News

Focus on Inferior Officer Appointments and Political Accountability Heightened as Transition in Administration Begins Washington, D.C. — In a new report issued by House Energy and Commerce Committee Republican staff outlined Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra’s failure to legally reappoint 14 key officials at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). “Secretary Becerra, an attorney by trade, failed to sign the basic legal documents and follow the process required by the Constitution and federal law necessary to reappoint key NIH officials, putting their jobs, the decisions they’ve made, and the billions in funding they’ve approved in legal jeopardy,” said Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee on Health Chair Brett Guthrie (R-KY), and Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA). “This report outlines those failures, the administration’s efforts to cover it up, and important considerations for the incoming administration as it seeks to restore the rule of law and restore accountability at government health institutions.”  BACKGROUND AND TIMELINE OF INVESTIGATION :  The NIH is the primary agency of the United States government responsible for biomedical and public health research. It is one of 13 subcabinet agencies within the HHS and has an annual budget of more than $40 billion.  On December 12, 2021, the five-year terms of 14 of the 27 NIH Institute and Center (IC) Directors expired, pursuant to the 21st Century Cures Act .  Given reports of Secretary Becerra’s apparent detachment from the NIH and lack of visibility during the pandemic response as well as the lack of any public announcements, Committee Republicans began to question whether Secretary Becerra upheld his Constitutional and statutory responsibility to reappoint the 14 IC Directors upon expiration of their five-year terms.  Republicans investigated for more than two years, overcoming stonewalling, obfuscation, and four different, conflicting explanations from the administration.  WHY IT MATTERS :  The appointments and reappointments of IC Directors are personnel actions that rise to the level of Constitutional responsibility further bolstered by federal statutes. The leaders of these institutes and centers are the ultimate decision-makers involving tens of billions of taxpayer-funded research dollars. These leaders also can play prominent roles in response to public health emergencies or in developing research plans. The effectiveness of biomedical research investments depends on the decision-making abilities and strategic visions of these IC Directors.  The health of the American people is deeply impacted by the appointees who lead the NIH’s institutes and centers. Because the Directors of NIH Institutes and Centers exercise significant authority as the final approving authority for research awards, they would qualify as Inferior Officers of U.S. who must be appointed by the HHS Secretary pursuant to the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution along with the provisions of the 21st Century Cures Act . Greater democratic accountability requires department heads to be responsible for properly managing their agencies in the best interest of the public. Holding department heads accountable for the staffing of executive agencies improves accountability and transparency.   1. Improper appointments jeopardize good stewardship of funds  Improper appointments and reappointments potentially expose the actions of the improperly appointed IC Directors to legal challenge and jeopardizes the proper administration of research funds.   2. Improper appointments risk legal challenge to IC hiring and policies Improper appointments and reappointments potentially expose any personnel actions approved by the improperly appointed IC Directors to legal challenge.  3. Improper appointments may have led to improper payment of Title 42 special consultant salaries  During the year and a half of their lapsed reappointments, the affected IC Directors continued on the NIH payroll and received salaries even though they were serving without the legal authority to hold their positions. This situation raises the question of improper payments of salaries. In a 1976 opinion, the GAO Comptroller General concluded that the Federal Insurance Administrator was improperly appointed and that the appointment required Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation pursuant to the Appointments Clause.   In a subsequent opinion, the GAO Comptroller General found that the Federal Insurance Administrator was not legally occupying the position and thus was not entitled to receive salary and related benefits from the Department. GAO then concluded that this official was a de facto officer, performing his duties of the Office of Insurance Administrator with the knowledge and apparent acquiescence of the Secretary and the President. GAO concluded it was not necessary to take action to recover the salary. However, whether an NIH or HHS official who approved an expenditure of funds without legal authority could be held liable for the funds is an open question.  4. Secretary Becerra violated his oath by failing to carry out his Appointments Clause responsibilities.  When he was sworn in as HHS Secretary, Secretary Becerra took his oath of office swearing to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, including the Appointments Clause. By failing to reappoint the IC Directors pursuant to the Appointment Clause, Secretary Becerra failed to uphold the Appointments Clause until he was pressured by the Committee to issue signed affidavits ratifying the selections for reappointments a year and a half after the statutory deadline. During that time lapse the individuals serving as IC Directors were holding their positions without valid reappointments.  5. IC Directors serving without valid reappointments further undermined public trust in public health leadership.  Public trust in the federal government’s health leadership was eroded during the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The public trust is further damaged by the fact that some public health leaders cloaked in the authority of their titles were not legally authorized to hold those positions. Ensuring proper appointments and reappointments to these offices is yet an additional challenge to restore public trust. Secretary Becerra’s failure raises questions whether the American people can assume that public health leaders actually have competent authority to act during a public health emergency.  6. The failure to take seriously the reappointments of the IC Directors subverts the rule of law. The failure to take seriously the reappointments of the IC Directors subverts the rule of law. In this instance, the law called for precision: the HHS Secretary reappointing of IC Directors by a certain date. The action to be taken was to fulfill the Constitutional duty and the statutory requirement to reappoint Inferior Officers of the United States. HHS’s lax approach toward this matter and its evasive, frequently misleading responses to this investigation reveals a lack of diligence in upholding the rule of law and our democratic values. The cavalier attitude toward following the law and the Constitution as well as the subsequent attempts at hiding its failure to follow the law is a prime example of the Biden-Harris administration’s above-the-law attitude and approach to governing.  CLICK HERE to read the full report.

Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Inspector General Christi Grimm, House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans requested an investigation into the strength, quality, and types of evidence-based scientific and pediatric medical literature relied on by the department to promote gender transition procedures for children.  KEY LETTER EXCERPT:  “As the agency responsible for safeguarding the health and well-being of Americans, all of HHS’s medical treatment recommendations, especially medical treatment recommendations for children, should be based on rigorous and well-established research, such as randomized controlled trials, that have definitively illustrated the long-term benefits of gender affirming care treatments.”  BACKGROUND:  Under the Biden administration, HHS has advocated for sex reassignment procedures on minors, including the use of serum puberty blockers, which have historically been used to treat children with precocious puberty (i.e., early onset puberty affecting about one percent of U.S. children) and sex offenders.   Puberty blockers, however, are known to stunt normal childhood development in children unaffected by precocious puberty.  HHS officials contend that sex reassignment procedures on minors are an unanimously accepted medical practice.  HHS Secretary Becerra testified before Congress that “every major medical association,” “medical journals,” and “scientific and medical evidence” has demonstrated the benefits of transitioning children’s biological sex.  When asked, via a Freedom of Information Act request, for the underlying scientific or medical basis for its position, HHS was only able to produce a two-page brochure that was already publicly available.  In contrast to HHS, a growing body of literature from medical experts and authorities around the world, including those in Europe, caution against performing such procedures on minors.   Courts and government health agencies responsible for determining child welfare have sought to limit child sex reassignment procedures.   Other countries have banned these interventions and surgeries on minors altogether.  An article published in the British Journal of Medicine found “there is great uncertainty about the effects of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries in young people.”   A court in the United Kingdom noted the obvious about administering puberty blocking chemicals onto children: “[i]t is highly unlikely that a child aged 13 or under would be competent to give consent to the administration of puberty blockers. It is doubtful that a child aged 14 or 15 could understand and weigh the long-term risks and consequences of the administration of puberty blockers.”  In April 2024, the Cass Review , an independent review of gender identity services for children and young people, commissioned by the National Health Service England, found “[w]hile a considerable amount of research has been published in this field, systematic evidence reviews demonstrated the poor quality of the published studies, meaning there is not a reliable evidence base upon which to make clinical decisions, or for children and their families to make informed choices.”   The Cass Review also found that “[t]he rationale for early puberty suppression remains unclear, with weak evidence regarding the impact on gender dysphoria, mental or psychosocial health,” as well as unknown effects on cognitive and psychosexual development.  In August 2024, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) became the first major U.S. medical association to express caution on the use of gender surgery for gender dysphoria in adolescents. In its formal statement, the association stated: “ASPS currently understands that there is considerable uncertainty as to the long-term efficacy for the use of chest and genital surgical interventions for the treatment of adolescents with gender dysphoria, and the existing evidence base is viewed as low quality/low certainty. This patient population requires specific considerations.”   The letter was signed by Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee on Health Chair Brett Guthrie (R-KY), Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA), Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA), Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL), Rep. Neal Dunn (R-FL), Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX), Rep. Troy Balderson (R-OH), Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX), Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-TN), and Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL).  CLICK HERE to read the letter.

California should not dictate the vehicles Americans can drive Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) released the following statement after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) granted California a waiver for its ban on gas-powered cars. The waiver comes after the House of Representatives passed the bipartisan Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act, led by Rep. John Joyce (R-PA) to protect America’s automotive future. “By granting this waiver, the Biden EPA is further proving how out of touch it is from not only the reality of what people want, but also from what is possible. Banning gas-powered cars in favor of electric vehicles, as California intends, will raise costs for Americans and compromise our grid reliability. Just this week, NERC reported that more than half of the nation is at risk of blackouts. California has already had to ask its residents to not charge EVs during blackouts—and EVs currently make up a fraction of vehicles in the state. The bottom line is that California should not dictate what types of cars that Americans drive, which is why House Republicans passed H.R. 1435. The Senate should act immediately.”  BACKGROUND:   In September 2023, the House passed H.R. 1435, the Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act, led by Rep. John Joyce (R-PA), with a bipartisan vote of 222-190. E&C Republicans Lead Passage of Bill to Stop the Bans on Gas-Powered Cars   Chair Rodgers: “H.R. 1435 ensures people have the option of driving practical, functional, and affordable cars”   June 2023: Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Subcommittee Legislative Hearing: “Driving Affordability: Preserving People’s Freedom to Buy Affordable Vehicles and Fuel”

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) issued the following statement after the House passed eight bills from the Health Subcommittee’s jurisdiction:  "These bipartisan bills will help patients access the care and support they need. I commend the bill sponsors for their leadership and our Committee Members for working to prepare them for consideration by the full House.”  S. Amdt. to H.R. 7213 , the AUTISM Cares Act of 2024 , led by Reps. Smith (R-NJ) and Cuellar (D-TX), passed the House by a vote of 374 – 15. Having previously passed the Senate unanimously, it now heads to the President’s desk.  H.R. 7224 , to amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the Stop, Observe, Ask, and Respond to Health and Wellness Training Program , led by Reps. Cohen (D-TN) and Carter (R-GA) passed the House unanimously.  S. 223 , a bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act to fix a technical error in the definitions, led by Senators Grassley (R-IA) and Coons (D-DE), passed the House unanimously. Having previously passed Senate unanimously, it now heads to the President’s desk. Reps. Burchett (R-TN) and Cohen (D-TN) led the House companion legislation.  H.R. 4534 , the Women and Lung Cancer Research and Preventive Services Act of 2024 , led by Reps. Boyle (D-PA) and Fitzpatrick (R-PA), passed the House unanimously.  H.R. 7188 , the Shandra Eisenga Human Cell and Tissue Product Safety Act , led by Reps. Moolenaar (R-MI) and Dingell (D-MI), passed the House unanimously.  H.R. 6020 , the Honor Our Living Donors Act , led by Reps. Obernolte (R-CA) and DelBene (D-WA), passed the House unanimously.  H.R. 670 , the Think Differently Database Act , led by Reps. Molinaro (R-NY) and Sherrill (D-NJ), passed the House unanimously.  S. 1351 , the Stop Institutional Child Abuse Act , led by Senators Merkley (D-OR) and Cornyn (R-TX) passed the House by a vote of 373 – 33. Having previously passed the Senate unanimously, it now heads to the President’s desk. Reps. Khanna (D-CA) and Carter (R-GA) led the House companion legislation. 

Washington. D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) issued the following statement after the Department of Energy (DOE) released its anti-liquefied natural gas (LNG) study, which aims to hamstring the incoming Presidential administration.  “Let’s call this ‘study’ what it is: A clear attempt to cement Joe Biden’s rush-to-green agenda. The administration’s de facto ban on LNG exports and this rushed climate driven study are politically motivated decisions to appease radical environmental activists. This is unacceptable. By trying to shut down American LNG, DOE is threatening hardworking Americans’ jobs and economic development, weakening the energy security of our allies, and strengthening our adversaries. That’s why House Republicans are committed to reversing this ban and unleashing America's abundant natural gas resources to help lower costs across the board.”  BACKGROUND:   January 26, 2024 : The Biden administration announces indefinite “pause” on LNG export permits. Chair Rodgers immediately rebukes the decision, calling it a “gift to Putin.”  February 5, 2024 : More than 150 House Republicans demand President Biden ends his de facto ban on American LNG exports.  February 15, 2024 : E&C Republicans lead bipartisan passage of H.R. 7176 to reverse President Biden’s LNG export ban.  April 8, 2024 : The Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security holds a field hearing in Port Arthur, Texas, with local leaders and energy workers to highlight the economic and public benefits of American energy production, including job creation.  November 7, 2024 : Bloomberg Law reports that the “Biden administration is racing to complete a study that could complicate President-Elect Donald Trump’s plan to immediately approve new liquefied natural gas export terminals.”  November 15, 2024: E&C Republicans send a letter to DOE Secretary Jennifer Granholm demanding the agency stop rushing to prematurely release its anti-liquefied natural gas (LNG) study. KEY LETTER EXCERPTS: DOE has studied the macroeconomic impacts and environmental effects of LNG exports since 2012, examining a wide range of export scenarios and publishing a series of reports that consistently find that LNG exports serve the U.S. public interest. DOE has also already clarified the scope of the required analysis, excluding the global environmental impacts of production and consumption of LNG. DOE correctly determined that upstream and downstream activities of LNG exportation are not within the scope of DOE’s environmental review.   Despite DOE’s prior findings and published reviews in favor of U.S. LNG exports, and contrary to DOE’s limited statutory authority under the NGA, the Biden administration’s DOE announced that it would expand its environmental review as part of a “managed transition” to reduce use of fossil fuels. Recent press reports indicate that DOE is racing to complete a study on the climate impacts of LNG exports to hamper the incoming Republican administration and provide opportunities to challenge future project approvals in court.  

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) issued the following statement after the House unanimously passed three bills from the Communications and Technology Subcommittee: “Bureaucracy and red tape have stopped too many Americans from accessing high-speed broadband. I am proud of the work done by Members on the Energy and Commerce Committee to advance bipartisan priorities to speed up broadband deployment and close America’s digital divide. I want to thank these members for their commitment to these bills that will promote innovation and support American technological leadership in years to come.”  BACKGROUND: H.R. 3343 , the Federal Broadband Deployment Tracking Act , sponsored by Reps. August Pfluger and Darren Soto, passed the Committee unanimously.  H.R. 1377 , the Promoting U.S. Wireless Leadership Act , sponsored by Reps. Tim Walberg, Debbie Dingell, and Ann Kuster, passed the Committee unanimously.  H.R. 3293 , the Expediting Federal Broadband Deployment Reviews Act , sponsored by Reps. Jeff Duncan and Angie Craig, passed the Committee unanimously. 

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) released the following statement after the House Steering Committee selected Congressman Brett Guthrie (R-KY) to serve as Chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee in the 119th Congress: “I congratulate Brett on his selection to lead Energy and Commerce in the 119th Congress. His leadership, determination, and policy acumen will serve the Committee, the Conference, and the country well.    “I am confident that he will rise to this historic moment of unified Republican control of government to deliver on issues and policies at the forefront of powering our economy, including bolstering our global competitive edge in energy, technology, and health care.    “The Committee’s rich history and traditions are in great hands, and I am committed to working with Brett and his team to ensure a seamless transition.”   The Committee, first established in 1795, is the oldest in the House of Representatives and has broad jurisdiction over health care, energy, environment, technology, data privacy and security, broadband, and much more.

Court rules TikTok must divest from foreign adversary ownership Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Chair Bob Latta (R-OH) issued the following statement after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today upheld the law that requires TikTok to divest from foreign adversary ownership. “Today’s decision by the D.C. Circuit Court is a major win for the rule of law. From the beginning, Congress gave TikTok a very clear choice: Divest from your parent company—which is beholden to the Chinese Communist Party—and remain operational in the U.S. or side with the CCP and face the consequences. We are proud of the bipartisan work of the Energy and Commerce Committee to advance this legislation and protect the security of the American people. The United States will always stand up for our values and freedom, which is why the days of TikTok targeting, surveilling, and manipulating Americans are numbered." CLICK HERE to read a full timeline on how H.R. 7521 was signed into law. CLICK HERE to hear what experts and top voices said about the bill.  CLICK HERE to read Chair Rodgers House Floor speech supporting the passage of H.R. 7521. CLICK HERE to see what Energy and Commerce Committee members said following the bill’s overwhelming passage.

Report Requested by E&C Republicans to Better Understand Obamacare Program Integrity Washington, D.C. — A new report issued by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has found that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) does not adequately enforce Obamacare’s requirement that states fund the cost of state-mandated health insurance benefits. The report, requested by Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans, raises issues about CMS’s controls to ensure federal taxpayer dollars are not illegally subsidizing state mandates. BACKGROUND : Obamacare mandates a certain set of essential health benefits (EHBs) be covered by insurance plans within the individual health insurance market. States may choose to mandate additional benefits but are then required to cover the cost of such benefits. States are not permitted to use federal tax dollars, in the form of Advance Premium Tax Credits (APTCs), to do so. In its report, GAO found that CMS delegates oversight of this policy to the States instead of enforcing it on its own. As outlined in the report, “CMS has limited assurance that APTCs accurately exclude the costs of non-EHB mandated benefits” and that “CMS has expressed concerns about states’ compliance with this requirement,” highlighting critical concerns about the potential for improper federal spending. “This report, coupled with the immense Obamacare fraud this administration has overseen, highlights the need for Congress and the incoming administration to work swiftly to safeguard taxpayer funds at every corner of the agency. CMS should prioritize rigorous enforcement of all requirements intended to prevent improper spending,” said Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA). “I commend GAO for its investigative efforts, which will help Congress protect taxpayer dollars by correcting government waste, fraud, and abuse.” REPORT HIGHLIGHTS : CMS is supposed to enforce this requirement on States, but defers to states to enforce this federal requirement on themselves:  “States may require marketplace plans to cover items and services in addition to EHB; we refer to such benefits as non-EHB mandated benefits. However, APTCs cannot be used to offset the costs of these additional benefits. Specifically, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)—the federal agency responsible for determining the APTC amounts—must exclude the costs of non-EHB mandated benefits from the APTC calculation. CMS delegates responsibility for identifying non-EHB mandated benefits to the states.”   Even CMS has concerns with State compliance with the Obamacare requirement that States fund the cost of their coverage mandates.  “However, CMS has expressed concerns about states’ compliance with this requirement. For example, in the 2021 Payment Notice, CMS noted state confusion regarding the identification of non-EHB mandated benefits and concerns that the premium data it uses to calculate the APTCs did not exclude their costs, resulting in improper federal payments. CMS reiterated these concerns in its 2022 and 2023 Payment Notices.”   GAO found one state that did not believe it had the responsibility to identify benefits that it must fund, contrary to CMS’s position of deference to states.  “Further, we identified one state that inappropriately placed the onus on CMS to determine whether a mandated benefit was non-EHB, rather than identify these benefits itself.”   CMS does not know if premium data appropriately excludes state-mandated benefits:  “In addition, CMS does not know whether the premium data submitted by marketplace plans and used to calculate APTCs exclude the costs of non-EHB mandated benefits.”   GAO concludes that CMS does not have assurances that federal taxpayer dollars are not improperly funding state-mandated benefits.  “CMS has limited assurance that APTCs accurately exclude the costs of non-EHB mandated benefits. This poses a risk to its oversight objective and is inconsistent with federal internal control standards. These standards state that agencies should identify, analyze, and respond to risks related to achieving agency objectives. Assessing whether its current oversight approach is sufficient to respond to identified risks and making changes as appropriate would be consistent with these standards. Such an assessment would also provide greater assurance that the APTCs accurately exclude the costs of non-EHB mandated benefits.”   CLICK HERE to read the GAO report.