WASHINGTON – U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine (both D-VA), along with Sens. Ben Cardin and Chris Van Hollen (both D-MD), today wrote to Acting Director Russell T. Vought to express grave concern over a new Trump Administration proposal that would, among other things, effectively end Congress’ ability to provide advice and consent over the individual responsible for establishing federal workforce policy and regulations. As part of a White House proposal sent to congressional leaders on Thursday, workforce policy responsibilities currently executed by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) would be transferred to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), thereby taking these crucial duties from a Senate-confirmed director and assigning them to an administrator appointed directly by the President. 

“We wish to express both our frustration about the lack of transparency that defined the Administration’s drafting of this proposal and our grave concern that these changes will negatively impact and further undermine our country’s federal workforce,” the Senators wrote. “The vast majority of the federal workforce is comprised of career civil servants who perform their duties apolitically and without regard to which party presently heads the Executive Branch. These dedicated employees are the lifeblood of our democracy and it is imperative that they continue to be insulated from the political impulses of this President and any future President. Federal workers have every right to be concerned with this proposal and the Administration owes them substantially more information and transparency than has been provided to date.”

Last Thursday, May 16, the Trump Administration requested congressional authorization to merge the vast majority of OPM functions and responsibilities into the General Services Administration (GSA), including Human Resources Solutions, Information Technology, Retirement, and Health and Insurance Services. A key component of this proposal involves transferring the role of establishing government-wide workforce policy to a new Office of Federal Workforce Policy within OMB, which rests under the authority of the Executive Office of the President. This move would remove the Senate’s ability to have pre-selection oversight over the individual responsible for setting policies and regulations that affect federal workers nationwide, therefore opening the doors for this, or a future Administration, to act with political motivation towards the federal workforce. 

In their letter to OMB, the Senators conveyed great concern about the possibility of allowing politically-motivated individuals to set policies that affect loyal public servants in apolitical career roles. They also questioned Acting Director Vought about the nature of this unprecedented decision and its effect on federal workers – and requested that no further action be taken until all questions are thoroughly addressed. These questions include:

• What analysis has been conducted to evaluate the potential costs and risks associated with this proposal? What specific factors have been considered, and which perceived benefits were regarded as outweighing any disruption and risk to the federal workforce?
• How can federal workers nationwide and Congress feel confident that neither this President nor any future President would act to politicize civil service or take retaliatory or punitive action against federal workers?
• What other changes to federal workforce policy or the organization of OPM and/or GSA does the Administration plan to take before receiving—or absent altogether—additional Congressional authorization to implement aspects of this proposal? If any, under what statutory authority does the Administration perceive to be empowered to take such actions?
• What input was considered from Members of Congress, congressional committees, or federal workforce unions, management associations, professional associations, and affinity groups in drafting this proposal?
• What impact would this proposal have on the number of individuals employed by OPM? In what ways would the number of individuals dedicated to the current responsibilities and mandates of OPM change with the implementation of this proposal? Does this proposal assume increased or flat funding authorization levels for GSA after the merge?
• Does the Administration believe GSA currently has adequate cybersecurity resources and funding to appropriately protect their current mission, in addition to that of OPM?

Sens. Warner, Kaine, Cardin, and Van Hollen have been long-time, outspoken advocates for federal workers. In February, the Senators pressed OMB to implement the 1.9 percent pay increase for federal employees they worked to pass into law earlier in the year. Amid the partial federal government shutdown, the Senators took a series of actions to protect affected workers, including guaranteeing back pay for federal employees, urging back payfor contractors, introducing budget amendments to protect federal workers, and urging OPM to prevent the termination of dental and vision insurance for federal employees.

Full text of the letter is below and a copy can be found here.

May 20, 2019

The Honorable Russell T. Vought

Acting Director

Office of Management and Budget

Executive Office of the President

Washington, DC 20503

Dear Acting Director Vought:

We write today in response to your proposal to merge the functions and responsibilities of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) within the General Services Administration (GSA). Specifically, we wish to express both our frustration about the lack of transparency that defined the Administration’s drafting of this proposal and our grave concern that these changes will negatively impact and further undermine our country’s federal workforce.

In your letter to Congress dated May 16, 2019, you outline a proposal to transfer the “vast majority” of OPM’s current mission to GSA. As you note, this would include Human Resources Solutions, Information Technology, Retirement, and Health and Insurance Services. The proposal would also create an Office of Federal Workforce Policy within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which would assume the workforce policy responsibilities currently executed by OPM.

We have serious concerns with housing this new Office of Federal Workforce Policy within the Executive Office of the President, and having it run by an Administrator appointed directly by the President and without Senate confirmation. Your proposal details that this Office is to, among other functions, “provide overall strategic direction and coordination of workforce policy and regulations for all Executive agencies, other than the Government Accountability Office.” The vast majority of the federal workforce is comprised of career civil servants who perform their duties apolitically and without regard to which party presently heads the Executive Branch. These dedicated employees are the lifeblood of our democracy and it is imperative that they continue to be insulated from the political impulses of this President and any future President.

Federal workers have every right to be concerned with this proposal and the Administration owes them substantially more information and transparency than has been provided to date. To that end, we ask that you provide responses to the following questions:

• What analysis have you conducted to evaluate the potential costs and risks associated with this proposal? What specific factors did you consider, and which perceived benefits did you regard as outweighing any disruption and risk to the federal workforce?
• The civil service system is statutorily required to be apolitical and merit-based. However, this proposal would significantly impede Congress’ ability to conduct oversight over this matter by no longer allowing the Senate to provide advice and consent over the individual directly responsible for setting all federal workforce policy and regulations. How can federal workers and Congress feel confident that neither this President nor any future President would act to politicize civil service or take retaliatory or punitive action against federal workers?
• What other changes to federal workforce policy or the organization of OPM and/or GSA does the Administration plan to take before receiving—or absent altogether—additional Congressional authorization to implement aspects of this proposal? If any, under what statutory authority does the Administration perceive to be empowered to take such actions?
• What input did you consider from Members of Congress, congressional committees, or federal workforce unions, management associations, professional associations, and affinity groups in drafting this proposal?
• What impact would this proposal have on the number of individuals employed by OPM? In what ways would the number of individuals dedicated to the current responsibilities and mandates of OPM change with the implementation of this proposal? Does your proposal assume increased or flat funding authorization levels for GSA after the merge?
• Does the Administration believe GSA currently has adequate cybersecurity resources and funding to appropriately protect their current mission, in addition to that of OPM?

As a first step in conducting oversight of this dramatic proposal, our federal workforce is owed answers to these questions. Until the aforementioned questions have been thoroughly addressed and the authorities under which you are proposing such actions are clearly articulated, we respectfully request that you take no further action on this or any related matter.

We request your reply by the end of this month. We will continue to actively monitor the Administration’s explanation of this proposal to other Members of Congress and to the public, and look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

WASHINGTON – Today, in the midst of Infrastructure Week 2019, Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, introduced bipartisan legislation that will strengthen our nation’s infrastructure, create jobs, and generate economic stimulus. 

The Reinventing Economic Partnerships And Infrastructure Redevelopment (REPAIR) Act will establish a non-partisan financing authority to work alongside existing U.S. infrastructure funding. The authority will continue to stimulate growth in our most viable economies by providing loans and loan guarantees to significant road, bridge, rail, port, water, and sewer projects. With an initial $10 billion in seed money, the agency is projected to have over $300 billion worth of total project investments and eventually become self-sustaining. 

“Virginia’s commuters are all too familiar with our nation’s crippling infrastructure, but this problem affects more than just drivers stuck on crowded, bumpy roads. It affects urban homeowners, who are forced to rely on overwhelmed water and sewage systems; travelers, who have no other option but to frequent dilapidated airports; and our overall economy, which continues to lose tens of billions of dollars every year due to traffic congestion and blackouts on outdated grid infrastructure,” said Sen. Warner. “As our nation continues to expand, we must enact responsible legislation that supports this growth, and I believe the REPAIR Act will do just that. By pairing a financing mechanism like this with increased public funding, we can address our infrastructure needs while also creating jobs and expanding U.S. commerce and trade.” 

Currently, the U.S. spends less than 40 percent of what is needed to meet infrastructure demands. Furthermore, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) estimates that an investment of $4.6 trillion will be needed in the next ten years to bring American infrastructure to a state of good repair. According to the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Global Competitiveness Report, the U.S. lags behind eight other nations in overall infrastructure, and behind 24 nations in utility infrastructure, which includes overall water and electricity infrastructure. For years, the federal government has struggled to come up with the funding necessary to close the widening infrastructure gap, which is why the REPAIR Act will leverage public dollars to incentivize private sector infrastructure investment. 

The REPAIR Act would establish a fiscally responsible, Infrastructure Financing Authority (IFA) to complement existing infrastructure funding through loans and loan guarantees. Designed to become self-sustaining over time, this IFA would be independent of any federal agency and instead, would be run by an appointed Chief Executive Officer and a Board of Directors, while still being subjected to strong congressional and federal oversight. The IFA would only fund economically viable projects of at least $50 million, or $10 million for projects in rural areas, for which five percent of IFA funding would be reserved.In order to be considered for funding, proposed projects would undergo rigorous analysis, and must show clear public benefit, meet economic, technical and environmental standards, and be backed by a dedicated revenue stream. 

“If we are to improve our nation’s infrastructure, graded a D+ in ASCE’s 2017 Infrastructure Report Card, we can no longer afford to defer needed investment in modernization and maintenance. Under Sen. Warner’s leadership, the REPAIR Act would make a significant step toward this increased, sustained investment, establishing a new, innovative funding authority designed to attract billions of dollars in private sector investment in our nation’s water, transportation, and energy sectors. Sen. Blunt’s co-sponsorship demonstrates once again that infrastructure is a bipartisan issue that impacts the lives of all Americans. Through the REPAIR Act, our nation’s infrastructure will receive much-needed additional funding to help narrow the $2 trillion infrastructure investment gap that currently costs every American family $3,400 a year out of their discretionary income,” said Robin A. Kemper, P.E., President, American Society of Civil Engineers.   

“The reintroduction of Senator Warner's Reinventing Economic Partnerships And Infrastructure Redevelopment (REPAIR) Act reaffirms his commitment to address the challenge of rebuilding America’s crumbling infrastructure.  Investing in the repair and improvement of America’s physical infrastructure, from roads to bridges to pipelines to water systems to buildings, has consistently proven to be the most effective platform upon which sustained economic growth will occur.  Such investments were the key driver that fueled our nation’s industrial dominance in the 20th century, and through efforts like Senator's Warner's bill, we can achieve levels of economic growth and prosperity, while simultaneously protecting family sustaining wage and benefit standards,” said Sean McGarvey, President, North America's Building Trades Unions. 

“Senators Roy Blunt of Missouri and Mark Warner of Virginia should be commended for their ongoing effort to strengthen our nation’s investment in critical infrastructure. Their legislation, The Reinventing Economic Partnerships And Infrastructure Redevelopment Act (REPAIR) Act establishes a set of creative tools and incentives to draw private capital off the sidelines and promote effective public private partnerships.  There is at least a $1.4 trillion shortfall in funding needed to adequately support infrastructure needs between now and 2025.  The REPAIR Act is key to unlocking private investment necessary to support long-term economic growth and a more competitive nation,” said Jason Grumet, President, Bipartisan Policy Center.  

“I applaud Senators Warner and Blunt for re-introducing the REPAIR Act — an ambitious plan to improve America’s highways, bridges, ports, transit and aviation system. This bi-partisan legislation recognizes the United States’ urgent need to improve our infrastructure, so that we may once again be a global competitor in today’s interconnected marketplace. The REPAIR Act employs a creative financing mechanism, which leverages private investments with those from the federal, state and local sources. Fixing our state, local, and national infrastructure is a large task, and one that calls for a large-scale plan that leverages all financing options, from the public to the private sector. The REPAIR Act is a first-rate example of the type of legislation that could help tackle this issue,” said Ed Rendell, Co-Chair of Building America’s Future, Former Governor of Pennsylvania.

“Bills designed to increase investments in our country’s infrastructure, such as the REPAIR Act, are vital to continued American strength. We must take steps now to invest in our country’s infrastructure, sustaining economic growth and creating American jobs...Together with their private-sector partners, ports will invest over $155 billion annually in marine terminal infrastructure between 2016 and 2020. For America to remain globally competitive, however, we need the federal government not only to invest directly to infrastructure projects but also to create incentives for private and local investments as well. Investments now will pay dividends in the long run by reversing the widening gap in freight movement infrastructure spending between our country and spending levels of our competitors...America can and must do better. It is for this reason that legislation such as the REPAIR Act is so important,” said Kurt J. Nagle, President and CEO, American Association of Port Authorities. 

“I applaud the leadership of Senator Warner and Senator Blunt in their efforts to rebuild our nation’s infrastructure by encouraging private sector investment. While increased federal funding remains most critical to expanding and improving transportation infrastructure, financing options – such as the one proposed under the REPAIR Act – are important tools that are useful in developing infrastructure projects. If paired with freight-focused federal grant programs, like INFRA and BUILD, the REPAIR Act could be an important piece of the solution needed to bolster America’s economic engine – our freight network,” said Elaine Nessle, Executive Director, Coalition for America’s Gateways and Trade Corridors. 

“The creation of an Infrastructure Financing Authority (IFA) to supplement existing government-sponsored infrastructure funding has the advantage of further leveraging private sector investment. This authority will also offer greater opportunities for private sector investment beyond traditional transportation projects to other infrastructure needs including water and other utilities such as electric transmission and gas pipelines…The independent nature of the proposed authority will also will stimulate responsible investment that is good for the U.S. taxpayer by prioritizing projects with strong public benefits and clear financing plans,” said Jane F. Garvey, North America Chairman of Meridiam Infrastructure, Former Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration. 

“We must fix and improve our existing infrastructure first to ensure economic development for years to come and provide access to jobs and opportunity. By prioritizing maintenance and providing local communities with every available resource to support necessary investments, we can help our cities, towns, and suburbs stay competitive. The Infrastructure Financing Authority created by the REPAIR Act would provide another valuable tool to support thoughtful policy and critical investments communities need to make repairs and to build a modern network,” said Beth Osborne, Director, Transportation for America. 

Joining Sen. Warner in cosponsoring the bill are Sens. Roy Blunt (R-MO), Mike Braun (R-IN), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Chris Coons (D-DE), John Cornyn (R-TX), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN).

More information on the REPAIR Act is available here, and a list of endorsers can be found here. For the full text of this legislation, click here.  

###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine (both D-VA) joined Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Steve Daines (R-MT) to call on their Senate colleagues to pass the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act, a bipartisan bill to ensure that the tens of thousands of veterans who were stationed off the coast of Vietnam — known as Blue Water Navy veterans — can receive the disability and health care benefits they earned after their exposure to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War. This bill would also extend these benefits to servicemembers who were exposed to herbicides while serving in the Korean Demilitarized Zone and to the children of servicemembers stationed in Thailand who were born with spina bifida. Medical research suggests a link between a veteran’s exposure to herbicides in Vietnam and the occurrence of spina bifida in their children. The House passed this legislation earlier this week.

“Every veteran who was exposed to Agent Orange while serving our country deserves the same access to care. This legislation will finally afford the tens of thousands of veterans exposed during offshore duty the same benefits and treatment as their counterparts on the ground,” the Senators said.

During the Vietnam War, the U.S. military sprayed approximately 20 million gallons of Agent Orange in Vietnam to remove jungle foliage. This toxic chemical had devastating health effects on millions serving in Vietnam. In 1991, Congress passed a law requiring the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide presumptive coverage to all Vietnam veterans with illnesses that the Institute of Medicine has directly linked to Agent Orange exposure, including those who were stationed on ships off the Vietnamese coast, also known as Blue Water Navy veterans. However, in 2002, the VA decided that it would only cover Veterans who could prove that they had orders for “boots on the ground” during the Vietnam War. This exclusion prevented tens of thousands of sailors from receiving benefits even though they had significant Agent Orange exposure from drinking and bathing in contaminated water just offshore.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled earlier this year in favor of a Blue Water Navy veteran in his lawsuit against the Department of Veterans Affairs.  Although it appears that the VA will not appeal this decision and will begin providing benefits to most Blue Water Navy veterans, passing the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act would codify into law protection for these veterans. The bipartisan Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act would clarify the existing law so that Blue Water Navy veterans would be granted VA coverage equitable to those who are already covered.

Warner and Kaine are both cosponsors of the bill.

###

WASHINGTON – As part of his ongoing fight for military families facing hazardous living conditions, U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) today urged the Department of Defense (DoD) to establish a temporary housing advisory group to assist the military services in addressing widespread health hazards in private military housing. In a letter to Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick M. Shanahan, Sen. Warner emphasized the need for an independent group capable of providing neutral analysis and advice to the department in order to develop long-term solutions for servicemembers and military families. 

“As the military services determine the best path forward, multiple perspectives and deep expertise in housing, state and local housing regulations, and environmental hazards are necessary to determine next steps and make stronger agreements. Clearly, these areas are not the core expertise of the Pentagon leadership, nor are they part of a military leader’s career trajectory. Housing is not a core mission of the Department of Defense,” wrote Sen. Warner. “Therefore, I urge you to establish a temporary advisory group for the Department of Defense – a high-level group of independent experts, well-versed in these issues who can assist the department in this process.” 

Stressing the need to reopen and renegotiate 50-year agreements between the services and the military housing companies, Sen. Warner urged Acting Secretary Shanahan to convene a housing advisory group composed of 10-15 subject-matter experts tasked with analyzing the current Military Housing Privatization Initiative as well as the agreements between the private companies and military services. This group would provide recommendations related to housing, real estate, public health, and environmental hazards in order to ensure that military families do not continue to be subjected to health threats, including persistent mold blooms, water leaks, and rodent and insect infestations. 

The letter also states that, once established, the advisory group should ensure that any agreements between the services and private companies codify the following: 

• Ensure that independent and credentialed housing inspectors provide regular inspections and oversight at the housing units to ensure safe, secure and high-quality housing; 

• Ensure that companies are adhering to state, local and regulatory laws related to environmental hazards. If these standards have not been determined by these authorities, DoD should establish standards in coordination with the EPA, and require that these companies adhere to standards for these hazards, including mold;

• Require these companies to utilize appropriately credentialed and/or skilled contractors for health, safety and environmental problems across the services; 

• Ensure that tenants have direct access to a true housing advocate, who assists the servicemembers and their families;

• Ensure there exists an independent, third-party arbiter who can assist in resolving disputes between the tenants and the companies in a fair and transparent manner; and

• Determine penalties when these companies fail to provide safe and healthy housing, whether that be withholding rent payments, incentive fees, cancelling the contracts or alternative mechanisms.

This letter is the latest in a series of multifaceted efforts by Sen. Warner to ensure that military families in Virginia and throughout the nation can count on high-quality housing free of health, safety, and environmental hazards. On Monday, Sen. Warner wrote to four private military housing companies requesting a plan of action from each company on how they intend to tackle the deplorable health hazards documented by military families. Recently, Sen. Warner hosted roundtables in Norfolk, Fort Lee, and Fort Belvoir with affected families who were upset by conditions in their homes and frustrated about the lack of response from the military services and their respective housing companies. Additionally, earlier this year, Sen. Warner introduced the Ensuring Safe Housing for our Military Act – legislation that would create stronger oversight mechanisms over private military housing, allow the military to withhold rent until issues are resolved, prohibit contractors from charging certain fees, and require the military to withhold incentive fees to poorly performing contractors.

Full text of the letter is below and a copy can be found here.

May 14, 2019

The Honorable Patrick M. Shanahan

Acting Secretary of Defense

U.S. Department of Defense

1000 Defense Pentagon

Washington, DC 20301

Dear Acting Secretary Shanahan:

I write today to strongly encourage the Department of Defense to convene a temporary housing advisory group of outside experts to assist you in determining the best long-term solutions for addressing pervasive health hazards in private military housing across the military services. This group would analyze the current Military Housing Privatization Initiative, established in 1996, as well as the agreements between the military services and the private companies, and offer recommendations to strengthen accountability and improve the quality of housing.     

I have been deeply concerned about health hazards, including mold, lead, and rodent infestations in private military housing in the Commonwealth of Virginia and across the country. The Navy, Marine Corps, Army and Air Force have almost 12,000 privatized homes throughout the Hampton Roads region at Little Creek, Fort Story, Naval Station Norfolk, Oceana, and Joint Base Langley-Eustis, as well at Wallops, Dahlgren, Quantico, Fort Belvoir, and Fort Lee. Lincoln Military Housing, Clark Realty Capital, Balfour Beatty Communities, and Hunt Military Communities currently manage these units.

For this reason, I introduced the Ensuring Safe Housing for our Military Act with Senators Dianne Feinstein, Tim Kaine and Kamala Harris, to begin reforming the privatized housing program to ensure that our servicemembers have safe, secure and high-quality housing. This legislation would create stronger oversight mechanisms over private military housing, allow the military to withhold rent until issues are resolved, and prohibit the private companies from charging certain fees. It would also require the military to withhold incentive fees for poor performance.

While I am glad to see that the military services are taking some steps to address these hazards, including establishing call centers for current and former housing residents to address housing related environmental hazards, and establishing a tenant bill of rights, systematic change must occur in the program. These 50-year agreements between the military services and the military housing companies must be re-opened and renegotiated to tackle the problems that have been identified.   

As the military services determine the best path forward, multiple perspectives and deep expertise in housing, state and local housing regulations, and environmental hazards are necessary to determine next steps and make stronger agreements. Clearly, these areas are not the core expertise of the Pentagon leadership, nor are they part of a military leader’s career trajectory. Housing is not a core mission of the Department of Defense.

Therefore, I urge you to establish a temporary advisory group for the Department of Defense – a high-level group of independent experts, well-versed in these issues who can assist the department in this process. This group would include approximately 10-15 subject matter experts from outside of government and from other government agencies, who would provide analysis and neutral advice related to housing, real estate, public health and environmental hazards. In addition, advocates for the servicemembers and their families should be included in this group.

The Department of Defense has a long history of using advisory groups to provide independent and informed advice, such as the Defense Innovation Board, Defense Science Board, Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, and the Military Family Readiness Council.    

In addition to advising the DoD on broader policy, the advisory group would need to ensure that agreements between the military services and the private companies codify the following:

•          Ensure that independent and credentialed housing inspectors provide regular inspections and oversight at the housing units to ensure safe, secure and high-quality housing;

•          Ensure that companies are adhering to state, local and regulatory laws related to environmental hazards. If these standards have not been determined by these authorities, DoD should establish standards in coordination with the EPA, and require that these companies adhere to standards for these hazards, including mold;

•          Require these companies to utilize appropriately credentialed and/or skilled contractors for health, safety and environmental problems across the services; 

•          Ensure that tenants have direct access to a true housing advocate, who assists the servicemembers and their families;

•          Ensure there exists an independent, third-party arbiter who can assist in resolving disputes between the tenants and the companies in a fair and transparent manner; and

•          Determine penalties when these companies fail to provide safe and healthy housing, whether that be withholding rent payments, incentive fees, cancelling the contracts or alternative mechanisms. 

Thank you for your attention to this serious matter. I am happy to discuss this issue further. 

Sincerely, 

###

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine (both D-VA) released the following statement after President Trump escalated the ongoing U.S. - China trade war by imposing a 25 percent tariff on $200 billion worth of Chinese exports. In retaliation, China announced that it is raising tariffs on $60 billion of U.S. products beginning on June 1.

“It’s been more than a year since President Trump first launched a haphazard, ill-planned trade war with China that raised taxes on a number of Virginia commodities. The escalation means continued uncertainty for Virginia’s soybean farmers, who continue to brace for the worst every time the word ‘tariffs’ is said in the Oval Office. With the Trump Administration slapping China with additional tariffs and China planning to hit the U.S. right back, there seems to be no solution in sight,” said the Senators. “It’s one thing to be tough on China’s unfair and illegal trade practices, but the longer this disastrous lack of a strategy continues, the more it’ll cost and the more of an impact it will have on Virginians’ bank accounts.” 

Sens. Warner and Kaine have raised concerns about how President Trump’s ongoing trade war could hurt Virginia businesses and families. According to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS), China is Virginia’s number one agricultural export market for soybeans. In 2018, Virginia exported more than $58 million soybean products to China – an 83 percent decrease from 2017.

###

WASHINGTON – Senator Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Senator Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo calling attention to China’s efforts to be the leading country driving the development of standards and norms related to Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Senators urged the Secretary to strengthen the Trump Administration’s diplomatic efforts around emerging technologies to make certain the United States leads in setting international standards and norms for the AI field in ways that are congruent with our nation’s interests and values. 

“Without an engaged United States, and close coordination with our allies, we have limited ability to set global standards for AI development and use, with potentially disastrous consequences,” wrote the Senators. “China, as an authoritarian regime that uses AI tools to monitor its citizens and parse through vast troves a data, is a significant threat to the personal freedoms of individuals around the globe.” 

Menendez and Warner concluded the letter by asking Secretary Pompeo to articulate “the U.S. vision for global standards, norms, and mechanisms for the use of artificial intelligence,” and posing a series of questions about critical issues relating to AI.

A copy of the letter can be found here and below:

Dear Secretary Pompeo:

We write to urge you to ensure the United States takes a leading role in developing international standards and norms for new and emergent innovations shaping the next generation of information technologies, in particular Artificial Intelligence (AI). Other countries are already shaping this conversation in ways that may be detrimental to U.S. interests. For example, later this month China is convening and hosting a UNESCO Conference on AI, underscoring China’s continued efforts to shape the debate and set the standards surrounding the future of AI. Even our allies are leading in this space, with the EU releasing guidelines for ethical AI development.

Emerging technologies such as AI represent the cutting edge of innovation and will facilitate critical advances in a wide range of fields, including health care, education, information processing, logistics, and security. At the same time, these technologies will present enormous challenges, whether in job displacement, algorithmic discrimination, privacy, or cybersecurity (as adversaries exploit these tools, too). The United States has long played a formative role in developing AI technologies.  In recent years, however, China has made significant progress in developing AI, with a stated goal of superseding the United States in this field by 2030.  China’s efforts, according to a study conducted by the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence, are ahead of schedule, with the Institute highlighting that China has “surpassed the United States in published papers on artificial intelligence” and is “poised to overtake” the United States in terms of cited papers on the subject over the next few years.  Disturbingly, some of America’s most prominent technology companies have opened major AI research centers in China, potentially giving China’s military and intelligence arms access to cutting-edge technology. China’s continued robust investment in the field of AI has the potential to provide a strategic rival a critical technological edge.

China’s organization of the UNESCO conference on AI is yet another indication of its efforts to fundamentally shape global standards governing the future of AI and to drive the debate in the international community around an approach that uses AI tools to infringe on the rights of individuals throughout the globe and aid authoritarian regimes in suppressing its citizens.  Technologies are shaped by the values and norms that undergird their development. While a generation of ICT technologies developed by the U.S. and its allies have been shaped by our shared values and norms of openness, pluralism, fair competition, rule of law, security, and free expression, China’s development of AI has been shaped by fundamentally different values and norms, in service of objectives such as surveillance, censorship, and social control.

As I know you appreciate, it is critically important that as China attempts to capture primacy in the field of AI the United States works with our partners and allies to assert a position of leadership within the international community on this issue.  Without an engaged United States, and close coordination with our allies, we have limited ability to set global standards for AI development and use, with potentially disastrous consequences.  China, as an authoritarian regime that uses AI tools to monitor its citizens and parse through vast troves a data, is a significant threat to the personal freedoms of individuals around the globe.

Due to the issues raised by China’s efforts to set international standards in the field of AI that are not congruent with our interests and values, I am concerned the United States is not doing enough to promote United States leadership in establishing the norms and global governance for AI and other emerging technologies.  Consequently, I ask that you please respond to the following questions regarding U.S. efforts in the AI field:

• What is the U.S. vision for global standards, norms, and mechanisms for the use of artificial intelligence, grounded in our values, including democracy, personal liberties, and the protection of human rights?
• What U.S. efforts are currently underway to promote this vision for the use of artificial intelligence?
• What should U.S. expectations be for leading U.S.-based firms and researchers when it comes to work in China on projects that violate human rights? 
• Does the current export control regime adequately prevent the export of AI technology and technical assistance to human rights violators? 
• Should Congress consider an update to the Alien Tort Claims Act, allowing foreign citizens (such as Uyghurs) to seek remedies in U.S. courts for human rights violations directly aided by the actions of U.S. firms or researchers?
• What standards for AI are you promoting in international fora?
• What is the current diplomatic engagement strategy by the Department of State to promote and promulgate those standards, including through participation in appropriate international fora and meetings?
• How is the United States working with allies and partners on the development of AI tools?

Moving forward, I hope to see the United States further strengthen its efforts in the AI field to ensure that we do not cede leadership on this issue to China.  AI is rapidly becoming one of the most strategically important domains of the next generation, serving as an enabling technology to a range of future innovations and across disparate fields; it is vital to the security of the United States and our allies that we play a primary role in shaping AI to serve in the best interests of liberty, prosperity, and the promotion of human rights.  I ask that you please respond to my questions by May 20^th.  I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

###

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) wrote today to four private military housing companies in order to request strategies from each company on how they plan to tackle the deplorable health hazards documented by military families in Virginia and throughout the nation. These letters come two weeks after roundtables in Norfolk and Fort Lee, where Sen. Warner spoke with a housing company, military officials, and affected families who were upset by conditions in their homes and frustrated about the lack of response from their respective housing companies.

 Letters were addressed to the heads of Lincoln Property Company, which provides 36,000 housing units for military families nationwide, including 5,700 units for Navy and Marine Corps servicemembers stationed at Dahlgren, Wallops, Quantico, and throughout Hampton Roads; Balfour Beatty Communities, Clark Realty Capital Companies, and Hunt Military Communities, which manage military homes for families stationed at Fort Belvoir, Fort Story, Fort Eustis, and Fort Lee; and Hunt Military Communities, which manages approximately 1,430 units at Joint Base Langley-Eustis.

 “Numerous meetings and roundtables that my office has organized with servicemembers and their families, the military, and private companies have all highlighted a number of unacceptable problems in the Military Housing Privatization Initiative that must be addressed immediately,” wrote Sen. Warner. “The status quo cannot be allowed to continue.”

 In the letters, Sen. Warner requested that any plan of action address the following issues reported at private military housing by servicemembers and their families:

• Lack of adequate credentials/expertise by maintenance providers hired by private military companies. These providers are frequently not qualified and/or certified to fix health hazards and other problems, which can result in superficial fixes or outright failures to fix these hazards.
• Excessive fees charged to military families in order to remediate hazards. Families facing these fees allege that they have little to no recourse to challenge the charges, even when they are not at fault. Moreover, some families believe that they have no ability to demand compensation from the companies when their furnishings are ruined due to leaks or mold; or when inadequate and unsafe housing forces them to relocate or stay at hotels. 
• Air quality issues, including the presence of mold and mold spores. As a result of hazards, many families have reported allergic and/or respiratory reactions to these hazards; some families even described experiencing lead and carbon monoxide poisonings.
• Inadequate communication and transparency between servicemembers and the private companies about health hazards in homes, including lead and mold, the status of work orders, and the resolution of hazards.

Sen. Warner also requested that, in crafting a plan, military housing companies consider the following questions:

• How will you improve your communication with tenants, so that the tenants and the military services have greater transparency regarding the safety of their homes, beginning at move-in, as well as the status of work orders? Will you consider using an electronic system, with a mobile app, which would enable tenants, military service representatives and the companies to track work orders in real-time? 
• How will you better resolve disputes between your company and the tenants themselves, whether related to disputes over damages, fees, or whether or not a problem has been adequately addressed? Will you consider creating a third-party, independent dispute resolution mechanism in coordination with the military services? 
• Can you describe how you will improve your mold remediation standard operating procedures and other processes to improve air quality and reduce health hazards? Will you consider offering mold inspections, as well as air quality testing to residents, especially if suggested by a medical professional?  Given the absence of EPA and federal standards around mold and mold spores, will you work to implement clear standards, established by the military services to ensure healthy air quality?
• And finally, how will you significantly improve the quality of military housing overall – at move-in and beyond – to ensure that families no longer struggle with mold, lead, rodent infestations, asbestos and more, so that we are not in this situation again in another seven years? 

In February, Sen. Warner introduced the Ensuring Safe Housing for our Military Act in response to a Reuters investigation that revealed health, safety, and environmental hazards in privatized military housing throughout the United States. This legislation would create stronger oversight mechanisms over private military housing, allow the military to withhold rent until issues are resolved, and prohibit contractors from charging certain fees. It would also require the military to withhold incentive fees to poorly performing contractors.

###

WASHINGTON – Today U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), along with 28 other Senators, introduced legislation to provide tax relief to the surviving spouses and children of military members killed in action. This legislation seeks to correct one of the many unintended consequences of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 – legislation forced through by the GOP that, among other things, inadvertently treats military and VA survivor benefits as trusts or estates, subjecting these benefits to a much higher tax rate. The Gold Star Family Tax Relief Act effectively fixes this error by treating any military and VA survivor benefits as earned income, rather than at the trust or parent tax rate. Companion legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives last Thursday by U.S. Rep. Elaine Luria (D-VA). 

“Gold Star families deserve our sympathy and gratitude, not an unfair tax increase thanks to a Congressional screw-up,” said Sen. Warner. “This bipartisan legislation fixes the mistake in the 2017 GOP tax legislation, ensuring surviving families aren’t unfairly penalized and paying back those families who have already been hit with this tax hike.”

“I’m glad so many Senators recognize the urgent need to right the wrong that Congress imposed on Gold Star Families,” said Rep. Luria. “This bill matches bipartisan legislation I am proud to lead in the House. Democrats and Republicans agree – we must fix a broken system and ensure Gold Star Families are not victims of a tax hike.”

Under current law, spouses of deceased service members are eligible to receive two different survivor benefits – the Department of Veterans Affairs' Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, as well as the Department of Defense (DOD) Survivor Benefits Plan. However, surviving spouses are not currently able to receive both benefits simultaneously in full, and many of these spouses choose to sign the taxable DOD benefit over to their children. Prior to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, children receiving this benefit were taxed at the parent’s rate, but due to changes in the law, survivor benefits going to children are now treated as a trust or estate, and can be taxed up to 37 percent. This change has affected Gold Star families, who previously paid an average of 12 to 15 percent in taxes on this survivor benefit and have now been forced to pay significantly more without adequate preparation.

As a retroactive bill, the Gold Star Family Tax Relief Act would refund Gold Star families who were taxed the higher rate, going back as far as December 31, 2017. 

Other Senate cosponsors of this legislation are Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Richard Burr (R-NC), Bob Casey (D-PA), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Mike Crapo (R-ID), John Cornyn (R-TX), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Steve Daines (R-MT), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Doug Jones (D-AL), Angus King (I-ME), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Patty Murray (D-WA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Tim Scott (R-SC), Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), Jon Tester (D-MT), Pat Toomey (R-PA), and Ron Wyden (D-OR). 

As a strong advocate of Gold Star families, Sen. Warner also recently cosponsored the Military Widows Tax Elimination Act of 2019 – legislation that would allow more than 4,000 military widows in Virginia, and 67,000 military widows nationwide, to receive all the survivor benefits to which they are entitled. Currently, military families who qualify for payments from the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) and the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP), have their SBP amount reduced dollar for dollar by the amount of DIC received. This bill would remove the offset, alleviating an unnecessary financial burden and ensuring that military widows and their children receive the full support they deserve.  

###

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Vice Chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence and former telecommunications executive, along with Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), reintroduced bicameral legislation to help prevent foreign interference in future elections and improve the transparency of online political advertisements. The Honest Ads Act will safeguard the integrity of our democracy by requiring large online platforms to maintain public records of advertisers who purchase political ads. Companion legislation is being introduced in the House of Representatives by U.S. Reps. Derek Kilmer (D-WA), Elise Stefanik (R-NY), and 24 other bipartisan cosponsors.

“In 2016, Russia waged widespread disinformation campaigns that exploited social media in an effort to attack our democracy and divide the American public. As we continue to grow increasingly dependent on a handful of very large platforms, there is no doubt in my mind that foreign adversaries will continue to follow in Russia’s footsteps, exploiting the scale, amplification, and lack of transparency of these platforms in order to undermine the strength of the United States and advance their own anti-American agendas,” Sen. Warner said. “Right now, our country needs strong defenses that help ward off shady online attacks by demanding increased transparency, which is why I’m proud to introduce the Honest Ads Act. By requiring large digital platforms to meet the same disclosure standards as broadcast, cable, and satellite ads, this legislation can help prevent foreign actors from manipulating the American public and interfering in our free and fair elections through the use of inauthentic and divisive paid ads.”

“Foreign adversaries interfered in the 2016 election and are continuing to use information warfare to try to influence our government and divide Americans. We must act now to protect our democracy and prevent this kind of interference from ever happening again,” Sen. Klobuchar said. “The goal of the Honest Ads Act is simple: to ensure that voters know who is paying to influence our political system. The bill would put in place the same rules of the road for social media platforms that currently apply to political ads sold on TV, radio, and in print regarding disclaimers and disclosures so that Americans know who is behind the ads they see online. I also want to commend Senator Graham for taking up the mantle of bipartisanship from our late friend, Senator John McCain. Protecting our elections isn’t about politics—it’s about national security and the future of our democracy. I look forward to working with him and Senator Warner to get the Honest Ads Act passed.”

“Hardening our electoral infrastructure will require a comprehensive approach and it can’t be done with a single piece of legislation,” Sen. Graham said.  “I am cosponsoring this legislation because it’s clear we have to start somewhere. I am pleased to work with Senators Klobuchar and Warner to address the gaps that currently exist, particularly with regards to social media. Online platforms have made some progress but there is more to be done. Foreign interference in U.S. elections – whether Russia in the 2016 presidential election or another rogue actor in the future – poses a direct threat to our democracy. I intend to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to bolster our defenses and defend the integrity of our electoral system.”

Prior to the 2016 presidential election, Russia attempted to influence the American electorate by using fake accounts to buy and place political ads on platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google. Without greater transparency and disclosure requirements, foreign adversaries and bad actors copying their playbook can continue exploiting the opacity of large social media platforms.

The Honest Ads Act would improve disclosure requirements for online political advertisements by:

• Amending the definition of ‘electioneering communication’ in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, to include paid internet and digital advertisements.
• Requiring digital platforms with at least 50,000,000 monthly visitors 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. This 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 Honest Ads Act has the support of the Campaign Legal Center, the Alliance for Securing Democracy, the Brennan Center for Justice, Issue One, the Sunlight Foundation, the Center for American Progress, and the German Marshall Fund's Digital Innovation Democracy Initiative, as well as Facebook, and Twitter.

The full text of the Honest Ads Act is available here. 

###

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, has introduced the Stopping Improper Payments to Deceased People Act, bipartisan, bicameral legislation that would help save millions of federal dollars by curbing erroneous payments to deceased individuals.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) maintains the most complete federal database of individuals who are reported to have died. However, only a small number of federal agencies have access to this official list, and most federal agencies rely on a slimmed down, incomplete, and less timely version of the death information. In addition, most Inspectors General lack access to the complete death information. As a result, many federal agencies make erroneous payments to people who are actually deceased. 

“This should be a no-brainer: One of the easiest ways we can cut down on government waste, fraud, and abuse is by stopping fraudulent payments made to dead people,” said Sen. Warner. “This bill will save millions in taxpayer dollars. It’s just common sense.” 

The SSA Office of the Inspector General reported that in 2015, according to the agency’s own records, there were 6.5 million people who have active Social Security numbers who are 112 years of age or older. In reality, there are only a few dozen people known to be that old in the entire world. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) estimated that it paid $239 million in “suspect” tax refunds in 2016.

Key provisions in the bill include:

·         Allowing Federal Agencies Access to the Complete Death Database. Under current law, only federal agencies that directly manage programs making beneficiary payments have access to complete death data.  The Act allows all appropriate federal agencies to have access to the complete death data for program integrity purposes, as well as other needs such as public safety and health.

·         Requiring Use of Death Data to Curb Improper Payments. The Act would require that federal agencies make appropriate use of the death data in order to curb improper payments.

·         Improving the Death Data. The legislation would establish procedures to ensure more accurate death data. For example, the bill requires the SSA to screen for “extremely elderly” individuals. This is in response to a 2015 Inspector General Report that identified 6.5 million individuals currently listed as being older than 112 years of age as still alive.

In addition to Sen. Warner, the Stopping Improper Payments to Deceased People Act was introduced by Sens. Tom Carper (D-DE), John Kennedy (R-LA), Jon Tester (D-MT), Gary Peters (D-MI), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ). Bipartisan companion legislation has also been introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Cheri Bustos (D-IL) and Congressman Greg Gianforte (R-MT).

###

WASHINGTON – A group of leading national security senators today sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, urging him to use an upcoming meeting of the G7 to forge a partnership of like-minded allies to compete with China in the development of fifth-generation (5G) wireless technology.  Signed by Senators Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Ranking Member of the Senate Banking Committee, Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, the letter calls on the Trump Administration to lead an international effort to develop a secure 5G architecture challenging Huawei’s monopoly over the next generation of telecoms networks. 

“As we prepare for G-20 in Japan later this year, this meeting provides a critical opportunity for the United States to lead in the development of an international consortium of like-minded nations to develop a safe, secure, and economically viable alternative to the 5G architecture of firms, like Huawei,” wrote the Senators.  

The informal May 16^th meeting of the G7 will focus on, “strategy of the G7 at the advent of the data economy and the need to build trust in digital technologies such as 5G.” In their letter, the senators suggest the U.S. must not just confront but also effectively compete with China by leading a public-private consortium of U.S., European, Japanese, Korean and others in an effort to create 5G architecture that meets mutual safety goals and does not pose a risk for national security.  

“Separate and alone, competition with China’s state-directed authoritarian model is challenging. Together, our economies represent the vast majority of the world’s most productive and innovative assets. It’s important that this next generation of technologies is shaped by the values of the U.S. and our allies around openness, pluralism, fair competition, and security,” added the senators. “We look forward to your thoughts and ideas for how you intend to take advantage of this meeting to forge an international effort not merely to confront China, but to effectively compete to develop 5G architecture.”

A copy of the letter can be found here and below:

The Honorable Mike Pompeo

Secretary of State

U.S. Department of State

2201 C Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20520

Dear Mr. Secretary,

On May 16^th, France will host an informal G-7 “Digital Ministers” meeting to explore strategy and partnership in the G-7 on “Tech for Humanity,” including “strategy of the G-7 at the advent of the data economy and the need to build trust in digital technologies such as 5G.”  

As we prepare for G-20 in Japan later this year, this meeting provides a critical opportunity for the United States to lead in the development of an international consortium of like-minded nations to develop a safe, secure, and economically viable alternative to the 5G architecture of firms, like Huawei, that are subject to extra-judicial demands of foreign governments. 

As you know, we share many of the concerns you have raised about Huawei’s efforts to dominate global 5G architecture, including the risk created for espionage, and the risks to privacy, security, our military, and our economic competitiveness.

But it is not enough to simply confront China. Working with our allies, we must also be able to compete – and win.  Fifth-generation wireless (5G) telecommunications technology stands poised to offer not just a simple step-change as with previous generations of cellular telecommunications technology, but to fundamentally re-write the rule book for economic and social organization, and even our politics, with a new generation of responsive and diversified services. 

Yet the fact of the matter is that as things stand today, neither the United States nor our allies and partners are making comparable capital investments or commitments to research and development that match what China and Huawei are devoting to this critical next generation data governance architecture.

However, if the United States were to take a leadership role in forging a new approach with our G-7 and other like-minded partners to bring together a public-private consortium of the best of US, European, Japanese, Korean and others efforts, we are convinced that in short order we can create 5G architecture that meets our common goals for trusted, safe and secure 5G. 

We are currently living through a digital transformation of society and of the economy that is as significant as any in human experience.  It is creating both opportunities and challenges, including, immediately, that of Huawei’s efforts to set the standards and architecture for 5G. This is mirrored more broadly in China’s wider efforts to unduly shape the development of key emerging technologies such as quantum computing, artificial intelligence, and life sciences.  

In the face of this challenge, the United States must stand at the forefront of the development of new global governance models, based on open and secure standards and principles -- and to do so with our allies and partners.  Separate and alone, competition with China’s state-directed authoritarian model is challenging.  Together, our economies represent the vast majority of the world’s most productive and innovative assets.  It’s important that this next generation of technologies is shaped by the values of the U.S. and our allies around openness, pluralism, fair competition, and security.

WASHINGTON – With summer vacation season just around the corner, Sens. Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine (both D-VA) are drawing attention to an unexpected danger to beachgoers: flying beach umbrellas. Essential staples of many family vacations, the popular beach accessories can quickly become hazards when propelled by wind through the air, as has happened on several occasions in recent years, most tragically in 2016, when Lottie Michelle Belk of Chester, Va. was struck in the torso and killed while vacationing in Virginia Beach with her family. Today, Virginia’s Senators were joined by their colleagues from New Jersey, Sens. Bob Menendez and Cory Booker (both D-NJ), in asking the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to do more to inform and protect the public from dangerous, and potentially lethal, flying beach umbrellas. 

“As you know, beach umbrellas provide beachgoers the benefits of shade on hot and sunny days at the shore. Yet, a burst of wind can make these summer accessories harmful to those around them,” the Senators wrote to Consumer Product Safety Commission Chair Elliot Kaye. “Over the last several years, reports of horrific injuries resulting from beach umbrellas have splashed across the media.”

According to data from the Consumer Product Safety Commission, more than 31,000 people were treated at hospitals for umbrella-related injuries between 2008 and 2017. However, the publicly available data falls short of providing consumers with recommended safety standards to prevent beach umbrella-related injuries or information on specific products that have caused serious injuries.

The Senators noted several examples of these injuries, including a Virginia man who lost the use of his eye after a seven-foot-long beach umbrella struck him at a beach in Delaware.  

The Senators are requesting more information from the Consumer Product Safety Commission, including what safety standards are in place to prevent umbrella-related injuries and problems with specific beach umbrella products, and what it is doing to ensure the public is properly educated of the risks and dangers of beach umbrellas to prevent injuries. They also requested that the CPSC provide a detailed breakdown of data on umbrella injuries, including the number of injuries caused specifically by beach umbrellas.

Full text of the letter is below and a copy can be found here.

May 2, 2019

Elliot F. Kaye

Chairman, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

4330 East West Highway

Bethesda, MD 20814

Dear Chairman Kaye,

We write regarding concerns about the safety of beach umbrellas. Recently, we heard from constituents impacted by flying beach umbrellas, which have caused injury, and in at least one recent case, death. As you know, beach umbrellas provide beachgoers the benefits of shade on hot and sunny days at the shore. Yet, a burst of wind can make these summer accessories harmful to those around them. According to a query on the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s own website, from 2008-2017 over 31,000 people sought treatment at a hospital due to an umbrella-related injury.  Unfortunately, the CPSC does not parse out the data to differentiate between types of umbrellas. Nonetheless, we request information regarding how the CPSC plans to address this issue.

Over the last several years, reports of horrific injuries resulting from beach umbrellas have splashed across the media. In 2015, a Virginian man lost the use of his eye after a seven-foot-long beach umbrella struck him at Bethany Beach, Delaware.  Last year, a beach umbrella came loose from the sand in Seaside Heights, New Jersey impaling a British tourist through the ankle.   That same summer a woman sitting on the beach in Ocean City, Maryland was pierced below the collarbone by a beach umbrella.  Most tragically, in June 2016, a Virginia resident lost her life after a gust of wind launched an umbrella into the air, striking her in the torso while she was on vacation in Virginia Beach.  The scourge of beach umbrellas is not a new phenomenon. In 2006, a woman in New York received $200,000 from New York State because of injuries she sustained from an airborne beach umbrella in 1999; the umbrella struck her forehead resulting in 13 stitches and permanent nerve damage. 

To ensure the public is equipped with the most updated information, we request responses to the following questions:

1.      What if any safety standards does the CPSC have in place to adequately prevent beach umbrella-related injuries?

2.      Does CPSC believe any particular safety standard could prevent injuries?

3.      What is the CPSC doing to educate the public regarding the dangers of beach umbrellas?

4.      Has the CPSC received complaints regarding beach umbrellas?  If so, what do those reports indicate about injuries related to beach umbrellas?

5.      Is the CPSC aware of problems with specific beach umbrellas that have not been made public?

6.      Can the CPSC provide a detailed breakdown of data on umbrella injuries? Specifically, how many injuries are specifically caused by beach umbrellas?

We appreciate CPSC’s willingness to take a direct look at the concerns raised by our constituents, and look forward hearing back from you by June 3, 2019. 

Sincerely,

###