Floor Statements

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

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.

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.

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

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

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/.

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.

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.

Does the gentleman have additional speakers?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), someone who has worked on these issues for so many years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), a distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stevens), a distinguished member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, who did so much work on this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

Mr. Speaker, I celebrate the Science Committee, which always operates on a bipartisan basis. Once again, we have worked together on the provisions in this bill.

I will highlight something I mentioned in passing, which is the fusion energy program. For years and years, people have said that fusion energy is always 50 years away. That was before ignition was achieved at Lawrence Livermore National Lab, the National Ignition Facility, not once, not twice, but many times. We now have a private- sector fusion industry that is charging ahead and making tremendous progress.

I have heard, when I have visited with them, their praise for the NRC's guidelines. This is not fission. It doesn't have the challenge of nuclear energy, so it doesn't need the same kind of regulatory scheme. It needs to be sensible, streamlined, solid, and certain.

That is what those standards are. Putting them into law is going to help private industry rush forward. I think all of us hope that they will be as successful as they plan to be within the next 5 years. This act will help that happen.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all of the House to vote for this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in support of my bill, the National Construction Safety Team Enhancement Act of 2024.

Last year, there was massive flooding along California's central coast, which left communities really across the State vulnerable. In my district, the Pajaro River's levee failed, forcing over 1,500 people to evacuate and putting thousands of homes at risk. Many of them were flooded.

In May 2023, I joined Representative Panetta, Senator Padilla, and the late Senator Feinstein in asking the Army Corps of Engineers to provide emergency assistance to help with the levee.

Last August, the Biden-Harris administration heeded our call to action and committed $20 million to repair the levee and address erosion on the left bank of the Pajaro River. That has now been concluded, and these communities have been protected, at least with the emergency repairs.

As with this small rural community in my own district, the climate crisis continues to put massive strains on aging infrastructure across the United States.

While recovery and reconstruction efforts continue, we have to do more to understand the causes of destructive and life-threatening events, like the Pajaro River levee failure, to make sure it doesn't happen again. Unfortunately, there's no agency currently authorized to conduct thorough technical investigations of failure of general infrastructure, like levees, dikes, bridges, or dams.

When it comes to buildings, the National Institute of Standards and Technology has been charged by Congress with conducting investigations in order to improve the building codes and standards used to design and maintain them. The National Construction Safety Team, or NCST, dispatches experts to work alongside other agencies to investigate major building disasters, to improve the scientific understanding around these failures, and to prevent future catastrophes.

This bill expands NCST's existing authority to include investigations of general infrastructure failures. These teams will investigate incidents involving other structures that we also rely on every day in order to improve the safety and resilience of American communities.

The tragic destruction of the Francis Scott Key Bridge into the mouth of the Patapsco River in Baltimore underscores the immediate need for this legislation. The impact of that catastrophe is being felt all across the United States.

NIST needs the authority to investigate major infrastructure failures so that they may improve future engineering standards and building codes to guard against such failures in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Lucas for his partnership on this bill and so many other things.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this timely and necessary legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stevens), my colleague on the Science Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

In closing, I am proud of this bill. If we make this the law, America will be safer, full stop. I am happy that we were able to do it on a bipartisan basis, and I am looking forward to quick action in the Senate.

I thank again the chairman of the committee, Mr. Lucas, for his collaboration on this and so many other things.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the dedicated work and leadership of Mr. Nam Pham in service of improving the lives of immigrant families in our community in Santa Clara County. Mr. Pham passed away in March 2024.

Mr. Nam Pham was born in 1955 in Saigon, Vietnam. In 1983, he arrived in Malaysia as a political refugee after escaping Vietnam by boat. He eventually arrived in Rhode Island in 1984 and settled in California the following year. He has been a resident of Santa Clara County for four decades.

During his 40 years in our community, Mr. Pham produced hundreds of magazines, documentaries, and audio records to preserve Vietnamese history and culture in the United States in service of future.

Since 2001, Mr. Pham served as Director of the Immigrant Resettlement & Cultural Center, Inc. (IRCC) and had extensive experience in our community of working with the Vietnamese immigrant population. He oversaw IRCC operations, including personnel, finance, as well as funded volunteer programs. IRCC was the very first community-based organization in Santa Clara County offering education and social services to the Vietnamese community.

Since 2015, Mr. Pham helped host the ``Thank You, America'' annual event where Vietnamese Americans express gratitude and appreciation to the United States for rescuing them at sea and providing them a new home. Through IRCC and Dan Sinh Media, which he created, and which broadcasted programs nationwide through The Overseas Vietnam Radio Network, Mr. Pham worked to develop a health information network to help meet the health needs of Vietnamese Americans in our community.

Mr. Speaker, I commend Mr. Nam Pham's commitment to bettering the lives of immigrants in our diverse, thriving community. His legacy in our community lives on through his projects. We have been lucky to have him, and he will be missed.

Mr. Speaker, for starters, we need to examine why we are being hustled to do this today.

When we extended FISA earlier, there was a provision in the bill that allowed the FISA court to extend, and they have taken advantage of that. They have extended FISA until June of 2025, and so I think we are being hustled here today for a reason, which is to prevent the Constitution from being applied to FISA.

Mr. Speaker, under the amendment being offered, a warrant would be required for a search of the data of U.S. persons. This is important. It would exclude imminent threats; exigent circumstances, as any warrant does; or exclude cases where a person consents to a search or where there is cybersecurity. It excludes metadata.

It is important to note that the FBI executed more than 200,000 warrantless searches of U.S. persons in 2022, including 141 Black Lives Matter protesters, 2 Members of Congress, journalists, commentators, political parties, donors to political campaigns. It is really outrageous. The base bill is insufficient to protect us. There are two major points that it makes. Neither makes any sense or any difference.

The big deal is a prohibition on U.S. person queries that are conducted solely for the evidence of a crime. That sounds good until it is realized that the FBI almost never does that. In fact, in 2022, there were only two cases in which that provision would have been a prohibition.

The second issue is codifying the regulations about searches by the FBI today. Obviously, that doesn't do any good because the FBI, under the current regulations, continues to violate our rights and to do warrantless searches.

The only way to end the abuse is to approve the warrant requirement that is being offered in the amendment. The

American public agrees with us, with 76 percent of Americans supporting a requirement that the government get a warrant before searching in these cases.

Mr. Speaker, to hear the administration talk about it, getting a warrant here would be like the end of the world. In literally any other context, law enforcement or intelligence agencies who want to read Americans' communications have to get a warrant.

Actually, for the last 46 years, the government has had to get a FISA title I order to read Americans' communications in foreign intelligence investigations. These are investigations in which Americans are suspected of terrorism, espionage, cybercrimes, et cetera.

Hence, somehow a warrant for title I is consistent with national security, but it will plunge us into a dystopian nightmare if we apply this basic constitutional requirement where Americans aren't even suspected of wrongdoing.

This is not a wild idea. We have had, under the Obama administration, intelligence experts convene to examine this issue. The experts included former CIA directors, national security people from both parties. The experts unanimously agreed that we should have a warrant requirement in these circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, someone said that no court has ever required a warrant in these circumstances. That is incorrect. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals did point out that lawful collection alone isn't enough to justify a search.

In fact, when it comes to examining the need for this, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which Congress created to take a look at the data that is classified, concluded that there was little justification on the relative value of the close to 5 million searches conducted by the FBI from 2019 to 2022.

The chair of the Board said this: ``In the strongest examples offered by the FBI, such as the `victim' or `defensive' query examples . . . the government would likely be able to meet the probable cause standard or one of the exceptions contemplated,'' namely, consent or exigent circumstances.

With a 15-year track record to draw on, the government has failed time and again to show it had derived unique and significant national security value from a U.S. person query that could not have been conducted--

Mr. Speaker, I would note that the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board did recommend by a majority vote that a warrant requirement be imposed.

Mr. Speaker, to ignore this advice is to ignore our Constitution. We take an oath every Congress to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. This is a significant opportunity for us to uphold that oath.

The Fourth Amendment matters. If we do not take this opportunity to protect the privacy of Americans when it comes to this matter, we will, in my belief and my view, have failed in our obligation and our duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the accomplishments of Hermelinda Sapien.

Hermelinda dedicated 55 years to the Center for Employment Training, and for the past 25 years she has displayed her unwavering leadership as President and Executive Director.

The Center for Employment Training (CET) is an economic and community development corporation. Their job training and placement programs teach marketable skills to people of all educational levels and backgrounds, supporting them through the process of job placement. With 12 locations, including San Jose's, CET's impact is monumental.

Hermelinda's work with CET began as an Administrative Assistant, and her commitment served her well as she moved up to Human Resources Director, Chief Administrative Officer, Deputy Director, and ultimately, President and CEO.

CET's ability to work with our community and support the dignity of self-sufficiency is largely due to Hermelinda's hard work. She dedicated her career to ensuring CET's financial stability and guaranteeing that the needs of students at CET were being met.

Thousands of people have received the training and support they needed to find meaningful employment that supports them and their families. Hermelinda's work and that of all the CET staff has changed lives and our community for the better. Hermelinda's leadership has made a profound difference.

Hermelinda will be retiring in June of this year, and it is with great pride and respect that I recognize her accomplishments.

I share with CET's Board of Directors in their heartfelt farewell to Hermelinda Sapien, and we will always remember her impact on the Center for Employment Training's success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the accomplishments of Hermelinda Sapien.

She has dedicated 55 years to the Center for Employment Training, and the past 25 years she has displayed her unwavering leadership as President and Executive Director.

The Center for Employment Training is an economic and community development corporation. Their job training and placement programs teach marketable skills to people of all educational levels and backgrounds, supporting them through the process of job placement. With 12 locations, including San Jose's, CET's impact is monumental.

Mrs. Sapien's work with CET began as an Administrative Assistant, and her commitment served her well as she moved up to Human Resources Director, Chief Administrative Officer, Deputy Director, and ultimately, President and CEO.

CET's ability to work with our community and support the dignity of self-sufficiency is largely due to Sapien's hard work. She dedicated her career to ensuring CET's financial stability and guaranteeing that the needs of students at CET were being met.

Thousands of people have received the training and support they needed to find meaningful employment that supports them and their families. Hermalinda's work and that of all the CET staff has changed lives and our community for the better. Hermelinda's leadership has made a profound difference.

Hermelinda Sapien will be retiring in June of this year, and it is with great pride and respect that I recognize her accomplishments.

I share with the CET's Board of Directors in their heartfelt farewell to Mrs. Sapien, and we will always remember her impact on the Center for Employment Training's success.