[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




          RIGHT TO REPAIR AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR ENTREPRENEURS

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               before the

                      SUBCOMMITTEE ON UNDERSERVED,
              AGRICULTURAL, AND RURAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
                             UNITED STATES
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                              HEARING HELD
                           SEPTEMBER 14, 2022

                               __________




               [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                               

            Small Business Committee Document Number 117-065
             Available via the GPO Website: www.govinfo.gov



                                 ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

48-581                    WASHINGTON : 2022













                   HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

                 NYDIA VELAZQUEZ, New York, Chairwoman
                          JARED GOLDEN, Maine
                          JASON CROW, Colorado
                         SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
                         KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
                        DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
                         MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
                       CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia
                         TROY CARTER, Louisiana
                          JUDY CHU, California
                       DWIGHT EVANS, Pennsylvania
                     CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania
                          ANDY KIM, New Jersey
                         ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
                        SCOTT PETERS, California
              BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri, Ranking Member
                         ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas
                        PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
                        DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
                        CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York
                       ANDREW GARBARINO, New York
                         YOUNG KIM, California
                         BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas
                         BYRON DONALDS, Florida
                         MARIA SALAZAR, Florida
                      SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
                          MIKE FLOOD, Nebraska

                 Melissa Jung, Majority Staff Director
            Ellen Harrington, Majority Deputy Staff Director
                     David Planning, Staff Director







                            C O N T E N T S

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
Hon. Jared Golden................................................     1
Hon. Claudia Tenney..............................................     2

                               WITNESSES

Ms. Gay Gordon-Byrne, Executive Director, Digital Right to Repair 
  Coalition, North River, NY.....................................     5
Mr. Brian Clark, Co-Owner, The iGuys' Tech Shop, LLC, Conway, NH.     7
Mr. Ken Taylor, President, Ohio Machinery Co., Broadview Heights, 
  OH, testifying on behalf of the Associated Equipment 
  Distributors (AED) in his capacity as 2022 Chairman............     9
Mr. Jim Gerritsen, Marketing Manager, Wood Prairie Family Farm, 
  Bridgewater, ME................................................    11

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:
    Ms. Gay Gordon-Byrne, Executive Director, Digital Right to 
      Repair Coalition, North River, NY..........................    29
    Mr. Brian Clark, Co-Owner, The iGuys' Tech Shop, LLC, Conway, 
      NH.........................................................    45
    Mr. Ken Taylor, President, Ohio Machinery Co., Broadview 
      Heights, OH, testifying on behalf of the Associated 
      Equipment Distributors (AED) in his capacity as 2022 
      Chairman...................................................    50
    Mr. Jim Gerritsen, Marketing Manager, Wood Prairie Family 
      Farm, Bridgewater, ME......................................    54
Questions for the Record:
    None.
Answers for the Record:
    None.
Additional Material for the Record:
    Alliance for Automotive Innovation...........................    57
    Association of Equipment Manufactures (AEM)..................    59
    Automotive Aftermarket Suppliers Association (AASA)..........    63
    Automotive Right to Repair Myth and Fact.....................    66
    FiXCO Statement..............................................    67
    iFixit Statement.............................................    68
    Illegal Tampering Coalition Statement........................   108
    Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC), the Specialty Vehicle 
      Institute of America (SVIA), and the Recreational Off-
      Highway Vehicle Association (ROHVA) Statement..............   110
    National Association of Manufacturers........................   112
    National Farmers Union.......................................   114
    North American Equipment Dealers Association (NAEDA).........   118
    PIRG Statement...............................................   119
    Right-to-Repair in the Auto Industry.........................   126
    U.S. PIRG & IAMERS Statement.................................   128







 
          RIGHT TO REPAIR AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR ENTREPRENEURS

                              ----------                              


                     WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2022

              House of Representatives,    
               Committee on Small Business,
         Subcommittee on Underserved, Agricultural,
                            and Rural Business Development,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in 
Room 2360, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jared Golden 
[chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Golden, Carter, Peters, Williams, 
Stauber, Tenney, and Flood.
    Chairman GOLDEN. Okay. Good morning. I call this hearing to 
order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess at any time.
    I would like to begin by noting a few requirements. 
Standing House and Committee rules continue to apply during 
hybrid proceedings. All Members are reminded that they are 
expected to adhere to these rules including the rules of 
decorum.
    House regulations require Members to be visible through a 
video connection throughout the proceeding, so please keep your 
cameras on. Also, please remember to remain muted until you are 
recognized in order to minimize background noise.
    In the event that a Member encounters technical issues that 
prevent them from being recognized for their questioning, I 
will move to the next available Member of the same party and I 
will recognize that Member at the next appropriate time slot 
provided they have returned to the proceeding.
    With that, I will begin with an opening statement.
    Advances in technology have created countless benefits for 
small businesses and consumers. Today, entrepreneurs can sell 
their offerings globally and customers have more access to the 
products and services they want than ever.
    At the same time, increased technological adoption has 
created unintended consequences that can harm entrepreneurs, 
particularly in rural communities like those that we represent.
    Since the 1990s, consumer electronics, automobiles, and a 
variety of other products have become more complicated to fix 
and maintain. Large manufacturers and corporations have 
increasingly moved to limit the ability of consumers and 
independent, small businesses to make repairs on a range of 
essential products. These repair restrictions can impact small 
firms across various industries, often increasing costs and 
sometimes upending business models.
    In a 2021 report to Congress, the Federal Trade Commission 
outlined numerous ways that manufacturers inhibit the ability 
to make repairs on everyday products like mobile phones, 
automobiles, agricultural machinery, and medical equipment.
    These methods range from making products physically harder 
to open, to requiring access to proprietary diagnostic software 
to initiate even minor repairs. These practices frustrate 
consumers by forcing them to go to manufacturers for repair or 
to replace their products entirely. Repair restrictions also 
negatively impact small firms by raising costs and limiting 
repair options for small businesses that depend on machinery.
    Take, for example, small independent farmers. For 
generations, small farmers have been able to make their own 
repairs on the spot and continue working when a tractor or 
other piece of important equipment breaks down. Yet, today, a 
modern tractor can come equipped with hundreds of censors. A 
malfunction in just one can cause an entire machine to stop 
working and force a farmer to stop their harvest to haul 
equipment to a dealership that is hours away or wait for a 
field technician. I have heard firsthand from Maine farmers 
that these delays can cost small farms days in wasted 
productivity and thousands of dollars in revenue.
    But these restrictions do not just impact entrepreneurs 
that use machinery; they also make it difficult for the many 
independent businesses that work to repair these products.
    Independent repair shops frequently offer lower prices than 
larger manufacturers. For instance, in the medical equipment 
sector, independent servicers often work on equipment for about 
$150 to $250 an hour, while large manufacturers charge up to 
$500 to $600 per hour with a 4-hour minimum.
    Decades of evidence have made it clear that repair 
restrictions do cause costs to go up. They hurt small 
businesses, and they encourage waste while increasing the 
profits of corporations.
    Given these adverse effects, the proliferation of 
restrictions should be addressed. That is why we should explore 
common-sense and bipartisan Right to Repair laws that protect 
consumers and small businesses. Several of my colleagues have 
already introduced proposals to restrict the ability of large 
companies to monopolize repair and aftermarket products.
    Today, we will take a closer look at actions that Congress 
can take to ensure the right to repair for small businesses, 
independent shops, and for individual consumers.
    I would now like to yield to the Ranking Member, Ms. 
Tenney, for her opening statement.
    Ms. TENNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the 
witnesses. Thank you for your remarks as well.
    I am also a small business owner and my cousins and my 
brothers' in-laws are also farmers. So I am also a lawyer, so I 
have a unique perspective I think on this issue which I think 
is a very important one. And thank you.
    The right to repair is alluring in its simplicity. In 
theory, it seems obvious that if you buy something, you own it, 
and you should have the freedom to do what you want with it. 
America is, after all, a nation of thinkers and innovators. 
That freedom to innovate is part of what makes our country 
great.
    From a more practical standpoint--I always have to have the 
legal side of it--the right to repair has its benefits. No more 
wasting valuable time and resources waiting for only the 
authorized professionals to repair a product at a fixed price. 
The right to repair, if properly designed, can create a world 
of consumer choice, competitor pricing, and potential cost 
savings.
    However, when this issue is examined in full depth, it 
becomes substantially less black and white. There is, in fact, 
a significant amount of gray when it comes to the right to 
repair. Years ago, machines were simpler. They consisted of 
nuts, bolts, and other mechanical parts. Today, many machines 
are essentially sophisticated super computers. They perform 
seemingly miraculous feed thanks to delicate and complex 
electronic components integrated with highly specialized 
proprietary software.
    Even with all the possible tools and resources at one's 
disposal, attempting to self-fix or modify products with 
electronic components could lead to disastrous results, such as 
product failure, or even worse, serious injury to the consumer. 
In addition, these alterations can put the privacy and security 
of the user at risk requiring product manuals and their 
software to be 100 percent open source risk bad actors 
tampering with hacking and damaging the product, as well as 
stealing consumers' private data. We cannot open our producers 
to this type of liability.
    Looking at the bigger picture, I harbor serious concerns 
over the potential theft of American manufacturers' 
intellectual property if forced to divulge such information 
under Right to Repair laws. We could be inviting foreign and 
potentially hostile entities to steal American innovation right 
out from under us. American manufacturers could be stuck with a 
bill for the upfront research, development, and production 
costs. Then they would have to turn around and compete against 
foreign companies making similar products based off of stolen 
American intellectual property. This is famously true with 
China each year as they steal our intellectual property.
    This would handicap American manufacturers on the world 
stage sending negative ripple effects throughout our economy 
while at the same time providing a windfall to our global 
competitors.
    The last thing I will mention here is that we should be 
mindful of the downstream impacts of the right to repair and 
consumers and small businesses, not just manufacturers. The 
right to repair might create new markets where small and 
independent repair shops could flourish. We have seen this 
successfully happen within the auto industry.
    However, the right to repair may also harm small 
businesses, like small dealerships and authorized repair shops. 
Also, small businesses and sometimes corporations that provide 
products, replacement parts, and professional repair services 
to the customers.
    In short, the right to repair makes perfect logical sense 
when designed in a thoughtful manner that considers the 
realities of the industry. A cautious, measured, and well-
informed approach is required when considering these next 
steps.
    It is my hope today that we can engage our esteemed 
witnesses in such a great discussion. Thanks again to our 
witnesses for their contributions.
    I just want to, for the record, introduce two letters that 
we received if I may, Chairman. The Alliance for Automotive 
Innovation. This record, if this letter could be introduced.
    Also a letter addressed to both the Chairman and Ranking 
Member form the National Association of Manufacturers.
    So I just want to say thank you to the witnesses. I really 
look forward to a great discussion with the Chairman and with 
our Members. Thanks again, and I yield back.
    Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you, Ms. Tenney. All good points. I 
look forward to talking more about the issue.
    I will quickly take a moment to explain how the hearing 
will proceed.
    Each witnesses is going to have 5 minutes to provide an 
opening statement and each Committee Member will have 5 minutes 
for questions following that.
    Please ensure that your microphone is on when you begin 
speaking and that you return to mute when finished.
    With that, I will introduce our witnesses.
    Our first witness is Ms. Gay Gordon-Byrne, the founding 
Member of the Digital Right to Repair Coalition. And she serves 
as its executive director. Ms. Gordon-Byrne has had a full 
career starting in the 1970s in the technology sector, trained 
first as a systems software engineer and then expanding into 
sales and marketing for many corporations. Her broad experience 
gave her specific into manufacturers' design and maintenance, 
resulting in her 2014 book, Buying, Supporting, and Maintaining 
Software and Equipment: An IT Manager's Guide to Controlling 
the Product's Lifecycle. She is a frequent guest and panelist 
at conferences such as the National Association of States 
Attorneys General. A month ago, her TED Talk in the summer of 
2021 or her research and testimony the FTC Workshop, nixing the 
fix, which resulted in the 2021 report to Congress by the same 
name. Thank you for joining us today, and we look forward to 
hearing your testimony.
    Second, we will hear from Mr. Brian Clark, the co-owner and 
CTO of iGuys Tech Shop in North Conway, New Hampshire. Mr. 
Clark started his business out of necessity in 2012 being the 
only independent phone repair shop in town. He manages day-to-
day operations and takes a lead on repairs and support work. He 
has testified on behalf of state right to repair bills twice in 
New Hampshire and approaches this issue from the perspective of 
a small business owner in a rural area. Thank you, Mr. Clark.
    Third is Mr. Jim Gerritsen, who along with his wife Megan 
and son Caleb, have run the Wood Prairie Family Farm in 
Northern Maine. That is in my congressional district. They have 
been running that for over 45 years now. The Gerritsens 
specialize in growing organic, early generation, Maine 
certified seed potatoes, seed crops, and grain. In addition to 
farming, Jim has been active in the organic community for over 
4 decades. He helped found the Organic Seed Growers and Trade 
Association. He has served on its board of directors since its 
inception and has been its long-time president. On Earth Day in 
2014, Jim spoke to the United Nations General Assembly about 
the advantages of organic farming. Thank you, Mr. Gerritsen for 
being here today. I look forward to your testimony.
    And I will yield to the Ranking Member to introduce our 
final witness.
    Ms. TENNEY. Thank you. It is my pleasure to introduce Mr. 
Ken Taylor, Chairman of the Associated Equipment Distributors 
for AED, whom he is representing today. AED is an international 
trade association representing companies involved in the 
distribution, rental, and support of equipment used in 
construction, mining, forestry, power generation, agriculture, 
and industrial applications. Its membership consists of 
independent distributors, including small businesses that sell, 
rental, and provide after-market equipment support, 
manufacturers, and suppliers of business services. In addition 
to his leadership at AED, Mr. Taylor is the president and 
Chairman of the board of Ohio Machinery Company, an authorized 
dealer for construction, vehicle, and agricultural equipment. 
He is a third generation owner having assumed the role of 
president after his father and he is joined in the company by 
his daughter Jillian. Mr. Taylor is an active contributor to 
the industry and his community having served and currently 
serving in leadership roles in various organizations such as 
the Foundation for Appalachian Ohio; Ohio Equipment 
Distributors Association; Cooperation Association of Tractor 
Dealers, Inc.; Ohio Contractors Association; the Fisher 
Institute for Professional Selling at the University of Akron; 
and I Build America-Ohio. Mr. Taylor, I just want to say thank 
you for your valuable contributions to the community, for 
joining us today, and for your extensive involvement in 
organizations throughout the State of Ohio where I went to law 
school. I look forward to hearing your testimony and I yield 
back, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman GOLDEN. All right. Thank you all for joining us 
today.
    We will begin with Ms. Gordon-Byrne. You are recognized for 
5 minutes.

  STATEMENTS OF GAY GORDON-BYRNE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DIGITAL 
 RIGHT TO REPAIR COALITION; BRIAN CLARK, CO-OWNER, THE IGUYS' 
TECH SHOP, LLC; KEN TAYLOR, PRESIDENT, OHIO MACHINERY CO.; JIM 
     GERRITSEN, MARKETING MANAGER, WOOD PRAIRIE FAMILY FARM

                 STATEMENT OF GAY GORDON-BYRNE

    Ms. GORDON-BYRNE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and 
ranker.
    As you have already explained, right to repair is very near 
and dear to my heart, and it is particularly near and dear to 
me because I do live in an underserved rural area of Upstate 
New York. And having been a technology person for most of my 
career, I hope that I can speak well to this. If we cannot fix 
our stuff, and I mean it in a very general sense because 
anything that has a chip in it right now I call ``stuff'' so I 
do not have to mention any manufacturers. But if we cannot fix 
our stuff, we are in the position of we have got to throw it 
away, buy new, or do without.
    Throwing away is why we have an e-waste problem. Most of 
our states and municipalities are not beginning to collect the 
full extent of what is now e-waste. And that winds up being a 
taxpayer expense.
    If we are buying new, that is also a very limiting factor 
for people, particularly people that are already on public 
assistance of some kind which last I saw is about 50 percent of 
the population. So it is a big problem for people that are not 
wealthy.
    And then going without is why we have a digital divide. So 
I think it is a very serious problem. It is not a trivial 
problem. It affects everything that we buy. And when I was 
preparing for testimony at the Federal Trade Commission, I 
looked at manufacturer policies and pretty much concluded, as 
did U.S. PIRG that about 90 percent of the products on the 
market today are already repair monopolized, meaning that the 
only option for repair, if there is one, is through the 
manufacturer.
    So this eliminates all competition. These are now starting 
to be recognized in the courts as actual monopolies and there 
is some discussion among the state attorneys general, et 
cetera, of how they might approach these monopolies and try to 
untangle them.
    Obviously, rural people, such as myself and a number of the 
Members here, are already underserved just because everything 
is far away. We do not have much access to medical care. 
Education is distant. High speed internet is still a problem. 
And even getting groceries. I mean, I am 15 miles from a 
grocery store. I have to plan ahead. If something breaks in my 
house, I really do have to fix it because the nearest 
technician could be 45 or 100 miles away. So I live in a 
community where repair is kind of in our DNA and we need to be 
able to do it. And that is not just consumers. That is also all 
the businesses in town. They face the same problems and they 
need the same options to be able to fix their stuff.
    Now, urban areas, which I know has been a question, how is 
it that urban areas are underserved? Well, they are really 
underserved if they do not have money, which is not the same as 
distance, although they may also have, let's say public transit 
might not go to the mall where there is a local store. So it is 
even harder for people in underserved urban communities to get 
access to what I would call price competitive repair. And most 
of those people simply do without. So in order to turn this 
ship around, we really do have to make repairs more widely 
accessible. It is not even so much money as it is availability. 
Farmers, in particular, always tell us that they do not mind 
paying. They just have to have their stuff fixed.
    So the key to keeping all this working is to have the 
option of competition for repair, which we have discovered 
works pretty well using the legislative template that the auto 
industry began with. They passed their first bill in 
Massachusetts in 2012. It rapidly led to an agreement that is 
now a national agreement. It is not perfect but it is working. 
And we copied it. I literally sat down and wrote the first bill 
by taking out the word ``automobile'' and stuffing in the word 
``digital electronic product.'' And the philosophy is the same. 
A state can say, Mr. Manufacturer, if you are going to do 
business in my state, you must provide fair and reasonable 
access to the same parts, tools, diagnostics, and service 
information that you are currently only providing on an 
exclusive basis to your dealership.
    Now, this means that the manufacturer--and I have been a 
manufacturer so I feel I can speak with some confidence--
manufacturers never put secrets in their repair documentation 
because they would never be secret. They do not put crypto keys 
in their repair documentation because that would also get 
around the internet almost instantly. So what the dealerships 
and the authorized providers get is actually a very limited set 
of tools. The diagnostic tools may be ``proprietary'' but they 
are not mystical. They are reporting on whether or not a 
connection from part A to part B is functional. These things 
can be done without using the manufacturer. This is incredibly 
tedious. So as a practical business opportunity, people that 
cannot buy the manufacturer diagnostics cannot really be in 
business, which is a huge problem for people like Brian.
    So the unlocking is basically the Massachusetts law turned 
into electronics and it has worked well. We have got 10 years 
of experience with that law. The sky did not fall. People are 
not driving around on terrible brake systems because the local 
mechanic fixed them instead of the dealership. They are not 
losing access to their bank accounts because of some crypto 
mythology. So I think we are pretty confident that that model 
works.
    Now, we have actually got that bill going in 43 different 
states. And New York passed the first bill this year for 
consumer electronic--it is not strictly consumer electronics 
but----
    Chairman GOLDEN. If we could just get close to----
    Ms. GORDON-BYRNE.--general electronics.
    Colorado passed a really quite different bill enabling 
repair of powered wheelchairs.
    So we are on a roll. We know that Congress has some work to 
do. It would be very, very helpful if we could get some of the 
copyright restrictions that do apply to repair, if we could get 
those lifted. But other than that, I think we have got a good 
template and I think we can satisfy Ms. Tenney's concerns as 
well. Thank you.
    Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you very much.
    We will now recognize Mr. Clark.

                    STATEMENT OF BRIAN CLARK

    Mr. CLARK. Good morning, Mr. Golden, Mr. Tenney. Thanks for 
hearing my testimony today.
    As mentioned, my name is Brian Clark. I am the co-owner of 
a small, independent repair, consumer electronics repair shop 
located in the town of Conway, New Hampshire. We specialize in 
repair of all smartphones and tablets, as well as Apple branded 
computers. We also provide data recovery and micro soldering 
services. We founded the business in 2012. We recognized the 
Conway area desperately needed local options for repair of 
devices that were becoming increasingly important to everyday 
life.
    Conway lies in a very rural part of the state in the heart 
of the White Mountains, a very popular tourist destination. The 
permanent population of the area that we serve is somewhere 
around 100,000 people based on 2020 census data. This is 
covering a very large area at over 1,000 square miles. We serve 
around 1,200 to 1,500 paying customers every year on average.
    As an independent shop, we have no affiliation with any 
manufacturer. Even as the industry has evolved over the last 
decade, we still find that it is best for our business and more 
importantly for our customers to remain independent. Any paths 
to becoming an authorized repair facility are far from ideal 
and are generally incredibly invasive to our business and 
restrictive in what we can do for our customers.
    Of course, there are drawbacks to our choice, as most 
manufacturers continue to offer independent shops little to no 
official access to genuine parts, repair manuals, tools, or 
schematics. Manufacturers want control over how and whether 
your device gets repaired by forcing customers to authorized 
repair. For Apple devices, the nearest authorized repair 
facility, in this case an Apple Authorized Service Provider or 
AASP, is about 45 minutes from my shop. The nearest Apple Store 
is about 1 hour, 15 minutes away. For Samsung and Google 
devices, the closest facility is about 1 hour, 30 minutes away. 
If you have a device from another manufacturer such as Motorola 
or LG, mail-in repair is your only option.
    Because New Hampshire becomes increasingly rural as you go 
north, all of these authorized repair options are located in 
the more densely populated southern parts of the state. This 
means that most of our customers would need to drive an 
additional 45 to 90 minutes, after already frequently driving 
over an hour or more just to reach us. This situation is far 
from unique to northern New Hampshire. I do want to be clear on 
that. There are countless locations around the country where 
similar, or worse, situations can be encountered.
    Over the decade that we have been in business, we have seen 
countless scenarios repeat and replay themselves over and over 
again for our customers.
    In my written testimony, I play out four examples of real 
world scenarios that are incredibly common for a rural repair 
shop like mine. With the limited time I have here today, I 
would like to highlight the common threads that come into play 
in these scenarios that we see so frequently.
    First of all, the devices that we service have become 
tools. Tools that are integral to people's day-to-day lives at 
home, at work, and in businesses. Access to timely repair for 
folks that find themselves without these tools is crucial, and 
in rural areas that would be nearly impossible without 
independent repair. Time and time again we are able to get 
folks back up and running with far less interruption to their 
lives than if they were forced to use solely authorized repair 
options.
    Misleading information. When contacting authorized repair, 
consumers are not always given completely truthful information. 
More specifically, they are told that certain things cannot be 
repaired when they really mean that the manufacturer does not 
offer an authorized repair option for the customer's problem. 
This practice is very unfriendly to the consumer and as part of 
an effort to replace replacement of devices, something that is 
not always easy to do in rural areas.
    Keeping technology in use is important. Not everyone cares 
to have the latest and greatest tech. Not everyone can afford 
the latest and greatest tech as Ms. Gordon-Byrne alluded to. We 
found this especially true in rural areas like ours. 
Independent repair gives folks in these situations the option 
to keep their device going even if the manufacturer no longer 
wishes to provide official repair.
    The last thing is data. The information we keep on these 
devices is often priceless. A business owner frequently has 
contacts and communication on their device that would be 
irreplaceable if lost. Almost all of us keep photographs and 
other personal data on our devices that would be devasting to 
lose. Authorized repair generally provides no options for a 
situation where data recovery is needed. Their point of view is 
that if you did not back it up, it is your fault.
    In summary, the presence of reliable independent consumer 
electronics repair in rural areas is crucial for the quality of 
life of residents, as well as the economy of these areas. 
Despite this clear importance, manufacturers continue to ignore 
the need and frankly make it unnecessary challenging for 
businesses like mine to operate. Independent repair is ready, 
willing, and able to fill the void the major manufacturers have 
left particularly in these rural markets. All we ask is that 
manufacturers give us reasonable paid access to parts, tools, 
and documentation to continue to offer these services for years 
to come. Thank you for your time.
    Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you.
    And I believe that our third witness up in Maine has 
technical difficulties so we are going to go ahead and 
recognize you, sir.

                    STATEMENT OF KEN TAYLOR

    Mr. TAYLOR. Chairman Golden, Ranking Member Tenney, and 
other distinguished Members of this Subcommittee, it is an 
honor to appear before you today both as Associated Equipment 
Distributors' (AED) 2022 Chairman and as president of Ohio 
Machinery Co. AED is the international trade association 
representing independent companies that sell, rent and service 
equipment used in many applications, including construction, 
agriculture, forestry, energy, mining, material handling and 
industrial production.
    Ohio Machinery Co. was founded in 1945, and I am the third 
generation from my family to run the business, following both 
my father and my grandfather.
    Right to repair is a simple slogan; however, the policy 
proposals surrounding the issue are complex with significant 
consequences. At the outset, I want to make it clear; AED 
Members support customers' right to repair their machinery, and 
distributors make available diagnostic tools, repair 
information, parts, and remote customer support.
    Idle, non-functioning equipment equals lost time and money. 
Whether it is on a farm during harvest or on a road building 
project, there is absolutely zero incentive to not do 
everything we can as equipment dealers and manufacturers to 
keep a machine running. That can mean repairs completed by a 
dealership service technician, the customer, or a third-party 
provider.
    The equipment industry is highly competitive, and if Ohio 
Machinery Co. is not providing proper and timely service, 
nothing is stopping the customer from moving to one of my many 
competitors and their products.
    However, we do not support unfettered access to critical 
on-board software and information pertaining to environmental 
and safety protections or key operational functions which is 
what proposals in various states and Congress would do.
    The tractors we are selling today are not the same as those 
sold by my grandfather or even my father. While customers can 
complete most repairs to their machinery, government, 
environmental, and safety regulations, as well as technological 
developments that have made equipment more efficient and 
productive necessitate restrictions and access to source code 
and software that ensure key operational functions are not 
modified or disabled.
    Right to repair legislation currently being considered in 
Congress will completely alter the equipment industry's 
distribution model. Manufacturers of equipment rely on a 
network of independent, mostly family-owned, small-to-medium-
sized companies to sell, rent and service the equipment. These 
dealers make significant investments in their employees, 
including training service technicians to repair and maintain 
the latest high-technology machinery. Many AED Member 
facilities are located in rural and underserved areas, creating 
well-paying careers and economic opportunity.
    Equipment dealers also invest extensive capital in parts 
inventories to ensure repairs and maintenance can occur as soon 
as possible. Out-of-service equipment is not merely an 
inconvenience; it can ruin a farmer's harvest or delay 
completion of a bridge or roadway.
    However, right to repair proposals require original 
equipment manufacturers to sell parts and diagnostic tools 
directly to the public at cost, without profit, completely 
circumventing the equipment dealer. Aside from effectively 
dismantling the equipment distribution industry's aftermarket 
parts business and thereby putting many equipment dealers out 
of business, logistically, it is impractical and would only 
exacerbate inflationary pressures in the equipment market and 
create long delays in parts availability.
    For many equipment dealers, parts revenue produces the 
majority of income for the business, though parts margins are 
far from inordinate. If parts are required to be provided at 
cost, many dealers would be put out of business. Anyone can 
walk into an AED Member facility, or go online, and buy OEM 
parts for their equipment. There is no restriction on who can 
purchase parts, whether it is an equipment owner, a third-party 
service provider, an equipment operator, or a Member of the 
general public. However, there will be no incentive for an 
equipment dealer to carry parts inventory if the manufacturer 
or the dealer is forced to sell without the ability to make a 
profit.
    For the equipment industry, right to repair proposals are a 
solution in search of a problem. AED Members provide customers 
and third-party repair providers with parts, tools, and other 
resources to complete the overwhelming majority of equipment 
repairs. Enacting these proposals will stifle entrepreneurship 
and the result will be an unprecedented intrusion by government 
into the free enterprise system.
    I reflect on my grandfather and the reasons he got into the 
equipment distribution industry. He was looking for a better 
life for his family, the opportunity to create well-paying jobs 
and careers for his employees, and the privilege of giving back 
to the community, including in underserved areas like 
Appalachia. Most equipment dealers have similar stories because 
the United States allows entrepreneurs to pursue their dreams. 
Unfortunately, I worry that should these right to repair 
policies become law, the viability of the equipment 
distribution industry will be severely hampered, resulting in 
lost economic activity, job creation, technological 
advancements, and a less competitive America.
    Chairman Golden, Ranking Member Tenney, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the honor of appearing before you 
today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 
Thank you.
    Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you, sir.
    Subject to the call of the Chair, we are going to take a 
brief recess to try and sort out some technological 
difficulties.
    [Recess]
    Chairman GOLDEN. We will bring this hearing back into 
order. And we will now recognize Mr. Gerritsen for 5 minutes 
for your opening statement. Thank you.

                   STATEMENT OF JIM GERRITSEN

    Mr. GERRITSEN. Okay. Thank you for your patience. Sorry, 
but we had trouble with our rural internet.
    Good morning, Congressman Golden and Congresswoman Tenney, 
and Members of the Subcommittee.
    I am Jim Gerritsen from the State of Maine. I am a family 
farmer. I work closely with our son, who is the chief mechanic 
on the farm. We both strongly support the concept of preserving 
the right of farmers and independent shops to repair the 
equipment that farmers own. We urge Congress to codify 
traditional farmer and independent shop repair rights by 
passing legislation that serves the public good by leveling the 
economic playing field, restraining monopoly control, and 
thereby uplifting the economy and enhancing the freedom and 
liberty of working Americans.
    For almost 50 years, along with my family, I have been 
growing organic crops on our farm. We are located in Aroostook 
County, the northernmost county in the State of Maine, referred 
to as the ``Potato Empire.'' To this day, Aroostook County 
grows more acres of potatoes than any other county in the 
United States except one.
    On our farm we raise organic Maine certified seed potatoes 
and other types of organic seed. Our crops have all been 
certified organic for 40 years, including the last 20 years 
under regulation by USDA National Organic Program.
    For over 40 years we have retailed our crops directly to 
our retail customers and beginning 33 years ago we opened an 
organic seed business with a mail order catalog, later adding a 
web store.
    My wife and I have now handed our farm down to our son, 
Caleb Gerritsen. He is a skilled mechanic. After high school, 
he increased his knowledge and ability by earning a degree in 
diesel hydraulic mechanics at the local community college. 
Caleb does an excellent job maintaining our tractors and 
equipment. In Aroostook County, it is extremely common for 
farmers to do most of their own equipment repair work.
    By design, in order to increase our own financial farm 
viability, we long ago consciously made the strategic decision 
to only own equipment that we ourselves are able to repair. 
Therefore, we have avoided purchasing modern, electronically 
sophisticated farm tractors and equipment which contain 
computer chips. For example, on our family farm we rely upon 
older equipment going back to the 1970s, equipment that we have 
repaired and rebuilt ourselves.
    We would never choose to place ourselves into a vulnerable 
position of being at the mercy of malfunctioning electronic 
sensors, then being involuntarily forced into ``limp mode,'' 
and becoming locked out of our own equipment, having to wait 
until a mechanic from the dealership came out on their time 
schedule to get us going again.
    When a problem as common and as minor as water condensation 
in a diesel tank can cause a sudden ``limp mode'' activation, 
say during peak planting or peak harvest, not only does that 
place an individual farmer and our livelihood at risk, but it 
really places the nation's food security at risk.
    Within the entire economy, there is growing concentration, 
growing monopoly control, and I think that this hurts all 
Americans. And within agriculture, I think the situation is 
extreme. Right here in Aroostook County, the local John Deere 
dealership last year, which had been owned for 63 years by a 
local family, they sold out to a company that has 63 John Deere 
dealerships. And that type of concentration I do not think is 
correct in a free market economy. And I think that when you 
have concentrated monopoly power that it works against the 
interests of citizens. And I think only under that kind of 
condition would you have the boldness for a tractor company to 
engage in putting this kind of proprietary limitation on 
farmers who with good intention bought the equipment and then 
are prevented from working on it themselves or having a local 
mechanic that they know and trust work on it.
    In closing, let me encourage your Subcommittee to work 
together and create legislative remedies that will provide 
America's ailing family farms with greater resiliency, increase 
fair market competition, and provide Americans with a more 
stable food supply. Congress should enjoin the U.S. Department 
of Justice to vigorously enforce existing laws which restrain 
monopolies, including the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. We are 
living in a new era. Therefore, appropriate modernized 
legislation will be necessary to adjust to the times and force 
farm equipment manufacturers and software companies to play 
fair, prevent abuse and manipulation of markets, and be 
effectively restrained from the negative consequences of 
monopolistic behaviors. Thank you for this opportunity.
    Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you. And thanks for overcoming the 
technological challenges there.
    We will go ahead and move to Q and A at this point 
beginning by recognizing myself for 5 minutes. I will start 
with you, Ms. Gordon-Byrne.
    You talked about a Massachusetts law, a Right to Repair 
law, which has been in existence it sounds like for about 10 
years. Can you tell us a little bit about how the law has 
worked to benefit independent repair shops that have been most 
hurt by restrictions?
    Ms. GORDON-BYRNE. Certainly. The law required auto 
manufacturers doing business in the State of Massachusetts to 
provide access to the same diagnostic tools, software, software 
updates, and regular tools as were being made available only to 
the dealerships. And they did not have a parts requirement 
because the auto parts industry is pretty open. The only thing 
we really changed in the template bill was to add a parts 
requirement. But it worked very well. It has enabled 
independent mechanics to stay in business. And they very much 
expected to go out of business. We had some information from 
Snap-On Tools, pretty famous, that they were really, really 
financially stressed until the law was passed and then they 
were able to grow again, the only reason that I know that my 
local mechanic can even work on my car.
    Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you. I appreciate that.
    On the issue of software updates and diagnostic tools, with 
my Armed Services Committee hat on, it reminds me a little bit 
of some of the problem we have with the readiness of our naval 
fleet ships coming into port and sitting there for much longer 
than necessary is they wait for software updates because of the 
contracts and various other reasons the Navy is not even in 
possession of. It has become quite a problem.
    Mr. Clark, there are, as you pointed out with Apple, 
several different levels of affiliation that can increase 
access to parts for independent repair shops. Can you explain 
these affiliations and why is it that you have remained 
independent? What is the benefit to you or to your customers?
    Mr. CLARK. So I mentioned the Apple authorized service 
provider status in my testimony and that is the highest level 
that an independent shop like mine could gain. But the higher 
level you get, the more access you get to parts and 
information, but the more restrictive it is and the more Apple 
controls what you do. It is very, very difficult to become an 
AASP. It is very invasive to your business.
    Now, I should also mention that it is also difficult to 
gain a true understanding of what you have to do because Apple 
makes everybody sign so many NDAs it is hard to get truthful 
information as to the process. But it has leaked out to a 
certain extent.
    There is also Apple's relatively new IRP program, 
Independent Repair Provider program. Again, less access to 
parts and tools and software but a little less invasive, but 
still frightfully invasive to a person's business. You are open 
to audits at any time, both financial, and, also, they can just 
walk into your store and check on what you have in stock at any 
time that they want. And again, all of that, the knowledge we 
have on that is limited by those NDAs. People just cannot talk 
about it.
    Apple did just introduce their self-service repair option 
but for that you have to put in the serial number of a device 
to even be able to order parts. So as an independent shop, I 
cannot even use that program to order parts to keep in stock. I 
have to put a customer's device in. I can order the part and 
then wait 5 to 7 days to receive it. It really just does not 
work for us. And our customers. Thank you.
    Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you.
    Mr. Taylor, some of the concerns you raised were concerns 
about environmental regulations as well as kind of safety. 
People given the option to bypass some of these things would go 
ahead and do so. Is it a concern about personal liability for 
your business or is it just a strong kind of like feeling that 
the environmental regulations are important? I mean, my take is 
that generally farmers, just as an example, will find a way 
around these things given the opportunity. Is it not really up 
to them once they own the equipment? What is the concern for 
you as a business owner as it relates to safety or 
environmental regulations?
    Mr. TAYLOR. Some personal experience. Both trade-in 
situations. So had a farm tractor. Traded it in and it was 
``chipped.'' And the chipping allows it to put more horsepower 
to the ground and really a farmer needs to get work done in a 
short amount of time. So when we took that machine in on trade, 
as a dealer, we cannot let it leave our facility chipped. We 
have to put extra cost into the unit for it to be a valid 
product to sell.
    Same with a truck. We had a CAT truck at the time where all 
of the gear was taken off of the engine. And again, if it 
enters our premises, then we are going to have to add all that 
equipment. And I think that with that truck the gear was 
probably $10,000 or $12,000 of material that someone had to pay 
for for that truck to be a viable trade in and then to be sold 
again. So, I think it is the regulations. It is the laws that 
are applicable here both with environmental and safety but it 
is also the practical cost issues associated with people 
messing with the technology makes our life difficult as a 
dealer.
    Chairman GOLDEN. That is an interesting point. Thank you.
    That is the 5 minutes that I have so we will now recognize 
the Ranking Member.
    Ms. TENNEY. Thank you. The witnesses, that was great 
testimony. I am just going to bring a couple of angles.
    Whenever government gets in the middle of it, it tends to 
overplay. I know all the witnesses talked about competition, 
and I heard an all or nothing approach.
    I am from New York State, and even as a lawyer, most of the 
bills that I looked at of any significance coming through our 
Codes Committee, which was our Committee of jurisdiction, there 
was an angle for the trial lawyers to find liability on 
someone, particularly small business owners without taking that 
into regard. So that is my concern, the liability issue.
    I am concerned about intellectual property. Ma'am, you 
mentioned competition. You also mentioned competition. We 
mentioned competition. It seems to me that there could be a 
reasonable middle ground here on some of these issues because I 
will give you a perfect example. When I was young in our 
printing business, I learned how to operate a press in the 
1970s, beginning of the 1980s, and it was hard work. I mean, 
there were no computers and no chips. You had to know how to 
gauge the water, the ink, and how to deal with the press. Now 
we actually operate a press that are very expensive and you can 
operate them in a suit and never get any ink on you and be very 
clean. And the technology is very different. And, also, as the 
lawyer, former lawyer for our company, I have gone in and seen 
these very expensive presses with duct tape on them. And that 
is because a lot of our employees are former farmers, 
especially dairy farmers. They are like MacGyver. They can fix 
anything and they can make anything run, even if it has a chip 
in it. So, but I do think there is a middle ground.
    But I wanted to ask you, and just to respond maybe to some 
of the comments made by, you know, I love the vintage farmer 
and the idea of that. We still have people in our communities, 
very rural upstate New York, who use vintage equipment. We also 
have a lot of Amish farmers who are still using horses.
    So could you just explain to me a little bit on maybe 
replying to that and how we could find a way to make sure we 
protect our supply chains the way they are now to make sure the 
small business owners and dealers are protected, but also, how 
do we kind of bring this all together? A little elaborate on 
what you just said to Mr. Golden possibly.
    Mr. TAYLOR. I have to say at the outset I think that our 
industry has many differences with consumer electronics in 
other industries. We have, for instance, as a CAT dealer, we 
have a tool called Electronic Technician. And you can buy the 
customer version of Electronic Technician. And that facilitates 
more repairs than if you did not have the tool. Right on CAT's 
website today there are instructions for the ``do it myself'' 
owner of equipment or engines. We will engage with that 
customer and find a solution, whether that is in-person, on the 
phone, over a chat, whatever it might be. We will engage with 
that equipment owner to come up with a solution.
    There is going to be inevitably, perhaps, some cost that is 
extraordinary because of the remoteness, perhaps, of that 
company, but I think we are always looking at the end result, 
which is uptime. And so our whole business functions on uptime. 
So we are going to figure that out. It just may not be as 
efficient a solution as would be in an urban area perhaps.
    Ms. TENNEY. So quick question, potentially a solution to 
you, and I am going to ask this of Mr. Clark. Is there a way 
that we can negotiate and keep competition in play that 
manufacturers can actually work with and make it easier to 
create authorized repair facilities and get more people 
involved in that process so that people in rural areas can have 
greater access to people that are highly trained? I am going to 
ask you that quickly because I want to ask Mr. Clark about that 
because he includes in his testimony that it is incredibly 
invasive and tough to be an authorized repair facility. And I 
just want to get your quick answer and see what his response 
is.
    Mr. TAYLOR. Well, my quick answer would be that setting up 
a dealership in an area is probably at minimum a $500 million 
investment in our type of business. So you are going to see us 
look for economies of scale and cover any----
    Ms. TENNEY. But quickly, can you not contract with someone 
like Mr. Clark and train him so that he could be someone in 
that rural area? Is that something that could be done?
    Mr. TAYLOR. Well, really, there would need to be an 
approval from a manufacturer. So we are the distributor in the 
middle and the manufacturer would have to allow that.
    Ms. TENNEY. Okay. So, but I am saying there could be a 
contract.
    So Mr. Clark, is that something that you would consider a 
potential solution? I am running out of time.
    Mr. CLARK. If it were that easy, sure. I will answer your 
question with a little bit of a question. Why does Apple need 
to see my financials to order parts from them? Why do they need 
to visit my shop to see what accessories I am selling to buy 
parts from them? That is what is problematic for a business 
like mine. It just does not make any sense why they need to 
have so much control over my business just to get parts. Just 
to get tools.
    Ms. TENNEY. I think they are basic financial statements; 
would they not be? I am just guessing.
    Mr. CLARK. Again, it is hard to know because it is all 
hidden behind nondisclosure agreements.
    Ms. TENNEY. My time has expired but I would love if we can 
revisit. Thank you so much. Thank you. I appreciate that.
    Mr. TAYLOR. Could I just simply add as a dealer, we have 
very high standards of what they want to see the customer 
experience. And so those standards will not be sacrificed. And 
therefore, when we move outside the authorized dealer network, 
there is no ability to control standards and the companies 
meeting those standards. So it is just not even a discussion 
point.
    Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you.
    Next, we will recognize Representative Carter.
    Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank all of you.
    Listen, we hear much from manufacturers who suggest that 
their restrictions are imposed because of intellectual property 
rights. Can you share your view on how much that bleeds over 
into and how it impacts you?
    Chairman GOLDEN. Who are you addressing?
    Mr. CARTER. Anyone. Anyone who would like to answer it.
    Ms. GORDON-BYRNE. I will give a swing at that.
    Intellectual property is not involved in repair. Many 
people assume that it is but it is not. Our copyright law, the 
DMCA of 1998, has specific provisions in it to allow people to 
back up and restore all of their licensed software at no 
copyright peril.
    Patents are already public. So if Chinese people are 
ripping off patents, nothing about right to repair is going to 
add to that capability. That has already been done. That horse 
is out of the barn, so to speak. And there is really no actual 
period. The copyright law and I believe it was Senators Leahy 
and Grassley requested a study of the copyright office back in 
2016 and 2017 about the specific rights under copyright law and 
under the 1201 exemption process. And they found that there is 
nothing wrong with copyright law.
    Mr. CARTER. Excuse me. We continue to hear that 
manufacturers are still leaning on this as a barrier. Are you 
saying that that is not correct? Are they just doing it 
erroneously?
    Ms. GORDON-BYRNE. They are pretty disingenuous.
    Mr. TAYLOR. I would say today in the equipment business, 
the innovation that is occurring is extraordinary. Hard parts 
at one time were a part of a product's competitive advantage, 
and today as much as hard parts as the software and the code 
that provides more power, more efficiency, longevity, all the 
features that one wants in a piece of equipment, a tool on a 
job, software supports much of that today which is just an 
entirely different picture. It is new ground for all of us to 
cope with, I think.
    Mr. CARTER. So, I am sorry to interrupt. Real quickly 
before my time elapses.
    So, (a) how can we help with that? Because if, in fact, 
there is a remedy in place yet, manufacturers are still using 
this, then obviously tell us how we can from this Committee 
standpoint help address that so it is no longer a barrier. And 
then lastly, you guys can answer this, whoever wants to, but 
lastly, I represent several rural areas in Louisiana. And 
obviously, people have issues with repair. In the city, there 
is access to more repair shops. How do you handle, how do you 
deal with those rural areas who do not have a plethora 
resources as relates to close proximity to have their trucks 
repaired or their vehicles repaired?
    Ms. GORDON-BYRNE. I do not know if you are asking Ken or 
myself, but the solution for repair in general is having more. 
The more businesses that can form that can provide repair 
services locally, the more options there will be for our 
communities. So, it would be very helpful, I think, for your 
constituents to be able to use a local shop as opposed to 
having to drive to let's say New Orleans. So what you could do 
would be to help support some of the bills that are already in 
Congress. That will make things easier.
    Mr. TAYLOR. I think one of the challenges is the amount of 
training that is required for an individual that might be local 
in a community far away from a dealer. The training and 
knowledge that is required to effectively make a repair are 
extensive. And so I guess, perhaps, if the repair shop were 
willing to pay a fee for the training to help them perhaps do 
more, maybe not everything they want to do but more, that could 
be arranged. But is that a cost that that business is willing 
to bear?
    Mr. CARTER. And going back to the add-on about what can we 
do to assist in the area of the so-called intellectual property 
barrier, is there something that we can do from this 
Committee's standpoint to assist with ferreting out that 
falsehood and forcing them to do the right thing if they are, 
in fact, doing the wrong thing?
    Ms. GORDON-BYRNE. Well, let me jump back in on that one. 
There is a bill that was filed by Rep. Mondaire Jones and I 
think Victoria Spartz in their Committee that was addressing a 
specific problem of copyright law that does need to be fixed by 
Congress. There is a longstanding prohibition on making tools 
to make it easier to copy VCR tapes. That is how old it is. And 
it needs to be updated because it is standing in the way of 
people building tools that would be necessary to fix modern 
equipment. I do not mean physical tools. I mean software tools. 
So that would be something that would be very helpful.
    Mr. CARTER. If you would be so kind as to send some 
information to us I would greatly appreciate it.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you.
    Next up we will recognize Representative Williams.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Chairman. And thank all of you for 
being here today, and Representative Tenney for helping us 
lead.
    We are here today to discuss the notice of the Right to 
Repair. As a small business owner, and in full disclosure, 89 
years in the car business, 51 years I have been in the 
business. Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, Chevrolet, you name it, 
for 51 years, and I am also a rancher, calf-cow operation, 
Angus, Black Angus back in Texas. So I understand this complex 
topic firsthand. Maybe as much or more than anybody in this 
room. And it is not as cut and dry as it may seem.
    So I made a few notes here, and there is no organization to 
them but it was commented earlier. Leveling the playing field. 
Well, what the heck does that mean? Leveling the playing field. 
And I know one of our witnesses is in the potato business. I am 
sure they would not sell their potatoes at cost. In many cases 
we are asked to do things at cost, and nobody knows what cost 
is anyway. That is a phony word. And I cannot buy equipment. If 
I cannot buy the equipment. If I cannot buy the equipment, I am 
out of business. Well, you do not have to pay cash for the 
equipment. You can finance the equipment. You can also wrote 
100 percent off of it this year and take a tax deduction.
    And someone said, too, that a lot of people, regardless of 
their income class or whatever, are not getting repairs done, I 
fix everybody. We do not ask them what their class is. So 
everybody is getting fixed.
    Independents, quite frankly, are the best customers I have 
got in my car business. I have got six parts trucks. I am just 
going to put another one in when I get back because we have got 
so much business taken to independent mechanics. Independent 
people. They are the best customers I have got. So they are 
getting good service. And the truth of the matter is, if you 
cannot fix it, send it to the franchise dealer. This happens 
all the time. Independent people send it to us and we fix it. 
And the customer has no problem with that.
    Independents have access to parts. It is me. I have got 
millions of dollars' worth of parts and we will deliver them to 
you. We will do everything. You have got access to parts.
    And we talk about how complicated it is. Well, just go to 
the dealer and get it fixed. Because I know what happens. You 
bring it to me. I fix it. And you mark it up 10 percent. No 
problem. Everybody makes a little.
    And all of us should remember this. The reason these 
repairs are so hard is because the government has demanded 
this. Not consumers, not me, not you. The government has 
demanded it. So, let's just understand that there is a pecking 
order here that works and the government does not need to be 
involved in it.
    And many proposals that we talk about tend to simply the 
issue without addressing the serious consequences this type of 
government intrusion will impose in the free market. And we 
have talked about it. Government, when they get involved, write 
it off. It really gets messed up and the consumer is the one 
that gets hurt.
    Manufacturers make significant investments in research and 
development of their products and services, and by forcing them 
to share their models for third parties to excess it removes 
all incentives to innovate. And remember, you have access. 
Okay?
    And on top of that there needs to be significant 
discussions on consumer privacy. We talked about that and data 
security. And some of the data, it could be assessed if anyone 
had an open handbook, it is sensitive and proprietary.
    We must ensure that we are not opening the door for 
hackers. We all have a hacker story. And we could be just 
making their life easy to take advantage of unknowing 
consumers. So it is critical we look at this issue from all 
angles and proceed with caution before we try to get the 
government more involved. And quit talking about cost and quit 
talking about selling for nothing. Because if you are selling 
at cost and selling for nothing there is no service to anybody. 
I cannot buy parts. I cannot deliver the parts. So we need to 
quit talking about that. The other side talks about it a lot 
but profit is a really good word. That is why we are all in 
business.
    So Mr. Taylor, how will your business ability compete to be 
affected if right to repair legislation passes and what 
legislative proposal do you believe would do the most harm to 
the equipment distributors' industry and why that you represent 
and are?
    Mr. TAYLOR. I would have to pick the parts topic. In my 
agricultural business, we are an AGCO and a CLAAS dealer. We 
are not John Deere. We are not Case IH. We are not the dominant 
player but we have a good size business. And 75 percent of our 
profit for that division comes from the parts business. We make 
an okay amount selling a tractor, used or new. Service, we lose 
money just because we are trying to get the customer service 
challenge done and so far we have not solved that yet. So we 
rely extensively on the parts profit just to stay open for that 
division. So I would say that is probably the most frightening 
aspect of some of these proposals is that parts will be sold at 
cost and then that would push the burden back on the 
manufacturer, and suddenly the manufacturer would have to 
figure out how to distribute the parts and whether that is 
through UPS or through some other channel. And that is added 
cost to their business. And so there would be an inflationary 
impact on that.
    Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I yield my time back. The 
process works. Let's keep it that way.
    Chairman GOLDEN. We are going to recognize Representative 
Peters.
    Mr. PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Really interesting 
discussion.
    On one hand you have got these repair shops just want to do 
a good job for their customers and feel like sometimes the 
suppliers or the manufacturers are too rigid. And on the other 
hand you have got manufacturers or businesses that are worried 
that the small shops will not maintain quality or privacy or 
intellectual property. So it is a hard balance.
    I was going to ask Mr. Taylor about the intellectual 
property and security concerns, especially as technology 
continues to improve. Tell me about the risks of the IP 
violations some of your Members are worried about. What are the 
risks to them?
    Mr. TAYLOR. The IP issue is more related to the 
manufacturers than it is to us a dealer. I think the primary 
concern we would have is the, well, environmental and safety 
both. Really to comply with regulation, there are designs in 
both the engine technology, exhaust technology that are high 
hurdles to reach. And the manufacturer spends a heck of a lot 
of R and D on that technology. We are in the field and we are 
going to have to support the manufacturers' expectations of 
that equipment in the field. Will we get mixed up in an 
argument and a lawsuit over a product that has been altered? 
Everyone sues everyone when there is a problem. I think a 
dealer could be pulled in pretty easily to an IP problem.
    The safety part of this, heavy equipment is pretty 
dangerous and today some of the technology that is software 
based is sensors that sense the proximity of a person or a 
vehicle. If any of that was tampered with, I think we would all 
be pointing fingers at who altered that machine so that they 
could avoid any of those restrictions. So I think the risk is 
when there is a violation, we are going to be pulled into any 
of these kinds of problems. And the manufacturer is going to be 
concerned that its IP is out on the market.
    Mr. PETERS. So Ms. Gordon-Byrne, so my understanding is now 
that the FTC is taking action to enforce against a warning law 
against bad actors that illegally restrict consumers' choice of 
how to fix their products, they are trying to enforce the law 
that we already have in the books, can you tell me if that is a 
satisfactory situation and how that enforcement can help small 
businesses, or what do we need to do beyond that?
    Ms. GORDON-BYRNE. If you could elaborate a little bit about 
which particular enforcement action you are talking about 
because I am not aware of all of them. I know a lot of them but 
not all.
    Mr. PETERS. I do not have particular actions in mind. It is 
just that there is existing law in the books about illegally 
restricting consumers' choice and why do you think the FTC has 
adequate authority to enforce those laws today?
    Ms. GORDON-BYRNE. I am probably not qualified to say what 
the FTC has the authority to do but what they have been doing 
is something they could have been doing the past 20 years and 
it would have been enormously helpful to not have the 
proliferation of monopolized repair that we have today. So I am 
aware that they are going after some particularly obvious 
cases. I think Harley-Davidson, famous example. They were 
telling their customers that they were not allowed to repair 
their stuff with an independent mechanic, which is actually 
contrary to federal law. So I am excited about that.
    Mr. PETERS. Okay. I mean, I also think that that is part of 
what we have to weigh, too, in terms of creating new rules. I 
guess Mr. Williams kind of hinted at that as well.
    Mr. Clark, repair shops like yours, can only have a few, 
often a few employees to help consumers keep their products 
operating. How do consumers/customers react when you tell them 
about the warning message they might receive to their phones if 
their phone is repaired with aftermarket parts? And have you 
lost business because of that?
    Mr. CLARK. So far the response has been such that we have 
not lost any customers from that so far. There are some people 
who have a lot of questions about it. They may not fully 
understand it but frankly, they just deal with it because they 
have to. They do not feel like they have a choice. They can 
have me fix their device in an hour or they can drive and take 
an entire day and hope that Apple will fix it. So, yeah, lack 
of choice does not help the fact. That drives some of the 
reason why they do not seem to be bothered by that.
    Mr. PETERS. Okay. Well, I appreciate it.
    Mr. CLARK. Sure.
    Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired and I yield 
back. Thank you.
    Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you.
    We will now recognize Representative Stauber.
    Mr. STAUBER. Well, thank you, Chair Golden, Ranking Member 
Tenney for holding this really important hearing.
    And I am grateful to be a part of it. On one hand the 
consumers are looking for freedom to repair products they own 
in a timely and cost-efficient manner. Why should rural 
Minnesotans have to wait for engineers from Silicon Valley to 
come fix a product they would happily fix themselves if given 
the chance? Minnesotans have always been a ``fix it ourselves'' 
kind of people.
    On the other hand, we want manufacturers to continue to 
research, innovate, and invest in the safety and efficacy of 
their products. The modernization of products we have seen over 
the last few decades has been outstanding, but it has also 
created a very complicated regulatory landscape. We must be 
thoughtful and considerate as we consider this issue to ensure 
we do not have any unintended consequences.
    So Mr. Gerritsen, in your testimony you mentioned that you 
made the conscious decision to only own farm equipment you can 
repair yourself. Do you feel your farm has missed opportunities 
to produce more should you have had more advanced equipment 
that you had an ability to repair yourself?
    Chairman GOLDEN. Sir, if you could unmute yourself.
    Mr. GERRITSEN. Thank you for the question.
    I would say that a farmer's purpose is like any business 
and that is to make the most profit for their efforts. Our 
interest is not in increasing production. It could well come at 
a higher cost and we would be making less. So our strategy has 
been to increase our independence and our farm by ability by 
keeping as many things within our control as we can.
    So many years ago we saw, especially the sophisticated 
electronics and chips, that that was simply a direction we were 
not interested in going in. So we do not, you know, increase in 
production is not of a high importance to us. Maintaining 
viability, increasing profitability, that is what is important 
to us, and I think that is probably what is most important to 
most farmers.
    Mr. STAUBER. And the second question, Mr. Gerritsen, do you 
know other farmers who became as you suggest as vulnerable to 
this more advanced equipment? And if so, what did they do to 
ensure?
    Mr. GERRITSEN. Well, about 15 or 20 years ago I received a 
phone call from an editor at one of the large farm magazines 
and he was incredulous that he had somewhere picked up the idea 
that we did not go for modern equipment that had chips in it. 
And I assured him that our reasoning, you know, we felt that it 
was sound and that, in fact, I could have given him at that 
time, I told this to him, I could give him the names and phone 
numbers of half a dozen farmers I know across the country that 
have the same philosophy as we do. So it has been interesting 
to me that within the last 4 to 5 years, the major media has 
picked up the fact that a lot of farmers are finding that they 
can buy older American-made tractors, say from the 1970s, buy 
the tractor, rebuild it, and for $50,000 or less have a tractor 
that is the equivalent of a $200,000 to $300,000 tractor, one 
that they can repair.
    So I think it is an increasing trend. I believe that some 
of the equipment in terms of relation to the Farmgate value of 
crops, I think some of the equipment has just become 
unaffordable for family farmers. And being innovative, family 
farmers are finding a good solution and that is using 
equipment, American-made equipment.
    Mr. STAUBER. Thank you very much for your answer.
    The newly elected Member from Minnesota's 1st District, 
Brad Finstad is a farmer and he says that he gets up in the 
morning knowing something is going to break and he is going to 
fix it himself, so.
    Mr. Taylor, have you ever interacted with equipment where 
the safety features had been overridden or manipulated for 
machine performance?
    Mr. TAYLOR. I keep forgetting to hit the button.
    One of the most common safety items is a backup alarm. And 
yes, I think during my career with some customers they operated 
a machine without a backup alarm. And that is just a 
fundamental safety factor there. So if I were to pick one that 
would be the one that is most obvious that either it was 
disabled or it failed and they continued to operate the machine 
even though the backup alarm was----
    Mr. STAUBER. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chair, I am out of time. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you.
    Next, we recognize Representative Flood.
    Mr. FLOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    From Nebraska, right to repair, a complex issue. I am from 
the state where I was in the legislature. One of the first 
states to really confront this with a state regulation. And I 
understand the frustration of people, particularly farmers, 
that want to fix their own equipment when it breaks down.
    But before the federal government leaps into action 
pursuing a federal right to repair mandate, we should carefully 
examine, and I think something that we have not touched on 
enough, are some of the self-repair functions that are already 
accessible. The Executive Director of the Digital Right to 
Repair Coalition, Ms. Gordon-Byrne, shared that if we were to 
pursue right to repair as a national policy, we would have more 
local repair options. And I think we are forgetting the value 
of self-repair. Some manufacturers are increasingly offering 
customers remote support that can help them troubleshoot 
through some of the most difficult equipment problems.
    So Mr. Taylor, can you comment on self-repair, those 
options available in the Caterpillar equipment that you sell?
    Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, I can. And I will mention that a major 
trust in Caterpillar's strategy today is what is called 
services growth. And services growth is all about providing 
more services to the customer ultimately to drive more parts 
sales for Caterpillar, the manufacturer. And so the amount of 
focus we have today on determining new services and new 
strategies to ultimately sell more parts for Caterpillar, which 
is just a major goal of ours as a distributor, the focus has 
risen enormously in the last couple of years in the field. Like 
I say, right on CAT's site, and I have not myself visited the 
site to review some of these repair procedures, but it is Self-
Service and it is a much more extensive list of possibilities 
than ever was available before. We rarely wanted to give tools 
to the customer in our past back in my grandfather's 
generation, maybe in my dad's, too. But today, to maximize 
parts sales for the equipment in the field, it means that we 
have to try every strategy to do that. And this self-service 
strategy is one of those strategies to put a genuine part in 
the hands of a customer versus a will-fit aftermarket-type 
part.
    So it used to be maybe the features were durability and 
productivity and resale value. Today it is fuel consumer. It is 
hours between oil changes. And if we can help that ``do it 
myself'' customer buy the cab part to do the work themselves, 
we are one part ahead every time we do that.
    Mr. FLOOD. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. I want to touch on 
intellectual property for a moment. If proprietary information 
is easily made available to third parties, do you anticipate 
that manufacturers will continue to invest in future research 
and development? And I am looking for just a brief answer here.
    Mr. TAYLOR. I will confess to being very confused about 
this topic, that this information is available to the public 
first of all.
    Mr. FLOOD. Right.
    Mr. TAYLOR. And, no, if all of that was free off the shelf, 
you would see much less investment.
    Mr. FLOOD. And see, that is what is so interesting to me 
because property rights in Nebraska are at the top of Ag owner 
landowners' lists. We are talking about real property rights. 
When you talk about intellectual rights, I would think there 
would be a similar desire to protect those and to maintain the 
IP rights value.
    I think it is important to note that in January of this 
year, a Chinese national in Missouri plead guilty to conspiracy 
to commit economic espionage. The man attempted to steal the 
algorithm behind a farming software platform, proprietary 
technology was used to boost the farmer's productivity. The 
Department of Justice found he was part of a program focused on 
advancing the Chinese effort sin industry and technology and 
his plan was to bring the software he stole back to China.
    I would strongly caution that we caution against any 
federal action that could inadvertently let our guard down 
against China. And I think that is a real pressing threat. And 
would say that the bigger priority for me, getting more 
broadband into rural American so that we can first and foremost 
explore self-repair. Because I think that is really the 
direction we should be going. So I yield back. Thank you.
    Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you.
    I am going to do another round of questions and anyone 
remaining is welcome to have more opportunities to ask 
questions as well.
    I was telling the Ranking Member, just listening to people 
talk about the issue of intellectual property, theft, 
particularly as it relates to China, there is a good report out 
there available to the public as well as to Members of Congress 
written by the AI Commission which talks extensively about the 
current problem of intellectual property theft. And it is 
massive, the scale of it. I think it is astounding when you 
look at the numbers ranking in the billions of dollars of lost 
revenue per year. So something I think Congress should be 
looking at no matter what.
    Even with no matter what we may or may not do as it relates 
to right to repair, this is a bit problem that is taking place 
right now.
    Mr. Gerritsen, my family has a business where they are 
still operating some pretty old equipment, some of it is 
actually older than I am, honestly, so 1970s and early 1980s 
equipment as well. I think one of the first challenges you 
start to see is the availability of parts, and then even you 
reach a point where the parts are not even available and then 
you have got to have people who start learning how to machine 
their own parts if you want to continue to repair and operate 
it. I am guessing that your family has coped in similar ways.
    Do you have concerns about the sustainability of the 
approach that you have chosen to take as it relates to older 
equipment and the ability to continue to repair it down the 
road? Or do you foresee a future out there for a farm family 
such as yourselves, where you would just have no choice but to 
make that move over to electronic equipment?
    Mr. GERRITSEN. Yeah. Congressman Golden, as you know, 
farmers in Maine are survivors. We will survive. I think it is 
going to be harder because of the proliferation of computer 
chips. But to be truthful, what I am hoping is that because so 
many family farmers are shifting to older equipment that this 
is going to trigger a market response and that there will be 
manufacturers that find that they can make a good living by 
manufacturing some of the parts that, you know, may now be 50 
years old, that there is a demand for it. So I do think that 
American farmers are very innovative and if the demand is 
shifting towards older equipment, I am hoping that that is 
going to help make that repair parts available. But, you know, 
by the time we have to get into chipped tractors, I will not be 
around so I am here today trying to convey that we have got a 
problem for family farmers ahead and part of the important 
solution is to give freedom of access to repairing. And if a 
farmer buys a piece of equipment, it should be understood that 
they are buying the totality of it. It is not that they are 
buying simply the metal and not the brains behind it. And this 
is a traditional right that we have always had. And I think 
that it is best to improve that level playing field by 
decentralizing it and allowing as much interaction across the 
economy as you can with as many players as you can.
    Chairman GOLDEN. You mentioned that your son took it upon 
himself to go and get extra training so that he knew how to do 
these repairs in-house. And while I think I understand 
correctly that it is your opinion that you, as the owner of the 
equipment, ought to have access to information that would help 
you understand even what needs to be repaired, et cetera, the 
right to have access to that information.
    But I just want to clarify. You do not expect when it comes 
to like new parts, you expect that you would pay not at cost 
but rather that anyone selling you that part has the right to 
make some form of profit; is that accurate?
    Mr. GERRITSEN. Of course. We are all business people and we 
all have to make a profit on what we are doing to maintain it. 
So, of course.
    But, on the other hand, you know, 20 years ago I bought a 
distributor cap at Ag Co and back then it was $75. And it was 
probably, you know, had a couple of dollars' worth of parts I 
int. So, you know, reasonable profit is a good idea. And 
sometimes I think under monopoly conditions I think 
reasonableness is kind of thrown out the window.
    Mr. TAYLOR. I might take issue with that statement that 
there is an unreasonable profit on a part like that. The 
population of that particular machine that is 50 years old is 
so low that for a manufacturer to design and begin again 
manufacturing such parts, probably the cost is not even 
represented by the cost of that part that you paid. It is such 
a small population to address with that part. If it is not 
economical, no one is going to do it.
    Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you.
    More questions from you?
    Ms. TENNEY. Yes, thank you.
    Chairman GOLDEN. Of course.
    Ms. TENNEY. I will just ask a couple. I want to kind of 
finish up on where I was, and I believe I did not get a chance 
to follow up I think with Ms. Gordon-Byrne.
    You made kind of an extraordinary statement. You said that 
regarding copyright law and processes that they are already 
available and accessible and that the exemption under the 1201 
and that the manufacturers were pretty disingenuous. So you did 
not say they were completely disingenuous but there are some 
concerns there.
    I just wanted to kind of clarify, and maybe you could 
clarify for me an explanation that intellectual property is a 
lot more than just copyrights. I just wrote this down on a 
sheet of paper and under copyright law I am copyrighted on this 
now automatically and I choose to put it in the Library of 
Congress and, you know, that is pretty simple. But when you get 
into patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and other more 
detailed work that somebody does, it is sort of a founding 
principle of innovation in our country that you create 
something, you get it protected. That is why we have an 
elaborate patent law process.
    So, I am just curious as to if you would be willing as I 
asked in my previous round of questions, on some kind of 
compromise where the manufacturer could actually contract say 
with Mr. Clark and say that we would like to train you and have 
you in a position where you can actually have the credibility. 
You know, whether it is financially based on your reputation, 
based on your willingness to sign maybe a nondisclosure 
agreement and other protections for that intellectual property. 
Is that something that would be considered and is considered 
under the current laws that are in play outside of the 
automotive industry?
    Ms. GORDON-BYRNE. Well, it is actually not my compromise to 
make; it is a choice of the legislatures.
    Ms. TENNEY. I understand that. But would you propose that? 
Would that be something that would be acceptable to you? 
Because it protects intellectual property. The exposure to 
liability for manufacturers, which has been described by Mr. 
Taylor, and then, yeah, protect the ability of someone's right 
to repair. I think there is maybe a middle ground here because 
I do not like to look at this as a zero sum game; it is either 
all or nothing.
    And as Mr. Taylor pointed out in the situation with the 
vintage farm equipment, it is similar when you have people that 
are repairing vintage cars. That is expensive stuff to get, you 
know, if you want to repair an old car.
    So is there a compromise that can be made where we can 
negotiate and make an agreement with people like Mr. Clark to 
be able to handle some of the repairs without compromising the 
intellectual property or the rights or the innovation of 
manufacturers? Or the sort of paradigm supply chain that we 
have in place now?
    Ms. GORDON-BYRNE. Absolutely. There is a lot of room for 
discussion. And I think we have to start on a little bit more 
of a factual basis which is that repairing things is not what a 
lot of people assume it is. It is literally the process of 
figuring out that something is broken, buying the spare part, 
and stuffing the spare part in. There is very little beyond 
that that is repair. All of these concerns about modifying 
emissions and chipping tractors, that is just not repair.
    So what we are really asking for is the right to do 
something extremely simple that has become overcomplicated by 
these questions. And absolutely, we want to protect IP rights.
    I wrote a book. I have the copyright on that book. Many of 
our Members are also manufacturers and they have rights. They 
have patent rights. And we are not trying to interfere with any 
of those rights.
    So, yeah. We can talk through all of these issues. I think 
most of them are nonissues to tell you the truth because when 
you get down to the nuts and bolts about what fixing something 
really is, it is not what a lot of people think it is.
    Ms. TENNEY. Right. But if I may reclaim my time on that.
    Ms. GORDON-BYRNE. Of course.
    Ms. TENNEY. You are talking about sort of saying that there 
really are not any concerns about this. And I think of my son 
is in the Marines. Mr. Golden was in the Marines. We were 
talking about some of the equipment there. When we leave behind 
billions of dollars' worth of equipment in a country or 
somewhere and we worry about reverse engineering and our hard 
work and innovation and money that went into creating these 
products, whether it was by the Department of Defense and the 
taxpayers or by a company that is investing in R and D, to say 
that that is just, you know, look, we do not have respect for 
what you have put into that, you kind of said, well, these 
concerns are not really there.
    My concern is that we do have, you know, just because 
somebody creates a little device and it looks just like a 
block, there is a lot of engineering that could have gone into 
that because it is critical whether it is an airline part or 
something that would save lives. We talked about off the record 
here about just the environmental issues. So I am just saying I 
think that there is a middle ground. It is not just all or 
nothing. Like, let's just open it up but let's give people in a 
competitive way the option to be able to negotiate what they 
feel that they can comfortably reveal and allow the right to 
repair. Because I do not think a manufacturer does not want the 
ability to repair out there. I think they want to be able to 
find a way to protect themselves and exposure to liability, and 
also make sure the consumers are happy. So I think there is a 
middle ground. I was just thinking in the legislation.
    Ms. GORDON-BYRNE. No, I completely agree.
    Ms. TENNEY. It is up to you about the time. You are the 
Chair.
    Ms. GORDON-BYRNE. Oh, I am sorry. I completely agree about 
there being middle ground. But when it comes to repair, it is 
like we have to talk through some of these issues and not just 
go over them because there are a lot of assumptions that are 
incorrect. And when the Federal Trade Commission did their 
study and I was at the study, they spent 2 years investigating 
all these claims. And they found literally only a single 
instance of a single phone that may have hurt somebody to talk 
about the safety problems. And the auto industry was there and 
the agriculture industry was there. It is not like they were 
ignored. So we have to make sure we are dealing with reality. 
We need some evidence of the problems.
    One of the things that was clear today is that parts 
pricing is a problem. And we learned about that about a year 
ago and we immediately said, let's fix it. So there are a 
variety of state legislatures that have already looked at 
language that allows for, obviously, people need to make a 
profit.
    So what was kind of essentially a drafting mistake is now 
not a problem. But we just have to get that information out 
there. There is nothing in the legislation that we are 
proposing that is asking for any form of software.
    I came from the computer industry. My dad designed 
computers. I know that you can have a computer with software on 
it and not violate anybody's IP.
    Ms. TENNEY. If I could ask you one last question.
    Ms. GORDON-BYRNE. Sure.
    Ms. TENNEY. Of all the legislation that has been enacted in 
the states, and you cited that there were 43--I am not sure I 
got that one right.
    Ms. GORDON-BYRNE. Forty-three attempts.
    Ms. TENNEY. Which state, and who is out there, has the best 
model legislation that you would propose?
    Ms. GORDON-BYRNE. Well, I have to go with the bill that we 
got passed this year in New York.
    Ms. TENNEY. Okay.
    Ms. GORDON-BYRNE. But that is still not comprehensive. 
Agriculture and heavy equipment are not in the bill. Home 
appliances are not in the bill. Wheelchairs are not in the 
bill. No medical equipment is in the bill.
    Ms. TENNEY. Okay. But you would say New York?
    Ms. GORDON-BYRNE. Well, New York is the furthest along. 
Obviously, they passed it. It is a pretty good template.
    Ms. TENNEY. Thank you.
    Mr. TAYLOR. If I could add a comment. I really do not agree 
that the repair process is simple and not complex and that we 
are really not talking about, I guess, it is not simple. In our 
case, the tooling that could be required, the testing, 
diagnostic equipment that could be required to complete a 
repair is hugely expensive and may be required for a particular 
repair, whether that is in the shop or in the field. And so 
that is just one aspect of how our industry is very different 
from some of the other industries and under discussion here.
    And if I could just add one other related comment. I find 
it kind of ironic that we are here talking about repair in 
general. Repair things. Our country over the last 40 years 
stopped producing technicians, people that like to repair 
things. There are a few farmers that are still producing some 
great people who we love to hire but a very small quantity 
today. In all the trades and for us service technicians, people 
are not on the street. They are not coming out of the schools. 
We have--means to go create people, to attract them into the 
business, train them, time on the job. Huge incentives such as 
signing bonuses, all kinds of things.
    So I would just make a point that our whole country needs a 
better repair program, and that includes everybody. And today 
there is a dire shortage of people available to repair all of 
the things that us white collar people love to use in our work 
and in our pleasure.
    Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you. That was a good exchange.
    That is going to wrap it up for us here today. Very quickly 
I will just say, of course, thank you, all four of you, for 
taking the time to join us today. And for answering our 
questions. Clearly, there is a lot that we want to look at here 
in this Committee and in Congress as it relates to repair 
restrictions which can create significant headaches for 
consumers. As we have heard from individuals like Mr. Clark or 
for small business owners, as we heard from people like Mr. 
Gerritsen, by ensuring a right to repair we can help increase 
competition across a variety of industries. I think we learned 
today you have got to look at the differences between various 
industries, of course, and products, but hopefully, today's 
hearing serves as a jumping-off point for ongoing conversations 
about policies that can help protect the rights of consumers 
and small businesses in order to be able to repair the products 
that they now own and prevent manufacturers from having undue 
monopolies on repair.
    So we look forward to working as a Committee to explore 
bipartisan actions to accomplish this goal.
    And without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days 
to submit statements and supporting materials for the record.
    If there is no further business before the Committee, 
without objection, we will adjourn. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]


                            A P P E N D I X


              [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                               [all]