News

Secretary Becerra’s Extreme Legal Position Prioritizes Protecting Substantiated Abusers Over Victims 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), Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA), Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA), and Representative August Pfluger (R-TX) asked Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra to provide the Committee with the legal basis requiring HHS to redact or hide the names of researchers determined to have committed sexual misconduct.  The letter comes following Secretary Becerra’s appearance before the Subcommittee on Health during which he claimed he could not release the names of individuals determined to have committed sexual harassment to Congress because of legal prohibitions. The Members requested that Secretary Becerra provide the Committee with the legal basis for HHS’s decision to redact the names of abusers who have substantiated findings of sexual harassment or abuse by April 30, 2024.  CLICK HERE to read the letter.  BACKGROUND :  The Committee first launched an investigation into the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) handling of sexual harassment at grantee institutions in August 2021.   In October 2023, the Committee expanded its inquiry to include complaints involving NIH scientists.   After NIH’s failure to comply, Chair Rodgers subpoenaed NIH Director Monica Bertagnolli to produce documents in February of 2024.  Later that month, HHS responded on behalf of NIH to offer a rolling in camera document review to the Committee. Documents presented 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—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.”  FULL TIMELINE :  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 Subpoecana   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.”  April 16, 2024 : E&C Republicans Expand Investigation into Sexual Harassment at NIH to now Include Review of HHS Office of Civil Rights Compliance Role  WHISTLEBLOWERS:    The Committee is seeking whistleblowers with knowledge of sexual harassment at the NIH or NIH grantee institutions, as well as those with knowledge of how the NIH handles such complaints.   The right for public employees to communicate with Congress, in their private capacities, is established in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In addition, various U.S. laws prohibit retaliation against whistleblowers for providing information to Congress. However, individuals still take serious risks when they engage in whistleblowing activity.   To better protect your communications, do not contact the Committee using work resources, work contact information, or while you are working . Further, consider consulting an attorney experienced in representing whistleblowers before you make a disclosure.   Do not submit classified information or other information barred from release through this form or by email. Unauthorized handling of classified information could result in criminal prosecution.   The Committee respects your need to remain confidential and will use your contact information only to follow up with you regarding your submission. You may submit a disclosure anonymously. However, please be aware that anonymous disclosures may limit the Committee’s ability to respond to the information that you provide.   Individuals with information about harassment at the NIH may contact the Committee via email at:   ReportNIHAbuse@mail.house.gov    Individuals with information about harassment at institutions that receive NIH grants may contact the Committee via email at:   ReportNIHGranteeAbuse@mail.house.gov    Additional resources can be found HERE . 

Washington D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Subcommittee Chair Buddy Carter (R-GA) sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Michael Regan raising concern regarding the potential misuse of $600 million from the Department’s Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Grantmaking Program.  CLICK HERE to read exclusive coverage from the Daily Caller:  “Republican Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington and Buddy Carter of Georgia, two leading members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, wrote to Regan to request that his agency brief the committee about its $600 million Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Grantmaking Program. The lawmakers raised specific concerns about some of the organizations the agency selected as awardees for the program, to whom the agency is giving tens of millions of dollars to distribute to other organizations pursuing ‘environmental justice.’”   [...]   “The EPA announced the 11 awardees for the program in December 2023, giving ten organizations $50 million and $100 million to another to use to support other groups in the region advancing 'environmental justice,' a concept that has played a large role in the Biden EPA’s regulatory, grantmaking and enforcement agendas. 'Environmental justice' is effectively the by-product of climate policy and social justice ideology.   “The lawmakers expressed concerns that some of the recipients and partner organizations, including the Climate Justice Alliance and the Institute for Sustainable Communities, have previously spent money to advance a partisan energy agenda or worked with groups who have sued the government to block fossil fuel development.”   [...]   “The lawmakers concluded their letter to Regan by requesting that he and his agency brief the committee to explain how recipients were chosen, detail the agency’s oversight plans, explain whether the EPA intends to report the use of the funds to Congress and whether the agency will report the recipients of sub-grants.”   BACKGROUND:   Many of the EPA’s funding decisions suggest this program may be funneling potentially billions of taxpayer dollars to radical, far-left organizations whose mission is to protest, disrupt, and undercut U.S. energy production and leadership, while also freeing up funds to support their extreme activist agendas.  The EPA is awarding $50 million to the Institute for Sustainable Communities and the Climate Justice Alliance, both of which have a legacy of extreme anti-energy activism.  In the past, the Institute for Sustainable Communities and the Climate Justice Alliance have donated to groups carrying out illegal, violent protests to halt American energy projects.  Multiple Grantmakers tasked with disbursing program funds are not located in the EPA region they have been chosen to serve.  CLICK HERE to read the full letter. 

Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR), 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) raise questions about the ASPR’s mismanagement of the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS).  KEY LETTER EXCERPT :  “ The Committee is alarmed by a pattern of fiscal mismanagement and a series of failed acquisitions that have left the SNS dangerously under resourced and likely underprepared to respond to future public health emergencies . Over the last year, ASPR let over $850 million in emergency supplemental funding for the SNS go unused. These funds were eventually rescinded by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) due to a lack of appropriate planning and urgency by ASPR. This recission occurred despite ASPR regularly expressing concerns to Congress about adequately funding the resupply of the SNS after the COVID-19 pandemic. This Committee responded to ASPR’s concerns by increasing the authorization of SNS funding in its reauthorization of the Pandemic All-Hazards Preparedness Act. Similarly, the Fiscal Year 2024 Labor, Health, and Human Services Appropriation Bill also increased funding for the SNS. As such, the failure to commit funds in a timely and competent manner is particularly frustrating. Moreover, the continued procurement dysfunction at ASPR puts remaining SNS funds, as well as funds for advance research and development, at risk of future recission by OMB .”  BACKGROUND :  Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response Dawn O’Connell has made it a primary goal to “restore and maintain the public health emergency capacity that has been severely strained by the pandemic including replenishing the Strategic National Stockpile.”  The SNS plays a critical role in ensuring America is prepared against chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats, as well as pandemics and emerging infectious disease outbreaks.  Despite this apparent prioritization, in 2022, the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) placed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) management of public health emergencies, of which ASPR is a leading sub-agency, on its high-risk list of government programs that “are vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement, or in need of transformation.”  In making this determination, the GAO raised concerns about ASPR’s ability to manage the SNS and medical countermeasure contracts.  On May 2, 2024, the GAO published a report outlining ongoing challenges for managing the SNS, noting that public health emergency coordination remains on its “High Risk List.”  The Chairs asked Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response Dawn O’Connell for answers to a series of questions related to ASPR’s past and future contracting processes, policies, and decisions to ensure our nation is prepared and ready to respond to health security threats. The Committee requested answers by May 21, 2024.  CLICK HERE to read the full letter.

Washington D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA) delivered the following opening remarks at today’s subcommittee hearing titled “Examining Accusations of Ideological Bias at NPR, a Taxpayer Funded News Entity.”  IDEOLOGICAL BIAS AT NPR “Thank you to our witnesses who are before us today to testify on National Public Radio, NPR.  “I do have to note for the record that we invited NPR’s CEO, Katherine Maher who declined to appear today to discuss NPR’s alleged past efforts to pressure conservative and moderate voices into silence.  “Hopefully, we can work out a time for her to appear and testify before this Committee in the near future.  “The only reason not to appear in front of the Committee at some point in the near future is if the allegations are both true and NPR doesn’t care. “Last month, longtime NPR business editor, Uri Berliner, wrote an article published by conservative news website, The Free Press, accusing his then-employer of having an 'absence of viewpoint diversity.'  “Berliner criticized NPR for not reflecting the viewpoints of all Americans.  “Instead, Berliner wrote, NPR is 'the distilled worldview of a very small segment of the U.S. population,' meaning the people clustered around coastal cities and college towns.  “It was alleged that, in recent years, NPR’s extremely progressive viewpoints are evident in its coverage of major news stories.   “For example, just a couple of days ago, in an article on a recent bill regarding TikTok and foreign owned social media, the author claimed that Congress had no ‘direct evidence' that Tik Tok was a threat.  “That’s simply not true.  “If NPR had listened openly and fairly to comments TikTok’s own CEO made before this Committee last year, they would know there was no real firewall between the Chinese Communist Party and the American company.  “They also fail to mention the three-hour security briefing before the Committee took up the bill.  “That type of biased viewpoint affects the way I look at NPR’s coverage of ongoing antisemitic riots at universities across the country.”  NPR’S LEFTWING WORLDVIEW   “NPR’s coverage of these chaotic protests has been borderline encouraging, nostalgic even, evoking the good old days of protesting Vietnam.  “NPR reporters have dismissed evidence suggesting external groups have had a role in coordinating these protests, despite contrary reporting by outlets like the Wall Street Journal.   “As far back as 2005, NPR editors were aware of and trying to address a question that was bothering listeners: how truly national is NPR?  “For those in rural communities and in smaller towns, like the folks I represent, nationally produced NPR news programs are not relevant and not of interest.  “Nationally produced NPR news programs often simply do not broadcast content that reflects their values, and culture.  “As a result of adopting a mostly progressive framing in so much of its reporting, NPR is losing its audience.  “At its peak in 2017, NPR had over 30 million weekly listeners. By 2022, NPR had lost 6.6 million weekly listeners.  “As a result, NPR has had a substantial budget deficits and layoffs including 10 percent of its staff.  “What was intended to be a media organization that brought together millions of Americans across geographic, socio-economic, and ideological boundaries to discuss life, the arts, and culture, has turned into what appears to be a progressive propaganda purveyor. Using our taxpayer dollars, no less.  “Now, to be clear, the local public radio station affiliates are not what I am talking about. I would make the distinction that they often have more responsive programming and local public interest and civic stories.  “I have generally thought that the local public radio stations in my part of Virginia mostly provide a public service and in many cases are useful in helping to preserve local heritage.”  TAXPAYERS ARE FUNDING NPR   “NPR claims federal spending accounts for less than one percent of its annual operating budget.  “Although NPR receives one percent in direct federal grants, local radio stations may use any portion of their federal grant from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, to pay NPR’s membership dues and programming fees. That figure is roughly 30 percent of NPR’s revenue.  “This hearing is a chance for us to take stock of whether we should be using federal taxpayer dollars to promote one ideology to the exclusion of others.  “If NPR wants to create a one-sided ideological content that marginalizes a substantial portion of Americans, they can fight it out with all the other media companies for market share and pay for it on their own dime.  “I would prefer NPR to return to its original mission under the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, to provide objectivity and balance in coverage of controversial subjects.  “To me that means representing many different opinions in its newsgathering.” 

Washington D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) delivered the following opening remarks at today’s Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee hearing titled “Examining Accusations of Ideological Bias at NPR, a Taxpayer Funded News Entity.”  “Like everyone here in this room, I am an adamant supporter of the First Amendment to the Constitution and the freedom of the press. “As Thomas Jefferson once said, 'Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.’ “Every news outlet and network should be free to express viewpoints, even those I may disagree with. “It is a fundamental principle under the First Amendment for news agencies to report on stories however they see fit. “It is not, however, a fundamental principle for news organizations to receive public funding to express their viewpoint. “We are holding this hearing today to discuss accusations from within National Public Radio, or NPR, that the organization’s DC bureau is actively censoring viewpoints—all while enjoying funding from Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars. “Following the accusations, Speaker Johnson and I fully agreed that Congress needed to quickly investigate. “I will note for the record, we invited NPR’s CEO, Ms. Maher, to participate in today’s hearing. She has declined to do so stating that she needed more time to prepare and that she had a conflict with an NPR board meeting.” ACCESS TO TAXPAYER FUNDING IS NOT A RIGHT “It is especially troubling that an organization funded with taxpayer dollars has mocked, ridiculed, and attacked the very people who fund their organization. “As if the problem wasn’t self-evident, a 25-year veteran of NPR’s national news desk outlined it in an op-ed just a few weeks ago. “Uri Berliner, a longtime journalist and senior business editor for NPR since 1999, has described a troubling culture at the organization stating 'An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don’t have an audience that reflects America.' “Berliner also explained how tax-funded NPR never admitted to its audience how off its reporting was on the debunked Russia collusion story stating 'What’s worse is to pretend it never happened, to move on with no mea culpas , no self-reflection. Especially when you expect high standards of transparency from public figures and institutions, but don’t practice those standards yourself. That’s what shatters trust and engenders cynicism about the media.’” VIEWPOINT DISCRIMINATION AT NPR “It was quite revealing from Mr. Berliner that NPR did not want to report stories that could help President Trump’s chances of winning the 2020 Presidential Election—no matter how evidently true or important to the public conversation they were, according to Mr. Berliner: 'I listened as one of NPR’s best and most fair-minded journalists said it was good we weren’t following the laptop story because it could help Trump.’ “Moreover, according to Mr. Berliner, he could not find a single registered Republican editor at NPR headquarters. “Since many journalists don’t affiliate themselves politically so they can remain objective, this might not sound abnormal, except that Mr. Berliner was able to identify 87 editors in NPR’s newsroom who were registered Democrats. “Founding NPR Board Member Bill Siemering put into the original mission statement that NPR should, among other things, 'speak with many voices and many dialects.' “According to what we’ve learned from Mr. Berliner’s insight, today’s NPR has strayed from their core mission. “When an entity that was created by Congress, and that receives taxpayer funding, strays from their core mission there needs to be accountability and oversight. “The Energy and Commerce Committee will fulfill its responsibility to investigate the allegations against NPR and take appropriate action based on what we find. “That process takes a step forward with today’s hearing. “I thank our panel of witnesses, who bring to the table a variety of viewpoints about the matter, and I look forward to the conversation.” 

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) issued the following statement regarding new guidance issued by the White House Office of Science and Technology regarding Oversight of Dual Use Research of Concern and Pathogens with Enhanced Pandemic Potential:  “Regardless of the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, our investigations have revealed the federal government’s deeply inadequate oversight of biomedical research involving risky gain-of-function experiments. “The Biden administration had an opportunity to strengthen controls of these potentially dangerous projects and failed. This new guidance only makes modest changes that would still leave individuals—like EcoHealth Alliance’s Peter Daszak and entities like the Wuhan Institution of Virology—responsible for self-evaluating and policing whether the risks posed by their own research is acceptable.  "The Energy and Commerce Committee will continue working to examine and develop guardrails that provide transparency, independent oversight, and accountability to taxpayers for research involving potentially dangerous pathogens. Rebuilding the public’s trust in government health agencies depends on it.”

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) released the following statement after the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued a report titled “Budgetary Outcomes Under Alternative Assumptions About Spending and Revenues”: “When Democrats had unified control of government, they expanded taxpayer funded subsidies to large insurance corporations—twice—and President Biden has since proposed to make those expansions permanent. Today’s CBO report shows that the true cost of doing so would be nearly $400 billion over the next ten years. At a time when the devastating effects of inflation persist and the average deductible for a ‘silver’ level Obamacare plan is more than $5,000, Congress should stop expanding public funding to insurance companies. Instead, we must prioritize lowering the actual cost of health care with bipartisan legislation, like the Lower Costs, More Transparency Act , which passed the House with overwhelming support. Any additional resources should be placed into the hands of patients, not insurance companies.”  BACKGROUND:   In the radical tax-and-spend partisan reconciliation bills, Democrats increased existing Obamacare subsidies and made them available to insurance companies on behalf of enrollees who previously made too much money to qualify.   Today, CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation released a report that showed permanently extending expanded premium tax credits would cost $335 billion plus an additional $48 billion in interest payments, totaling $383 billion over ten years. ( CBO )   The average deductible for a ‘silver’ Obamacare plan is $5,241 ( Kaiser Family Foundation )

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) joined Fox Business last night to highlight H.R. 6921—which passed the House with bipartisan support—to stop President Biden’s ridiculous energy efficiency mandates, TikTok’s recent lawsuit, and the Committee’s hearing on NPR’s ideological bias. Highlights and excerpts from the interview below: On protecting consumers’ freedom to choose the products they want: “It's really a war on American energy, and now it's coming to your home, so it's a war on American homes and appliances. “I appreciate you highlighting this issue today. Last year, we had to vote to protect our gas stoves in our homes, and it was the elected representatives of the people that took action and the administration backed away, but now they're coming after other appliances. “What that means is that costs are going to go up, and reliability is going to go down. That's why there was actually bipartisan support for this bill today. “We had Democrats crossing over to vote with the Republicans to take this stand to protect consumer choices and to protect Americans that are seeing their costs go up for everything and now it's going to include appliances.” On TikTok’s lawsuit to stop divestment from the CCP: “The Chinese Communist Party actually said in the lawsuit that they filed today that [China] would not approve of TikTok being divested.” “They're trying to make it about free speech, but this bill was focused on national security.  “TikTok is a destructive tool pointed at the United States of America and especially our children.   “That's why Congress acted, and President Biden signed this bill that forces TikTok to divest from ByteDance, which is ultimately controlled by the Chinese Communist Party.   “I am just really encouraged that we were able to take get this bill signed into law to protect our homeland. This is a national security threat.”  On today’s E&C’s Oversight Subcommittee Hearing on taxpayer-funded NPR’s ideological bias: “At some point, we are going to ensure that the CEO of NPR does testify in front of the Energy and Commerce Committee. “This is an oversight hearing to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent as intended. “Ever since we've announced this hearing, we've heard from a lot of people that are concerned about the bias. “It was really a former senior editor, Mr. Berliner, who, in an op-ed, really exposed the biases that he had seen while working at NPR. “We're going to be exploring how much taxpayer dollars are actually involved in supporting NPR. You have the national NPR, and then you have a lot of local affiliates. There's a web of funding and entities, and that's going to be our job to actually dig in and ask some questions. “We know that there have been too many examples where they've been very biased in their reporting, and we're going to bring that to light.” Note: The Subcommittee hearing occurred earlier today. Click here to watch the hearing and review Chair Rodgers’ opening statement.

Washington D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Chair Buddy Carter (R-GA) delivered the following opening remarks at today’s subcommittee hearing titled “EPA’s RMP Rule: Failures to Protect the American People and American Manufacturing.”  EPA’S REGULATORY BLITZ   “The RMP rule will affect producers of critical materials necessary for an innovative and prosperous American economy.  “These include chemical manufacturers, petroleum refiners, drinking water and wastewater treatment professionals, agricultural chemical distributors, and other sectors which both make and provide a reliable supply of items necessary for improving lives, enhancing safety, and providing an affordable cost of living. “Unfortunately, this RMP rule appears to be another cog in EPA’s regulatory blitz; perpetuating inflation while making it harder to produce the materials and provide services Americans rely on. “Managing risk is a necessary practice for doing business in heavy industrial sectors. Owners and operators invest millions of dollars into their facilities to ensure they operate safely and at maximum efficiency with proper controls. “They have no interest — legally or financially — in becoming the face of industrial malpractice. “Despite this inherent incentive, the Biden EPA, fueled by its ideological allies’ quest for command and control, has flipped RMP on its head.” UNDERMINING AMERICAN MANUFACTURING “In taking this step, the Biden EPA is disregarding the purpose of the statute and pursuing a 'zero-risk' program. “Owners and operators of industrial facilities already operate under a General Duty Clause in both the Clean Air Act and under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. “These provisions work to prevent and mitigate the consequences of accidents, as well as to furnish a workplace free from recognized hazards which may cause or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm. “In addition, the Clean Air Act clearly states, 'the administrator shall promulgate reasonable regulations and appropriate guidance to provide, to the greatest extent practicable, for the prevention and detection of accidental releases of regulated substances.’ “The recent RMP rule, though, goes far beyond what is reasonable and practicable for owners and operators of covered facilities.  “It is not reasonable for facilities to be required to disclose confidential information to anyone living, working, or spending an undefined, 'significant' amount of time within a 6-mile radius of a covered facility.  “In fact, it is a serious risk to our country’s security.  “These facilities handle hazardous materials which can be exploited by those seeking to harm Americans.  “Nor is it reasonable or practicable for certain chemical facilities and refineries to, in place of better training, be forced to prioritize installing new physical controls or measures on their facilities every five years or justify why they will not do so. And, being too expensive is not a justification.  “Under this new RMP rule, owners and operators of these facilities must prove their safety innocence to an EPA inspector every five years, regardless of the inspector’s technical proficiency regarding plant operations.”  UNREALISTIC NEW RULES “Risk management is a serious issue, we have a duty to ensure our constituents are protected from negligence and environmental hazards. “However, the pursuit of zero-risk is not reasonable, nor is it practicable. “Risk surrounds us every day. We drive cars to work, cross streets to get where we need to go, and take pharmaceuticals that may have potential side effects.  “Yet we responsibly manage these risks and reap the benefits of the opportunity they provide.  “The same goes for industrial production, we must responsibly manage risks to reap the benefits of the materials they provide. “Today, we will explore the RMP rule to learn how it could impair the ability of American businesses to compete in the global marketplace and provide items we all benefit from. “We also will hear from witnesses who are experts in the legal grounding of RMP, the field of risk management, and the hurdles businesses face when complying with burdensome regulations.”