Welcome to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Today, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, released a statement following the Environmental Protection Agency ’ s (EPA) proposal to roll back Obama and Biden-era regulations that have limited motor vehicle manufacturing and created a de-facto EV mandate for consumers for over a decade. “During the Obama-Biden and Biden-Harris Administrations, one-size-fits-all regulations were weaponized to create an EV mandate that limited consumer choice and increased costs for American businesses and consumers. “Over the past year, our Committee has led the way in Congress to address these issues including three Resolutions of Disapproval under the Congressional Review Act which ensured California could not impose an EV mandate on consumers across the country and force automakers and consumers to align with their radical green policies,”  said Chairman Guthrie. “No country has reduced its emissions more than the United States over the course of the 21st century. That accomplishment came from innovation and investments, not federal mandates. Today’s decision by the EPA to reconsider impractical and unworkable vehicle standards is a victory for American families who want to choose the car or truck that is right for them—not what’s mandated by Washington bureaucrats.” Background: The so-called “endangerment finding” was issued in 2009 by the Obama-Biden Administration and is the basis for the vehicle emission rules issued by both the Obama-Biden and Biden-Harris administrations that imposed costly EV mandates that limited consumer choice and increased costs of newer vehicles. EPA’s proposal is based on recent Supreme Court decisions limiting the scope of regulatory agencies like EPA in accordance with Congressional authorities.

WASHINGTON, D.C.  –  In case you missed it, Fox News recently featured Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, who shared his personal experience relating to the importance of ensuring patient safety remains the top priority within the nation’s organ transplant and procurement system.  In Case You Missed It:   “House Energy and Commerce Chairman Rep. Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., spoke to Fox News Digital on Tuesday about how his personal experience with organ transplantation has shaped his view of the system, which he said must ensure families are confident in it so they will not be afraid to donate much-needed organs.    “On Tuesday, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing with Dr. Raymond Lynch, the Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA) chief of the organ transplant branch. Current and former leaders of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) and the Organ Procurement Organization (OPO), Network for Hope, which serves Kentucky, southwest Ohio and parts of Indiana and West Virginia, were also present.  “The investigation follows a shocking HRSA investigation that found hospitals and OPOs in Kentucky were allowing organ procurement processes to begin despite patients showing signs of life. The investigation ultimately found that, since December 2024, out of 351 cases involving patients who had been authorized for organ procurement, but the organs were ultimately not recovered, 29% showed ‘concerning features’ related to protocols and patient safety, while around 20% exhibited a ‘neurologic status’ not conducive to organ procurement. “My big concern is people will not – if they don’t have confidence in the system – won’t feel like they’ll register as an organ donor, Guthrie said between panels at Tuesday’s hearing.   “People need to have confidence in the system, or at least know the questions to ask if they’re in this end stage with their loved one, Guthrie continued. Because when you’re sitting there, and you’re getting prepped to go get your next – hopefully, chance at life – you also, as you sit there, know that there’s some other family in some other emergency room somewhere else having a different experience. And they are losing a loved one, but they’re willing – the loved one, either pre-designated or they’re willing to let their loved one live on by helping somebody else live. “Guthrie’s experience stems from his mother, who died waiting on a new liver. He recounted how she was, at one point, told they had found her a new liver, but when the surgeon went to go pick up the new organ, it was not in the adequate shape to be transplanted. “Despite assurances that she was high on the list, Guthrie’s mother never found an organ in time before declining so fast that neither the congressman nor any of his relatives could attempt a live-organ transplant procedure. The live procedure allows a living person to donate a part of their organ, which will later grow back but can help repair the damaged organ in the person receiving the partial transplant. “Guthrie said that despite the alarming evidence uncovered by HRSA’s investigation, he still intends to keep his donor status, adding we need more people to donate. Currently, around 100,000 people are waiting for an organ transplant. “While the HRSA investigation probed multiple cases, it highlighted one shocking case in particular where staff were so uncomfortable with commencing the organ procurement process as a result of visible signs of life that some refused to participate. At that point, after staff had witnessed tears rolling down the patient’s face, the process eventually stopped, but not after the patient sat in the operating room getting prepped for organ donation for around 45 minutes. “This should never have gotten to the point of them being in the operating room, Guthrie said of the case. There were a lot of indications this person was not going to die. “Guthrie added that the issue is a bipartisan one and said the work will be done when confidence in the system has been shored up.”   ###

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Today, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Congressman Tim Walberg (MI-05), Chairman of the Committee on Education and Workforce, and Congressman Jim Jordan (OH-04), Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, issued the following statement regarding President Trump’s executive order on the Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) landscape: “We thank President Trump for his commitment to supporting student-athletes and strengthening college athletics in the NIL era. The SCORE Act, led by our three committees, will complement the President’s executive order, and we look forward to working with all of our colleagues in Congress to build a stronger and more durable college sports environment.” ###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, along with Reps. Palmer (AL-06), Carter (GA-01), Bilirakis (FL-12), and Obernolte (CA-23), penned a letter to the Executive Director of Covered California (CoveredCA), Jessica Altman, to request further information related to the potentially unauthorized transmission of sensitive personal health information involving Covered California’s website. Key Letter Excerpt: “According to public reports and agency statements, tracking technology was embedded on Covered California's website beginning in February 2024, as part of a broader digital advertising effort, and in direct contravention of the tracking platform’s user agreement, which prohibits the use of such tools on pages that collect sensitive health information. Although the tags were reportedly removed in April 2025, following external scrutiny and a vendor transition, the extended period of data exposure raises serious questions about the adequacy of safeguards that Covered California had in place. Forensic testing by investigative reporters identified the trackers in operation and confirmed that user-entered health information was being transmitted to third parties without consent. These circumstances warrant examination of Covered California’s actions under federal privacy standards.” “Ensuring the confidentiality of health information is a foundational obligation for entities operating within the health insurance ecosystem. Federal privacy protections, particularly the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), establish expectations for how covered organizations handle sensitive data. Recent reports and public filings raised questions about whether those expectations were met in this case, and whether existing oversight mechanisms are sufficient to detect and prevent improper disclosures.” Background: Forensic testing shows Covered California —the State of California’s official health insurance marketplace—has been sending sensitive user health data to third-party websites through several online data trackers. Prior to removal of the trackers, CoveredCA had more than 60 trackers active on its website; the average number of trackers on a government website is three. Some types of information sent to such websites include: Searches for doctors in network with specific plans/specializations Demographic information, including gender, ethnicity, and marital status Length of treatment a patent received by a provider Frequency of doctor visits If the user indicated they were blind, pregnant, a victim of domestic abuse, or used prescription medications. The State of California independently operates CoveredCA. As the state’s official ACA marketplace, CoveredCA falls under the purview of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The disclosure of information such as pregnancy or prescription drug use without proper consent—even for “marketing purposes”—may violate HIPAA. This Congress, the Committee has sent letters to 23andMe and DeepSeek over potential data privacy concerns: The Committee also held a hearing last Congress on the Change Healthcare hack, where personal health information was also jeopardized. CLICK HERE to read Fox News coverage of the letter. CLICK HERE to view the full letter. ###

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Today, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Congressman Richard Hudson (NC-09), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, sent a letter to President Donald J. Trump urging the administration to quickly remove burdensome regulations that have stopped the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program from connecting any American to reliable broadband. KEY EXCERPT: “The Biden administration added unnecessary and burdensome requirements that made participation in the program more expensive and less attractive to broadband providers. These include labor and climate change requirements, as well as rate regulation of low-cost broadband plans that were unlawfully imposed.  “To address these issues, we introduced the Streamlining Program Efficiency and Expanding Deployment (SPEED) for BEAD Act, which outlines necessary reforms to BEAD. We appreciate that Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick is undertaking a review of the program and urge any reforms to be enacted as soon as possible.” BACKGROUND: On March 5, 2025,  Congressman Hudson introduced  the SPEED for BEAD Act to remove harmful regulations that have prevented the $42 billion program from laying even a single inch of fiber to support rural Americans. Also on March 5, 2025, the Committee on Energy and Commerce  held a hearing  to discuss the BEAD program titled  Fixing Biden’s Broadband Blunder. CLICK HERE to read the full letter. ###

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Today, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Congressman Gus Bilirakis (FL-12), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade, and Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, sent a letter to 23andMe regarding the handling of Americans' sensitive data following the company's decision to file for bankruptcy. KEY EXCERPT: “According to 23andMe’s privacy statement, in a bankruptcy, customers’ ‘Personal Information may be accessed, sold or transferred as part of that transaction and this Privacy Statement will apply to [customer] Personal Information as transferred to the new entity.’ Additionally, a judge recently ruled 23andMe has the right to sell the sensitive medical and genetic information of its 15 million customers, which is considered to be the company’s most valuable asset. With the lack of a federal comprehensive data privacy and security law, we write to express our great concern about the safety of Americans’ most sensitive personal information.” Background: On March 23, 2025, 23andMe initiated Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, which could have ramifications for the highly sensitive information of millions of Americans. While Americans’ personal health information is protected under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), these protections only apply if the information is collected by a HIPAA covered entity. Generally, direct-to-consumer companies, like 23andMe, are not covered by HIPAA. Customers have reported issues accessing and deleting their data from their 23andMe accounts. The Chairmen have requested answers to the following questions: If 23andMe were to sell the personal information of its customers either as a standalone asset or as part of a broader sale of the company, what post-sale data privacy and security protections would be in place for its customers’ personal information? Please describe how the representations made in 23andMe’s privacy statement will continue to apply—and be enforced—if the personal information of 23andMe’s customers is sold to a third party. Please include in this response information about what, if anything, would hold a third-party buyer to 23andMe’s privacy statement or prevent it from subsequently using, transferring, or otherwise selling, such information in the future. Does 23andMe plan to change its privacy statement at any time prior to selling any customers’ personal information? If so, please explain the change 23andMe plans to implement and when those changes will go into effect. Does 23andMe intend to vet prospective buyers to which it may sell its customers’ personal information? If so, please detail the vetting process and whether it will include the prospective buyer’s history of implementing data security protections and compliance with sectoral, state, or any other data privacy and security laws. If not, please explain why. Please detail the categories of customer information 23andMe has, and of that what 23andMe is considering selling. Has 23andMe notified its customers of the company’s bankruptcy announcement? If so, please attach the customer notification. If not, please explain why. Has 23andMe provided its customers with a guide for how to delete, or request to delete any information currently in 23andMe’s possession? If so, please provide a copy of that guide and specify when it was provided to customers. If not, please explain why, and explain whether 23andMe will contact each of its customers and provide an opportunity to delete their personal information prior to a potential sale of the company or personal information maintained by the company. Please detail the number of requests 23andMe received from its customers to delete their personal information between when 23andMe filed for bankruptcy and the date of the response to this letter. Of those requests, please provide a breakdown of how many requests were made by customers through their 23andMe online accounts and how many were made via customer service calls because customers were unable to successfully delete their information through their online accounts. Of those requests, please detail the number of fulfilled requests. Will 23andMe offer for sale any information in which a customer has requested the deletion of such information? If so, does 23andMe’s privacy policy consider selling information a legitimate purpose for retaining information past a customer's request to delete their information? Will 23andMe deidentify its customers’ personal information prior to selling it or the company? If so, please detail which information will be deidentified. If not, please explain why the company is electing not to deidentify information. CLICK HERE to read the full letter. CLICK HERE to read the story from CNBC. ###