WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) issued a statement today regarding threats by the Trump Administration to withhold federal education funding from school districts that determine they cannot safely reopen for in-person instruction in the fall:

“Decisions about school openings should be made by local health officials, parents and teachers – not Betsy DeVos or Donald Trump,” said Sen. Warner. “I'll be introducing a bill to make it crystal clear that the Trump Administration doesn’t have the authority to cut off funding for local schools during the COVID-19 crisis.” 

Sen. Warner has continued to be a strong advocate for education during the COVID-19 crisis. In May, he joined his Senate colleagues in introducing a bill to ensure K-12 students have adequate home internet connectivity and devices so that they may participate in online learning during this health crisis. He has also repeatedly advocated for robust funding and distance learning resources for K-12 students.

###

Today, U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner joined Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) and 44 of her Democratic Senate colleagues in writing to Vice President Mike Pence, and Coronavirus Task Force Coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx, urging the Trump Administration to reverse recent changes requiring hospitals to report data to a new system set up by the Department of Health and Human Services instead of the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) which is run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and has been in use for over a decade.

 “We write today to urge you to withdraw your confusing and harmful changes to hospital reporting requirements for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). In the midst of a global pandemic, these changes pose serious challenges to the nation’s response by increasing the data management burden for hospitals, potentially delaying critical supply shipments, compromising access to key data for many states, and reducing transparency for the public. The Trump Administration’s mismanagement of the COVID-19 response and refusal to heed public health expertise continue to put the country in a dangerous position,” write the Senators.

The letter the Senators sent today details how the sudden switch to the new system could undermine the COVID-19 response on several fronts: hospitals unable to switch within 48 hours could lose access to critical supplies; states who have built their own response and data systems on the NHSN could lose access to critical information; and the decision to circumvent CDC could lead to disruption in the data collected, questions about its accuracy, and hampered access for public health experts and the general public.

Before posing several questions to Administration about the shift, the Senators’ letter concludes, “Without adequate data, the country has been unable to appropriately adjust our response to COVID-19—a reality highlighted by the dearth of reliable data on the heavy burden of COVID-19 on communities of color and other vulnerable populations. The American people deserve to know the true scope of the pandemic, and that can only happen if public health experts lead in collecting and reporting data accurately and transparently. By abruptly changing the reporting process by requiring hospitals to report to HHS and circumventing CDC, we are concerned there will be a disruption in the data collected and questions about the accuracy of that data.”

The letter was also signed by Sens. Gary Peters (D-MI), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Tom Carper (D-DE), Bob Casey (D-PA), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Ed Markey (D-MA), Tom Udall (D-NM), Jack Reed (D-RI), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Tina Smith (D-MN), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Angus King (I-ME), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Doug Jones (D-AL), Kamala Harris (D-CA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Chris Coons (D-DE), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Jon Tester (D-MT), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Joe Manchin (D-WV).

See the full text of the letter below. A PDF is available HERE.

July 17, 2020

The Honorable Michael R. Pence

Vice President of the United States

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20500

The Honorable Deborah Birx, M.D.

Coronavirus Task Force Coordinator

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Vice President Pence and Ambassador Birx,

We write today to urge you to withdraw your confusing and harmful changes to hospital reporting requirements for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). In the midst of a global pandemic, these changes pose serious challenges to the nation’s response by increasing the data management burden for hospitals, potentially delaying critical supply shipments, compromising access to key data for many states, and reducing transparency for the public. The Trump Administration’s mismanagement of the COVID-19 response and refusal to heed public health expertise continue to put the country in a dangerous position.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is the primary repository of the nation’s public health data, including data on COVID-19. Leading public health groups agree that CDC is “uniquely qualified to collect, analyze and disseminate information regarding infectious diseases.”^[1] The agency’s National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN), which has played a critical role in collecting public health data for fifteen years, is used in over 25,000 health care facilities across the United States for mandatory reporting of infection-related data and for voluntary use for quality improvement. NHSN’s COVID-19 reporting module for hospitals, which launched on March 27, 2020, enables facilities to submit data on cases, personnel, and supply shortages. Following the launch of the COVID-19 module, Vice President Pence and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) required both hospitals and nursing homes to report to NHSN. Within six weeks of its launch, over 60 percent of the nation’s hospitals were reporting daily through the NHSN COVID-19 module. As a result, many states have built their own COVID-19 data management systems on this NHSN data feed. 

Despite the CDC’s well-established reporting mechanism, in early April, the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) issued a six-month contract for $10 million on a non-competitive basis to TeleTracking to create an alternate hospital reporting pathway to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).  The new system inexplicably created a second, duplicative mechanism through which hospitals could report the same information already collected through NHSN – this time managed by a private contractor.

On July 13, 2020, you directed hospitals to cease reporting data to NHSN and instead report to HHS via the newly established TeleTracking or HHS Protect systems within 48 hours, splitting out hospital reporting and nursing home reporting into separate systems. Your request states “[a]s of July 15, 2020, hospitals should no longer report the COVID-19 information in this document to the National Healthcare Safety Network site. Please select one of the above methods to use instead.” ^[2] You further unreasonably urged states to consider deploying the National Guard to the nation’s hospitals to support this data reporting change.^[3]

The change in reporting mechanism that you have ordered will only exacerbate ongoing challenges to tracking COVID-19 data, which is already hampered by serious limitations in how data is collected, managed, reported, and disseminated.  Combined with insufficient testing capacity, this has led to an incomplete picture of the scope and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. The CDC has indicated it believes the true number of cases in the country is 10 times higher than the official counts.^[4]

The CARES Act, signed into law by President Trump on March 27, 2020, included $500 million for the CDC Data Modernization Initiative, to help CDC update, streamline, and scale up data collection. Rather than focusing on these critical efforts, however, the Trump Administration has chosen to instead reorganize and redirect data flow. This decision by the Administration to change the reporting process in the midst of a pandemic is deeply troubling. While there are certainly steps needed to improve public health data collection, waging interdepartmental jurisdictional battles to sideline our nation’s leading public health agency in the middle of an historic pandemic is bad management at best and malpractice at worst.

Rather than focusing on emergency response and patient care, hospitals must now spend precious time and resources changing their processes for reporting data.  You also announced that as soon as next week shipments of critical supplies that are in shortage, including personal protective equipment (PPE), will be based on data collected from these new systems. That means hospitals that are unable to change their reporting in under 48 hours may lose out on access to those critical supplies. Furthermore, the lack of transparency under the new data reporting requirements raises major concerns regarding their distribution. An opaque data collection mechanism invites political interference in processes and decisions that must be driven by data and public health.

Moreover, the abrupt change in data collection mechanisms threatens to leave states that rely on the NHSN data feeds in the dark about the spread of COVID-19 in their communities. By eliminating NHSN as the data source, and moving all federal hospital reporting to two systems that do not automatically share data or analytic reports created by CDC medical epidemiologists with states, the federal government is significantly undermining states’ ability to effectively respond to this crisis. This is unacceptable at any point in a pandemic – it is especially dangerous in a moment where cases are surging to unprecedented levels, with more than 66,000 new cases reported in the U.S. on July 15.^[5] This Administration has repeatedly underscored the role and responsibility of states in responding to COVID-19, yet steps like these actively undermine states’ responses.

Without adequate data, the country has been unable to appropriately adjust our response to COVID-19—a reality highlighted by the dearth of reliable data on the heavy burden of COVID-19 on communities of color and other vulnerable populations. The American people deserve to know the true scope of the pandemic, and that can only happen if public health experts lead in collecting and reporting data accurately and transparently. By abruptly changing the reporting process by requiring hospitals to report to HHS and circumventing CDC, we are concerned there will be a disruption in the data collected and questions about the accuracy of that data.

The federal government must ensure data collection is led by public health experts, remains transparent and accurate, and is appropriately safeguarded. We urge that these changes to COVID-19 hospital reporting requirements be halted immediately.

Additionally, we request answers to the questions below about the decision to change data reporting requirements for hospitals. Please respond to the questions by July 31, 2020:

1. What is the justification for requiring hospitals to change their reporting within 48 hours?
2. What is the public health rationale for moving data collection from the CDC to HHS?
3. Will HHS or TeleTracking now provide analytic reports of the hospital data to other federal government agencies, state health departments, and hospital facilities as CDC previously did?
4. Will HHS or TeleTracking publicly report a portion of the hospital data as CDC previously did?
5. To the extent HHS is limiting access to data or analytic reports for federal agencies, state health departments, hospital facilities, and/or the public, what is the justification for such limitations?
6. How will data reported to HHS be transmitted to CDC to support ongoing holistic public health surveillance and analysis efforts of COVID-19 infections?
7. Please detail any differences between the NHSN, TeleTracking, and HHS Protect systems on the basis of technological capability or data collected.
   1. Please explain why NHSN is insufficient to effectively collect and report relevant COVID-19 data.
   2. Is NHSN unable to determine any resource allotments or response activities for which TeleTracking or HHS Protect offers new capabilities?

                                                              i.      If so, what would be required to update NHSN in order to allow it to perform this function? Why was this not pursued?

                                                            ii.      If not, please explain the stated justification for these changes.

1. Which office or entity will be in charge of managing the data at HHS?
2. Please describe the steps the Administration is taking to ensure data is both accurate and readily available for CDC, states, public health departments, Congress, the research community, and the public.
3. How will the Administration ensure a transparent data collection process?
4. How will the Administration ensure improved collection of demographic data, including data broken down by race ethnicity, age, geography, disability status, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), and socioeconomic status?
5. What funding is being used to support the new HHS data collection system?  Please include details about which COVID-19 emergency supplemental bill appropriated this funding and the justification for HHS to use it for this purpose.  Please also include estimated costs for developing and implementing this new system as well as any other related expenses, the plans for its long-term use, and projections for its annual costs. 

We look forward to your responses.

Sincerely,

 ###

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine (both D-VA) today announced $1,627,377 in federal funding for public transportation in the City of Radford. The funding was authorized by the Federal Transit Authority (FTA) under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act supported by Sens. Warner and Kaine.

“We’re glad to announce that this funding will allow the City of Radford to continue providing safe and reliable public transportation during this ongoing health and economic crisis,” said the Senators. 

Through the CARES Act, Congress provided $25 billion for transit agencies to help prevent, prepare, and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. The City of Radford received this funding under the FTA’s Urbanized Area Formula Program, which makes federal resources available to urbanized areas and to governors for transit capital and operating assistance in urbanized areas and for transportation-related planning. 

The funds will support operating, administrative, and preventive maintenance costs to maintain service in order to respond to and recover from the COVID-19 public health emergency. 

###

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine (both D-VA) applauded $500,000 in Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) funding to improve the Town of Pulaski’s wastewater treatment facility and support 340 jobs.

“We are glad to know that these federal dollars will be put to use in Pulaski to improve wastewater infrastructure and increase capacity as Pulaski continues to grow,” said the Senators. 

Currently, the Town of Pulaski’s collection system and pump stations devote a large percentage of capacity to processing corrosive wastewater from a large manufacturing business – capacity that is now needed for a proposed new school and residential development. This funding will allow the Town of Pulaski to install new infrastructure that will limit the impact of the corrosive wastewater on the collection system, pump stations, and related equipment by shortening the path and partially treating the wastewater on-site.  

This funding – along with $1,000,000 from other federal sources, $700,000 from state sources, and $434,050 from local sources – will be used to the install a one million gallon wastewater storage tank, a new pump station, 100 linear feet of 12-inch force main sewer line, 550 linear feet of 12-inch sewer line, and 200 linear feet of 8-inch sewer line. The new sewer line will route the wastewater to the treatment plant using the shortest route possible and bypassing two pump stations. The new million-gallon process water storage tank will be used to hold and treat the wastewater before allowing it to enter the new sewer lines and treatment plant. 

The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is an economic development agency of the federal government and 13 state governments focusing on 420 counties across the Appalachian region. ARC’s mission is to innovate, partner, and invest to build community capacity and strengthen economic growth in Appalachia and help the region achieve socioeconomic parity with the nation.

###

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) sent a letter to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Acting Director Russell T. Vought and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Acting Director Michael J. Rigas, urging them to reverse course on plans by several agencies to bring federal employees back to their worksites prematurely, by issuing clear guidance to extend maximum telework throughout the ongoing COVID-19 crisis. 

The Senators begin, “We write to express our opposition to plans to require many federal employees in the National Capital Region to return to their worksites. The current guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is encouraging these unsafe actions, and we urge you to issue new guidance to better protect the federal workforce and surrounding communities from the increasing spread of COVID-19.”

They continue, “As we are seeing around the nation, premature reopenings are leading to new waves of COVID-19 cases. It is especially important for federal agencies to have clear guidance that sets a positive example. As of July 8^th, more than 3,000,000 Americans have been infected with the coronavirus and at least 131,700 Americans have died.”

The Senators note that current OPM/OMB guidance conflicts with direction from other members of the Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and that of state and local governments. For example, “In the National Capital Region, many federal agencies are bringing employees back to the office instead of teleworking, even though the reopening guidelines for Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia all urge employers to continue telework as much as possible. Unlike these federal agencies, governments in Maryland, Virginia, and the District continue to utilize liberal telework policies and limited office capacity for public sector workers.”

They go on to underscore that prior to the pandemic, 40% of rush hour Metro commuters were federal workers, so dismantling maximum telework could endanger the health and safety of the entire region. “And since 85 percent of federal employees work outside of our region, it endangers the entire country. We urge you to issue clearer guidance directing agencies to continue maximizing telework throughout the COVID-19 pandemic,” the Senators conclude. 

The Senators have urged maximum telework and protections for federal employees and contractors throughout the pandemic. In April, they joined a letter to OPM and OMB seeking answers on inconsistent and confusing guidance, and raising concerns about ending maximum telework prematurely. In March, Van Hollen led a letter with the other National Capital Region Senators to President Trump, pressing him to sign an executive order maximizing telework for federal workers. Additionally in March, the Senators signed a letter to OPM urging that federal employees who follow recommended public health guidance to limit the spread of the coronavirus not be penalized.

The full text of the letter is available here and below.

Dear Mr. Rigas and Mr. Vought:

We write to express our opposition to plans to require many federal employees in the National Capital Region to return to their worksites. The current guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is encouraging these unsafe actions, and we urge you to issue new guidance to better protect the federal workforce and surrounding communities from the increasing spread of COVID-19.

As we are seeing around the nation, premature reopenings are leading to new waves of COVID-19 cases. It is especially important for federal agencies to have clear guidance that sets a positive example. As of July 8^th, more than 3,000,000 Americans have been infected with the coronavirus and at least 131,700 Americans have died. 

Federal employees and contractors have been teleworking successfully throughout the COVID-19 public health emergency, keeping vital services running and implementing economic relief programs and measures to stop the spread of COVID-19. Many workers in our area still lack access to regular child care due to COVID-19, and ordering these workers back into the office makes it needlessly harder for them to balance work and family obligations during the pandemic.

The current guidance is encouraging agencies to end maximum telework prematurely. COVID-19 is a deadly threat to anyone – and anyone can carry the virus and transmit it to others – but the current OPM/OMB guidance only supports sustained maximum telework throughout the pandemic for certain workers deemed to be high risk. Further, the guidance sometimes conflicts with direction from other members of the Trump Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and state and local governments. Reopening too quickly by ending maximum telework threatens to erase the progress made against the virus and endanger the health and safety of federal employees and everyone else in an agency’s region through increased community spread.

In the National Capital Region, many federal agencies are bringing employees back to the office instead of teleworking, even though the reopening guidelines for Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia all urge employers to continue telework as much as possible. Unlike these federal agencies, governments in Maryland, Virginia, and the District continue to utilize liberal telework policies and limited office capacity for public sector workers. 

Prior to the pandemic, 40 percent of Metro commuters during rush hour in the National Capitol Region were federal employees. Any increased crowding on trains and buses in the National Capital Region will only further increase the risk of spreading COVID-19. 

Your current guidance is endangering the health and safety of federal workers and everyone in our region. And since 85 percent of federal employees work outside of our region, it endangers the entire country. We urge you to issue clearer guidance directing agencies to continue maximizing telework throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Sincerely,

###

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), a member of the Senate Banking Committee, called on the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to establish an Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Task Force following a new report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that revealed investors pursue reporting of non-financial indicators covering a company’s environmental, social, and governance practices. The report was a direct result of Sen. Warner’s effort to get more details on the extent to which firms currently report on ESG issues, and whether Congress and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) should act to require such disclosures. Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, ESG reporting is particularly critical for investors in order to assess the impact of current and future health and economic crises on a company’s long-term performance.

“The COVID-19 crisis is exposing the myriad ways that company management practices pose operational and reputational risks for short and long-term performance. This GAO study finds that most institutional investors seek information on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) from companies to understand risks and assess long-term financial performance. Despite this, companies are most likely to report on conflicts of interest among board members and least likely to report on the number of hours of health and safety training for employees, number of data security incidents, and incidences of human rights infringements – exactly the kinds of issues that lead to operational and reputational risks for companies. Most institutional investors find current company financial disclosures limited in their usefulness, and augment company disclosures through burdensome engagement with the company, purchasing third party compilation data, or initiating shareholder proposals. It is time for the SEC to establish a task force to establish a robust set of quantifiable and comparable ESG metrics that all public companies can adhere to,” said Sen. Warner.

The SEC is considering issuing principles-based guidance on ESG reporting. Though this is a step in the right direction, the SEC would still leave it up to businesses to decide what kind of information to provide investors on ESG matters. To fill that gap, Sen. Warner introduced bicameral legislation to require public companies to disclose basic human capital metrics, including workforce turnover rates, skills and development training, workforce health and safety, and compensation statistics. Sen. Warner has repeatedly urged the SEC to revise and modernize Regulation S-K to require public reporting companies to disclose more qualitative and quantitative information regarding human capital. A similar framework of quantifiable and comparable metrics are needed for broader ESG issues.

Sen. Warner added, “The GAO report makes the need for comparable disclosure clear: even basic metrics like carbon dioxide emissions can be reported differently from company to company. It is time that the SEC grapple directly with the metrics that GRI and SASB have developed – which researchers have consistently found to be material to company performance – and issue guidance on quantifiable and comparable disclosures. I agree with the recommendations from the Investor-as-Owner subcommittee of the SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee: the ‘SEC is best-placed to set the framework for Issuers to disclose material information upon which investors can rely to make investment and voting decisions’ and the United States should be taking the lead on material ESG disclosure.”

Additionally, Sen. Warner has been an outspoken advocate of investing in workers and ensuring they are adequately equipped to participate in the 21st century labor force. Last year, the SEC announced a proposed Regulation S-K rule following advocacy by Sen. Warner, who previously urged the Commission to heed the calls of investors and utilize its rulemaking authority to require companies across the board to provide further details relating to human capital management. Sen. Warner has also sent a letter requesting that the SEC require companies to disclose specific metrics in addition to human capital resources, measures, and objectives. In May, Sen. Warner along with U.S. Rep. Cindy Axne (D-IA) urged the SEC to require that human capital management information is made publicly available in a timely and accurate manner to help determine whether a company will be successfully able to weather risks following the COVID-19 crisis – a critical issue for investors and the overall economy. 

###

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) joined Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) in introducing comprehensive broadband infrastructure legislation to expand access to affordable high-speed internet for all Americans. The Accessible, Affordable Internet for All Act will seek to address the digital divide by investing $100 billion to build high-speed broadband infrastructure in unserved and underserved communities. The legislation in the House of Representatives is led by House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (D-SC) and members of the House Rural Broadband Task Force.

“The current health crisis has only underscored what we already know: that too many households across the country lack reliable access to broadband,” said Sen. Warner. “In Virginia alone, it’s estimated that more than 700,000 Virginians lack access to broadband, making it harder for families to access essential services during these unprecedented times. Access to broadband helps communities meaningfully participate in the digital economy. Individuals can apply for a job or submit a college application, families can connect with their health care providers without having to travel long distances, and teachers and students can advance and supplement their online learning. Accessibility to broadband is vital to increasing digital literacy, achieving economic stability, and advancing education, and this critical legislation will help bridge the gap for communities that still need access to this critical technology.” 

“When we invest in broadband infrastructure, we invest in opportunity for every American,” Sen. Klobuchar said. “In 2020, we should be able to bring high-speed internet to every family in America — regardless of their zip code — and this legislation is a critical step to help bridge the digital divide once and for all.”

According to the Federal Communications Commission’s most recent Broadband Deployment Report, 18 million people lack access to broadband – a figure that experts widely agree is understated.

The Accessible, Affordable Internet for All Act would:

• Encourage Universal Broadband Access by:
  • including $80 billion to deploy high-speed broadband infrastructure nationwide;
  • allocating $5 billion for low-interest financing of broadband deployment through a new secured loan program; and
  • establishing a new office within the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to ensure efficient use of federal money.

• Ensure Internet Affordability by:
  • requiring an affordable option for internet service plans offered on the newly-built infrastructure;
  • providing a $50 monthly discount on plans for low-income consumers; and
  • directing the FCC to collect and publicize data on prices charged for broadband service throughout the country. 

• Promote Internet Adoption by:
  • providing over $1 billion to establish grant programs for states to close gaps in broadband adoption, as well as digital inclusion projects for organizations and local communities to implement;
  • including $5 billion to enable students without internet at home to participate in remote learning; and
  • authorizing funding for Wi-Fi on school buses so students can stay connected, especially in rural areas where longer bus rides are common.

The Accessible, Affordable Internet for All Act is endorsed by the Public Knowledge, Free Press, National Consumer Law Center, New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute, Consumer Reports, Schools, Health, Libraries, and Broadband Coalition (SHLB), Common Cause, Benton Institute for Broadband and Society, Leadership Conference, Access Now,  Electronic Frontier Foundation, National Digital Inclusion Alliance, National Education Association, National Defense Industrial Association, Communications Workers of America, and North America’s Building Trades Union.

“Broadband access is a civil right that we can’t afford to lose, but one that millions of Americans, in rural and urban communities across this country, simply can’t afford. This legislation prioritizes broadband affordability and promises to make a real difference in the fight to close the digital divide,” said FCC Commissioner Geoffery Starks. 

“Broadband is now essential for work, education, healthcare, and so much of modern life. So kudos to Senator Klobuchar and her colleagues for their efforts to develop a plan to connect us all. Working together like this we can solve the digital divide, fix the homework gap, and give everyone a fair shot at internet age success,” said FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel. 

“As providers based in the communities they serve, NTCA members are committed to ensuring rural Americans receive reliable broadband to engage with critical activities such as telemedicine, distance learning and remote work. Time and again, Senator Klobuchar has led the charge in highlighting the fundamental significance of broadband in all aspects of Americans’ lives and seeking to promote better connectivity for all Americans,” saidShirley Bloomfield, CEO, NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association. “We particularly appreciate her acknowledgment here of the need to ensure new networks will be built to meet the challenges of both today and tomorrow, and we look forward to working with the Senator and other policymakers to ensure any new programs to stimulate broadband deployment or make broadband more affordable complement and coordinate with existing deployment commitments and programs aimed at sustaining such efforts.”

“Millions across this country do not have access to broadband -- leaving them struggling to work, learn, access medical care, and connect with loved ones. Closing the digital divide requires funding high-quality broadband deployment, ensuring that broadband service is affordable, and ensuring that individuals have the skills and devices they need to access it. This bill takes action on all of those fronts. By utilizing a comprehensive approach, we believe this legislation will significantly narrow the digital divide. We are glad to see this important legislation introduced in the Senate,” said Jenna Leventoff, Senior Policy Counsel, Public Knowledge.

“We commend Senator Klobuchar and her colleagues in the Senate for introducing this landmark legislation to ensure everyone is connected to affordable, high-speed, quality broadband. The Accessible, Affordable, Internet for All Act takes significant steps to address all aspects of the digital divide through provisions that provide robust broadband connectivity to unserved and underserved areas, affordable options to connect low-income communities, and digital equity programs to address systemic disparities in broadband connectivity disproportionately impacting people of color and other marginalized communities. The COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare the fault lines in broadband connectivity our nation has faced for far too long, leaving millions of Americans unable to participate in our democracy and economy. Now is the time to pass this legislation and take significant strides in closing the digital divide,” said Yosef Getachew, Director of Media and Democracy Program, Common Cause.  

“We applaud Senate leaders for introducing the Accessible, Affordable Internet for All Act. The legislation represents a comprehensive and targeted approach to closing the digital divide for anchor institutions and the people they serve. In addition to tackling the many obstacles to ubiquitous internet access, the bill recognizes that health clinics and hospitals across the country need more bandwidth to keep up with the increased demand for telemedicine. By embracing broadband solutions for telehealth and remote learning from home, this legislation will lead to a healthier and better educated America,” said John Windhausen, Jr., Executive Director, Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband (SHLB) Coalition.

"Millions of Americans have struggled through the COVID-19 crisis without internet connectivity. Congress needs to do something to help these people, and we applaud Senator Klobuchar for stepping up. Her bill would make internet service more affordable and accessible, which is exactly what is needed right now. The Senate should pass this bill immediately," said Joshua Stager, Senior Counsel, New America's Open Technology Institute.

“Affordable broadband service is essential for access to opportunities. Black, Hispanic, Native Americans and Alaskan Natives have lower broadband subscription rates than their White counterparts, and one of the main barriers to broadband service is cost. The Broadband Service for Low-income Consumers program will help close the digital divide by providing low-income households with a $50 broadband benefit ($75 for households on Tribal lands) and the Digital Equity Program will ensure consumers have the digital skills necessary for full participation in our society. On behalf of our low-income clients, we commend the leadership of Senator Klobuchar in introducing this critically important bill," said National Consumer Law Center Staff Attorney Olivia Wein.

“Millions of families in the United States do not have access to affordable, reliable broadband internet connections — totally unacceptable before, but especially unacceptable during a pandemic when many are being asked to stay at home to bend the curve to save lives. The Accessible, Affordable Internet for All Act introduced today includes strong provisions to expand broadband access to rural communities and protect good union jobs across the country,” said Chris Shelton, President, Communications Workers of America (CWA). 

“Free Press Action welcomes Senator Klobuchar and her colleagues’ introduction of this tremendous, comprehensive broadband package in the Senate, linking up with the legislation that Representative Clyburn and the House majority introduced last week and plan to pass as part of the Moving Forward Act. While the deployment and financing strategies will understandably draw attention in an infrastructure bill, its digital equity, affordability and pricing transparency provisions are just as essential or more so for getting everyone online. Lawmakers must recognize, as this bill does, that the vast majority of people disconnected today are offline because they cannot afford the high price for internet, which disproportionately impacts Black and Brown people, poorer communities, and exacerbates the digital divide and economic inequities,” said Matt Wood, Vice President of Policy and General Counsel, Free Press Action.

"The Senate version of the “Accessible, Affordable Internet for All Act” includes all of the critical provisions of the House version, but goes even further to address this country’s gaping digital divide. Like the House bill, it addresses the twin problems of broadband affordability and lack of network infrastructure and seeks to promote competition in a consolidated market by preferencing open access networks and repealing state laws that prohibit communities from building their own broadband networks. In addition, the Senate bill would expand the FCC’s Rural Health Care program to provide funding for telehealth programs in urban as well as rural areas, and would create a fund to ensure that higher education students in need have access to robust broadband during the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Gigi Sohn, Distinguished Fellow, Georgetown Law Institute for Technology Law and Policy. “The pandemic has laid bare the need for every American to have robust, high speed broadband Internet access at home. Yet over 140 million Americans still are without a service that is essential to full participation in our economy, our education system, our culture and our democracy. It is long past time for Congress to act. Thanks to Senator Klobuchar and her Senate colleagues for co-sponsoring this vital legislation. The Senate should pass this bill without delay.” 

Sen. Warner has long fought for increased access to broadband in the Commonwealth during his tenure as Governor and during his time in the Senate. Earlier this year, he introduced legislation to help ensure adequate home internet connectivity for K-12 students during the coronavirus pandemic. He has also pushed the FCC to ensure that millions of Americans are made aware of their eligibility for the FCC’s Lifeline program – the primary federal program charged with helping low-income families obtain broadband and telephone services. 

In addition to Sens. Warner and Klobuchar, this legislation was cosponsored by Sens. Brian Schatz (D-HI), Ed Markey (D-MA), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Kamala Harris (D-CA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), and Jacky Rosen (D-NV). 

###

WASHINGTON – Today U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), the Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, spoke on the Senate floor and offered an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) aimed at preventing foreign election interference. The amendment would incorporate into the annual defense bill Sen. Warner’s Foreign Influence Reporting in Elections (FIRE) Act, which would require campaigns to report to the appropriate federal authorities any contacts from foreign nationals seeking to interfere in a presidential election.

The FIRE Act was initially set to be included in the NDAA as part of Intelligence Authorization Act (IAA), which passed out of the Senate Intelligence Committee earlier this month and was later incorporated into the NDAA. Over the weekend, Senate GOP leadership removed the FIRE Act from the NDAA, which is currently being debated on the Senate floor.   

Sen. Warner, who has attempted to pass the FIRE Act several times over Republican objections in the past year, took to the Senate floor today to decry the backroom deal and offer the FIRE Act as a floor amendment, setting the stage for a possible up-or-down vote in the coming week.  

In a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Sen. Warner said in part, “In a different time, with a different president, this bill would not be controversial. It would simply say to all presidential campaigns going forward: if a foreign power reaches out to your campaign offering assistance or offering dirt on a political opponent, the appropriate response is not to say ‘thank you.’ The appropriate response is to call the FBI. What a sad statement about partisan politics in our country, when we can’t even agree on that.”

He continued, “The [Intelligence] Committee voted 14-1 to pass an intel authorization bill that included theFIRE Act. So, you can imagine my surprise and frustration when I learned of a backroom deal to strip the FIRE Act out of the Intelligence Committee’s legislation because of a supposed turf war with another Committee. Mr. President, I am back again today because the security of our elections cannot wait. Let’s not hide behind process and turf wars. The stakes are far too high to continue the partisan blockade of election security legislation that we’ve seen over the last three years.” 

The full text of Sen. Warner’s remarks as prepared for delivery appears below:

Mr. President, I’m here today because I fear the Senate is about to fail once again…to protect our elections from foreign interference.

For the last three years, I’ve worked as Vice Chairman of the Intel committee to investigate Russia’s attack on our democracy in 2016. We are the only bipartisan investigation of Russian election interference to make it to the finish line. 

Any member of the public can read our declassified conclusions. And any member of this body can read additional classified materials. 

Our report offers a stark warning of Russia’s intent to interfere in future U.S. elections… and a clear roadmap for how to defend our democracy from Russia or other adversaries copying their playbook. 

Unfortunately, the White House and the leadership of the United States Senate seem to be the only ones not taking this threat seriously. Since 2016, this body has failed to vote on a single piece of standalone election security legislation. 

So, four times in the last year, I have come to the floor in an attempt to pass my bipartisan election security legislation, known as the FIRE Act, by unanimous consent. 

And each time, those efforts were blocked by my Republican colleagues— earning applause from the President on Twitter. 

In a different time, with a different President, this bill would not be controversial.

It would simply say to all Presidential campaigns going forward: if a foreign power reaches out to your campaign offering assistance…or offering dirt on a political opponent the appropriate response is not to say ‘thank you.’ The appropriate response is to call the FBI. 

What a sad statement about partisan politics in our country when we can’t even agree on that.

Mr. President, I introduced this bipartisan legislation months before the facts came to light… about the President pressuring Ukraine into announcing politically motivated investigations into the Bidens. 

I’m not here to rehash the impeachment trial, but I do want to note one thing.

A number of my Republican colleagues justified their votes by saying that, while not impeachable, it was wrong for the President to solicit foreign interference in our elections.

I take my colleagues across the aisle at their word that they believe foreign interference has no place in our elections.

But at some point, you have to put your money where your mouth is. 

We know the President tried to trade election favors with Ukraine. According to the new book from John Bolton, the President tried to trade political favors with Xi Jinping during trade negotiations. Maybe that happened, maybe it didn’t. 

But I’d be much more inclined to give the President the benefit of the doubt, if he hadn’t asked China to investigate the Bidens on national television; if he hadn’t asked Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails during the 2016 campaign; or if he’d shown even a shred of interest in defending our democracy from foreign interference over the last four years.

Mr. President, we are under attack from adversaries who see this new era of cyberwarfare and disinformation as a golden opportunity to undermine American democracy. 

We cannot afford to have a system that allows Presidential candidates to welcome this interference with open arms. If we can’t trust the President of the United States and his campaign to do the right thing and report foreign interference, then we need to require it by law.

I’ve spent over a year inviting my colleagues across the aisle to work with us on this already bipartisan legislation. I’ve answered every objection and worked through the right channels to get this legislation to the floor as part of the NDAA.

We went back to the Intelligence Committee—the only committee engaged in serious efforts to prevent foreign election interference. We made sure that this year’s intel authorization bill included several provisions to strengthen our defenses ahead of the November elections.

The Committee voted 14-1 to pass an intel authorization bill that included the FIRE Act. 

So, you can imagine my surprise and frustration when I learned of a backroom deal to strip the FIRE Act out of the Intelligence Committee’s legislation… because of a supposed turf war with another Committee.  

So, Mr. President, I am back again today because the security of our elections cannot wait. Let’s not hide behind process and turf wars. The stakes are far too high to continue the partisan blockade of election security legislation that we’ve seen over the last three years.

If my Republican colleagues want to strip this legislation out of the NDAA behind closed doors, then I’m going to offer it as an amendment… force an up-or-down vote and put every member of this body on the record. 

More than ever, it is time to put country over party… and defend our democracy from those who would do it harm. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and send a clear message: foreign interference has no place in our elections.  

###

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI) and Bob Menendez (D-NJ) pressed Facebook regarding its failure to prevent the propagation of white supremacist groups online and its role in providing such groups with the organizational infrastructure and reach needed to expand. In a letter to CEO Mark Zuckerberg, the Senators criticized Facebook for being unable or unwilling to enforce its own Community Standards and purge white supremacist and other violent extremist content from the site. They also called on Zuckerberg to answer a series of questions regarding Facebook’s policies and procedures against hate speech, violence, white supremacy and the amplification of extremist content.

“The United States is going through a long-overdue examination of the systemic racism prevalent in our society. Americans of all races, ages, and backgrounds have bravely taken to the streets to demand equal justice for all,” wrote the Senators. “While Facebook has attempted to publicly align itself with this movement, its failure to address the hate spreading on its platform reveals significant gaps between Facebook’s professed commitment to racial justice and the company’s actions and business interests.”

Citing reports by the Tech Transparency project and other numerous investigative reports, the Senators highlighted ways in which right-wing extremist groups have used Facebook as a recruitment and organizational tool. They also underscored Facebook’s own contributions to the public safety problem, which include autogenerating pages for white supremacist organizations, promoting white supremacist pages and even directing users who visit these groups to other extremist or far-right content.

“This evidence stands in marked contrast to Facebook’s professed commitment to combat extremism by redirecting users who search for terms associated with white supremacy or hate groups to the page for ‘Life After Hate,’ an organization that promotes tolerance,” the Senators added.  “The Tech Transparency Project found that Facebook directed users to the ‘Life After Hate’ page in only six percent of the searches for white supremacist organizations.”

Sens. Warner, Hirono and Menendez also cited a number of instances where online radicalization facilitated by Facebook led to real life consequences, such as when three members of a “boogaloo” group on Facebook plotted to bring Molotov cocktails to a Black Lives Matter Protest, or when Air Force Staff Sergeant Steven Carrillo used Facebook to talk about committing violent acts and to meet the individual who eventually drove his getaway van after Carrillo shot and killed a federal security officer. 

In the letter, the Senators requested answers to the following questions by July 10th:

1. Does Facebook affirm its policy against hate speech and will it seriously enforce this policy?
2. What procedures has Facebook put in place to identify and remove hate speech from its platform? To what degree do these procedures differ with respect to public Facebook pages and private groups?
3. Does Facebook affirm its policy against violence and incitement and will it seriously enforce this policy?
4. What procedures has Facebook put in place to identify and remove violence and incitement from its platform? To what degree do these procedures differ with respect to public Facebook pages and private groups?
5. Does Facebook affirm its commitment to ban “praise, support and representation of white nationalism and white separatism on Facebook and Instagram” as detailed in the company’s May 27, 2019 post and will it seriously enforce this commitment?
6. What steps has Facebook implemented since announcing this policy to remove “praise, support and representation of white nationalism and white separatism on Facebook and Instagram?”
7. Please provide our offices with any Facebook internal research concerning the platform’s amplification of extremist groups.
8. How often are you personally briefed on the status of domestic extremist and white supremacist groups on Facebook and the platform’s efforts to address these groups?
9. Who is the senior-most Facebook official responsible for addressing white supremacist groups’ activity on Facebook and which Facebook executive does this employee report directly to?
10. What role did Vice President of Global Public Policy Joel Kaplan play in Facebook’s decision to shut down and de-prioritize internal efforts to contain extremist and hyperpolarizing activity on Facebook?
11. What role did Mr. Kaplan play in the participation of the Daily Caller, an outlet with longstanding ties to white nationalist groups, in Facebook’s fact-checking program?
12. When violent extremist groups actively and openly use a platform’s tools to coordinate violence, should federal law continue to protect the platform from civil liability for its role in facilitating that activity?

A copy of the letter is available here and below.

Dear Mr. Zuckerberg:

We write to express our serious concerns about Facebook’s lack of action to prevent white supremacist groups from using the platform as a recruitment and organizational tool. The United States is going through a long-overdue examination of the systemic racism prevalent in our society. Americans of all races, ages, and backgrounds have bravely taken to the streets to demand equal justice for all. While Facebook has attempted to publicly align itself with this movement,[1] its failure to address the hate spreading on its platform reveals significant gaps between Facebook’s professed commitment to racial justice and the company’s actions and business interests.

On April 22, a full month before Americans started recent protests for racial justice, the Tech Transparency Project issued a report detailing the ways right-wing extremist groups were using Facebook to plan a militant uprising in the United States in response to stay-at-home orders issued to cope with the coronavirus pandemic.[2] The organization’s research uncovered “125 Facebook groups devoted to the ‘boogaloo,’” a term with ties to white supremacist movements used to describe a coming civil war.[3] Many of the groups’ posts were explicit in their calls for violence, including discussions of “tactical strategies, combat medicine, and various types of weapons, including how to develop explosives and the merits of using flame throwers.”[4] The groups experienced unchecked growth in the months leading up to the report and remained on Facebook at least as of early June,[5] despite Facebook’s prior claims that it was “studying trends around [boogaloo] and related terms on Facebook and Instagram” and that it “do[es]n’t allow speech used to incite hate or violence, and will remove any content that violates our policies.”[6]

A subsequent report issued on May 21 provided further detail regarding the extent of Facebook’s white-supremacist problem—and Facebook’s lack of attention to this public safety problem.[7] The Tech Transparency Project found that 113 of the 221 white supremacist organizations designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League—a staggering 51%—have a presence on Facebook.[8] Many of the organizations’ pages were actually auto-generated by Facebook after a Facebook user identified a white supremacist or neo-Nazi organization as his or her employer.[9] Perhaps more troubling, Facebook actively promoted these and other white supremacist sites. According to the Tech Transparency Project, “Facebook’s ‘Related Pages’ feature often directed users visiting white supremacist Pages to other extremist or far-right content, raising concerns that the platform is contributing to radicalization.”[10] 

The Tech Transparency Project report echoes similar findings by the Southern Poverty Law Center (which has also tracked how these groups spread dangerous misinformation about COVID-19 on Facebook),[11] along with several investigative news reports.[12] One investigative report even concluded that Facebook served as a key recruitment tool for right-wing militia groups to recruit police officers to their movements.[13]Facebook is hardly a passive actor in this context: a recent exposé by The Wall Street Journal revealed that Facebook’s own researchers had found that “64% of all extremist group joins are due to our recommendation tools.”[14] The report concluded that Facebook senior executives shut down efforts to reform the platform’s tendency to amplify hyperpolarized and extremist content after Vice President of Global Public Policy Joel Kaplan deemed the efforts “paternalistic.”[15]

This evidence stands in marked contrast to Facebook’s professed commitment to combat extremism by redirecting users who search for terms associated with white supremacy or hate groups to the page for “Life After Hate,” an organization that promotes tolerance.[16] The Tech Transparency Project found that Facebook directed users to the “Life After Hate” page in only six percent of the searches for white supremacist organizations.[17]

Unfortunately, the online radicalization facilitated by Facebook can lead to deadly consequences. On June 16, federal authorities charged Air Force Staff Sergeant Steven Carrillo with the June shooting death of a federal security officer outside a courthouse in Oakland.[18] Authorities also charged the driver of the getaway van,Robert Alvin Justus.[19] Justus and Carrillo had met on Facebook.[20] According to the criminal complaint against Carrillo, a search of Carrillo’s Facebook account revealed not only communications with Justus, but instances where Carrillo expressed his intention to commit violent acts.[21]

In another instance in early June, federal authorities arrested three men on charges that they planned to bring Molotov cocktails to a Black Lives Matter protest.[22] All three were members of a boogaloo group on Facebook.[23] According to the Tech Transparency Project, one of the men arrested was a member of two private boogaloo groups identified in Tech Transparency Project’s April 22 report.[24] Following reporting in the Huffington Post and other media outlets, a Facebook representative told Huffington Post on April 23, “[w]e’ve removed groups and Pages who’ve used [boogaloo] and related terms for violating our policies.”[25] Yet, according to the complaint, the three men used a different online group—a Nevada boogaloo Facebook group—to facilitate organizing a planned attack on the march.[26]

The prevalence of white supremacist and other extremist content on Facebook—and the ways in which these groups have been able to use the platform as organizing infrastructure—is unacceptable. Facebook’s Community Standards expressly state:  “We do not allow hate speech on Facebook.”[27] In a March 27, 2019 post, Facebook made clear that this prohibition “has always included white supremacy.”[28] At that same time, Facebook expanded its prohibition to include “praise, support and representation of white nationalism and white separatism.”[29] And the Community Standards purport to prohibit “organizations and individuals that proclaim a violent mission,” including “organized hate” groups.[30]

In light of these clear policies—and others against “Violence and Incitement” and “Dangerous Individuals and Organizations”—we are concerned Facebook is unable (or unwilling) to enforce its own Community Standards[31] and rid itself of white supremacist and other extremist content. 

We request that you to answer the following questions by July 10, 2020:

1. Does Facebook affirm its policy against hate speech and will it seriously enforce this policy?[32]
2. What procedures has Facebook put in place to identify and remove hate speech from its platform? To what degree do these procedures differ with respect to public Facebook pages and private groups?
3. Does Facebook affirm its policy against violence and incitement and will it seriously enforce this policy?[33]
4. What procedures has Facebook put in place to identify and remove violence and incitement from its platform? To what degree do these procedures differ with respect to public Facebook pages and private groups?
5. Does Facebook affirm its commitment to ban “praise, support and representation of white nationalism and white separatism on Facebook and Instagram” as detailed in the company’s May 27, 2019 post[34]and will it seriously enforce this commitment?
6. What steps has Facebook implemented since announcing this policy to remove “praise, support and representation of white nationalism and white separatism on Facebook and Instagram?”
7. Please provide our offices with any Facebook internal research concerning the platform’s amplification of extremist groups.
8. How often are you personally briefed on the status of domestic extremist and white supremacist groups on Facebook and the platform’s efforts to address these groups?
9. Who is the senior-most Facebook official responsible for addressing white supremacist groups’ activity on Facebook and which Facebook executive does this employee report directly to?
10. What role did Vice President of Global Public Policy Joel Kaplan play in Facebook’s decision to shut down and de-prioritize internal efforts to contain extremist and hyperpolarizing activity on Facebook?[35]
11. What role did Mr. Kaplan play in the participation of the Daily Caller, an outlet with longstanding ties to white nationalist groups,[36] in Facebook’s fact-checking program?
12. When violent extremist groups actively and openly use a platform’s tools to coordinate violence, should federal law continue to protect the platform from civil liability for its role in facilitating that activity? 

Thank you in advance for your attention to this critical matter. 

Sincerely,

###

WASHINGTON – After the Trump Administration filed its brief in the Texas v US lawsuit to strike down the Affordable Care Act (ACA), U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) released the following statement blasting the Trump Administration for its efforts to take away health care coverage for more than 23 million Americans who receive health care coverage through the ACA marketplaces and sabotage protections for more than 3 million Virginians living with a preexisting condition in the middle of a health pandemic: 

“The President has completely failed to contain the virus, and now he is asking the Supreme Court to make the consequences as painful as possible for millions of Americans.  

“The Trump Administration's lawsuit would kick millions of Americans off their insurance and end protections for preexisting conditions in the middle of a pandemic. This deadly mixture of cruelty and Presidential incompetence puts the lives of countless Americans at risk.”

Since taking office, President Trump has sought to undermine the success of the Affordable Care Act, which protects more than 3 million Virginians with preexisting conditions like COVID-19, diabetes, asthma, or cancer from discrimination or being kicked off of their insurance. In the Senate, Sen. Warner has been a longtime champion of access to health care, and has been outspoken about the Trump Administration’s efforts to overturn the Affordable Care Act in court. Last year, Sen. Warner led the entire Senate Democratic Caucus in a legislative maneuver to protect health coverage for Americans with preexisting conditions from the Trump Administration’s attempts to undermine those safeguards. Amid the coronavirus health crisis, Sen. Warner has been a fierce advocate in demanding that the Trump Administration stop its health care sabotage that has undermined our preparedness for and ability to respond to COVID-19. Recently, Sen. Warner penned an op-ed sounding the alarm of the devastating effects the health and economic crisis caused by COVID-19 has had on record high uninsured rates across the country. 

###

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senators Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, Ben Cardin, and Chris Van Hollen released the following statement upon House passage of legislation to make D.C. the 51^st state:

“Virginia and Maryland’s neighbors in D.C. deserve the representation that states have. Today, the House took a historic vote to pass legislation to make D.C. the 51^st state. Leader McConnell should bring this bill up for a vote in the Senate immediately. There is no good reason hundreds of thousands of Americans should be denied their civil rights and subject to taxation without representation.”

###