Welfare, to the Honorable William D. Ford, Chairman, Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, Committee on Education, House of Representatives (Feb. 11, 1980), reprinted at J.A. 388-89 (explaining HEW’s reasoning for not presenting the interpretation to Congress). We find EIA’s argument with respect to GEPA to be without merit. 12 . The Eleventh Amendment, though without express language to this effect, has been interpreted to bar suits brought by a citizen against his own state. See Bragg v. W. Va. Coal Ass'n, 248 F.3d 275, 291 (4th Cir.2001)(citing Litman v. George Mason Univ., 186 F.3d 544, 549 (4th Cir.1999); Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 10-15, 10 S.Ct. 504, 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890)). 13 . See, e.g., Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 59, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996) (<HOLDING>); Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441,
holding that congress had no power under article i to abrogate state sovereign immunity holding that congress could abrogate the eleventh amendment pursuant to the commerce clause holding that congress exceeded its authority under  5 of the fourteenth amendment in attempting to abrogate the states eleventh amendment immunity in adea suits holding that congress may abrogate a states immunity pursuant to its enforcement power under  5 of the fourteenth amendment holding that congress did not properly abrogate states eleventh amendment immunity from suits under the patent act