[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 22 (Thursday, February 3, 2022)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E107]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            BIOECONOMY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2021

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. ZOE LOFGREN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 2, 2022

  Ms. LOFGREN. Madam Speaker, I rise to address H.R. 4521, the America 
COMPETES Act of 2022, which the House is considering. I have worked 
closely with several committees on key parts of this legislation--
including the creation of a new class of start-up visas to attract the 
next generation of Immigrant entrepreneurs and the reauthorization of 
the National Science Foundation to supercharge our country's 
investments in cutting-edge research. However, I have concerns with 
another part of this bill--the inclusion of the ``SHOP SAFE Act'' in 
Section 80301.
  The laudable intent behind the SHOP SAFE Act is to help combat the on 
line sale of counterfeit goods, which I certainly share. However, the 
SHOP SAFE Act as presently constructed has three flaws.
  First, SHOP SAFE could raise the administrative burdens and 
transaction costs of many small businesses and small sellers. This 
could be especially disruptive for the sale of used goods and other 
secondary markets, and for artisanal and other non-mass market products 
that do not fit neatly into the big-brand templates that this bill 
would likely impose. As a result, consumers could also suffer as costs 
go up and sellers could go down in many of these markets.
  Second, only the largest online marketplaces with the deepest pockets 
may be able to bear the full technological and economic burdens that 
SHOP SAFE would impose. As a result, the bill risks entrenching their 
dominance at the expense of nascent and future competitors.
  Third, SHOP SAFE takes a ``kitchen-sink'' approach to combat 
counterfeit listings, imposing over a dozen sweeping requirements that 
platforms must implement to avoid crippling liability for third-party 
infringement. Yet no one has been able to explain which of these steps, 
if any, will really make a difference over the status quo in stemming 
the flow of counterfeits. Indeed, some online marketplaces already 
police their listings in many different ways, without the legal 
pressure imposed by this bill.
  These concerns came up during the Judiciary Committee's markup of the 
SHOP SAFE Act last fall. Members, including several who voted to 
advance the bill, called for further work on the bill. Based on public 
discussion at the markup, it was expected a committee-driven process to 
make changes to the SHOP SAFE Act would happen before it moved forward. 
Regrettably, given that the ordinary legislative process towards the 
floor did not occur, we now find SHOP SAFE has been inserted without 
improvements into this much larger legislation.
  There is another approach included in the America COMPETES Act, in 
Section 20213, the INFORM Consumers Act. This legislation would boost 
enforcement efforts through regulation by requiring on line 
marketplaces to verify the identity of high-volume sellers, while 
requiring the disclosure of basic information about seller identity to 
consumers. Some of these requirements overlap with those imposed in the 
SHOP SAFE Act.
  As such, the America COMPETES Act contains two visions of how to make 
sure on line marketplaces are safe. It is my hope that a targeted 
approach, like the INFORM Consumers Act, will help bring forth a 
sensible resolution to this issue as the America COMPETES Act moves to 
a conference committee.

                          ____________________