Welcome to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) spoke with Fox News Digital about the American Privacy Rights Act of 2024 . The bipartisan, bicameral draft legislation will establish a national data privacy and security standard and give people the right to control their personal information online. Highlights and excerpts from the article : “Energy and Commerce Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., said it is her ‘biggest fear’ as a parent for her children’s sensitive data to be exploited online, and she is aiming to quell those fears for herself and millions of Americans with a new federal data privacy standard .  “ ‘ There’s very dangerous activity online, and data collection is foundationally how these algorithms are developed and then ultimately used to target children, but also people in general,' Rodgers told Fox News Digital in an interview.   “‘This is really my biggest fear as a parent, having three school-aged children, other friends who have had kids that have been targeted online. We know that these algorithms have been targeting children with dangerous content, targeted advertising that leads to dangerous life-threatening behaviors.’” [...] “The Washington Republican teamed up with Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Chair Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., to unveil a bipartisan framework aimed at giving Americans more control over personal data they share online and empowering them to take action when that sensitive information falls prey to bad actors." […] “It also gives people the right to sue if a company [...] continues to harvest and sell their data without their permission, and if a data breach or hack caused ‘clear harm,’ Rodgers explained. “Rodgers told Fox News Digital to expect a hearing this week as the legislation begins to make its way through Congress. “The ambitious proposal would set the first-ever federal data privacy standard if passed. However, the issue of data privacy has been around for a long time – almost as long as the internet itself. “‘It is imperative that we move this bill. It's been decades that Congress has been grappling with a privacy data security law, and it is past time for us to put people in control of their data,’ she said.” CLICK HERE to read the full article. CLICK HERE to watch our legislative hearing on Wednesday to discuss the draft legislation and other solutions to protect people online.

Washington D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chair Bob Latta (R-OH) delivered the following opening remarks at today’s subcommittee hearing to discuss the future of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. FOSTERING A DYNAMIC ONLINE ENVIRONMENT “In 1996, the early days of the Internet, Section 230 was enacted to provide online platforms immunity from liability for content posted by third-party users.   “This legal protection was instrumental in fostering the growth of these platforms and unleashed a vibrant online ecosystem that led to the creation of social media platforms that promoted user-generated content, social interaction, and innovation. “Section 230 has two main mechanisms: first, a provision that exempts platforms from being held liable for content that is posted on their website by a third-party user; and second, a provision that exempts platforms from being held liable for content that they remove or moderate in ‘good faith.’ “This dual liability protection is often referred to as the 'sword' and the 'shield.'   “The sword being the ability for platforms to remove content and the shield being the liability protection for content posted by users of the platform. “As the Internet has evolved and become deeply integrated into our daily lives, we have encountered new challenges and complexities that require a reevaluation of Section 230's role and impact.”  BIG TECH CENSORSHIP “One of the most pressing concerns is the power that Section 230 has given to social media platforms.   Big Tech is able to limit free speech and silence viewpoints, especially of those they do not agree with. “There are countless instances where individuals and groups with conservative viewpoints have faced censorship, deplatforming, and content moderation practices.   “In contrast, Big Tech continues to leave up highly concerning content.   “The prevalence of illegal activities such as illicit drug sales, human trafficking, and child exploitation on some platforms underscore the need for stronger mechanisms to hold platforms accountable for facilitating or enabling harmful behavior.” LEGAL CHALLENGES TO SECTION 230 “Big Tech’s authoritarian actions have led to several court cases challenging the scope of Section 230’s liability protection.   “Over the years, the courts have shaped the broad interpretation and application of the law.   “Some argue the courts have provided Big Tech with too much liability protection.    “Last year, two high profile cases related to terrorist activity on platforms were considered before the Supreme Court.   “In one case, the law was upheld. In the other case, which challenged Section 230’s application to content promoted by algorithms, the Court declined to rule.   “This year, two more cases are before the Supreme Court related to a State’s ability to regulate how social media platforms moderate content.” MODERNIZING SECTION 230   “It has become clear that Congress never contemplated the Internet as it exists today when Section 230 was enacted.   “While the Courts have too broadly interpreted the original intent of this law, numerous Supreme Court Justices declared last year that it’s up to Congress, not the courts, to reform Section 230. “It’s time for Congress to review the current legal framework that shields Big Tech from accountability for their decisions.   “We must determine how to strike a balance between protecting online speech and holding platforms accountable for their role in amplifying harmful and illegal content. “I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and working with my colleagues for thoughtful and targeted reforms to Section 230.” 

Washington D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rogers (R-WA) today announced the following updates to Republican Members’ subcommittee assignments.  Rep. Greg Pence (R-IN) will join the Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials and leave the Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce.   Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX) will serve as Vice Chair of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.   Rep. Rick Allen (R-GA) will join the Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security and leave the Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce.  Rep. Troy Balderson (R-OH) will join the Subcommittee on Health and leave the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.  Rep. Marianette Miller Meeks (R-IA) will join the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.   Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-CA) will join the Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce and leave the Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials.   Rep. John James (R-MI) will serve on the Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce as well as the Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials.  The new Subcommittee Rosters are as follows:   Subcommittee on Communications and Technology:   Chair Bob Latta (OH-05)  Rep. Gus Bilirakis (FL-12)   Rep. Tim Walberg (MI-05)  Rep. Buddy Carter (GA-01)   Rep. Neal Dunn (FL-02)   Rep. John Curtis (UT-03)   Rep. John Joyce (PA-13)   Rep. Randy Weber (TX-14), Vice Chair  Rep. Rick Allen (GA-12)   Rep. Russ Fulcher (ID-01)   Rep. August Pfluger (TX-11)   Rep. Diana Harshbarger (TN-01)   Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-01)  Rep. Kat Cammack (FL-03)   Rep. Jay Obernolte (CA-23)   Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA-05), Ex Officio   Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security:    Chair Jeff Duncan (SC-03)  Rep. Michael Burgess (TX-26)   Rep. Bob Latta (OH-05)   Rep. Brett Guthrie (KY-02)   Rep. Morgan Griffith (VA-09)   Rep. Larry Bucshon (IN-08)   Rep. Tim Walberg (MI-05)   Rep. Gary Palmer (AL-06)   Rep. John Curtis (UT-03), Vice Chair   Rep. Debbie Lesko (AZ-08)   Rep. Greg Pence (IN-06)   Rep. Kelly Armstrong (ND-At-Large)   Rep. Randy Weber (TX-14)  Rep. Rick Allen (GA-12)  Rep. Troy Balderson (OH-12)   Rep. August Pfluger (TX-11)   Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA-05), Ex Officio    Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials:  Chair Buddy Carter (GA-01)   Rep. Gary Palmer (AL-06)   Rep. Dan Crenshaw (TX-02)   Rep. John Joyce (PA-13), Vice Chair   Rep. Greg Pence (IN-06)  Rep. Randy Weber (TX-14)  Rep. Rick Allen (GA-12)   Rep. Troy Balderson (OH-12)   Rep. Russ Fulcher (ID-01)   Rep. August Pfluger (TX-11)   Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-01)   Rep. John James (MI-10)  Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA-05), Ex Officio   Subcommittee on Health:    Chair Brett Guthrie (KY-02)  Rep. Michael Burgess (TX-26)   Rep. Bob Latta (OH-05)   Rep. Morgan Griffith (VA-09)   Rep. Gus Bilirakis (FL-12)   Rep. Larry Bucshon (IN-08), Vice Chair   Rep. Richard Hudson (NC-09)  Rep. Buddy Carter (GA-01)   Rep. Neal Dunn (FL-02)   Rep. Greg Pence (IN-06)   Rep. Dan Crenshaw (TX-02)   Rep. John Joyce (PA-13)   Rep. Troy Balderson (OH-12)  Rep. Diana Harshbarger (TN-01)   Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-01)   Rep. Jay Obernolte (CA-23)   Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA-05), Ex Officio   Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce:    Chair Gus Bilirakis (FL-12)  Rep. Larry Bucshon (IN-08)   Rep. Tim Walberg (MI-05), Vice Chair   Rep. Jeff Duncan (SC-03)   Rep. Neal Dunn (FL-02)   Rep. Debbie Lesko (AZ-08)   Rep. Kelly Armstrong (ND-At-Large)   Rep. Russ Fulcher (ID-01)   Rep. Diana Harshbarger (TN-01)   Rep. Kat Cammack (FL-03)   Rep. Jay Obernolte (CA-23)  Rep. John James (MI-10)  Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA-05), Ex Officio   Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations:    Chair Morgan Griffith (VA-09)  Rep. Michael Burgess (TX-26)   Rep. Brett Guthrie (KY-02)   Rep. Jeff Duncan (SC-03)   Rep. Gary Palmer (AL-06)   Rep. Debbie Lesko (AZ-08), Vice Chair   Rep. Dan Crenshaw (TX-02)   Rep. Kelly Armstrong (ND-At-Large)   Rep. Kat Cammack (FL-03)   Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA-05), Ex Officio 

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Ranking Member Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), and Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) led 26 of their colleagues in filing a bicameral amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit in support of state and industry challengers to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) so-called “Good Neighbor” air rule that targets American power production and burdens states with misguided air regulations. “Acting well beyond its delegated powers under the [Clean Air Act], EPA’s Rule proposes to remake the energy sector in the affected states toward the Agency’s preferred ends. The Rule is part of the broader joint EPA-White House Strategy that oversteps the Agency’s authority by concurrently developing regulations under three separate environmental statutes. It does so not to meet any of the statutes’ individual ends but to transform the power sector. "The group of regulations—including the Rule—are designed to hurriedly rid the U.S. power sector of fossil fuels by sharply increasing the operating costs for fossil fuel-fired power plant operators, forcing the plants’ premature retirement,” the brief reads in part. BACKGROUND: The so-called “Good Neighbor” rule imposes overreaching emissions requirements on power plants, natural gas pipeline assets, and industrial plants, like steel, cement, and paper production facilities in 23 states. Other federal courts have already frozen implementation of the rule in 12 states. Despite active Supreme Court proceedings that may halt implementation of the rule nationwide, the EPA has remained committed to the illegal rule and recently proposed to add five more states to the program.  In June 2023 , Capito joined Wicker in introducing a formal challenge to the rule through a Congressional Review Act (CRA) joint resolution of disapproval.  In June 2023, Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) also introduced H.J.Res. 69, a formal challenge to the rule through a Congressional Review Act (CRA) joint resolution of disapproval.  In June 2022 , Ranking Member Capito sent a letter to EPA Administrator Michael Regan outlining serious concerns with the proposed “Good Neighbor Plan.”  Ranking Member Capito has criticized the EPA’s proposed “Good Neighbor Plan” during EPW hearings in March 2023 , July 2022 , and May 2022 , and in an op-ed .  In November 2023 , Chairs Rodgers, Duncan, and Johnson sent a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission expressing concerns with the impact of EPA’s suite of rules, including the “Good Neighbor” Rule (or Interstate Transport Rule), on the reliability of the nation’s electric grid. In addition to Capito and Wicker, senators who signed on to brief include, John Barrasso, (R-WY), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), John Boozman (R-AR), Mike Braun (R-IN), John Cornyn (R-TX), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Steve Daines (R-MT), Deb Fischer (R-NE), John Hoeven (R-ND), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Cynthia M. Lummis (R-WY), Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), Pete Ricketts (R-NE), Jim Risch (R-ID), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), and John Thune (R-SD). In addition to Rodgers, House members who signed on to the brief include, Rick Allen (R-GA), Kelly Armstrong (R-ND), Troy Balderson (R-OH), Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Larry Bucshon (R-IN), Michael Burgess (R-TX), Kat Cammack (R-FL), Earl “Buddy” Carter (R-GA), Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), John Curtis (R-UT), Jeff Duncan (R-SC), Neal Dunn (R-FL), Russ Fulcher (R-ID), Morgan Griffith (R-VA), Brett Guthrie (R-KY), Diana Harshbarger (R-TN), Richard Hudson (R-NC), John James (R-MI), John Joyce (R-PA), Bob Latta (R-OH), Debbie Lesko (R-AZ), Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA), Jay Obernolte (R-CA), Gary Palmer (R-AL), Greg Pence (R-IN), August Pfluger (R-TX), Tim Walberg (R-MI), and Randy Weber (R-TX).  Full text of the brief is available here .

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA), and Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, & Critical Materials Chair Buddy Carter (R-GA) wrote to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Michael Regan regarding the agency’s Clean School Bus Program. KEY EXCERPT:   “Alarming information about this program continues to emerge. In particular, the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has flagged serious shortcomings in the program that create significant vulnerabilities to waste, fraud, and abuse. The EPA’s own reporting on the program reveals that numerous award recipients encountered difficulty utilizing the funding they were awarded. Additionally, the EPA continues to administer the program in a manner that favors the use of electric school buses over other types of buses that are eligible for funding under the program.”  CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENT:   Of almost 400 selectees under the 2022 Clean School Bus Rebate program 46 selectees withdrew from the program.  The most common reasons provided for withdrawal were school boards voting against the projects for reasons including difficulties coordinating with electric utilities, potentially lengthy and costly electric infrastructure upgrades required to install electric vehicle supply equipment, and hesitancy about maintenance and range issues associated with electric buses.  The OIG concluded in a December 2023 audit that “the agency may be unable to effectively manage and achieve the program mission unless local utility companies can meet increasing power and supply demands for electric buses.”  The OIG noted that establishing charging stations and connecting them to power lines could take approximately twelve to twenty-four months.   Stakeholders reported that infrastructure to support 25 buses or more demands a more complex electrical setup, which can take a year to construct.  POTENTIAL FOR WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE:   In December 2023, the OIG issued a Management Implication Report that highlighted serious problems with the Clean School Bus Program.   The OIG “identified concerns regarding the EPA’s lack of robust verification mechanisms within the Clean School Bus rebate and grant application process, which led to third parties submitting applications on behalf of unwitting school districts, applicants not being forthright or transparent, entities self-certifying applications without having corroborating supporting documentation, and entities being awarded funds and violating program requirements.”  The OIG further stated, “Our initial investigation of its protocols found that the Clean School Bus Program is rife with potentially inaccurate information” and that “the EPA uses few mechanisms to verify the accuracy of application contents and relies on the applicant’s self-certification of all aspects of the application,” including the applicant’s eligibility for the program, satisfaction of vehicle-use requirements, and the identity of the school district the replacement buses funded by the program will serve.  The OIG also found that an administrative entity with zero students was selected to receive a rebate, despite it seeking funding for buses that were ineligible for the program.   Some recipients selected to receive rebates under the 2022 Clean School Bus Rebate program later declined the funding.   These withdrawals accounted for $38 million of awards, which the OIG stated lengthened program timetables and created confusion.  EPA PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS:   The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) directed the EPA to award grants, rebates, and contracts to replace existing school buses with both zero-emission buses and clean school buses.  The IIJA defines clean school buses as school buses that reduce emissions and operate partly or entirely using an alternative fuel, or zero-emission buses.   The Committee has previously voiced concerns about the EPA's bias towards electric buses while ignoring the benefits of other clean school buses, concerns that persist today.   According to information provided by the agency, “As of January 2024, the EPA has awarded approximately $1.84 billion to fund 5,103 clean school buses—96 percent of which are electric—and related charging infrastructure at 642 school districts in most states and territories, and at schools operated by federally recognized Tribes.”   Under the 2023 Clean School Bus Rebates program, the EPA continues to offer maximum awards for fully electric school buses that are several times larger than the maximum award amount for other types of clean school buses.  Additionally, under the Clean School Bus program, the EPA continues to fund charging infrastructure for electric vehicles but not propane or compressed natural gas fueling infrastructure.  Under the 2022 Clean School Bus Rebate program, the maximum bus funding amount for a class 7+ zero-emission bus was $375,000, and the maximum amount for a propane class 7+ propane bus was $30,000.  The EPA reported, “The majority of awarded electric school buses cost at or near $375,000, while many awarded propane buses cost around $150,000.”  In other words, the maximum rebate amount seemingly covered the entire cost of an electric bus but covered only a fraction of a propane bus.  CLICK HERE to read the letter.

Washington, D.C. — House Energy and Commerce Committee (E&C) Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), E&C Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA), and E&C Subcommittee on Health Chair Brett Guthrie (R-KY), Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Chair Brad Wenstrup (R-OH), and House Oversight and Accountability Committee Chair James Comer (R-KY) announced that EcoHealth Alliance (EcoHealth) President Dr. Peter Daszak will appear for a public hearing on May 1, 2024. EcoHealth—a U.S.-based non-profit whose mission is to prevent pandemics—used taxpayer dollars to fund dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). During his closed-door transcribed interview with the Committees on November 14, 2023, Dr. Daszak made multiple statements inconsistent with documents and evidence reviewed by the Committees. This raises serious questions about the veracity of EcoHealth’s public statements, including its insistence that the research it funded at the WIV could not have caused the pandemic. The Chairs are calling on Dr. Daszak to address the discrepancies in his testimony and publicly explain EcoHealth’s relationship with the WIV. “These revelations undermine your credibility as well as every factual assertion you made during your transcribed interview. The Committees have a right and an obligation to protect the integrity of their investigations, including the accuracy of testimony during a transcribed interview. We invite you to correct the record,” wrote the Chairs. In preparation for the public hearing next month, the Chairs are also requesting further information from Dr. Daszak about EcoHealth’s communication with the WIV, public health agencies, and prominent individuals involved in the suppression of the lab-leak hypothesis. BACKGROUND: Dr. Daszak told the Committees that EcoHealth intended to conduct dangerous gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at a University of North Carolina lab if its proposal—known widely as DEFUSE—was approved by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). A recently released Freedom of Information Act document production directly contradicts this statement and suggests that EcoHealth intended to mislead DARPA and conduct the risky research at the WIV instead. Dr. Daszak’s statements require correction and clarification as these documents suggest that EcoHealth intended to conduct research at laboratories with weaker biosafety measures set by the Chinese government instead of at laboratories with higher biosafety standards required by the United States.  Scientific evidence and available intelligence indicate that a research-related incident at a lab in Wuhan remains a plausible cause of the COVID-19 pandemic. EcoHealth’s negligent, haphazard approach to biosafety and grant compliance, coupled with the misleading statements by Dr. Daszak to the Committees, raises serious concerns that must be further addressed at the hearing. CLICK HERE to read the Committees letter to Dr. Daszak.