Oversight & Investigations

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 Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, led a hearing titled Examining Ways to Enhance Our Critical Mineral Supply Chains . “Producing critical minerals here at home is essential for our economic and national security. We cannot allow the supply chains for critical minerals used in products like AI chips, cell phones, missiles, and fighter jets to be controlled by China, particularly the processing and refining phases of the supply chains,” said Chairman Palmer. “In today’s hearing, our witnesses were clear that Congress must take steps to build an environment enticing for domestic investment—including streamlining the permitting process—to help ensure that critical minerals can be mined, processed, and refined domestically.”  Watch the full hearing here .   Below are key excerpts from today’s hearing: Congressman Troy Balderson (OH-12): “The US has the second longest timeline for a mine to be approved, and we’ve heard anecdotes of projects waiting decades for approval to break ground or begin operations. Why is it that approvals of projects in the U.S., whether it be a mine or a processing, refining, or recycling facility for critical minerals take so long in the U.S?” Mr. Herrgott: “One of the main reasons is lack of coordination amongst the various agencies that are involved in the permitting process. Most mining projects will require a variety of permits. We’ve had member companies that have had mines that require over 90 permits.” Congressman Dan Crenshaw (TX-02): “Critical Minerals are the backbone of a modern economy and a modern military, from semiconductors to advanced weapons systems. Today, the U.S. imports between 50 percent and 82 percent of the critical minerals we need. So where are they coming from? It’s been mentioned plenty of times here – they’re coming from China. That’s not good. Our national security, our national industrial base, our economic future is dependent on supply chains we don’t control and from regimes we cannot trust. And why? Well, mostly because our laws and regulations have made it virtually impossible to open up new mines in this country, and even, even when we do mine, we still have to ship the raw materials overseas just to get them refined because we’ve offshored our processing capabilities.” Congressman Randy Weber (TX-14): “The U.S. once led the world in producing and refining rare earth elements but ceded that position to China in the 1980s. Today, China controls roughly 90 percent of global rare earth processing and has already demonstrated a willingness to restrict exports and thus, as one of you mentioned, affect the market. This leaves the U.S. dangerously exposed. If China were to halt exports entirely, think of that scenario. Where would we turn to secure the materials vital to our energy infrastructure and national security?” Ms. Hunter: “So, a total export ban would be devastating to the U.S. economy. We would need to rely on domestic sources if we can get them online, and then have them be processed into the final products that need to be qualified by manufacturers, and turn to allies as much as possible, countries with which we share national security priorities.” ###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, announced a hearing titled Examining Ways to Enhance Our Critical Mineral Supply Chains . “Critical minerals are essential to America’s energy independence and our national security. By securing reliable and resilient supply chains for critical minerals, we are strengthening our global competitiveness, boosting domestic production and manufacturing, and reducing our reliance on foreign adversaries,” said Chairmen Guthrie and Palmer. “This hearing will provide us an opportunity to examine vulnerabilities within our current supply chains and explore ways to mitigate those risks.” Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing titled Examining Ways to Enhance Our Critical Mineral Supply Chains WHAT : Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing on critical mineral supply chains. DATE : Wednesday, May 21, 2025 TIME: 10:00 AM ET LOCATION : 2123 Rayburn House Office Building This notice is at the direction of the Chairman. The hearing will be open to the public and press and will be livestreamed online at energycommerce.house.gov . If you have any questions concerning this hearing, please contact Calvin Huggins at Calvin.Huggins1@mail.house.gov . If you have any press-related questions, please contact Kaley Stidham at Kaley.Stidham@mail.house.gov . ###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Last 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. In Case You Missed It: “SCOOP: Biden-era grant program described as ‘gold bar’ scheme by Trump EPA administrator under scrutiny” Fox News Alec Schemmel April 11, 2025 Republicans in Congress are launching a probe into a Biden-era green energy grant program that sent billions in funding to climate groups tied to Democrats and former President Joe Biden’s allies. GOP leaders on the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent letters to the eight nonprofits awarded grants from the $20 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), seeking answers to ensure the Biden Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) followed proper ethics and conflict of interest protocols in distributing the funds. In February, the Trump administration’s EPA announced it would take steps to get the money back, citing concerns over a lack of oversight related to how the money was being disbursed. In the announcement, new EPA administrator Lee Zeldin cited comments from a former Biden EPA political appointee, who described disbursements made through GGRF as akin to “tossing gold bars off the Titanic,” because Biden officials were allegedly trying to get money out the door before Trump took over. It was also revealed that $2 billion from GGRF went to a Stacy Abrams-linked group, Power Forward Communities, which had not been established until after the Biden administration announced the GGRF application process. Meanwhile, during Power Forward’s first few months of operations – prior to receiving the funding – the group reported just $100 in revenue. Climate United, another group that received the most money from the GGRF, roughly $7 billion, currently staffs a former Biden climate advisor who worked during the last two years of the former president’s term. The same group is also run by a CEO with ties to the Obama administration and a board member who was among those invited to Biden’s signing ceremony for his multitrillion-dollar infrastructure bill in 2021.  Several GGRF grant recipients have ties to Democrats and Biden advisors, and some were reportedly founded shortly before or after the Biden administration announced the program. Meanwhile, these groups, according to Zeldin, had sole discretion on how to use the funds. House Energy and Commerce Chairman Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., alongside fellow committee members Reps. Gary Palmer of Alabama and Morgan Griffith of Virginia, both Republicans, said in a joint statement that their investigation into the GGRF recipients will be “key” to understanding whether these funds were allocated “fairly and impartially to qualified applicants,” while also helping to determine the manner in which the money has been used. “The Committee has had concerns about the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund program since its creation—including concerns about the program’s unusual structure, a potential lack of due diligence in selecting award recipients, and the recipients’ ability to manage the large influx of federal dollars they received from the EPA,” the lawmakers said in their statement. “A recent Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee hearing that examined these concerns coupled with the speed with which money was pushed out the door by the Biden Administration’s EPA heightened the Committee’s concerns and raised additional questions about certain Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund recipients.”  Several of the groups that were recipients of GGRF money sued the Trump administration in March over its attempts to rake back the funds.  Subsequently, Obama-appointed Judge Tanya Chutkan issued a temporary restraining order preventing the EPA from freezing $14 billion in GGRF funds awarded to three of the climate groups.  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 ###

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. — In a new letter to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Inspector General Christi Grimm, House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans requested an investigation into the strength, quality, and types of evidence-based scientific and pediatric medical literature relied on by the department to promote gender transition procedures for children.  KEY LETTER EXCERPT:  “As the agency responsible for safeguarding the health and well-being of Americans, all of HHS’s medical treatment recommendations, especially medical treatment recommendations for children, should be based on rigorous and well-established research, such as randomized controlled trials, that have definitively illustrated the long-term benefits of gender affirming care treatments.”  BACKGROUND:  Under the Biden administration, HHS has advocated for sex reassignment procedures on minors, including the use of serum puberty blockers, which have historically been used to treat children with precocious puberty (i.e., early onset puberty affecting about one percent of U.S. children) and sex offenders.   Puberty blockers, however, are known to stunt normal childhood development in children unaffected by precocious puberty.  HHS officials contend that sex reassignment procedures on minors are an unanimously accepted medical practice.  HHS Secretary Becerra testified before Congress that “every major medical association,” “medical journals,” and “scientific and medical evidence” has demonstrated the benefits of transitioning children’s biological sex.  When asked, via a Freedom of Information Act request, for the underlying scientific or medical basis for its position, HHS was only able to produce a two-page brochure that was already publicly available.  In contrast to HHS, a growing body of literature from medical experts and authorities around the world, including those in Europe, caution against performing such procedures on minors.   Courts and government health agencies responsible for determining child welfare have sought to limit child sex reassignment procedures.   Other countries have banned these interventions and surgeries on minors altogether.  An article published in the British Journal of Medicine found “there is great uncertainty about the effects of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries in young people.”   A court in the United Kingdom noted the obvious about administering puberty blocking chemicals onto children: “[i]t is highly unlikely that a child aged 13 or under would be competent to give consent to the administration of puberty blockers. It is doubtful that a child aged 14 or 15 could understand and weigh the long-term risks and consequences of the administration of puberty blockers.”  In April 2024, the Cass Review , an independent review of gender identity services for children and young people, commissioned by the National Health Service England, found “[w]hile a considerable amount of research has been published in this field, systematic evidence reviews demonstrated the poor quality of the published studies, meaning there is not a reliable evidence base upon which to make clinical decisions, or for children and their families to make informed choices.”   The Cass Review also found that “[t]he rationale for early puberty suppression remains unclear, with weak evidence regarding the impact on gender dysphoria, mental or psychosocial health,” as well as unknown effects on cognitive and psychosexual development.  In August 2024, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) became the first major U.S. medical association to express caution on the use of gender surgery for gender dysphoria in adolescents. In its formal statement, the association stated: “ASPS currently understands that there is considerable uncertainty as to the long-term efficacy for the use of chest and genital surgical interventions for the treatment of adolescents with gender dysphoria, and the existing evidence base is viewed as low quality/low certainty. This patient population requires specific considerations.”   The letter was signed by Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee on Health Chair Brett Guthrie (R-KY), Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA), Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA), Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL), Rep. Neal Dunn (R-FL), Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX), Rep. Troy Balderson (R-OH), Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX), Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-TN), and Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL).  CLICK HERE to read the letter.