WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), a member of the Senate Rules Committee responsible for election legislation, spoke on the Senate floor and warned of a rise in voter suppression tied to the coronavirus pandemic. He highlighted specific steps that states and the federal government should take to protect the right to vote, including implementing no-excuse absentee ballots, curbside voting, and expanded early voting opportunities.  

In a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Sen. Warner said in part, “Americans must be able to exercise their right to vote in a way that is safe and secure this November. From Wisconsin to Georgia to Kentucky, we are already seeing a dangerous trend of making voters choose between their safety and their right to vote. And I fear that if we head into November without a plan… without a strategy for protecting the right to vote and ensuring equal access to the ballot box… we could see levels of voter suppression not seen since the Jim Crow era.”

He continued, “If we are going to preserve the integrity of our elections and the trust of the American people, it is essential that states and the federal government adapt to the challenge of this pandemic and expand access to the ballot box. In short, we need to make it easier and safer for Americans to exercise their right to vote.”

In his remarks, Sen. Warner highlighted the ways that voter suppression efforts disproportionately harm the most vulnerable Americans—particularly voters in communities of color. According to a new report from the Brennan Center for Justice, Black voters, on average, wait 45 minutes longer to vote than white voters, and Latino voters wait 46 minutes longer.

Speaking about voter restrictions that have been implemented in the name of COVID-19 safety this year, Sen. Warner said: “We know who these restrictions disenfranchise: it’s the poor… it’s the elderly… it’s workers just getting off their shift. And disproportionately, it is Black and Latino voters who face the brunt of these restrictions.”

Last week, Sen. Warner led all Democrats on the Senate Rules Committee in calling for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the National Association of State Election Directors, and the National Association of Secretaries of State to work proactively to counter any attempts to suppress vulnerable and historically-disenfranchised voters during the COVID-19 crisis. The letter included a series of recommendations to prevent voter suppression.

The full text of Sen. Warner’s remarks as prepared for delivery appears below:

Mr./Madam President, I rise today because Americans must be able to exercise their right to vote in a way that is safe and secure this November.

From Wisconsin to Georgia to Kentucky, we are already seeing a dangerous trend of making voters choose between their safety and their right to vote.

And I fear that if we head into November without a plan… without a strategy for protecting the right to vote and ensuring equal access to the ballot box… we could see levels of voter suppression not seen since the Jim Crow era.

It is true, we are in uncharted territory due to COVID-19. Of course, we must make sure that voters and poll workers are protected. We must make sure that polling places do not become another vector for spreading the virus.

But the way we do that is not by restricting access to the ballot box. Not in the United States of America. That is not how the world’s greatest democracy should meet this challenge.

Mr. President, if we are going to preserve the integrity of our elections… and the trust of the American people… it is essential that states and the federal government adapt to the challenge of this pandemic and expand access to the ballot box.

In short, we need to make it easier and safer for Americans to exercise their right to vote.

The good news is, we don’t have to reinvent the wheel. A number of states—red, blue, purple—have adopted a range of ‘convenience voting’ procedures that work quite well. Some of those procedures including ample early voting opportunities and no-excuse absentee ballots… both of which reduce the risk that voters will be forced to break social distancing guidance in order to vote. 

In my home state of Virginia, we have curb-side voting for seniors and people with disabilities.

This has greatly expanded access to the ballot for Virginians with health issues that prevent them from going into a polling place. 

Every single state already has some form of convenience voting… to support voters who can’t make it to the polls on Election Day. And every election cycle, Americans securely cast millions of votes using these programs. 

We need to build on the success of these programs to ensure that every voter, regardless of circumstance, can safely and easily vote in our elections.

Unfortunately, despite these effective and secure tools at our disposal, we have also seen states implement restrictions in the name of safety that have disenfranchised far too many Americans.

In Wisconsin’s April primary, for example, Milwaukee reduced its number of polling places from 180 to just 5 locations. We saw similar moves this month in Georgia and Kentucky.

We know who these restrictions disenfranchise: it’s the poor… it’s the elderly… it’s workers just getting off their shift. And disproportionately, it is Black and Latino voters who face the brunt of these restrictions.

According to a new report from the Brennan Center, Black voters, on average, wait 45 minutes longer to vote than white voters. And Latino voters wait 46 minutes longer.

This is not right, Mr. President. We have a moral obligation to make sure that our tools to counter COVID-19 are not used to intimidate and suppress voters.

Just last week, Senator Klobuchar and I sent letters raising the warning that bad actors could use testing, immunity and protective equipment as a pretense to turn away voters or increase the difficulty of reaching the ballot box on Election Day.

Ideally, our elections officials could come together around a national strategy… of preparing every polling place and precinct… for administering our elections during a pandemic.

Unfortunately, there are those, including the President, who have tried to politicize this issue. In fact, we’ve seen the President spreading utter misinformation about mail-in voting.

The President seems to have forgotten that he has voted by mail in the last three elections. But what he fundamentally fails to understand is that the right to vote belongs to the voters, not to the politicians. It is our job to make sure Americans can exercise their rights in a way that is safe and secure.

Mr. President, that’s why Congress must rise to the occasion and ensure Americans can vote safely and securely.

The time is now to start serious preparations on contingencies to protect our elections from both the pandemic and those who would take advantage of it. I am a sponsor of the bill Sen. Klobuchar has tried to UC tonight, and I am disappointed it was blocked from passing.

I look forward to continuing with this group and the rest of our colleagues to do so. Thank you. 

###

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine (both D-VA) joined Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) and 44 Senate colleagues in introducing a resolution officially condemning the Trump Administration’s “reckless” effort to dismantle the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which provides coverage for millions of Americans. The Senate resolution also demands that the Department of Justice (DOJ) defend existing law in court and halt its efforts to repeal the health care protections for millions – including 133 million Americans with pre-existing conditions— in the middle of a public health emergency.

“The Trump Administration has made it clear that it will not stop its assault on our nation’s health care law until millions of Americans have lost the protections and coverage they desperately need,” said Sen. Warner. “This resolution affirms what we have said for years – that this Administration’s efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act are despicable and put too many vulnerable Virginians at risk. The Department of Justice must immediately put a stop to these efforts and fight to increase access to health care during the largest public health crisis in a generation.” 

“To rip health care away from millions of people during a pandemic would be like dousing a fire with gasoline,” said Kaine. “For the sake of the more than 431,000 Virginians benefiting from Medicaid expansion, more than 3 million Virginians with pre-existing conditions, and all else who rely on the ACA for affordable coverage and consumer protections, I oppose this administration’s latest display of inept cruelty.” 

Last week, the DOJ and a group of Republican Attorneys General submitted a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court urging it to invalidate the ACA and pull the rug out from underneath the millions of Americans with preexisting conditions who depend on the law for health care coverage. This move would take away health care coverage for more than 23 million Americans who receive health care coverage through the ACA marketplaces.

Additionally, if the Supreme Court agrees to overturn the ACA, it could sabotage protections for more than 3 million Virginians living with a preexisting condition such as COVID-19, diabetes, asthma, or cancer, potentially exposing them to annual or lifetime caps, medical underwriting for their insurance coverage, or denials for the care they need. Across the board, the Commonwealth could lose needed federal funds, causing significant job losses and jeopardizing the viability of Virginia’s rural hospitals in the midst of a global health crisis.

The resolution urges DOJ to reverse its position and instead protect the millions of people who rely on the ACA for health care coverage amid the COVID-19 pandemic that has infected more than 2.4 million Americans.

In addition to Sens. Warner, Kaine and Tester, the resolution is also backed by Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Doug Jones (D-AL), Tina Smith (D-MN), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Jack Reed (D-RI), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Tom Carper (D-DE), Dick Blumenthal (D-CT), Ed Markey (D-MA), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Kamala Harris (D-CA), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Gary Peters (D-MI), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), Angus King (I-ME), Tom Udall (D-NM), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Chris Coons (D-DE), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Bob Casey (D-PA), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

In the Senate, Sens. Warner and Kaine have fought for expanded access to health care and have spoken out against the Trump Administration’s attempts to overturn the ACA. Last year, Sen. Warner led and Sen. Kaine joined a legislative maneuver to protect health coverage for Americans with preexisting conditions. The Senators have also demanded that the Trump Administration stop the health care sabotage that has undermined our preparedness and ability to respond to COVID-19. Recently, Sen. Warner penned an op-ed sounding the alarm of the devastating effects the health and economic crisis caused by COVID-19 has had on record high uninsured rates across the country.  

The full text of the resolution is available here.

###

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI) and Bob Menendez (D-NJ) pressed Facebook regarding its failure to prevent the propagation of white supremacist groups online and its role in providing such groups with the organizational infrastructure and reach needed to expand. In a letter to CEO Mark Zuckerberg, the Senators criticized Facebook for being unable or unwilling to enforce its own Community Standards and purge white supremacist and other violent extremist content from the site. They also called on Zuckerberg to answer a series of questions regarding Facebook’s policies and procedures against hate speech, violence, white supremacy and the amplification of extremist content.

“The United States is going through a long-overdue examination of the systemic racism prevalent in our society. Americans of all races, ages, and backgrounds have bravely taken to the streets to demand equal justice for all,” wrote the Senators. “While Facebook has attempted to publicly align itself with this movement, its failure to address the hate spreading on its platform reveals significant gaps between Facebook’s professed commitment to racial justice and the company’s actions and business interests.”

Citing reports by the Tech Transparency project and other numerous investigative reports, the Senators highlighted ways in which right-wing extremist groups have used Facebook as a recruitment and organizational tool. They also underscored Facebook’s own contributions to the public safety problem, which include autogenerating pages for white supremacist organizations, promoting white supremacist pages and even directing users who visit these groups to other extremist or far-right content.

“This evidence stands in marked contrast to Facebook’s professed commitment to combat extremism by redirecting users who search for terms associated with white supremacy or hate groups to the page for ‘Life After Hate,’ an organization that promotes tolerance,” the Senators added.  “The Tech Transparency Project found that Facebook directed users to the ‘Life After Hate’ page in only six percent of the searches for white supremacist organizations.”

Sens. Warner, Hirono and Menendez also cited a number of instances where online radicalization facilitated by Facebook led to real life consequences, such as when three members of a “boogaloo” group on Facebook plotted to bring Molotov cocktails to a Black Lives Matter Protest, or when Air Force Staff Sergeant Steven Carrillo used Facebook to talk about committing violent acts and to meet the individual who eventually drove his getaway van after Carrillo shot and killed a federal security officer. 

In the letter, the Senators requested answers to the following questions by July 10th:

1. Does Facebook affirm its policy against hate speech and will it seriously enforce this policy?
2. What procedures has Facebook put in place to identify and remove hate speech from its platform? To what degree do these procedures differ with respect to public Facebook pages and private groups?
3. Does Facebook affirm its policy against violence and incitement and will it seriously enforce this policy?
4. What procedures has Facebook put in place to identify and remove violence and incitement from its platform? To what degree do these procedures differ with respect to public Facebook pages and private groups?
5. Does Facebook affirm its commitment to ban “praise, support and representation of white nationalism and white separatism on Facebook and Instagram” as detailed in the company’s May 27, 2019 post and will it seriously enforce this commitment?
6. What steps has Facebook implemented since announcing this policy to remove “praise, support and representation of white nationalism and white separatism on Facebook and Instagram?”
7. Please provide our offices with any Facebook internal research concerning the platform’s amplification of extremist groups.
8. How often are you personally briefed on the status of domestic extremist and white supremacist groups on Facebook and the platform’s efforts to address these groups?
9. Who is the senior-most Facebook official responsible for addressing white supremacist groups’ activity on Facebook and which Facebook executive does this employee report directly to?
10. What role did Vice President of Global Public Policy Joel Kaplan play in Facebook’s decision to shut down and de-prioritize internal efforts to contain extremist and hyperpolarizing activity on Facebook?
11. What role did Mr. Kaplan play in the participation of the Daily Caller, an outlet with longstanding ties to white nationalist groups, in Facebook’s fact-checking program?
12. When violent extremist groups actively and openly use a platform’s tools to coordinate violence, should federal law continue to protect the platform from civil liability for its role in facilitating that activity?

A copy of the letter is available here and below.

Dear Mr. Zuckerberg:

We write to express our serious concerns about Facebook’s lack of action to prevent white supremacist groups from using the platform as a recruitment and organizational tool. The United States is going through a long-overdue examination of the systemic racism prevalent in our society. Americans of all races, ages, and backgrounds have bravely taken to the streets to demand equal justice for all. While Facebook has attempted to publicly align itself with this movement,[1] its failure to address the hate spreading on its platform reveals significant gaps between Facebook’s professed commitment to racial justice and the company’s actions and business interests.

On April 22, a full month before Americans started recent protests for racial justice, the Tech Transparency Project issued a report detailing the ways right-wing extremist groups were using Facebook to plan a militant uprising in the United States in response to stay-at-home orders issued to cope with the coronavirus pandemic.[2] The organization’s research uncovered “125 Facebook groups devoted to the ‘boogaloo,’” a term with ties to white supremacist movements used to describe a coming civil war.[3] Many of the groups’ posts were explicit in their calls for violence, including discussions of “tactical strategies, combat medicine, and various types of weapons, including how to develop explosives and the merits of using flame throwers.”[4] The groups experienced unchecked growth in the months leading up to the report and remained on Facebook at least as of early June,[5] despite Facebook’s prior claims that it was “studying trends around [boogaloo] and related terms on Facebook and Instagram” and that it “do[es]n’t allow speech used to incite hate or violence, and will remove any content that violates our policies.”[6]

A subsequent report issued on May 21 provided further detail regarding the extent of Facebook’s white-supremacist problem—and Facebook’s lack of attention to this public safety problem.[7] The Tech Transparency Project found that 113 of the 221 white supremacist organizations designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League—a staggering 51%—have a presence on Facebook.[8] Many of the organizations’ pages were actually auto-generated by Facebook after a Facebook user identified a white supremacist or neo-Nazi organization as his or her employer.[9] Perhaps more troubling, Facebook actively promoted these and other white supremacist sites. According to the Tech Transparency Project, “Facebook’s ‘Related Pages’ feature often directed users visiting white supremacist Pages to other extremist or far-right content, raising concerns that the platform is contributing to radicalization.”[10] 

The Tech Transparency Project report echoes similar findings by the Southern Poverty Law Center (which has also tracked how these groups spread dangerous misinformation about COVID-19 on Facebook),[11] along with several investigative news reports.[12] One investigative report even concluded that Facebook served as a key recruitment tool for right-wing militia groups to recruit police officers to their movements.[13]Facebook is hardly a passive actor in this context: a recent exposé by The Wall Street Journal revealed that Facebook’s own researchers had found that “64% of all extremist group joins are due to our recommendation tools.”[14] The report concluded that Facebook senior executives shut down efforts to reform the platform’s tendency to amplify hyperpolarized and extremist content after Vice President of Global Public Policy Joel Kaplan deemed the efforts “paternalistic.”[15]

This evidence stands in marked contrast to Facebook’s professed commitment to combat extremism by redirecting users who search for terms associated with white supremacy or hate groups to the page for “Life After Hate,” an organization that promotes tolerance.[16] The Tech Transparency Project found that Facebook directed users to the “Life After Hate” page in only six percent of the searches for white supremacist organizations.[17]

Unfortunately, the online radicalization facilitated by Facebook can lead to deadly consequences. On June 16, federal authorities charged Air Force Staff Sergeant Steven Carrillo with the June shooting death of a federal security officer outside a courthouse in Oakland.[18] Authorities also charged the driver of the getaway van,Robert Alvin Justus.[19] Justus and Carrillo had met on Facebook.[20] According to the criminal complaint against Carrillo, a search of Carrillo’s Facebook account revealed not only communications with Justus, but instances where Carrillo expressed his intention to commit violent acts.[21]

In another instance in early June, federal authorities arrested three men on charges that they planned to bring Molotov cocktails to a Black Lives Matter protest.[22] All three were members of a boogaloo group on Facebook.[23] According to the Tech Transparency Project, one of the men arrested was a member of two private boogaloo groups identified in Tech Transparency Project’s April 22 report.[24] Following reporting in the Huffington Post and other media outlets, a Facebook representative told Huffington Post on April 23, “[w]e’ve removed groups and Pages who’ve used [boogaloo] and related terms for violating our policies.”[25] Yet, according to the complaint, the three men used a different online group—a Nevada boogaloo Facebook group—to facilitate organizing a planned attack on the march.[26]

The prevalence of white supremacist and other extremist content on Facebook—and the ways in which these groups have been able to use the platform as organizing infrastructure—is unacceptable. Facebook’s Community Standards expressly state:  “We do not allow hate speech on Facebook.”[27] In a March 27, 2019 post, Facebook made clear that this prohibition “has always included white supremacy.”[28] At that same time, Facebook expanded its prohibition to include “praise, support and representation of white nationalism and white separatism.”[29] And the Community Standards purport to prohibit “organizations and individuals that proclaim a violent mission,” including “organized hate” groups.[30]

In light of these clear policies—and others against “Violence and Incitement” and “Dangerous Individuals and Organizations”—we are concerned Facebook is unable (or unwilling) to enforce its own Community Standards[31] and rid itself of white supremacist and other extremist content. 

We request that you to answer the following questions by July 10, 2020:

1. Does Facebook affirm its policy against hate speech and will it seriously enforce this policy?[32]
2. What procedures has Facebook put in place to identify and remove hate speech from its platform? To what degree do these procedures differ with respect to public Facebook pages and private groups?
3. Does Facebook affirm its policy against violence and incitement and will it seriously enforce this policy?[33]
4. What procedures has Facebook put in place to identify and remove violence and incitement from its platform? To what degree do these procedures differ with respect to public Facebook pages and private groups?
5. Does Facebook affirm its commitment to ban “praise, support and representation of white nationalism and white separatism on Facebook and Instagram” as detailed in the company’s May 27, 2019 post[34]and will it seriously enforce this commitment?
6. What steps has Facebook implemented since announcing this policy to remove “praise, support and representation of white nationalism and white separatism on Facebook and Instagram?”
7. Please provide our offices with any Facebook internal research concerning the platform’s amplification of extremist groups.
8. How often are you personally briefed on the status of domestic extremist and white supremacist groups on Facebook and the platform’s efforts to address these groups?
9. Who is the senior-most Facebook official responsible for addressing white supremacist groups’ activity on Facebook and which Facebook executive does this employee report directly to?
10. What role did Vice President of Global Public Policy Joel Kaplan play in Facebook’s decision to shut down and de-prioritize internal efforts to contain extremist and hyperpolarizing activity on Facebook?[35]
11. What role did Mr. Kaplan play in the participation of the Daily Caller, an outlet with longstanding ties to white nationalist groups,[36] in Facebook’s fact-checking program?
12. When violent extremist groups actively and openly use a platform’s tools to coordinate violence, should federal law continue to protect the platform from civil liability for its role in facilitating that activity? 

Thank you in advance for your attention to this critical matter. 

Sincerely,

###

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senators Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, Ben Cardin, and Chris Van Hollen released the following statement upon House passage of legislation to make D.C. the 51^st state:

“Virginia and Maryland’s neighbors in D.C. deserve the representation that states have. Today, the House took a historic vote to pass legislation to make D.C. the 51^st state. Leader McConnell should bring this bill up for a vote in the Senate immediately. There is no good reason hundreds of thousands of Americans should be denied their civil rights and subject to taxation without representation.”

###

WASHINGTON – In the wake of nationwide protests on racial injustice, U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) introduced an amendment to the FY21 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to mandate reporting on whether servicemembers have faced “racist, anti-Semitic, or supremacist activity” while on duty. Sen. Warner’s bipartisan amendment builds upon an existing requirement for the Department of Defense (DoD) to include in appropriate surveys whether military personnel “have ever experienced or witnessed [or reported] extremist activity in the workplace.”

“There is no question that Americans have encountered racism and discrimination while on the job, but we don’t have a clear and comprehensive picture of how prevalent these unacceptable and destructive biases are in the military,” said Sen. Warner. “Like the country it serves, our military is made stronger by the diversity of its people. And just as in every other aspect of society, attitudes of discrimination and bias for any reason – certainly race or religion – only serve to weaken our military. Our men and women in uniform who pledge to faithfully serve our country shouldn’t also have to face discrimination or threat from any of their peers. Our nation’s military leaders have committed to facing these issues head on. We have to give them the information and tools to do so. It is my hope that this critical bipartisan provision will be included in the final defense bill.”

In 2019, The Military Times surveyed 1,630 active servicemembers on their experience with extremist activity within their military ranks. Of the respondents, more than one-third of all active-duty troops and more than half of minority service members say they have personally witnessed examples of white nationalism or ideological-driven racism. Additionally, there has been a recent increase in reporting of servicemembers with affiliation to white supremacist and neo-Nazi organizations. In July 2018, Lance Cpl. Vasillios Pistolis was kicked out of the Marine Corps after it was revealed that he had connections to a violent neo-Nazi organization and participated in the deadly “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Va. In January 2020, the FBI arrested three alleged members of the white-supremacist group “The Base,” one of which had served as a member of the U.S. Army, on gun charges for plotting deadly attacks ahead of a gun rights rally in Richmond, Va. Text of Sen. Warner’s amendment, which mirrors a bill by U.S. Rep. Anthony Brown (D-MD),can be found here.

After having successfully worked to pass into law reforms to fix the deplorable housing conditions in privatized military housing across the Commonwealth, Sen. Warner is keeping up the pressure in Congress to ensure servicemembers and their families can feel safe in their on-base housing. Sen. Warner introduced a provision for the FY21 NDAA to provide greater oversight of privatized military housing.

“Last year, the President signed into law critical measures I championed to give military families new tools to hold private housing companies accountable for substandard living conditions. After meeting with countless military families and hearing the poor housing conditions that these families have been exposed to, I’ve heard the same question over and over: how do we make sure these privatized housing companies are held accountable for failing to fulfill their basic obligations?” said Sen. Warner. “This amendment will build upon the work we’ve done to improve military oversight and increase accountability to make sure our servicemembers feel safe in their homes.”

In March, a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) study found deficiencies in the DoD’s oversight of privatized military housing, concluding that the DoD lacked reliable information to provide a full picture of the conditions of privatized housing. Currently, the military departments use a range of project-specific performance metrics to monitor private housing companies’ performance. However, the metrics used are designed to focus on resident satisfaction and on the quality of the maintenance conducted on housing units, and do not always provide meaningful information or reflect actual housing conditions. For example, the GAO found that a common indicator is how quickly the private partner responded to a work order, not whether the issue was actually addressed. Ultimately, these metrics matter because they feed into decisions around whether privatized housing companies earn performance incentive fees.

To improve this gap in housing condition metrics, Sen. Warner’s amendment would require that the military services review the indicators underlying the privatized housing project performance metrics to ensure they adequately measure the condition and quality of the home. Additionally, the provision would require the Secretary of Defense to publish in DoD’s Military Housing Privatization Initiative Performance Evaluation Report these underlying indicators for performance metrics for each project, in order for Congress to provide effective oversight. Text of Sen. Warner’s military housing amendment is available here.

###

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) joined Sens. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Jack Reed (D-RI) led a group of 14 senators in calling for answers from the Treasury Department about ongoing difficulties facing Americans who received their CARES Act stimulus payments as debit cards.

The Treasury Department did not alert Americans who would receive their payment through a debit card, and many Americans missed or threw out the debit cards because they looked like a scam. Now, these individuals can face fees to get the card replaced quickly. Discussing this issue, the Senators wrote, “We are seriously concerned about imposing these fees on individuals who urgently need the direct cash assistance to which they are entitled under the CARES Act.”

The Senators also addressed fees that individuals may incur when they try to access their payments, as well as difficulties individuals may face transferring funds from the card to a bank account. “These burdens are all the more concerning given that these individuals did not request a prepaid debit card and are unable to request a preferred method of receiving their stimulus payment with the IRS,” wrote the Senators.

In addition, the Senators shared concerns about Americans needing to submit personal information in order to use the cards, and whether this information can be shared with third parties for commercial purposes. The Senators are calling for answers on how Americans were chosen to receive debit cards instead of paper checks, fees associated with the cards, and the potential use of individuals’ personal information. 

The letter today follows successful efforts from Senators Hassan, Brown, and colleagues to ensure that more than 18 million Americans who are Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, and VA beneficiaries and are not normally required to file taxes would receive their stimulus payments automatically. 

In addition to Sens. Warner, Hassan, Brown, and Reed, today’s letter was sent by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Angus King (I-ME), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Ed Markey (D-MA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Tina Smith (D-MN), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH).

Read the Senators’ letter below:

Dear Secretary Mnuchin and Commissioner Rettig: 

We write to urge you to clarify outstanding questions about the Treasury Department’s decision to distribute the direct cash assistance for individuals provided by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act through prepaid debit cards. We are concerned that this decision has imposed unnecessary burdens - including fees - on individuals who would have preferred to receive their stimulus payments by check, and that the process of activating these prepaid debit cards requires individuals to provide personal information that could be shared with third parties for marketing and other commercial purposes.

On May 18, 2020, the Treasury announced that 4 million Americans would receive their stimulus payments by prepaid debit card, instead of by paper check. However, Treasury’s announcement did not indicate which Americans would receive their stimulus payments by debit card. Further, these debit cards were mailed to individuals in plain envelopes from “Money Network Cardholder Services.” As a result, individuals who were not expecting prepaid debit cards from the Treasury mistook their stimulus payments for junk or scam mail. Although the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently announced that it would waive the $7.50 replacement fee for an individual’s first reissued card, replacement cards take seven to 10 business days to arrive. To receive a reissued card within four to seven business days, individuals must pay a $17.00 fee. We are seriously concerned about imposing these fees on individuals who urgently need the direct cash assistance to which they are entitled under the CARES Act. 

Further, many individuals who received their stimulus payments by prepaid debit card have bank accounts. For these individuals, receiving their stimulus payments by debit card, rather than by check, can make it more difficult to access this important cash assistance. Debit card recipients with limited computer or internet access who visit ATMs or banks in-person are restricted by daily limits on ATM withdrawals and bank transfers, potentially requiring multiple trips to fully access their stimulus payments. Moreover, the fee schedule for these debit cards includes a $2.00 fee per out-of-network ATM withdrawal and $5.00 per over-the-counter bank withdrawal. Individuals who are able to successfully transfer debit card funds to their bank accounts on EIPCard.com must navigate a complicated registration process and provide substantial personal information. These burdens are all the more concerning given that these individuals did not request a prepaid debit card and are unable to request a preferred method of receiving their stimulus payment with the IRS. 

We are also concerned that the cardholder agreement for the stimulus payment debit cards allows our constituents’ personal information to be shared with third parties for marketing and other commercial purposes. The prepaid debit cards are managed by Money Network Financial, LLC and issued by Treasury’s financial agent, MetaBank, N.A. In order to activate or transfer stimulus payments off these cards, individuals must provide Money Network Financial with significant personally identifiable information. The cardholder agreement states that Money Network Financial “may disclose information to third parties about your Card account or the transactions you make” to “affiliates” and to “service providers.” This ambiguous language raises serious questions about whether Money Network Financial is permitted to sell personal information of individuals who activated stimulus payment debit cards 

In order to respond to the concerns outlined above, please answer the following questions: 

1.      How did Treasury determine which individuals would receive their stimulus payments by prepaid debit card? In making this determination, did Treasury take into account how receiving stimulus payments by debit card rather than check would economically affect individuals with bank accounts?

2.      How did Treasury set the fee schedule for stimulus payment debit cards, including the $17.00 fee to receive a replacement card within four to seven business days? In setting the fee for out-of-network ATM withdrawal, did Treasury take into account the geographical reach of the debit card ATM network? 

3.      Does the cardholder agreement for stimulus payment debit cards permit Money Network Financial to provide individuals’ personally identifiable information to third-party “affiliates” and to “service providers” for marketing or any other commercial purposes not necessary for the activation or use of the debit card? If so, is Money Network Financial required to disclose this information sharing, either publicly or to the Treasury?

4.      How is Money Network Financial retaining and using the account information of individuals who provided personally identifiable information in order to activate their stimulus payment debit cards? Is the Treasury performing oversight on how Money Network Financial is retaining and using individuals’ account information? What measures is Treasury requiring Money Network Financial to take to secure individuals’ personally identifiable information?

5.      Is Money Network Financial permitted to send individuals who activated their stimulus payment debit cards marketing or any other commercial correspondence? If so, are individuals required to opt-out of receiving this correspondence, and how is Money Network Financial informing individuals of the process by which they may opt-out?

Thank you for your attention to this important issue.

###

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) led all Democrats on the Senate Rules Committee in calling for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the National Association of State Election Directors, and the National Association of Secretaries of State to work proactively to counter any attempts to suppress vulnerable and historically-disenfranchised voters during the COVID-19 crisis.

In letters to Assistant Attorney General Eric S. Dreiband, head of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, and to the presidents of the National Association of State Election Directors and the National Association of Secretaries of State, the Senators affirmed that no American should have to choose between their franchise and their health, and stressed the importance of ensuring that any public health measures do not discourage voter participation or limit access to the polls for vulnerable groups, including communities of color and people with disabilities. To best ensure the safety of voters, the Senators encouraged the adoption of convenience voting measures such as vote-by-mail and curbside voting.

“While precincts nationwide can and should actively encourage measures like the use of PPE, substantial sanitation and social distancing in-line with recommendations from the CDC, reasonable modifications must be made to ensure equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities,” wrote the Senators. “For example, persons with autism are often unable to wear a mask for any extended period. In cases like this, it is critical that guidance interpreting the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act be issued to clarify that reasonable modifications must be made to ensure that social distancing measures do not serve as a barrier to the polls for individuals with disabilities.”

“The risk that novel procedures may deter voters is further complicated by the disturbing racial disparities in Coronavirus cases. In almost every state, evidence suggests that African Americans have been disproportionately affected by the virus,” they continued. “Communities of color have frequently faced active efforts to inhibit their franchise – unfortunately, it is likely that there are those who will attempt to use COVID-19 safety procedures as a pretext to suppress voters and undermine the political voice of these communities. We must proactively take steps to safeguard these communities and other vulnerable groups from voter suppression and intimidation.”

In their letters, the Senators noted the increased vulnerabilities facing the 2020 general election in light of the COVID-19 crisis. They highlighted delays and dangerous voting conditions reported in places like Wisconsin, where an in-person election with inadequate procedures resulted in at least 50 cases of COVID-19 during the spring primary season.

The Senators also issued a series of recommendations to prevent voter suppression. These include announcing any safety procedures months ahead of the November election, communicating voting and safety procedures in a variety of languages and formats, issuing strong privacy and security testing months ahead of the deployment of any screening tools, evaluating policies for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, ensuring that any polling places with accessibility problems are made accessible and that reasonable modifications are made to meet the needs of voters with disabilities, training poll workers on how to operate accessible voting machines and on how to interact with voters with disabilities, providing the opportunity for voters with a suspected illness to cast their ballots swiftly and securely, and conducting meaningful engagement with community leaders when determining the impact of any measures on historically disenfranchised communities.

In addition to Sen. Warner, the letters were signed by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Angus King (I-ME), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tom Udall (D-NM), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). 

A copy of the letter to the National Association of State Election Directors and the National Association of Secretaries of State is available here.

A copy of the letter to the DOJ Assistant Attorney General is available here. 

###

WASHINGTON, DC – As health and education officials develop novel coronavirus (COVID-19) guidelines, precautions, and restrictions for reopening schools this fall, Senate Democrats are urging Congress and the Trump Administration to act with the same sense of urgency and provide additional federal funding to help students safely return to the classroom.

Without swift, comprehensive Congressional action, it will be impossible for America’s 100,000 K-12 public schools -- which are already facing severe budget cuts -- to adequately prepare to protect students, teachers, staff, families, and the community from the spread of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) in the coming academic year.

Today, U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) joined Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) and a group of Senate Democrats in calling for at least $175 billion for the Elementary and Secondary Education Relief Fund in any future coronavirus relief package. 

“There can be no economic recovery in either the short term or the long term unless we make the investments necessary to safely reopen schools and ensure continuity of education during the ongoing pandemic,” the 41 Senators wrote.  “If schools are unable to reopen safely, it will be nearly impossible for many parents and caregivers to return to work.  Moreover, the long-term consequences of sustained educational disruption could also hold this generation back, affecting students’ quality of life and weakening our nation.   We must take urgent action to ensure that schools are ready and able to educate children this fall and redouble our efforts to close opportunity gaps that are far too prevalent in the communities suffering the greatest health and economic harm from the impact of COVID-19.  As such, we ask that you include at least an additional $175 billion in dedicated funding for the Elementary and Secondary Emergency Relief Fund that was established under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.”

The CARES Act (Public Law No. 116-136) provided a much-needed $30.75 billion down payment on education funding, but not nearly enough to help cover the additional costs from this school year while also ensuring that schools nationwide will be ready to safely reopen in the fall.  Under the law, $13.5 billion went to K-12 emergency relief grants, while $13.95 billion was made available for a Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund for colleges and universities, with the remaining $2.95 billion directed to an Education Stabilization Fund for disbursement to governors.

Senate Democrats note K-12 schools are facing added expenses this year amidst budget cuts and declining state and local revenue.  The 41 Senators are urging Congress to prioritize the health and education of America’s children and provide at least $175 billion for K-12 education in the next COVID-19 relief package. 

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans have instead opted to focus on partisan nominations instead of safely reopening schools.  This Republican blocking creates needless budget uncertainty and place the reopening of schools around the country -- especially in school districts hit hardest by COVID-19 – in peril. 

Senate Democrats say it is important for communities and school leaders to be able to adequately prepare for the school year and urge Republicans to work on a bipartisan education package in the next coronavirus relief bill.

“This upcoming school year will be like no other.” the Senators wrote.  “School districts will need to redesign the school day and be prepared to switch to distance learning as necessary.  There will be new protocols for sanitation, transportation, and staffing.  Schools will have to reengineer the use of space in and around the school building and reconfigure classrooms to ensure that social distancing can be maintained.  More critically, they will also need to increase their capacity to support children’s well-being – including nutrition, health screenings, and mental health supports – whether in person or at a distance.   One thing is certain, school is a lifeline for children in the communities hit hardest by the pandemic and the ensuing economic fallout.  School must be there for them.”

In addition to Sens. Warner and Reed, the letter is signed by U.S. Senators: Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) Tim Kaine, (D-VA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Margaret Wood Hassan (D-NH), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Robert P. Casey, Jr. (D-PA), Tina Smith (D-MN), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Edward Markey (D-MA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) Tom Udall (D-NM), Gary Peters (D-MI), Kamala Harris (D-CA), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Kyrsten Sinema (D-NV) Mark Warner (D-VA) Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Angus S. King (I-ME), Jon Tester (D-MT), Tom Carper (D-DE), Chris Coons (D-DE), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Chris Murphy (D-CT).

Full text of the letter follows:

June 18, 2020

Dear Leader McConnell and Leader Schumer:

There can be no economic recovery in either the short term or the long term unless we make the investments necessary to safely reopen schools and ensure continuity of education during the ongoing pandemic.  If schools are unable to reopen safely, it will be nearly impossible for many parents and caregivers to return to work.  Moreover, the long-term consequences of sustained educational disruption could also hold this generation back, affecting students’ quality of life and weakening our nation.   We must take urgent action to ensure that schools are ready and able to educate children this fall and redouble our efforts to close opportunity gaps that are far too prevalent in the communities suffering the greatest health and economic harm from the impact of COVID-19.  As such, we ask that you include at least an additional $175 billion in dedicated funding for the Elementary and Secondary Emergency Relief Fund that was established under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.

This upcoming school year will be like no other.  School districts will need to redesign the school day and be prepared to switch to distance learning as necessary.  There will be new protocols for sanitation, transportation, and staffing.  Schools will have to reengineer the use of space in and around the school building and reconfigure classrooms to ensure that social distancing can be maintained.  More critically, they will also need to increase their capacity to support children’s well-being – including nutrition, health screenings, and mental health supports – whether in person or at a distance.   One thing is certain, school is a lifeline for children in the communities hit hardest by the pandemic and the ensuing economic fallout.  School must be there for them.

We are counting on schools being able to deliver these services.  Yet we know the resources are not there.  State and local governments are reeling from the loss of revenue due to the economic shutdown caused by the pandemic.  A recent report from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates $765 billion in state budget shortfalls over the next three years.  School districts across the country are issuing layoff notices in anticipation of budget cuts.  Even if schools were able to maintain current levels of staffing and financial resources, it would not be enough to meet the challenges of the upcoming academic year.  AASA, The School Superintendents Association, estimates that the average additional COVID-related cost per student will be $490, which for the average school district of 3,700 students amounts to $1.8 million.  A recent analysis from the Learning Policy Institute estimates that the national financial impact of increased costs and decreased state and local education revenues could be nearly $230 billion.  

The federal government must step in with a comprehensive plan to support the reopening of schools and continuity of education for our children.  Such a plan would stabilize state and local budgets, ensure equity in access to technology and broadband, enhance nutrition services, ensure sufficient testing and contact tracing to control the spread of the virus, and expand the reach of our cultural agencies such as the Institute of Museum and Library Services and the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities to enhance school offerings and support continued learning in the community.  However, the central feature of the plan must be substantial dedicated resources for our public schools to meet the additional costs and to address the additional needs of students during this time of public health, economic, and social crises.  As such, we urge you to provide at least an additional $175 billion for the Elementary and Secondary Education Relief Fund in any future coronavirus relief package.

Thank you for your consideration of this critical request. 

Sincerely,

WASHINGTON – The Senate passed a resolution introduced by U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) and Todd Young (R-Ind.) honoring the 75th Anniversary of the Battle for Iwo Jima during World War II. The resolution recognizes the gallantry and heroism demonstrated 75 years ago during the victory that was led by the United States Marine Corps over Imperial Japan on the island of Iwo Jima. 

“I’m proud that the Senate has passed this resolution honoring the U.S. Marines – including my father, Robert Warner – who courageously fought for our country in the Battle of Iwo Jima,” said Senator Warner. “Today, more than 75 years after that bloody battle, we salute the resiliency of the Greatest Generation by remembering the servicemen who put their lives on the line as well as the many individuals who made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our freedoms.”

“As I’ve said many times before, Iwo Jima is hallowed ground for me, my fellow Marines, and all those who lost loved ones in the battle. I’m proud that our bipartisan resolution to recognize those who bravely sacrificed their lives in Iwo Jima seventy-five years ago has now passed the Senate,” said Senator Young. 

In April, Senator Young released an op-ed published by Stars and Stripes to honor the brave acts of the Marine Corps at the battle of Iwo Jima. Earlier this year, Senator Young hosted apress conference in honor of the 75th anniversary of this battle.

 The Joint Resolution was introduced by Senators Young and Warner on February 13, 2020. The Senate resolution was cosponsored by Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Richard Blumenthal (D- Conn.), Martha McSally (R-Ariz.), Joe Manchin (D- W.Va.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Mitt Romney (R- Utah), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.), Josh Hawley (R- Mo.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Doug Jones (D-Ala.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), and Cory Gardner (R-Colo.). A companion resolution was introduced in House by U.S. Representatives Greg Pence (R-IN-06), Pete Visclosky (D-IN-01), and Ken Calvert (R-CA-42).

View the full text of the resolution here and below:

Title: Recognizing the 75th anniversary of the amphibious landing on the Japanese island of Iwo Jima during World War II and the raisings of the flag of the United States on Mount Suribachi.

Whereas, following the surprise attack by Japanese forces on December 7, 1941, at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, the United States formally declared war on the Imperial Government of Japan on December 8, 1941;

Whereas, during the 4 years that followed the attack, the United States and allied forces fought a prolonged counterattack against Japanese advances across the Pacific region;

Whereas the tactic of attacking, defeating, and controlling Japanese-held outposts through the use of amphibious assault landings against Japanese-held islands and territories (referred to in this preamble as “island hopping”) became crucial to successfully countering Japanese advances throughout the Pacific region;

Whereas the goal of island hopping was to secure airfields and supply bases—

(1) in order to launch aerial bombardment attacks against the mainland of Japan using the new Boeing B–29 Superfortress; and

(2) in preparation for, and in anticipation of, a United States invasion of Japan;

Whereas, by early 1945, the United States and allied forces bravely fought and advanced to the island of Iwo Jima, an 8-square-mile volcanic island with 3 strategic airfields, located between the Mariana Islands and Japan;

Whereas Iwo Jima was—

(1) a strategic island with airfields to support bombers of the United States with fighter escorts; and

(2) an essential base for emergency, refueling, and diversionary landings for B–29 bombers; 

Whereas, under the command of Japanese Lieutenant General Tadamichi Kuribayashi, Iwo Jima was a heavily fortified island with nearly 11 miles of underground and networked tunnels, rooms, bunkers, artillery emplacements, ammunition dumps, and pillboxes supporting more than 21,000 Japanese soldiers; 

Whereas, on February 19, 1945, under the leadership of United States Navy 5th Fleet Admiral Raymond A. Spruance, United States Marine Corps V Amphibious Corps Major General Harry Schmidt, 3rd Division Major General Graves B. Erskine, 4th Division Major General Clifton Cates, and 5th Division Major General Keller E. Rockey, the United States launched an amphibious landing and assault on Iwo Jima that culminated with the engagement of more than 70,000 members of the United States Marine Corps, buttressed by thousands of members of the United States Navy and the United States Army serving as assault, garrison, and support forces (referred to in this preamble as the “Battle of Iwo Jima”); 

Whereas the members of the United States Marine Corps who fought in the Battle of Iwo Jima overcame numerous disadvantages in the 36-day battle that included treacherous terrain, unfavorable weather conditions, and heavy enemy fire from an embedded, determined, and fierce Japanese fighting force in places immortalized by members of the United States Marine Corps, including the “Meat Grinder” and “Bloody Gorge”; 

Whereas, on February 23, 1945, only 5 days into the Battle of Iwo Jima, members of the United States Marine Corps ascended the highest point on the island, Mount Suribachi, and raised the flag of the United States 2 times, the second of which resulted in the iconic, Pulitzer Prize-winning image that—

(1) was captured on film by photographer Joe Rosenthal;

(2) has become a recognized symbol of determination, perseverance, and struggle; and

(3) has been memorialized as the United States Marine Corps War Memorial in Arlington, Virginia;

Whereas the Battle of Iwo Jima, one of the bloodiest battles in the history of the United States Marine Corps, resulted in more than 26,000 casualties of the United States, more than 6,800 of whom were killed;

Whereas most of the more than 20,000 estimated Japanese soldiers who fought in the Battle of Iwo Jima were killed, with only 1,083 Japanese soldiers surviving at the conclusion of the campaign;

Whereas the Battle of Iwo Jima led to 22 members of the United States Marine Corps and 5 members of the United States Navy receiving the Medal of Honor, representing—

(1) the most members of the United States Marine Corps ever to receive the highest military decoration in the United States for a single battle; and

(2) more than \1/4\ of all members of the United States Marine Corps to receive the decoration during World War II;

Whereas the secured airfields on Iwo Jima became emergency landing locations for 2,400 B–29 Bombers, saving the lives of an estimated 24,000 flight crewmen; 

Whereas, 160 days after the end and victory of the pivotal Battle of Iwo Jima, the United States received the unconditional surrender of Japan on September 2, 1945; 

Whereas the world owes a debt of gratitude to the members of the United States Marine Corps who selflessly led the fight for the strategic island of Iwo Jima in the middle of the Pacific theater; and

Whereas, on March 28, 2020, the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Iwo Jima will be marked by commemorative events on the island of Iwo Jima organized by the people of the United States and Japan: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate—

(1) recognizes the 75th anniversary of the amphibious landing on the Japanese island of Iwo Jima that began on February 19, 1945 and ended on March 26, 1945;

(2) commemorates the iconic and historic raisings of the flag of the United States on Mount Suribachi that occurred on February 23, 1945;

(3) honors the marines, sailors, soldiers, army air crew, and coast guardsmen who fought bravely on Iwo Jima, including the thousands of Japanese soldiers who defended the island;

(4) remembers and venerates the service members who gave their last full measure of devotion on the battlefield;

(5) recognizes the Allied victory in the Battle of Iwo Jima, which— 

          (A) was led by the United States Marine Corps; and

          (B) made the defeat of the Empire of Japan in World War II possible;

(6) affirms the immortal words of Admiral Chester Nimitz, who stated that “uncommon valor was a common virtue” among the service members of the United States who fought on Iwo Jima; 

(7) reaffirms the bonds of friendship between the United States and Japan;

(8) encourages the people of the United States to honor the veterans of the Battle of Iwo Jima with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities; and

(9) honors the service and sacrifice of the men and women who serve the United States today, carrying on the proud tradition of the individuals who came before them. 

###