News

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. –  Congressman Morgan Griffith (VA-09), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, delivered the following opening statement at today’s hearing titled  Policies to Protect Our Communities from Illicit Drug Threats . Subcommittee Chairman Griffith’s opening statement as prepared for delivery: “In today’s hearing we will discuss fourteen bills aimed at protecting Americans from illicit drug threats. “Illicit drugs continue to pose a serious and evolving challenge to American safety and national security—fueling overdose deaths, increasing crime, and putting immense pressure on law enforcement and public health systems. “So far this Congress, we have gotten strong policies across the finish line to crack down on the illicit drugs crisis that we see across the country. However, there is still more to be done to protect our communities from these lethal substances. “This is an issue that affects particularly Virginia, and Appalachia, who have unfortunately been impacted by the opioid epidemic. “I hear countless stories across my district of individuals taking illicit drugs and mixing them with drugs we will be discussing today like xylazine and fentanyl. Many of these illicit drugs are coming from illegal pill presses often with ingredients coming from China. “Our local law enforcement have been on the front lines battling this crisis and this hearing will give us the opportunity to build on the work this subcommittee did in passing the HALT Fentanyl Act, led by myself and Mr. Latta, and the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act, led by Chairman Guthrie. The President signed both of these pieces of legislation into law last year. “We will examine H.R. 1266, the Combatting Illicit Xylazine Act, led by Representative Pfluger from Texas. This bill would classify Xylazine as Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act, while also protecting its legitimate use in large animal veterinary medicine. “This is extremely important for my district because, according to the National Cattlemen’s Association, Virginia’s Ninth District is the largest cattle-producing Congressional district east of the Mississippi River. “H.R. 5630, an important data collection issue that is championed by Representative Houchin from Indiana, would require enhanced data collection and reporting for opioid use disorder diversion data as part of a State’s plans for their Substance Use Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Services block grants. “H.R. 2004 Tyler’s Law is led by Representative Latta from Ohio. The bill would require the Department of Health and Human Services to complete a study on how frequently hospitals test for fentanyl in patients experiencing an overdose and then use its results to issue guidance on implementing fentanyl testing in emergency rooms. “Also introduced by Representative Latta is H.R. 7970, the Strengthening Tools to Outlaw Poisonous (STOP) Nitazenes Act, which would permanently schedule nitazenes as Schedule I controlled substances. “H.R. 8000, the End Needless Distribution (END) of 7-OH Act led by Representative Bilirakis from Florida would regulate synthetic versions of 7-OH as a Schedule I controlled substance. “Representative Hageman from Wyoming champions H.R. 5880, the Fight Illicit Pill Presses Act, which would add a serialization requirement for pill presses and punches. “H.R. 1227, the Alternatives to Prevent Addiction in the Nation (or PAIN) Act led by Representative Miller Meeks from Iowa and Representative Barragan from California, which I am a cosponsor of, would expand access for seniors to non-opioid pain management options in Medicare Part D. “H.R. 2715, the Destruction of Hazardous Imports Act introduced by Representatives Higgins and Carter from Louisiana, would grant the FDA authority to destroy any FDA-regulated products that pose a significant risk to U.S. public health at our ports. “We will also be discussing other bills that deal with addressing this illicit drug issue and 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. “I   look forward to hearing from our witnesses before us and to the discussion.”

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.” ###

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – This week, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce is holding two Subcommittee Hearings and one Full Committee Markup. Read more below.  FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP: The Committee on Energy and Commerce will hold a markup of two bills to reauthorize FirstNet and modernize the emergency alert system.  DATE:  Wednesday, March 25, 2026   TIME:  10:15 AM ET  LOCATION:  2123 Rayburn House Office Building  SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING:  The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology is holding a hearing to review the 1996 Telecom Act.   DATE:  Thursday, March 26, 2026   TIME:  10:15 AM ET  LOCATION:  2123 Rayburn House Office Building  SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING:  The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health is holding a hearing on how the Committee is cracking down on illicit drug threats in order to protect Americans families and keep communities safe.  DATE:  Thursday, March 26, 2026  TIME:  2:00 PM ET  LOCATION:  2123 Rayburn House Office Building  ###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Congressman Richard Hudson (NC-09), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, announced a hearing titled  The Telecommunications Act of 1996: 30 Years Later .  “The communications marketplace has transformed dramatically in the thirty years since the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was signed into law,” said Chairmen Guthrie and Hudson.  “ This hearing will examine what parts of the law have worked, what have not, and how Congress can build on those lessons to modernize our laws to promote innovation, strengthen competition, and drive investment in modern communications networks.”   Subcommittee on Communications and Technology hearing titled The Telecommunications Act of 1996: 30 Years Later.   WHAT: Subcommittee on Communications and Technology hearing to review the 1996 Telecom Act.  DATE:  Thursday, March 26, 2026  TIME:  10:15 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 Noah Jackson with the Committee staff at Noah.Jackson@mail.house.gov . If you have any press-related questions, please contact Daniel Kelly at Daniel.Kelly@mail.house.gov .  ###

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Congressman Morgan Griffith (VA-09), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, delivered the following opening statement at today’s hearing titled  Lowering Health Care Costs for All Americans: An Examination of the U.S. Provider Landscape . Subcommittee Chairman Griffith’s opening statement as prepared for delivery: “Today we will discuss health care costs and patient access challenges by examining the health care provider landscape.   “This is the third hearing in the Committee’s health affordability series following hearings with health insurance executives back in January and stakeholders from the prescription drug supply chain last month.    “The United States provider landscape includes a wide range of entities and organizations that deliver services to patients.   “Hospitals and large health systems provide acute and specialized care. However, we have also seen these entities expand into outpatient service delivery.   “Independent physician practices and group practices deliver much of the primary and outpatient services that patients rely on every day.   “Although they are not before us in this hearing, I also want to recognize the critical role that federally qualified health centers, rural health clinics, and community hospitals play in our health system, especially in our most rural and underserved areas.   “It is no secret that across the country patients are faced with fewer choices about where they can receive care, as the provider market has consolidated dramatically.    “Hospitals are acquiring physician practices, systems are merging, and too often, patients have little options among providers.     “In many cases, the states that see the most consolidation have the largest rural populations—exacerbating access challenges, leaving communities strained, and contributing to overall unaffordability.   “On top of vertical integration limiting the viability of independent practices, the so-called Affordable Care Act has enabled the landscape to become even more narrow.   “In fact, because of the Affordable Care Act, any existing physician-owned hospital built before 2010 is prohibited from growing beyond the size it was when the bill became law. How does that make sense?   “As a result, many patients face limited provider options in their communities and may encounter higher prices with little insight into the cost of health services.   “At the same time, transparency amongst the health care provider system remains insufficient.   “Prices can vary widely for the same service depending on where care is delivered, and billing statements may include facility fees, multiple providers, and negotiated rates that are difficult for patients to understand.    “Additionally, programs such as the 340B Drug Pricing Program have become opaque and some hospitals have gone against the true intent of the program.    “The 340B Program was created with the intention of helping safety-net providers care for low-income and vulnerable patients; however, as hospitals and larger entities participate and expand affiliated contract pharmacies, visibility has become limited into how the program’s generated discounts are used and whether those savings are reaching patients.   “In many cases, the result of this system is that Americans are left navigating complex, and often expensive, medical bills—whether from a hospital visit or routine appointment—that they did not anticipate, cannot easily afford, and sometimes only learn about weeks or months after receiving care.   “When provider markets lack competition and transparency, prices can rise without patients having the information needed to make cost-conscious decisions.   “Today we will hear from different organizations that represent health care providers across a variety of settings, so that we can look for ways to try and make delivering and receiving care more affordable.    “We have the American Hospital Association in front of us who represents many types of hospitals and health care networks.   “We will also hear from the American Medical Association who represents physicians across the country.   “The American Academy of Family Physicians is here to give the perspective of family medicine practitioners.    “We also have the Purchaser Business Group on Health before us to provide insights into the relationship between private employers and public purchasers.   “We also have a neurosurgeon from the University of California San Francisco to give the perspective of specialty doctors and the care they provide to patients.    “Lastly, we have Barbara Merrill from the American Network of Community Options and Resources.   “These witnesses have unique insights into the factors that are currently leading to the high costs patients are facing when receiving care, and I am looking forward to the discussion.”   ###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Morgan Griffith (VA-09), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, led a hearing titled  Lowering Health Care Costs for All Americans: An Examination of the U.S. Provider Landscape . During the hearing, we heard members express their concerns with how hospital consolidation and lack of price transparency drive up costs for American patients.  “When provider markets lack competition and transparency, prices can rise without patients having the information needed to make cost-conscious decisions,” said Chairman Griffith.   “Today, we heard from different organizations that represent health care providers across a variety of settings, so that we can continue to look for solutions that make delivering and receiving care more affordable.”   Watch the full hearing  here . Below are key excerpts from today’s hearing: Congresswoman Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-01):  “ Today’s hearing is critically important because every policy discussion [involves] real patients—employers trying to provide health insurance, families trying to afford care, seniors managing chronic conditions, and providers working to keep their doors open in increasingly complex systems. Over the past decade or so, we’ve seen significant consolidation across the health care system—especially after the passage of the Unaffordable Care Act—and particularly among hospitals and large health systems. At the same time, Medicare physician reimbursement has declined by over 30 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars since 2001. If we continue on the current path, we’re not just cutting payments, we are cutting access. In rural Iowa, we don’t have an excess of providers. When one closes, patients have to drive hours for care. A 2 percent to 3 percent cut in Washington can mean the difference between staying open and shutting down in a small town.” Congressman Cliff Bentz (OR-02):  “It almost seems as though the [physician] shortage gives people an excuse to raise prices. Is that the truth?”  Dr. DiGiorgio:  “I agree.”  Congressman Bentz:  “We’ve heard that in other conversations with various groups. And by the way, the remarks about larger systems resulting in higher quality care at less cost, I have to beg to differ. At least in previous conversations, it appeared that there was a focus on those types of things, while ignoring the amount of money being made on the float by delaying care. I asked that question of UnitedHealthcare when they were here. It was discouraging to hear how many billions of dollars are being made on the float, I must say. And that appears to be something we should be focusing upon.” Congresswoman Erin Houchin (IN-09):  “This is the third hearing we’ve had on affordability. I think it may be the most consequential because the provider landscape is where these issues meet real patients. Doctor Aizuss, in your testimony, you note that practice costs rose roughly 63 percent over the same period that Medicare physician payments declined by roughly 33 percent, putting an increasing strain on independent practices and threatening patients’ access to care—particularly in rural parts of the country. From your perspective, how is this sustained gap affecting patients’ ability to access timely, quality care? What specific actions should Congress take to stabilize physician practices and prevent further disruptions?”  Dr. Aizuss:  “As I’ve noted, the decrease in real payment for Medicare services is accelerating independent physicians to close their offices or to sell their practices to private equity or to be employed by large systems. So, the access is definitely impacted by that. People in their own communities can’t access the private practice physician when they want to. And wait times are increasing significantly. The biggest solution, as I keep emphasizing, is having Medicare payment reform tied to the medical economic index with automatic inflationary updates—just like the other providers are receiving.” ###

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 Securing U.S. Leadership of Communications Technology . Subcommittee Chairman Hudson’s opening statement as prepared for delivery:  “Good afternoon, and welcome to today’s bipartisan subcommittee hearing examining strategies for the U.S. to lead the future of communications technology.    “This subcommittee has jurisdiction over the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Both are integral to our nation’s spectrum management policies. The FCC also plays a critical role in overseeing the communications industry. In addition to these domestic agencies, there are also international treaties, meetings, and bodies that help establish global rules that govern these services.  “The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is the United Nations’ agency responsible for international coordination of communications services. The ITU manages a global table of spectrum allocations reflecting international agreement on identified uses of spectrum frequencies across the world. The ITU also allocates satellite orbits.  “The ITU meets every four years to set its strategy for the next four and hold elections for the organization’s five top officials, the 48-seat Council membership, and 12 Radio Regulations Board members. The ITU also holds the World Radiocommunication Conference every four years to review and update international treaties governing spectrum and satellite orbits.   “WRC-27 is expected to cover a variety of topics, including discussions to identify additional spectrum bands for International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) service.   “WRC-27 will also feature a number of important agenda items related to the satellite services. The satellite industry has been in a period of robust growth and innovation over the last decade—with the U.S. companies leading much of the world in those developments. Satellite technology plays an increasingly important role in our communications infrastructure, including broadband and other critical services. Satellite communications services have also been transformational for our first responders. In my home state of North Carolina when Hurricane Helene devastated terrestrial-based infrastructure, satellite was able to bridge the gap and keep first responders connected. Demand for these services has resulted in the deployment of thousands of new satellites.   “Satellite-based services are a global enterprise, and these deployments require close coordination with the ITU and other countries.   “Our nation is the world’s economic powerhouse, and we lead the world in innovation. The United States is home to the world’s best technology companies. These companies have led in the creation of new devices and services that we all rely on every day. On our committee, we are working to ensure we continue to lead in new technologies of tomorrow.   “China wants to surpass the U.S. as the global technology leader. Under the rule of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China has subsidized and stolen technology across a wide range of industries, including communications technologies. CCP-affiliated companies like Huawei (Waah-way) have exported communications equipment around the world, giving support to the CCP’s espionage activities.   “The CCP also seeks to sideline the United States in international telecommunication and technology standards bodies. If successful, our allies and partners around the world may increasingly turn to CCP-linked entities for telecommunications and satellite solutions, and digital services. This is bad for American businesses, bad for Americans who rely on these devices and services in their daily lives, and ultimately undermines our economic and national security.   “The CCP notched another win in this column last year when the ITU announced it would hold the 2027 World Radiocommunications Conference (WRC-27) in Shanghai, China. As the host country, China will serve as chair of the conference, allowing the CCP to steer these critical discussions.   “Given this, the U.S. should be an active participant in all upcoming ITU engagements. As I mentioned, WRC-27 will consider a number of agenda items related to communications services, including spectrum allocations. Key decisions will be made at these meetings to establish technical rules for communications technologies.   “I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today about what is at stake in these upcoming engagements and what success looks like for the United States.” ###