WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, issued the below statement following the Canadian government’s arrest of Meng Wanzhou, the chief financial officer of Huawei:

“There is ample evidence to suggest that no major Chinese company is independent of the Chinese government and Communist Party – and Huawei, which China’s government and military tout as a ‘national champion,’ is no exception. It has been clear for some time that Huawei, like ZTE, poses a threat to our national security. Now we know that Huawei, like ZTE, has violated U.S. sanctions law. It's my hope that the Trump Administration will hold Huawei fully accountable for breaking sanctions law, as it failed to do in the case of ZTE. 

“This is a reminder that we need to take seriously the risks of doing business with companies like Huawei and allowing them access to our markets. I continue to strongly urge our close ally Canada to reconsider Huawei’s inclusion in any aspect of its 5G infrastructure.” 

Sen. Warner, a former telecommunications executive and entrepreneur, has long expressed concerns about the risks to our national security posed by Chinese-controlled telecom companies.

On October 12, 2018, Sen. Warner and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) sent a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau urging his country to reconsider Huawei’s inclusion in any aspect of Canada’s 5G development, introduction, and maintenance.

In September, Sen. Warner joined several colleagues to introduce the ZTE Enforcement Review and Oversight (ZERO) Act. The bipartisan bill would enforce full compliance by ZTE—a Chinese state-directed telecommunications firm that repeatedly violated U.S. laws – with all probationary conditions outlined in a Commerce Department deal with the company that lifted a denial order banning the export of U.S. parts and components.

###

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) released the following statement on the passing of President George H.W. Bush:

“George H.W. Bush was a class act -- a person of tremendous strength and moral character who exemplified the values of public service. There can be no question that his highest commitment was always to our country and to our values -- to justice, freedom, and the rights of human beings everywhere.

"My thoughts are with the Bush family at this time of loss."

###

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and co-founder of the Senate Cybersecurity Caucus, released the following statement on Marriott’s disclosure of a data breach affecting up to 500 million guests:  

“It seems like every other day we learn about a new mega-breach affecting the personal data of millions of Americans. Rather than accepting this trend as the new normal, this latest incident should strengthen Congress’ resolve. We must pass laws that require data minimization, ensuring companies do not keep sensitive data that they no longer need. And it is past time we enact data security laws that ensure companies account for security costs rather than making their consumers shoulder the burden and harms resulting from these lapses.”

###

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), a member of the Senate Banking Committee, released the following statement after the Senate voted to advance the nomination of Kathy Kraninger to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB):

“Director Mulvaney has been a disaster for consumers as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. He has dramatically reduced enforcement against banks and other financial institutions, weakened the law that protects servicemembers and their families from predatory lending, and rendered the Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity quite toothless, to name just a few examples. 

“In her hearing before the Senate Banking Committee, Ms. Kraninger testified that she ‘cannot identify any action’ that Director Mulvaney ‘has taken with which I disagree.’ The CFPB is responsible for making sure that banks and big corporations can’t rip off American consumers. It should have a Director who shares that mission.”

###

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, issued the following statement on the murder of Jamal Khashoggi and the President’s response to Saudi Arabia:

“The President’s failure to hold Saudi Arabia responsible in any meaningful way for the death of Jamal Khashoggi is just one more example of this White House’s retreat from American leadership on issues like human rights and protecting the free press. It’s hard to imagine that the Saudis would have taken this action under a Reagan, Bush, Clinton or Obama Administration without facing serious repercussions.”

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine (both D-VA) called on the U.S. General Service Administration (GSA) to do more to help federal workers manage the burden of new taxes on relocation expenses. The tax bill passed last year eliminated the deduction for job-related moving costs, as well as the exclusion for reimbursements or in-kind contributions made by employers to defray the cost of moving. As a result, employer reimbursements for moving costs – which were previously excluded – are now generally taxed at the same rate as ordinary income. This situation is causing a particular burden for civilian federal employees who, after being assigned to a new duty station, have discovered that hundreds or even thousands of dollars have been withheld from their paychecks, often with little advance notice, in order to cover the cost of taxes associated with moving reimbursements from the federal government. While the law excluded active-duty service members, the approximately 25,000 civilian federal workers — from military civilian employees to law enforcement and military teachers — who move each year would have extra money withheld to cover the taxes on this “income” following the changes in the law.

As federal agencies begin informing federal workers about these new tax costs, the Senators believe there is more that should be done to help federal employees understand this change and manage their tax liability. In a letter to GSA Administrator Emily W. Murphy, the Senators urged the agency to fully inform civilian federal employees about their options in handling the cost of additional taxes now due on any federally-paid moving costs, and to be proactive in helping workers who may face the biggest additional costs. Programs such as the Relocation Income Tax Allowance (RITA) and the Withholding Tax Allowance (WTA) are in place to help these workers, but will not have their effect unless workers understand how the new tax law is being implemented, are aware of these tools, and know how to properly use them.

“It has come to our attention that federal agencies are not proactively helping federal workers to minimize the difficulty of paying taxes on reimbursed or paid for moving costs, and many federal workers are confused about how this new provision is being implemented,” wrote the Senators. “This is especially troubling for federal workers that are likely to have significant moving costs but modest pay, such as our military teachers being sent overseas as part of the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA). These public servants – voluntarily moving long distances to help educate the children of our military -- cannot afford paying thousands of dollars of taxes up front, only to wait over a year for reimbursement.

Sens. Warner and Kaine previously called on the GSA to clarify their rules regarding reimbursements for federal worker moving costs as these tax difficulties came to light earlier this year, prompting the agency to issue new guidance. The Senators have also introduced bipartisan legislation to close a loophole in the updated rules that prevented new and retiring federal employees from being eligible for reimbursement for the additional taxes.

“For most affected federal workers, this is the first time relocation expenses have such serious tax implications, and many remain confused about how it impacts them. It is important for federal agencies to present workers with all the tools available to manage these new costs,” added the Senators.

The full text of the letter can be found here and below.

Honorable Emily W. Murphy
Administrator, U.S. General Services Administration
1800 F Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20006

Dear Administrator Murphy:

It has come to our attention that federal agencies are not proactively helping federal workers to minimize the difficulty of paying taxes on reimbursed or paid for moving costs, and many federal workers are confused about how this new provision is being implemented. This is especially troubling for federal workers that are likely to have significant moving costs but modest pay, such as our military teachers being sent overseas as part of the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA). These public servants – voluntarily moving long distances to help educate the children of our military -- cannot afford paying thousands of dollars of taxes up front, only to wait over a year for reimbursement.

In April, we sought quick action to ensure federal workers could utilize the relocation income tax allowance (RITA) and the withholding tax allowance (WTA) for federal taxes on moving cost expenses, which became taxable following the 2017 tax bill. We were pleased when GSA released guidance in May that authorized agencies to use RITA and WTA to cover substantially all of the increased tax liability.

It now appears that some federal workers are only getting partial guidance on managing this process, being informed about the new tax costs and RITA, but not fully informed about WTA. RITA reimbursements can only be issued in the year following the additional taxes, meaning workers could be waiting months, or over a year, to get reimbursed. Federal workers may have to take on debt or borrow from their retirement accounts to carry these costs as they await reimbursement.

In fact, there is a program designed to address just this issue: the WTA. The WTA provides funds much earlier than RITA, and can assist those federal workers who are unable to bear the delay of RITA reimbursements. Unfortunately, it appears that at least some federal agencies are not proactively informing their workers about the option to use the WTA.

For most affected federal workers, this is the first time relocation expenses have such serious tax implications, and many remain confused about how it impacts them. It is important for federal agencies to present workers with all the tools available to manage these new costs. Beyond just informing federal workers about both RITA and WTA, agencies or departments in which relocations are common or which are likely to have higher moving costs, like DoDEA, should take additional steps to assist workers in understanding the new provisions and utilizing these options. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

WASHINGTON – Today U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) and Chris Coons (D-DE) announced that they will introduce legislation to make lifelong learning more accessible for low- and moderate-income workers. TheLifelong Learning and Training Account Act would establish a tax-preferred savings account with a generous government match to assist workers seeking to retrain or upskill over the course of their careers. 

In the coming years, more workers will be required to learn new skills throughout their careers. According to the McKinsey Global Institute, up to one-third of the U.S. workforce will need to learn new skills or find work in new occupations by 2030 due to automation. As a result, American workers are increasingly likely to hold many different jobs over the course of their careers, and in many cases technology will transform the skills they need and even the types of jobs available. The Lifelong Learning and Training Account Act would provide workers with a portable, government-matched savings vehicle for lifelong learning.

“Lifelong learning is quickly becoming a necessity for American workers. We need to make sure Americans are able to retrain and upskill throughout their career, so they can thrive in the modern economy,” said Sen. Warner. “This will not happen on its own. It requires a serious investment to help workers pay for the education and training necessary to modernize their skills—by employees, by employers, and by the government. The Lifelong Learning and Training Account Act represents that serious investment.”

“The digital, fast-changing nature of today’s economy has significant consequences for workers. More than ever before, individuals will need to acquire new skills over the course of their careers,” said Sen. Coons. “TheLifelong Learning and Training Account Act empowers workers, with help from government and employers, to take charge of their future by actively planning, saving for, and completing the training programs they need to thrive in this economy.”

“Although national unemployment is at historic lows, small business owners are still struggling to find the workers they need due to a skills gap,” said John Arensmeyer, Founder & CEO of Small Business Majority. “In fact, Small Business Majority's scientific opinion polling found more than one-third of small employers said it is difficult to find candidates with the right education, skills or training. Since small firms rarely have enough time to dedicate to extensive staff training or sufficient funds to pay for employee education, the Lifelong Learning and Training Account Act would be a huge boost to small businesses by offering them another way to invest in the development of their staff. This legislation would also help solo entrepreneurs invest in their own development and acquire skills without the aid of an employer.” 

“In an economy where more than 80 percent of all jobs require some form of education and training beyond high school, it is more important than ever for workers to be able to access the skills and credentials that can help them advance their careers,“ said Kermit Kaleba, Federal Policy Director of the National Skills Coalition.“The Lifelong Learning and Training Account Act would provide workers with a critical tool to take advantage of emerging educational opportunities so they can keep pace with a rapidly changing labor market. We applaud Senator Warner’s continued leadership on this issue, and we look forward to working with the Senator to ensure passage of the Lifetime Learning and Training Account Act.” 

“Education and training shouldn’t stop after high school or college. We need to provide workers with new opportunities to add or update skills throughout their careers,“ said Alastair Fitzpayne, Executive Director of the Aspen Institute’s Future of Work Initiative said. “Creating a culture of lifelong learning is critical to building a skilled and resilient workforce. By incentivizing workers, businesses, and government to co-invest in education and skills training, Lifelong Learning & Training Accounts will help workers continue to develop skills and better manage their economic future.” 

The Lifelong Learning and Training Account Act creates employee-owned Lifelong Learning and Training Account (LLTA) savings plans. Contributions to an LLTA by low- and moderate-income workers or their employers are eligible for a dollar-for-dollar federal match of up to $1,000. The federal matching funds are directly deposited into the LLTA immediately after the contribution by the worker or employer. The worker then gets to choose how to use the LLTA funds, which can be applied towards any training that leads to a recognized post-secondary credential.

For workers that need to contribute to the cost of updating their job skills, this significant federal investment can make a huge difference in whether or not these workers seek additional training. If employers are willing to match employees’ savings, the returns can be even greater—a $500 contribution by a worker would create $2,000 in training opportunities (a $500 match by the employer, and then a $1,000 match from the federal government.) The accounts are portable from job to job, and always under the workers’ control.

Contributions by workers and employers are after-tax dollars, but face no additional taxes on earnings if the LLTA funds are used for qualified training expenses. Eligibility is for workers age 25 to 60, with incomes of up to $82,000 per worker. States will manage the accounts. Accounts are designed to encourage the worker to use the funds to regularly update their skills, rather than build up large balances over many years. Restrictions are put in place to ensure that the government’s matching dollars go only to qualified training expenses.

The full text of the bill can be found here. The bill will be officially introduced when the Senate returns after Thanksgiving.

###

WASHINGTON – Today, bipartisan legislation introduced by Sens. Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine (both D-VA) to award four African American women scientists the Congressional Gold Medal for their work at NASA Langley passed the U.S. Senate with unanimous support. The bill would give this distinction to Katherine Johnson and Dr. Christine Darden and posthumously award the medals to Dorothy Vaughan and Mary Jackson. It serves to commend these women for their contributions to NASA’s success during the Space Race and highlight their broader impact on society – paving the way for women, especially women of color, in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The legislation now heads to the House of Representatives, where a companion bill has been introduced.

“These four remarkable women and their contributions to the success of the Space Race remained unacknowledged for far too long,” said the Senators. “We are thrilled that their achievements while at NASA Langley—particularly during a tough period of racial inequality—continue to be brought to light. This recognition will help carve their rightful place in history and inspire a new generation of diverse women to lead the way in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math.”

The Congressional Gold Medal is the highest civilian award in the U.S. It is awarded to those who have performed an achievement that has had an impact on American history and culture that is likely to be recognized in the recipient’s field for years to come.

The Hidden Figures Congressional Gold Medal Act will honor:

• Katherine Johnson, who calculated trajectories for multiple NASA space missions including the first human spaceflight by an American, Alan Shepard’s Freedom 7 mission. She also calculated trajectories for John Glenn’s Friendship 7 mission to orbit the earth. During her time at NASA, she became the first woman recognized as an author of a report from the Flight Research Division.

• Dorothy Vaughan, who led the West Area Computing unit for nine years, as the first African American supervisor at National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), which later became NASA. She later became an expert programmer in FORTRAN as a part of NASA’s Analysis and Computation Division.

• Mary Jackson, who petitioned the City of Hampton to allow her to take graduate-level courses in math and physics at night at the all-white Hampton High School in order to become an engineer at NASA. She was the first female African-American engineer at the agency. Later in her career, she worked to improve the prospects of NASA’s female mathematicians, engineers, and scientists as Langley’s Federal Women’s Program Manager.

• Dr. Christine Darden, who became an engineer at NASA 16 years after Mary Jackson. She worked to revolutionize aeronautic design, wrote over 50 articles on aeronautics design, and became the first African-American person of any gender to be promoted into the Senior Executive Service at Langley.

The lives and careers of Katherine Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan, Mary Jackson, and Christine Darden were featured in the book Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race, by Margot Lee Shetterly. That book was adapted into the 2016 film Hidden Figures, which the Senators showed at a Capitol Hill screening for hundreds of Virginia students last year. In addition, Sens. Warner & Kaine honored Johnson, Vaughan, and Jackson by acknowledging their achievements in an official statement that was enshrined in the Congressional Record.

###

WASHINGTON – Today U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine (both D-VA) announced $4,799,911 in federal funds to boost broadband access in Southwest Virginia and on the Eastern Shore. The funding, awarded through the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Community Connect Grant Program, will be used to construct and expand broadband access in rural and underserved communities. 

“Broadband access is vital to the economic success of the Commonwealth and the nation,” the Senators said. “These federal funds will help Virginia connect to the digital age while expanding access to healthcare, educational, and job opportunities.” 

The Scott County Telephone Cooperative will receive $3,000,000 to construct a fiber-to-the home broadband system that will provide internet access to 554 households and 20 businesses in Scott County, Virginia. A community center will also be established where residents will have free access to computers and WiFi. 

Eastern Shore Communications, LLC will receive $1,799,911 to construct a broadband fiber fixed-wireless high-speed network capable of servicing residents of Chincoteague, Wallops Island, Accomac, Exmore, Cape Charles, Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, and Norfolk with speeds of at least 25 megabits downstream and 3 megabits upstream. 

Warner and Kaine have been strong supporters of expanding broadband access in Virginia as Governors and Senators. In February, Warner and Kaine joined a bipartisan group of colleagues to urge President Trump to include broadband in an infrastructure initiative.

###

Washington, DC – Top Senate and House Democrats today released a new letter to the Department of Justice’s Chief Ethics Official, Assistant Attorney General Lee J. Lofthus, in which they outline the number of serious ethical considerations that should preclude any involvement by President Trump’s handpicked Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker with the Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation, and that require Mr. Whitaker’s immediate recusal. In the letter, the Democrats also request that the Department of Justice’s chief ethics officer immediately notify them whether he has advised Mr. Whitaker to recuse himself from supervision of the special counsel’s investigation.

The letter, signed by Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Vice Chairman Mark Warner, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Ranking Member Adam Schiff and House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Ranking Member Elijah Cummings, includes a number of examples of Mr. Whitaker’s many conflicts of interest and hostile statements toward Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation. These include Mr. Whitaker’s televised statement suggesting that the investigation be defunded or subjected to strict limitations on its scope, a published online opinion piece referring to the investigation as a witch hunt, and a statement in which he pre-judged the outcome of the investigation.

The full text of the Democrats’ letter can be found here and below: 

November 11, 2018

The Honorable Lee J. Lofthus
Assistant Attorney General for Administration 

  and Designated Agency Ethics Officer

Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Assistant Attorney General Lofthus:

We are writing to you in your capacity as the Justice Department’s Designated Agency Ethics Official regarding the supervision of Special Counsel Robert Mueller by Mr. Mark Whitaker, the newly appointed Acting Attorney General.  There are serious ethical considerations that require Mr. Whitaker’s immediate recusal from any involvement with the Special Counsel investigation of the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.  

Mr. Whitaker has a history of hostile statements toward Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation, including televised statements suggesting that the investigation be defunded or subjected to strict limitations on its scope.  On June 9, 2017—not even a month after the Special Counsel was appointed—Mr. Whitaker stated on a radio show:  “There is no criminal obstruction of justice charge to be had here.  The evidence is weak.  No reasonable prosecutor would bring a case.”^[1]

On July 26, 2017, Mr. Whitaker stated that he “could see a scenario where Jeff Sessions is replaced with a recess appointment and that attorney general doesn't fire Bob Mueller but he just reduces his budget so low that his investigations grinds to almost a halt.”^[2]  Mr. Whitaker has also made reference to the Special Counsel investigation as “a mere witch hunt” and published an opinion article entitled “Mueller’s Investigation of Trump Is Going Too Far” in which he argued that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should place limits on the scope of the investigation.^[3]  He has even claimed publicly that “[t]he left is trying to sow this theory that essentially Russians interfered with the U.S. election. Which has been proven false. They did not have any impact in the election that is very clear from the Obama Administration.”^[4]  This statement demonstrates plainly that Mr. Whitaker has pre-judged the outcome of the Special Counsel investigation.

In addition to his public criticism of the Special Counsel investigation, Mr. Whitaker appears to have troubling conflicts of interest that may also require his recusal from the investigation.  In 2014, Mr. Whitaker served as chairman of the campaign of Sam Clovis to be Iowa State Treasurer, and Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Clovis have reportedly remained in close contact.^[5]  Mr. Clovis served as a national co-chairman of the Trump presidential campaign, and in that capacity supervised George Papadopoulos, the Trump foreign policy advisor who sought to set up a meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign, and who has pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI regarding his contacts with agents of the Russian government.^[6] As you know, following advice from career Department ethics officials, Attorney General Sessions recused from the Special Counsel investigation given his senior role on the Trump campaign and a series of undisclosed contacts with Russian government officials.^[7] 

The official supervising the Special Counsel investigation must be – in both fact and appearance – independent and impartial.  Regrettably, Mr. Whitaker’s statements indicate a clear bias against the investigation that would cause a reasonable person to question his impartiality.  Allowing a vocal opponent of the investigation to oversee it will severely undermine public confidence in the Justice Department’s work on this critically important matter.  Mr. Whitaker’s relationship with Mr. Clovis, who is a grand jury witness in the Special Counsel investigation, as well as Mr. Whitaker’s other entanglements, raise additional concerns about his ability to supervise the investigation independently and impartially.  

For these reasons, we request that you immediately notify us in writing regarding whether you, or any other ethics officials at the Justice Department, have advised Mr. Whitaker to recuse from supervision of the Special Counsel investigation, and the basis for that recommendation.  We also request that you provide us all ethics guidance the Department has provided to Mr. Whitaker to date.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Schumer

Democratic Leader

U.S. Senate

Nancy Pelosi

Democratic Leader

U.S. House of Representatives

Dianne Feinstein

Ranking Member

Committee on the Judiciary

U.S. Senate

Jerrold Nadler

Ranking Member

Committee on the Judiciary

U.S. House of Representatives

Mark R. Warner

Vice Chairman

Select Committee on Intelligence

U.S. Senate

Adam B. Schiff

Ranking Member

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

U.S. House of Representatives

Elijah Cummings

Ranking Member

Committee on Oversight &

Government Reform

U.S. House of Representatives

###

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, issued the following statement on the resignation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions:

“No one is above the law and any effort to interfere with the Special Counsel’s investigation would be a gross abuse of power by the President. While the President may have the authority to replace the Attorney General, this must not be the first step in an attempt to impede, obstruct or end the Mueller investigation.

“Senators from both parties have repeatedly affirmed their support for Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. Every one of them should speak out now and deliver a clear message to the President that the Special Counsel’s investigation must continue without interference.”  

###

Today, U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) joined a group of Senators in writing to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Christopher Wray to request information regarding the extent to which President Trump and the White House were involved in the abrupt decision to reverse course on plans for the FBI headquarters project, and whether that involvement was appropriate. The Senators requested emails, correspondence, memos, notes, comments, papers, faxes, photographs, and text messages related to the decision-making process.

This request follows an investigation led by the General Services Administration Inspector General (GSA IG), which consisted of a review of GSA’s decision-making process regarding the revised plan for the FBI headquarters project. That investigation revealed potentially inappropriate involvement by the White House and that GSA Administrator Emily Murphy may have misled Congress about White House involvement in the project.

“In light of the GSA Inspector General’s findings and other evidence indicating potentially inappropriate involvement by the White House, we believe it is critical that you provide us with information regarding the process used at the FBI that resulted in the new plan, as well as the extent to which influence from or communications with the White House impacted this process,” the Senators wrote.

Along with Sen. Warner, the letter is signed by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-VA), Tom Carper (D-DE), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD).

November 1, 2018

The Honorable Christopher Wray
Director
Federal Bureau of Investigation
935 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20535

Dear Director Wray:

We write today regarding the recent decision by the General Services Administration (GSA), at the request of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), to rescind a long-studied proposal for consolidation of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Headquarters. Specifically, we have serious questions about the extent to which President Trump and the White House were involved in the abrupt decision to reverse course on plans for the FBI headquarters project, and whether that involvement was appropriate.

In 2011, the Government Accountability Office issued a report stating “the FBI’s headquarters facilities—the Hoover Building and the headquarters annexes—do not fully support the FBI’s long-term security, space, and building condition requirements.” In response, GSA and the FBI conducted a thorough review of the facility needs of the FBI and recommended that the FBI headquarters be moved to a new location within the National Capital Region.[1]

Many resources have been devoted over the last decade to this project. There is consensus that the existing structure is in serious disrepair and must be replaced. Despite reaching significant milestones in this process, earlier this year, GSA reversed course and revised its plan for the FBI headquarters project. This announcement was met with much confusion and skepticism.[2]

In reaction to this reversal and the submittal of a revised plan, the GSA Inspector General conducted a review of GSA’s decision-making process regarding the revised plan for the FBI headquarters project. The resulting review[3] included alarming findings,[4] such as the determination[5] that GSA Administrator Emily Murphy’s testimony before the House Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee “was incomplete and may have left the misleading impression that she had no discussions with White House officials in the decision-making process about the project.” In addition, the Inspector General found discrepancies in the cost comparisons between previous cost estimates and the revised plan for consolidation, concluding that officials are greatly underestimating the cost of keeping the headquarters in the District. Specifically, GSA excluded the $750 million value for the J. Edgar Hoover (JEH) Building exchange in its total shortfall calculation, and did not acknowledge the $65,000 per person increase associated with the rebuild. On September 20, 2018, we sent a letter to the Inspector General at the Department of Justice asking him to “examine the extent to which President Trump and the White House were involved in the abrupt decision to reverse course on plans for the FBI consolidation project, and whether that involvement was appropriate.”[6]

More recently, the New York Times reported on extensive White House involvement in the decision to cancel the plan to move the FBI building and rebuild on the same site.[7] On that same day, documents were released that indicated that President Trump was directly involved with the decision to abandon the old plan and instead move ahead with a more expensive proposal to construct a new building on the same site, “and thereby prevent Trump Hotel competitors from acquiring the land.”[8] These new documents show that top GSA officials promised to “hold our ground” on this proposal “per the President’s instructions.”

In light of the GSA Inspector General’s findings and other evidence indicating potentially inappropriate involvement by the White House, we believe it is critical that you provide us with information regarding the process used at the FBI that resulted in the new plan, as well as the extent to which influence from or communications with the White House impacted this process. Specifically, we request your office please provide us with responses to the following:

1. Please describe the decision-making process or protocol the FBI followed in connection with the FBI headquarters project. Please provide us with all documents relied upon in connection with the FBI headquarters project. Please provide a copy of any and all documents evincing communications sent or received by any FBI employee regarding calculation or review of the costs associated with the rebuild plan.

2. Prior to your being sworn in as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation on August 2, 2017, did you or anyone at the FBI have any conversations or meetings with the White House, GSA, or representatives of the Trump Organization (or its businesses) about the FBI headquarters project? If so, please provide (a) the date, time, and location of the conversation or meeting, (b) the name and title of the participants, and (c) a detailed summary of the conversation or meeting. Please provide copies of any and all documents created in connection with each such conversation or meeting.

3. Please provide a copy of any and all documents evincing communications between anyone at the FBI and GSA Public Buildings Service Commissioner Dan Mathews, GSA Administrator Emily Murphy, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, and/or Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein regarding the FBI headquarters project. For any phone calls or in-person meetings with these individuals, please provide (1) the name and title of the participants, and (2) a detailed summary of what was discussed.

4. According to the GSA Inspector General’s report, on December 14, 2017, after meeting with the FBI, Commissioner Mathews emailed Administrator Murphy, stating: “There are several things coming out of this meeting we need to discuss. WH has been talking to FBI too.”

a. Please provide (a) the date, time, and location of the conversation or meeting between Commissioner Mathews and the FBI, (b) the name and title of the participants, and (c) a detailed summary of the conversation or meeting.
b. Were you or any other FBI employee involved in communications with the White House on or prior to December 14, 2017 about the FBI headquarters project? Please provide copies of all documents evincing communications between the White House and FBI about the FBI headquarters project.

5. Please provide a copy of any and all documents evincing communications between GSA and the FBI regarding the FBI headquarters project.

6. According to the GSA Inspector General’s report, on December 21, 2017, Commissioner Mathews received and passed on to Administrator Murphy a slide presentation from the FBI regarding renovation options for the Hoover Building. Please provide a copy of the referenced slide presentation and any other presentation created or obtained by the FBI about the FBI headquarters project, along with any accompanying additional documents.

7. According to the GSA Inspector General’s report, on December 22, 2017, you called Administrator Murphy to inform her “of the FBI’s interest in remaining at the existing site.”

a. Please provide a detailed summary of this conversation.
b. Please provide a copy of any and all documents created in connection with this conversation.

8. According to the GSA Inspector General’s report, on January 4, 2018, GSA and FBI officials met at the JEH building to discuss options for the FBI headquarters. That meeting was attended by you, GSA Associate Administrator P. Brennan Hart III, Administrator Murphy, Commissioner Mathews, then-FBI Associate Deputy Director David Bowdich, and the Unit Chief of the FBI’s Headquarters Program.

a. Please provide a detailed summary of the discussion at the meeting, including the topics of discussion and the speakers for each topic. Please state whether anyone at this meeting described communications with the White House or Trump Organization regarding the FBI headquarters project.

9. According to the GSA Inspector General’s report, at some point between January 4 and January 24, you discussed the demolish-rebuild option with Administrator Murphy in a telephone call. According to Administrator Murphy, you “liked the plan,” but had some reservations.

a. Please provide a copy of any and all documents created in connection with this conversation.
b. Please explain the “reservations” you had with the plan and provide any and all documents providing the basis for your concern.

10. According to the GSA Inspector General’s report, Administrator Murphy told the Inspector General that as of January 23, 2018, GSA’s recommendation was to demolish and rebuild at the JEH site with a ground lease-leaseback to finance the project. The FBI, according to Murphy, was developing an estimate for renovation. Please provide a copy of any and all documents related to the FBI’s estimates for renovation.

11. According to the GSA Inspector General’s report, on January 24, 2018, you attended a pair of meetings at the White House, first with Chief of Staff Kelly, Director Mulvaney, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, and Administrator Murphy, and the second with those officials and President Trump in the Oval Office. Administrator Murphy told the GSA Inspector General that Director Mulvaney requested the first meeting “to ensure that everyone was on the same page prior to meeting with the president.”

a. For any documents created in connection with the January 24, 2018 meeting either before or after that meeting, please state: (1) who, specifically, requested that the document be created; (2) who contributed to the document; (3) and whether that document was shared with anyone at the White House. Please provide a copy of the relevant document.
b. Please provide a detailed summary of the questions and statements made during these meetings.
c. According to Administrator Murphy, during this meeting you reiterated your concern that if the FBI left the JEH building, it would not be able to return to the JEH site after the rebuild was completed. Please explain this concern in detail and provide any and all documents providing the basis for your concern.

12. According to the GSA Inspector General’s report, GSA emails “reflect that GSA and FBI personnel who were involved with the project, but not in attendance at the meeting, also understood that the meeting had resulted in a decision or direction to move forward at the JEH site using a ground lease-leaseback funding mechanism.” For example, in an e-mail sent on January 27, 2018 from then-GSA Associate Administrator and Acting Chief of Staff P. Brennan Hart III to Commissioner Mathews, Hart states: “Ideally I think it would first recap the oval meeting with what POTUS directed everyone to do then ask Emily (GSA) to execute POTUS’s orders.”

a. Please describe the President’s specific “orders” and “direction” referred to in Mr. Hart’s email described above.
b. Please provide a copy of any and all documents conveying the ground lease-leaseback plan to FBI personnel on or after January 24, 2018.

13. According to the GSA Inspector General’s report, on January 28, 2018, Commissioner Mathews emailed the Assistant Director of the FBI Finance Division, Rich Haley, stating: “Though I don’t see us conceding these two key points, GL LB [ground lease-leaseback] can be classified as an operating lease and demolish rebuild, as they are necessary to deliver the project the president wants on the timetable he wants it done.”

a. Please explain what is meant by “the project the president wants on the timetable he wants it done” as used in Mr. Hart’s email described above. What is the specific project the President wants completed? What is the timeline he ordered you to follow?
b. Please provide a copy of any and all documents showing specific details about the project and timeline ordered by the President.

14. According to the GSA Inspector General’s report, on April 17, 2018, Administrator Murphy failed to disclose the three White House meetings or White House involvement in response to question from a House Appropriations Subcommittee.

a. Did anyone within the White House, OMB, or the Department of Justice ask you or anyone else at the FBI not to disclose their involvement with the FBI headquarters project? If so, please provide (a) the date, time, and location of that conversation, and (b) a detailed summary of what was said and by whom.
b. Did you or anyone at the FBI speak with Mr. Mathews or Administrator Murphy regarding their testimony to Congress, either before or after the hearings? If so, please provide a detailed summary of those conversations.

15. According to the GSA Inspector General’s report, on June 15, 2018, you attended a second meeting with the President at the White House to discuss the FBI headquarters project.

a. Please provide a detailed summary of the discussion at the meeting, including the topics of discussion and the speakers for each topic. Please state whether Commissioner Mathews’ or Administrator Murphy’s testimony at their respective hearings was discussed during this meeting.
b. Please provide a copy of any and all documents evincing communications between you and anyone at the White House regarding scheduling this meeting or discussing its purpose.
c. For any documents created in connection with the June 15, 2018 meeting either before or after that meeting, please state: (1) who, specifically, requested that the document be created; (2) who contributed to the document; (3) and whether that document was shared with anyone at the White House. Please provide a copy of the relevant document(s).

16. Did you or anyone else at the FBI have meetings or conversations with the White House about the FBI headquarters project after June 15, 2018? If so, please provide (a) the date, time, and location of the conversation, (b) the name and title of the participants, (c) a detailed summary of the conversation, and (d) any and all documents related to these meetings or conversations.

17. Have you or anyone else at the FBI ever had a conversation with the White House or the GSA about the GSA Inspector General investigation, the Report, or its findings? If so, please provide (a) the date, time, and location of the conversation, (b) the name and title of the participants, (c) a detailed summary of the conversation, and (d) any and all documents related to these meetings or conversations.

18. Has anyone within the White House ever asked you or anyone else at the FBI to assert a privilege in connection with your statements about the FBI headquarters project? If so, please provide (a) the date, time, and location of the conversation, (b) the name and title of the participants, (c) a detailed summary of the conversation, and (d) the purported basis for the privilege. Further, please provide a copy of any and all documents evincing communications between you or anyone else at the FBI and anyone at the White House about the assertion of privilege and the purported basis for that privilege in connection with this project.

19. On August 27, 2018, Senator McCaskill sent a letter to the GSA Inspector General asking, among other things, “how the GSA OIG incorporated comments from GSA and/or FBI into the final draft of the report.” In the Inspector General’s September 10 response, that office indicated that it asked the FBI for factual accuracy comments on information the FBI had provided to the GSA Inspector General in connection with its review. The FBI provided the GSA Inspector General with those comments on August 8, 2018. Further, it appears that the FBI provided comments orally on the draft report.

a. Please provide us with a copy of the written comments the FBI provided on August 8.
b. Please provide a detailed description of the oral comments the FBI provided upon reviewing the draft report, as well as the names of those who provided the comments. Please provide copies of any documents reflecting those comments.

20. As described above, it was recently reported that some years before Donald Trump became President of the United States, he “expressed interest in the FBI moving out of its current headquarters so he could buy the land and redevelop the property.”[9] Please provide a copy of any and all documents evincing communications between Donald Trump, the Trump organization, or Donald Trump’s representative, and the FBI about the FBI headquarters project.

21. On February 28, 2018, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held its “Hearing on Oversight: FBI Headquarters Consolidation Project.”[10] Following that hearing, several Committee Members sent Questions for the Record to the FBI on March 15, 2018. It has been more than seven months since that submission and the Committee still has not received responses from the FBI. Please provide those responses immediately.

For purposes of this letter, “documents” includes, but is not limited to, emails, correspondence, memos, emails, notes, comments, papers, faxes, photographs, and text messages.

Please provide us with responses within 30 days. If you or members of your staff have any questions regarding this request please contact Michal Freedhoff and Kenneth Martin on the Environment and Public Works Committee staff at 202-224-8832.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,