Oversight & Investigations

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Last month, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing diving deeper into concerning practices within our nation’s organ procurement and transplant system that were identified by a recent Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) investigation. During the two-panel hearing titled “Ensuring Patient Safety: Oversight of the U.S. Organ Procurement and Transplant System,” Committee Members heard from the Chief of the Organ Transplant Branch of HRSA regarding the agency’s recently released investigative report outlining shocking revelations about the system’s procedures that put patient safety at risk. The investigation examined an “index case” (KYDA-001) where the organ procurement organization (OPO) that services Kentucky was contacted shortly after the arrival of a patient who was experiencing cardiovascular collapse after an unintentional overdose. After it was determined that further treatment would be futile, the patient’s family made the decision to end life-sustaining treatment and move forward with organ donation via a process known as donation after cardiac (or circulatory) death (DCD). However, despite OPO and hospital staff noting signs of the patient’s improved neurologic function, discomfort, and even expression of fear at multiple points over the multi-day period between when the OPO was first contacted and the patient was brought to the operating room (OR), the decision to pursue organ recovery was not reversed until the physician in the OR became uncomfortable and refused to continue with the process. In addition to the index case, HRSA analyzed 351 unique cases of authorized, not recovered (ANR) patients. This means that the patients were considered for DCD recovery, but no organs were transplanted. The report shows that 103 of these cases, which is nearly 30 percent, “had concerning features.”  HRSA’s Organ Transplant Branch Chief, Dr. Raymond Lynch, testified about KYDA’s (Network for Hope) patterns that were identified in the report, which include: A failure to recognize neurologic function inconsistent or unfavorable for DCD organ recovery on initial patient assessment or subsequent follow up; A failure to work collaboratively with patients’ primary medical teams, including instances of potential violation of separation of roles in patient care; A failure to respect family wishes and appropriately safeguard the decision-making authority of legal next of kin; and A failure to follow professional best practices as well as policies and guidelines for collection of patients’ medical data. The second panel included witnesses from “Network for Hope,” the OPO involved in all of the cases that HRSA reviewed; the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS); and the current and recent past President of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) Board of Directors.  Chairman Joyce probed Network for Hope CEO, Mr. Barry Massa, for using the word “unique” to describe the index case, the same case where “...hospital staff [felt] extremely uncomfortable with the amount of reflexes patient is exhibiting,” during the procurement process. Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06) questioned witnesses about an open letter that was issued after the Subcommittee’s September 2024 hearing and signed by the organ donation and transplant industry and community members, including individuals at UNOS and OPTN Board Members. The open letter, per HRSA’s report, “characterized the ongoing effort to improve patient safety through enhanced oversight as a ‘misinformation campaign,’” noting that “[i]t is time for it to stop.” Specifically, the letter portrayed the previous oversight efforts by this Committee as “[s]preading misinformation based on conspiracy theories and hearsay.” UNOS’s CEO, Dr. Maureen McBride, admitted to signing the letter.  The Committee has serious concerns about the message this letter sends both to those conducting oversight of the organ procurement and transplant system and to those who wish to speak up when they wish to report concerns or potential wrongdoing. Oversight of this issue is far from over, and the Committee remains committed to protecting patient safety and maintaining trust in the system to ensure transparency and accountability. As Chairman Guthrie said when recalling his personal experience with our nation’s organ procurement and transplant system, “The conclusion [of this process] is going to come when we have confidence in the system.” ###

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – In case you missed it, Fox News recently published an article featuring a letter from Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, and John Joyce, M.D. (PA-13), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, requesting information on California’s decision to continue imposing a de-facto EV mandate. In Case You Missed It: “In a sharp rebuke, a Kentucky congressman is pressing California’s top environmental agency for answers after learning the state may be ignoring Congress’ reversal of three key electric vehicle standards. “The House Committee on Energy and Commerce wrote to Sacramento that it is ‘concerned about reports that California, and other jurisdictions who have adopted California standards for which waivers of preemption have been granted, are enforcing preempted vehicle emission regulations in violation of the Clean Air Act.’ “Earlier this year, Congress used the Congressional Review Act to nullify Biden-era waivers granted by the Biden EPA to California, allowing them to implement stricter standards than the federal government. “Several states, including Pennsylvania and Delaware, along with the District of Columbia, have adopted California’s low-emissions standards as well. “The Committee has been made aware that CARB staff is denying auto manufacturers approval to bring vehicles to market unless the manufacturers agree to comply with the preempted regulations,’ the committee continued. “Rep. Brett Guthrie, chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, a Republican, told Fox News Digital that the law is clear that the Golden State must end its ‘de-facto EV mandate.’ “Enforcing a ban on the sale of gas-powered vehicles would have dire consequences for American families and businesses,’ Guthrie said. “Forcing Americans to buy these vehicles would strain our electric grid, raise costs, and increase our reliance on China. Our investigation will look into whether California is continuing to enforce an EV mandate in violation of federal law.’ Joining Guthrie on the letter were Reps. Gary Palmer, R-Ala., and John Joyce, R-Pa., chairmen of the environment and oversight subcommittees, respectively. “The committee acknowledged a lawsuit against the recissions from California Attorney General Robert Bonta remains ongoing, but that the intermission does not allow the state to continue enforcing mandates under the nixed waivers. In a June statement announcing the lawsuit, Bonta called the situation ‘reckless, politically motivated and illegal.’ “The letter, addressed to Dr. Steven Cliff, executive officer of the California Air Resources Board, said the committee had been purportedly made aware of CARB staff denying auto manufacturers’ approval to bring vehicles to market in the state ‘unless the manufacturers agree to comply with the preempted regulations.’ “These efforts include CARB staff indicating that the agency would deny California Executive Orders (EO) for model year 2026 vehicles that meet all of CARB’s enforceable regulatory requirements and which California allowed for sale in model year 2025, on the basis that these vehicles do not meet the additional requirements in one set of the preempted regulations: ACC-II.’ “The committee further alleges that CARB’s online ‘repository’ spreadsheet of model year 2026 vehicles showed the board has ‘exclusively approved’ vehicles that would certify under the ACC-II green regulations. “They closed by demanding documents showing whether CARB is continuing to enforce the car, truck or omnibus regulations Congress undid, and all records from the first of the year onward germane to the regulations and Biden-era waivers. “Fox News Digital reached out to CARB and Gov. Gavin Newsom for comment on accusations that the board is discriminating against certain vehicles.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, and John Joyce, M.D. (PA-13), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, sent a letter to the California Air Resources Board, requesting information on California’s decision to continue imposing a de-facto EV mandate. “The law is clear California must put an end to its de-facto EV mandate. Enforcing a ban on the sale of gas-powered vehicles would have dire consequences for American families and businesses,” said Chairman Guthrie. “Forcing Americans to buy these vehicles would strain our electric grid, raise costs, and increase our reliance on China. Our investigation will look into whether California is continuing to enforce an EV mandate in violation of federal law.” Read more about the letter from Fox News here . Key excerpts from the letter: “The Committee is concerned about reports that California, and other jurisdictions who have adopted California standards for which waivers of preemption have been granted, are enforcing preempted vehicle emission regulations in violation of the Clean Air Act.” “The Committee has been made aware that CARB staff is denying auto manufacturers approval to bring vehicles to market unless the manufacturers agree to comply with the preempted regulations.” Background: On June 12, 2025, President 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 waiver of preemption allowing the state to impose emission standards that effectively ban the sale of new gas-powered vehicles. The CRA’s passed Congress with bipartisan support. The Clean Air Act clearly bans states from issuing their own emission standards unless EPA grants a waiver of federal preemption. Because the EPA’s waivers have been disapproved under the CRA, the California EV mandates are not allowed under the Clean Air Act. Despite three Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions being signed into law this year that block California from implementing vehicle standards that ban the sale of gas-powered cars and trucks through its Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II regulations, Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) regulations, and Omnibus Low NOx programs (the Omnibus) regulations, Committee staff have learned that California and other states are continuing to implement the preempted rules. Specifically, following formal disapproval of previously granted waivers due to the CRAs, California is reportedly refusing to certify automobiles that don’t meet the now-preempted standards, contrary to federal law, i.e., the Clean Air Act. CLICK HERE to read the full letter.

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 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. ###

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 ###