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. 

Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), 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) press for information regarding antisemitic harassment and intimidation at UCSF and its associated medical centers under UCSF Health. The investigation comes as part of Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-LA) House-wide  effort  to crack down on antisemitism on college campuses.  KEY EXCERPTS:   “As a recipient of federal funding—both through various U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) grants and Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements for health care services provided at UCSF Health medical centers—UCSF has an obligation to comply with federal law and to prevent and appropriately respond to discrimination and harassment.”  [...]  “The reports of antisemitic harassment and intimidation at UCSF and its associated medical centers coupled with the inadequate response by UCSF leadership is concerning to the Committee. Failing to act decisively to ensure a safe environment for all students, faculty, staff, and patients is a grave dereliction of your responsibilities as Chancellor of UCSF and UCSF Health." [...]  “Failing to comply with basic safety protections for members of the UCSF and UCSF Health communities 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 and its associated medical centers. Congress has an obligation to ensure compliance with Title VI. If Congress determines an institution of higher education is in violation, we may consider rescinding research and development funds previously appropriated. Similarly, if Congress determines a medical facility is in violation, we may consider rescinding the right to participate in federal health care programs.”  BACKGROUND :  An encampment in front of UCSF’s medical center has caused significant disruption to campus and health care operations, as well as great distress for members of the community, including health care professionals and patients.  Many Jewish health care professionals working at UCSF Health have also expressed concerns regarding their safety—including concerns of their private information being made public.  This fear is well founded, as there have been numerous antisemitic public statements by faculty, staff, and students at UCSF and/or UCSF Health, such as assertions that patients should fear Jewish doctors, false claims that Israel trains U.S. police to brutalize people of color, or statements that Israelis in the U.S., including students at U.S. universities and medical schools, who have served with the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) should be tried for war crimes.  Hundreds of complaints of antisemitism and/or a hostile work environment have been made by employees and patients of UCSF and UCSF Health to the UCSF Office of Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination (OPHD), with confidential sources reporting that most complainants receive a response that these actions and statements fall under free speech protections.  CLICK HERE to read the full 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 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.

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 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.

Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), 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 all communications between the agency and state broadband offices related to Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Initial Proposals. The letter comes amid concerns that NTIA is unlawfully pressuring states to rate regulate low-cost broadband plans required by the BEAD Program and following a May 15, 2024, hearing at which Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information Alan Davidson committed to being more transparent about BEAD funding decision making.  KEY EXCERPT :  “Based on anecdotal evidence from different entities involved in the process, it appears that the NTIA may be evaluating initial proposals counter to Congressional intent and in violation of the law. Several Members of Congress have directly raised to you that the NTIA, through its review of initial proposals, is unlawfully regulating the rate of broadband through BEAD’s low-cost service option in direct conflict with the IIJA, which states: ‘Nothing in this title may be construed to authorize the Assistant Secretary or the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to regulate the rates charged for broadband service.’9 During Senate floor debate on the IIJA, Members of Congress agreed that this language meant that ‘no rate regulation of broadband services would be authorized or permitted by the NTIA or the Assistant Secretary who leads the NTIA as part of the state broadband grant program.’” “States have reported that the NTIA is directing them to set rates and conditioning approval of initial proposals on doing so. This undoubtedly constitutes rate regulation by the NTIA. Indeed, one state publicly posted the NTIA’s feedback that the agency would not approve their initial proposal without ’an exact price or formula’ for the state’s low-cost option. Without visibility into the approval process, Congress in unable to determine how widespread this practice is. When asked about this at oversight hearings, your responses have failed to provide clarity.”  BACKGROUND:  Congress appropriated an unprecedented $42.45 billion through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) for the NTIA to administer the BEAD program.   The program was intended to ensure that all Americans, specifically those in unserved or underserved areas, have access to broadband.   The NTIA is responsible for managing and distributing this money to the states and territories.  The IIJA prohibits the NTIA from rate regulation.  The IIJA established a process for how states receive money from the NTIA for this program.   First, each of the 56 individual states and territories (state entities) were required to submit an Initial Proposal explaining their proposed process for awarding the funds.   The NTIA was then tasked with reviewing and approving each individual states entities’ proposal, after which funds would be allocated to the state to award.   Some states report that the NTIA is conditioning approval of their Initial Proposals on setting a specific price for low-cost broadband plans despite the prohibition on rate regulation.  Despite every state entity having submitted their initial proposals by the December 27, 2023, deadline, the NTIA has only approved 16 initial proposals as of the date of this letter.   Due to the opaque nature of the NTIA’s review and approval process, the Committee lacks the information necessary to assess whether NTIA is pressuring states to rate regulate and to understand why so few state entities initial proposals have been approved to move forward.  CLICK HERE to read the full letter to Assistant Secretary Davidson. 

Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Robert Califf, 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) are pressing for more information regarding the agency’s foreign drug inspection program. The letter continues the Committee’s investigation into FDA inspection practices, which include a July 18, 2023, letter , a December 13, 2023, letter , and a February 6, 2024, oversight hearing at which the FDA declined to make an official available to testify.  BACKGROUND :  In the letter, the Members discuss the Committee’s analysis of FDA inspection outcomes in India and China from January 2014 to April 2024, limiting its review to inspectors with ten or more inspections in either China or India.   EXCERPT OF THE ANALYSIS :  “The results of this analysis were surprising, revealing tremendous variation in inspection outcomes. Some FDA inspectors found compliance issues during all or almost all of their inspections. Other inspectors rarely reported finding a single compliance issue. Two inspectors never found a single compliance issue over the course of a combined 24 inspections in India. Another inspector found zero compliance issues in 20 out of 23 inspections (85 percent) in China while finding compliance issues with almost half of domestic inspections during the same period. These are unusual inspection outcomes, the opposite of what would be expected given the widely reported failures in quality control and lack of adherence to current good manufacturing techniques by drug manufacturing facilities in China and India.  “By contrast, 16 FDA inspectors, with over 325 inspections collectively in India, found compliance issues during every inspection they conducted. As a measure of what a pattern of rigorous inspections should look like, the Committee reviewed the inspection outcomes for 3 FDA inspectors with professional reputations for thoroughness who also had at least 10 inspections in China or India during the studied time period. These expert inspectors reported finding no compliance issues during inspections in China at a rate of only 6.7 to 11.4 percent and at a rate of zero to 9.5 percent in India.”  KEY LETTER EXCERPT : “Such large variations in inspection outcomes are troubling, and they merit further investigation. At a minimum, the Committee is concerned that these findings suggest vast differences in the skill, thoroughness, and competence of FDA inspectors. The difference in inspection outcomes appears to be just another example of institutional weaknesses and dysfunction in the FDA’s foreign drug inspection program. Prior to the pandemic, media reporting found that some FDA inspectors took an inappropriately lenient approach with foreign drug manufacturers with serious compliance violations. There were also reports o f, and concerns about, foreign manufacturers attempting to bribe or improperly influence inspectors. The Committee is seriously evaluating the disturbing possibility that some of the variation in inspection outcomes could be the result of bribery or fraud.”  CLICK HERE to read the full letter. 

Washington, D.C. —  In a new letter to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra, 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) request information regarding HHS’s suspension and debarment process.  The letter also provides direct evidence refuting Secretary Becerra’s testimony to the Health Subcommittee asserting that HHS “will take immediate action” to stop sexual abusers from receiving taxpayer funding. It comes amid the Committee’s ongoing investigation into sexual harassment at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and at NIH grantee institutions.  KEY LETTER EXCERPT :  “At the April 17, 2024, hearing before the Subcommittee on Health, in response to a question about the redactions of names of confirmed abusers or harassers, you said: ‘If there is an abuser that is receiving taxpayer dollars from the Department of Health and Human Services, . . . in this particular case the National Institutes of Health [NIH], we will take action immediately.’    “ However, your claim is belied by the facts. Based on subpoenaed NIH documents reviewed in camera, Committee staff discovered that an individual who served as principal investigator on at least 24 NIH-grants was not suspended or debarred from receiving federal funding despite his conviction in 2021 of sexual abuse and his medical license being stripped . Based on documentation reviewed during the Committee’s in camera review of sexual misconduct allegations on NIH-funded research, staff found that in September 2020, the NIH recommended to HHS an immediate federal-wide suspension and debarment of this abuser for 10 years based on the abuser’s indictment in 2019 on three counts of sexual abuse, and the grantee institution’s determination that the individual was responsible for sexual harassment in January of 2020. Despite this recommendation from the NIH, followed by the individual’s conviction in December 2021, HHS has taken no action. Three and a half years later, this abuser remains eligible for federal funding. On April 15, 2024, Committee staff sent an email to HHS staff requesting information about the status and handling of this matter. HHS has not yet responded.”  [...]  “ We are troubled by the limited use of suspensions and debarments from awarding agencies within HHS along with the timeliness issues and lack of use of suspensions pre-debarment raised by the HHS OIG. Harassers and abusers with public reporting of their actions, and even some with criminal convictions, are not present on SAM.gov as suspended or debarred .”  BACKGROUND : HHS is the largest grantmaking agency in the federal government—awarding over $778 billion in grants in fiscal year 2023.  Federal suspension and debarment programs help to protect the integrity of federal grant programs by ensuring the federal government does business only with responsible persons.  Individuals or parties receiving grants can be suspended or debarred from continuing to receive federal grants if they lack honesty, integrity, or business performance.  Within HHS, a suspension or debarment action may be initiated from an awarding agency—such as the NIH—or another entity—such as the Office of Inspector General (OIG).     Referrals for suspension or debarment are sent to the HHS Office of Recipient Integrity Coordination (ORIC) for review and final decision by the Suspension and Debarment Official (SDO).  Referrals can be conviction-based—originating from a criminal conviction or civil judgement—or fact-based—in which the referring office builds a case based on facts (e.g., audit findings or failures to disclose).  Suspensions and debarments are not retrospective, meaning respondents can maintain their current award(s), but it does prevent them from receiving new federal awards.   Not only are these suspensions and debarments valid within the referring agency, but they also generally make a respondent ineligible for awards from other federal departments.   Suspended or debarred parties or individuals are listed on SAM.gov and awarding departments can check this list before awarding grants to prevent awarding grants to these parties or individuals.   While federal departments have discretion as to when to refer a respondent for suspension or debarment, HHS—and particularly awarding agencies such as the NIH—can prevent known harassers or abusers from receiving additional federal awards across the federal government through these processes.   However, a 2022 HHS OIG report found several concerns during its audit of HHS’s suspension and debarment processes.  HHS OIG found that 84 percent of referrals came from non-awarding agencies—such as the OIG or Office of Research Integrity—rather than those offices charged with supervising ongoing grants.  This statistic raised concerns for the OIG about the extent to which awarding agencies were doing enough to identify and take action against bad actors and if agencies are missing opportunities for additional suspension and debarment referrals.  Another concern is the timeliness of the HHS suspension and debarment process and the limited use of suspensions during pending debarment proceedings.   The HHS OIG found that nearly half of suspensions implemented by ORIC did not meet its 60-day goal, with several suspensions taking longer than 300 days to implement.  Of the 134 debarments that ORIC implemented, nearly all involved grants, yet less than one-third of these debarments included a preceding suspension.  That means more than two-thirds of respondents may have maintained access to additional federal funding during the debarment process, with the longest case taking 1251 days or nearly three and a half years.  Moreover, for conviction-based debarments—in which the evidentiary threshold has generally already been met by the conviction or judgment—75 percent of conviction-based debarments implemented by ORIC did not meet its 100-day goal.  Rather, implementation took an average of 325 days and nearly a quarter of these debarments took over 500 days to be implemented.  The HHS OIG found numerous areas in which the timeliness, efficiency and effectiveness of HHS’s suspension and debarment program were negatively affected by internal factors.   Specifically, there is a very high turnover rate at both the staff and senior leadership levels of the suspension and debarment program, with ORIC’s full staffing levels being four personnel.  Moreover, seven different people served as HHS’s SDO—the official determining if suspension or debarment is to be implemented—in just four years.  With this kind of turnover, cases may fall through the cracks or be heavily delayed.   Moreover, HHS OIG found that a lack of policies and procedures regarding entering and tracking important case information and milestones plus a lack of guidance on what information is needed in fact-based referrals has limited the ability to suspend or debar individuals.  Specifically, ORIC was not able to suspend or debar several individuals due to a lack of documentation in the referral that showed a referring entity followed its own corrective-action escalation process prior to the suspension or debarment.  CLICK HERE to read the full letter.  TIMELINE OF INVESTIGATION:   August 10, 2021 : E&C Republican Leaders Question NIH’s Handling of Sexual Harassment Complaints    August 11, 2022 : E&C Republican Leaders follow up with NIH on Insufficient Response to its Letter on the NIH’s handling of Sexual Harassment    November 30, 2022 : E&C Republicans to NIH: Turn Over Previously Requested Information Ahead of New Congress    March 14, 2023 : E&C Republicans Press NIH for Information on Handling of Sexual Harassment Complaints    October 6, 2023 : E&C Republicans Signal Intent to Issue Subpoena to Obtain Information on NIH’s Handling of Sexual Harassment if Questions Go Unanswered    January 26, 2024 : Chair Rogers notifies NIH of Imminent Subpoena    February 5, 2024 : Chair Rodgers Subpoenas NIH for Documents Related to Investigation into Sexual Harassment at NIH and NIH Grantee Institutions   February 20, 2024 : HHS Responds on behalf of NIH to offer a rolling in camera document review to the Committee. Documents produced in the review have been highly redacted, including the redaction of the names of individuals convicted of criminal offenses, public news articles about individuals who have been found guilty of harassment, and redaction of the names of the institutions where the abuse occurred—effectively preventing the Committee from understanding if NIH continues to fund work performed by substantiated abusers at other institutions—a practice known as “pass the harasser.”   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  May 9, 2024 : E&C Republicans ask 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.