News

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

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday, Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, led a hearing titled Aging Technology, Emerging Threats: Examining Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities in Legacy Medical Devices .  “The health care sector is one of 16 critical infrastructure sectors in the U.S. and has become a significant target for cyberattacks. To ensure our hospitals are secure and patients safely receive the treatment they need, we must reduce the vulnerabilities found in legacy medical devices,” said Chairman Palmer. “Yesterday’s hearing helped us better understand the risks of these devices and how to navigate them.”   Watch the full hearing here .  Below are key excerpts from yesterday’s hearing :  Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06): “Are there updated estimates on how many legacy medical devices are currently in-use across the U.S. health care system?” Mr. Decker: “The problem is actually sort of unknown, as far as how many devices exist, especially when we start talking about the concept of what is legacy versus what is non-legacy devices… We can estimate how many devices we think exist. So, if you look inside any typical hospital, you have for any bed 8-15 some devices connected to it. There are stats that show there’s about 913,000 beds in the United States, so extrapolating that, you get to about easily 10,000,000 devices that exist.”   Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02): “We’re talking about backdoor medical devices and what that means in the discovery and what vulnerabilities that has and how it’s concerning. So, Mr. Decker and Ms. Jump, how often do we find this type of thing?” Mr. Decker: “Within medical devices, specifically, it’s unknown. You know, there was that report that came out about the Contec Chinese device and in your opening comments, you mentioned there’s two potential opportunities for that to occur. We know that certain nation-state adversaries are prepositioning themselves into critical infrastructure and other critical infrastructure have been targeted for this, so it’s certainly within the realm of possibility that that’s occurring within health care.” Ms. Jump: “I would say that, as a risk management expert, I think that with the increased enforcement of risk management efforts, penetration testing, and threat modeling that FDA has placed on manufacturers, not only for new devices, but also for any devices going in for a significant change of modification, (so older devices do still go through this process) - that manufacturers are being forced to actually look critically at their devices across the whole spectrum - the entire threat landscape of that device. Therefore, I think that we are going to find more and more of these. Certainly, with my clients, we do threat modeling. We do penetration testing. We help those manufacturers find those issues before they become problems and start causing issues within the health care industry.”   Congressman Rus Fulcher (ID-01): “Mr. Garcia, during your verbal testimony, you made a statement that surprised me a little bit and it was that the medical device security in the medical industry, if I understood you correctly, was the most targeted for cyberattacks. Did I get that right?” Mr. Garcia: “The entire health care ecosystem, not just medical devices.” Mr. Fulcher: “Okay, so why health care? I mean, we hear about the banking, right? And power grids. What is it about the health care industry that creates that target?” Mr. Garcia: “Yeah, I came from financial services before this and, at that time 15 years ago, banking was the biggest target because that’s where the money is. But then they started outspending the criminals. The problem with health care is, first off, it is a widely distributed, multifaceted ecosystem that has a lot of touch points, a lot of vulnerabilities. Secondly, there is less money to spend against cyber threats. And thirdly, it’s easy money. When you have a ransomware attack, if you are a hacker and you ransom a hospital, you are forcing the decision on the hospital: should I pay the ransom and continue to treat patients or should I not and run the risk of not treating patients and/or going out of business. That’s why.”   ###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, announced a hearing titled Aging Technology, Emerging Threats: Examining Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities in Legacy Medical Devices .  “Medical devices are critically important and broadly used to diagnose, monitor, and treat patients throughout health care delivery systems. Some medical devices, however, contain cybersecurity vulnerabilities. It is imperative we defend against cyber threats to protect patients and safeguard our national security,” said Chairmen Guthrie and Palmer. “This hearing will provide us with an opportunity to examine concerns regarding vulnerabilities in legacy medical devices, their impact on patient safety and health operations, and strategies to enhance cyber resilience.”    Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing titled Aging Technology, Emerging Threats: Examining Cybersecurity Vulnerabilities in Legacy Medical Devices     WHAT : Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing on cybersecurity vulnerabilities in legacy medical devices. DATE : Tuesday, April 1, 2025 TIME : 10:30 AM ET LOCATION : 2322 Rayburn House Office Building This notice is at the direction of the Chairman. The hearing will be open to the public and press and will be livestreamed online at energycommerce.house.gov . If you have any questions concerning this hearing, please contact Emma Schultheis at Emma.Schultheis@mail.house.gov . If you have any press-related questions, please contact Kaley Stidham at Kaley.Stidham@mail.house.gov .   ###

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, delivered the following opening statement at today’s hearing titled  Examining The Biden Administration’s Energy And Environment Spending Push . Subcommittee Chairman Palmer's opening statement as prepared for delivery: “Welcome to the first hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the 119th Congress. I want to start by saying that it is an honor to serve as the Chairman of this Subcommittee. Congress has an important oversight responsibility that includes making sure our laws are working as intended and that the federal government is using taxpayer dollars responsibly. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this important endeavor.    “Today’s hearing is entitled 'Examining the Biden Administration’s Energy and Environment Spending Push.' Moments ago I noted the importance of ensuring that the federal government is being a good steward of taxpayer dollars. This is critical, particularly in the context of the extraordinary surge in spending and the explosion of new and expanded programs at the Department of Energy (or DOE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (or EPA), largely authorized and funded by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (or IIJA) and the Inflation Reduction Act (or IRA). The two laws provided supplemental appropriations of $97 billion and $101.5 billion to DOE and EPA, respectively.  “As this Subcommittee examined last Congress, spending large amounts of funding, particularly in short timeframes carries tremendous risk. For example, in a November 2024 report, the DOE Office of the Inspector General (OIG) noted that the IIJA, IRA, and 2023 Omnibus Appropriations law increased the DOE Loan Program Office’s authority to nearly half a trillion dollars. This is more than 23 times that of the program’s portfolio balance as of November 2021, when the IIJA was signed into law.  “The situation only became more alarming as the Biden administration raced to finalize loans and spend down available grant funding in its final months. All three watchdog organizations here today, the EPA OIG, DOE OIG, and the Government Accountability Office (GAO), have reported on past shortcomings within these agencies and risk factors for waste, fraud, and abuse. These risks increased under past infusions of funding as agencies rushed to move large amounts of funding in a short amount of time.  “Unfortunately, history seems to be repeating itself, but we have a chance to try to minimize the damage. I want to emphasize that we are not insinuating that all applicants and recipients are guilty of wrongdoing. Rather, the sheer pace and volume with which this funding was awarded raises questions, and it is worth a pause to evaluate whether the appropriate due diligence was done to ensure taxpayer dollars went to eligible parties and the funds are being used appropriately.  “I thank our witnesses for being here and sharing their expertise to guide and inform the Committee’s efforts to identify potential misuse of federal funds and ensure that appropriate measures are taken moving forward to prevent future misuse of funds. This hearing is only one step of many to ensure that wasteful spending is curbed, and we hope to continue our collaboration with the OIGs, GAO, and the current administration to address this issue.  “I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Ms. Clarke, for her opening statement.” ###

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Today, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations, announced the first hearing of the 119th Congress for the Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations titled  Examining the Biden Administration’s Energy and Environment Spending Push .  “In its final months, the Biden-Harris Administration handed out billions of dollars in energy and environment grants and loans at an unprecedented pace, exacerbating concerns that appropriate vetting and due diligence reviews may not have occurred for some of these awards,”  said Chairmen Guthrie and Palmer.   “This hearing will provide an opportunity for the Committee to examine this surge in spending and help identify potential misuse of federal funds.”    Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing titled  Examining the Biden Administration’s Energy and Environment Spending Push .  WHAT: Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing examining Biden-Harris Administration energy and environment spending. DATE: Wednesday, February 26, 2025     TIME: 10:30 AM ET  LOCATION: 2322 Rayburn House Office Building  This notice is at the direction of the Chairman. The hearing will be open to the public and press and will be livestreamed online at energycommerce.house.gov . If you have any questions concerning this hearing, please contact Calvin Huggins at Calvin.Huggins1@mail.house.gov . If you have any press-related questions, please contact Zach Bannon at Zach.Bannon@mail.house.gov .  ###

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Today, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, announced the Committee’s Subcommittee Chief Counsels for the 119th Congress: Subcommittee on Communications and Technology  Chief Counsel - Kate Harper Kate O’Connor Harper will serve as Chief Counsel for the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, where she has served for the past 5 years. Kate previously served as the Chief of Staff for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, where she worked on legislative and communications policy focused on spectrum and broadband issues. She also worked in NTIA’s Office of Congressional Affairs and engaged with Congress, state government officials, and other federal agencies to advance the Administration’s legislative initiatives on broadband and 5G. Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade Chief Counsel - Giulia Leganski Giulia Leganski will serve as Chief Counsel for the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade. Prior to this role, Giulia served as a Professional Staff Member for the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, handling issues related to Big Tech, Section 230, Artificial Intelligence, cybersecurity, media, and public safety. Previously, Giulia worked as a Professional Staff Member for the House Small Business Committee, as Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs at the U.S. Department of State, and in the White House Office of Legislative Affairs.  Subcommittee on Energy  Chief Counsel - Mary K. Martin Mary K. Martin will serve as Chief Counsel for the Subcommittee on Energy. Prior to her years at Energy and Commerce, Mary previously served as policy counsel and committee executive to the Environment, Technology & Regulatory Affairs Division at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Before joining the Chamber, Mary spent 10 years as an attorney in private practice litigating complex commercial disputes, including environmental contamination, toxic tort, breach of contract, and insurance coverage matters. Most recently, Mary served as Of Counsel at Steptoe & Johnson LLP in Washington, D.C.  Subcommittee on Environment  Chief Counsel - Jake Tyner  Jake Tyner will serve as Chief Counsel for the Subcommittee on Environment. Jake has extensive Capitol Hill experience, most recently serving as General Counsel for Senator Dan Sullivan. In this role, Jake led the Senator’s efforts on issues related to energy, then environment, natural resources, and permitting and regulatory reform. Prior to joining Senator Sullivan’s office, Jake worked for Congressman David McKinley of West Virginia, the ranking member on the Environment & Climate Change Subcommittee in the U.S. House of Representatives and at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Subcommittee on Health Chief Counsel - Jay Gulshen Jay Gulshen will serve as Chief Counsel for the Subcommittee on Health. Jay most recently served as a Senior Health Advisor for the Committee on Energy and Commerce, working on Medicare Part B and Part D. Prior to returning to Energy and Commerce, Jay worked for the Committee on Ways and Means, advising on Medicare Parts A and B, served as the Health Policy Advisor for Congressman Buddy Carter, and as a Legislative Associate for the Energy and Commerce’s Health Subcommittee. Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations  Chief Counsel - Brittany Havens Brittany Havens will serve as Chief Counsel for the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Prior to this role, Brittany served as a Senior Oversight Counsel on the Committee on Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee working on a variety of issues, including oversight of federal agencies and programs; oversight of the tax-exempt sector; and legislation related to matters of tax administration. Prior to that, Brittany served in various roles for the Committee on Energy and Commerce between 2012 - 2022, most recently as a Professional Staff Member, conducting oversight on a wide range of topics within the Committee’s jurisdiction. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee staff will work under the direction of Staff Director Megan Jackson, Deputy Staff Director Sophie Khanahmadi, and Chief Counsel Joel Miller.

Focus on Inferior Officer Appointments and Political Accountability Heightened as Transition in Administration Begins Washington, D.C. — In a new report issued by House Energy and Commerce Committee Republican staff outlined Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra’s failure to legally reappoint 14 key officials at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). “Secretary Becerra, an attorney by trade, failed to sign the basic legal documents and follow the process required by the Constitution and federal law necessary to reappoint key NIH officials, putting their jobs, the decisions they’ve made, and the billions in funding they’ve approved in legal jeopardy,” said Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee on Health Chair Brett Guthrie (R-KY), and Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA). “This report outlines those failures, the administration’s efforts to cover it up, and important considerations for the incoming administration as it seeks to restore the rule of law and restore accountability at government health institutions.”  BACKGROUND AND TIMELINE OF INVESTIGATION :  The NIH is the primary agency of the United States government responsible for biomedical and public health research. It is one of 13 subcabinet agencies within the HHS and has an annual budget of more than $40 billion.  On December 12, 2021, the five-year terms of 14 of the 27 NIH Institute and Center (IC) Directors expired, pursuant to the 21st Century Cures Act .  Given reports of Secretary Becerra’s apparent detachment from the NIH and lack of visibility during the pandemic response as well as the lack of any public announcements, Committee Republicans began to question whether Secretary Becerra upheld his Constitutional and statutory responsibility to reappoint the 14 IC Directors upon expiration of their five-year terms.  Republicans investigated for more than two years, overcoming stonewalling, obfuscation, and four different, conflicting explanations from the administration.  WHY IT MATTERS :  The appointments and reappointments of IC Directors are personnel actions that rise to the level of Constitutional responsibility further bolstered by federal statutes. The leaders of these institutes and centers are the ultimate decision-makers involving tens of billions of taxpayer-funded research dollars. These leaders also can play prominent roles in response to public health emergencies or in developing research plans. The effectiveness of biomedical research investments depends on the decision-making abilities and strategic visions of these IC Directors.  The health of the American people is deeply impacted by the appointees who lead the NIH’s institutes and centers. Because the Directors of NIH Institutes and Centers exercise significant authority as the final approving authority for research awards, they would qualify as Inferior Officers of U.S. who must be appointed by the HHS Secretary pursuant to the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution along with the provisions of the 21st Century Cures Act . Greater democratic accountability requires department heads to be responsible for properly managing their agencies in the best interest of the public. Holding department heads accountable for the staffing of executive agencies improves accountability and transparency.   1. Improper appointments jeopardize good stewardship of funds  Improper appointments and reappointments potentially expose the actions of the improperly appointed IC Directors to legal challenge and jeopardizes the proper administration of research funds.   2. Improper appointments risk legal challenge to IC hiring and policies Improper appointments and reappointments potentially expose any personnel actions approved by the improperly appointed IC Directors to legal challenge.  3. Improper appointments may have led to improper payment of Title 42 special consultant salaries  During the year and a half of their lapsed reappointments, the affected IC Directors continued on the NIH payroll and received salaries even though they were serving without the legal authority to hold their positions. This situation raises the question of improper payments of salaries. In a 1976 opinion, the GAO Comptroller General concluded that the Federal Insurance Administrator was improperly appointed and that the appointment required Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation pursuant to the Appointments Clause.   In a subsequent opinion, the GAO Comptroller General found that the Federal Insurance Administrator was not legally occupying the position and thus was not entitled to receive salary and related benefits from the Department. GAO then concluded that this official was a de facto officer, performing his duties of the Office of Insurance Administrator with the knowledge and apparent acquiescence of the Secretary and the President. GAO concluded it was not necessary to take action to recover the salary. However, whether an NIH or HHS official who approved an expenditure of funds without legal authority could be held liable for the funds is an open question.  4. Secretary Becerra violated his oath by failing to carry out his Appointments Clause responsibilities.  When he was sworn in as HHS Secretary, Secretary Becerra took his oath of office swearing to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, including the Appointments Clause. By failing to reappoint the IC Directors pursuant to the Appointment Clause, Secretary Becerra failed to uphold the Appointments Clause until he was pressured by the Committee to issue signed affidavits ratifying the selections for reappointments a year and a half after the statutory deadline. During that time lapse the individuals serving as IC Directors were holding their positions without valid reappointments.  5. IC Directors serving without valid reappointments further undermined public trust in public health leadership.  Public trust in the federal government’s health leadership was eroded during the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The public trust is further damaged by the fact that some public health leaders cloaked in the authority of their titles were not legally authorized to hold those positions. Ensuring proper appointments and reappointments to these offices is yet an additional challenge to restore public trust. Secretary Becerra’s failure raises questions whether the American people can assume that public health leaders actually have competent authority to act during a public health emergency.  6. The failure to take seriously the reappointments of the IC Directors subverts the rule of law. The failure to take seriously the reappointments of the IC Directors subverts the rule of law. In this instance, the law called for precision: the HHS Secretary reappointing of IC Directors by a certain date. The action to be taken was to fulfill the Constitutional duty and the statutory requirement to reappoint Inferior Officers of the United States. HHS’s lax approach toward this matter and its evasive, frequently misleading responses to this investigation reveals a lack of diligence in upholding the rule of law and our democratic values. The cavalier attitude toward following the law and the Constitution as well as the subsequent attempts at hiding its failure to follow the law is a prime example of the Biden-Harris administration’s above-the-law attitude and approach to governing.  CLICK HERE to read the full report.

Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Inspector General Christi Grimm, House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans requested an investigation into the strength, quality, and types of evidence-based scientific and pediatric medical literature relied on by the department to promote gender transition procedures for children.  KEY LETTER EXCERPT:  “As the agency responsible for safeguarding the health and well-being of Americans, all of HHS’s medical treatment recommendations, especially medical treatment recommendations for children, should be based on rigorous and well-established research, such as randomized controlled trials, that have definitively illustrated the long-term benefits of gender affirming care treatments.”  BACKGROUND:  Under the Biden administration, HHS has advocated for sex reassignment procedures on minors, including the use of serum puberty blockers, which have historically been used to treat children with precocious puberty (i.e., early onset puberty affecting about one percent of U.S. children) and sex offenders.   Puberty blockers, however, are known to stunt normal childhood development in children unaffected by precocious puberty.  HHS officials contend that sex reassignment procedures on minors are an unanimously accepted medical practice.  HHS Secretary Becerra testified before Congress that “every major medical association,” “medical journals,” and “scientific and medical evidence” has demonstrated the benefits of transitioning children’s biological sex.  When asked, via a Freedom of Information Act request, for the underlying scientific or medical basis for its position, HHS was only able to produce a two-page brochure that was already publicly available.  In contrast to HHS, a growing body of literature from medical experts and authorities around the world, including those in Europe, caution against performing such procedures on minors.   Courts and government health agencies responsible for determining child welfare have sought to limit child sex reassignment procedures.   Other countries have banned these interventions and surgeries on minors altogether.  An article published in the British Journal of Medicine found “there is great uncertainty about the effects of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries in young people.”   A court in the United Kingdom noted the obvious about administering puberty blocking chemicals onto children: “[i]t is highly unlikely that a child aged 13 or under would be competent to give consent to the administration of puberty blockers. It is doubtful that a child aged 14 or 15 could understand and weigh the long-term risks and consequences of the administration of puberty blockers.”  In April 2024, the Cass Review , an independent review of gender identity services for children and young people, commissioned by the National Health Service England, found “[w]hile a considerable amount of research has been published in this field, systematic evidence reviews demonstrated the poor quality of the published studies, meaning there is not a reliable evidence base upon which to make clinical decisions, or for children and their families to make informed choices.”   The Cass Review also found that “[t]he rationale for early puberty suppression remains unclear, with weak evidence regarding the impact on gender dysphoria, mental or psychosocial health,” as well as unknown effects on cognitive and psychosexual development.  In August 2024, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) became the first major U.S. medical association to express caution on the use of gender surgery for gender dysphoria in adolescents. In its formal statement, the association stated: “ASPS currently understands that there is considerable uncertainty as to the long-term efficacy for the use of chest and genital surgical interventions for the treatment of adolescents with gender dysphoria, and the existing evidence base is viewed as low quality/low certainty. This patient population requires specific considerations.”   The letter was signed by Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee on Health Chair Brett Guthrie (R-KY), Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA), Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA), Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL), Rep. Neal Dunn (R-FL), Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX), Rep. Troy Balderson (R-OH), Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX), Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-TN), and Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL).  CLICK HERE to read the letter.