Subcommittees

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 Morgan Griffith (VA-09), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, led a hearing titled Policies to Protect Our Communities from Illicit Drug Threats . “I hear countless stories across my district of individuals taking illicit drugs and mixing them with drugs we discussed today, like xylazine and fentanyl,” said Chairman Griffith.   “While some of these bills may need further work, it is critical that we continue to look for ways to restrict access to lethal and dangerous substances in order to protect American lives, strengthen public safety, and prevent further harm to families and communities nationwide.” Watch the full hearing  here . Below are key excerpts from today’s hearing: Congressman John Joyce, M.D. (PA-13) on H.R. 1266, the  Combating Illicit Xylazine Act : “Under the leadership of President Trump, we have finally closed our Southern Border and made all Americans safer by that action. However, we all recognize there is more work to be done, and I am pleased to see many pieces of legislation that are being considered today that will do exactly that. First, xylazine, referred to as “tranq”, is now reported to be the most commonly mixed alternate drug being stored and transferred and mixed and sold with heroin, with fentanyl, with cocaine. When I talk to the coroners at home and I ask them which drug is most commonly being used in South Central Pennsylvania, they say, ‘I’ll tell you what it’s being mixed with, it’s being mixed with tranq.’ And then it’s a polymorphous mixture of drugs that come in with it. I’d like to really publicly express my strong support for H.R. 1266, The Combating Illicit Xylazine Act, led by Representatives Panetta and Pfluger, which would permanently schedule this substance while providing the necessary safe harbor for its continued legitimate veterinary use.” Congressman Neal Dunn, M.D. (FL-02) on H.R. 7184, the  PRESS Act :  “You know, in 2025, the CDC reported an estimated 72,000 deaths from overdose, so think about that for a minute; 72,000 peoples’ souls lost. You know, it highlights the brokenness of our system. I think we can fix this. I think the bills before us today represent some real, concrete solutions to address the crisis that has claimed more American lives than any war in modern history. Fentanyl alone accounts for an estimated 45,000 deaths in 2025, and that threat is not static; it’s evolving. It’s changing. As we’ve discussed today, it’s almost faster than our regulatory framework can track. And I’m aware that there’s many problems that cause this, but I want to focus on the sort of upstream sources right now. This is not just a domestic public health problem. This is a national security issue, and it has a return address. The Chinese Communist Party has subsidized and incentivized the chemical companies in our country to export fentanyl and all these other related precursors to produce synthetic opioids and whatnot that are illicitly sold in the United States. And I don’t think this is negligence. This is policy.” Congresswoman Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-01) on H.R. 1227, the Alternatives to Pain Act :  “Increasing access to opioid alternatives not only can reduce the cost of medical care but can also improve patient outcomes. One of my constituents from Iowa city, John Greenwood’s story, exemplifies this strategy. John is the Chief Strategy Officer of Goldfinch Health, an organization that launched the Billion Pill Pledge to help reduce the number of opioids left over after surgery by 1 billion. John trains health care professionals about optimal pain management, but this work is also personal to him because his son was born with a missing bone in his skull and has required 13 operations in five years. By utilizing only non-opioid therapeutics, his son was able to get through a seven-hour skull operation and recover with zero complaints about the pain while being treated at the University of Iowa Children’s Hospital. Because of his son’s recovery, which was smooth and comfortable, he was able to be discharged from the hospital four days early. This also saved the health care system and the family thousands of dollars in NICU costs alone. My bill, the Alternatives to Pain Act, is written to ensure more patients get this approach and reduce the risk of addiction from prescription opioids.”   ###

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.” ###