News

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Bob Latta (OH-05), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy, led a hearing titled Oversight of FERC: Advancing Affordable and Reliable Energy for All Americans.

“Now, as our nation stands at the precipice of substantial change in the global economy, it is imperative for FERC to remain steadfastly focused on their core mission in order to fuel technological advancements and stabilize the bulk power system to keep the lights on,” said Chairman Latta. “Winning the AI race, reshoring manufacturing jobs, and lowering energy costs are not mutually exclusive. When done properly, research continues to show that the growth of large energy users like data centers and manufacturing facilities can help stabilize the grid and make electricity more affordable.

Watch the full hearing here.

Below are key excerpts from today’s hearing:

Congressman August Pfluger (TX-11): “How is FERC working with states that block pipelines? And how are you balancing the affordability mission when you have states like New York that actually kill pipeline projects?” Chairman Swett: “That is a 100-billion-dollar question. Effectively, under the regime that Congress has created, and the Clean Water Act, states have the ability to veto a project if they do not give a certification, and that is a problem that FERC simply cannot work around. If Congress saw fit to change that, we would be happy and ready to implement any directives.” Mr. Pfluger: “Is it your belief that having those pipelines in the capacity to deliver that natural gas lowers prices?” Chairman Swett: “Well, I think as you very wisely stated at the beginning of your comments, the proof is in the pudding. The fact that areas that don’t have enough gas are paying maybe 300 times what they should, as you said, is unacceptable. That is not a just and reasonable rate for Americans.”

Congressman Troy Balderson (OH-12): “When opponents claim that LNG exports raise domestic prices, they ignore the factors that actually increase natural gas costs for consumers, such as the lack of pipeline capacity during the storm. Regions with pipelines to deliver natural gas had significantly lower prices than areas with constrained capacity. In fact, on January 26, 2026, the Monday after Winter Storm Fern, Northeast winter gas prices were up 2.4 times higher than the Appalachia supply. FERC has taken important actions to address constrained pipeline capacity, like repealing Order 871 and examining cost thresholds for blanket approvals. Can you discuss what other action FERC is considering taking to expedite the construction of needed energy infrastructure projects? And how will these actions help deliver affordable, reliable energy to our constituents?” Chairman Swett: “Thank you for the question. I also am very concerned about Northeast prices, and one thing that was really shocking for me coming out of the storm was that, in the Northeast during Fern, 40 percent of generation came from fuel oil or diesel, and that’s simply because we don’t have enough gas infrastructure to bring gas to New England. So, I fully agree with you. That’s why we are looking to, wholesale across the board, take a hard look at our permitting actions. And when it comes to pipelines in particular, we are trying to streamline our NEPA process.”

Congressman Russell Fry (SC-07): “Chairman Swett, the Seven County [Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County] Supreme Court decision was remarkable in a way, because it was won unanimously. So, in a body like ours that oftentimes has several different ways to view any particular issue, when you see a unanimous Supreme Court decision, it kind of raises your eyebrows a little bit. The Court held that courts should—afford substantial deference to an agency as to the scope and contents of an environmental impact statement. How has FERC changed its NEPA practice in response to the Seven County decision? And to piggyback on top of that, what is left to do to come in line with that decision?” Chairman Swett: “Thankfully, the Seven County decision allowed FERC, in my opinion, to realign our emissions analyses with our statutory responsibility as a primarily economic regulator charged with encouraging the development and plentiful supply of natural gas at reasonable prices, per Congress’s instruction. So, what that means, when the rubber hits the road, is now we no longer analyze the indirect emissions from upstream production or downstream combustion.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman John Joyce, M.D. (PA-13), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, led a hearing titled Common Schemes, Real Harm: Examining Fraud in Medicare and Medicaid.

“What’s happening in Minnesota’s Medicaid program is deeply concerning and requires robust Congressional oversight; however, it is just the tip of the iceberg,” said Chairman Joyce. “Medicare and Medicaid fraud has been occurring in communities across the U.S. for decades, diverting necessary resources from patients in need. It is our duty to protect these programs for our most vulnerable Americans.”

Watch the full hearing here.

Below are key excerpts from today's hearing:

Congressman Russ Fulcher (ID-01): “I’m from the state of Idaho—which, sometimes, may not be the first state you think about when there might be fraud, but that is kind of the basis of my question. Have you noticed any trends where states might get targeted or regions might get targeted as a function of potentially them having a lower barrier for entry, or maybe perceived as not being as likely to be audited?” Ms. Gay: “Absolutely. We talk a lot in the industry how [fraud] can be regionally generated. It tends to start in one particular area, and then I don’t know if they’re all hanging out, talking to each other, or how that spreads, but it does tend to start in certain populations and then branch out from there based on controls.” Mr. Fulcher: “What if the bad actor is a foreign actor? How much of that do you see? And if so, what kind of a challenge does that bring to potentially pursuing that fraud, if it’s perpetrated by a foreign actor?” Ms. Wooten: “Certainly, states have seen both fraud cases perpetrated by foreign and by U.S. citizens or people in the U.S., and from our perspective, as being a Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, it makes no difference. We look at allegations, try to identify whether there is something we can do about them? Is the dollar amount something we can pursue? Are we going to be able to get value back for the Medicaid program? Do we have the laws in place to prosecute whatever type of fraud is referred? And we move forward with that investigation.”

Congressman Dan Crenshaw (TX-02): “So what’s the solution here? I mean, some argue stronger oversight would actually threaten access to care, but based on your experience, what actually happens to access when fraud is not controlled? Who bears the brunt of this?” Ms. Gay: “I think there’s certainly the patient-harm attribute you mentioned—you know, not getting the care that you need. […] We dealt with some cases with ACA enrollments, and by the time we verified with CMS that those were eligible recipients, the health plan was already on the hook for $1, $2, $3 million. Were these patients even receiving the care? In some cases, yes. In other cases, they had no idea that they were in a facility for such treatment. […] Now you have somebody that doesn’t even have that challenge, but that is now on their record. And even worse—those that do, that are getting subpar treatment at a very exorbitant rate and still not getting better.”

Congressman Buddy Carter (GA-01): “Auditors found 112 hospice providers operating out of a single physical address. 112...holy cow. As a result, hospice agencies in LA County alone likely overbilled Medicare by $105 million in just one year. […] It looks like it’s a problem in a lot of different places. And that’s why I want to ask you, Ms. Wooten, have you seen instances of copycats where fraudsters see a successful fraud scheme happening in one location, so they try to replicate the same fraud elsewhere?” Ms. Wooten: “Absolutely. We definitely see replicated fraud schemes in hospices; an excellent example. I share your concerns about home health and hospice because I owned a home health agency for many years, and I didn’t even choose to be a hospice because there were specialized agencies that could handle that part, and we would refer to them under the right circumstances. What we now see, though—hospices who are admitting patients who are not terminally ill, patients who don’t know they were put on hospice, patients who maybe aren’t getting treatments that they need, because the hospice philosophy, as you know, is for comfort care, not for treating illnesses. We have seen the same thing in Utah that the hospices have exploded. Now, I’m not saying they’re all fraudulent either, but absolutely; fraudsters learn from fraudsters and it’s an area we have to investigate.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce is holding three Subcommittee Hearings and one Subcommittee Markup. Read more below.

SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING: The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy is holding a hearing to discuss oversight of FERC.

• DATE: Tuesday, February 3, 2026
• TIME: 10:15 AM ET
• LOCATION: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building

SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING: The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations is holding a hearing on how fraudsters are draining state and federal governments through schemes in our government-run health programs.

• DATE: Tuesday, February 3, 2026
• TIME: 10:30 AM ET
• LOCATION: 2360 Rayburn House Office Building

SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING: The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology is holding a legislative hearing on FirstNet reauthorization.

• DATE: Wednesday, February 4, 2026
• TIME: 10:15 AM ET
• LOCATION: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building

SUBCOMMITTEE MARKUP: The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy will hold a markup of five bills.

• DATE: Wednesday, February 4, 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 Evaluating FirstNet: Performance, Accountability, and Reauthorization.

“Starting out as a 9/11 Commission recommendation to strengthen emergency communications infrastructure, FirstNet has been a critical resource for first responders operating in moments of crisis,” said Chairmen Guthrie and Hudson. “As we continue to prepare for future man-made or natural disasters, FirstNet must remain on the leading edge of safety and reliability. We believe this reauthorization is a critical opportunity to increase transparency and effectiveness, so the program can fully achieve the intended goals that were originally conceived of two decades ago.”

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology hearing titled Evaluating FirstNet: Performance, Accountability, and Reauthorization.

WHAT: Subcommittee on Communications and Technology legislative hearing on FirstNet reauthorization.

DATE: Wednesday, February 4, 2026

TIME: 10:15 AM ET

LOCATION: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building

This hearing will focus on the following bill:

• H.R. ____, The First Responder Network Authority Reauthorization Act (Reps. Dunn and McClellan)

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 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. – Today, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Congressman Bob Latta (OH-05), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy, announced a hearing titled Oversight of FERC: Advancing Affordable and Reliable Energy for All Americans.

“The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) plays a vital role in ensuring that families and businesses across the country have access to reliable and affordable electricity and natural gas,” said Chairmen Guthrie and Latta. “It’s critical that FERC continues to address the efficient permitting of interstate natural gas pipelines to deliver the energy upon which our communities rely. This hearing will offer the opportunity to discuss the work that is being done to help strengthen our electric grid and to increase resources for onshoring advanced manufacturing and artificial intelligence infrastructure, all while lowering costs for hard-working families across the country.”

Subcommittee on Energy hearing titled Oversight of FERC: Advancing Affordable and Reliable Energy for All Americans.

WHAT: Subcommittee on Energy hearing to discuss oversight of FERC.

DATE: Tuesday, February 3, 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 Seth Ricketts at Seth.Ricketts@mail.house.gov. If you have any press-related questions, please contact Ben Mullany at Ben.Mullany@mail.house.gov.

WASHINGTON, D.C.– Today, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Congressman John Joyce, M.D. (PA-13), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, announced a hearing titled Common Schemes, Real Harm: Examining Fraud in Medicare and Medicaid.

“The goal of this hearing is to understand current trends in fraud schemes targeting Medicare and Medicaid nationwide—how taxpayer dollars are being wasted, how beneficiaries are affected, and how transnational crime organizations are increasingly involved—and explore ways to better prevent and detect fraud,” said Chairmen Guthrie and Joyce. “As fraud schemes are being perpetrated across the United States, it’s important we recognize that we cannot preserve our Medicare and Medicaid programs for our most vulnerable if we don’t combat destructive fraud that is draining the system. We applaud actions that the Trump Administration has already taken to address these schemes, and we look forward to continuing to explore, and implement, solutions that root out fraud in our government health programs.”

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing titled Common Schemes, Real Harm: Examining Fraud in Medicare and Medicaid.

WHAT: Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing on how fraudsters are draining state and federal governments through schemes in our government-run health programs.

DATE: Tuesday, February 3, 2026

TIME: 10:30 AM ET

LOCATION: 2360 Rayburn House Office Building

This notice is at the direction of the Chairman. This hearing will be open to the public and press and will be livestreamed at ** energycommerce.house.gov **. If you have any questions about this hearing, please contact Annabelle Huffman with the Committee staff at ** Annabelle.Huffman@mail.house.gov **. If you have any press-related questions, please contact Katie West at ** Katie.West@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 Health Insurance Affordability.

Subcommittee Chairman Griffith’s opening statement as prepared for delivery:

“Today we will discuss health care costs and patient access challenges by examining affordability across the entire health insurance marketplace.

“This hearing builds on work Republicans have done this Congress to address health care affordability.

“We plan to have future hearings with other leaders and experts across the health care continuum to understand the root causes of rising health care costs.

“Specifically, this hearing will focus on the role insurers play in the delivery of care.

“The insurance market is dominated by a handful of Fortune 50 corporations that control the majority of the national market.

“In some states, a single insurer may even control 80 or 90 percent of a particular market.

“The biggest health insurers today often manage several facets of the health care supply chain, such as owning the pharmacy benefit managers; the group purchasing organizations; multiple provider groups; and specialty or mail-order pharmacies.

“Even with owning those, complicated benefit designs, narrow networks, prior authorization requirements, and opaque coverage decisions often leave patients feeling like they are paying more for less.

“The market also lacks transparency and is not easily navigable.

“One contributor to health insurance unaffordability for millions of Americans is the so called ‘Affordable Care Act,’ also known as Obamacare, that was signed into law in 2010.

“When Democrats passed Obamacare, without Republican support, they sold the bill on the promises that premiums would fall, competition would rise, and ‘if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it.’

“Instead, Obamacare has increased health care costs, warped incentives, federalized benefits, restricted plan design, and limited access to care.

“Many patients have fewer plan choices than they did before Obamacare was enacted. In fact, a constituent told me recently that his family only has one provider option. Therefore, Obamacare coverage is not translating to patient or taxpayer affordability.

“Unfortunately, employer-sponsored insurance is also becoming unaffordable, and, each year, more American small businesses choose not to offer health insurance because it is too costly.

“This impacts the ability for a small business to be competitive and attract talent.

“We know two things are true:

“Competition is essential for patient access! Lack of competition and consolidation within the insurance marketplace has led us to higher health care costs as a whole.

“The health care system needs to work for patients.

“That means empowering individuals with real choices, transparent prices, and coverage that fits their needs.

“We must strive to have more competitive plan options that reward quality and focus on affordability, access, and outcomes.

“Our discussion today is meant to move beyond politics and spur debate about how we can work toward delivering meaningful, innovative solutions for the Americans that we serve.

“We owe it to patients to get to the root causes of the challenges we see across the health sector, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.”

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 Health Insurance Affordability, featuring witness testimony from the biggest health insurance plan CEOs in the United States. During the hearing, Committee Republicans held health insurance plans accountable in their role of increasing health care affordability challenges impacting all Americans and discuss how Democrat policy failures in Washington D.C. have warped the American health care system and hurt patients access to high-quality health coverage options.

“Many patients have fewer plan choices than they did before Obamacare was enacted. Therefore, Obamacare coverage is not translating to patient or taxpayer affordability,” said Chairman Griffith. “We owe it to patients to have a health system that offers real choices, transparent prices, and coverage that fits their needs, and I look forward to seeing how today’s conversation presents solutions to make health care more affordable for all Americans.”

Watch the full hearing ** here **.

Below are key excerpts from today’s hearing:

Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02): “Experts, including the Congressional Budget Office, estimated that the expiration of the temporary Obamacare enhanced COVID Credit is projected to increase premiums by anywhere from 4 percent and 8 percent, depending on the market. Yet, many areas for 2026, insurers requested and were approved for premium increases of 30 percent, 40 percent, even 50 percent. So, Mrs. Boudreaux, you’re in Kentucky. The average Elevance Obamacare plan increased its premium by roughly 24 percent. Despite what Democrats would have the American people believe, the temporary COVID Credit does little to actually lower underlying Obamacare premiums and the American taxpayers are footing the bill. So, Mrs. Boudreaux, by your best estimation—even if the Democrats’ temporary COVID Credits were extended—would Obamacare plan bids in my state of Kentucky increase or decrease between 2026 and 2025?” Mrs. Boudreaux: “Well, thank you very much for the question, Congressman. You know, as we’ve shared, premiums reflect the underlying costs...” Chairman Guthrie: “So, they would have increased, right?”

Congressman John Joyce, M.D. (PA-13): “Since the passage of the ACA, we have seen costs across all markets continue to increase. One of the key issues driving this is the medical loss ratio, or the MLR, that requires plans to spend either 80 percent or 85 percent of your premium dollars on health care expenses. The MLR created multiple perverse incentives for insurance companies to dramatically consolidate both vertically and horizontally. The companies that you lead today are not just involved in insurance. You own PBMs, you own specialty pharmacies, you own retail pharmacies, you own GPOs, you own physician groups and practices. In some cases, you own hospitals, and you own drug manufacturing companies. And at least one of you owns a bank! This has led to alleged cases of self-dealing, as your companies work to circumvent the [multi-level marketing] requirements.”

Congresswoman Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-01): “The largest PBMs—CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, and Optum—have created rebate contracting entities, or PBM group purchasing organizations, which are adding to the complex and opaque nature of the medicine supply chain. My first PBM reform bill on transparency was in 2019, as an Iowa state senator. PBMs claim these entities provide them and their clients with greater bargaining power to lower costs, but recent investigations by Members of Congress, industry experts, state attorneys general, and federal oversight agencies suggest the opposite may be true. We have a graph up here. Let’s start with the left. The drugmaker pays rebates directly to the PBMs and PBM GPOs to ensure their drugs are included on their health plan formularies—meaning the drugs are covered by insurance. Then, these PBMs and their PBM GPO subsidiaries collect the rebates, which they promise to pass through to their patients and health plans. Can any of you tell me what percentage of rebates are passed through to the patient, who is paying a higher drug cost because the rebates are added to the price of the drug?” Top Health Insurers: “...” Congresswoman Miller-Meeks: “Is it zero?” Top Health Insurers: “...” Congresswoman Miller-Meeks: “You don’t even know that you’re not giving these patients back a rebate for paying higher drug prices.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Gary Palmer (AL-06), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment, led a hearing titled Chemicals in Commerce: Legislative Proposal to Modernize America’s Chemical Safety Law, Strengthen Critical Supply Chains, and Grow Domestic Manufacturing.

“The process for reviewing new chemicals – which was a significant focus of the 2016 effort – is broken. This regulatory uncertainty makes it difficult for the chemical industry to bring safer alternatives or new technology to the market in the U.S. and impacts human health and the environment by slowing the transition to safer alternatives,” said Chairman Palmer. “The bill would reauthorize the fee provision for another 10 years and require increased transparency and accountability in how fees are used by EPA.”

Watch the full hearing here.

Below are key excerpts from today’s hearing:

Congressman John Joyce, M.D. (PA-13): “Dr. White, we've had this discussion and my colleagues have opened the door, but I want to give you an opportunity to speak to how provisions in this legislative proposal today will guide EPA to focus their consideration on conditions that reasonably could be foreseen, and not just theoretical or even unlikely, because I think we're opening up potential areas that will waste time to be able to allow important chemicals to be assessed. Can you discuss that for us, please?” Dr. White: “For every single chemical that the EPA has evaluated since TSCA was modernized, they have found it to be an unreasonable risk. This has really been because of their scientific practices and principles. They have ignored submitted data. They have mischaracterized worst case exposure scenarios and not understood what exposure actually looks like when they're making decisions. And they focused on conditions of use that were not relevant or that were not really going to provide or have a specific high level of exposure. So, this has led to really flawed assessments by the agency, leading to overly conservative risk management decisions by the agency. What this new approach does is it requires the agency to focus on those conditions of use that are more likely than not to occur. So, it really helps to, again, focus the agency on looking at actual real-world scenarios for how a chemistry might be used.”

Congresswoman Mariannette Miller-Meeks (IA-01): “For states like Iowa, where agriculture, manufacturing, including chemical manufacturing, and innovation are central to our economy, we need a regulatory system that protects human health and the environment without relying on duplicative regulation or unnecessary delays. This discussion draft refocuses TSCA on real world risk, best available science, and coordination with other federal and international regulators. It encourages safer innovation, strengthens domestic supply chains, and ensures EPA is accountable for its decisions while preserving strong protections for workers, consumers, and families.”

Congressman Gabe Evans (CO-08): “One of the processes that's used at EPA to manage and look at these chemicals and do cost benefit analysis is what's called a risk evaluation. In your experience, do EPA's risk evaluations and subsequent risk management rules provide health and safety benefits that are commensurate with the costs and burdens of the rules? And if not, what can we do to address that?” Dr. White: “EPA's risk evaluation process can be improved upon. It has a best available science and a way to vet the scientific evidence statute that it should be relying on. It has been missing the mark over the last several years. And so, there's really an opportunity to strengthen that, maintain that language.”