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 The content and purchaser(s) of those online advertisements are a mystery to the public because of outdated laws that have failed to keep up with evolving technology.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. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, issued the following statement after the Department of Justice (DOJ) charged Elena Khusyaynova, a Russian national, with interfering in the upcoming midterm elections:

“This new indictment by the Justice Department demonstrates the serious nature of these ongoing attacks on our democratic process. I commend the career officials at DOJ who continue to work tirelessly to stop foreign actors from sowing division and spreading distrust in our political system. This is why the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation has been focused on some of the dangers posed on social media platforms.

“But the threat is not over. As the criminal complaints notes, these attacks continue to this day. It is critical for Congress to step up and immediately act to employ much-needed guardrails on social media. And as I've said before, these companies need to work with Congress so we can update our laws to better protect against attacks on our democratic institutions.”

###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine announced $239,490.47 in federal funding to support organizations in Charlottesville and Roanoke in their efforts to alleviate substandard housing problems for low-income households. The funding was awarded through the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Office of Rural Development’s Housing Preservation Grant Program.

“We’re pleased to announce funding to support repair and rehabilitation efforts for 75 households in Charlottesville, Roanoke, and Southwest Virginia. This funding will help make needed housing updates for low-income individuals and families,” the Senators said.

The following organizations will receive funding as follows:

• The Thomas Jefferson Planning District in Charlottesville will receive $119,745.24 to alleviate substandard housing problems in the area. The funding will supplement and enhance planned rehabilitation efforts to assist 35 households.

• Renovation Alliance in Roanoke will receive $119,745.23 to alleviate substandard housing problems for 40 very-low income households in the Counties of Roanoke, Botetourt, Craig, Floyd, and Franklin in Southwest Virginia.

 The USDA’s Housing Preservation Grant Program provides grants to organizations supporting the repair and rehabilitation of housing owned or occupied by low- and very-low income rural households.

###

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, U.S. Senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine announced $166,800 in federal grants and loans for the towns of Alberta, Pembroke, and Chatham to purchase four police vehicles and equipment through the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Office of Rural Development. 

“We’re pleased to support rural communities in Virginia with federal funding to purchase updated police vehicles and equipment. This funding will help ensure that police officers have the resources they need to ensure to keep residents safe,”the Senators said.

The following localities will receive funding as follows: 

• The Town of Alberta will receive a grant of $24,000 and loan of $46,400 to purchase a new fully furnished 2018 Chevy Tahoe 4x4 police vehicle. Additional equipment including a computer, radio, and lighting equipment which will be compatible with the upgraded emergency services radio system being implemented by Brunswick County will also be installed. This project will serve the 298 residents of the town of Alberta.

• The Town of Pembroke will receive a grant of $20,100 and loan of $37,400 to purchase two new properly equipped all wheel drive police vehicles. The new vehicles will replace two older high mileage vehicles in the fleet that are not safe and reliable. The 1,128 residents of Pembroke will benefit from the improved services and cost savings that these new police vehicles will provide.

• The Town of Chatham will receive a grant of $13,600 and loan of $25,300 to replace one older car with a modern fully equipped police vehicle. Currently, the town is using older, high mileage vehicles that are unreliable. 

The USDA’s Community Facilities Direct Loans and Grants Program provides affordable funding to develop essential community facilities in rural areas. Funding awarded through this program seeks to purchase, construct, and/or improve community facilities that are used for health care, public safety, community support, and public service.

###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine applauded Senate passage of the bipartisanAmerica’s Water Infrastructure Act. The final legislation included key projects for Virginia championed by Warner and Kaine, including authorization for a project to deepen and widen channels in and around Norfolk Harbor and to initiate new flood-resilience projects for Tangier Island and the broader Coastal Virginia region.

“From defending Virginia’s coastal communities against sea level rise, to funding key water infrastructure projects that boost our economic competitiveness, this bill is good for Virginia and good for our country,” the Senators said. “Throughout our travels on Virginia’s coast, we’ve heard from leaders concerned about the impacts of sea level rise and recurrent flooding, and this legislation builds on our efforts to respond to the urgent need to protect treasured pillars of Virginia’s economy. We’re pleased that our colleagues supported Virginia provisions we pushed for and we’re proud that we were able to find common ground to address challenges facing our communities.”    

Water infrastructure bills are often known as Water Resources Development Acts (WRDAs). America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, this year’s version of the bill, supports maritime infrastructure priorities such as dredging waterways and channels, protecting communities from flooding, and restoring key ecosystems like the Chesapeake Bay. The legislation will also help repair aging drinking water, wastewater, and irrigation systems. 

Virginia priorities that the Senators pushed for in the legislation include:

• Norfolk Harbor and Channels Widening and Deepening—A provision that authorizes the deepening and widening of federal navigation channels in and around Norfolk Harbor—including the deepening of the main Norfolk Harbor Channel to 55 feet, the deepest draft currently authorized of any international port on the East Coast. This will allow the largest post-Panamax container ships to call on the Port of Virginia, bolstering its competitiveness with East Coast ports like New York/New Jersey and Savannah, GA. The deeper and wider channels will also support Navy and Coast Guard vessels and other commercial users of the port. This project is occurring in concert with other port infrastructure improvements, including the expansion of Norfolk International Terminals and Virginia International Gateway to provide a 40 percent increase in overall capacity; the modernization of the regional freight rail network; and the generational Craney Island Eastward Expansion that will add a new container terminal at the site of the Port of Virginia’s dredge fill facility. Last year, the Port of Virginia supported more than 4,000 jobs and $860 million in business investment in Virginia.

• Provisions to allow the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to generate detailed plans for Tangier Island and Coastal Virginia that reduce risk from sea level rise and recurrent flooding in these areas.

• The Tangier Island Study Authority will evaluate ecosystem restoration, flood risk management, and navigation options that reduce the island’s critical vulnerability to erosion and flood damage. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimates that if immediate action is not taken, Tangier Island could be substantially uninhabitable within the next 50 years due to erosion, widely believed to be caused by sea level rise due to climate change. The island currently shrinks by 15 feet each year. 

• The Coastal Virginia Water Resources Authority will look at options to reduce storm and flood damage and make coastal infrastructure and communities less vulnerable to flooding and shoreline erosion associated with sea level rise and climate change. This follows a previous study for the City of Norfolk.

• A provision that grants conditional approval for the Norfolk Coastal Storm Risk Management project pending an evaluation from the Army Corps, known as the “Chief’s Report.” The conditional approval would allow the city to start preconstruction design and engineering of the project ahead of formal authorization needed by Congress at a later date. This project would address roughly $1.5 billion of flood control needs in the City of Norfolk. Norfolk was one of nine focus areas on the East Coast identified in an analysis of regional flood resilience needs following Hurricane Sandy in 2012. The Hampton Roads region faces a range of 1 ½ to as much as 7 feet in sea level rise by the year 2100.

Full text of the legislation can be found HERE.

###

WASHINGTON – Today, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) and Vice Chairman Mark Warner (D-VA) released the following joint statement on the Department of Justice’s indictment of seven Russian GRU officers for international hacking and disinformation operations:

“Today’s charges further highlight the illegal and aggressive tactics Russia uses to undermine international institutions and wage disinformation campaigns. In recent years, Russia has reportedly hacked or attempted to hack democratic elections, the Olympics, the power grid in Ukraine, and now the international organization that investigates the illegal use of chemical weapons. As Justice Department officials stated today, these actions are part of a criminal conspiracy and are wholly unacceptable. We commend the Department of Justice and our Dutch and British allies on the steps they’ve taken to hold Russia accountable. Collectively, we will continue to combat Russia’s illegal activities and make clear that this reckless and belligerent behavior will not be tolerated.”

WASHINGTON —U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, joined a group of 12 Senate Democrats in demanding CFPB leadership to explain how Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Policy Director Eric Blankenstein was chosen to oversee supervision, enforcement, and fair lending issues given his past racist writings.

Last week, the Washington Post uncovered a 2004 blog where Blankenstein, under an alias, posted bigoted writings on race, hate crimes, and women. In his current role as Policy Director at CFPB, Blankenstein is charged with enforcing consumer protection laws, including laws in place to prevent lending discrimination. CFPB leadership has failed to condemn Mr. Blankenstein’s writings, and failed to explain how someone with Mr. Blankenstein’s views came to be charged with fair lending responsibilities.

“Mr. Blankenstein was not hired through the competitive service process like most CFPB employees; he is one of your hand-selected political appointees. Further, you have specifically tasked him with overseeing the CFPB’s fair lending supervision and enforcement work at a time when you have decided to restructure the Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity.”the Senators wrote.  “It is unclear whether his appointment is due to a failure to investigate Mr. Blankenstein’s background prior to his appointment, Mr. Blankenstein withholding information from you and the CFPB, or an informed decision on your part to ignore his public comments.”

Joining Sen. Warner on the letter are U.S. Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT),  Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Kamala Harris (D-CA), Jack Reed (D-RI), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Edward Markey (D-MA), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and Cory Booker (D-NJ). 

In his role as a member of the Senate Banking Committee, Sen. Warner has advocated for policies that support the well-being of diverse communities. Earlier this year, he led an effort in the Senate to urge banking regulators to take steps that would strengthen access to credit for disadvantaged communities under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).

Full text of the letter can be found here and below:

The Honorable Mick Mulvaney
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
1700 G Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20552

Dear Mr. Mulvaney,

We are deeply concerned that you have placed a person with a history of racist writing at a senior position within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). 

The Washington Post reported last week that Eric Blankenstein, a political appointee that you chose to oversee supervision, enforcement, and fair lending, wrote under an alias in defense of the use of racial slurs, and claimed without evidence that the majority of reported hate crimes were hoaxes. When confronted with his past writing on these and other subjects, Mr. Blankenstein acknowledged his authorship, but failed to denounce his writings. Only after an outcry from CFPB career staff did Mr. Blankenstein send a note apologizing for the “framing” and “tone” of his arguments – but he did not apologize for his defense of racial slurs, nor did he apologize for reflexively disbelieving victims of hate crimes. 

Mr. Blankenstein was not hired through the competitive service process like most CFPB employees; he is one of your hand-selected political appointees. Further, you have specifically tasked him with overseeing the CFPB’s fair lending supervision and enforcement work at a time when you have decided to restructure the Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity. It is unclear whether his appointment is due to a failure to investigate Mr. Blankenstein’s background prior to his appointment, Mr. Blankenstein withholding information from you and the CFPB, or an informed decision on your part to ignore his public comments.

In order to ensure that the CFPB is fulfilling its fair lending mandate and thoroughly evaluating senior employees with fair lending responsibilities, it is critical for us to understand how someone with Mr. Blankenstein’s views was charged with this particular set of duties.

Please respond to the following requests no later than October 22, 2018.

1)      Were you personally aware of any of the writings referenced in The Washington Post article prior to hiring Mr. Blankenstein?

a.      If not, did you ask Mr. Blankenstein whether he had written anything that would reflect poorly on the CFPB or indicate that he was not an appropriate candidate for this role prior to extending an offer of employment? Did he respond verbally or in writing to any inquiry about past public statements?

b.      If so, how were you made aware of the writings? Why did you believe it was still appropriate to hire Mr. Blankenstein to oversee supervision, enforcement and fair lending?

2)      Please describe your process for identifying potential candidates for political appointment to senior CFPB positions and provide all written guidelines and procedures related to identifying potential candidates for appointment as senior CFPB officials. 

a.      Was Mr. Blankenstein recommended to you by a Member of Congress, a federal employee, or a person or entity subject to CFPB oversight?

b.      Were all established guidelines and procedures adhered to during your search for candidates to fill this position? Were any other candidates considered for this position?

3)      Please describe your process for vetting candidates for political appointment to senior CFPB positions, provide all written guidelines and procedures related to the performance of background checks or other due diligence, and specify whether such background checks include investigations into statements on social media, websites, or in other public forums.

a.      Were all established guidelines related to background checks or other due diligence adhered to in evaluating Mr. Blankenstein’s appointment? Have they been adhered to for all CFPB political appointments during your tenure?

b.      As part of any background check or other due diligence, was Mr. Blankenstein asked about past statements on social media, websites, or other public forums? If so, did Mr. Blankenstein properly disclose the above referenced writings? 

4)      Does Mr. Blankenstein have the confidence and support of the enforcement and fair lending staff he oversees? Will you further investigate Mr. Blankenstein’s past writings, and do you intend to take action if you find more troubling statements?

Sincerely,

###

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine (both D-VA) announced that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has awarded $1,052,562 in grant funding to help bolster school security and provide training to students and faculty. The funds will also support law enforcement officers and first responders who arrive on the scene of a school violence incident. The grants were made available through DOJ’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services’ (COPS) School Violence Prevention Program (SVPP).

“We are pleased that Virginia schools have received these grants to help improve campus safety,” said the Senators. “These federal funds will help train students on how to respond in violent situations and provide additional resources for faculty and local law enforcement.”

Under today’s announcement, the following Virginia communities will receive funding:

• Bedford County: $91,124
• Chesterfield County: $500,000
• Hanover County: $75,188
• City of Virginia Beach: $386,250

These grants are authorized by the STOP School Violence Act, and are intended to improve school security by helping students and teachers reduce exposure to risks, prevent acts of violence, and quickly recognize and respond to violent attacks. The School Violence Prevention Program (SVPP) is a competitive award program designed to provide funding to improve security at schools and on school grounds in the jurisdiction of the grantee through evidence-based school safety programs. For more information on this program, click here. 

###