Welcome to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday, Congressman Earl L. “Buddy” Carter (GA-01), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, led a hearing titled Examining the FDA’s Regulation of Over-the-Counter Monograph Drugs .  “Over-the-counter (OTC) medications help Americans live longer, healthier, and more comfortable lives. This hearing was critical to understanding the vital role that safe, reliable, and affordable OTC medications play in our nation’s overall health,” said Chairman Carter. “I look forward to working in a bipartisan manner to reauthorize the Over-the-Counter Monograph Drug User Fee Program so that we can continue to support FDA’s work to bring pharmaceutical manufacturing back to America and increase patient access to OTC medications.”   Watch the full hearing here .  Below are key excerpts from yesterday’s hearing : Congressman John Joyce (PA-13): “The United States is home to world leading medical innovation. In fact, I often talk about innovation being the cornerstone of American medicine, being the cornerstone of how I practice medicine. Unfortunately, the FDA’s inaction has prevented this innovation, allowing the rest of the world to access new active sunscreen ingredients that are unavailable to Americans. Can you expand upon some of the barriers that are hindering the great innovation by not utilizing the information that our friends and allies have access to?” Mr. D’Ruiz: “People don’t die from using sunscreen. They die from not using sunscreen, number one. And I think there is a large body of evidence worldwide indicating that the news of young sunscreen filters, which have been developed over the last 10 years, are much more efficient – you use less, there is less exposure, and they are much more effective in reducing the harmful effects of both UVA and B. And three, they are more sustainable in terms of environmental impact.” Congresswoman Kat Cammack (FL-13): “You have companies that are already doing things the right way. We don’t want to punish them by putting additional burdens on them to try to capture those companies that are not in compliance. How can we handle that?” Mr. Menzel: “I think that it’s an incredibly important point that we don’t need more regulation as it relates to this, so there needs to be predictability. The OMUFA program allows predictability. The monograph program allows predictability, allows for innovation, allows for speed.”   Congressman Bob Latta (OH-05): “The Over-the-Counter Monograph Drug User Fee Program (OMUFA) at the Food and Drug Administration has produced more than 100,000 safe and effective over-the-counter drugs, giving consumers access to manage their own care in a safe and affordable manner. The OMUFA program has also reduced the number of visits consumers need to make to a doctor to obtain a prescription for a simple treatment, reducing the burden on our health care systems. The OMUFA program has also increased access and choice for consumers. Could you provide examples of how this is beneficial to the public within the United States?” Mr. Menzel: “Yeah , absolutely, I think, in terms of the benefit to the US consumer, one of the items that I think continually needs to be reinforced is for every $1 spent in this space on over-the-counter medicines, it saves the United States health care system $7 in terms of doctor visit cost savings. Pharmaceutical alternatives to pharmaceutical cost savings, the other thing that system does is it allows for a shrinking of these healthcare deserts, where access would be limited, not just in rural areas, but also urban areas that are limited by access to health care.” ###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday, Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, led a hearing titled Aging Technology, Emerging Threats: Examining Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities in Legacy Medical Devices .  “The health care sector is one of 16 critical infrastructure sectors in the U.S. and has become a significant target for cyberattacks. To ensure our hospitals are secure and patients safely receive the treatment they need, we must reduce the vulnerabilities found in legacy medical devices,” said Chairman Palmer. “Yesterday’s hearing helped us better understand the risks of these devices and how to navigate them.”   Watch the full hearing here .  Below are key excerpts from yesterday’s hearing :  Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06): “Are there updated estimates on how many legacy medical devices are currently in-use across the U.S. health care system?” Mr. Decker: “The problem is actually sort of unknown, as far as how many devices exist, especially when we start talking about the concept of what is legacy versus what is non-legacy devices… We can estimate how many devices we think exist. So, if you look inside any typical hospital, you have for any bed 8-15 some devices connected to it. There are stats that show there’s about 913,000 beds in the United States, so extrapolating that, you get to about easily 10,000,000 devices that exist.”   Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02): “We’re talking about backdoor medical devices and what that means in the discovery and what vulnerabilities that has and how it’s concerning. So, Mr. Decker and Ms. Jump, how often do we find this type of thing?” Mr. Decker: “Within medical devices, specifically, it’s unknown. You know, there was that report that came out about the Contec Chinese device and in your opening comments, you mentioned there’s two potential opportunities for that to occur. We know that certain nation-state adversaries are prepositioning themselves into critical infrastructure and other critical infrastructure have been targeted for this, so it’s certainly within the realm of possibility that that’s occurring within health care.” Ms. Jump: “I would say that, as a risk management expert, I think that with the increased enforcement of risk management efforts, penetration testing, and threat modeling that FDA has placed on manufacturers, not only for new devices, but also for any devices going in for a significant change of modification, (so older devices do still go through this process) - that manufacturers are being forced to actually look critically at their devices across the whole spectrum - the entire threat landscape of that device. Therefore, I think that we are going to find more and more of these. Certainly, with my clients, we do threat modeling. We do penetration testing. We help those manufacturers find those issues before they become problems and start causing issues within the health care industry.”   Congressman Rus Fulcher (ID-01): “Mr. Garcia, during your verbal testimony, you made a statement that surprised me a little bit and it was that the medical device security in the medical industry, if I understood you correctly, was the most targeted for cyberattacks. Did I get that right?” Mr. Garcia: “The entire health care ecosystem, not just medical devices.” Mr. Fulcher: “Okay, so why health care? I mean, we hear about the banking, right? And power grids. What is it about the health care industry that creates that target?” Mr. Garcia: “Yeah, I came from financial services before this and, at that time 15 years ago, banking was the biggest target because that’s where the money is. But then they started outspending the criminals. The problem with health care is, first off, it is a widely distributed, multifaceted ecosystem that has a lot of touch points, a lot of vulnerabilities. Secondly, there is less money to spend against cyber threats. And thirdly, it’s easy money. When you have a ransomware attack, if you are a hacker and you ransom a hospital, you are forcing the decision on the hospital: should I pay the ransom and continue to treat patients or should I not and run the risk of not treating patients and/or going out of business. That’s why.”   ###

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Congressman Earl L. "Buddy" Carter (GA-01), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, delivered the following opening statement at today’s hearing titled  Examining the FDA’s Regulation of Over-the-Counter Monograph Drugs. Subcommittee Chairman Carter's opening statement as prepared for delivery: “I want to welcome everyone to today’s hearing on the Over-the-Counter Monograph Drug User Fee Program, referred to as “OMUFA.” I'm especially pleased that we're talking about the reauthorization of this program as almost 5 years to the date, the initial bill – sponsored by my good friend from Ohio, Representative Latta, as well as one of Georgia's finest, Senator Johnny Isakson – was signed into law by President Trump in March 2020. “The enactment of this program reformed and modernized the regulation of OTC monograph drugs and authorized the FDA to assess and collect user fees dedicated to OTC monograph drug activities. Industry and public health stakeholders supported these reforms, which have provided FDA with additional resources and tools to streamline the monograph process to increase access to quality commonly used drugs and self-care products for the American consumer. This program is designed to improve innovation, while maintaining the FDA ‘gold-standard’ of safety. “The current legislative authority for OMUFA expires September 30th, 2025 – at which point, new legislation will be required to reauthorize the Over-the-Counter Monograph User Fee program for another five-year term. “Over-the-counter medications are widely used to treat common ailments such as colds, headaches, and seasonal allergies. In fact, nearly 9 out of every 10 Americans use OTC medications regularly and trust these affordable remedies to get well and stay healthy. Safe, reliable, and affordable OTC drugs allow consumers to treat common ailments at home, usually without visiting a health care provider, saving the health care system billions annually. “Of particular note is a company called Symrise. They own and operate a manufacturing plant in Georgia’s First Congressional District. Symrise manufactures aroma molecules and fragrance ingredients, which are used in various consumer products across a number of product categories. They also manufacture two of the key UV filters that are commonly used in many OTC sunscreens on the market today.  “Sadly, Symrise’s Colonel’s Island plant experienced a serious fire in 2022. Symrise made the strategic decision to re-invest in the site and restore its capacity in my community, at a time when other companies were leaving. They successfully completed renovations and today, the plant is again fully operational, back at its pre-fire capacity. This is a real success story, and we are grateful for their commitment to Georgia. “We are also fortunate to have Mr. Kevin Menzel before our Committee today. Mr. Menzel is President of Focus Consumer Healthcare, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Kobayashi Healthcare. Kobayashi was founded as a family company in 1886 in Japan. They established a presence in the United States in 1998, and maintain manufacturing and operations in Dalton, Georgia - employing 270 people with products ranging from OTC medicines and supplements, to recreational products like Hot Hands Hand Warmers. Georgia’s pro-business climate and infrastructure make it an ideal location for companies such as Kobayashi. In fact, just recently, Kobayashi began expanding its U.S. manufacturing footprint even further, with a significant announced investment in Georgia — doubling capacity to support ongoing growth and expand employment. “Success stories such as Symrise and Kobayashi highlight why it is critical for this Subcommittee to reauthorize the Over-the-Counter Monograph Drug User Fee Program in a timely manner. This program demonstrated the ability to bring more jobs back to America, while increasing access to safe, reliable, and affordable OTC drugs. “I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reauthorize this program on time and through regular order.” ###

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Yesterday, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, along with Congressman Bob Latta (OH-05), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy, penned a letter to Secretary Jennifer Granholm questioning the Department of Energy’s involvement in the Biden-Harris Administration’s decision to prevent new offshore oil and gas production, leading to higher prices for consumers and harming U.S. energy security. KEY LETTER EXCERPT: “Closing off swaths of U.S. offshore areas to energy production, as the Biden-Harris Administration reportedly intends to do, will lead to higher energy prices for American families, the loss of American jobs, and greatly diminish our country’s energy security. As the Secretary of Energy, you have an obligation to weigh in on this matter and insist on a full review of the energy security and economic impacts before any decisions are finalized. “The United States stands at an energy crossroads, facing mounting global security threats and soaring demand for power. Instead of leading the world in energy production, we’ve allowed misguided “green” policies to hamstring our potential. It’s time to unleash American energy dominance again—the federal government must become an ally, not an obstacle, to our nation’s energy security. We look forward to your prompt response to this request, no later than January 10, 2025.” Read the story  here . BACKGROUND: This morning, the Biden Administration announced that more than 625 million square miles of coastline would be off-limits for energy production. Republican Members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce have continuously called on the Biden-Harris Administration to end its attack on American energy production before leaving office on January 20th. The letter requests an explanation of the DOE’s involvement in the decision and whether the White House or the Department of Interior consulted with the DOE about the plans to close off access to offshore resources. Any decision to shut down access to significant American energy resources impacts U.S. energy policy and should be reviewed by the DOE. The Biden Administration’s energy policies have continued to create major harm to America’s energy production and workforce. A unilateral ban on energy production in large swaths of the U.S. coastline will have lasting impacts on American energy production and security.

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.

House Republicans scrutinize government grant funding recipients that fail to protect individuals from antisemitism Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to J. David Gladstone Institutes President Dr. Deepak Srivastava, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (E&C) and House Committee on Education and the Workforce (E&W) have requested information about ongoing and pervasive acts of antisemitic harassment and intimidation at Gladstone and its leadership’s insufficient response to these acts. The letter is signed by E&C Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), E&C Subcommittee on Health Chair Brett Guthrie (R-KY), E&C Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA), E&W Chair Virginia Foxx (R-NC), and E&W Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development Chair Burgess Owens (R-UT).  KEY LETTER EXCERPTS: “The Gladstone Institutes, an independent biomedical research organization, claims that it takes an active stance against serious issues like discrimination and harassment and aims to ‘ensure all community members at Gladstone feel included’ and that the Institutes will aim to ‘implement accountability measures and reinforce Gladstone’s commitment to having an environment free of harassment.’ However, these values do not seem to be reflected in the actions of leadership in response to recent concerns of antisemitic harassment and discrimination within the Institutes.” [...] “The reports of antisemitic harassment at Gladstone coupled with the inadequate response by leadership is concerning to the Committees. Failing to act decisively to ensure a safe environment for all trainees, faculty, and staff is a grave dereliction of your responsibilities as President of Gladstone.” “Failing to comply with basic safety protections for members of Gladstone or failure to respond appropriately to and prevent harassment and discrimination, no matter the cause, may be grounds to withhold federal funds from the university. Congress has an obligation to exercise oversight of recipients of federal funds when blatant and ongoing Title VI violations appear to be happening. If Congress determines an institution of higher education/research is blatantly ignoring its legal responsibilities, we may consider rescinding research and development funds previously appropriated.” BACKGROUND ON TAXPAYER FUNDING: Gladstone received more than $41 million in funding from the NIH in Fiscal Year 2023, not including potential taxpayer funding that individual faculty may have received through their affiliation with the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) or any other affiliated universities.   According to the NIH’s Grant Policy Statement, any institution receiving federal funds must assure work environments are free of discriminatory harassment and are safe and conducive to high-quality work.  Institutions receiving federal taxpayer financial assistance—such as NIH grants—are prohibited from discriminating based on a variety of categories, including national origin.   These laws also protect members of the institution who are or are perceived to be members of a group with shared ancestry, such as students/trainees of Jewish heritage. BACKGROUND ON INSTANCES OF ANTISEMITISM : Two days after the October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attack, a graduate student working in a lab within Gladstone sent an antisemitic email to all Gladstone faculty, trainees, and staff falsely stating that the attack on innocent Israeli civilians was “the resistance in Gaza launch[ing] a surprise attack against Israel, taking occupation soldiers hostage, taking over Israeli military vehicles, and gain[ing] control over illegal Israeli settlements.”  The email goes on to claim that all casualties resulting from Palestinian actions are the responsibility of Israel.  Immediately following this mass email, members of the Gladstone faculty began contacting the Gladstone Institutes’ President and other leadership, appalled by the language of the email, concerned for their safety and worried that the email could be seen as an incitement to violence.  Jewish members of the Institutes also expressed their deep, personal pain following the Hamas attack, as some members had family or friends reported killed or missing directly after the attack.  These fears—including fears of being attacked in the lab by the author of this cruel and antagonistic email—were shared directly with President Srivastava.  Despite this, Gladstone leadership did not issue a public statement or position against antisemitism to quell fears of Jewish faculty and trainees.  In May 2024, the Center for Combatting Antisemitism sent President Srivastava a letter requesting administrative action to address the hostile environment and disparate treatment of Jewish members at Gladstone.  This letter noted that Gladstone refused to acknowledge Jewish American Heritage Month, Passover, or Holocaust Remembrance Day, despite sending official celebratory emails and holding events for other religious, ethnic, or national holidays, including Black History Month, International Women’s Day, and Ramadan.  The Center followed up with Gladstone several times, but never received a response.  Jewish faculty and trainees have conveyed to leadership within Gladstone instances of antisemitic harassment and discrimination, which faculty and trainees believe were not taken seriously, making some feel uneasy about speaking out.  For example, per a publicly available Fair Employment and Housing Act complaint to the California Civil Rights Division, a Jewish faculty member openly discussed fellow faculty using racial stereotypes, including comments about a “Jewish nose.”  When these comments were brought to human resources, no investigation occurred.  Instead, the complainant was subsequently targeted with an investigation ultimately deemed to be unwarranted.  Then, following the complainant’s post-October 7th advocacy on behalf of Jewish faculty and trainees, the complainant was threatened repeatedly with career-ending termination, allegedly in an attempt to extort a resignation.  When the threats did not have their desired effect, Gladstone placed the complainant on administrative leave and removed the complainant’s electronic access to email and files but also physical access to the complainant’s lab, removing all ability to conduct work on an NIH-funded grant.  Gladstone ultimately paid an undisclosed sum to settle the matter and avoid litigation.  To elevate concerns regarding widespread, ongoing discrimination, Jewish faculty and trainees requested permission to bring in a speaker related to antisemitism.  Other minority groups had previously been given permission to bring in similar anti-racism speakers.  However, while leadership stated it would look into the idea, ultimately no speaker was brought, and no program was launched regarding antisemitism. BACKGROUND ON AFFILIATIONS WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS UNDER INVESTIGATION : Gladstone Institutes is affiliated with other institutions under congressional investigation.  For example, Gladstone is an affiliate of the UCSF, which is undergoing congressional investigation for reports of antisemitism within the university, medical school, and medical centers.  Most of Gladstone’s principal investigators are also faculty at UCSF, and the Institutes provide research positions and opportunities for graduate students from UCSF.  Moreover, there is a joint institute—the Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology—further linking the two institutions.  Gladstone is also affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley and Stanford University, both of which are also under investigation for concerns related to antisemitism. CLICK HERE to read the full letter.