WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, today urged Google CEO Sundar Pichai to provide more clarity into his company’s deployment of Med-PaLM 2, an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot currently being tested in health care settings. In a letter, Sen. Warner expressed concerns about reports of inaccuracies in the technology, and called on Google to increase transparency, protect patient privacy, and ensure ethical guardrails.

In April, Google began testing Med-PaLM2 with customers, including the Mayo Clinic. Med-PaLM 2 can answer medical questions, summarize documents, and organize health data. While the technology has shown some promising results, there are also concerning reports of repeated inaccuracies and of Google’s own senior researchers expressing reservations about the readiness of the technology. Additionally, much remains unknown about where Med-PaLM 2 is being tested, what data sources it learns from, to what extent patients are aware of and can object to the use of AI in their treatment, and what steps Google has taken to protect against bias.

“While artificial intelligence (AI) undoubtedly holds tremendous potential to improve patient care and health outcomes, I worry that premature deployment of unproven technology could lead to the erosion of trust in our medical professionals and institutions, the exacerbation of existing racial disparities in health outcomes, and an increased risk of diagnostic and care-delivery errors,” Sen. Warner wrote. 

The letter raises concerns over AI companies prioritizing the race to establish market share over patient well-being. Sen. Warner also emphasizes his previous efforts to raise the alarm about Google skirting health privacy as it trained diagnostic models on sensitive health data without patients’ knowledge or consent.

“It is clear more work is needed to improve this technology as well as to ensure the health care community develops appropriate standards governing the deployment and use of AI,” Sen. Warner continued.

The letter poses a broad range of questions for Google to answer, requesting more transparency into exactly how Med-PaLM 2 is being rolled out, what data sources Med-PaLM 2 learns from, how much information and agency patients have over how AI is involved in their care, and more.

Sen. Warner, a former tech entrepreneur, has been a vocal advocate for Big Tech accountability and a stronger national posture against cyberattacks and misinformation online. In April, Sen. Warner directly expressed concerns to several AI CEOs – including Sundar Pichai – about the potential risks posed by AI, and called on companies to ensure that their products and systems are secure. Last month, he called on the Biden administration to work with AI companies to develop additional guardrails around the responsible deployment of AI. He has also introduced several pieces of legislation aimed at making tech more secure, including the RESTRICT Act, which would comprehensively address the ongoing threat posed by technology from foreign adversaries; the SAFE TECH Act, which would reform Section 230 and allow social media companies to be held accountable for enabling cyber-stalking, online harassment, and discrimination on social media platforms; and the Honest Ads Act, which would require online political advertisements to adhere to the same disclaimer requirements as TV, radio, and print ads.

A copy of the letter can be found here are below. 

Dear Mr. Pichai,

I write to express my concern regarding reports that Google began providing Med-PaLM 2 to hospitals to test early this year. While artificial intelligence (AI) undoubtedly holds tremendous potential to improve patient care and health outcomes, I worry that premature deployment of unproven technology could lead to the erosion of trust in our medical professionals and institutions, the exacerbation of existing racial disparities in health outcomes, and an increased risk of diagnostic and care-delivery errors.

Over the past year, large technology companies, including Google, have been rushing to develop and deploy AI models and capture market share as the technology has received increased attention following OpenAI’s launch of ChatGPT. Numerous media outlets have reported that companies like Google and Microsoft have been willing to take bigger risks and release more nascent technology in an effort to gain a first mover advantage. In 2019, I raised concerns that Google was skirting health privacy laws through secretive partnerships with leading hospital systems, under which it trained diagnostic models on sensitive health data without patients’ knowledge or consent. This race to establish market share is readily apparent and especially concerning in the health care industry, given the life-and-death consequences of mistakes in the clinical setting, declines of trust in health care institutions in recent years, and the sensitivity of health information. One need look no further than AI pioneer Joseph Weizenbaum’s experiments involving chatbots in psychotherapy to see how users can put premature faith in even basic AI solutions.

According to Google, Med-PaLM 2 can answer medical questions, summarize documents, and organize health data. While AI models have previously been used in medical settings, the use of generative AI tools presents complex new questions and risks. According to the Wall Street Journal, a senior research director at Google who worked on Med-PaLM 2 said, “I don’t feel that this kind of technology is yet at a place where I would want it in my family’s healthcare journey.” Indeed, Google’s own research, released in May, showed that Med-PaLM 2’s answers contained more inaccurate or irrelevant information than answers provided by physicians. It is clear more work is needed to improve this technology as well as to ensure the health care community develops appropriate standards governing the deployment and use of AI

Given these serious concerns and the fact that VHC Health, based in Arlington, Virginia, is a member of the Mayo Clinic Care Network, I request that you provide answers to the following questions. 

1. Researchers have found large language models to display a phenomenon described as “sycophany,” wherein the model generates responses that confirm or cater to a user’s (tacit or explicit) preferred answers, which could produce risks of misdiagnosis in the medical context. Have you tested Med-PaLM 2 for this failure mode?
2. Large language models frequently demonstrate the tendency to memorize contents of their training data, which can risk patient privacy in the context of models trained on sensitive health information. How has Google evaluated Med-PaLM 2 for this risk and what steps has Google taken to mitigate inadvertent privacy leaks of sensitive health information?
3. What documentation did Google provide hospitals, such as Mayo Clinic, about Med-PaLM 2? Did it share model or system cards, datasheets, data-statements, and/or test and evaluation results?
4. Google’s own research acknowledges that its clinical models reflect scientific knowledge only as of the time the model is trained, necessitating “continual learning.” What is the frequency with which Google fully or partially re-trains Med-PaLM 2? Does Google ensure that licensees use only the most up-to-date model version?
5. Google has not publicly provided documentation on Med-PaLM 2, including refraining from disclosing the contents of the model’s training data. Does Med-PaLM 2’s training corpus include protected health information?
6. Does Google ensure that patients are informed when Med-PaLM 2, or other AI models offered or licensed by, are used in their care by health care licensees? If so, how is the disclosure presented? Is it part of a longer disclosure or more clearly presented?
7. Do patients have the option to opt-out of having AI used to facilitate their care? If so, how is this option communicated to patients?
8. Does Google retain prompt information from health care licensees, including protected health information contained therein? Please list each purpose Google has for retaining that information.
9. What license terms exist in any product license to use Med-PaLM 2 to protect patients, ensure ethical guardrails, and prevent misuse or inappropriate use of Med-PaLM 2? How does Google ensure compliance with those terms in the post-deployment context? 
10. How many hospitals is Med-PaLM 2 currently being used at? Please provide a list of all hospitals and health care systems Google has licensed or otherwise shared Med-Palm 2 with.
11. Does Google use protected health information from hospitals using Med-PaLM 2 to retrain or finetune Med-PaLM 2 or any other models? If so, does Google require that hospitals inform patients that their protected health information may be used in this manner?
12. In Google’s own research publication announcing Med-PaLM 2, researchers cautioned about the need to adopt “guardrails to mitigate against over-reliance on the output of a medical assistant.” What guardrails has Google adopted to mitigate over-reliance on the output of Med-PaLM 2 as well as when it particularly should and should not be used? What guardrails has Google incorporated through product license terms to prevent over-reliance on the output?

### 

WASHINGTON – Last week, U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and Tim Kaine (both D-VA), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, sent letters to the Air Force, Army, Navy, and to the Department of Defense (DoD) regarding their implementation of privatized housing reforms and tenant protections for servicemembers and their families. After hearing from military families in Virginia about the hazardous and unsafe living conditions in many privatized military housing units that included leaking roofs, mold, and rodents, Sens. Warner and Kaine championed housing reforms, including the “Tenant Bill of Rights” in the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and the Senators have continued to push for housing support in subsequent defense bills.

Despite passing legislation to improve these conditions, a recent U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) study found that while DoD has made progress in implementing provisions, “gaps in guidance and training remain.” The Senators are urging DoD and each military branch to take a range of steps, including the necessary actions outlined in the report, to ensure that they are meeting their obligations towards servicemembers and properly implementing all necessary reforms. Specifically, the GAO focused on implementation of three reforms in order to give servicemembers and their families more leverage when dealing with unsafe and inadequate living conditions:

• More detailed guidance on the formal dispute resolution process;
• Improved guidance on the role of tenant advocates;
• Better oversight of the condition of private housing units.

The Senators also called on DoD and the services to better incorporate resident feedback into the implementation process of the various protections, in order to inform continued progress and highlight areas for additional reform.

“Having spent years addressing privatized housing concerns from multiple fronts – hearing from families firsthand who are dealing with challenges, and helping them to address those; working with installation leadership to push for greater oversight and accountability for these housing projects; and demanding action from the privatized housing companies – we have been incredibly disturbed by some of the conditions that members of the military and their families have been subjected to,” the Senators wrote.

“The purpose of these reforms and continued Congressional oversight is to provide long-overdue improvement to the experience that military members and their families have with the privatized housing system,” they continued. “It is vital that the protections and reforms that we have put in place are implemented in a way that works for residents, and there must be a continual effort to examine the use of these reforms and processes.”

The letters include a series of questions aimed at better understanding the progress being made in implementation as well as better understanding what is causing certain delays. Among the questions are inquiries about the branches’ process when enacting these reforms as well as questions on what is being done to standardize implementation across the country so that all members of the military have access to, and can utilize, the same protections.

A copy of the letters can be found here. 

###

WASHINGTON?– Today, U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) urging them to ensure that investments through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), a key Inflation Reduction Act program, serve to strengthen diverse-owned financial institutions dedicated to climate financing in low-income communities and communities of color. Today’s letter comes as the EPA prepares to release the Notices of Funding Opportunity for the GGRF, a competitive grant program to boost clean energy and climate projects in low-income and disadvantaged communities.  

“We write to urge the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in its review of applications for funding from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), to give priority to applicants whose proposals fully utilize the diversity of financial institutions engaged in climate finance, including green banks, community development financial institutions (CDFIs) and minority depository institutions (MDIs), as well as center their investment approach on low income and disadvantaged (LID) communities,” wrote the lawmakers in a letter to the EPA. “Specifically, CDFIs and MDIs leverage capital and have a proven track record of providing products and service to the most underserved communities. We urge EPA to heed the lessons learned from the Paycheck Protection Program regarding the importance of being intentional with program design when driving investments in low income and disadvantaged communities.”  

In the letter, the lawmakers stressed the need to award this federal funding so that it goes towards projects and communities that lack access to affordable capital. They also highlighted the importance of ensuring that grant recipients have the structure, diversity, and track record needed to meet the goals of the GGRF. 

“[T]he entities receiving direct federal investment must also demonstrate experience navigating green financing projects and have shown the ability to manage these projects across a variety of communities in order to achieve [Greenhouse Gas] GHG emissions reductions and develop successful projects. It is critical that the EPA balance out these needs for both financial viability and project-level expertise in order to maximize the fund’s performance across all metrics,” they continued. “Additionally, since the Justice40 prioritization should be a floor, not a ceiling, the EPA should require applicants to provide a strategy for how they will drive awareness, demand, and adoption of clean technologies in LID communities. We urge you to learn about community-level solutions that the Fund can support, especially solutions from low-income and disadvantaged communities.” 

Further, the lawmakers urged the EPA to make important adjustments and issue guidance in order to maximize the impact of the funding in vulnerable communities.  

“The success of the program in LID communities depends heavily on the ability to develop an ecosystem that supports other actors, including clean energy and workforce developers. Although the EPA guidance makes available $625,000 for technical assistance for indirect recipients, in order to drive demand and create an ecosystem we recommend that the EPA require some of these funds be aggregated and administered at the national level by the eligible recipient,” they wrote. “The Implementation Framework released by EPA caps the amount per indirect recipient at $5,000,000, which may not be the most impactful way to reach LID communities. For example, some communities have a limited number of mission driven lenders (e.g. CDFI deserts), making the cap on indirect investments have an impact on the amount of climate financing in those communities. We urge you to adjust this limitation on indirect investments to account for more factors, including demand, size of the institution and impact.” 

Among other measures, the lawmakers also suggested that the EPA review the deep impact standards created by the Department of the Treasury for the Emergency Capital Investment Program (ECIP) – a key initiative created as part of a Warner-championed $12 billion investment?to open up new credit opportunities for low-income communities and communities of color. 

Joining Sen. Warner and Rep. Waters in sending the letter are Sens. Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Tina Smith (D-MN), and Alex Padilla (D-CA), as well as Reps. Nydia M. Velázquez (D-NY), Gregory W. Meeks (D-NY), and Judy Chu (D-CA).  

Text of the letter is available here and below. ? 

Dear Administrator Regan:

We applaud the EPA in taking an important step forward by providing guidance through the Implementation Framework for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and express our continued support for the swift implementation of this critical program. We agree with the EPA’s principles that this program can reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants, deliver benefits of projects to American communities, particularly those in LID communities, and mobilize financing and private capital to stimulate additional deployment of GHG reducing projects.

We write to urge the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in its review of applications for funding from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), to give priority to applicants whose proposals fully utilize the diversity of financial institutions engaged in climate finance, including green banks, community development financial institutions (CDFIs) and minority depository institutions (MDIs), as well as center their investment approach on low income and disadvantaged (LID) communities. It is important that EPA adhere to the meaning and intent of Congress in the text of the Inflation Reduction Act (Pub. L. 117-169) (IRA) which highlights a dual mission of reducing greenhouse gases, while impacting LID communities.

In order to meet the objectives and principles outlined in the Implementation Framework, we believe eligible recipients must include meaningful involvement of a variety of financial institutions and business models, including clean financing institutions, community based-financing institutions, and other institutions designed to support clean technology deployment. Specifically, CDFIs and MDIs leverage capital and have a proven track record of providing products and service to the most underserved communities. We urge EPA to heed the lessons learned from the Paycheck Protection Program regarding the importance of being intentional with program design when driving investments in low income and disadvantaged communities. As a result, we believe that an ideal applicant for GGRF funds should have a shared governance structure that is diverse and accountable to local communities, have a plan for continued operability that includes experience investing in or with a variety of mission driven financial institutions, a market transformation approach that effectively crowds-in private capital without displacing otherwise commercially viable investment activities, a strategy for driving demand in LID communities, and an approach that incentivizes a significant amount of investment in the most underserved of the LID communities.

A shared governance structure where decision-making authority is granted to a variety of financial institutions and implementation partners is critical to meeting the goals of the GGRF, particularly in the competition for the National Clean Investment Fund. Mission driven lenders have different business models and products, making it essential that the governing body of the eligible recipient reflect that diversity of expertise and approach. To maximize the program’s success, the governing body must include green banks, CDFIs, MDIs, and other mission driven lenders with experience in climate finance and investment in LID communities. The governing body must be appropriately empowered and go beyond advisory to ensure capital allocation decisions reflect the diversity of business models among indirect recipients and private capital providers. Additionally, the governing body should reflect the demographic diversity of our nation and demonstrate accountability to local communities. 

The IRA includes a “continued operability” requirement that ensures that direct investments be structured to ensure all communities continue to be served beyond the initial award of funds to an eligible recipient.  However, in the Implementation Framework released on April 19, 2023 the EPA decided to separate direct investment and indirect investments into two separate competitions. This policy decision likely eliminates the possibility of cross-subsidies that would ensure continued operability for indirect investments in LID communities, which typically need a deeper subsidy. If the EPA opts to continue with separate competitions, we believe the agency should give priority to applicants that are applying for or collaborating across both competitions, have a strong track record of leveraging private capital, and a demonstrated ability to diversify a portfolio that includes debt, equity and grants in a way that meets the needs of a variety of financial institutions. Without a strong track record, direct recipients will not be able to instill confidence in the capital markets and optimize leverage across the portfolio at the indirect recipient level as well as at the qualified project level. We urge you to continue working closely with the staff from the U.S. Department of the Treasury that have experience internally, and through their consultants, making these types of investments in mission driven lenders. This includes a $12 billion suite of capital and grant programs to support CDFIs, MDIs, and the communities they serve, as well as the renewed State Small Business Credit Initiative (SSBCI) that is supporting up to $100 billion in small business loans, investments, and technical assistance through various state, tribal, and territory government programs.  We urge you to collaborate with them to maximize the impact of GGRF for communities that need the support the most.

Similarly, the entities receiving direct federal investment must also demonstrate experience navigating green financing projects and have shown the ability to manage these projects across a variety of communities in order to achieve GHG emissions reductions and develop successful projects. It is critical that the EPA balance out these needs for both financial viability and project-level expertise in order to maximize the fund’s performance across all metrics. The EPA should seek to work with entities that are composed of both impact-oriented institutions as well as green financing entities, to ensure that the goals of impact, performance, GHG emissions reductions and long-term sustainability are achieved.

Furthermore, the impact of the GGRF should not be to crowd out private capital but instead to focus on those eligible projects and communities that lack access to affordable capital. Although the IRA states that eligible recipients should prioritize projects that lack access to financing, the EPA should be focused on market transformation. Displacing affordable private capital focused on the broad use and adoption of clean technologies would run counter to the country’s climate goals.

Additionally, since the Justice40 prioritization should be a floor, not a ceiling, the EPA should require applicants to provide a strategy for how they will drive awareness, demand, and adoption of clean technologies in LID communities. We urge you to learn about community-level solutions that the Fund can support, especially solutions from low-income and disadvantaged communities. In addition, CDFIs and MDIs have a long track record of serving communities long ignored by the traditional banking sector, including the development of financing and financial tools that meet the needs of low-income and disadvantaged communities. Simply put, reducing emissions and lowering energy costs among those communities will be best accomplished through the use of financing tools, grant support, and effective outreach to generate demand, change behavior, and build local capacity.  It’s important that applicants prioritize technologies that will transform LID communities – saving households money on energy costs, creating quality jobs, and improving air quality - and work within the existing debt burden of families in LID communities. However, these communities cannot be served with financing tools alone and will need significant grant support across the value chain to generate demand, change behavior, and build local capacity. The success of the program in LID communities depends heavily on the ability to develop an ecosystem that supports other actors, including clean energy and workforce developers. Although the EPA guidance makes available $625,000 for technical assistance for indirect recipients, in order to drive demand and create an ecosystem we recommend that the EPA require some of these funds be aggregated and administered at the national level by the eligible recipient.

Driving demand will also need to be accompanied by a meaningful level of investment in mission driven lenders in order to change behavior. The Implementation Framework released by EPA caps the amount per indirect recipient at $5,000,000, which may not be the most impactful way to reach LID communities. For example, some communities have a limited number of mission driven lenders (e.g. CDFI deserts), making the cap on indirect investments have an impact on the amount of climate financing in those communities. We urge you to adjust this limitation on indirect investments to account for more factors, including demand, size of the institution and impact.

Finally, we urge you, after defining low income and disadvantaged community, to encourage applicants to the GGRF to structure a significant number of their investments in a way that incentivizes investments in the most underserved low income and disadvantaged communities, including those affected by high rates of adverse health and environmental outcomes. Investments in some underserved communities, like areas of persistent poverty and majority-minority communities, often are more time consuming and costly than in some other communities that are also considered underserved. Also, the definition of LID should include people focused categories, like the CDFI definitions for Low Income Targeted Populations (LITP) and Other Targeted Populations (OTP), to make sure that the low income and minority people who live in the LID communities are also directly benefiting from the GGRF.  We urge you to look at the deep impact standards created by Treasury for the Emergency Capital Investment Program (ECIP) and encourage eligible recipients to make investments in mission driven lenders that include similar financial incentives for investments in the most underserved communities. 

We share a dedication to decarbonization and justice and hope that we can work together with you and our nation’s mission driven lenders to meet the goals of the GGRF.

Sincerely,

###

WASHINGTON – With violence erupting across the country, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths and forcing hundreds of thousands to flee in search of safety, U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine (both D-VA) today formally requested that the Biden administration issue a new Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for Sudan.

In a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, the senators expressed their concern with the worsening humanitarian conditions in Sudan as intense fighting continues across the country despite multiple attempted ceasefires.

“In recent weeks, violence in Sudan has claimed hundreds of lives, injured thousands, forcibly displaced tens of thousands, and terrorized many more,” the senators wrote. “Despite multiple attempted ceasefires between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), intense and indiscriminate fighting continues across the country, including within the densely populated capital of Khartoum, and in the continuously conflict-stricken region of Darfur. Ongoing hostilities have led to the near collapse of the healthcare system, significantly disrupted the flow of humanitarian aid into the country, and in many cases made access to basic resources like food, water, and medication impossible.”

Established by the U.S. Congress through the Immigration Act of 1990, TPS is a temporary, renewable program that provides relief from deportation and access to a work permit for foreign nationals from certain countries who are unable to return safely to their home country due to natural disasters, armed conflicts, or other extraordinary conditions. There are more than 54,000 immigrants from Sudan in the United States as of 2021, according to data, with the highest concentration located in Fairfax County, VA.

The senators continued, “Given the extremely violent clashes, deteriorating conditions, and the posture of the Department of State, it is clear that Sudan meets the standards for TPS. To that end, it is critical that a new designation be issued for Sudan that reflects the ongoing armed conflict and the continued extraordinary and temporary conditions on the ground.”

Last week Sen. Warner expressed his support for the steps the Biden administration has taken to deliver humanitarian assistance to the region and push for an end to the violence through diplomatic efforts. Sen. Kaine, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC), has been pushing for the administration to ensure the safety and security of U.S. citizens in Sudan and urging both sides to commit to a permanent ceasefire. Last week, he held an event in Richmond with members of Virginia’s Sudanese American community to hear their perspectives on the conflict and discuss ways he can be helpful. Sens. Warner and Kaine have been longtime supporters of the TPS program for regions facing instability, most recently joining 116 of their colleagues in a letter, led by Sen. Kaine and Rep. Castro, to the Biden administration requesting the redesignation of TPS for El Salvador and Honduras and celebrating the Biden administration’s decision to issue a Temporary Protected Status designation for Cameroon during a period of unrelenting violence.

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

Dear Secretary Mayorkas and Secretary Blinken:

We urge you to issue a new Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for Sudan, as the current armed conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) has led to a mass exodus of individuals fleeing violence, scarcity of essential goods, and rapidly deteriorating health services. A new designation would protect current Sudanese TPS holders from returning to Sudan in the midst of this violence and would offer protected status to Sudanese nationals who arrived after March 1, 2022.

In recent weeks, violence in Sudan has claimed hundreds of lives, injured thousands, forcibly displaced tens of thousands, and terrorized many more. Despite multiple attempted ceasefires between the SAF and the RSF, intense and indiscriminate fighting continues across the country, including within the densely populated capital of Khartoum, and in the continuously conflict-stricken region of Darfur. Ongoing hostilities have led to the near collapse of the healthcare system, significantly disrupted the flow of humanitarian aid into the country, and in many cases made access to basic resources like food, water, and medication impossible.

Due to the continued threat of armed conflict, on April 22, 2023, the U.S Department of State issued a Level 4: Do Not Travel advisory and ordered the departure of Embassy employees. This is part of a broader effort by the U.S., in coordination with regional and international partners, to evacuate U.S. nationals from Khartoum and allow for a safe path into neighboring countries. Given the extremely violent clashes, deteriorating conditions, and the posture of the Department of State, it is clear that Sudan meets the standards for TPS. To that end, it is critical that a new designation be issued for Sudan that reflects the ongoing armed conflict and the continued extraordinary and temporary conditions on the ground.

It is important to note that, while the situation is rapidly changing, the threat will not subside immediately once the conflict stops. Lasting damage has been done to Sudan’s telecommunications networks, electrical infrastructure, and transportation systems, including to Khartoum International Airport, making international travel extremely difficult. 

Redesignating Sudan’s TPS status would also provide much needed clarity for current Sudanese TPS holders and would offer protection for Sudanese individuals who entered the U.S. more recently. As you know, Sudanese nationals living in the United States can currently apply for TPS under the April 2022 designation, which expires on October 19, 2023. TPS holders under the 2013 designation are facing an uncertain future due to ongoing litigation. The expiration date of TPS documentation under the 2013 designation is contingent on the outcome of the Ramos v. Nielsen case – a lawsuit determining the legality of the Trump Administration’s termination of Sudan’s 2013 designation – which could potentially remove status for TPS holders who have not applied under the 2022 designation.

Additionally, while TPS holders registered under the 2022 designation are exempt from the ongoing litigation, their protection expires in October. Further, there is currently no recourse for Sudanese nationals who have arrived in the U.S. after March 2022. This uncertainty and the continued dangerous circumstances in Sudan have created considerable hardship for TPS recipients and their families, including American-born children.

A new TPS designation for Sudan would protect eligible beneficiaries from the dangers they face if they were removed and would provide protection for newer arrivals. In light of these considerations, we strongly urge you to redesignate TPS for Sudan to ensure that Sudanese nationals already living in the U.S. are not forced to return to a nation facing violence and instability.

Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.

Sincerely,

###

Specifically, Sen. Warner wrote to Sec. Blinken regarding the now-closed Online Passport Renewal (OPR) System, which received more than 500,000 requests from August 2022 to February 2023. The online system has been unable to keep up with demand, leaving travelers scrambling to replace their passports at the last minute. In addition to costly delays, many constituents who filed to renew their passports online are receiving little to no information on the progress being made with applications regardless of how well in advance of planned travel their requests were filed, leaving many in limbo waiting for their documents.

“In an increasingly online age, I welcome the ability for my constituents to renew their passports through a secure paperless process,” wrote Sen. Warner. “However, the OPR system seems to be fraught with significant errors that have caused Virginians headaches, stress, and unfortunately in some instances, delayed or missed travel. Simply put, the service my constituents have received is unacceptable.”

In his letter, Sen. Warner posed a series of questions to better understand how the State Department plans to address the backlog:

• How does the agency’s handling of passport applications submitted online differ from those that are filed through traditional processes, either by applying at a Passport Acceptance Facility in person or by U.S. Mail?
• How does the agency determine the assignment of OPR applications to their Passport Agencies across the country? How does this compare to the assignment of traditional applications received?
• What is the current average processing time of an application submitted through the OPR process compared to those submitted through the traditional process? Please indicate the processing time for applications submitted under both expedited and routine processing.
• Does agency data reflect that some Passport Agencies are more successful in processing OPR applications timely than others? If so, what does the agency believe is the source of this imbalance, and how is the agency addressing this problem?
• Members of my staff have been told by Passport Agency officials that “technical issues” can at times impede the processing of an OPR application and that officials must transfer the application into the traditional system for final processing. Can you further explain these technical issues and what steps the agency is taking to fix these issues?

Sen. Warner’s constituent casework team works daily to help Virginians with a variety of federal agency needs, including help with passport renewal. Constituents experiencing any problems with new passport applications or passport renewals through both online and traditional applications can reach out to Sen. Warner for assistance through his website, available here.

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

Dear Secretary Blinken:

I write today to express my concern and frustration with the State Department’s Online Passport Renewal (OPR) system. 

The OPR system opened to the public in a pilot status in August 2022, and the agency reports it received more than 500,000 applications before they system closed in February 2023. During that time, many Virginians participated in utilizing this system to submit their passport renewals. Since the start of 2023, my office has received a significant increase in requests from Virginians who are experiencing considerable delays in the processing of their renewal applications filed through the OPR system prior to its closure. In many cases, my constituents filed well in advance of their travel date and paid for expedited processing. That said, the applicants still faced delays and, in some cases, ultimately needed to physically travel to a Passport Agency, often the day before their scheduled travel, in order to have their passport issued.

In an increasingly online age, I welcome the ability for my constituents to renew their passports through a secure paperless process. However, the OPR system seems to be fraught with significant errors that have caused Virginians headaches, stress, and unfortunately in some instances, delayed or missed travel. Simply put, the service my constituents have received is unacceptable. Therefore, I ask that you please address the following questions:

My office has been told that the agency is experiencing “an unprecedented volume of early demand for passports this year.” I commend officials at Passport Agencies across the country for their tireless work in adjudicating millions of passport applications each year. However, it appears that the OPR system’s flaws are directly inhibiting this effort, and I look forward to understanding how the agency will address existing challenges and improve the system for future use.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

###

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner joined Sens. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Chris Murphy (D-CT) and a group of 31 colleagues in a letter urging the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to take immediate action and address short-term limited duration insurance (STLDI) plans, or junk plans, which fail to provide adequate, comprehensive health insurance coverage.

In 2018, in an effort to sabotage the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the Trump Administration made junk plans more widely available to consumers. Since then, these plans have continued to expand, however, they are not required to adhere to important standards, including prohibitions on discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions, coverage for the 10 essential health benefit (EHB) categories, and annual out-of-pocket maximums.

“Now, more than ever, the Department of Health and Human Services must act. Beginning in April, millions of Americans will likely lose the Medicaid coverage that they have relied upon during the COVID-19 pandemic. We must protect those who will be looking for coverage in the near future, and take steps to ensure that these plans are not allowed to further proliferate,” wrote the Senators. “It is past time for your Department to step up and address the expansion and proliferation of junk plans.”

In addition to Sens. Warner, Baldwin, and Murphy, the letter was signed by Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Bob Casey (D-PA), Christopher Coons (D-DE), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Timothy Kaine (D-VA), Angus King (I-ME), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Edward Markey (D-MA), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Patty Murray (D-WA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Jack Reed (D-RI), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Tina Smith (D-MN), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Peter Welch (D-VT).

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

Dear Secretary Becerra,

As we celebrate the State of the Union and the important gains that we have made when it comes to expanding the availability of comprehensive, affordable health care coverage, we write once again to urge you to take immediate action and address short-term limited duration insurance plans, or, junk plans. Now, more than ever, the Department of Health and Human Services must act. Beginning in April, millions of Americans will likely lose the Medicaid coverage that they have relied upon during the COVID-19 pandemic. We must protect those who will be looking for coverage in the near future, and take steps to ensure that these plans are not allowed to further proliferate.

The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Families First) (P.L. 116-127) provided additional federal Medicaid funding to states during the COVID-19 public health emergency in exchange for maintaining coverage, specifically by meeting certain maintenance-of-effort requirements. These requirements barred states from lowering income eligibility levels, imposing new premiums or other barriers to enrollment, and involuntarily disenrolling individuals from their programs. According to federal data, Medicaid enrollment has increased by over 30 percent since February of 2020, an additional 19.5 million people. Congress has also worked to provide additional financial support for those who purchase ACA marketplace plans, and in August, passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which extended the additional financial support first enacted as part of the American Rescue Plan. As a result of this additional support, consumers saved an average of $800 on their premiums in 2021, and will continue to see savings through 2025.

As part of the Fiscal Year 2023 (FY23) omnibus, Congress took steps to uncouple the maintenance-of-effort requirements included in Families First from the public health emergency in order to avert both a Medicaid coverage and funding cliff. Starting on April 1, 2023, states will be able to begin conducting Medicaid eligibility redeterminations and enhanced federal funding will gradually phase out from April through December 2023. In order to receive enhanced funding during this period, states must follow all federal requirements related to redeterminations, update beneficiaries’ contact information, and use multiple methods to contact individuals when they have moved and have an out-of-date mailing address. States will also be required to submit monthly reports on unwinding, including information indicating where beneficiaries are experiencing challenges.

Congress worked to make sure that the FY23 omnibus gave state Medicaid programs a roadmap for the months ahead and enacted the Inflation Reduction Act to provide additional financial support for those enrolling in health coverage through the marketplace. It is now time for the Administration to do its job and act to protect those who will be seeking to enroll in coverage in the coming months.

According to estimates from your Department, approximately 15 million individuals will lose Medicaid or CHIP coverage in the coming year and will therefore require affordable health care coverage. Millions will be eligible for significant financial assistance to purchase comprehensive coverage on the marketplace. But without additional protections, many Americans could find themselves enrolled in junk plans that do not provide comprehensive coverage or protection for individuals with pre-existing conditions. These plans, which were actively promoted by the previous Administration and remain unchecked, are not required to comply with consumer protections that limit out-of-pocket costs or coverage of essential health benefits, including mental health services, treatment for substance-use disorder, prescription drug benefits, and maternity care. Furthermore, these plans engage in the type of discriminatory practices, such as retroactive coverage rescissions, medical underwriting, and lifetime and annual caps, which were commonplace before the Affordable Care Act.

Since President Biden took office, he has prioritized expanding access to comprehensive, affordable health coverage. Congress has supported these efforts. It is past time for your Department to step up and address the expansion and proliferation of junk plans.

Sincerely,

###

WASHINGTON — Today, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) Chairman Mark R. Warner and Sen. Tim Kaine, a member of the Senate Armed Services (SASC) and Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC), joined Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) in a bipartisan push to fully fund the Department of Defense (DOD) office that addresses unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) and airborne national security risks. The All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) was created following a UAP amendment in the  Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to focus the DOD on resolving UAP sightings, improve data sharing between the DOD and intelligence community on UAP sightings, address national security concerns, and report health effects people may experience in relation to UAP events. AARO has access to DOD and intelligence community UAP data and is required to provide Congress with briefings and reports on UAPs. The Fiscal Year 2023 funding falls short of what AARO needs to fulfill its mission and maintain U.S. air supremacy.

“AARO provides the opportunity to integrate and resolve threats and hazards to the U.S., while also offering increased transparency to the American people and reducing the stigma around this issue of high public interest,” wrote the senators. “AARO’s success will depend on robust funding for its activities and cooperation between the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community. As such, we respectfully request your assistance in securing the necessary funding and organizational support for AARO’s success and longevity.”

In addition to Warner, Kaine, Gillibrand, and Rubio, the letter is signed by Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Michael Bennet (D-CO), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN).

Full text of the letter is available here and below.

Dear Deputy Secretary Hicks and Deputy Director Dixon,

We write today regarding implementation of Section 1683 of the Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the development of the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO). AARO provides the opportunity to integrate and resolve threats and hazards to the U.S., while also offering increased transparency to the American people and reducing the stigma. AARO’s success will depend on robust funding for its activities and cooperation between the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community. As such, we respectfully request your assistance in securing the necessary funding and organizational support for AARO’s success and longevity.

While we recognize there was an Administration request for funds in Fiscal Year 2023 (FY23) to fund basic operating expenses for AARO, it is facing a funding shortfall that will impede its ability to fulfill its mission. The amount outlined in the classified attachment is crucial to AARO’s scientific plan, and the lack of funding for these capabilities presents a serious impediment to AARO’s mission. We believe it is imperative for the Department of Defense to reprogram funds to cover this serious funding gap and it is for these reasons that we ask that the Department of Defense reprogram funds to prevent disruption to AARO’s work. Without FY23 funding, AARO’s ability to deliver integrated collection and analysis will fall behind schedule and be sub-optimized.

Additionally, while we understand that the Fiscal Year 2024 (FY24) Presidential Budget Request is all but finalized, we anticipate that the request will not include necessary Research, Development, Test, and Evaluations funding for FY24. While we appreciate that the Department of Defense has been vocal in expressing its support for the resolution of unidentified anomalous phenomena, this commitment must also be reflected in funding requests provided to Congress. Accordingly, we urge you to work with Congress to ensure that AARO is funded appropriately in FY24 and that robust funding is requested for FY25.

In addition to securing necessary funding, we request a briefing from your offices on your agencies’ plan to implement the dual reporting of AARO to the leadership of the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community.  The FY23 Intelligence Authorization Act (IAA) requires that the Director of AARO report directly to the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, with administrative support provided by the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security. The briefing should cover the balance between Intelligence Community and Department of Defense involvement, including how Title 10 and Title 50 authorities will be delegated to, and exercised by, the Director of AARO. We see it as essential that AARO’s activities are not viewed or managed as solely an intelligence activity.

The FY22 and FY23 IAAs and NDAAs provided broad authorities for the resolution of unidentified anomalous phenomena across domains, demonstrating significant support for its mission from Congress. It is critical that the aspirations of AARO’s mission are met with the resources necessary to succeed.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

###

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine (both D-VA) along with Rep.  Morgan Griffith (R-VA-09) urged the Army Corps of Engineers to act quickly to finalize the Buchanan County Consolidated School Relocation Project, a project that would relocate and consolidate the existing Hurley High School and Buchanan County Career, Technology & Higher Learning Center from their existing locations in a floodplain onto one campus in Grundy, Virginia.

“The relocation of Hurley High School and the Buchanan County Career Center will provide a safe and reliable facility for the communities of Grundy and Hurley, Virginia,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter. “Recent significant rainfall events in Buchanan County have showed that time is of the essence to complete this critical consolidation and relocation project. We urge USACE to prioritize finalizing the Buchanan County School Relocation Contract as quickly as possible so this critical project can get underway.”

Due to consistent, severe flooding in Buchanan County – including two recent flooding events in 2021 and 2022 – USACE has implemented flood risk management measures in the county since the early 2000s. In August 2003, USACE approved a conceptual level Detailed Project Report package for the Buchanan County Nonstructural Project that identified Hurley High School and Buchanan County Career Center as “feasible for floodproofing by means of a ‘ringwall.’”

In 2019, the Buchanan County Nonstructural Project received significant supplemental appropriations to complete flood risk management activities pursuant to the Disaster Relief Act of 2019. Given the lapse in time, a USACE review determined that a ringwall for the high school was no longer feasible and relocation was the most viable solution. The Buchanan County Board of Education then submitted plans to relocate the career center to the same location as the high school, which was supported by a 2021 Supplemental Environmental Assessment produced by USACE.

In their letter, the lawmakers highlighted the elongated approval process, and requested quick action finalizing a project that is vital for Southwest Virginia. 

Full text of the letter is available here and below.

 Dear Assistant Secretary Connor:

We write today concerning the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Consolidated School Relocation Project, which is part of the Buchanan County Section 202 Nonstructural Flood Damage Reduction Project. The purpose of this project is to relocate and consolidate the existing Hurley High School and Buchanan County Career, Technology & Higher Learning Center from their existing locations in a floodplain onto one campus in Grundy, Virginia. We respectfully request that USACE act swiftly to finalize the Buchanan County Consolidated School Relocation Project, which is essential for our constituents in Southwest Virginia.

Over the decades, the community of Buchanan County has faced a number of severe flooding events – including two recent significant rainfall events in 2021 and 2022 that resulted in Major Disaster Declarations. As a result of these recurring flooding events, USACE has implemented flood risk management measures in Buchanan County since the early 2000s. In August 2003, USACE approved a conceptual/feasibility level Detailed Project Report package for the Buchanan County Nonstructural Project that identified Hurley High School and Buchanan County Career Center as “feasible for floodproofing by means of a ‘ringwall.’”

In 2019, the Buchanan County Nonstructural Project received significant supplemental appropriations to complete flood risk management activities pursuant to the Disaster Relief Act of 2019. Given the lapse of time, USACE was able to examine the feasibility of onsite nonstructural flood protection for Hurley High School and the Buchanan County Career Center. Following this review, USACE determined that the nonstructural floodproofing options for the high school were not feasible and converting to the nonstructural measure of acquisition by relocation was the most viable solution for providing flood protection. Although the ringwall was confirmed feasible for the career center, the Buchanan County Board of Education submitted alternative plans to relocate the career center to the same location as the high school, which was supported by a 2021 Supplemental Environmental Assessment produced by USACE.

It is our understanding that the Great Lakes & Ohio River Division transmitted the Draft Consolidated School Relocation Agreement Contract to USACE headquarters on October 26, 2022 for review and comment. At the request of USACE headquarters, we understand the Huntington District Office drafted a Letter Report and detailed responses to comments and questions posed by USACE headquarters intended to supplement the 2003 Detailed Project Report and document the considerations leading to the updated decision to achieve the most cost effective and implementable plan. We understand the Letter Report and additional materials were transmitted to the Great Lakes & Ohio River Division for review on January 13, 2023, approved, and then transmitted to USACE headquarters on January 23, 2023 for final review. It is now our understanding that USACE headquarters is in the final stages of reviewing the Buchanan County Consolidated School Relocation Contract.

The relocation of Hurley High School and the Buchanan County Career Center will provide a safe and reliable facility for the communities of Grundy and Hurley, Virginia. Recent significant rainfall events in Buchanan County have showed that time is of the essence to complete this critical consolidation and relocation project. We urge USACE to prioritize finalizing the Buchanan County School Relocation Contract as quickly as possible so this critical project can get underway.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to working with USACE to advance this important project for Buchanan County, Virginia.

Sincerely,

###

WASHINGTON — Today, U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine urged the Virginia General Assembly to protect marriage equality by repealing the ban on same-sex marriage that remains in Virginia’s constitution. In 2006, over then-Governor Kaine’s strong objection, Virginia passed a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, but the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges overrides Virginia’s ban by requiring all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. While Sens. Warner and Kaine helped pass legislation last year to ensure same-sex marriages are recognized by every state, the right of same-sex couples to marry in Virginia would be jeopardized by the state ban if Obergefell is overturned.

“We write today to urge you to take action to protect marriage equality. The General Assembly should act now to repeal the shameful ban on same-sex marriage that remains in the state constitution,” the senators wrote in a letter to General Assembly leadership.

The senators continued, “It is long past time that Virginia’s governing document conveys to same-sex marriages the same freedoms, rights, and responsibilities that are afforded to all other constitutional marriages. We urge you to work with your colleagues to advance legislation for a referendum that would fully protect Virginia’s LGBTQ couples.”

Amendments to Virginia’s constitution must pass both chambers of the General Assembly in two consecutive sessions and then be passed on the ballot by voters. Constitutional amendments cannot be vetoed by a Governor. The Virginia Senate passed a bill to repeal the state constitutional ban in the 2022 session, but that bill failed in the Virginia House of Delegates, restarting the amendment process. On January 31, 2023, the Virginia Senate Privileges and Elections Committee favorably reported a similar bill to repeal the ban.

In the U.S. Senate, Warner and Kaine were among the 212 members of Congress who signed an amicus brief arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court that same-sex married couples should have the same legal security, rights, and responsibilities that federal law provides all other married couples. Warner and Kaine have also cosponsored the Equality Act, which would amend federal civil rights laws to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in education, employment, housing, credit, and federal jury service.

Full text of the letter is available here and below.

Dear Leaders Saslaw, Norment, Kilgore, and Scott:

We write today to urge you to take action to protect marriage equality. The General Assembly should act now to repeal the shameful ban on same-sex marriage that remains in the state constitution.

Marriage is a sacred and fundamental right in our society. In a long-overdue victory for the LGBTQ community, the Supreme Court concluded in Obergefell v. Hodges that the 14th Amendment requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, bringing the country one step closer to the fundamental ideal of equality for all.  We were proud to cosponsor and support the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act in the Senate. On December 13, 2022, President Biden signed the Respect for Marriage Act into law, ensuring that same-sex and interracial couples lawfully married in any state will have their marriages recognized across the country even if Obergefell is overturned.  Although the Respect for Marriage Act provides full faith and credit for state-issued marriage licenses, the legislation does not require a state to issue a marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

While the Obergefell decision supersedes Virginia’s constitutional ban, the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health makes same-sex couples feel that their marriages are in jeopardy. In fact, Justice Clarence Thomas stated in his concurring opinion that “in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”  If Obergefell is overturned, then LGBTQ Virginians will likely lose the right to marry the person they love unless the General Assembly repeals the ban in Virginia’s constitution. Virginia’s circuit courts would be prohibited from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples due to the prohibition in the Commonwealth’s constitution.

We are encouraged by proposals in both the Virginia House of Delegates and Senate to repeal the constitutional provision. It is long past time that Virginia’s governing document conveys to same-sex marriages the same freedoms, rights, and responsibilities that are afforded to all other constitutional marriages. We urge you to work with your colleagues to advance legislation for a referendum that would fully protect Virginia’s LGBTQ couples.

Thank you for your continued leadership and service to the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Sincerely,

###

WASHINGTON – Ahead of a key deadline today, U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) is calling attention to a challenge submitted by the Virginia Office of Broadband to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), pointing to a significant number of locations in Virginia that are currently incorrectly reported on the most recent FCC broadband coverage map.

In November, after a sustained push from Sen. Warner, the FCC released a new map with their best estimates of broadband coverage across the country. Once finalized, the FCC map will help determine how broadband funding from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), the bipartisan infrastructure law negotiated and written by Sen. Warner, will be allocated to states. Sen. Warner asked Virginians to review the released draft map to ensure it accurately reflected current broadband conditions at their address, and encouraged residents submit a challenge to the FCC if the information was incorrect. Virginians must submit their challenges by today, January 13, 2023 to ensure that they are adjudicated prior to the allocation of IIJA funding.

In addition to individual challenges submitted, the Virginia Office of Broadband has submitted a bulk challenge of locations currently reported as served but found to be unserved, based on the office’s analysis. In a letter to FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, Sen. Warner highlighted the need for the map to accurately reflect the current state of broadband coverage in Virginia and asked the FCC to carefully consider Virginia’s submitted challenges.

“In partnership with Virginia Tech, the Virginia Office of Broadband found that there are approximately 358,000 locations in Virginia that are reported on the new map as being served when, in fact, they currently lack access to broadband. Given that the funding provided to states by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act’s Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program is calculated based on the number of unserved locations in each state, it’s important that the number of unserved locations is accurately calculated,” Sen. Warner wrote in the letter. “I hope that you will carefully review the challenges submitted by individual Virginians as well as the bulk challenge submitted by the Virginia Office of Broadband. I appreciate your attention to this important issue and thank you for your efforts to close the digital divide.”   

Regarding Virginia’s submitted challenges, Dr. Tamarah Holmes, Director of the Office of Broadband at the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development, said today, “The number of locations in Virginia the FCC thinks are unserved directly affects the amount of money Virginia will receive under BEAD. We plan to challenge hundreds of thousands of locations we believe are incorrectly reported as served in the FCC's map, potentially securing additional funding for Virginia and allowing the Commonwealth to achieve universal access in Virginia.”

Sen. Warner has long fought to expand access to broadband in Virginia. During negotiations for the bipartisan infrastructure law, Sen. Warner secured $65 billion in funding to help deploy broadband, increase access, and decrease costs associated with connecting to the internet. The Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program, created and funded through this landmark legislation, provides $42.45 billion to expand high-speed internet access by funding planning, infrastructure deployment and adoption programs in all states and territories. An accurate map will play a critical role in ensuring that this funding is used efficiently.

A copy of the letter is available here and below.

Dear Chairwoman Rosenworcel,

I write today to urge the Federal Communications Commission to give all due consideration to the challenges to the FCC’s new national broadband map submitted by the Virginia Office of Broadband. Ensuring that the new map is as accurate as possible is critically important to closing the digital divide and providing access to affordable, reliable broadband to every single American.

In 2021, I was proud to help negotiate the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which provides $65 billion to increase broadband availability and affordability across the United States. In order to ensure that funding is spent effectively, Congress determined that the allocation of broadband funding should be based on the new FCC map created as a result of the Broadband DATA Act. That legislation required the FCC to change how it maps broadband access, providing more granular, location-specific information instead of the previous map’s census-block level data. This endeavor is incredibly complex, and I appreciate the efforts of you, your colleagues, and the FCC staff to develop this new map.

As you have said, the success of this effort depends on stakeholder engagement. To that end, I have encouraged Virginians to review the new map and submit location and availability challenges if they believe information is incorrect. Furthermore, the Virginia Office of Broadband has been conducting their own analysis of the new map. In partnership with Virginia Tech, the Virginia Office of Broadband found that there are approximately 358,000 locations in Virginia that are reported on the new map as being served when, in fact, they currently lack access to broadband.

Given that the funding provided to states by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act’s Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program is calculated based on the number of unserved locations in each state, it’s important that the number of unserved locations is accurately calculated. I hope that you will carefully review the challenges submitted by individual Virginians as well as the bulk challenge submitted by the Virginia Office of Broadband. I appreciate your attention to this important issue and thank you for your efforts to close the digital divide.

            Sincerely,

###

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) wrote to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg expressing concern and requesting more information regarding Meta’s practice of collecting user’s health information through tracking applications.

In the letter, Sen. Warner highlighted the need for user privacy and increased transparency around how user data is collected online, which has become increasingly important as the use of telehealth appointments, online appointment booking, and electronic record keeping have risen exponentially over the course of the pandemic.

“As we increasingly move health care online, we must ensure there are strong safeguards in place surrounding the use of these technologies to protect sensitive health information,” wrote Sen. Warner.

Specifically, Sen. Warner called attention to Meta Pixel, a tracking tool that sends Meta a packet of data whenever a user clicks a button to schedule a doctor’s appointment – without the knowledge of the individual making the appointment.

He continued, “I am troubled by the recent revelation that the Meta Pixel was installed on a number of hospital websites – including password-protected patient portals – and sending sensitive health information to Meta when a patient scheduled an appointment online.  This data included highly personal health data, including patients’ medical conditions, appointment topics, physician names, email addresses, phone numbers, IP addresses, and other details about patients’ medical appointments.”

Sen. Warner also noted allegations that this practice of data harvesting and collection has been used by Meta to target advertisements across their platforms. In August of this year, two lawsuits were filed against the company over the alleged unlawful collection and sharing of health data without consent.

To address these concerns, Sen. Warner requested Meta respond to the following questions:

1. What information does Meta have access to or receive directly from the Meta Pixel, either currently or previously?
2. How does Meta store information received through the Meta Pixel?
3. Has information Meta received from the Meta Pixel ever been used to inform targeted advertisements on Meta’s platforms?
4. How does Meta handle sensitive information that it receives from third parties that violate its business guidelines?
5. What steps is Meta taking to safeguard sensitive health information, particularly with third-party vendors? Since the release of The Markup’s report in June, what additional steps have been taken?
6. According to the report released by the New York State Department of Financial Services last year, Meta stated that the filtering system was “not yet operating with complete accuracy.” What improvements have been made to make the filtering system more effective? How is Meta testing and evaluating the filtering system’s ability to identify sensitive health information?
7. Where required by law, does Meta always comply with any and all notification requirements when the Meta Pixel handles or transmits protected information, in the manner and time required by such laws?

Sen. Warner has been a leader in Congress pushing for increased transparency and protections surrounding user data and privacy. He introduced the DASHBOARD Act, which works to increase transparency around data collection; the DETOUR Act, which would prohibit companies like Meta from using deceptive dark patterns to manipulate users into handing over their data; and the Public Health Emergency Privacy Act, which would set strong and enforceable privacy and data security rights for health information.

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

October 20, 2022

Dear Mr. Zuckerberg:

I write to you today to express my concern regarding Meta’s collection of sensitive health information through the Meta Pixel tracking tool without user consent.

As you know, I have long worked to protect user privacy and increase transparency around how user data is collected and shared. This mission is more urgent than ever as the last two years have shown us the importance of health care technology, with many relying on electronic health records, online appointment booking, and virtual patient portals to receive care during the pandemic. As we increasingly move health care online, we must ensure there are strong safeguards in place surrounding the use of these technologies to protect sensitive health information.

I am troubled by the recent revelation that the Meta Pixel was installed on a number of hospital websites – including password-protected patient portals – and sending sensitive health information to Meta when a patient scheduled an appointment online.  This data included highly personal health data, including patients’ medical conditions, appointment topics, physician names, email addresses, phone numbers, IP addresses, and other details about patients’ medical appointments. Additionally, of particular concern are the recent allegations that Meta has used Meta Pixel data to inform targeted advertisements on Meta’s platforms.  The use of the Meta Pixel is widespread, as the tool was installed in the systems of 33 of the top 100 hospitals in the country and inside the patient portals of seven health systems at the time of the investigation.

Unfortunately, privacy issues involving the Meta Pixel are not new, as there has been previous scrutiny of the Meta Pixel outside of the health care context. Reports published earlier this year found that the Pixel sent personal information to Meta that was collected from the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) on the website of the Federal Student Aid (FSA) office within the U.S. Department of Education.  Data sent to Meta includes applicant first and last name, email addresses, and zip codes. Additionally, this is not the first time that your company has been involved in the wrongful collection of sensitive health information. In 2021, an investigation by the New York State Department of Financial Services found that Meta (then Facebook) collected user data from several health and wellness apps, including results from blood pressure and heart rate readings, menstruation and fertility tracking, pregnancy status, and other deeply personal information. 

Meta’s own business guidelines state that the company “[doesn’t] want websites or apps sending [Meta] sensitive information about people,”  including sensitive health information, which Meta identifies as medical conditions, sexual and reproductive health, mental health, details regarding medical devices and trackers, treatments, test results, body specifications or cycles, locations of treatment, and other health-related data.  Yet, in this most recent case and as we have seen previously, Meta is continuing to access this highly sensitive information.

It is critical that technology companies like Meta take seriously their role in protecting user health data. Without meaningful action, I fear that these continuing privacy violations and harmful uses of health data could become the new status quo in health care and public health.

To address the concerns raised in this letter, I request that you provide responses to the following questions by November 3, 2022:

1. What information does Meta have access to or receive directly from the Meta Pixel, either currently or previously?
2. How does Meta store information received through the Meta Pixel?
3. Has information Meta received from the Meta Pixel ever been used to inform targeted advertisements on Meta’s platforms?
4. How does Meta handle sensitive information that it receives from third parties that violate its business guidelines?
5. What steps is Meta taking to safeguard sensitive health information, particularly with third-party vendors? Since the release of The Markup’s report in June, what additional steps have been taken?
6. According to the report released by the New York State Department of Financial Services last year, Meta stated that the filtering system was “not yet operating with complete accuracy.” What improvements have been made to make the filtering system more effective? How is Meta testing and evaluating the filtering system’s ability to identify sensitive health information?
7. Where required by law, does Meta always comply with any and all notification requirements when the Meta Pixel handles or transmits protected information, in the manner and time required by such laws?

I look forward to your prompt responses.

Sincerely,

###

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) and Tina Smith (D-MN), joined by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Cory Booker (D-NJ), sent a letter to Department of Health and Human Services and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (HHS/CMS) leadership urging them to review and formally report on the adequacy of the Affordable Care Act’s Essential Health Benefits (EHBs). The letter expressed the need for a review of telehealth flexibilities and the impact that scaling back these service options will have on those who rely on telehealth capabilities for treatment.

“As we begin to envision health care policies post-pandemic, we remain concerned telehealth services will be significantly pared back, hindering access to care for millions of Americans—especially those with complicated health conditions,” the Senators wrote.

When the Affordable Care Act was enacted, it required the Secretary of HHS to review EHBs and provide a report to Congress, and the public, that contains:

• An assessment of whether enrollees are facing any difficulty accessing needed services for reasons of coverage or cost;
• An assessment of whether the EHBs list needs to be modified or updated to account for changes in medical evidence or scientific advancement;
• Information on how EHBs will be modified to address any such gaps in access or changes in the evidence base;
• An assessment of the potential of additional or expanded benefits to increase costs and the interactions between the addition or expansion of benefits and reductions in existing benefits to meet actuarial limitations;

Despite this requirement, this formal review and report have never been undertaken or completed. The Senators stressed the need for this process in light of changes being made to care as the health care system shifts to a post-pandemic structure.

“We have heard from constituents who have concerns that coverage will start to vary based upon visit modality. For some specialized, complicated care—eating disorders, for example—it has always been challenging getting the most appropriate treatment covered, whether that’s because of parity or network issues,” the Senators continued. “We are concerned that modality will become one additional way barriers to treatment will be enacted, if arbitrary in-person requirements become one more way care is denied or delayed.”

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

Dear Secretary Becerra, Administrator Brooks-LaSure and Deputy Administrator Montz:

We thank you for your continued partnership in establishing and extending telehealth flexibilities to ensure Americans have access to vital health care services and supports over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. As we begin to envision health care policies post-pandemic, we remain concerned telehealth services will be significantly pared back, hindering access to care for millions of Americans—especially those with complicated health conditions.

According to federal statute, it is incumbent upon the Secretary to periodically review insurance plan Essential Health Benefits (EHBs) and provide a public report to Congress that contains 1) an assessment of whether enrollees are facing difficulty accessing needed services for reasons of coverage or costs; 2) an assessment of whether plan benefits need to be modified or updated to account for changes in medical evidence or scientific advancement; 3) information on how plan benefits will be modified to address any such gaps or changes in the evidence base; and 4) an assessment of potential of additional or expanded benefits to increase costs and the interactions between the addition of benefits and reductions in existing benefits.

We believe after 12 years of the ACA it is important that EHBs be formally reviewed and the mandated report be issued to the public and Congress, especially as your Administration is committed to maintaining and further strengthening the law’s protections. We urge you to undertake such a review and report, and in addition we urge you to ensure that visit modality is not one of the “reasons of coverage” for which “enrollees are facing difficulty accessing needed services.”

We have heard from constituents who have concerns that coverage will start to vary based upon visit modality. For some specialized, complicated care—eating disorders, for example—it has always been challenging getting the most appropriate treatment covered, whether that’s because of parity or network issues. We are concerned that modality will become one additional way barriers to treatment will be enacted, if arbitrary in-person requirements become one more way care is denied or delayed.

The Department addressed a delay in completing such a report to Congress in its 2019 Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameter Final Rule, citing the need for further insurance market stabilization that the final rule would provide. Although we understand the difficulty of reviewing the markets as they continue to evolve, it is for that reason critical that the Administration review and report on EHBs so that we have an understanding of whether they continue to be adequate in an ever-evolving health care ecosystem. The health care system will not be the same after the COVID-19 pandemic, and this is an opportunity to renew our commitment to comprehensive, affordable and accessible health care coverage. We respectfully request this report be conducted and issued to Congress to inform future health policy to better serve Americans.

Thank you for your consideration, and we look forward to continuing to work with you on this very important issue.

###