Welcome to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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.

California should not dictate the vehicles Americans can drive Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) released the following statement after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) granted California a waiver for its ban on gas-powered cars. The waiver comes after the House of Representatives passed the bipartisan Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act, led by Rep. John Joyce (R-PA) to protect America’s automotive future. “By granting this waiver, the Biden EPA is further proving how out of touch it is from not only the reality of what people want, but also from what is possible. Banning gas-powered cars in favor of electric vehicles, as California intends, will raise costs for Americans and compromise our grid reliability. Just this week, NERC reported that more than half of the nation is at risk of blackouts. California has already had to ask its residents to not charge EVs during blackouts—and EVs currently make up a fraction of vehicles in the state. The bottom line is that California should not dictate what types of cars that Americans drive, which is why House Republicans passed H.R. 1435. The Senate should act immediately.”  BACKGROUND:   In September 2023, the House passed H.R. 1435, the Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act, led by Rep. John Joyce (R-PA), with a bipartisan vote of 222-190. E&C Republicans Lead Passage of Bill to Stop the Bans on Gas-Powered Cars   Chair Rodgers: “H.R. 1435 ensures people have the option of driving practical, functional, and affordable cars”   June 2023: Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Subcommittee Legislative Hearing: “Driving Affordability: Preserving People’s Freedom to Buy Affordable Vehicles and Fuel”

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) issued the following statement after the House passed eight bills from the Health Subcommittee’s jurisdiction:  "These bipartisan bills will help patients access the care and support they need. I commend the bill sponsors for their leadership and our Committee Members for working to prepare them for consideration by the full House.”  S. Amdt. to H.R. 7213 , the AUTISM Cares Act of 2024 , led by Reps. Smith (R-NJ) and Cuellar (D-TX), passed the House by a vote of 374 – 15. Having previously passed the Senate unanimously, it now heads to the President’s desk.  H.R. 7224 , to amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the Stop, Observe, Ask, and Respond to Health and Wellness Training Program , led by Reps. Cohen (D-TN) and Carter (R-GA) passed the House unanimously.  S. 223 , a bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act to fix a technical error in the definitions, led by Senators Grassley (R-IA) and Coons (D-DE), passed the House unanimously. Having previously passed Senate unanimously, it now heads to the President’s desk. Reps. Burchett (R-TN) and Cohen (D-TN) led the House companion legislation.  H.R. 4534 , the Women and Lung Cancer Research and Preventive Services Act of 2024 , led by Reps. Boyle (D-PA) and Fitzpatrick (R-PA), passed the House unanimously.  H.R. 7188 , the Shandra Eisenga Human Cell and Tissue Product Safety Act , led by Reps. Moolenaar (R-MI) and Dingell (D-MI), passed the House unanimously.  H.R. 6020 , the Honor Our Living Donors Act , led by Reps. Obernolte (R-CA) and DelBene (D-WA), passed the House unanimously.  H.R. 670 , the Think Differently Database Act , led by Reps. Molinaro (R-NY) and Sherrill (D-NJ), passed the House unanimously.  S. 1351 , the Stop Institutional Child Abuse Act , led by Senators Merkley (D-OR) and Cornyn (R-TX) passed the House by a vote of 373 – 33. Having previously passed the Senate unanimously, it now heads to the President’s desk. Reps. Khanna (D-CA) and Carter (R-GA) led the House companion legislation. 

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.

House Republicans scrutinize government grant funding recipients that fail to protect individuals from antisemitism Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to J. David Gladstone Institutes President Dr. Deepak Srivastava, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (E&C) and House Committee on Education and the Workforce (E&W) have requested information about ongoing and pervasive acts of antisemitic harassment and intimidation at Gladstone and its leadership’s insufficient response to these acts. The letter is signed by E&C Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), E&C Subcommittee on Health Chair Brett Guthrie (R-KY), E&C Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA), E&W Chair Virginia Foxx (R-NC), and E&W Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development Chair Burgess Owens (R-UT).  KEY LETTER EXCERPTS: “The Gladstone Institutes, an independent biomedical research organization, claims that it takes an active stance against serious issues like discrimination and harassment and aims to ‘ensure all community members at Gladstone feel included’ and that the Institutes will aim to ‘implement accountability measures and reinforce Gladstone’s commitment to having an environment free of harassment.’ However, these values do not seem to be reflected in the actions of leadership in response to recent concerns of antisemitic harassment and discrimination within the Institutes.” [...] “The reports of antisemitic harassment at Gladstone coupled with the inadequate response by leadership is concerning to the Committees. Failing to act decisively to ensure a safe environment for all trainees, faculty, and staff is a grave dereliction of your responsibilities as President of Gladstone.” “Failing to comply with basic safety protections for members of Gladstone 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. Congress has an obligation to exercise oversight of recipients of federal funds when blatant and ongoing Title VI violations appear to be happening. If Congress determines an institution of higher education/research is blatantly ignoring its legal responsibilities, we may consider rescinding research and development funds previously appropriated.” BACKGROUND ON TAXPAYER FUNDING: Gladstone received more than $41 million in funding from the NIH in Fiscal Year 2023, not including potential taxpayer funding that individual faculty may have received through their affiliation with the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) or any other affiliated universities.   According to the NIH’s Grant Policy Statement, any institution receiving federal funds must assure work environments are free of discriminatory harassment and are safe and conducive to high-quality work.  Institutions receiving federal taxpayer financial assistance—such as NIH grants—are prohibited from discriminating based on a variety of categories, including national origin.   These laws also protect members of the institution who are or are perceived to be members of a group with shared ancestry, such as students/trainees of Jewish heritage. BACKGROUND ON INSTANCES OF ANTISEMITISM : Two days after the October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attack, a graduate student working in a lab within Gladstone sent an antisemitic email to all Gladstone faculty, trainees, and staff falsely stating that the attack on innocent Israeli civilians was “the resistance in Gaza launch[ing] a surprise attack against Israel, taking occupation soldiers hostage, taking over Israeli military vehicles, and gain[ing] control over illegal Israeli settlements.”  The email goes on to claim that all casualties resulting from Palestinian actions are the responsibility of Israel.  Immediately following this mass email, members of the Gladstone faculty began contacting the Gladstone Institutes’ President and other leadership, appalled by the language of the email, concerned for their safety and worried that the email could be seen as an incitement to violence.  Jewish members of the Institutes also expressed their deep, personal pain following the Hamas attack, as some members had family or friends reported killed or missing directly after the attack.  These fears—including fears of being attacked in the lab by the author of this cruel and antagonistic email—were shared directly with President Srivastava.  Despite this, Gladstone leadership did not issue a public statement or position against antisemitism to quell fears of Jewish faculty and trainees.  In May 2024, the Center for Combatting Antisemitism sent President Srivastava a letter requesting administrative action to address the hostile environment and disparate treatment of Jewish members at Gladstone.  This letter noted that Gladstone refused to acknowledge Jewish American Heritage Month, Passover, or Holocaust Remembrance Day, despite sending official celebratory emails and holding events for other religious, ethnic, or national holidays, including Black History Month, International Women’s Day, and Ramadan.  The Center followed up with Gladstone several times, but never received a response.  Jewish faculty and trainees have conveyed to leadership within Gladstone instances of antisemitic harassment and discrimination, which faculty and trainees believe were not taken seriously, making some feel uneasy about speaking out.  For example, per a publicly available Fair Employment and Housing Act complaint to the California Civil Rights Division, a Jewish faculty member openly discussed fellow faculty using racial stereotypes, including comments about a “Jewish nose.”  When these comments were brought to human resources, no investigation occurred.  Instead, the complainant was subsequently targeted with an investigation ultimately deemed to be unwarranted.  Then, following the complainant’s post-October 7th advocacy on behalf of Jewish faculty and trainees, the complainant was threatened repeatedly with career-ending termination, allegedly in an attempt to extort a resignation.  When the threats did not have their desired effect, Gladstone placed the complainant on administrative leave and removed the complainant’s electronic access to email and files but also physical access to the complainant’s lab, removing all ability to conduct work on an NIH-funded grant.  Gladstone ultimately paid an undisclosed sum to settle the matter and avoid litigation.  To elevate concerns regarding widespread, ongoing discrimination, Jewish faculty and trainees requested permission to bring in a speaker related to antisemitism.  Other minority groups had previously been given permission to bring in similar anti-racism speakers.  However, while leadership stated it would look into the idea, ultimately no speaker was brought, and no program was launched regarding antisemitism. BACKGROUND ON AFFILIATIONS WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS UNDER INVESTIGATION : Gladstone Institutes is affiliated with other institutions under congressional investigation.  For example, Gladstone is an affiliate of the UCSF, which is undergoing congressional investigation for reports of antisemitism within the university, medical school, and medical centers.  Most of Gladstone’s principal investigators are also faculty at UCSF, and the Institutes provide research positions and opportunities for graduate students from UCSF.  Moreover, there is a joint institute—the Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology—further linking the two institutions.  Gladstone is also affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley and Stanford University, both of which are also under investigation for concerns related to antisemitism. CLICK HERE to read the full letter.

“DOE is threatening domestic jobs and economic development, weakening the energy security of European allies, and strengthening our adversaries” Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee Chair Jeff Duncan (R-SC), and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA) sent a letter to Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Jennifer Granholm demanding the agency stop rushing to prematurely release its anti-liquefied natural gas (LNG) study, which aims to hamstring the incoming Presidential administration. The letter also calls for DOE to lift the pause on LNG exports, which was a politically motivated decision by the Biden administration to appease radical environmental activists at the expense of American energy security and the security of our allies. KEY LETTER EXCERPTS: “Despite DOE’s prior findings and published reviews in favor of U.S. LNG exports, and contrary to DOE’s limited statutory authority under the NGA, the Biden administration’s DOE announced that it would expand its environmental review as part of a ‘managed transition’ to reduce use of fossil fuels. Recent press reports indicate that DOE is racing to complete a study on the climate impacts of LNG exports to hamper the incoming Republican administration and provide opportunities to challenge future project approvals in court.” [...] “ The results of the 2024 presidential election are clear, and DOE leadership will soon change. As a traditional part of the peaceful transfer of power, DOE should immediately stop work on any plans to expand the scope of review or add new conditions to LNG export licenses. DOE should immediately lift the ban on LNG export approvals in compliance with the NGA and the District Court order.” BACKGROUND: January 26, 2024 : The Biden administration announces indefinite “pause” on LNG export permits. Chair Rodgers immediately rebukes the decision, calling it a “gift to Putin.” February 5, 2024 : More than 150 House Republicans demand President Biden ends his de facto ban on American LNG exports. February 15, 2024 : E&C Republicans lead bipartisan passage of H.R. 7176 to reverse President Biden’s LNG export ban. April 8, 2024 : The Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security holds a field hearing in Port Arthur, Texas, with local leaders and energy workers to highlight the economic and public benefits of American energy production, including job creation. November 7, 2024 : Bloomberg Law reports that the “Biden administration is racing to complete a study that could complicate President-Elect Donald Trump’s plan to immediately approve new liquefied natural gas export terminals.” CLICK HERE to read the full letter.