Oversight & Investigations

Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans are pressing for answers regarding Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) awards. The letter to Administrator Regan, signed by Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA), and Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Chair Earl L. "Buddy" Carter (R-GA), requests an unredacted copy of all GGRF award agreements that have been finalized.  It follows up on an Oversight Subcommittee hearing from earlier this year, where Mr. Zealan Hoover, Senior Advisor to the Administrator, assured Committee Members that the award agreements that EPA entered into with recipients to receive GGRF program awards would address the concerns raised.   LETTER TEXT BELOW:   Dear Administrator Regan,  We write to you as part of the Energy and Commerce Committee’s (the Committee) continued oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). As you know, Committee Members have many questions regarding this first-of-its-kind, $27 billion program, including those discussed at a January 30, 2024, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing on the GGRF, with Mr. Zealan Hoover, Senior Advisor to the Administrator, testifying on behalf of the EPA. In numerous instances, Mr. Hoover assured Members that the award agreements that EPA would enter into with recipients that the EPA selected to receive GGRF program awards would address the concerns they raised.   For example, in response to a question from Committee Chair Rodgers about what conflicts of interest policies would govern funding recipients responsible for further distributing this money, Mr. Hoover responded that “they will be subject to all of the terms and conditions of their financial assistance agreement.” After Representative Guthrie pressed for more information on whether organizations with foreign ties could receive GGRF funding, Mr. Hoover stated that “one of the terms and conditions in each of the award agreements is going to be a prohibition against entering into any form of contractual relationship with a foreign entity of concern.” Mr. Hoover also replied to Representative Lesko, “[e]ach grantee is applying with a rigorous investment plan, proposed project pipeline, and timeline for a wide array of necessary activities covering their investment work, their governance, their organizational structure. All of that will be enshrined in our terms and conditions of the grant agreement.”   Members also submitted follow-up questions for the record after the hearing. Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chair Griffith requested more detail about performance audits, and the EPA responded, in part, “[w]e expect that the terms and conditions of GGRF grants, as provided in 2 C.F.R. § 200.208, will authorize the project officer to closely monitor recipient performance and compliance with grant requirements.” Additionally, in response to Chair Griffith’s inquiry on how the EPA could evaluate the past performance of applicants that included new organizations or coalitions, the EPA stated that it required applicants to submit risk management plans, and that awardees would have to comply with specific terms and conditions in their award agreements. In response to a question on Build America, Buy America Act (BABA) compliance, the EPA stated that it was “including terms and conditions in the award agreements to reinforce that all grants are subject to [BABA] by statute,” and that “EPA will hold selected applicants accountable to BABA requirements through the terms and conditions of the award agreements.” Finally, the EPA also responded to a question from Representative Crenshaw, saying that “EPA will include a term and condition in all award agreements to protect against federal funds flowing to entities with certain connections to the People’s Republic of China.”  In short, the EPA repeatedly sought to reassure the Committee that its award agreements with selected recipients would address the issues of concern and potential risks. The Committee seeks additional detail on how these award agreements will address the issues of concern and potential risks.    As such, please provide a complete and unredacted copy of the award agreement, including all of the attachments, appendices, and any amendments, that the EPA executes with each funding recipient under the GGRF. By no later than August 29, 2024, please provide a copy of all award agreements that have been finalized as of the date of this letter, and please provide a copy of all remaining agreements as soon as they are finalized. 

Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee on Health Chair Brett Guthrie (R-KY), and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA) press for information regarding antisemitic harassment and intimidation at UCSF and its associated medical centers under UCSF Health. The investigation comes as part of Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-LA) House-wide  effort  to crack down on antisemitism on college campuses.  KEY EXCERPTS:   “As a recipient of federal funding—both through various U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) grants and Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements for health care services provided at UCSF Health medical centers—UCSF has an obligation to comply with federal law and to prevent and appropriately respond to discrimination and harassment.”  [...]  “The reports of antisemitic harassment and intimidation at UCSF and its associated medical centers coupled with the inadequate response by UCSF leadership is concerning to the Committee. Failing to act decisively to ensure a safe environment for all students, faculty, staff, and patients is a grave dereliction of your responsibilities as Chancellor of UCSF and UCSF Health." [...]  “Failing to comply with basic safety protections for members of the UCSF and UCSF Health communities or failure to respond appropriately to and prevent harassment and discrimination, no matter the cause, may be grounds to withhold federal funds from the university and its associated medical centers. Congress has an obligation to ensure compliance with Title VI. If Congress determines an institution of higher education is in violation, we may consider rescinding research and development funds previously appropriated. Similarly, if Congress determines a medical facility is in violation, we may consider rescinding the right to participate in federal health care programs.”  BACKGROUND :  An encampment in front of UCSF’s medical center has caused significant disruption to campus and health care operations, as well as great distress for members of the community, including health care professionals and patients.  Many Jewish health care professionals working at UCSF Health have also expressed concerns regarding their safety—including concerns of their private information being made public.  This fear is well founded, as there have been numerous antisemitic public statements by faculty, staff, and students at UCSF and/or UCSF Health, such as assertions that patients should fear Jewish doctors, false claims that Israel trains U.S. police to brutalize people of color, or statements that Israelis in the U.S., including students at U.S. universities and medical schools, who have served with the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) should be tried for war crimes.  Hundreds of complaints of antisemitism and/or a hostile work environment have been made by employees and patients of UCSF and UCSF Health to the UCSF Office of Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination (OPHD), with confidential sources reporting that most complainants receive a response that these actions and statements fall under free speech protections.  CLICK HERE to read the full letter. 

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. — In a new letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans are pressing for answers regarding Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) awards. The letter to Administrator Regan, signed by Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA), and Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Chair Earl L. "Buddy" Carter (R-GA), requests an unredacted copy of all GGRF award agreements that have been finalized.  It follows up on an Oversight Subcommittee hearing from earlier this year, where Mr. Zealan Hoover, Senior Advisor to the Administrator, assured Committee Members that the award agreements that EPA entered into with recipients to receive GGRF program awards would address the concerns raised.   LETTER TEXT BELOW:   Dear Administrator Regan,  We write to you as part of the Energy and Commerce Committee’s (the Committee) continued oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). As you know, Committee Members have many questions regarding this first-of-its-kind, $27 billion program, including those discussed at a January 30, 2024, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing on the GGRF, with Mr. Zealan Hoover, Senior Advisor to the Administrator, testifying on behalf of the EPA. In numerous instances, Mr. Hoover assured Members that the award agreements that EPA would enter into with recipients that the EPA selected to receive GGRF program awards would address the concerns they raised.   For example, in response to a question from Committee Chair Rodgers about what conflicts of interest policies would govern funding recipients responsible for further distributing this money, Mr. Hoover responded that “they will be subject to all of the terms and conditions of their financial assistance agreement.” After Representative Guthrie pressed for more information on whether organizations with foreign ties could receive GGRF funding, Mr. Hoover stated that “one of the terms and conditions in each of the award agreements is going to be a prohibition against entering into any form of contractual relationship with a foreign entity of concern.” Mr. Hoover also replied to Representative Lesko, “[e]ach grantee is applying with a rigorous investment plan, proposed project pipeline, and timeline for a wide array of necessary activities covering their investment work, their governance, their organizational structure. All of that will be enshrined in our terms and conditions of the grant agreement.”   Members also submitted follow-up questions for the record after the hearing. Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chair Griffith requested more detail about performance audits, and the EPA responded, in part, “[w]e expect that the terms and conditions of GGRF grants, as provided in 2 C.F.R. § 200.208, will authorize the project officer to closely monitor recipient performance and compliance with grant requirements.” Additionally, in response to Chair Griffith’s inquiry on how the EPA could evaluate the past performance of applicants that included new organizations or coalitions, the EPA stated that it required applicants to submit risk management plans, and that awardees would have to comply with specific terms and conditions in their award agreements. In response to a question on Build America, Buy America Act (BABA) compliance, the EPA stated that it was “including terms and conditions in the award agreements to reinforce that all grants are subject to [BABA] by statute,” and that “EPA will hold selected applicants accountable to BABA requirements through the terms and conditions of the award agreements.” Finally, the EPA also responded to a question from Representative Crenshaw, saying that “EPA will include a term and condition in all award agreements to protect against federal funds flowing to entities with certain connections to the People’s Republic of China.”  In short, the EPA repeatedly sought to reassure the Committee that its award agreements with selected recipients would address the issues of concern and potential risks. The Committee seeks additional detail on how these award agreements will address the issues of concern and potential risks.    As such, please provide a complete and unredacted copy of the award agreement, including all of the attachments, appendices, and any amendments, that the EPA executes with each funding recipient under the GGRF. By no later than August 29, 2024, please provide a copy of all award agreements that have been finalized as of the date of this letter, and please provide a copy of all remaining agreements as soon as they are finalized. 

Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee on Health Chair Brett Guthrie (R-KY), and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA) press for information regarding antisemitic harassment and intimidation at UCSF and its associated medical centers under UCSF Health. The investigation comes as part of Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-LA) House-wide  effort  to crack down on antisemitism on college campuses.  KEY EXCERPTS:   “As a recipient of federal funding—both through various U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) grants and Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements for health care services provided at UCSF Health medical centers—UCSF has an obligation to comply with federal law and to prevent and appropriately respond to discrimination and harassment.”  [...]  “The reports of antisemitic harassment and intimidation at UCSF and its associated medical centers coupled with the inadequate response by UCSF leadership is concerning to the Committee. Failing to act decisively to ensure a safe environment for all students, faculty, staff, and patients is a grave dereliction of your responsibilities as Chancellor of UCSF and UCSF Health." [...]  “Failing to comply with basic safety protections for members of the UCSF and UCSF Health communities or failure to respond appropriately to and prevent harassment and discrimination, no matter the cause, may be grounds to withhold federal funds from the university and its associated medical centers. Congress has an obligation to ensure compliance with Title VI. If Congress determines an institution of higher education is in violation, we may consider rescinding research and development funds previously appropriated. Similarly, if Congress determines a medical facility is in violation, we may consider rescinding the right to participate in federal health care programs.”  BACKGROUND :  An encampment in front of UCSF’s medical center has caused significant disruption to campus and health care operations, as well as great distress for members of the community, including health care professionals and patients.  Many Jewish health care professionals working at UCSF Health have also expressed concerns regarding their safety—including concerns of their private information being made public.  This fear is well founded, as there have been numerous antisemitic public statements by faculty, staff, and students at UCSF and/or UCSF Health, such as assertions that patients should fear Jewish doctors, false claims that Israel trains U.S. police to brutalize people of color, or statements that Israelis in the U.S., including students at U.S. universities and medical schools, who have served with the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) should be tried for war crimes.  Hundreds of complaints of antisemitism and/or a hostile work environment have been made by employees and patients of UCSF and UCSF Health to the UCSF Office of Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination (OPHD), with confidential sources reporting that most complainants receive a response that these actions and statements fall under free speech protections.  CLICK HERE to read the full letter. 

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.