Welcome to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Washington D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) delivered the following opening remarks at today’s Full Committee Business Meeting to approve the transfer of the official classified transcript from the March 7, 2024, executive session titled “Legislation to Protect American Data and National Security from Foreign Adversaries” to the Department of Justice (DOJ) in accordance with House Rules. “Good morning and welcome to today’s Committee business meeting. “The action we are taking is significant to preserving this Committee’s hard work to protect the American people and our national security.” THE THREAT POSED BY THE CCP “Foreign adversaries, like the Chinese Communist Party, pose the greatest national security threat of our time. “Our adversaries are actively working to undermine America’s global leadership. “It has been a bipartisan priority for this Congress and this Committee to take action to counter that threat. “The Energy and Commerce Committee led on the most significant effort to date to do that, passing H.R. 7521, the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act , which has been signed into law. “Our efforts began on March 23, 2023, when the Committee held a hearing with the CEO of TikTok—his first appearance before Congress—to understand the risks posed by this CCP-controlled app. “That hearing further confirmed our greatest fears—that the CCP is weaponizing applications, like TikTok, against the American people. “Nearly a year later, on March 7, 2024, the Committee held a legislative hearing titled 'Legislation to Protect American Data and National Security from Foreign Adversaries.' “At that hearing, we heard from the intelligence community about the dangers posed by applications, like TikTok, that are controlled by foreign adversaries who are determined to exploit and weaponize Americans’ data and the importance of Congress taking action to defend the American people against this threat. “H.R 7521 gave TikTok a simple choice: divest from your parent company, which is beholden to the Chinese Communist Party, and remain operational in the United States or side with the CCP and face a ban. “Since then, the CCP has made it clear that it has no intention of giving up control over applications, like TikTok, further solidifying that the CCP is using these applications in nefarious ways against the American people.” TAKING ACTION TO PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE “Rather than divest, TikTok has filed suit against the United States to try and undermine the law this Committee passed. “I am confident this legislation will withstand legal scrutiny. “In June, this Committee received a formal request from the DOJ to receive a copy of the executive session transcript from our March 2024 hearing to assist in their litigation. “According to rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee must vote to release evidence or testimony taken in executive session. “We will vote to do that this morning and in doing so, will continue our efforts to protect the American people from foreign adversaries. “Companies controlled by a foreign adversary, like the CCP, will never embrace American values, virtues of our society and culture like freedom of speech, human rights, the rule of law, a free press, and others. “Our adversaries choose to rule through fear and control. “If given the choice, they will always choose the path for more control, more surveillance, and more manipulation. “This foreign interference and manipulation is not welcome here and we will do whatever it takes to stop it.”

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) Ranking Member Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee Chair Tom Carper (D-DE), and Ranking Member Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), today celebrated President Joe Biden’s signing of S. 870, which includes the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy (ADVANCE) Act , into law.  “The Energy and Commerce Committee has a rich history of advancing major bipartisan solutions, and I’m extremely proud that our years of hard work to strengthen American nuclear energy have paid off with this significant legislation that will improve energy reliability and reduce costs for American families and businesses,” said Chair Rodgers. “This is a major victory for the American people and will help cement U.S. energy leadership for decades to come. I want to thank everyone who has worked tirelessly to get this legislation signed into law, especially the Chair of our Energy Subcommittee and bill author Rep. Jeff Duncan.”  “Nuclear power plays an important role in producing carbon-free power for our electric grid, and now our nuclear industry will have the framework it needs to strengthen America’s energy leadership,”  said Ranking Member Pallone.  “By ensuring we can deploy safer and more reliable nuclear power, the ADVANCE Act will help combat our dependence on dirty fossil fuels, strengthening our energy independence and securing our economic security. I’m grateful to have worked alongside my colleagues to get this across the finish line.” “Today is a momentous day for our climate and America’s clean energy future,” said Chairman Carper . “The urgency of the climate crisis demands a swift transition to cleaner energy sources. Fortunately, the ADVANCE Act  will support this transition. This bipartisan law will strengthen our energy and national security, lower greenhouse gas emissions and create thousands of new jobs, while ensuring the continued safety of this zero-emissions energy source. I’m thankful to each of my colleagues who helped write and pass this bill and to President Biden for signing it into law.” “With the ADVANCE Act being signed into law, we secured a landmark win for the future of nuclear energy here in America,”  Ranking Member Capito said. “Getting substantive, bipartisan policy across the finish line isn’t always easy, but this is the result of years of work to build widespread consensus about the benefits of advanced nuclear reactors to our electric grid, economy, and environment. I’m thrilled the ADVANCE Act is now law to enable the deployment of new nuclear and help keep the United States as the world’s nuclear energy leader.”

Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), 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 all communications between the agency and state broadband offices related to Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Initial Proposals. The letter comes amid concerns that NTIA is unlawfully pressuring states to rate regulate low-cost broadband plans required by the BEAD Program and following a May 15, 2024, hearing at which Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information Alan Davidson committed to being more transparent about BEAD funding decision making.  KEY EXCERPT :  “Based on anecdotal evidence from different entities involved in the process, it appears that the NTIA may be evaluating initial proposals counter to Congressional intent and in violation of the law. Several Members of Congress have directly raised to you that the NTIA, through its review of initial proposals, is unlawfully regulating the rate of broadband through BEAD’s low-cost service option in direct conflict with the IIJA, which states: ‘Nothing in this title may be construed to authorize the Assistant Secretary or the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to regulate the rates charged for broadband service.’9 During Senate floor debate on the IIJA, Members of Congress agreed that this language meant that ‘no rate regulation of broadband services would be authorized or permitted by the NTIA or the Assistant Secretary who leads the NTIA as part of the state broadband grant program.’” “States have reported that the NTIA is directing them to set rates and conditioning approval of initial proposals on doing so. This undoubtedly constitutes rate regulation by the NTIA. Indeed, one state publicly posted the NTIA’s feedback that the agency would not approve their initial proposal without ’an exact price or formula’ for the state’s low-cost option. Without visibility into the approval process, Congress in unable to determine how widespread this practice is. When asked about this at oversight hearings, your responses have failed to provide clarity.”  BACKGROUND:  Congress appropriated an unprecedented $42.45 billion through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) for the NTIA to administer the BEAD program.   The program was intended to ensure that all Americans, specifically those in unserved or underserved areas, have access to broadband.   The NTIA is responsible for managing and distributing this money to the states and territories.  The IIJA prohibits the NTIA from rate regulation.  The IIJA established a process for how states receive money from the NTIA for this program.   First, each of the 56 individual states and territories (state entities) were required to submit an Initial Proposal explaining their proposed process for awarding the funds.   The NTIA was then tasked with reviewing and approving each individual states entities’ proposal, after which funds would be allocated to the state to award.   Some states report that the NTIA is conditioning approval of their Initial Proposals on setting a specific price for low-cost broadband plans despite the prohibition on rate regulation.  Despite every state entity having submitted their initial proposals by the December 27, 2023, deadline, the NTIA has only approved 16 initial proposals as of the date of this letter.   Due to the opaque nature of the NTIA’s review and approval process, the Committee lacks the information necessary to assess whether NTIA is pressuring states to rate regulate and to understand why so few state entities initial proposals have been approved to move forward.  CLICK HERE to read the full letter to Assistant Secretary Davidson. 

Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), 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 all communications between the agency and state broadband offices related to Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Initial Proposals. The letter comes amid concerns that NTIA is unlawfully pressuring states to rate regulate low-cost broadband plans required by the BEAD Program and following a May 15, 2024, hearing at which Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information Alan Davidson committed to being more transparent about BEAD funding decision making.  KEY EXCERPT :  “Based on anecdotal evidence from different entities involved in the process, it appears that the NTIA may be evaluating initial proposals counter to Congressional intent and in violation of the law. Several Members of Congress have directly raised to you that the NTIA, through its review of initial proposals, is unlawfully regulating the rate of broadband through BEAD’s low-cost service option in direct conflict with the IIJA, which states: ‘Nothing in this title may be construed to authorize the Assistant Secretary or the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to regulate the rates charged for broadband service.’9 During Senate floor debate on the IIJA, Members of Congress agreed that this language meant that ‘no rate regulation of broadband services would be authorized or permitted by the NTIA or the Assistant Secretary who leads the NTIA as part of the state broadband grant program.’” “States have reported that the NTIA is directing them to set rates and conditioning approval of initial proposals on doing so. This undoubtedly constitutes rate regulation by the NTIA. Indeed, one state publicly posted the NTIA’s feedback that the agency would not approve their initial proposal without ’an exact price or formula’ for the state’s low-cost option. Without visibility into the approval process, Congress in unable to determine how widespread this practice is. When asked about this at oversight hearings, your responses have failed to provide clarity.”  BACKGROUND:  Congress appropriated an unprecedented $42.45 billion through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) for the NTIA to administer the BEAD program.   The program was intended to ensure that all Americans, specifically those in unserved or underserved areas, have access to broadband.   The NTIA is responsible for managing and distributing this money to the states and territories.  The IIJA prohibits the NTIA from rate regulation.  The IIJA established a process for how states receive money from the NTIA for this program.   First, each of the 56 individual states and territories (state entities) were required to submit an Initial Proposal explaining their proposed process for awarding the funds.   The NTIA was then tasked with reviewing and approving each individual states entities’ proposal, after which funds would be allocated to the state to award.   Some states report that the NTIA is conditioning approval of their Initial Proposals on setting a specific price for low-cost broadband plans despite the prohibition on rate regulation.  Despite every state entity having submitted their initial proposals by the December 27, 2023, deadline, the NTIA has only approved 16 initial proposals as of the date of this letter.   Due to the opaque nature of the NTIA’s review and approval process, the Committee lacks the information necessary to assess whether NTIA is pressuring states to rate regulate and to understand why so few state entities initial proposals have been approved to move forward.  CLICK HERE to read the full letter to Assistant Secretary Davidson. 

Washington, D.C. — In new letters to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Inspector General and Government Accountability Office (GAO) Comptroller General, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-MO), and House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) ask for systemic reviews of Obamacare enrollment to determine the breadth of improper enrollment and its underlying causes.  The letters come following the release of a paper from Paragon Health Institute, which estimates that four to five million people are improperly enrolled in fully-subsidized Obamacare plans at a cost of $15 to $26 billion per year to taxpayers.  KEY EXCERPT FROM THE LETTERS:   The Democrat-passed tax-and-spend laws resulted in tens of billions of additional taxpayer dollars being spent to prop up Obamacare plans by increasing subsidies given to insurance companies far above those originally authorized by Congress. Recently, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that making those subsidy levels permanent would add nearly $400 billion to the deficit on top of the hundreds of billions in existing Obamacare spending.  A key feature of this expansion increases subsidies for insurance companies such that the full cost of premiums for individuals with incomes between 100 and 150 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) is paid for by American taxpayers, often referred to as “zero-premium” plans. This policy, coupled with the Biden administration's regulatory actions to eliminate program integrity controls in the federal exchanges, such as prohibiting key eligibility verification procedures, appears to have created both the incentive and opportunity for individuals and brokers to misstate enrollees’ income to place them in benchmark plans receiving the maximum subsidy.  Individuals enrolled in this income cohort nationwide exceed the total number of potentially eligible individuals. This problem appears to be particularly acute in certain states, with some reporting hundreds of thousands, and, in one case, millions more individuals enrolled in these plans than are reasonably likely to be eligible. More than half of all enrollees in the federal exchange now report incomes between 100 and 150 percent of FPL—notably higher than the historical average of roughly 40 percent—further demonstrating the breadth of the enrollment incongruity.  While individuals may reasonably misestimate their income at any given point, the scale of the problem suggests malicious intent from certain actors involved. There have been documented issues with broker behavior surrounding these “zero-premium” plans, with reports and litigation detailing practices of consumers having their plan switched by such brokers without their consent.  Estimates show the cost of improperly enrolled individuals in “zero-premium” plans are $15 billion to $20 billion per year and potentially as high as $26 billion per year. If these estimates are accurate, it implies that these improper payments represent more than half the cost of making the expanded subsidies permanent.  Runaway deficits and debt are threatening to breach historic levels in the next decade, and, by 2054, the cost of simply servicing our national debt will more than double relative to Gross Domestic Product (GDP), crowding out other important national priorities. Given this grave situation, it is critical that the federal government safeguard increasingly scarce resources to ensure that every dollar spent goes as far as possible to improve Americans’ wellbeing.  CLICK HERE to read the letter to HHS Inspector General Christi Grimm. CLICK HERE to read the letter to GAO Comptroller General Gene Dodaro.

Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Robert Califf, 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) are pressing for more information regarding the agency’s foreign drug inspection program. The letter continues the Committee’s investigation into FDA inspection practices, which include a July 18, 2023, letter , a December 13, 2023, letter , and a February 6, 2024, oversight hearing at which the FDA declined to make an official available to testify.  BACKGROUND :  In the letter, the Members discuss the Committee’s analysis of FDA inspection outcomes in India and China from January 2014 to April 2024, limiting its review to inspectors with ten or more inspections in either China or India.   EXCERPT OF THE ANALYSIS :  “The results of this analysis were surprising, revealing tremendous variation in inspection outcomes. Some FDA inspectors found compliance issues during all or almost all of their inspections. Other inspectors rarely reported finding a single compliance issue. Two inspectors never found a single compliance issue over the course of a combined 24 inspections in India. Another inspector found zero compliance issues in 20 out of 23 inspections (85 percent) in China while finding compliance issues with almost half of domestic inspections during the same period. These are unusual inspection outcomes, the opposite of what would be expected given the widely reported failures in quality control and lack of adherence to current good manufacturing techniques by drug manufacturing facilities in China and India.  “By contrast, 16 FDA inspectors, with over 325 inspections collectively in India, found compliance issues during every inspection they conducted. As a measure of what a pattern of rigorous inspections should look like, the Committee reviewed the inspection outcomes for 3 FDA inspectors with professional reputations for thoroughness who also had at least 10 inspections in China or India during the studied time period. These expert inspectors reported finding no compliance issues during inspections in China at a rate of only 6.7 to 11.4 percent and at a rate of zero to 9.5 percent in India.”  KEY LETTER EXCERPT : “Such large variations in inspection outcomes are troubling, and they merit further investigation. At a minimum, the Committee is concerned that these findings suggest vast differences in the skill, thoroughness, and competence of FDA inspectors. The difference in inspection outcomes appears to be just another example of institutional weaknesses and dysfunction in the FDA’s foreign drug inspection program. Prior to the pandemic, media reporting found that some FDA inspectors took an inappropriately lenient approach with foreign drug manufacturers with serious compliance violations. There were also reports o f, and concerns about, foreign manufacturers attempting to bribe or improperly influence inspectors. The Committee is seriously evaluating the disturbing possibility that some of the variation in inspection outcomes could be the result of bribery or fraud.”  CLICK HERE to read the full letter.