News

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

Soros-linked fund to acquire more than 200 local radio stations weeks before election Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) led 40 of her Republican colleagues in demanding answers from the Chairwoman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding her recent decision to fast-track a media deal allowing the Fund for Policy Reform, a group aligned with Democratic mega-donor George Soros, to buy over 200 radio stations just weeks before the 2024 election. With a party line vote of 3-2, the decision at the Commission level by the Democratic members of the FCC to temporarily waive the required national security review and allow excessive foreign ownership of American radio stations is deeply disturbing. KEY LETTER EXCERPT: “It is highly concerning that the FCC did not follow regular order for a transaction of this magnitude. Licensees and investors need certainty that the FCC will follow its rules and procedures when approving transactions so that the broadcast industry can have the resources it needs to continue serving the public.”  BACKGROUND: Audacy, Inc., a radio broadcasting group, which owns more than 200 radio-station licenses, filed for bankruptcy earlier this year.  Audacy’s filings revealed that a George Soros-backed group known as the Fund for Policy Reform had acquired at least 40 percent of Audacy’s debt.   Audacy estimated that, upon emerging from bankruptcy, 25 percent or more of its stock would be indirectly foreign owned, which triggers FCC review.   This review process requires national security agencies to review the transaction and offer any policy or national security concerns.   On September 30, 2024, the FCC released an Order granting a temporary waiver of this review process, delaying a national security review until after the bankruptcy process is complete and allowing foreign control of a significant number of radio stations across the entire United States, weeks before a national election. CLICK HERE to read Breitbart's exclusive coverage. 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. — 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. — 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) wrote to NPR CEO Katherine Maher regarding reports of political and ideological bias at the taxpayer-funded public radio organization. In addition to requesting answers to questions, the letter requests Ms. Maher appear before the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee for a hearing on May 8, 2024. "The Committee has concerns about the direction in which NPR may be headed under past and present leadership. As a taxpayer funded, public radio organization, NPR should focus on fair and objective news reporting that both considers and reflects the views of the larger U.S. population and not just a niche audience," the Chairs wrote.   They continued , "We also find it disconcerting that NPR’s coverage of major news in recent years has been so polarized as to preclude any need to uncover the truth. These have included news stories on matters of national security and importance, such as the Mueller report, the Hunter Biden laptop, and the COVID-19 origins investigation. On each of these issues, NPR has been accused of approaching its news reporting with an extreme left-leaning lens." “In light of the recent, disturbing revelations about National Public Radio (NPR) and its leadership, I’ve directed Chair McMorris Rodgers and the Energy and Commerce Committee to conduct an investigation of NPR and determine what actions should be taken to hold the organization accountable for its ideological bias and contempt for facts. The American people support the free press but will not be made to fund a left-leaning political agenda with taxpayer funds.” said Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) regarding the effort. CLICK HERE to read the letter.

Washington, D.C. — 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), on behalf of the Health and Oversight Subcommittee Republicans, wrote to National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Monica Bertagnolli. In the letter, the Chairs ask the NIH to confirm by May 14, 2024, whether the agency has complied with White House guidance to stop funding projects led by researchers and entities in Russia.  BACKGROUND :  On June 11, 2022, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) issued guidance stating such projects and programs that commenced and/or were funded prior to Russia’s further invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 may be concluded, but new projects in affected subject areas will not be initiated.   The OSTP advised applicable departments and agencies to curtail interaction with the leadership of Russian government-affiliated universities and research institutions, as well as those who have publicly expressed support for the invasion of Ukraine.  In a statement in an April 9, 2023, article in The Washington Times , the NIH’s Office of Extramural Research claimed that “NIH currently does not fund any research in Russia.”  However, the Data Abyss tracker for the OSTP Russia guidance on federal funding agencies indicates that, as of April 5, 2024, the NIH has potentially 240 instances of problematic research collaborations since June 2022 that do not comply with the guidance. CLICK HERE to read the letter.

Letter argues agency lacks legal authority to reinstate burdensome rules that will hurt consumers Washington, D.C. – U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Senate Commerce Committee Ranking Member Ted Cruz (R-TX) led a bicameral coalition of their committee colleagues in calling on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reverse course and abandon its so-called “net neutrality” draft order—an illegal power grab that would expose the broadband industry to an oppressive regulatory regime under Title II of the Communications Act. The FCC is set to vote on the draft order on Thursday. The members argue that the FCC’s draft order ignores the text of the Communications Act of 1934, which explicitly precludes the FCC from treating broadband as a public utility. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s recent jurisprudence on the major questions doctrine confirms that the only body that can authorize public utility regulation of broadband is Congress. Resurrecting this failed Obama-era policy, which will inevitably be struck down by the courts, is a waste of time and re sources and will punish American consumers by choking off investment, innovation, and competition. In a letter to Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, the members write: “Congress’s decision to treat broadband Internet access as an information service, rather than a telecommunications service, was a deliberate policy choice. Congress recognized that ‘[t]he Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation,’ and accordingly decreed that it ‘is the policy of the United States... to promote the continued development of the internet and other interactive computer services... [and] to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation.’   “Your proposal to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service does the exact opposite. It would give the Commission largely unfettered power to impose (and allow states to impose) rate regulation, tariffing requirements, unbundling obligations, entry and exit regulation, and taxation of broadband—the antithesis of leaving broadband ‘unfettered’ by regulation as the law requires. Congress has had many opportunities to give the FCC such power, yet it has never done so in any of its ample legislative enactments regarding broadband over the past two decades. Rather, legislators have repeatedly considered but ultimately rejected efforts to replace the longstanding light-touch framework with common carrier regulation. And for good reason: Title II will inflict significant damage on consumers by chilling investment and innovation.   “Finally, recent jurisprudence from the Supreme Court confirms that the Commission has no power to impose Title II on the broadband industry. As the Commission’s record demonstrates, the question of whether broadband should be subject to public utility regulation is an issue of ‘vast economic and political significance,’ such that the Commission must identify ‘clear authorization from Congress’ to justify such a decision. Our review of the relevant statutory provisions leaves no doubt that, far from possessing the type of ‘clear’ statutory authority required under Supreme Court precedent, the Commission lacks any authority to subject broadband services to common-carrier regulation.” The full list of Senators joining Chair Rodgers and Ranking Member Cruz in sending the letter include: Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Deb Fischer (Re-Neb.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Todd Young (R-Ind.), Ted Budd (R-N.C.), Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), and Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.). Also signing the letter were Reps. Bob Latta (OH-5), Michael Burgess (TX-26), Brett Guthrie (KY-2), Morgan Griffith (VA-9), Gus Bilirakis (FL-12), Larry Bucshon (IN-8), Richard Hudson (NC-9), Tim Walberg (MI-5), Buddy Carter (GA-1), Jeff Duncan (SC-3), Gary Palmer (AL-6), Neal Dunn (FL-2), John Curtis (UT-3), Debbie Lesko (AZ-8), Greg Pence (IN-6), Dan Crenshaw (TX-2), John Joyce (PA-13), Kelly Armstrong (ND-At-large), Randy Weber (TX-14), Rick Allen (GA-12), Troy Balderson (OH-12), Russ Fulcher (ID-1), August Pfluger (TX-11), Diana Harshbarger (TN-1), Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-1), Kat Cammack (FL-3), Jay Obernolte (CA-23), and John James (MI-10). The full text of the letter is available HERE .

Washington, D.C. — 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), on behalf of the Health and Oversight Subcommittee Republicans, wrote to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra.  The letter outlines concerns with the role HHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR) plays—or fails to play—in investigating instances of sexual harassment that occurs at research institutions which receive grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).  KEY EXCERPTS :  “There have been several public reports of sexual harassment occurring on NIH-funded research or NIH-supported activities over the last decade, and it raises concerns about what, if any, actions the NIH has taken to resolve these issues. The NIH’s own statistics show a significant problem with more than 300 cases related to sexual or gender harassment since 2018—with about a third of those allegations being substantiated. This also represents hundreds of men and women who may be forced to operate in a hostile or unsafe research environment.”  [...]  “According to the HHS website, OCR does investigate and resolve complaints of sexual harassment in the education and health programs of recipients of grants or other federal financial assistance from HHS—including the NIH. Moreover, HHS OCR is required to conduct periodic compliance reviews of institutional Title IX programs to ensure compliance with the law—including examining the way in which complaints are handled by the institution.”  The Chairs have requested answers to questions about HHS OCR’s role by April 30, 2024.  BACKGROUND :  Based on a recommendation from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), HHS OCR and the NIH adopted a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to facilitate communication between the two components of HHS as it relates to sexual harassment.   This MOU was intended to clarify procedures on how the enforcement arm of HHS and the grant-making arm share valuable information with one another in an effort to respond appropriately to complaints of sexual harassment and prevent federal grant money from going to those with a history of sexual misconduct.   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 Subpoenas 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.”