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 — U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) released the below statement on the Trump Administration’s proposal to rewrite U.S. Department of Education guidelines regarding schools’ handling of allegations of sexual assault and harassment:

“I have repeatedly expressed concerns about the Trump Administration’s approach to this serious issue and said that any new process should prioritize the needs of survivors. That remains my position. I will be examining the Department’s proposal and consulting with experts to determine whether it would undermine the progress that campus sexual assault survivors and advocates have achieved in recent years,” said Sen. Warner. “The Department’s seemingly narrow interpretation of schools’ obligations to students is further reason for Congress to advance bipartisan legislation that better protects students and sets clear responsibilities for institutions handling allegations of campus sexual assault.” 

Sexual assault on college campuses remains a pervasive issue. Under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, colleges and universities have a legal obligation to provide an environment that is free from discrimination on the basis of sex in all education programs and activities. Sexual harassment and sexual violence are forms of sex discrimination prohibited under Title IX. Sexual assault on college and university campuses is notoriously underreported and, too often, adjudication processes and survivor support services vary from campus to campus, making fairness and transparency all the more elusive. 

Sen. Warner is an original cosponsor of the Campus Accountability and Safety Act, which would establish higher incentives on all universities, including those in Virginia, to empower student survivors and hold perpetrators accountable. The bill was supported by more than one-third of the U.S. Senate in the 114^th Congress.

In September 2017, Sen. Warner called the Trump Administration’s decision to review previous guidelines on campus sexual assault a “red flag” and called for Secretary DeVos to prioritize the interests of sexual assault survivors in the rulemaking process.

###

WASHINGTON- U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Mark Warner (D-VA), Chris Coons (D-DE), and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) pressed Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to respond to reports that the company used contractors to retaliate against or spread intentionally inflammatory information about their critics. Since the 2016 election, both the government and Facebook internal investigations have revealed that the company failed to adequately protect the data of its 2.2 billion users. Recent reports—including one from the New York Times—allege that Facebook has taken significant steps to undermine critics, including hiring partisan political consultants to retaliate and spread intentionally inflammatory information about people who have criticized Facebook, which, if not properly disclosed, may have campaign finance implications.

“We are gravely concerned by recent reports indicating that your company used contractors to retaliate against or spread intentionally inflammatory information about your critics,” the senators wrote. “In addition, the staggering amount of data that Facebook has collected on both its users and people who have not subscribed to or consented to use of the platform, raises concern that the company could improperly or illegally use its vast financial and data resources against government officials and critics seeking to protect the public and our democracy.”

“Both elected officials and the general public have rightfully questioned whether Facebook is capable of regulating its own conduct.” 

Russia attempted to influence the 2016 presidential election by buying and placing political ads on platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google. The content and purchaser(s) of those online advertisements are a mystery to the public because of outdated laws that have failed to keep up with evolving technology. The Honest Ads Act, led by Klobuchar, Warner, and the late Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and cosponsored by Coons and Blumenthal, would prevent foreign actors from influencing our elections by ensuring that political ads sold online, including social media platforms like Facebook, are covered by the same rules as ads sold on TV, radio, and print.

The full text of the letter can be found below:

Dear Mr. Zuckerberg:

We are gravely concerned by recent reports indicating that your company used contractors to retaliate against or spread intentionally inflammatory information about your critics.  

Since the 2016 election, both the government and your own internal investigations have revealed that your company failed to adequately protect the data of its 2.2 billion users. Your company also failed to implement protocols to prevent manipulation by foreign adversaries working to undermine America’s political system. Both elected officials and the general public have rightfully questioned whether Facebook is capable of regulating its own conduct.  

According to recent reports, your company hired contractors to retaliate and spread intentionally inflammatory information about people who have criticized Facebook, which, if not properly disclosed, may have campaign finance and other potential legal implications. In addition, the staggering amount of data that Facebook has collected on both its users and people who have not subscribed to or consented to use of the platform, raises concern that the company could improperly or illegally use its vast financial and data resources against government officials and critics seeking to protect the public and our democracy.

In light of these concerns, we respectfully request you answer the following questions:

1.      To your knowledge, did your company hire any entity – including, but not limited to research firms and contractors – to collect or find information to be used in retaliation against people who criticized Facebook, including elected officials who were scrutinizing your company?

2.      Did your company hire any entity – including, but not limited to research firms and contractors – to spread negative or intentionally inflammatory information in retaliation against people who criticized Facebook, including elected officials who were scrutinizing your company?

3.      Did your company – or any entity affiliated with or hired by your company – ever use any of the vast financial and data resources available to Facebook in retaliation against people who criticized Facebook, including elected officials who were scrutinizing your company?

4.      Did your company – or any entity affiliated with or hired by your company – ever seek to conceal information related to foreign interference with the 2016 U.S. election from the public or government investigators? 

5.      Did your company – or any entity affiliated with or hired by your company — ever contact any media outlets with negative or misleading information, or suggest, promote, or amplify negative or misleading social media about your critics, including elected officials scrutinizing your company?

6.      How much money have you expended or paid other entities to collect, find, spread or amplify information about people who have criticized Facebook, including elected officials scrutinizing your company? Has any of that spending been publically disclosed?

7.      Some of us have requested that the Deputy Attorney General expand the scope of the Department of Justice’s existing investigations to include the latest reports that Facebook hired contractors to retaliate and spread negative information about people who criticized the company. If the Department’s investigation is expanded to include this recent report, will you commit to co-operating with any investigation into this matter? 

Thank you for your prompt attention to this request.

Sincerely,

###

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 – U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) issued the following statement after Amazon selected Crystal City in Virginia as one of two sites for their second headquarters:

“As a former Governor, now Senator, but also as a former technology executive, I'm really excited about the potential Amazon offers not only to Northern Virginia but the whole capital region and the entire Commonwealth. We've seen that major investments like these can bring not only thousands of direct jobs but also lead to job growth in other industries. As we welcome Amazon's new investment in Virginia, we must commit to implementing this announcement in a way that will benefit the whole region and all of the Commonwealth.”

###

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) has pressed the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) regarding recent reports documenting serious hazards in military housing at several bases in Virginia.

An investigation by Reuters revealed significant problems in base housing such as cockroaches, mice, mold and leaks, and described the difficulty that military families have encountered in getting the private management companies that own and operate the housing to address issues posing health hazards for families living in the homes. As part of its investigation, Reuters identified problems at several facilities across the country, including Fort Belvoir, Quantico, Oceana Naval Air Station, and other Hampton Roads naval bases. Most of the issues Reuters uncovered involved contractor Lincoln Military Housing, which manages 36,000 military family homes nationwide, including thousands of rental units in Hampton Roads.

In a letter to Secretary of Defense James Mattis addressing what the Senator termed “unacceptable conditions” in the homes, Warner demanded a briefing from the Defense Department on the current situation as well as a plan from DoD to ensure the safety of military families residing in private housing moving forward.

“The health and safety of our service members and their families are of the utmost importance. Our nation’s military families deserve safe and healthy housing.  It is imperative that you determine a plan to alleviate these issues in the coming weeks,” Sen. Warner wrote.

This isn’t the first time Sen. Warner has intervened on behalf of military families experiencing health hazards in military housing. Back in 2011, dozens of military families stationed in Norfolk described problems with the same contractor identified in Reuters’ recent report, Lincoln Military Housing. As now, the affected families – experiencing issues such as leaks, mold, and infestation – recounted major difficulties in getting the company or the Navy to  take the complaints seriously. After Sen. Warner got involved, however, Navy brass and Lincoln executives pledged to improve their responsiveness, and the company took steps to address mold and other hazards. 

“As a result, [Lincoln Military Housing] agreed to offer free mold inspection to any resident requesting the service, to hire an independent professional engineering firm to survey the conditions, to update training for maintenance teams and more; the Navy also committed to improving tracking tools and enhancing oversight of property management performance. But today it appears that these changes were insufficient or ignored,” Sen. Warner noted in this week’s letter to the Secretary of Defense. 

In August of this year, Sen. Warner – along with Sens. Tim Kaine (D-VA), David Perdue (R-GA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA) – alsopressed Secretary of the Army Mark Esper to address problems with lead poisoning affecting families at several Army bases around the country, including Fort Belvoir.

The full text of the letter appears below. A signed copy of Sen. Warner’s letter to Sec. Mattis is available here. 

The Honorable James N. Mattis

Secretary of Defense

U.S. Department of Defense

1000 Defense Pentagon

Washington, D.C. 20301

Dear Secretary Mattis:

I am writing to express my deep concern over a recent Reuters article alleging pervasive health hazards in private military housing across the country, including at Fort Belvoir, Oceana Naval Station, Quantico, and in additional areas in Hampton Roads Virginia. The article documents unacceptable conditions such as rodents and mold in housing and describes the difficulties military families face in ensuring these hazards are addressed by private real estate companies.

This is not the first time that unhealthy conditions in military housing have been documented. In November 2011, I was made aware of similar complaints regarding mold in private military housing in the Hampton Roads area in Virginia. Working with Navy officials and impacted military families, I strove to ensure that both the Navy and Lincoln Military Housing, a residential real estate management company responsible for the housing, implemented a plan to reduce these hazards. As a result, LMH agreed to offer free mold inspection to any resident requesting the service, to hire an independent professional engineering firm to survey the conditions, to update training for maintenance teams and more; the Navy also committed to improving tracking tools and enhancing oversight of property management performance. But today it appears that these changes were insufficient or ignored. 

In 2015, the Department of Defense’s own Inspector General expressed concerns about unsafe military housing, specifically related to Fort Belvoir and Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling. More recently, I was in touch with the U.S. Army regarding another Reuters article, alleging lead poisoning at a number of Army installations across the country.   

I ask that you provide our office with a detailed briefing as soon as possible outlining the immediate and long-term mitigation strategy to ensure military housing – both public and private – is safe and secure for our servicemembers and their families, and to provide legislative proposals or guidance on legislation needed to ensure that there is increased accountability for private companies. Please contact Caroline Wadhams in my office with questions. She can be reached at 202-224-2418.   

The health and safety of our servicemembers and their families are of the utmost importance. Our nation’s military families deserve safe and healthy housing.  It is imperative that you determine a plan to alleviate these issues in the coming weeks.

Thank you for your attention to this serious matter. I look forward to your timely response.

Sincerely,

Mark R. Warner

###

U.S. Senators Mark Warner (D-VA) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) authors of the Honest Ads Act, urged Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to address significant apparent loopholes in Facebook’s ads transparency tool. Earlier this week, Vice News published a story about their reporters’ experiences in buying political ads on Facebook. The reporters found that while Facebook’s transparency tool required them to verify their identification and U.S. addresses before they could buy ads, once they were verified, the reporters were able to post divisive ads and lie about who paid for them. ProPublica also issued a report detailing how corporations have been able to hide sponsorship of ads on Facebook. While Facebook committed to implementing transparency measures similar to those that the Honest Ads Act would require, they are currently failing to carry out the basic disclosure and disclaimer provisions of the legislation. The major gaps existing in Facebook’s transparency tool could allow adversaries to exploit the platform with continued disinformation efforts.

“The fact that Facebook’s new security tools allow users to intentionally misidentify who placed political ads is unacceptable. That Facebook is unable to recognize ads connected to a well-established foreign interference operation is also deeply troubling. Both point to a central vulnerability that enable these kinds of ads: Facebook’s failure to utilize human reviewers of the political ads it sells,” the senators wrote. “Free and fair elections require both transparency and accountability which give the public a right to know the true sources of funding for political advertisements in order to make informed political choices and hold elected officials accountable. However, it is clear that there are significant loopholes with regard to how Facebook sells ads and the process by which disclaimers are applied to political ads.”

“We strongly urge you to take every step necessary to close these loopholes in the transparency tool.”

Russia attempted to influence the 2016 presidential election by buying and placing political ads on platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google. The content and purchaser(s) of those online advertisements are a mystery to the public because of outdated laws that have failed to keep up with evolving technology. The Honest Ads Act, which was also sponsored by the late Senator John McCain (R-AZ), would prevent foreign actors from influencing our elections by ensuring that political ads sold online are covered by the same rules as ads sold on TV, radio, and print.

The Honest Ads Act would enhance the integrity of our democracy by improving disclosure requirements for online political advertisements by:

• Amending the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002’s definition of electioneering communication to include paid Internet and digital advertisements and requiring proper disclaimers on both electioneering communications and issue ads.
• Requiring digital platforms with at least 50,000,000 monthly viewers to maintain a public file of all electioneering communications purchased by a person or group who spends more than $500.00 total on ads published on their platform. The file would contain a digital copy of the advertisement, a description of the audience the advertisement targets, the number of views generated, the dates and times of publication, the rates charged, and the contact information of the purchaser.
• Requiring online platforms to make all reasonable efforts to ensure that foreign individuals and entities are not purchasing political advertisements in order to influence the American electorate.

The full text of the letter can be found below:

Dear Mr. Zuckerberg:

Reports indicate that Facebook’s new security tools allow users to intentionally misidentify who purchases political ads on your platform.  We write to express concern about significant apparent loopholes in Facebook’s ads transparency tool and to urge you to promptly address this issue.

Americans have a right to know who is behind political ads that are designed to influence our democracy, and platforms like Facebook have a responsibility to ensure that the ads they sell have accurate disclaimers about who paid for them. In multiple appearances before Congress this year, you acknowledged that in the past Facebook did not take a broad enough view of its responsibility and that failure to do so was a mistake. You specifically said, “Across the board, we have a responsibility to not just build tools, but to make sure that they're used for good.”

We appreciate the work that Facebook has done to implement the Honest Ads Act, our legislation to create transparency and accountability measures for paid online political ads. However, it is increasingly clear that major gaps exist in Facebook’s efforts, potentially allowing adversaries to exploit your platform with continued disinformation efforts.

A number of recent news articles demonstrate the shortfalls in your company’s existing systems. The New York Times pointed to the shortcomings of Facebook’s political disclosure regime on October 17th, reporting that a Congressional candidate was being targeted with anonymous attack ads. In contrast to the terms of the Honest Ads Act, which requires disclosure of information related to the real party in interest associated with a political advertisement, these ads included a disclaimer that read: “Paid for by a freedom loving American Citizen exercising my natural law right, protected by the 1st Amendment and protected by the 2nd amendment.” Subsequently, on October 26th, Vice News published an article titled “Facebook’s Ad Tool Lets Us Buy Ads “Paid For” By Mike Pence and ISIS”. The report details that while Facebook’s ad tool initially required the reporters to verify their identities and addresses before purchasing ads, it subsequently allowed them to place inaccurate disclosures on the ads – falsely attributing the ad to 3rd parties. Additionally, VICE News employees were able to post verbatim replica copies of ads that have now been identified to be part of a widespread disinformation campaign on the part of Russian government agents during the 2016 election cycle.

On October 30th, Vice News released a second report describing how its employees applied to purchase ads on behalf of each United States Senator, including ads “paid for by” all of the signatories of this letter. Facebook approved the ads despite the fact that they were both fraudulent and in violation of the company’s overall terms of service.

The fact Facebook’s new security tools allow users to intentionally misidentify who placed political ads is unacceptable. That Facebook is unable to recognize ads connected to a well-established foreign interference operation is also deeply troubling. Both point to a central vulnerability that enable these kinds of ads: Facebook’s failure to utilize human reviewers of the political ads it sells.

Free and fair elections require both transparency and accountability which give the public a right to know the true sources of funding for political advertisements in order to make informed political choices and hold elected officials accountable. However, it is clear that there are significant loopholes with regard to how Facebook sells ads and the process by which disclaimers are applied to political ads. You have committed to implementing transparency measures similar to those that the Honest Ads Act would require; however, your company is currently failing to carry out the basic disclosure and disclaimer provisions of the legislation.

We strongly urge you to take every step necessary to close these loopholes in the transparency tool. We appreciate your prompt attention and look forward to continuing to work with you to promote more transparent political advertising.

Sincerely,

###

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,

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and a member of the Banking Committee, wrote a letter to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairman Joseph Simons expressing concern following a report published by Buzzfeed detailing continued prevalence of digital advertising fraud and inaction by Google to curb these efforts. According Buzzfeed, this scheme has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in fraudulent advertising revenues, with operations spanning more than 125 Android apps and websites.

In July 2016, Sen. Warner and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wrote to FTC Chairwoman Ramirez calling on the agency to protect consumers from the growing digital ad fraud phenomenon. Since then, reports have estimated that digital ad fraud has only grown to $7.4 billion in 2017 – and projected to rise to $10.9 billion by 2021.

At the center of Buzzfeed’s report is Google, the only tech company absent for the Senate Intelligence Committee’s September hearing on social media’s role in protecting elections from misinformation and disinformation. The extent to which many popular online communications technologies have been exploited – and their providers caught repeatedly flat-footed – has been continuously highlighted in the course of investigating Russia’s unprecedented inference in the 2016 election. In the same way that bots, trolls, click-farms, fake pages and groups, ads, and algorithm-gaming can be used to propagate political disinformation, these same tools can – and have – been used to assist click fraud in digital advertising markets and efforts to convince large numbers of users to download malicious apps on their phones.

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

The Honorable Joseph J. Simons
Chairman
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Chairman Simons,

I am writing to express my continued concern with the prevalence of digital advertising fraud, and in particular the inaction of major industry stakeholders in curbing these abuses. In 2016, Senator Schumer and I wrote Chairwoman Ramirez to express frustration with the growing phenomenon of digital ad fraud. Digital ad fraud has only grown since that time, rising to $7.4 billion in 2017 – and projected to rise to $10.9 billion by 2021. I am greatly concerned with recent reporting from Buzzfeed, detailing a massive digital advertising fraud scheme that depends, in large part, on a network of compromised Android apps. As Buzzfeed reports, this scheme generated hundreds of millions of dollars in fraudulent advertising revenues, with operations spanning more than 125 Android apps and websites.

In the course of investigating Russia’s unprecedented interference in the 2016 election, the extent to which many popular online communications technologies have been exploited – and their providers caught repeatedly flat-footed – has been unmistakable. More than illuminating the capacity of these technologies to be exploited by bad actors, the revelations of the last year have revealed the dark underbelly of an entire ecosystem. In the same way that bots, trolls, click-farms, fake pages and groups, ads, and algorithm-gaming can be used to propagate political disinformation, these same tools can – and have – been used to assist financial frauds such as stock-pumping schemes, click fraud in digital advertising markets, schemes to sell counterfeit prescription drugs, and efforts to convince large numbers of users to download malicious apps on their phones.

According to Buzzfeed, a recent ad fraud ring vividly illustrates this problem, with potentially millions of consumers unwittingly downloading and engaging with apps that captured the behavior of app users in order to program a network of bots mimicking user activity to engage in multi-million dollar ad fraud. While these techniques continue to grow more sophisticated, none of this is new for industry stakeholders. Sophisticated, user-mimicking bots have been widely publicized for a number of years now. According to leading researchers, one in five ad-serving websites is visited exclusively by bots engaged in ad fraud. Digital ad fraud thrives because of the opaqueness of the programmatic ad market, where user data is bought and sold in ways users are unwitting to, in order to target advertisements in ever more sophisticated ways.

At the center of this scheme was a strategy of buying moderately popular, legitimate Android apps – seemingly innocuous products like mobile games, a flashlight app, and a healthy eating app – and using the installed user base as both a source of fake traffic and behavioral data to model fraudulent bot behavior. Google’s inattention to misconduct within its app store has been a growing concern. In November of 2017, researchers found that over 1 million users had downloaded a spoofed version of WhatsApp. Researchers also routinely find banking Trojans and other malware in the Google Play store. While Google made an estimated $20 billion last year from the Google Play store, its mobile app ecosystem features considerably more malware and fraudulent activity than that of its mobile operating system competitors.

Google’s inattention to misconduct within its app store also enabled the extensive fraud involved here. In addition to failing to notify users of the change in ownership, Google failed to detect changes in the apps that facilitated extensive user tracking subsequently used for bot behavior. Nor did it detect the myriad indicators of coordinated fraudulent activity between the apps – including overlaps in app content, source code, IP addresses, SDKs, and common traffic patterns. Despite being approached by researchers in June with evidence of part of this scheme, Google failed to dig deeper to reveal the full scope of this fraudulent activity. While there is no evidence Google had direct knowledge, Google’s ad network and ad exchanges were also implicated in these schemes. At the very least, it seems that across a number of its products Google may have engaged in willful blindness, all while profiting from this fraudulent activity. 

I encourage you to look closely at these reports, including the extent to which major ecosystem stakeholders engage in willful blindness to fraudulent activity in the online ad market.

Sincerely,

 ###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine celebrated key provisions from their bills to address the opioid crisis becoming law. The comprehensive substance abuse treatment bill, known as the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, was just signed into law by President Trump after it passed the Senate 98-2 and the House 393-8. The legislation includes four proposals from Warner that initially passed out of the Senate Finance Committee as part of the Helping to End Addiction and Lessen (HEAL) Substance Use Disorders Act of 2018 and three proposals from Kaine that passed the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee as part of the Opioid Crisis Response Act of 2018.

“This comprehensive legislation takes significant steps to stem the opioid epidemic that has devastated communities across the Commonwealth. By making necessary improvements to substance abuse treatment and recovery services, we can help save lives. That’s why I’m proud to report that this historic package includes several proposals that I championed to expand telehealth services to ensure more families get the addiction treatment they need,” said Warner.

“This bill is the product of a strong bipartisan effort to tackle the addiction crisis that is taking lives in Virginia and across the country. I’m proud the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act includes my proposals to help ensure job training is incorporated into recovery programs and that the kids who are hurt by this crisis get the resources they need. This comprehensive effort aiming to address prevention, treatment, and recovery is an important step toward solving the addiction crisis,” Kaine said.

Warner and Kaine have worked over the years to move legislation forward to combat the substance abuse epidemic, which in 2017 accounted for more than 72,000 deaths nationwide.

The final bill included provisions from four Warner bills to: 

• Expand telehealth services for substance abuse treatment.
• Make clear how Medicaid funds can be used for substance use disorder treatment through telehealth.
• Help ensure children suffering from substance use disorders receive the assistance they need through telehealth services.
• Improve data collection on substance use disorders among Medicaid recipients.

 The final bill included proposals from three Kaine addiction treatment bills to:

• Give states the resources and guidelines to ensure recovery homes are effectively helping residents sustain recovery from opioid and substance use disorders.
• Incorporate job training into drug addiction recovery programs.
• Afford schools the opportunity to apply for grants to directly offer trauma support services to students impacted by the opioid epidemic.

Last month, Warner and Kaine voted for a FY19 funding bill that increased funding to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to support programs related to the opioid crisis, including an additional $3.8 billion for treatment, prevention and research.

###

WASHINGTON— U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine (both D-VA) joined a group of more than 150 House and Senate Democrats in requesting U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos turn over more information regarding the Department’s flawed handling of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program. The program helps certain government or non-profit full-time employees receive loan forgiveness for the remaining balance of their federal student loans. The request follows the release of a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report which revealed an alarming number of PSLF borrowers have been denied loan forgiveness. The report also showed the Department has neglected to provide clear guidance and instructions to loan servicers. This failure at the Department has left servicers and borrowers in the dark about which employers qualify and without detailed, accurate information regarding their loan payments.

“Consumer advocates, state regulators, Members of Congress, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and GAO have all repeatedly raised alarms about the Department’s handling of the PSLF program,” the Members wrote. “Not only has this Administration ignored the mounting warning signs… but it has actively reduced oversight of student loan servicers—thereby contributing to the current problems in student loan servicing.”

Additionally, official Department data recently showed that a shocking 99.6 percent of borrowers applying for PSLF have thus far been denied. Previous requests to Secretary DeVos to improve PSLF have been ignored, and the Administration has even proposed eliminating the critical loan forgiveness program entirely.

Members also requested a timeline for implementing each GAO recommendation, a copy of the Department’s corrective action plan, and further details about the Department’s plan to reach out to all Direct Loan borrowers about PSLF and to fully digitize the employment certification and application process. It is critical that Congress have this information as authorizers of the program and to make any potential legislative corrections. Sens. Warner and Kaine have both pressed the Department for increased clarity and consistency for PSLF borrowers, including in the April 2017 letter found here.

“We are deeply troubled that millions of dedicated public servants may not obtain the loan forgiveness that they deserve if the Department does not act quickly to correct program implementation issues,” the Members added.

Sen. Warner has introduced several bipartisan bills to improve transparency, accountability and affordability in higher education, and help borrowers better manage their student loan debts. The Dynamic Student Loan Repayment Act would make income-based repayment the default option for borrowers. The Employer Participation in Repayment Act would allow employers to apply pre-tax income to help their employees with student loan payments. Finally, the Empowering Students Through Enhanced Financial Counseling Act would promote financial literacy by providing students who are recipients of federal financial aid with comprehensive counseling services.

Sen. Kaine has led efforts to fix a glitch in the PSLF program that left some public servants facing mountains of unexpected debt because they had unknowingly been in the wrong repayment plan. In March, Congress passed Kaine’s legislation to allow those public servants to apply for the loan relief they had earned. The Trump Administration is responsible for administering the loan relief through the Temporary Expanded Public Service Loan Forgiveness (TEPSLF) Program, but so far the Department of Education has created unnecessary hurdles for borrowers and rejected 88.4 percent of applicants. Kaine has pressed Secretary DeVos to turn things around by creating a simple process that gives fair consideration to the teachers, military personnel, law enforcement officers, and other public servants who apply for this debt relief.

To read the full text of their latest letter, click here. To read more about the GAO report entitled, “Public Service Loan Forgiveness: Education Needs to Provide Better Information for Loan Service and Borrowers,” click here. A summary of key findings can be found here. 

###