Welcome to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing titled Examining the Biden Administration’s Energy and Environment Spending Push .  “This Oversight and Investigations hearing provided a critical opportunity for the Committee to examine the Biden-Harris Administration’s reckless spending spree under its energy and environment grants and loans programs during their final months in office,”   said Chairman Palmer.   “We will continue our work to scrutinize the potential misuse of federal funds to ensure American taxpayer dollars are well spent and not subjected to waste, fraud, or abuse.”   Watch the full hearing here . Below are key excerpts from yesterday’s hearing:  Subcommittee Chairman Gary Palmer (AL-6): Asked the DOE OIG witness about Interim Findings the IG released in December 2024, highlighting key takeaways from the report that “the DOE LPO is administering more than $385 billion in new loan authority without ensuring a regulatory and contractually compliant and effective system to manage the organizational conflicts of interests.” The Chairman continued, noting that “[i]n the Interim Findings report, the IG stated that the Loan Programs Office seems to be asserting that as long as it does not compile, track, update, or reconcile relationships it maintains a 100% compliance rate across the Loan Programs Office. Also referring to it as ‘trust but don’t verify.’”   Subcommittee Vice Chairman Troy Balderson (OH-12): “It’s clear that the Biden Administration was trying to get as much money out the door as possible before President Trump’s inauguration. For example, a senior Biden Administration official was quoted saying in early December 2024 that the Administration was on track to exceed its goal of obligating over 80% of available IRA grant funding by the end of Biden’s term. Moreover, former secretary Jennifer Granholm was quoted in October 2024, as saying that she is racing to commit funding and get contracts signed. Many of us are also familiar with the video in which a special advisor for implementation within the Biden Administration’s EPA was caught on camera saying that it’s truly like we’re on the Titanic, we’re throwing gold bars off the edge. The special advisor also said that they were trying to get this money out as fast as possible before they come in and stop at all. It is clear from the video that the individual was referring to the Trump Administration.” Congressman Rick Allen (GA-12): “This body has a duty to conduct oversight on all the money sent out through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and so-called Inflation Reduction Act. It’s imperative that we do our due diligence to see just where that money went. It’s also important to understand, what people, their job roles, what they’re doing, and actually what they’re producing which seems to get lost in all this. These laws added to our out-of-control government spending and as we have seen in prior hearings some of this funding went to special interest groups. With billions of dollars being given out rapidly it is critical that we see where American taxpayer dollars are going and that they are properly vetted.”  ###

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Today, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Congressman Bob Latta (OH-05), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy, issued the following statement after the House passed H.J. Res. 20, to rescind a Biden-Harris Administration rule that restricts the water heaters millions of Americans rely on and assures consumer choice and affordability are prioritized. “During President Biden’s final weeks in office, the DOE issued a final rule setting a new energy efficiency standard that would significantly increase the cost of gas-fired instantaneous water heaters. Allowing this misguided rule to continue would raise prices and limit choices for American families,”   said Chairmen Guthrie and Latta .  “We are grateful to Congressman Palmer for his leadership on this issue and his work to protect consumers.” “Today, House Republicans voted to end the Biden Administration’s radical ban on gas-fired water heaters. We refuse to allow this unnecessary, ridiculous last-minute rule to continue to raise prices, eliminate jobs, and restrict affordable, reliable choices for American households,”  said Speaker Johnson . “The American people made it clear they want lower costs and more choices, and we are keeping our promise to undo the damage of the last administration by cutting costs, protecting choice, and rejecting these damaging regulations.” “I applaud my House colleagues in passing my Congressional Review Act to reverse the previous administration’s egregious attempt to ban gas-fired water heaters,”  said Congressman Palmer .  “This is a major step towards prioritizing consumer choice, protecting natural gas appliances, keeping prices affordable, and undoing the damage inflicted on the American people by the Biden-Harris Administration for the past four years.”  Background: H.J. Res 20 ,  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Energy relating to "Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Gas-fired Instantaneous Water Heaters ,   led by Rep. Gary Palmer (AL-06), is yet another step toward keeping President Trump’s promise to the American people to undo the damage done by the failed policies of the Biden-Harris Administration. Forty percent of customers directly impacted by the rule would see a net cost increase from this rule. Those seeing cost savings would only be saving a mere $5.60 per year on a life-cycle cost basis of the appliance. ###

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.  – 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.

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.