Mark R. Warner

Photo credit: Virginian Pilot

"I have known and respected Owen Pickett for more than 20 years. The Congressman was a tireless advocate for our nation's military and our military families, and he was a committed public servant representing the Hampton Roads region for more than three decades.

He set an excellent example as an elected official who consistently worked in a bipartisan way, both in the state legislature and in Congress, to do what was best for the Commonwealth and our nation.

I join his colleagues, friends and family in mourning his passing and honoring Congressman Pickett's lifetime of public service."

As part of the October congressional recess, Senator Warner has hosted a series of town halls and community meetings – including three on Monday in Northern Virginia.

At the first town hall, the Senator spoke to members of the McLean Chamber of Commerce at an event promoting the non-profit Medical Care for Children Partnership in Reston. Later, Senator Warner spoke to about 100 employees of Orbital Sciences, in Dulles. Orbital develops and manufactures small- and medium-range rockets and space systems for commercial, military and civil government customers.

The Senator took questions from the employees on a range of issues, including trade agreements, the midterm elections and the need for serious talk about reducing the federal deficit.

Senator Warner ended the morning at Nesutar, a telecom company with headquarters in Sterling. An employee asked the Senator how to keep America on top in the global economy, and Senator Warner said a key part of then answer includes “chuck[ing] your [political] party hat and putting on your American hat.”

Check out the video below for the Senator’s full response:

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senator Mark R. Warner today wrote Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates expressing disappointment and frustration with the Pentagon’s continued lack of transparency or cooperation on the August 9th decision to close the Virginia-based U.S. Joint Forces Command (JFCOM). Since the Aug. 9 announcement, Senator Warner has worked with congressional colleagues and state, regional, and local leaders to marshal the compelling arguments to maintain JFCOM functions in Hampton Roads, but, as today’s letter makes clear, the Pentagon has not been receptive or responsive.

“It is unprecedented for the Pentagon to issue a recommendation of this significance without providing members of Congress, the Governor, and other state and local leaders a meaningful opportunity to participate in the process,” Senator Warner said. “I remain deeply disappointed in the way this process has been handled so far, and will continue to take whatever steps are available to make sure Virginia is allowed to make its case in a meaningful way.”

The full text of the letter follows:

 

Senator Mark Warner today urged the President to create an independent, nonpartisan task force to examine problems surrounding the mortgage foreclosure process. The task force would be asked to make timely recommendations to Congress and the Administration on potential steps that could provide more clarity and consistency for state and federal regulators, lenders, mortgage loan servicers and homeowners. Senator Warner’s letter, sent to the White House today, suggests moving quickly to establish the task force so that it can provide policy recommendations as soon as mid-December.

“This nonpartisan task force would look beyond the current, very specific issues surrounding foreclosure practices employed by many mortgage servicers and lenders, and would focus instead on broader policy concerns and potential improvements to the overall foreclosure process as we move forward,” Senator Warner said.

The full text of the letter follows:

Senator Warner and Congressman Gerry Connolly (D-11) toured the site of the half-mile Metro tunnel under Tyson’s Corner, which eventually will connect two of four Metro stations being built in Tyson’s Corner as part of the huge rail to Dulles International Airport project.

Last week, the Tyson’s tunnel was completely dug-out after 13 months of construction. The tunnel will form part of the “Silver Line” – Metro’s extension from East Falls Church to Reston, and ultimately on to Dulles.

Senator Warner And Congressman Connolly both have long histories with this project, dating back to Sen. Warner’s term as Governor and Rep. Connolly’s service as Fairfax County’s Board of Supervisors chairman.

Construction on Dulles rail started in March 2009, shortly after Sen. Warner and Rep. Connolly worked with local, state and federal colleagues to secure a federal commitment of nearly one billion dollars for the project.

"This is the result of decades of hard work by people from both political parties,” Senator Warner told WUSA Channel 9.  “We're about getting stuff done.”

Senator Warner recently had a chance to visit with Niki Swann, Ms. Wheelchair Virginia.

“You’ve got a politician’s handshake!” Senator Warner told Niki. “Are you going to get into this crazy business?”

They chatted briefly about Richmond, where Niki attends Virginia Commonwealth University, and Niki also spoke about her efforts to provide more opportunities for the disabled.

“I have a disability, but I don’t consider myself disabled,” Niki said. “A disabled car can’t do anything. My wheelchair isn’t who I am.”

Niki just returned from the national competition, which was won by Ms. Wheelchair North Carolina.

“Had you been in pageants before?” Senator Warner asked Niki.

“Lord no!” Niki replied.

“Well, don’t act like you’re a rookie - you look very comfortable with that crown,” Senator Warner said.

“I do like the crown. The crown opens doors,” Niki admitted.

Senator Warner spoke at a Brookings Institute conference exploring role of private capital in revitalizing the economy both in the United States and abroad.

 

The nation's innovation and growth agenda needs an overhaul to help America stay competitive, and early-stage capital can and should play an important role in economic growth, Senator Warner said.

Uncertainty surrounding regulations has made private and corporate investors cautious, Senator Warner says. He noted that regulations are always cumulative and that a regulatory pay-go approach would be an improvement.

The Senator says both President Obama's stimulus plan and President Bush's TARP program have been harshly criticized, but without them, Warner notes, the economy would be exponentially worse.

While we need to focus on the deficit, Senator Warner said, both sides of the political aisle have played political games over the Bush tax cuts.

There was good news today from the Internal Revenue Service for hundreds of Virginia

homeowners who have been struggling with issues related to contaminated drywall. At Senator Warner’s urging, the IRS has announced they will allow homeowners dealing with drywall issues to deduct a portion of the cost of repairs to their homes and the replacement of fixtures and appliances.

Senator Warner urged the IRS to take this action in letters to the Commissioner in June 2009, November 2009 and February 2010, and during a telephone conversation with IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman just yesterday.

“This is a key step forward in our efforts to provide some financial relief to Virginia families who have been struggling due to contaminated drywall issues,” Senator Warner said. “Our office continues to work individually with Virginia families on other forms of assistance, including a continuation of our earlier efforts to secure more flexibility for many of these families from their mortgage lenders.”

In April 2010, at Senator Warner’s urging, Fannie Mae announced a nationwide six-month ban on mortgage foreclosures for customers impacted by contaminated drywall.

IRS Provides Relief for Homeowners with Corrosive Drywall

IR-2010-102, Sept. 30, 2010

WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today issued guidance providing relief to homeowners who have suffered property losses due to the effects of certain imported drywall installed in homes between 2001 and 2009.

Revenue Procedure 2010-36 enables affected taxpayers to treat damages from corrosive drywall as a casualty loss and provides a ”safe harbor” formula for determining the amount of the loss.

In numerous instances, homeowners with certain imported drywall have reported blackening or corrosion of copper electrical wiring and copper components of household appliances, as well as the presence of sulfur gas odors. In November 2009, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) reported that an indoor air study of a sample of 51 homes found a strong association between the problem drywall, levels of hydrogen sulfide in those homes and corrosion of metals in those homes.

Revenue Procedure 2010-36 provides the following relief:

• Individuals who pay to repair damage to their personal residences or household appliances resulting from corrosive drywall may treat the amount paid as a casualty loss in the year of payment.
• Taxpayers who have already filed their income tax return for the year of payment generally have three years to file an amended return and claim the deduction.The amount of a loss that may be claimed depends on whether the taxpayer has a pending claim for reimbursement (or intends to pursue reimbursement) of the loss through property insurance, litigation or otherwise.
• In cases where a taxpayer does not have a pending claim for reimbursement, the taxpayer may claim as a loss all unreimbursed amounts paid during the taxable year to repair damage to the taxpayer’s personal residence and household appliances resulting from corrosive drywall.
• If a taxpayer does have a pending claim (or intends to pursue reimbursement), a taxpayer may claim a loss for 75 percent of the unreimbursed amount paid during th e taxable year to repair damage to the taxpayer’s personal residence and household appliances that resulted from corrosive drywall.

A taxpayer who has been fully reimbursed before filing a return for the year the loss was sustained may not claim a loss. A taxpayer who has a pending claim for reimbursement (or intends to pursue reimbursement) may have income or an additional deduction in subsequent taxable years depending on the actual amount of reimbursement received.

For purposes of this revenue procedure, the term “corrosive drywall” means drywall that is identified as problem drywall under the two step identification method published by the CPSC and the Department of Housing and Urban Development in their interim guidance dated January 28, 2010.

Further details and limitations can be found in Revenue Procedure 2010-36 on IRS.gov.

Senator Warner’s bipartisan legislation to make government work better by requiring every federal agency to set clear performance goals that can be accurately measured and publicly reported to Congress and taxpayers was approved by a key Senate committee today. The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee passed The Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010 this morning. 

The legislation establishes a clear framework to identify overlapping federal programs, and requires more focused efforts to identify potential taxpayer savings.  This proposal, the first significant update of The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, is co-sponsored by Sens. Tom Carper (D-DE), Daniel Akaka (D-HI), Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), Susan Collins (R-ME) and George Voinovich (R-OH).

"It's time to move beyond the debate over 'big' versus 'smaller' government to focus instead on real action we can take now to provide a much more efficient and effective government," Senator Warner said.  "This proposal will require federal agencies to set clear goals, measure their results and publicly report on their findings. Our citizens - our customers -- deserve to have regular reports about how their government is performing.”

The Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRMA) requires each agency to designate a Chief Operating Officer and a Performance Improvement Officer, with the primary responsibility for pursuing cost-savings through the improved analysis and coordination of duplicative programs. These officials also would be held responsible for considering potential taxpayer savings through better coordination of administrative functions common to every agency, such as purchasing and human resources. 

The Warner legislation requires federal agencies to post performance data on a single public website, on a quarterly rather than a yearly schedule. It also sets an ambitious first-year goal of an overall 10-percent reduction in the cumulative number of little-used or outdated written reports mandated by previous Administrations and Congresses.  

"The Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010 will encourage federal agencies to put away the stacks of reports that no one reads and actually start to think how we can improve the effectiveness, efficiency and transparency of our government," said Senator Tom Carper.  "While the strength of our democracy rests on the ability of our government to effectively serve the people, we in Congress have a responsibility to be judicious stewards of the resources taxpayers invest in America, and ensure those resources are managed honestly, transparently and effectively.  I thank my colleagues for sponsoring the legislation, particularly Senator Warner for his tremendous work in this area.”  

Senator Warner’s legislation broadens and accelerates current Office of Management and Budget reform efforts and builds upon H.R. 2142, which was endorsed by the House of Representatives in mid-June.   

"The Government Performance and Results Act established a firm foundation for government performance and accountability. Implementation of the law over the past 17 years, however, has proven that additional upgrades are necessary to help improve more effective oversight of taxpayer dollars," said Senator Susan Collins. "The changes being considered will bolster both the spirit and the strength of the law by requiring government-wide strategic planning, transparency, and measurable goals. The ultimate winner here is the American taxpayer."

Senator Warner currently serves as chairman of the bipartisan U.S. Senate Budget Committee’s Task Force on Government Performance. From 2002 to 2006, he served as Governor of Virginia during its worst economic recession in 20 years, and he worked in a bipartisan way to make Virginia state government more effective, efficient and affordable. When Governor Warner left office in January 2006, Virginia was nationally recognized as the country’s “best-managed state” and the “best state for business.”

UPDATE: Click here to hear audio from an interview Senator Warner did with Tom Temin of Federal Drive on Federal News Radio about the GPRMA. 

Senator Warner submitted this testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee today as top Pentagon officials prepared to testify about last month’s announcement of plans to close-down U.S. Joint Forces Command in Hampton Roads. Senator Warner has been working with other members of the Virginia delegation to marshal arguments against the decision. 

In the photo above, Senator Warner speaks to Patrick Terpstra of Hampton Roads' WVEC-TV about the Pentagon meeting.

Written Testimony Before The

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

Regarding "Defense Department Budget Initiatives"

 

 Mister Chairman, I first want to thank the Committee for an opportunity to provide this testimony.

I would like to open my comments with a quote from General Jim Mattis, Commander of U.S. Central Command, in testimony before this very Committee just six months ago on the critical functions provided by U.S. Joint Forces Command:

“We are engaged in training and deploying forces, analyzing and applying lessons learned, and overseeing the development of joint capabilities in response to our warfighting Commanders’ needs.  These activities demand a sense of urgency.”

[Testimony of General James N. Mattis, Commander, United States Joint Forces Command before the Senate Armed Services Committee, March 9, 2010]

Since Secretary Gates recently announced that JFCOM is, in his view, no longer needed, I would suggest that the Department of Defense has lacked its own sense of urgency in letting the Congress, the elected leadership in Virginia and our active military and their families know what rationale drove his decision.  

We are all still guessing.

Lack of Transparency

Since the Secretary of Defense announced his recommendation to close Joint Forces Command In August as part of a series of initiatives designed to gain efficiencies in the Department of Defense, I have been troubled by the lack of transparency associated with these actions. 

We have yet to receive a detailed analysis relating to the closure recommendation despite numerous requests for this information.  While I commend DoD’s efforts to reduce overhead and to apply savings to force structure and modernization, the failure to consult more fully with Congress in a transparent way works against the Department’s ultimate goal of becoming more cost-conscious and efficient in providing for our nation’s defense.

DoD will have excellent opportunities this week to begin to address our many concerns about the lack of transparency so far, and the unwillingness or inability to answer even the most basic questions.  And I strongly encourage the Department to participate in this discussion in a more significant and meaningful manner than we have seen to date.   

In the nearly seven weeks since the JFCOM announcement, the Virginia delegation has collectively sent multiple requests seeking answers to a variety of important questions, but our sustained efforts have been for naught.  One can only conclude that there is no comprehensive analysis to support the recommendation to close JFCOM.  The present lack of transparency and consultation stand in stark contrast to how decisions of this magnitude typically are made.

I recently met with General Stephane Abrial, Commander of NATO’s Allied Command Transformation (ACT), and he disclosed that neither he nor his NATO leadership were consulted on this decision despite his Command’s daily interactions with JFCOM and the U.S. military.  Our Allies and partners deserve better. 

Stonewalling Congress and the Commonwealth

I am especially concerned that the Department has yet to brief members of our congressional delegation, Governor McDonnell, or any local or community officials about the potential impacts that this closure decision, and the reduction in contract support, could have on the Commonwealth and our nation’s military readiness as a whole. As a result, we have no information that would allow us to quantify the possible effects of this proposal, including its fiscal and local economic implications. 

Throughout U.S. history, the Commonwealth and our Hampton Roads region have been strong supporters of the military and its families. Every day officials in our communities interact on a multitude of decisions to coordinate actions relating to military facilities and related contract work. 

We are perplexed why the process guiding DoD’s proposal to disestablish this major unified combatant command is being conducted in such complete contrast with DoD’s traditional approach to such matters.  

Impacting readiness

As a Senator, I also am concerned about the impact that JFCOM’s disestablishment will have on the military’s joint training, operations, concept development and experimentation.  JFCOM serves as a forceful advocate for our warfighters’ joint capabilities, a function of growing importance as our military operates in conjunction with coalition forces around the world. 

JFCOM is the only command that focuses on emerging threats and capabilities, and works to solve interoperability problems.  This is an area where we clearly have room to improve, and General Mattis agreed in his March testimony that the journey in not complete, “Presently, the joint force is not optimally trained and organized to advise and assist with building partnerships.” 

As we learned from painful experience during the 1980s and early 1990s, joint readiness and interoperability are perishable qualities.  JFCOM’s performance of joint force and coalition training over the past 10 years has led to significant improvements in the ability of all branches of our armed forces to deploy together more effectively for joint operations.  General Mattis notes with pride that in the past year JFCOM, “responded to more than 390 rotational and emergent requests for forces from combatant commanders resulting in the sourcing of more than 398,000 personnel supporting numerous global missions.”

Service “stovepipes” are not the answer

Beyond the negative impact JFCOM’s closure would have on our ability to operate jointly during combat operations, its elimination will risk falling back into DoD’s traditional “stovepipe” approach to force structure planning and acquisition.  The acquisition process yearns for an independent voice and detailed, independent testing of front-line systems has always been essential. Who will do the unbiased, independent testing? Who will determine the interoperability standards? Who will fight for spending the extra money to make sure systems are ready for the joint battlefield?

Disestablishing JFCOM is the equivalent of abandoning a decades-long effort, initiated and supported by multiple Secretaries of Defense and chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to ensure the maximum operational effectiveness of our armed forces.  The ongoing turnover of personnel requires a continuous joint training program; the development of new systems and equipment requires continuous oversight to ensure joint interoperability; and emerging global challenges and threats require continuous development, testing, and implementation of new joint doctrine and tactics. 

The vital nature of JFCOM’s joint force training functions mandates that we preserve them even if an eventual decision is made to disestablish JFCOM.  As such, I remain concerned about the relocation of these functions and the cost it will take to perform them elsewhere.  How will this save money?  The Department has yet to provide any analytical data to document projected savings that would result from the transfer of this essential responsibility to another entity.  

In addition, the Department has yet to explain how this decision will affect JFCOM’s relationships with NATO’s Allied Command Transformation (ACT) and the numerous agreements and commitments we have made to assist NATO partner nations in their ongoing efforts to transform their militaries. As General Mattis noted in March, “Joint Forces Command routinely collaborates bi-laterally with representatives from 48 nations.  These relationships are critical to building the trust and interoperability necessary to build and sustain strong alliances and coalitions.”

Show us the business case

I have also asked DoD for a cost-benefit analysis or other analytics that show what savings would be gained by closing JFCOM in its other principal mission areas, and how such estimated savings might outweigh the elimination of the missions that JFCOM currently performs and the capabilities it helps to develop.   

What is the business case for this decision?  Since DoD’s August announcement, a fundamental question remains unanswered: Who will perform these vital roles and missions if JFCOM is disestablished? Specifically:

• Who in the unified command plan will oversee experimentation, and the future force?
• Who’s thinking about the future? Technology starts today are the leading edge of the weapons systems that we will rely on in 15-20 years.
• What is the rationale to remove the one, independent voice from the acquisition process? Who will be the force to compel jointness?  
• How will this decision save money—is this simply reshuffling the chess board? 

 A cooperative solution

During Secretary Gates’ news conference in August, he said he would seek ideas, suggestions, and proposals from outside normal official channels.  So far, that apparently has not happened, and I urge the Secretary to allow Congress the opportunity to review the Department’s cost assessments, business case, and recommended courses of action prior to any decisions on JFCOM’s fate or any reductions in its service-support contracts.  We have assembled a group of experts who are available to help the Pentagon conduct this analysis. 

In conclusion, Mister Chairman, I remain committed to open and honest discussions with the Department of Defense concerning any of these important issues. I also want to reiterate that it is my sincere hope that the Department of Defense will give the Virginia delegation a chance to provide our input and recommendations as they develop proposed courses of action for the future of the command.

Thank you.