News

Letter argues agency lacks legal authority to reinstate burdensome rules that will hurt consumers Washington, D.C. – U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Senate Commerce Committee Ranking Member Ted Cruz (R-TX) led a bicameral coalition of their committee colleagues in calling on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reverse course and abandon its so-called “net neutrality” draft order—an illegal power grab that would expose the broadband industry to an oppressive regulatory regime under Title II of the Communications Act. The FCC is set to vote on the draft order on Thursday. The members argue that the FCC’s draft order ignores the text of the Communications Act of 1934, which explicitly precludes the FCC from treating broadband as a public utility. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s recent jurisprudence on the major questions doctrine confirms that the only body that can authorize public utility regulation of broadband is Congress. Resurrecting this failed Obama-era policy, which will inevitably be struck down by the courts, is a waste of time and re sources and will punish American consumers by choking off investment, innovation, and competition. In a letter to Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, the members write: “Congress’s decision to treat broadband Internet access as an information service, rather than a telecommunications service, was a deliberate policy choice. Congress recognized that ‘[t]he Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation,’ and accordingly decreed that it ‘is the policy of the United States... to promote the continued development of the internet and other interactive computer services... [and] to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation.’   “Your proposal to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service does the exact opposite. It would give the Commission largely unfettered power to impose (and allow states to impose) rate regulation, tariffing requirements, unbundling obligations, entry and exit regulation, and taxation of broadband—the antithesis of leaving broadband ‘unfettered’ by regulation as the law requires. Congress has had many opportunities to give the FCC such power, yet it has never done so in any of its ample legislative enactments regarding broadband over the past two decades. Rather, legislators have repeatedly considered but ultimately rejected efforts to replace the longstanding light-touch framework with common carrier regulation. And for good reason: Title II will inflict significant damage on consumers by chilling investment and innovation.   “Finally, recent jurisprudence from the Supreme Court confirms that the Commission has no power to impose Title II on the broadband industry. As the Commission’s record demonstrates, the question of whether broadband should be subject to public utility regulation is an issue of ‘vast economic and political significance,’ such that the Commission must identify ‘clear authorization from Congress’ to justify such a decision. Our review of the relevant statutory provisions leaves no doubt that, far from possessing the type of ‘clear’ statutory authority required under Supreme Court precedent, the Commission lacks any authority to subject broadband services to common-carrier regulation.” The full list of Senators joining Chair Rodgers and Ranking Member Cruz in sending the letter include: Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Deb Fischer (Re-Neb.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Todd Young (R-Ind.), Ted Budd (R-N.C.), Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), and Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.). Also signing the letter were Reps. Bob Latta (OH-5), Michael Burgess (TX-26), Brett Guthrie (KY-2), Morgan Griffith (VA-9), Gus Bilirakis (FL-12), Larry Bucshon (IN-8), Richard Hudson (NC-9), Tim Walberg (MI-5), Buddy Carter (GA-1), Jeff Duncan (SC-3), Gary Palmer (AL-6), Neal Dunn (FL-2), John Curtis (UT-3), Debbie Lesko (AZ-8), Greg Pence (IN-6), Dan Crenshaw (TX-2), John Joyce (PA-13), Kelly Armstrong (ND-At-large), Randy Weber (TX-14), Rick Allen (GA-12), Troy Balderson (OH-12), Russ Fulcher (ID-1), August Pfluger (TX-11), Diana Harshbarger (TN-1), Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-1), Kat Cammack (FL-3), Jay Obernolte (CA-23), and John James (MI-10). The full text of the letter is available HERE .

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee on Health Chair Brett Guthrie (R-KY), and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA), on behalf of the Health and Oversight Subcommittee Republicans, wrote to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra.  The letter outlines concerns with the role HHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR) plays—or fails to play—in investigating instances of sexual harassment that occurs at research institutions which receive grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).  KEY EXCERPTS :  “There have been several public reports of sexual harassment occurring on NIH-funded research or NIH-supported activities over the last decade, and it raises concerns about what, if any, actions the NIH has taken to resolve these issues. The NIH’s own statistics show a significant problem with more than 300 cases related to sexual or gender harassment since 2018—with about a third of those allegations being substantiated. This also represents hundreds of men and women who may be forced to operate in a hostile or unsafe research environment.”  [...]  “According to the HHS website, OCR does investigate and resolve complaints of sexual harassment in the education and health programs of recipients of grants or other federal financial assistance from HHS—including the NIH. Moreover, HHS OCR is required to conduct periodic compliance reviews of institutional Title IX programs to ensure compliance with the law—including examining the way in which complaints are handled by the institution.”  The Chairs have requested answers to questions about HHS OCR’s role by April 30, 2024.  BACKGROUND :  Based on a recommendation from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), HHS OCR and the NIH adopted a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to facilitate communication between the two components of HHS as it relates to sexual harassment.   This MOU was intended to clarify procedures on how the enforcement arm of HHS and the grant-making arm share valuable information with one another in an effort to respond appropriately to complaints of sexual harassment and prevent federal grant money from going to those with a history of sexual misconduct.   TIMELINE OF INVESTIGATION :  August 10, 2021 : E&C Republican Leaders Question NIH’s Handling of Sexual Harassment Complaints  August 11, 2022 : E&C Republican Leaders follow up with NIH on Insufficient Response to its Letter on the NIH’s handling of Sexual Harassment  November 30, 2022 : E&C Republicans to NIH: Turn Over Previously Requested Information Ahead of New Congress  March 14, 2023 : E&C Republicans Press NIH for Information on Handling of Sexual Harassment Complaints  October 6, 2023 : E&C Republicans Signal Intent to Issue Subpoenas to Obtain Information on NIH’s Handling of Sexual Harassment if Questions Go Unanswered  January 26, 2024 : Chair Rogers notifies NIH of Imminent Subpoena  February 5, 2024 : Chair Rodgers Subpoenas NIH for Documents Related to Investigation into Sexual Harassment at NIH and NIH Grantee Institutions February 20, 2024: HHS Responds on behalf of NIH to offer a rolling in camera document review to the Committee. Documents produced in the review have been highly redacted, including the redaction of the names of individuals convicted of criminal offenses, public news articles about individuals who have been found guilty of harassment, and redaction of the names of the institutions where the abuse occurred—effectively preventing the Committee from understanding if NIH continues to fund work performed by substantiated abusers at other institutions—a practice known as “pass the harasser.”

Washington D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr., (D-NJ), Subcommittee on Health Chair Brett Guthrie (R-KY) and Ranking Member Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA), and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA) and Ranking Member Kathy Castor (D-FL) wrote to UnitedHealth Group, Inc., CEO Andrew Witty today seeking information about the cyberattack on Change Healthcare. Change Healthcare, which was acquired by UnitedHealth Group’s Optum subsidiary in 2022, is one of the nation’s largest providers of health care payment management systems. On February 21, UnitedHealth Group reported it had experienced a cyberattack on its platforms, and it had taken all Change Healthcare systems offline to contain the incident. As a result of the outage, critical services affecting patient care—including billing services, claims transmittals, and eligibility verifications—became inoperable. Though UnitedHealth first notified users that it expected the disruption to “last at least through the day,” several of the company’s products have now been inoperable for more than a month. “Change Healthcare is a central player in the country’s health care system, which has been upended by the recent breach,” t he bipartisan Committee leaders wrote to Mr. Witty. “We are interested in your efforts to secure Change Healthcare’s systems since it was acquired by your company and the efforts you are taking to restore system functionality and support patients and providers affected by the attack.” Change Healthcare’s platforms touch an estimated one in three U.S. patient records. Its systems process roughly 15 billion transactions annually, and are linked to approximately 900,000 physicians, 118,000 dentists, 33,000 pharmacies, and 5,500 hospitals nationwide. The breadth of Change Healthcare’s infrastructure all but ensures that the scope of the current disruption, and any disruption in Change Healthcare services, will be extensive. “The health care system is rapidly consolidating at virtually every level, creating fewer redundancies and more vulnerability to the entire system if an entity with significant market share at any level of the system is compromised,” the Committee leaders wrote. “In order to understand better the steps UnitedHealth has taken to address this situation, we request information about the impact of the cyberattack, the actions the company is taking to secure its systems, and the outreach to the health care community in the aftermath.” As a result of the system outage, providers reportedly struggled to make payroll while some patients have been forced to pay out of pocket for crucial medications including cancer therapy drugs and insulin because pharmacies are unable to verify coverage. The Committee leaders requested answers to a series of detailed questions by April 29, 2024. CLICK HERE to read the full letter. 

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Ranking Member Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), and Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) led 26 of their colleagues in filing a bicameral amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit in support of state and industry challengers to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) so-called “Good Neighbor” air rule that targets American power production and burdens states with misguided air regulations. “Acting well beyond its delegated powers under the [Clean Air Act], EPA’s Rule proposes to remake the energy sector in the affected states toward the Agency’s preferred ends. The Rule is part of the broader joint EPA-White House Strategy that oversteps the Agency’s authority by concurrently developing regulations under three separate environmental statutes. It does so not to meet any of the statutes’ individual ends but to transform the power sector. "The group of regulations—including the Rule—are designed to hurriedly rid the U.S. power sector of fossil fuels by sharply increasing the operating costs for fossil fuel-fired power plant operators, forcing the plants’ premature retirement,” the brief reads in part. BACKGROUND: The so-called “Good Neighbor” rule imposes overreaching emissions requirements on power plants, natural gas pipeline assets, and industrial plants, like steel, cement, and paper production facilities in 23 states. Other federal courts have already frozen implementation of the rule in 12 states. Despite active Supreme Court proceedings that may halt implementation of the rule nationwide, the EPA has remained committed to the illegal rule and recently proposed to add five more states to the program.  In June 2023 , Capito joined Wicker in introducing a formal challenge to the rule through a Congressional Review Act (CRA) joint resolution of disapproval.  In June 2023, Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) also introduced H.J.Res. 69, a formal challenge to the rule through a Congressional Review Act (CRA) joint resolution of disapproval.  In June 2022 , Ranking Member Capito sent a letter to EPA Administrator Michael Regan outlining serious concerns with the proposed “Good Neighbor Plan.”  Ranking Member Capito has criticized the EPA’s proposed “Good Neighbor Plan” during EPW hearings in March 2023 , July 2022 , and May 2022 , and in an op-ed .  In November 2023 , Chairs Rodgers, Duncan, and Johnson sent a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission expressing concerns with the impact of EPA’s suite of rules, including the “Good Neighbor” Rule (or Interstate Transport Rule), on the reliability of the nation’s electric grid. In addition to Capito and Wicker, senators who signed on to brief include, John Barrasso, (R-WY), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), John Boozman (R-AR), Mike Braun (R-IN), John Cornyn (R-TX), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Steve Daines (R-MT), Deb Fischer (R-NE), John Hoeven (R-ND), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Cynthia M. Lummis (R-WY), Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), Pete Ricketts (R-NE), Jim Risch (R-ID), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), and John Thune (R-SD). In addition to Rodgers, House members who signed on to the brief include, Rick Allen (R-GA), Kelly Armstrong (R-ND), Troy Balderson (R-OH), Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Larry Bucshon (R-IN), Michael Burgess (R-TX), Kat Cammack (R-FL), Earl “Buddy” Carter (R-GA), Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), John Curtis (R-UT), Jeff Duncan (R-SC), Neal Dunn (R-FL), Russ Fulcher (R-ID), Morgan Griffith (R-VA), Brett Guthrie (R-KY), Diana Harshbarger (R-TN), Richard Hudson (R-NC), John James (R-MI), John Joyce (R-PA), Bob Latta (R-OH), Debbie Lesko (R-AZ), Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA), Jay Obernolte (R-CA), Gary Palmer (R-AL), Greg Pence (R-IN), August Pfluger (R-TX), Tim Walberg (R-MI), and Randy Weber (R-TX).  Full text of the brief is available here .

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA), and Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, & Critical Materials Chair Buddy Carter (R-GA) wrote to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Michael Regan regarding the agency’s Clean School Bus Program. KEY EXCERPT:   “Alarming information about this program continues to emerge. In particular, the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has flagged serious shortcomings in the program that create significant vulnerabilities to waste, fraud, and abuse. The EPA’s own reporting on the program reveals that numerous award recipients encountered difficulty utilizing the funding they were awarded. Additionally, the EPA continues to administer the program in a manner that favors the use of electric school buses over other types of buses that are eligible for funding under the program.”  CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENT:   Of almost 400 selectees under the 2022 Clean School Bus Rebate program 46 selectees withdrew from the program.  The most common reasons provided for withdrawal were school boards voting against the projects for reasons including difficulties coordinating with electric utilities, potentially lengthy and costly electric infrastructure upgrades required to install electric vehicle supply equipment, and hesitancy about maintenance and range issues associated with electric buses.  The OIG concluded in a December 2023 audit that “the agency may be unable to effectively manage and achieve the program mission unless local utility companies can meet increasing power and supply demands for electric buses.”  The OIG noted that establishing charging stations and connecting them to power lines could take approximately twelve to twenty-four months.   Stakeholders reported that infrastructure to support 25 buses or more demands a more complex electrical setup, which can take a year to construct.  POTENTIAL FOR WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE:   In December 2023, the OIG issued a Management Implication Report that highlighted serious problems with the Clean School Bus Program.   The OIG “identified concerns regarding the EPA’s lack of robust verification mechanisms within the Clean School Bus rebate and grant application process, which led to third parties submitting applications on behalf of unwitting school districts, applicants not being forthright or transparent, entities self-certifying applications without having corroborating supporting documentation, and entities being awarded funds and violating program requirements.”  The OIG further stated, “Our initial investigation of its protocols found that the Clean School Bus Program is rife with potentially inaccurate information” and that “the EPA uses few mechanisms to verify the accuracy of application contents and relies on the applicant’s self-certification of all aspects of the application,” including the applicant’s eligibility for the program, satisfaction of vehicle-use requirements, and the identity of the school district the replacement buses funded by the program will serve.  The OIG also found that an administrative entity with zero students was selected to receive a rebate, despite it seeking funding for buses that were ineligible for the program.   Some recipients selected to receive rebates under the 2022 Clean School Bus Rebate program later declined the funding.   These withdrawals accounted for $38 million of awards, which the OIG stated lengthened program timetables and created confusion.  EPA PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS:   The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) directed the EPA to award grants, rebates, and contracts to replace existing school buses with both zero-emission buses and clean school buses.  The IIJA defines clean school buses as school buses that reduce emissions and operate partly or entirely using an alternative fuel, or zero-emission buses.   The Committee has previously voiced concerns about the EPA's bias towards electric buses while ignoring the benefits of other clean school buses, concerns that persist today.   According to information provided by the agency, “As of January 2024, the EPA has awarded approximately $1.84 billion to fund 5,103 clean school buses—96 percent of which are electric—and related charging infrastructure at 642 school districts in most states and territories, and at schools operated by federally recognized Tribes.”   Under the 2023 Clean School Bus Rebates program, the EPA continues to offer maximum awards for fully electric school buses that are several times larger than the maximum award amount for other types of clean school buses.  Additionally, under the Clean School Bus program, the EPA continues to fund charging infrastructure for electric vehicles but not propane or compressed natural gas fueling infrastructure.  Under the 2022 Clean School Bus Rebate program, the maximum bus funding amount for a class 7+ zero-emission bus was $375,000, and the maximum amount for a propane class 7+ propane bus was $30,000.  The EPA reported, “The majority of awarded electric school buses cost at or near $375,000, while many awarded propane buses cost around $150,000.”  In other words, the maximum rebate amount seemingly covered the entire cost of an electric bus but covered only a fraction of a propane bus.  CLICK HERE to read the letter.

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee Chair Jeff Duncan (R-SC) sent letters to Department of Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm and International Energy Agency (IEA) Executive Director Fatih Birol regarding IEA's shift away from its core energy security mission towards radical climate policy advocacy.  BACKGROUND: The IEA’s new climate agenda and flawed projections fail to provide participating governments with accurate and impartial data to make decisions and directly influenced the administration’s decision to restrict U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports.  This agenda will have a significant impact on American LNG production, domestic energy prices, and threatens our allies.  U.S. LNG exports have spurred European countries to construct LNG import facilities in order to further wean themselves off of Russian natural gas.  Despite this, Europe continues to import a record amount of LNG from Russia, importing 40 percent more today than it did before the invasion of Ukraine.  Turning away from America’s tremendous energy potential risks U.S. energy security and the security of our allies.  KEY EXCERPTS FROM IEA LETTER: “The IEA was established in 1974 to ensure the security of oil supplies following the disruptions created by the Arab oil embargo. Congress has authorized U.S. government agencies to participate in the IEA to provide authoritative data and impartial analysis of world energy markets, to help coordinate responses to energy supply disruptions, and to strengthen the energy security of the U.S. and its allies. We are concerned that the IEA has lost focus of its energy security mission and has instead shifted attention and resources to climate policy advocacy—to the detriment of its core mission.” CLICK HERE to read the full letter to IEA Executive Director Dr. Birol.   CLICK HERE to read the full letter to Energy Secretary Granholm. 

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee (E&C) Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), E&C Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA), and E&C Subcommittee on Health Chair Brett Guthrie (R-KY), Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Chair Brad Wenstrup (R-OH), and House Oversight and Accountability Committee Chair James Comer (R-KY) announced that EcoHealth Alliance (EcoHealth) President Dr. Peter Daszak will appear for a public hearing on May 1, 2024. EcoHealth—a U.S.-based non-profit whose mission is to prevent pandemics—used taxpayer dollars to fund dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). During his closed-door transcribed interview with the Committees on November 14, 2023, Dr. Daszak made multiple statements inconsistent with documents and evidence reviewed by the Committees. This raises serious questions about the veracity of EcoHealth’s public statements, including its insistence that the research it funded at the WIV could not have caused the pandemic. The Chairs are calling on Dr. Daszak to address the discrepancies in his testimony and publicly explain EcoHealth’s relationship with the WIV. “These revelations undermine your credibility as well as every factual assertion you made during your transcribed interview. The Committees have a right and an obligation to protect the integrity of their investigations, including the accuracy of testimony during a transcribed interview. We invite you to correct the record,” wrote the Chairs. In preparation for the public hearing next month, the Chairs are also requesting further information from Dr. Daszak about EcoHealth’s communication with the WIV, public health agencies, and prominent individuals involved in the suppression of the lab-leak hypothesis. BACKGROUND: Dr. Daszak told the Committees that EcoHealth intended to conduct dangerous gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at a University of North Carolina lab if its proposal—known widely as DEFUSE—was approved by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). A recently released Freedom of Information Act document production directly contradicts this statement and suggests that EcoHealth intended to mislead DARPA and conduct the risky research at the WIV instead. Dr. Daszak’s statements require correction and clarification as these documents suggest that EcoHealth intended to conduct research at laboratories with weaker biosafety measures set by the Chinese government instead of at laboratories with higher biosafety standards required by the United States.  Scientific evidence and available intelligence indicate that a research-related incident at a lab in Wuhan remains a plausible cause of the COVID-19 pandemic. EcoHealth’s negligent, haphazard approach to biosafety and grant compliance, coupled with the misleading statements by Dr. Daszak to the Committees, raises serious concerns that must be further addressed at the hearing. CLICK HERE to read the Committees letter to Dr. Daszak.

Washington, D.C. — In a new letter, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee on Health Chair Brett Guthrie (R-KY), and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA), on behalf of the Health and Oversight Republicans, wrote to Government Accountability Office Comptroller General Gene Dodaro. KEY QUOTE :  “We write to request that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) examine the extent to which the National Institutes of Health (NIH) adequately safeguards research funds from national security concerns related to the Chinese military or over the unethical use of human beings in research studies, especially from entities of concern in China.”   The Chairs have particular concerns about NIH funding that is tied to:  Researchers with affiliations with the “Seven Sons of National Defense,” a group of seven universities with historical ties with China’s military defense industry.  Questionable Chinese research entities, including BGI—a firm based in Shenzhen picked by the Chinese government to build and operate the China National GeneBank.  The unethical use of Chinese ethnic minority data in research studies, including that from Tibetan or Uyghur populations.  BACKGROUND :  Recent reports have raised concerns about the NIH’s ability to screen for national security issues.   A six-month investigation by Vanity Fair found that for a decade, warnings were issued by the Department of Energy to the NIH concerning the risk that U.S.-funded biology research could be misused by overseas partners.   Recent reports from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General and GAO have noted NIH safeguarding problems regarding foreign grant recipients.   Recently, a student from China who was headed to the National Cancer Institute was repatriated at Dulles Airport after interrogation from Department of Homeland Security officials about ties to the Chinese government, Chinese military, or state laboratories.  Concerns about the NIH’s ability to vet foreign collaborators have also arisen from the Committee’s investigation of the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.  CLICK HERE to read the full letter.

Washington, D.C. — This past January, House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans revealed the earliest known SARS-CoV-2 sequence released outside of China, calling in to question China’s transparency . In a new letter , Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee on Health Chair Brett Guthrie (R-KY), and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA) have requested National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Monica Bertagnolli provide the files of all SARS-CoV-2 submissions to GenBank prior to January 10, 2020. Any such data would better inform the Committee’s ongoing investigation into the origins of COVID-19. KEY LETTER EXCERPT :  “We were dismayed to learn that the NIH had received eight pages of genetic code and a nearly complete version of the genetic sequence for SARS-CoV-2, almost two weeks before the sequence was made public. However, the NIH apparently had no situational awareness in early January 2020 about this genetic code while high-level officials in our government were attempting to get the sequence, including directly from the Chinese government.  “The circumstances suggest the possibility that there may be other early versions of the SARS CoV-2 sequence that were submitted to the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI’s) Genbank but were not posted. Since such potential submissions could provide clues about the timing of the pandemic and how SARS CoV-2 was evolving at the beginning of the pandemic, there is a strong public interest to conduct further due diligence to check GenBank for such submissions.”  BACKGROUND :  January 17, 2024 : E&C Investigation Uncovers Earliest Known SARS-CoV-2 Sequence Released Outside of China  September 28, 2023 : E&C Republicans Signal Intent to Issue Subpoenas as Biden Admin Stonewalls Crucial Investigations into Government Health Agency Actions  August 9, 2023 : E&C Presses Unresponsive NIH for Answers about COVID Origins and Risky Research Projects  May 3, 2023 : E&C Republicans Seek Data and Documents from NIH on Early COVID Cases