News

Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans are pressing for answers regarding Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) awards. The letter to Administrator Regan, signed by Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA), and Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Chair Earl L. "Buddy" Carter (R-GA), requests an unredacted copy of all GGRF award agreements that have been finalized.  It follows up on an Oversight Subcommittee hearing from earlier this year, where Mr. Zealan Hoover, Senior Advisor to the Administrator, assured Committee Members that the award agreements that EPA entered into with recipients to receive GGRF program awards would address the concerns raised.   LETTER TEXT BELOW:   Dear Administrator Regan,  We write to you as part of the Energy and Commerce Committee’s (the Committee) continued oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). As you know, Committee Members have many questions regarding this first-of-its-kind, $27 billion program, including those discussed at a January 30, 2024, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing on the GGRF, with Mr. Zealan Hoover, Senior Advisor to the Administrator, testifying on behalf of the EPA. In numerous instances, Mr. Hoover assured Members that the award agreements that EPA would enter into with recipients that the EPA selected to receive GGRF program awards would address the concerns they raised.   For example, in response to a question from Committee Chair Rodgers about what conflicts of interest policies would govern funding recipients responsible for further distributing this money, Mr. Hoover responded that “they will be subject to all of the terms and conditions of their financial assistance agreement.” After Representative Guthrie pressed for more information on whether organizations with foreign ties could receive GGRF funding, Mr. Hoover stated that “one of the terms and conditions in each of the award agreements is going to be a prohibition against entering into any form of contractual relationship with a foreign entity of concern.” Mr. Hoover also replied to Representative Lesko, “[e]ach grantee is applying with a rigorous investment plan, proposed project pipeline, and timeline for a wide array of necessary activities covering their investment work, their governance, their organizational structure. All of that will be enshrined in our terms and conditions of the grant agreement.”   Members also submitted follow-up questions for the record after the hearing. Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chair Griffith requested more detail about performance audits, and the EPA responded, in part, “[w]e expect that the terms and conditions of GGRF grants, as provided in 2 C.F.R. § 200.208, will authorize the project officer to closely monitor recipient performance and compliance with grant requirements.” Additionally, in response to Chair Griffith’s inquiry on how the EPA could evaluate the past performance of applicants that included new organizations or coalitions, the EPA stated that it required applicants to submit risk management plans, and that awardees would have to comply with specific terms and conditions in their award agreements. In response to a question on Build America, Buy America Act (BABA) compliance, the EPA stated that it was “including terms and conditions in the award agreements to reinforce that all grants are subject to [BABA] by statute,” and that “EPA will hold selected applicants accountable to BABA requirements through the terms and conditions of the award agreements.” Finally, the EPA also responded to a question from Representative Crenshaw, saying that “EPA will include a term and condition in all award agreements to protect against federal funds flowing to entities with certain connections to the People’s Republic of China.”  In short, the EPA repeatedly sought to reassure the Committee that its award agreements with selected recipients would address the issues of concern and potential risks. The Committee seeks additional detail on how these award agreements will address the issues of concern and potential risks.    As such, please provide a complete and unredacted copy of the award agreement, including all of the attachments, appendices, and any amendments, that the EPA executes with each funding recipient under the GGRF. By no later than August 29, 2024, please provide a copy of all award agreements that have been finalized as of the date of this letter, and please provide a copy of all remaining agreements as soon as they are finalized. 

Committee Leaders request GAO review CMS Part D premium stabilization program Lawmakers are calling on the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the Medicare Part D Premium Stabilization Demonstration recently announced by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), noting its dubious legality and the danger it poses to health care affordability for seniors. The effort comes as part of a letter to GAO from House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-ID), and House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-MO).  Through new taxpayer-financed policy adjustments, the demonstration seemingly intends to deflate seniors’ premiums that are otherwise slated to increase dramatically following the counterintuitive, haphazardly-written Inflation Reduction Act’s drug price provisions. However, the agency has not produced any budgetary analysis and appears to lack a clear statutory basis or credible research goals for the proposal. Rodgers, Crapo, and Smith request GAO review the demonstration’s legality under section 402 of the Social Security Amendments of 1967; what budgetary analysis CMS undertook in developing the demonstration; and the estimated budgetary impact of the demonstration. From the letter: “We write to request that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conduct an expedited review of the Part D Premium Stabilization Demonstration, as announced by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on July 29, 2024. In response to the Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA) problematic design features and rushed legislative process, the proposed demonstration employs arbitrary policy levers to achieve short-term objectives. The initiative lacks any budgetary analysis, clear statutory basis, or credible research goals. The integrity of the Medicare program and the taxpayer dollars that finance its benefits demand more than partisan aspirations to justify extra-statutory, eleventh-hour policy changes." [. . .] “[T]he policies advanced through the recently announced demonstration would simply shift costs from plan sponsors and enrollees to taxpayers, obscuring the law’s impacts without addressing their underlying drivers. Moreover, consideration of these types of programmatic changes should fall within the purview of the legislative branch. Instead, however, this agency action seeks to sidestep Congress, waiving statutory directives under the guise of a ‘demonstration project,’ with no meaningful research aims, budgetary assessments, or empirical rigor.” CLICK HERE to read the full letter.

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee Chair Jeff Duncan (R-SC), and Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Subcommittee Chair Buddy Carter (R-GA) yesterday sent a letter to Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Jennifer Granholm urging the Department of Energy to prioritize the onshoring of our critical mineral supply chains following the Chinese Communist Party’s July 1 declaration that rare earth metals were the “property of the state.” CLICK HERE to read exclusive coverage by E&E News. KEY QUOTE “Critical minerals are essential to America’s economy and to America’s capacity to manufacture goods and high-tech devices. Many critical minerals are essential to the energy sector, as they are needed to manufacture solar panels, batteries, and electrical equipment. As the DOE is aware, the CCP announced limitations on gallium, germanium, natural and synthetic graphite last October. These critical minerals are vital for our defense and energy technologies and are listed as critical and at high risk of supply disruption. On November 21, 2023, the Committee on Energy and Commerce sent a letter raising security concerns over the CCP limiting exports of gallium, germanium, natural graphite, and synthetic graphite. Your response to that letter failed to address these concerns and lacked basic information to help Members of Congress assess the risks of America’s increasing dependence on CCP controlled minerals.” [...] “The administration should prioritize the onshoring of domestic mining and processing industry for these critical minerals and materials. The answer to a lack of mining and processing is not to extend credits to companies using minerals from a major geopolitical adversary that relies on child labor and exploitation.” Chairs Rodgers, Duncan, and Carter asked Secretary Granholm to answer the following questions by August 13, 2024: Are you concerned by reports that the Chinese government has declared rare earth metals property of the government of China? What actions will the DOE take in response to the Chinese government’s announcement? Please describe any actions DOE has taken to prioritize onshoring domestic mining and processing of synthetic and natural graphite. Please describe any actions DOE has taken to prioritize onshoring domestic mining and processing of gallium and germanium. How will DOE work to expedite projects to ensure a secure and stable supply chain of these critical minerals and materials given these recent announcements? What actions will DOE take to mitigate potential domestic supply shortages of these minerals? Were you consulted about the Treasury Department’s decision to extend the graphite exemption through 2027? Did you advise or recommend that the White House extend the graphite exemption through 2027? Please explain. CLICK HERE to read the letter to Secretary Granholm. CLICK HERE to read the November 21, 2023, letter to Secretary Granholm raising concerns over the CCP’s decision to limit exports of gallium, germanium, natural graphite, and synthetic graphite.

Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Subcommittee on Health Chair Brett Guthrie (R-KY) requested information related to rescheduling of marijuana.  KEY LETTER EXCERPTS :  “We write to express our concerns with the recent notice of proposed rulemaking titled ‘Schedules of Controlled Substances: Rescheduling of Marijuana,’ to transfer marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The circumstances surrounding this proposed rule are unusual, and we are concerned by the process that led to this determination.”  [...]  “We support research into innovative therapies to improve patient outcomes, but we are concerned with how the normal process was circumvented to achieve a result for political purposes and we have a number of unanswered questions.”  BACKGROUND :  History:   Marijuana is a psychoactive substance that has been listed in Schedule I since the CSA was enacted in 1970.  All substances in Schedule I are classified as having no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.  This means that the manufacturing, possession, and distribution of marijuana is illegal at the federal level, except for certain research approved by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).  During the Obama administration in 2016, the DEA and HHS, acting through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), conducted a multi-year review of whether to transfer marijuana from Schedule I to a lesser schedule. Both the DEA and HHS agreed that marijuana continued to meet the criteria to be considered a Schedule I substance.  HHS concluded that “[…] marijuana has a high potential for abuse, has no accepted medical use in the United States, and lacks an acceptable level of safety for use even under medical supervision.”  President Biden made a public statement on October 6, 2022, issuing pardons for all simple possession federal offenses of marijuana, requesting all Governors do the same with state level offenses, and requiring HHS and DOJ to begin the administrative process to quickly review how marijuana is scheduled under federal law.  While the administration has the authority to alter a substance’s scheduling status, it is bound by the CSA to consider factors, including whether a substance has a medical use and to determine its potential for abuse and dependence, prior to changing its scheduling status.  Process:   The DEA typically determines whether a substance has a medical use if it has been approved for marketing under the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and by conducting a five-part test, which considers the following:  (1) there were adequate safety studies,  (2) the drug’s chemistry is known and reproducible,  (3) there are adequate and controlled studies,  (4) the drug is accepted by qualified experts, and  (5) there is widely available scientific evidence.  However, this proposed rule indicates that HHS notified the DEA that HHS disagreed with the existing process and decided to develop its own test to determine whether a substance has medical use under the CSA.  This test is comprised of two considerations:  (1) if there is widespread medical use of such a substance under the supervision of a licensed health care practitioner operating within a State-authorized program and,  (2) if so, there is credible scientific evidence to support medical use of such substance.  HHS analyzed marijuana by utilizing its own two-part test, determined it has a medical use, and therefore recommended to transfer marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the CSA.  DOJ received HHS’s recommendation and declared that this new two-part test is sufficient to establish medical use, which is an unusual deviation from the typical process.  It is notable that the proposed rule states, “DEA has not yet made a determination as to its views of the appropriate schedule for marijuana,” seeming to indicate that the DEA is not yet convinced of the merits of this review.  Additionally, most of the professional organizations listed in the HHS “Basis for the Recommendation to Reschedule Marijuana into Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act” have released position statements that either request more evidence or oppose using marijuana as medicine for their specialties.  Further Considerations:   To date, the FDA has not approved a New Drug Application (NDA) necessary to have satisfied the criteria required under the previous five-factor analysis, such as adequate and well-controlled studies proving safety and efficacy, for a drug product containing botanical marijuana to treat any medical condition(s); thus, it has remained a Schedule I drug without a currently accepted medical use.  This is misaligned from typical practice, as the presence of a marketing application approved to treat a certain condition or disease has been central to the FDA's determinations.  The Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) potency in marijuana is also continuing to increase.  According to the proposed rule, THC potency has spiked from about three percent in 1991 to 17 percent in 2017 and it notes, “[…] DEA anticipates that additional data on public safety risks, risks from acute and chronic marijuana use via oral and inhaled administration routes, and the impact of THC potency may be appropriate for consideration.”  The proposed rule also states, “the vast majority of professional organizations did not recommend the use of marijuana in their respective specialties; however, none specifically recommended against it, with the exception of the American Psychiatric Association, which states that marijuana is known to worsen certain psychiatric conditions.”  Further, HHS’s own report to Congress titled “Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids and Barriers to Research” states that “[m]ore research is needed to evaluate the therapeutic potential of cannabis and cannabinoids as a means of safely and effectively treating various indications […] it is also worth noting that the U.S. jurisdictions that have legalized the use of cannabis products for medicinal purposes have often done so with inadequate scientific research to support all allowable uses.”  CLICK HERE to read the letter.

Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra and National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Monica Bertagnolli, 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) requested documents and transcribed interviews related to an approved MPVX experiment.  The letter comes after the Committee released an interim staff report on the experiment as well as an NIH reform framework . It notes that a failure to produce the requested documents by August 8, 2024, may lead to issuance of a subpoena to compel compliance. HHS and the NIH continue to withhold critical documents requested by the Committee last year.  KEY EXCERPT :  “For nearly a year and a half, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the NIH, and NIAID misled the Committee. Both HHS and the NIH told us a risky MPXV research proposal at the NIAID had not been “'formally proposed' or 'planned' when in fact this project was submitted and received approval before the NIH’s Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) on June 30, 2015, as documented in written meeting minutes. The misleading statements were included in the following communications to the Committee:  Letter from the HHS Assistant Secretary for Legislation dated April 26, 2023.  Letter from Dr. Bernard Moss to Chair Rodgers, dated June 30, 2023.  Written statements presented at the September 21, 2023, meeting between Committee staff and NIH/NIAID officials from Dr. Bernard Moss, Dr. Steven Holland, NIAID Director of the Division of Intramural Research, and Jeffery Potts, Chief of the Biorisk Management Branch within the NIH Division of Occupational Health and Safety.  “This deception is unacceptable and has led the Committee to conclude that NIAID cannot be trusted to oversee its own research of pathogens or determine whether an experiment poses enhanced risks of a potential pandemic or other serious public health outbreak.”  [...] “NIAID’s lack of candor to this point suggests that it cannot be trusted to oversee the research projects that it funds. Therefore, this Committee will explore policy options to address this inherent conflict of interest and lack of transparency.”  ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND :  A new strain of MPXV has recently emerged that increases the risk of this disease causing a major public health outbreak or a potential pandemic. Since January, the Democratic Republic of the Congo has reported more than 4,500 suspected mpox cases and nearly 300 deaths, numbers that have roughly tripled from the same period last year, according to the World Health Organization.  Congo recently declared the outbreak across the country a health emergency. An analysis of hospitalized patients suggests recent genetic mutations are the result of continued transmissions in humans.  CLICK HERE to read the letter.

Letter comes on the eve of athletes competing in the Paris Olympics and after WADA’s President refused to attend an Energy and Commerce Committee oversight hearing Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) President Witold Banka, bipartisan House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders pressed for answers regarding WADA’s handling of positive doping cases within China’s national swimming team ahead of the Tokyo Olympics. The letter contains questions that bipartisan Committee Members would have asked during a recent Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing , which Mr. Banka was invited to attend but refused to appear. Witnesses that did testify at the hearing included: Michael Phelps, American swimmer and Olympic gold medalist   Allison Schmitt, American swimmer and Olympic gold medalist   Travis Tygart , Chief Executive Officer, United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) KEY EXCERPTS:   “We write today to express our sincere disappointment at your refusal to accept our invitation to attend and provide testimony at our recent Subcommittee hearing. Members of Congress have important questions for the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and are especially concerned about recent reports of your handling of dozens of cases of doping within the Chinese swimming team.  “WADA purports to maintain the integrity of sports by creating a fair and competitive sporting environment free from doping. As a U.S. taxpayer supported entity, WADA has a responsibility to the American people to ensure this integrity by enforcing international testing requirements. We believe WADA has fallen short of this important mission. ”  [...]   “ We are particularly concerned with the excessive deference being extended toward CHINADA—a state-funded operation with leadership deeply intertwined with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as current [Chinese Anti-Doping Agency] CHINADA director Li Zhiquan also serves as a Committee Secretary for the CCP. At a meeting in 2023, Zhiquan called on CHINADA employees to be 'loyal to the party' and to 'hold high the great banner of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era.' Furthermore, WADA’s reported sponsorship arrangement with ANTA Sports—the Chinese athletic company sponsoring the Chinese Olympic Committee and China’s national swimming federation—could be perceived as a conflict of interest. Since WADA is expected to uphold and maintain international anti-doping standards, WADA’s apparent lack of skepticism and failure to enforce the rules against CHINADA is troubling. While we are aware that WADA has opened an investigation, we are concerned that international scrutiny was necessary to force due diligence that should be routine .”  [...]  “This incident unfortunately reinforces our concern that WADA appears to be reverting to its previous poor management practices.”  [...]  “With the Paris Summer Olympic Games Opening Ceremony just a day away , the Committee seeks to better understand the circumstances surrounding WADA’s decision not to appeal the decision to clear the twenty-three swimmers who tested positive for trimetazidine.”   BACKGROUND :  In January 2021, 23 Chinese swimmers (“23 swimmers”) tested positive for trimetazidine, or TMZ, a banned substance improperly used to increase stamina and hasten recovery times.  Three months after the positive tests, CHINADA initiated an investigation into the source of the TMZ and by June 2021 claimed the athletes ingested the banned substance through food tainted in a hotel kitchen.  According to reporting, Chinese investigators “offered no explanation […] for how a prescription drug available only in pill form had contaminated an entire kitchen.”  In reliance on “external legal advice” and its science department, WADA determined that CHINADA’s claims were “plausible” and chose not to appeal the decision or further investigate the matter.  Three of these Chinese swimmers went on to win gold medals at the Tokyo Olympic Games in July of 2021.  China has selected 11 swimmers that tested positive for TMZ before the Tokyo Games to compete in the upcoming Paris Games.  In a strikingly similar case, Kamila Valieva, a Russian figure skater, also tested positive for the banned substance TMZ during the 2022 Beijing Olympics.  The Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) issued a provisional suspension but was quickly cleared by RUSADA’s discipline board, since Valieva claimed she ingested the substance by mistake through a contaminated source.  Rather than simply accept RUSADA’s contamination explanation, WADA appealed the decision and ultimately, Valieva received a four-year ban from competition and was retroactively stripped of her gold medal. The letter was signed by Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr., (D-NJ), Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce Chair Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) and Ranking Member Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA) and Ranking Member Kathy Castor (D-FL). CLICK HERE to read the full letter.

Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Chair Bob Latta (R-OH), and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA) requested information about the agency’s internet domain name registry agreement with Verisign, Inc. (Verisign). BACKGROUND :  The NTIA represents the United States government on the Governmental Advisory Committee of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the multi-stakeholder, not-for-profit entity that was founded in 1998 to coordinate the Internet domain name system, among other Internet management-related activities. Since 2001, Verisign has operated the .com and .net domain name registries.   Verisign manages the .com registry under two agreements—a .com Registry Agreement between ICANN and Verisign and a Cooperative Agreement between the NTIA and Verisign.  Both of these agreements are in place through November 30, 2024.  As the expiration dates of these agreements approach, some have suggested that the NTIA should reassess certain aspects of both agreements.   Under the Cooperative Agreement’s terms, it will automatically renew on November 30, 2024, unless Verisign provides written notice of non-renewal within 120 days of its expiration.   The Department of Justice has previously recommended ICANN hold a competitive bidding process for renewals of registry agreements.   The current agreement, as amended, has allowed Verisign, with ICANN’s agreement, in each of the last four years of every six-year contract period, to increase the maximum price Verisign charges for yearly registration or renewal of a .com name by up to seven percent over the maximum price it charged in the previous year.   Verisign has since instituted a price increase of the maximum amount in every year it was allowed to do so.   KEY LETTER EXCERPT :  “With both a role in advising ICANN and as a party to the Cooperative Agreement, the NTIA bears responsibility for supporting a domain name system that enables the growth of online commerce. Both individual consumers and businesses depend on responsible management of the .com system. Monopolistic elements and excessive domain name price increases stifle the ability of potential .com registrants to conduct business online.  “As such, we seek more information about the NTIA’s process in considering the renewal of both the Registry Agreement and the Cooperative Agreement.”  CLICK HERE to read the letter. 

Washington D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chair Bob Latta (R-OH) today sent National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) Administrator Alan Davidson a letter demanding an explanation for the Agency’s repeated failures to respond to questions for the record (QFRs) in a timely manner. Congress has a responsibility to conduct oversight of the executive branch, and the NTIA’s failure to be responsive and transparent undermines our system of checks and balances. KEY LETTER EXCERPT: “We expect NTIA to take seriously our oversight efforts and respond to QFRs and letters promptly. After the hearing on December 5, 2023, it took you 107 days to submit your answers to the QFRs, far exceeding the 2-week deadline. “We received answers to QFRs from the December oversight hearing on the same day that we announced the May NTIA oversight hearing. It is unacceptable that in order to receive responses to QFRs from an oversight hearing, we must introduce more oversight activity.” The Chairs requested answers to the following questions:   During our May 15, 2024, oversight hearing, when questioned about the untimeliness of NTIA’s responses, you said, “I don't know all the details about why each of those took so long, and I would be happy to get back to you. I think the process of writing the QFRs were quite lengthy.” Please describe the process of drafting QFR responses. During that same hearing, you also said “We have to get them [(responses to QFRs)] all cleared through a complex internal interagency process, and that often slows us down.” Please explain each of the steps in this process. How can this interagency process be adjusted to ensure that NTIA responds promptly to the Committee’s requests? CLICK HERE to read the full letter.

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Oversight and Acoountability Committee Chair James Comer (R-KY) sent letters to eight federal agencies today following the recent Supreme Court decision on Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo , in which the court overruled Chevron deference. Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chair Frank Lucas (R-OK) and House Agriculture Committee Chair GT Thompson (R-PA) joined Chairs Rodgers and Comer on an additional letter sent to the Environmental Protection Agency. KEY LETTER EXCERPT: “We write to call to your attention Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a recent Supreme Court decision that precludes courts from deferring to agency interpretations when the statutes are ambiguous. In its decision, the Court explicitly overruled Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), which required deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. By allowing such deference, the Court in Chevron enabled the ‘Administrative State’ to usurp the legislative authority that the Constitution grants exclusively to Congress in Article I. The Chevron decision led to broader, more costly and more invasive agency regulation of Americans’ lives, liberty, and property.   “Perhaps no administration has gone as far as President Biden’s in issuing sweeping Executive edicts based on questionable assertions of agency authority. The Biden administration has promulgated far more major rules, imposing vast costs and paperwork burdens, than either its most recent predecessors. Many of these rules...have been based on overreaching interpretations of statutes enacted by Congress years ago, before the issues now regulated were even imagined.   “The expansive Chevron deference has undermined our system of government, creating an unaccountable Administrative State. Thankfully, the Court has now corrected this pattern, reaffirming that ‘[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.’ Given the Biden administration’s record of agency overreach, we are compelled to underscore the implications of Loper Bright and remind you of the limitations it has set on your authority.”   CLICK HERE to read the letter to the Environmental Protection Agency. CLICK HERE to read the letter to the Federal Communications Commission.  CLICK HERE to read the letter to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.  CLICK HERE to read the letter to the Federal Trade Commission.  CLICK HERE to read the letter to Department of Commerce.   CLICK HERE to read the letter to the Department of Energy.  CLICK HERE to read the letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  CLICK HERE to read the letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  CLICK HERE to read the letter to the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration.