Zoe Lofgren

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the incredible service of my dear friend and 16-term Congresswoman from California, Representative Anna Eshoo. Anna has served the people of San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz counties with great distinction for over three decades. She's hardworking, meticulous, and demanding of herself. In sum, Anna Eshoo is the kind of person every Member of Congress should be like. She has built a legacy of fighting for her constituents, and her leadership in Congress will be greatly missed upon her retirement. First elected to Congress in 1992--dubbed ``the Year of the Woman''-- Anna was the first Democrat and first woman in the history of the then- 14th Congressional District to win the Silicon Valley seat. In Congress, Anna has been a health care pioneer, a champion for innovation, a human rights and consumer advocate, a staunch proponent of clean energy, and a defender of women's reproductive rights. A prolific legislator, over 60 of Anna's bills have been signed into law by five presidents. Anna has served on the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee since 1995. In 2019, she became the first woman to serve as Chair of the Health Subcommittee. Anna helped draft portions of the groundbreaking Affordable Care Act, oversaw the largest overhaul of Medicare since its inception, and wrote landmark bipartisan legislation to promote the development of new lifesaving cures. Anna also broke the glass ceiling as the first female Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, where she has championed a free and open internet, removed barriers to entry in the telecommunications market, and helped deploy broadband to underserved communities. I know Anna is grateful to her dedicated staff in both California and Washington, D.C. for the countless achievements they have secured for constituents over the years, and for the support of her children and granddaughter. I thank them for their years of service and sacrifice. I congratulate my good friend and colleague on a well-deserved retirement and wish her the very best in her next chapter in life.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of myself and Representatives Anna Eshoo, Ro Khanna, and Jimmy Panetta to recognize the accomplishments of Teatro Vision for 40 years of community building and social justice work in San Jose, CA. Teatro Vision was founded in 1984 in San Jose, California, with the mission of inspiring the people of Santa Clara County and surrounding areas. The theater was co-founded by Elisa Marina Alvarado, who is a director, actress, and dancer. Through Teatro Vision, Elisa Marina Alvarado established Instituto de Teatro, an educational program that teaches comprehensive training in theater for Latino communities. For the last 40 years, Teatro Vision has produced and presented projects that have been made accessible to the entire community, emphasizing activist theater and focusing on Latino and Chicano communities, integrating Latin American cultures. Teatro Vision's recent projects include ``Miss You Like Hell,'' ``Luz: A Shadow Play Inspired by Senior Stories,'' and ``Raices, El Libro de los Caminos,'' performed at the Mexican Heritage Plaza in San Jose. Teatro Vision's work is centered in the Mayfair neighborhood located in East San Jose where their main stage, the Mexican Heritage Plaza, is also situated. Over 77 percent of the Mayfair neighborhood is made up of Latinx; 66 percent of which speak Spanish at home. Teatro Vision's programs give accessibility to Title I schools in Mayfair, where many students come from economically disadvantaged households. Teatro Vision has shared powerful stories and convictions that speak to the courage, compassion, and power of many minority communities. The team at Teatro Vision are strong leaders that our community needs now and in the future.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize one of the most dedicated public servants I have worked with, Stacey Leavandosky. Stacey has been on Capitol Hill for 27 years, including 18 years as my chief of staff. Her service to my California district, Congress, and the American people has been steady and invaluable. She began her career as an intern for her hometown Representative in 1993. She rose through the ranks on Capitol Hill. During her time with me, 20 years, she has been a senior adviser for the California Democratic congressional delegation, House Administration Committee, Ethics Committee, Immigration Subcommittee, and Science Committee. She has unparalleled commitment to our staff, our constituents, and the American people. She has been a constant voice of reason with a belief that government can be a positive force for change. She is the kind of public servant people aspire to be. Mr. Speaker, I thank Stacey, and I wish her family the very best in the next chapter of her life as she retires.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize one of the most dedicated public servants I have had the pleasure of working with-- Stacey Leavandosky. Stacey, who is retiring from public service in August, has served on Capitol Hill for 27 years, including 18 years as Chief of Staff in my Washington, D.C. office. Her service to my California district, to the Congress, and to the American people has been steadfast and invaluable. For decades, Stacey Leavandosky has offered her expertise on a wide variety of policy issues and the legislative process, while simultaneously leading staff as a capable, respected manager. Stacey first interned for her hometown Representative, George Hochbrueckner of New York, and was hired as his Staff Assistant in 1993. She quickly rose through the ranks on Capitol Hill, serving as Assistant Director of the California Democratic Congressional Delegation (CDCD) under Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard, Legislative Director to Representative Lynn Woolsey, Executive Director of the CDCD, and, finally, as my Chief of Staff. Throughout her more than 20 years working with me, she has been a senior advisor on the Committee on House Administration, Ethics Committee, Immigration Subcommittee, and House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. During Stacey's years on the Hill, our country faced many challenges. From 9/11 to the COVID-19 pandemic, from the anthrax scare to January 6th, with droughts and floods and a number of other obstacles, Stacey has shown an unparalleled commitment to our staff, to the constituents in my district, and to the American people. She has been a constant voice of reason, with a belief that government can be a positive force for change and improvement. She embodies the kind of public servant many aspire to be. Stacey Leavandosky is a good and kind person. She is a leader worth following. She is wise and rooted in integrity. She has been a mentor to countless interns and staffers, and those fortunate enough to work with her know she is someone to impress and to admire. I have strategized with, confided in, and sought counsel from Stacey Leavandosky. Through wins and losses, through political crises, Stacey has been by my side, unwavering in her commitment to our democratic republic. My team and I will miss her dearly, and I wish Stacey and her family the very best in this next chapter.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chair, I am very pleased that this amendment, which I was proud to cosponsor with my colleagues Reps. Beyer and Trahan, was made in order. The amendment is quite straightforward. It would ensure that the Department of Energy's total support for fusion materials and fuel cycle R&D at least matches the level of $105 million proposed in the President's FY 2025 Budget Request (PBR). The most recent Long Range Plan produced by the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee recommended significantly increasing support for fusion materials and fuel cycle R&D, as well as for innovative public-private partnerships such as the fusion milestone program, even under constrained budget scenarios. H.R. 8997 currently includes $40 million to support the new Fusion Innovation Research Engine (FIRE) collaboratives proposed by DOE that will focus on addressing fusion materials and fuel cycle R&D in particular. And the bill also includes $25 million for construction of the Material Plasma Exposure Experiment (MPEX) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. These are important activities and projects that I certainly support. However, the PBR also proposes $20 million for fusion materials R&D and $20 million for fusion fuel cycle R&D beyond the specific work carried out by the FIRE collaboratives. The bill report is currently silent on funding for these critical activities, so this amendment would simply clarify that they would also be supported by this bill. I strongly urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment. This will help prioritize DOE's fusion efforts with a focus on accelerating the commercialization of this potentially transformational industry here in the U.S. as quickly as possible.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I just note that when the standards setting organization sued Public.Resource.Org, the D.C. Circuit Court said this in ruling for freedom of the law: ``Once a standard is incorporated by reference into the law, it effectively becomes part of the law, and the public has a right to access it. The court noted that the public's need to access the law outweighs the financial interests of the SDOs.'' As to fair use, the court concluded that Pro's use of the standards constituted fair use. The decision considered the nature of the work, the purpose and character of the use (nonprofit educational purposes), and the effect on the market. It found that the public benefit of free and easy access to the law was substantial. Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court told us: ``Officials who speak with the force of law cannot claim copyright in the works they create in the course of their official duties.'' They emphasized that the public must have free access to the law, as these works are in the public domain once they are incorporated into legal statutes. They reaffirmed the government edicts doctrine that held that annotations in Georgia's Official Code created by the State legislature could not be copyright protected. The rule of law needs to be enforced, but also the rule of law means that people need to have full access to the law to copy it, to debate it, to know it, to understand it, to transmit it. This pro code bill would violate those fundamental principles. We should not support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, here is a paragraph that is important and really places the question before us succinctly: ``In the regime posited by the Pro Codes Act, if citizens, or advocates, or journalists, or business operators, or lawmakers, or even judges wanted to read, quote, or comment on the law, they would have to register and provide their personal information to a private SDO, hand-copy the words of a standard from a read-only website, and if they quoted too much, they would risk being sued by an SDO for copyright infringement. That is not the right way to provide access to our laws.'' Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by 21 groups, ranging from the American Library Association to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, or the AFSCME union, Center for Democracy and Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, iFixit, and repair.org. Yes, the right to repair movement is threatened by the Pro Codes Act. Here is what they said, although the bill does make some publicly accessible material online available, this bill would likely `` . . . entrench some of the most obstructive current practices. . . . '' They note further that courts have recognized ``no one can own the law.'' Last year, the D.C. Circuit stated that legal text falls plainly outside the realm of copyright protection, and in 2020 the Supreme Court of the United States reaffirmed that if every citizen is presumed to know the law, it needs no argument to show that all should have free access to its contents. April 9, 2024. Re: Opposition to H.R. 1631, the ``Protecting and Enhancing Public Access to Codes Act'' (Pro Codes Act) Chairman Jim Jordan, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Ranking Member Jerry Nadler, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Nadler, and members of the Committee: The undersigned organizations write to express our strong opposition to the ``Protecting and Enhancing Public Access to Codes Act'' (Pro Codes Act). The trade associations and civil society groups that signed this letter agree with the findings of Congress in the Pro Codes Act that technical standards are critical to the public interest. Our interest is in ensuring that copyright law is not exploited to create a monopoly in which private standards development organizations (SDOs) control access to the codes and regulations that govern public health and safety. Further, courts have found there is no evidence to support the SDOs' claims that they have lost revenue due to the public dissemination of their standards. In addition to the substantive issues outlined in this letter, the undersigned organizations are concerned that the committee has never held an actual hearing on this bill. Pro Codes would limit access to publicly beneficial standards Under this bill, standards development organizations would retain their copyright in a standard that is incorporated by reference into law, so long as the standard is made ``publicly accessible'' online. However, SDOs often require users to provide their personal information to access the standards, raising privacy concerns. Pro Codes would also entrench some of the most obstructive current practices of standards development organizations, providing read-only access to the codes and limiting their use through restrictive licenses that prohibit copying, printing, and linking. When standards are made available in this way, they are often inaccessible to people with print disabilities; the public is restricted in how they can use and share to the standards; and they must sacrifice their personal privacy for the privilege. Providing free public access to the law furthers the purposes of copyright: to allow public access to knowledge. Consider Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, which requires federal agencies to make websites and other information technology offerings accessible to people with disabilities. Section 508 incorporates by reference the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) standards set by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Because the public can access these standards, they can look up exactly what federal agencies are required to adhere to when making information available. Without access to the WCAG standards, the public would have fewer tools to hold website owners accountable. No one owns the law Although a standard might be developed by an industry group to promote its interests, once it is incorporated into law by reference--typically at the request of the industry group--it belongs to everyone. Courts have recognized that no one can own the law. Last year, the D.C. Circuit stated that legal text ``falls plainly outside the realm of copyright protection.'' In 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States reaffirmed that ``if every citizen is presumed to know the law, it needs no argument to show . . . that all should have free access to its contents.'' By extending copyright protection to the law, Pro Codes is unconstitutional under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, which guarantee the public's right to read, share, and discuss the law. Providing access to the law is fair use Even if standards incorporated into the law by reference could retain copyright protection, their reproduction would be a fair use. In September 2023, the D.C. Circuit ruled that making standards incorporated by reference publicly available is a lawful fair use that serves a nonprofit, educational purpose of providing the public with a free and comprehensive repository of the law. The court correctly applied copyright law in determining that the substantial public benefits of free and easy access to the law, including government- mandated codes and standards, must be considered against any potential monetary losses to the copyright holders. The court found that although Public.Resource.org has been posting incorporated standards for fifteen years, ``the plaintiffs have been unable to produce any economic analysis showing that Public Resources activity has harmed any relevant market for their standards. To the contrary, ASTM's sales have increased over that time. . . .'' The court explained that because governments did not update their regulations incorporating standards as frequently as SDOs updated their standards, industry players continued to license the standards, even before their adoptions as laws, to keep current. Pro Codes assumes that the fundamental purpose of copyright law is to create monopolies for rights holders, when in fact it is to promote the dissemination of knowledge for the public good. SDOs do not need a copyright incentive; the development of standards advances the economic interests of their members. Although Pro Codes by its terms would not overturn decisions such as ASTM v. PublicResources that found that fair use permitted the third-party posting of an incorporated standard, the intent of the legislation is clearly to put the thumb on the scale against a fair use finding. We urge Congress to engage with our organizations and the public to meet its ostensible goal of making mandatory regulations available online for free so people can know, share, and comment on them. Pro Codes will only serve to unnecessarily ration public access to US law. Sincerely, American Council of the Blind, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); American Foundation for the Blind, American Library Association (ALA), Association of Research Libraries (ARL), Authors Alliance, Center for Democracy & Technology, Copia Institute, eBook Study Group, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Fight for the Future, Foundation for American Innovation, iFixit, Library Futures, NYU Engelberg Center, Public.Resource.Org (PRO), Repair.org, Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property Project on the Right to Research, Public Citizen, Public Knowledge, Public.Resource.Org (PRO), Society of American Archivists (SAA), SPARC, Wikimedia Foundation.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article by David Halperin from this March titled: ``Congress Should Reject Bill to Let Private Groups Control Access to U.S. Laws.'' The article can be found at the following link: https:// www.republicreport.org/2024/congress-should-reject-bill-to-let-private- groups-control-access-to-u-s-laws/.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. When a member of the House Judiciary Committee asked Shira Perlmutter, the Register of Copyrights and the Director of the U.S. Copyright Office, for her opinion of the Pro Codes Act, this is what she said: ``The public should have access to standards when they are incorporated into the law, because the public does have the right of access to the law. While the standards themselves may be protected by copyright, the use of them generally falls under fair use as it is for the purpose of understanding, using, and applying the law. So at present we think the courts are handling this in an appropriate way.'' If the Copyright Office believes the courts are handling this issue appropriately, why are we pushing this bill? We are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Despite repeatedly losing in courts, some SDOs have turned to Congress, using the same failed arguments about financial harm that failed to persuade the courts. One of the SDOs that sued has gained substantial revenue using other means, manuals and other things that they do. The proponents claim that the experts who develop these codes should be able to charge the public for access once the codes become law. Using that same logic, public interest lobbyists would be entitled to charge the public to read the laws that they drafted. In addition to these flaws, the Pro Codes Act disproportionately affects marginalized communities, particularly poor and disabled tenants who need access to building codes. Organizations like the NAACP have highlighted how inaccessible standards would leave low-income communities vulnerable in disputes, stating that access to these standards is access to justice. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Does the gentleman have additional speakers?

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I note that in Veeck v. Southern Building Code, in the 5th Circuit, a more conservative circuit, they ruled that model building codes adopted by reference into law could be copied freely. The court reasoned that once a standard is incorporated into the law, it becomes public domain material, underscoring the need for free access to legal standards. I note also the First Circuit, not exactly a liberal bastion, in Building Officials & Code Administrators v. Code Technology, found that once a model building code has been adopted into law, it enters the public domain. This case highlighted the importance of public access to laws and regulations, reinforcing the notion that such standards should not be restricted by copyright claims. The proponents of this bill suggest that should we not overturn the court decisions, that somehow these standard-setting organizations will fail to do the standards that they have done traditionally. There is no evidence for that whatsoever. As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, the standard-setting organizations continue to make millions and millions of dollars in revenue even though they lost in court and failed to maintain their copyright protection on these incorporated-by-reference measures. That is going to continue. There is no evidence whatsoever that that will not continue. Further, it is very evident--and I think most of the Members of the House who served in State legislatures where this usually occurs know-- that the standard-setting organizations usually approach the legislative bodies, asking them to incorporate the standards by reference. They are not unwilling participants in this measure. They are just trying to profit by owning the law, which should not be permissible. Once a standard developed by an industry group is incorporated by reference into law, it belongs to everyone. I will give an example of why that would matter. In the wake of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the oil industry was under heavy scrutiny. The American Petroleum Institute eventually posted on its website many of its safety standards, including all the standards that had been incorporated by reference into Federal law. That was in 2010, before the court decisions. However, until that decision by the American Petroleum Institute, as the Deepwater Horizon poured oil into the Gulf for 5 months, and in the weeks after, it had been difficult for citizens, even Members of Congress, to evaluate the adequacy of Federal regulations because key components of those regulations were hidden behind paywalls. In the regime, as I mentioned earlier, even with the Pro Codes Act exceptions, in order to comment on or gain access to information, you have to give up your data. There may be reasons why a journalist or a Member of Congress might not want to give up all of their personal information to find out what the law is. That is not the way America should work. Once you pass the law, the law is owned by the people. It is not owned by corporations. It is not owned by associations. It is not owned by anybody who developed the standards. The people of the United States own the law that governs them, and to impinge or impede in any way their access to fully understand the law, to debate it, to post it, to complain about it, to be fully American in the discussion of that law, that is really contrary to what the Court has told us, to what Justice Roberts has told us, and to our history as a nation. It is a big mistake. I do not challenge the good intentions of the proponents of this bill. I am sure they are well-intentioned. It is just that the outcome is not permissible. It flies in the face of due process, the First Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment, and we should not adopt this bill today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that the idea that you could conceal your identity to access this material is not really a full answer to the fact that the Supreme Court has told us no one can own the law. The point about the revenue going into these associations, it is not because the revenue for a copyright holder is material to their rights. It is because those who have suggested that violating due process and putting the law behind doors is justified because of the financial need of the standard-setting organizations are not correct. They don't have that need. Even if they did, it would not be sufficient to overcome the public's right to know what the law is. The Electronic Frontier Foundation put together a little analysis: ``Access to Law Should Be Fully Open: Tell Congress Not to Be Fooled by the Pro Codes Act.'' Mr. Speaker, I include that analysis in the Record. [From eff.org, Oct. 25, 2023] Access to Law Should Be Fully Open: Tell Congress Not To Be Fooled by the Pro Codes Act (By Corynne McSherry) Tell Congress: Access To Laws Should Be Fully Open At EFF, we are especially proud of the work we have done helping our client, Public.Resource.Org (PRO), improve public access to the law. Public Resource's mission is to make all government information available to the governed. As part of that mission, it posts safety codes such as the National Electrical Code, on its website, for free, in a fully accessible format--where those codes have been adopted into law by reference. You didn't learn about incorporation by reference from Schoolhouse Rock, but it's one of the key ways policymakers create law. A huge portion of the regulations we all live by (such as fire safety codes, or the National Electrical Code) are initially written--by industry experts, government officials, and other volunteers--under the auspices of standards development organizations (SDOs). Federal, state, or municipal policymakers then review the codes and decide whether the standard is a good broad rule. If so, it is adopted into law ``by reference.'' In other words, the regulation cites the code by name but doesn't copy and paste the entire thing into law (useful when the code is long and detailed). For example, if a regulation requires compliance with the National Fire Safety Code, it might simply refer to specific provisions or the code as a whole, rather than copying it in directly. But that doesn't make compliance any less mandatory. When a pipeline bursts, journalists might want to investigate whether the pipeline complied with federal regulations, or compare federal, state, and local rules. When a toy is recalled, parents want to know whether its maker followed child safety rules. When a fire breaks out, homeowners and communities want to know whether the building complied with fire safety regulations. Online access to safety regulations helps make that review--and accountability--possible. The rub: the SDOs claim to own copyright in these rules, even after they become law, and that they are therefore allowed to sell and otherwise control access to them. Based on that claim, they sued Public Resource for copyright infringement. But court after court has recognized that no one can own the law. The Supreme Court held as much in its very first copyright case, and recently reaffirmed it: if ``every citizen is presumed to know the law,'' the Court observed, ``it needs no argument to show . . . that all should have free access to its contents.'' And in September 2023, after a decade of litigation, a federal appeals court held that Public Resource's database was a lawful fair use. Which brings us to the latest threat. Having lost in court, the SDOs are now looking to Congress to shore up their copyright claim, via the Pro Codes Act. It's a tricky bit of legislation that seems innocuous if you don't know the context. Pro Codes' main provision requires that: An original work of authorship otherwise subject to protection under this title that has been adopted or incorporated by reference, in full or in part, into any Federal, State, or municipal law or regulation, shall retain such protection only if the owner of the copyright makes the work available at no monetary cost for viewing by the public in electronic form on a publicly accessible website in a location on the website that is readily accessible to the public. Sounds good, right? in fact, it sounds obvious: mandatory regulations should be made available online, for free, so people can more easily know, share, and comment on them. Here's the trick: this language would effectively endorse the claim that SDOs can ``retain'' copyright in the law, as long as they let the public read it online. There are many problems with this approach. First and foremost, ``access'' here means read-only, and subject to licensing limits. We already know what that looks like: currently the SDOs that make their codes available to the public online do so through clunky, disorganized, siloed websites, largely inaccessible to the print-disabled, and subject to onerous contractual terms (like a requirement to give up your personal information). The public can't copy, print, or even link to specific portions of the codes. In other words, you can look at the law (as long as you aren't print-disabled and you know what to look for), but you can't share it, compare it, or comment on it. As multiple amici who filed briefs in support of Public Resource explained, the public needs more. Second, it doesn't really make sense. The many volunteers who develop these codes neither need nor want a copyright incentive. The SDOs don't need it either--they don't do anything creative (convening volunteers is important work, but not creative work), and they make plenty of profit though trainings, membership fees, and selling standards that haven't been incorporated into law. Third, it's unconstitutional under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, which guarantee the public's right to read, share, and discuss the law. Finally, there is no need for this bill. It simply mandates that SDOs do badly what Public Resource is already doing, better, for free. The Pro Codes Act is a deceptive power grab that will help giant industry associations ration access to huge swaths of U.S. law. Tell Congress not to fall for it.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, here is what they say: ``You didn't learn about incorporation by reference from Schoolhouse Rock, but it is one of the key ways policymakers create law. A huge portion of the regulations we all live by, such as fire safety codes, or the National Electric Code, are initially written by industry experts, government officials, and other volunteers under the auspices of standards development organizations, SDOs. Federal, State, or municipal policymakers then review the codes and decide whether the standard is a good broad rule. If so, it is adopted into law `by reference.' In other words, the regulation cites the code by name but doesn't copy and paste the entire thing into law (useful when the code is long and detailed). For example, if a regulation requires compliance with the National Fire Safety Code, it might simply refer to specific provisions or the code as a whole, rather than copying it directly, but that doesn't make compliance any less mandatory. ``When a pipeline bursts, journalists might want to investigate whether the pipeline complied with Federal regulations, or compare Federal, State, and local rules. When a toy is recalled, parents want to know whether its maker followed child safety rules. When a fire breaks out, homeowners and communities want to know whether the building complied with fire safety regulations. Online access to safety regulations helps make that review--and accountability--possible.'' The SDOs claim copyright in these rules, but the courts have found otherwise. They come to us because they don't like the answers that the court has given them. They don't like the fact that the Supreme Court held as much in its very first copyright case and recently reaffirmed it, saying this: ``'Every citizen is presumed to know the law,' and `it needs no argument to show . . . that all should have free access' to its contents.'' In September 2023, after a decade of litigation, the Federal appeals court held that Public Resource's database was lawful fair use, which brings us to the threat that this bill poses for us. It is a bit tricky. The Pro Codes Act's main provision is that the code that has been adopted is protected by copyright. It provides some weak ability to access, but the access means read only, subject to licensing limits. We know already that when that is done, they are ``clunky, disorganized, siloed websites, largely inaccessible to the print-disabled, and subject to onerous contractual terms, like a requirement to give up your personal information. The public can't copy, print, or even link to specific portions of the codes. In other words, you can look at the law, as long as you aren't print-disabled and you know what to look for, but you can't share it, compare it, or comment on it. As multiple amici''--and I helped with some of those briefs--``who filed briefs in support of Public Resource explained, the public needs more. ``Second, it doesn't really make sense. The many volunteers who develop these codes neither need nor want a copyright incentive. The SDOs don't need it either.'' As I mentioned earlier, they are doing things very well even without the ability to harness improperly, I would say, copyright law for profit. Finally, it is unconstitutional. There are some who say that this bill is important, but it is questionable that Congress can actually even overturn through legislation the longstanding court doctrine that mandates free and full access to the law. That is primarily because those decisions are firmly rooted in the constitutional doctrine of due process as outlined in the Fifth and 14th Amendments. Additionally, the concept of fair use has been interpreted through judicial precedent to align with the freedoms protected by the First Amendment. I will conclude by saying that to protect public access to the law, we should oppose the Pro Codes Act. We should uphold the principles of due process and ensure that everyone has a right to access, discuss, and understand the laws that govern them. We should not turn over owning the law to private-sector entities. The law belongs to all of us. It belongs to the public and should not be withheld from the American public. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill to defend Americans' right to access, understand, and debate the law. The Pro Codes Act threatens public access to the law and undermines due process by keeping essential legal standards hidden behind restrictive barriers. Instead of providing open access, the bill offers only limited public access. Under this flawed bill, individuals would be forced to forfeit personal information just to view the standards. The standards would not be available in useful formats, preventing users from searching, copying, pasting, printing, downloading, or retweeting. To get full access to the law, some people would have to pay, creating a two-tiered system, a free but limited economy-class access, and a full-access version for those who can afford to pay. This is neither fair nor just not in keeping with our tradition of everybody who is going to be held accountable under the law has to be able to fully access the law. Despite bipartisan concerns, we had no hearings, we had multiple failed Judiciary Committee markups, and finally, a sparsely attended markup. Some are working to rush the Pro Codes Act through here in the suspension format. Ranking Member Nadler himself, although he supports the bill, did note during the markup that since we began consideration of this legislation, we missed many opportunities to strengthen the bill through a better process. If there was a compromise to be had, we would not know because, unfortunately, we were not given an opportunity to find out. We should not be bypassing regular order, especially for a bill with such far-reaching implications like the Pro Codes Act. For years, I fought to preserve the fundamental right of the public to access the law. I submitted amicus briefs in multiple court cases where certain Standards Development Organizations sued the nonprofit Public Resource Organization for posting online legal standards. The courts repeatedly side with Public Resource and me, enforcing the idea that no one should control who can read and distribute the law. In these cases, the SDOs argued that free and full access to the codes would financially harm them. Despite Public Resource posting incorporated standards for 15 years, the court observed that the SDOs produced no quantifiable evidence of past or future market harms. The court concluded that free and easy access to the law provided a substantial public benefit. I would note that while the standard-setting organizations were complaining during the years that they were unable to prevent the posting of these standards, they made substantial revenue. For example, the American Society for Testing and Materials, the year after the decision, had a net income of $36 million. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a link to the records from the American Society for Testing and Materials. Https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/ organizations/231352024.

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the California Democratic Congressional Delegation to honor the public service of Katie Wheeler Mathews, as she retires from her role as Senior Advisor for Federal Affairs for the State of California. Katie's career in state government spans over 36 years and is characterized by dedicated service, a bipartisan spirit, and a profound commitment to her home state of California. Katie has worked across five gubernatorial administrations under both Democratic and Republican governors, demonstrating a unique ability to bridge political divides. Her tenure in Washington, D.C., has been marked by tireless advocacy for California's policy priorities and effective collaboration with our congressional offices and other federal partners. Prior to that, she spent eight years in the California Governor's office in Sacramento, fostering partnerships and crafting solutions across geographical divides. Katie has been a formidable advocate for California's interests before Congress, across multiple federal administrations, and before organizations such as the National Governors' Association and the Western Governors' Association. Her understanding of complex policy issues and ability to navigate the intricacies of federal-state relations have made her a valuable member of the Governor's office, including her work in recent years to support California's leadership on climate, immigration, and combatting the fentanyl crisis. Katie's extensive government experience and relationships with leaders on both sides of the aisle have solidified her reputation as a trusted advisor to many. Mr. Speaker, please join me in extending a heartfelt appreciation to Katie Wheeler Mathews for her outstanding service to the State of California and in wishing her the best in her next chapter. California is better for her service, and we thank her for it.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I missed votes on June 3, 4, and 5, 2024, due to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 233; YEA on Roll Call No. 234; NAY on Roll Call No. 235; NAY on Roll Call No. 236; NAY on Roll Call No. 237; NAY on Roll Call No. 238; NAY on Roll Call No. 239; YEA on Roll Call No. 240; NAY on Roll Call No. 241; NAY on Roll Call No. 242; YEA on Roll Call No. 243; YEA on Roll Call No. 244; NAY on Roll Call No. 245; YEA on Roll Call No. 246; and NAY on Roll Call No. 247.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Dr. Daniel F. Morgan for his lengthy career of public service to the U.S. Congress. After 25 years at the Congressional Research Service, or CRS, he will retire as a specialist in science and technology policy at the end of the month. During his time at CRS, Dr. Morgan made invaluable contributions to Congress in federal and commercial space policy, federal research and development facilities and infrastructure, and the role of science and technology in homeland security. Dr. Morgan was born in London and raised in Austin, TX, where he attended high school, excelling in mathematics. He played the cello in the high school string quartet, igniting a life-long love of classical music, and in particular, music that allows the cello to shine. Dr. Morgan graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), majoring in physics and mathematics and minoring in philosophy. While at MIT, he was a consultant to Project Athena to produce a campus-wide distributed computing environment, which is recognized as an important historical contribution to distributed computing. He competed in the MIT Integration Bee, an annual integral calculus competition, placing second his junior year. Dr. Morgan then attended the University of Texas at Austin and earned a doctorate in physics with a dissertation on particle physics and cosmology in the early universe. His dissertation was supervised by Joe Polchinski, noted string theorist and Dirac Medal winner, and Steven Weinberg, Nobel laureate in physics, was on his committee. During graduate school, Dr. Morgan began to play bridge at beer gardens around Austin. He would go on to regularly host games, compete at regional and national competitions, and regularly play bridge during lunch with CRS colleagues. Dr. Morgan began his career with CRS in 1991 as a contractor, covering major federal physics projects and advanced energy technologies. In 1994 he joined the staff at the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, first on Board on Physics and Astronomy and then National Materials Advisory Board, working with preeminent researchers in their fields. Dr. Morgan returned to CRS in 2002 and was instrumental in covering the creation and evolution of the research and development activities of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 following the September 11, 2001 attacks. He consulted regularly with Congress as multiple Department of Energy (DOE) programs--such as those dedicated to chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear defense-- were folded into the newly-established agency. During this period, Congress also relied heavily on his technical expertise to cover the development and deployment of explosive and radiation detection systems. For over two decades, Dr. Morgan has covered major scientific facilities at DOE, including the national laboratories, and civil and commercial space policy. He is widely recognized in Congress for his expertise on the policies, programs, and missions of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, routinely providing invaluable personal consultation to Members and staff on House and Senate committees of jurisdiction. Dr. Morgan consulted heavily with Congress as it considered the United States Innovation and Competition Act of 2021 and America COMPETES Act of 2022 and the subsequent development and enactment of the resulting CHIPS and Science Act in 2022. Dr. Morgan is a polymath, whose advice is valued by Members, congressional staff, and colleagues. At CRS, he is relied on to provide expert leadership and coordination of complex analysis and is a sought- after reviewer and mentor. Throughout his career at CRS, he embodied the agency's mission values of providing authoritative, objective, nonpartisan, and timely service to Congress. On behalf of the American people, I thank Dr. Morgan for his decades of service to the country.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I will vote in favor of the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3935--the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024--because in addition to creating a safer, cleaner, greener, and more accessible U.S. aviation system, it addresses our country's dire air traffic controller staffing situation and still allows a ban on the sale of harmful leaded aviation fuel (avgas) to remain in effect for Santa Clara County-owned airports. I have been working with local leaders to protect East San Jose families from lead poisoning and, at times, we have run into obstacles. For example, in prior years and iterations of the FAA reauthorization legislation, more stringent requirements to sell leaded avgas have unfortunately been included in bill text. I am pleased this year is different. Additionally, this year's bill directs the FAA to plan for the safe elimination of leaded avgas by 2030 in the continental United States and gives airports throughout the country an opportunity to begin their transitions to an unleaded fuel future. While I would prefer a full national leaded avgas ban, I can in good conscience vote for this reauthorization bill because it takes steps in the right direction when it comes to the dangerous pollutant impacting children and families living near small airports.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express concerns with H.R. 4510, the National Telecommunications and Information Reauthorization Act of 2024. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, or NTIA, is a critical agency within the Department of Commerce that works across the Federal government to develop telecommunications and information policy. It also serves an important role as the voice of the federal government in spectrum management issues and for regulatory processes considered at the Federal Communications Commission. Congress should support this agency and give it the resources and authorities it needs to fulfill its mission. However, H.R. 4510 would upend the interagency spectrum management process. Specifically, the Act would restrict the input FCC can consider from Federal agencies, and it would designate NTIA as the primary laboratory for spectrum studies for the whole federal government rather than leveraging each agency's unique expertise and technical contributions as occurs under the existing interagency approach. Further, the bill would waste taxpayer dollars by unnecessarily duplicating activities already authorized by Congress. Unfortunately, there are two main areas in which this bill would cause a significant disruption to the interagency process related to spectrum management: First, rather than ensuring more informed spectrum decision-making, the bill explicitly directs the FCC not to consider any technical, procedural, or policy concerns of a federal entity regarding a spectrum action unless such concerns are publicly filed by the NTIA. I appreciate that the bill text considered by the House today does reflect feedback from various Committees for the consideration of classified information in the spectrum management process. However, allowing for consideration of classified information is not enough to overcome the significant limitations this bill would place on the interagency spectrum management process. Currently, agencies routinely participate in coordination and communication with one another through the interagency process, which was recently bolstered through a new Memorandum of Understanding. A significant amount of this communication is informal. Some of this communication is reliant on information that is proprietary, pre-decisional, controlled unclassified, or otherwise sensitive. Restricting interagency feedback to only fully public or fully classified information misses a litany of relevant data and would hinder the federal government's ability to adequately protect spectrum allocated for critical national security, safety, weather forecasting, and scientific services. This would also create inefficiencies that threaten federal agencies' abilities to carry out their own statutory missions. Second, H.R. 4510 would authorize the Institute of Telecommunications Science (ITS) and place it over other federal science agencies. ITS is a wonderful research laboratory that does important work, and Congress should authorize it. However, the bill goes further, and designates ITS to be the primary laboratory for the entire executive branch on spectrum management and interference. This would elevate ITS, an important tool for broad-application spectrum R&D, over the many specialized spectrum labs and testbeds throughout the federal scientific enterprise. Some federal mission agencies bring unique and critical expertise. For example. NASA's understanding of spectrum coordination and interference in space missions is unparalleled, and NTIA relies on NASA for such studies. We should be seeking to leverage Federal agency expertise wherever it exists, not undermining or duplicating it. The Science Committee has consistently voiced the need for a more coordinated, whole-of-government approach to spectrum management policy. We need robust, informed technical analyses to support evidence-based policy decisions, especially in the face of ever- increasing demands on radiofrequency spectrum. The FCC, NTIA, and federal incumbent spectrum users have made meaningful progress in recent years to update and strengthen the interagency process to manage spectrum in a more effective and collaborative manner. By limiting the information that the FCC may consider and elevating one NTIA capability, the ITS, over the application-specific expertise in the rest of the federal government. H.R. 4510 would run roughshod over the interagency spectrum management process and undo such progress. Unfortunately, my concerns about H.R. 4510 go beyond just the spectrum provisions. The NTIA was originally part of its sister agency, NIST. Since Congress established NTIA as its own agency in 1978, the two agencies have carried out complementary but distinct areas of work. NIST serves as an independent, unbiased arbiter of trusted measurements and standards and NTIA has regulatory responsibilities. While the two agencies often work together, this bill would expand the NTIA's mission and blur the lines between them, especially on issues related to cybersecurity. For example, Congress authorized NIST, in collaboration with CISA, to conduct a cybersecurity literacy program for the public in the Cybersecurity Enhancements Act of 2014. H.R. 4510 would directly duplicate, at NTIA, those ongoing efforts underway at NIST. The intent of these provisions is unclear, and merits further vetting and input from DOC. There are additional provisions in the bill that implicate yet other agencies outside of the Department of Commerce. For example, the bill would direct the NTIA to oversee public safety studies authored by FEMA and duplicate DHS's information technology supply chain security programs. An earlier version of this bill mandated a fundamental change in how we do spectrum management by requiring the adoption of incumbent informing capability (IIC), a system that would allow for time-based spectrum sharing between incumbent mission agencies and commercial users. I appreciate the bill sponsors' decision to remove this provision from the text we are voting on today. Such a requirement would be premature. While advanced spectrum sharing capabilities would hopefully one day be widely deployed to support flexible spectrum usage, IIC is an untried, untested system that, if executed incorrectly or inefficiently, could harm agencies' missions, including those critical to safety and scientific advancement. The 2023 National Spectrum Strategy rightly focuses on initial steps, best practices, and information gathering that would be required to support a viable IIC. It is my hope that these concerns can be addressed as the bill moves through the legislative process.

Ms. LOFGREN

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of the Fire Grants and Safety Act of 2023. This amended version inserts into the Senate bill the text we passed out of the Science Committee unanimously. This bill also includes the text of the ADVANCE Act. I thank Representatives Pascrell and Kean and our Senate colleagues Mr. Peters and Ms. Collins for their leadership and cooperation on this important bill. In our changing climate, we are experiencing more frequent and severe wildfires, not just in the Western United States, but across the United States. From Maui in Hawaii to Smokehouse Creek, Texas, we have witnessed the ferocity and destruction of wildfires. With more than a third of the population living within the wildland-urban interface, our communities are more at risk from fire than ever before. In addition to wildfires, there were more than half a million structure fires in 2022, including 360,000 home fires. Tragically, this resulted in 2,790 civilian and 18 firefighter deaths. We will always honor our firefighters' commitment and sacrifice. We trust our firefighters to fulfill their role professionally, including those occasions when it may mean risking their own lives. However, that trust goes both ways, and they must have from Congress the support and resources they need to keep themselves and their communities safe. S. 860 reauthorizes the U.S. Fire Administration and two very special programs: The Assistance to Firefighters Grants (AFG) and the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response, SAFER grants. The U.S. Fire Administration helps fire and emergency medical services prepare for, prevent, mitigate, and respond to all hazards. The USFA also leads Federal work on public safety, education, fire research, and fire service training. This legislation will authorize the agency and modernize the National Emergency Response Information System, which will mean much-needed improvements to data collection, usage, and analytics for decision-makers at all levels of fire response. AFG and SAFER have been supporting local firefighters for two decades. AFG helps fire departments obtain crucial safety gear, including breathing apparatus, equips firefighters with new technologies, and also supports research to improve protective gear. The SAFER program helps recruit and retain firefighters. Seventy percent of U.S. firefighters are volunteers, and rural communities in particular rely primarily on volunteer firefighters. Studies have shown that increasing firefighter crew sizes drastically improves the likelihood of safe outcomes. This program is an effective and meaningful investment into the emergency preparedness of our communities. Recipients of AFG and SAFER awards are in all 50 States, Washington, D.C., the territories, and some Tribes. We must ensure these funds are getting into the hands of those who need them most, so this bill also calls on the GAO to identify any barriers that may prevent fire departments from accessing these crucial Federal funds. This bill is vital to keeping our communities protected and to support our firefighters and EMS first responders. As for the ADVANCE Act provisions, this legislation is a continuation of the strong, bipartisan support that Congress has shown toward the development and demonstration of advanced nuclear reactors. This bill would enhance the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's ability to safely and efficiently license next-generation nuclear technologies, all while lowering the financial barriers for first-of-a-kind movers. The ADVANCE Act also includes a bill sponsored by our colleague Congresswoman Trahan that would support our emerging fusion industry-- this is so important--by codifying the NRC's current fusion device guidelines into law. It is important that these guidelines that are not overly restrictive be placed into law. This will provide much-needed clarity and consistency for these emerging companies as they design and build the fusion reactors of the future, which we so desperately need to succeed. I urge support for this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.