Subcommittees

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, issued a subpoena to California Air Resources Board (CARB) Chair Lauren Sanchez for documents and communications related to CARB’s implementation of vehicle emissions regulations that were nullified by Congress. This marks Chairman Guthrie’s first subpoena as Chairman of the Committee.

Despite three bipartisan Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions being signed into law last year preventing California from implementing vehicle standards that would ban the sale of gas-powered cars and trucks through its Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT), Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II, and Omnibus Low NOx (Omnibus) regulations, Committee staff received reports that California has been denying auto manufacturers approval to bring vehicles to market unless manufacturers agree to comply with the nullified regulations.

After CARB failed to cooperate with multiple requests from the Committee, despite repeated accommodations, Chairman Guthrie issued the subpoena to compel the production of documents regarding CARB’s implementation of the ACT, ACC II, and Omnibus regulations, including communications between CARB and Governor Gavin Newsom’s office, as well as CARB and the California Attorney General’s Office.

Chairman Guthrie issued the following statement following the subpoena:

“The Committee began its investigation after reports that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) had been denying approvals to bring new vehicles to market unless auto manufacturers agreed to comply with California’s burdensome EV mandate, despite the fact it had been nullified by CRA resolutions signed into law last June. California’s refusal to cooperate with our investigation has left the Committee no choice but to issue a subpoena in order to receive the documents it requested from CARB,” said Chairman Guthrie. “Forcing Americans to buy unreliable, and costly, EVs would eliminate consumer choice, strain our electric grid, raise costs, and increase our reliance on entities tied to the Chinese Communist Party. We will continue to follow the facts and demand accountability from California. I urge California to comply with this subpoena speedily and in good faith.”

BACKGROUND:

• Section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) prohibits states from adopting or attempting to enforce emissions standards for new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. Under Section 209(b), California may request a waiver of federal preemption from the EPA.

• The EPA had approved waivers under prior administrations that allowed California to implement vehicle regulations, including bans on gas, diesel, and hybrid vehicles and mandates for 100% electric vehicle sales by 2035.

• On June 12, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed three resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act—H.J. Res. 87, H.J. Res. 88, and H.J. Res. 89—which collectively disapproved California’s waivers of preemption that allowed the state to impose vehicle emissions standards that effectively banned the sale of new gas-powered vehicles. The CRA resolutions passed Congress with bipartisan support.

• California and several other states have challenged the CRA resolutions in court; the case is currently pending, and no injunction has been issued.

• EV adoption rates remain below the targets outlined in those waivers. For example, ACC II would have required New York to reach 35% EV sales in model year 2026, while current EV market share is substantially lower. California, which leads the nation in EV adoption, had a market share of almost 26% as of December 2024.

• The production of EV batteries relies on critical minerals sourced largely from supply chains controlled by foreign entities. Mining and processing of these minerals, particularly in China, is highly emissions-intensive compared with U.S. production.

CLICK HERE to read the New York Post’s exclusive coverage of the ongoing investigation.

CLICK HERE to read the cover letter of the subpoena.
###

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Congressman Richard Hudson (NC-09), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, delivered the following opening statement at today’s hearing titled The Telecommunications Act of 1996: 30 Years Later . Subcommittee Chairman Hudson’s opening statement as prepared for delivery:   “Good morning, and welcome to today’s hearing examining the Telecommunications Act of 1996.    “It’s hard to believe that 1996 was 30 years ago. That February, I was a student at UNC Charlotte. I won’t ask my colleagues where they were at that time – or staff if they were even born yet. Here in Washington, right across the street at the Library of Congress, members of Congress celebrated the passage of the Telecommunications Act. I have to admit, this event was not on my radar as a senior in college.    “However, the Telecom Act was a huge milestone when it was enacted. It was the first major rewrite of communications policy since the Communications Act of 1934. The law was designed to deregulate the market, unleash competition, and open opportunities for new technologies and services. In many ways, it succeeded. By eliminating certain monopoly-era laws and preempting state and local barriers, the Telecom Act opened the communications ecosystem to new players, leading to competition and innovation that ultimately benefited consumers.    “Competitors could enter local phone markets, telephone companies could now provide video, cable companies could provide voice service, and they could do this while entering markets they previously could not serve. It also enshrined the principles of universal service that are so important to rural America. Finally, it included what we now know as Section 230—26 words that created the internet economy we know today.    “But the world has changed significantly since 1996. Back then, the Internet was a new technology. We were just beginning to hear the familiar, but now extinct, dial-up tone and use web browsers like Netscape. None of us could have predicted the technological revolution that was coming.   “The Telecom Act unfortunately did not foresee how essential broadband would be to our lives. Nor did it see the rise of new ways to communicate. Back then, everyone relied on their home landline to make calls. Cell phones were considered a luxury. But today, we all have a computer in our pocket that among other things is a very quality cell phone. I’m not sure if any of us even still have a home phone...if we do, I wonder how many can even remember their number.    “And if we wanted to talk with someone on the other side of the world in 1996, we had to rely on a long-distance carrier to place an expensive, charge-by-the-minute call, whereas today, we can connect with anyone, anywhere via a cell phone call, a video call, a text message, or through social media.    “The world of 1996 looks nothing like the world of today, and it’s time we update our laws to reflect that. That’s why we are holding this hearing. Today’s hearing is an opportunity to look back at the Telecom Act—as well as the law it amended, the Communications Act of 1934—and find out what continues to work and what does not.    “For example, does it still make sense to regulate communications technologies in different silos? Do we still need an entire section on payphone service?  Is it time to revisit Section 230? And how should we address media ownership as broadcasters must now compete for engagement and revenue against platforms that did not exist in 1996?  Congress needs to consider how we should modernize our communications policy framework to reflect the technologies of today in way that will also work for the technologies of tomorrow.    “We have an esteemed panel of witnesses here today—some of whom were intimately involved with drafting the Telecom Act. I look forward to hearing from them, and I look forward to this discussion.”   ###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Richard Hudson (NC-09), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, led a hearing titled The Telecommunications Act of 1996: 30 Years Later . “The world of 1996 looks nothing like the world of today, and it’s time we update our laws to reflect that,” said Chairman Hudson. “Congress needs to consider how we should modernize our communications policy framework to reflect the technologies of today in a way that will also work for the technologies of tomorrow.” Watch the full hearing here . Below are key excerpts from today’s hearing: Congressman Bob Latta (OH-05): “Can we maintain a light-touch regulatory approach to ensure we maintain that lead globally when we talk about telecommunications in the United States?” Mr. Pickering: “Yes, I believe we can take a light-touch approach, building on the lessons from the ’96 Act. That approach now applies to both energy and telecommunications, including broadband—the critical infrastructure for AI that converges at the data center. You’re in a great position as Chairman of the Energy Subcommittee, working with Chairman Hudson, to advance permitting reform this session. We’re in a race against China, and the clock is ticking. Their advantages could swing the race in their favor if we don’t act in this Congress. We need to build new energy networks and capacity, as well as achieve the fiber connectivity that distributes AI applications and uses across the country.” Congressman Buddy Carter (GA-01): “30 years is a long time. Think of what has changed in 30 years, particularly when you talk about telecommunications. And don’t get me wrong—the Telecommunications Act of 1996, we all agree, was great. It unleashed competition and innovation, but it was different then. We need to make sure we are dealing with the [modern] times.” Congressman August Pfluger (TX-11): “I’d like to ask how Congress should update the framework of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to match the work Chairman Carr is doing, such as deleting obsolete, technology-specific rules and moving toward a more technology-neutral approach.” Mr. Thierer: “The ‘delete, delete, delete’ proceeding is a good example of how we can move in that direction. We should have been doing that a long time ago. Instead, Congress, in the Telecommunications Act, delegated broad forbearance authority and hoped the FCC would voluntarily loosen the chains—and it hasn’t worked out that way.” ###