that it is a very sharp departure from actions taken by past Armed Services Committees in 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 of the work of the committee today.

I see this letter as a breakthrough. I see it as a masterpiece. I am proud of the Committee on Armed Services. This about-face came under new leadership, and I hope it signals the dawning of a bright new day. So it shouldn't surprise anyone that I would thank Chairman McCain and thank Ranking Member Reed from the bottom of my heart for this outstanding leadership. Their actions send a message to whistleblowers: Reprisals will not be tolerated. That is a real morale booster for all whistleblowers suffering under the weight of reprisals.

From what I know about whistleblowers, most of them are very patriotic people. They just want the government to follow the law and spend the money appropriately. They just want the government to do what the government is supposed to do. When they see it isn't being done, and they work up the chain of command but do not see any changes, then 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 I earlier referred to. The true scope of the admiral's retaliation actions is still being examined because there is a fifth report out there. The focus of the fifth and final report of the Losey investigation is more like a phantom than a real report.

Over 1,150 days have passed since this investigation began, and it 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 is 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 we would expect--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 arbitrarily 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 is wrong? Why not issue the report?

However, in response to alleged pressure from the Secretary of the 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 was just reaffirmed by an unlikely source--the U.S. Air Force.

Because two Air Force officers were allegedly involved, the Air Force had to conduct its own review. The Air Force also found the evidence very compelling. As a result, the Air Force officer--who was Admiral Losey's command attorney--reportedly faces potential legal trouble. He allegedly facilitated the admiral's retaliatory actions against the whistleblowers. 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 no longer a subject of the investigation.'' How could she do such a thing with all the evidence that is already out there in the other four reports and what we think we know in this report that is 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 1 year, the dispute remains unresolved. The report is still in draft and, obviously, mired in controversy.

I think this all shows that there is 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 what has followed, and I will tell you what followed.

To conform to 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 of last year, as the Losey promotion issue reached a critical juncture, top management allegedly ``directed'' the investigators to change the report's findings from ``substantiated'' to ``not substantiated.'' The investigators were also allegedly directed to change facts and evidence to fit the desired findings. In other words, key pieces of evidence had to be allegedly ``removed'' to ensure that the evidence presented in the report was aligned with the specified conclusions.

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. Glenn Fine, whom I know from a similar position in the Justice Department to be a pretty good inspector general, needs to grab the bull by the horns in this case, and he has the authority to do it.

He needs to call the top officials involved on the carpet. This would include Mrs. Garrison, her deputy, Director Nilgun Tolek, and Deputy Director Michael Shanker. The IG needs to ask them to explain and justify their actions. Next, he needs to ask the investigators to present their side of the story. Then, he needs to weigh independently and objectively the evidence and figure out what needs to be done to get this solved and get this report out. I think Mr. Fine has the capability to be independent and objective, and I ask him to do that.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source