Oversight & Investigations

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Last week, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and Congressman Morgan Griffith (VA-09), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, wrote letters to eight Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) grant recipients. In Case You Missed It: “SCOOP: Biden-era grant program described as ‘gold bar’ scheme by Trump EPA administrator under scrutiny” Fox News Alec Schemmel April 11, 2025 Republicans in Congress are launching a probe into a Biden-era green energy grant program that sent billions in funding to climate groups tied to Democrats and former President Joe Biden’s allies. GOP leaders on the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent letters to the eight nonprofits awarded grants from the $20 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), seeking answers to ensure the Biden Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) followed proper ethics and conflict of interest protocols in distributing the funds. In February, the Trump administration’s EPA announced it would take steps to get the money back, citing concerns over a lack of oversight related to how the money was being disbursed. In the announcement, new EPA administrator Lee Zeldin cited comments from a former Biden EPA political appointee, who described disbursements made through GGRF as akin to “tossing gold bars off the Titanic,” because Biden officials were allegedly trying to get money out the door before Trump took over. It was also revealed that $2 billion from GGRF went to a Stacy Abrams-linked group, Power Forward Communities, which had not been established until after the Biden administration announced the GGRF application process. Meanwhile, during Power Forward’s first few months of operations – prior to receiving the funding – the group reported just $100 in revenue. Climate United, another group that received the most money from the GGRF, roughly $7 billion, currently staffs a former Biden climate advisor who worked during the last two years of the former president’s term. The same group is also run by a CEO with ties to the Obama administration and a board member who was among those invited to Biden’s signing ceremony for his multitrillion-dollar infrastructure bill in 2021.  Several GGRF grant recipients have ties to Democrats and Biden advisors, and some were reportedly founded shortly before or after the Biden administration announced the program. Meanwhile, these groups, according to Zeldin, had sole discretion on how to use the funds. House Energy and Commerce Chairman Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., alongside fellow committee members Reps. Gary Palmer of Alabama and Morgan Griffith of Virginia, both Republicans, said in a joint statement that their investigation into the GGRF recipients will be “key” to understanding whether these funds were allocated “fairly and impartially to qualified applicants,” while also helping to determine the manner in which the money has been used. “The Committee has had concerns about the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund program since its creation—including concerns about the program’s unusual structure, a potential lack of due diligence in selecting award recipients, and the recipients’ ability to manage the large influx of federal dollars they received from the EPA,” the lawmakers said in their statement. “A recent Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee hearing that examined these concerns coupled with the speed with which money was pushed out the door by the Biden Administration’s EPA heightened the Committee’s concerns and raised additional questions about certain Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund recipients.”  Several of the groups that were recipients of GGRF money sued the Trump administration in March over its attempts to rake back the funds.  Subsequently, Obama-appointed Judge Tanya Chutkan issued a temporary restraining order preventing the EPA from freezing $14 billion in GGRF funds awarded to three of the climate groups.  Background: The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) authorized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to create and implement a $27 billion GGRF program. Of this appropriation, $20 billion was awarded to just eight grant recipients; with $14 billion awarded to three grant recipients under the National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF) program and $6 billion awarded to five grant recipients under the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator (CCIA) program.   Letters:  National Clean Investment Fund Program Recipients Coalition for Green Capital Climate United Fund Power Forward Communities   Clean Communities Investment Accelerator Program Recipients Justice Climate Fund Opportunity Finance Network Inclusiv Native CDFI Network Appalachian Community Capital ###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and Congressman Morgan Griffith (VA-09), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, wrote letters to eight Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) grant recipients. “The Committee has had concerns about the GGRF program—including the program’s unusual structure and a potential lack of due diligence in selecting award recipients. A recent Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee hearing examined these issues and the speed with which money was pushed out the door by the Biden Administration’s EPA, which raised additional questions about certain GGRF recipients.” said Chairmen Guthrie, Palmer, and Griffith. “ This investigation is key to evaluating whether these funds were awarded fairly and impartially to qualified applicants and determining how the federal funds are being used.” Background:  The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) authorized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to create and implement a $27 billion GGRF program. Of this appropriation, $20 billion was awarded to just eight grant recipients; with $14 billion awarded to three grant recipients under the National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF) program and $6 billion awarded to five grant recipients under the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator (CCIA) program.    Letters: National Clean Investment Fund Program Recipients Coalition for Green Capital Climate United Fund Power Forward Communities   Clean Communities Investment Accelerator Program Recipients Justice Climate Fund Opportunity Finance Network Inclusiv Native CDFI Network Appalachian Community Capital Read the story here . ###

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. – Last week, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and Congressman Morgan Griffith (VA-09), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, wrote letters to eight Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) grant recipients. In Case You Missed It: “SCOOP: Biden-era grant program described as ‘gold bar’ scheme by Trump EPA administrator under scrutiny” Fox News Alec Schemmel April 11, 2025 Republicans in Congress are launching a probe into a Biden-era green energy grant program that sent billions in funding to climate groups tied to Democrats and former President Joe Biden’s allies. GOP leaders on the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent letters to the eight nonprofits awarded grants from the $20 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), seeking answers to ensure the Biden Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) followed proper ethics and conflict of interest protocols in distributing the funds. In February, the Trump administration’s EPA announced it would take steps to get the money back, citing concerns over a lack of oversight related to how the money was being disbursed. In the announcement, new EPA administrator Lee Zeldin cited comments from a former Biden EPA political appointee, who described disbursements made through GGRF as akin to “tossing gold bars off the Titanic,” because Biden officials were allegedly trying to get money out the door before Trump took over. It was also revealed that $2 billion from GGRF went to a Stacy Abrams-linked group, Power Forward Communities, which had not been established until after the Biden administration announced the GGRF application process. Meanwhile, during Power Forward’s first few months of operations – prior to receiving the funding – the group reported just $100 in revenue. Climate United, another group that received the most money from the GGRF, roughly $7 billion, currently staffs a former Biden climate advisor who worked during the last two years of the former president’s term. The same group is also run by a CEO with ties to the Obama administration and a board member who was among those invited to Biden’s signing ceremony for his multitrillion-dollar infrastructure bill in 2021.  Several GGRF grant recipients have ties to Democrats and Biden advisors, and some were reportedly founded shortly before or after the Biden administration announced the program. Meanwhile, these groups, according to Zeldin, had sole discretion on how to use the funds. House Energy and Commerce Chairman Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., alongside fellow committee members Reps. Gary Palmer of Alabama and Morgan Griffith of Virginia, both Republicans, said in a joint statement that their investigation into the GGRF recipients will be “key” to understanding whether these funds were allocated “fairly and impartially to qualified applicants,” while also helping to determine the manner in which the money has been used. “The Committee has had concerns about the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund program since its creation—including concerns about the program’s unusual structure, a potential lack of due diligence in selecting award recipients, and the recipients’ ability to manage the large influx of federal dollars they received from the EPA,” the lawmakers said in their statement. “A recent Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee hearing that examined these concerns coupled with the speed with which money was pushed out the door by the Biden Administration’s EPA heightened the Committee’s concerns and raised additional questions about certain Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund recipients.”  Several of the groups that were recipients of GGRF money sued the Trump administration in March over its attempts to rake back the funds.  Subsequently, Obama-appointed Judge Tanya Chutkan issued a temporary restraining order preventing the EPA from freezing $14 billion in GGRF funds awarded to three of the climate groups.  Background: The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) authorized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to create and implement a $27 billion GGRF program. Of this appropriation, $20 billion was awarded to just eight grant recipients; with $14 billion awarded to three grant recipients under the National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF) program and $6 billion awarded to five grant recipients under the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator (CCIA) program.   Letters:  National Clean Investment Fund Program Recipients Coalition for Green Capital Climate United Fund Power Forward Communities   Clean Communities Investment Accelerator Program Recipients Justice Climate Fund Opportunity Finance Network Inclusiv Native CDFI Network Appalachian Community Capital ###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and Congressman Morgan Griffith (VA-09), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, wrote letters to eight Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) grant recipients. “The Committee has had concerns about the GGRF program—including the program’s unusual structure and a potential lack of due diligence in selecting award recipients. A recent Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee hearing examined these issues and the speed with which money was pushed out the door by the Biden Administration’s EPA, which raised additional questions about certain GGRF recipients.” said Chairmen Guthrie, Palmer, and Griffith. “ This investigation is key to evaluating whether these funds were awarded fairly and impartially to qualified applicants and determining how the federal funds are being used.” Background:  The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) authorized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to create and implement a $27 billion GGRF program. Of this appropriation, $20 billion was awarded to just eight grant recipients; with $14 billion awarded to three grant recipients under the National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF) program and $6 billion awarded to five grant recipients under the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator (CCIA) program.    Letters: National Clean Investment Fund Program Recipients Coalition for Green Capital Climate United Fund Power Forward Communities   Clean Communities Investment Accelerator Program Recipients Justice Climate Fund Opportunity Finance Network Inclusiv Native CDFI Network Appalachian Community Capital Read the story here . ###

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.