Welcome to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Today, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, issued the following statement after the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1, the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act, by a vote of 215 to 214. “House Republicans have delivered on the promises we and President Trump made to the American people. The bill includes provisions passed by the Energy and Commerce Committee that strengthens Medicaid for those who need it most, establishes work requirements for able-bodied individuals, and ensures American energy dominance. This bill will provide vital support to communities and families across the country,”   said Chairman Guthrie.   “I look forward to working with the Senate to pass the bill and deliver it to the President’s desk.” ###

WASHINGTON, D.C . – Congressman Gus Bilirakis (FL-12), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade, delivered the following opening statement at today’s hearing titled AI Regulation and the Future of US Leadership. Subcommittee Chairman Bilirakis' opening statement as prepared for delivery: “Thank you to everyone, especially our witnesses, for joining us for today’s hearing on 'AI Regulation and the Future of U.S. Leadership.' “At the outset, I want to recognize Ranking Member Schakowsky, as this is our first Subcommittee hearing since she announced her retirement. She’s been a welcome partner over the last four-and-a-half years. Together, we were able to secure better safety precautions for women with the FAIR Crash Tests Act. During the pandemic, we worked tirelessly to support the travel and tourism industry at a time of unprecedented challenges. This bond culminated in the TICKET Act, which strengthens consumer protections in the ticketing marketplace. Congress and E&C won’t be the same without Ranking Member Schakowsky, but her legacy will be long remembered. “Since the public release of ChatGPT, AI has become a household name. AI products and services are being developed at breakneck speed, delivering new innovations to consumers. These technologies can revolutionize the economy, drive economic growth, and improve our way of life. Like every technology, however, AI can be weaponized when it is in the wrong hands. Thankfully, AI is already regulated by longstanding laws that protect consumers. Because of the great potential of these technologies, Congress must be careful when we impose additional obligations on AI developers and deployers. “Our task is to protect our citizens and ensure that we don’t cede U.S. AI leadership. Much of the AI marketplace is comprised of small start-ups looking to get a foothold in this revolutionary space. And heavy-handed regulations may ensure that the next great American company never makes it. If we fail in this task, we risk ceding American leadership in AI to China, which is close on our heels. “Other economies are also eager to write the global AI rulebook, often to their own detriment and the detriment of American leadership. The E.U. recently enacted its own 'AI Act.' While it is still being implemented, the E.U.’s complex law suffers from many of the innovation-chilling effects we saw with the GDPR. We must also keep a close watch on whether Europe uses the AI Act and other regulations to unfairly target American companies. “We’re here today to determine how Congress can support the growth of an industry that is key for American competitiveness and jobs, without losing the race to write the global AI rulebook. Our witnesses today will help us understand how we achieve that dream. “I want to thank the witnesses for being here and I look forward to your testimony.” ###

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 Ways to Enhance Our Critical Mineral Supply Chains . Subcommittee Chairman Palmer's opening statement as prepared for delivery: “Good morning, and welcome to today’s hearing entitled 'Examining Ways to Enhance Our Domestic Mineral Supply Chains.' “Today’s hearing addresses the crucial challenge that the U.S. is facing—how to decouple and derisk ourselves from China and other foreign adversaries and build critical mineral supply chains within the U.S. Our country has been blessed with abundant natural resources and the world-changing technology needed to harness those resources. Unfortunately, however, we have become over reliant on other nations to supply and process critical minerals. Today’s hearing is an opportunity to examine how to increase capacity and resilience in American critical mineral supply chains again. “Critical minerals are used in items we use every day like smart phones, computer hard drives, televisions, batteries, and lightbulbs. They are also used in elements of our electrical grid and have defense applications. “The U.S. used to be the leading producer and refiner of many critical minerals, including rare earth elements. By the late 1990s, however, most of this industry dissolved and moved overseas. According to a review in the United States Geological Survey Mineral Commodity Summaries 2024, the U.S. was 100 percent import reliant for 12 of the 50 critical minerals on the 2022 critical minerals list and more than 50 percent import reliant for an additional 29. “This predicament we find ourselves in is not a new problem, but a problem that has been many years in the making. So how did we get here? It is a combination of things—including burdensome permitting and other regulations, uncertainty in commodity pricing, market manipulation, and an increasingly litigious society. This has made our domestic environment unattractive to investors and companies as a result. For example, getting domestic processing and refining facilities up and running is an extremely long process—it can take 10 to 20 years for new processing plants and smelters to become operational. That is in addition to the lengthy mine development process in the U.S., which is the second-longest mine development timeline in the world. Because of this burdensome red tape, companies are not incentivized to invest domestically, so instead they invest abroad. “Moreover, even when U.S. companies operate mines in the U.S., the hesitancy to invest in domestic processing and refining facilities has put us in a position where our foreign adversaries monopolize other parts of the supply chain. For example, in 2019, one rare earth mine in the U.S. sent 98 percent of its raw materials to China because the U.S. lacked the capacity to process those minerals domestically. As a result, we must import our own product back from China after it is processed, but China’s recent export bans on several rare earth elements critical to the U.S. make this nearly impossible. “I cannot convey the seriousness of this issue enough. This is an economic issue and an issue of national security. We as a nation must ensure that we have access to these materials and the ability to process them without reliance on foreign adversaries, including China. “I want to applaud President Trump for declaring a national energy emergency on day one of his presidency, emphasizing that the U.S.’s identification, production, and refining of critical minerals are inadequate to meet domestic needs. Since then, President Trump has signed several executive orders related to critical minerals—including ordering immediate measures to increase American mineral production. We look forward to working with the Trump Administration on the mission to increase the capacity and resilience of domestic critical mineral supply chains. “I also want to thank our witnesses for joining us today to share their expertise and guide our discussion about the challenges in building domestic critical mineral supply chains and the opportunities we have to improve our domestic supply chains moving forward.” ###

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Today, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Congressman Gus Bilirakis (FL-12), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade, and Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, sent a letter to 23andMe regarding the handling of Americans' sensitive data following the company's decision to file for bankruptcy. KEY EXCERPT: “According to 23andMe’s privacy statement, in a bankruptcy, customers’ ‘Personal Information may be accessed, sold or transferred as part of that transaction and this Privacy Statement will apply to [customer] Personal Information as transferred to the new entity.’ Additionally, a judge recently ruled 23andMe has the right to sell the sensitive medical and genetic information of its 15 million customers, which is considered to be the company’s most valuable asset. With the lack of a federal comprehensive data privacy and security law, we write to express our great concern about the safety of Americans’ most sensitive personal information.” Background: On March 23, 2025, 23andMe initiated Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, which could have ramifications for the highly sensitive information of millions of Americans. While Americans’ personal health information is protected under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), these protections only apply if the information is collected by a HIPAA covered entity. Generally, direct-to-consumer companies, like 23andMe, are not covered by HIPAA. Customers have reported issues accessing and deleting their data from their 23andMe accounts. The Chairmen have requested answers to the following questions: If 23andMe were to sell the personal information of its customers either as a standalone asset or as part of a broader sale of the company, what post-sale data privacy and security protections would be in place for its customers’ personal information? Please describe how the representations made in 23andMe’s privacy statement will continue to apply—and be enforced—if the personal information of 23andMe’s customers is sold to a third party. Please include in this response information about what, if anything, would hold a third-party buyer to 23andMe’s privacy statement or prevent it from subsequently using, transferring, or otherwise selling, such information in the future. Does 23andMe plan to change its privacy statement at any time prior to selling any customers’ personal information? If so, please explain the change 23andMe plans to implement and when those changes will go into effect. Does 23andMe intend to vet prospective buyers to which it may sell its customers’ personal information? If so, please detail the vetting process and whether it will include the prospective buyer’s history of implementing data security protections and compliance with sectoral, state, or any other data privacy and security laws. If not, please explain why. Please detail the categories of customer information 23andMe has, and of that what 23andMe is considering selling. Has 23andMe notified its customers of the company’s bankruptcy announcement? If so, please attach the customer notification. If not, please explain why. Has 23andMe provided its customers with a guide for how to delete, or request to delete any information currently in 23andMe’s possession? If so, please provide a copy of that guide and specify when it was provided to customers. If not, please explain why, and explain whether 23andMe will contact each of its customers and provide an opportunity to delete their personal information prior to a potential sale of the company or personal information maintained by the company. Please detail the number of requests 23andMe received from its customers to delete their personal information between when 23andMe filed for bankruptcy and the date of the response to this letter. Of those requests, please provide a breakdown of how many requests were made by customers through their 23andMe online accounts and how many were made via customer service calls because customers were unable to successfully delete their information through their online accounts. Of those requests, please detail the number of fulfilled requests. Will 23andMe offer for sale any information in which a customer has requested the deletion of such information? If so, does 23andMe’s privacy policy consider selling information a legitimate purpose for retaining information past a customer's request to delete their information? Will 23andMe deidentify its customers’ personal information prior to selling it or the company? If so, please detail which information will be deidentified. If not, please explain why the company is electing not to deidentify information. CLICK HERE to read the full letter. CLICK HERE to read the story from CNBC. ###

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 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.