• Under your proposed tax plan, you have endorsed a number of provisions which would be harmful to family owned businesses, including a large number of our Members. Specifically, we ask that you reconsider the following profound tax increases as these proposed changes would compound the financial and compliance burden on next generation family business owners including many of our Members: Death Tax Plan: Under your proposed tax plan, you have proposed a return to 2009 law for the death tax ($3.5 million exemption and 45% rate vs. $11.7 exemption for individuals/$23.4 million for couples in 2021 and 40% rate). This would more than triple the number of taxpayers currently subject to the death tax including many of our Members. Step up in basis repeal: Stepping up the basis of property protects next generation business owners from the potential of paying double taxes by virtue of a 40% death tax and then another large capital gains tax upon the sale or future passing on of the business. Such an action demands an immense amount of liquidity simply to pay the taxes on a business for which there has been to corresponding influx of cash as there would be in the event of a sale. Capital Gains Due at Death: Death is not a predictable event and when a business owner passes away, inheritors under your plan owe capital gains taxes as if a profitable sale of the family business had occurred. This presumes a high degree of liquidity that the average small business owner does not have and would jeopardize many family businesses. Taxing Capital Gains as Ordinary Income: A part owner of a large family business would potentially have to pay the ordinary income tax rate on a small business they inherited at death versus the capital gains tax rate. Again, this proposed policy presumes liquidity that the average small business owner does not have and would, as a result, jeopardize many family businesses. Repeal of LIFO (Last In/First Out): Any repeal of the Last In/First Out accounting method should not be adopted. There are approximately 10,000 businesses that use the LIFO method based on IRS statistics and most of the businesses that use the LIFO method are small businesses rather than large, publicly traded companies.
• EDA expresses its opposition to the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act (H.R. 842/S. 420). The PRO Act would drastically restructure Americas labor laws resulting in economic upheaval that would cost millions of American jobs, threaten vital supply chains, and greatly diminish opportunities for entrepreneurs and small businesses. The bills attempts to achieve its primary objectives of increasing union density and union leverage at the bargaining table without regard for the negative impacts the legislation would have on workers, businesses, and the economy.
• Past Administrations and their respective infrastructure initiatives have focused on urban and suburban infrastructure while failing to address the unique needs of rural communities. We ask that your Administration prioritize rural communities and these unique needs as part of a comprehensive infrastructure renewal effort. American agriculture takes immense pride in feeding the world and our industry creates millions of jobs for U.S. workers. Plainly, our neglected and deteriorating infrastructure threatens our position in the world market. We appreciate that your plan specifically includes roads and bridges, locks and dams, railroads, electrical, water systems and broadband.
• Proposed Class (b)(9) can be renewed in its current form, and potentially clarified with certain definitions. The Copyright Office, however, should not permit the expansion of Proposed Class (b)(9) in the guise of so-called renewal as part of a broader Proposed Class 12. First, expanding the exemption to include third-party service providers likely exceeds the permissible scope of these Section 1201(a)(1)(B)-(C) proceedings by violating the separate prohibitions on trafficking in circumvention tools and services as provided in Section 1201(a)(2) and 1201(b)(1), which are not subject to this triennial exemption procedure. Second, as noted in the Notice, the Copyright Office reviewed and declined to adopt the remaining proposed expansions in the 2018 Section 1201 Exemption Rulemaking. 85 Fed. Reg. 65,307 nn.201, 204. There is no reason to reach a different outcome here. Any proposed renewal should be subject to the same limitations as embodied in the current regulations, and additional definitional clarifications are warranted. Proposed Class 16 exceeds the permissible scope of an exemption in these proceedings. Section 1201(a)(1)(B) limits the scope of any anti-circumvention exemption to users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such [users] are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works[.] (Emphasis added.) As the Copyright Office noted, this rulemaking process requires a showing of distinct, verifiable and measurable adverse impacts on noninfringing uses, which cannot be hypothetical, theoretical, or speculative and must be real, tangible, and concrete. Id. (citing Commerce Committee Report at 37; Section 1201 Study at 119-21). For these reasons, broad proposed categories such as fair use works or educational fair use works [are] inappropriate. Id. (citing 2015 Recommendation at 100 (citing 2006 Recommendation at 17-19). Here, the Copyright Office correctly noted that Proposed Class 16 is not limited to particular users or types of devices or particular uses. Id. Indeed, as written, Proposed Class 16 sweepingly applies to an unlimited set of users for all computer programs-irrespective of any particular type of machine or device-for any lawful uses.
• The Federal Communications Commissions (Commission) recent failure to stay the Ligado Order, and to thereby respect that congressional purpose as articulated in the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (NDAA), is problematic given Congress clear view that the Ligado Order insufficiently and/or erroneously assessed the real-world risks of the harmful interference that would be caused by Ligados proposed terrestrial network. A broad cross-section of commercial and federal users across industries and professions, including farmers and ranchers who rely on satellite services to meet their precision agriculture needs, are fundamental to our economy, national security, and safety. We respectfully urge the Administration to work with your counterparts in the Senate and ensure that that the Commission reverses its decision denying the Petition for Reconsideration and to Stay the Order in favor of an immediate stay and reconsideration of that decision.

Duration: November 6, 2017 to April 30, 2021

General Issues: Taxation/Internal Revenue Code, Labor Issues/Antitrust/Workplace, Roads/Highway, Agriculture, Communications/Broadcasting/Radio/TV, Trade (Domestic & Foreign), Accounting, Law Enforcement/Crime/Criminal Justice, Telecommunications, Government Issues, Miscellaneous Tariff Bills

Spending: about $152,500 (But it's complicated. Here's why.)

It can be tricky to figure out how much an organization spent on a particular lobbying engagement. The law only requires lobbyists to report the amount they were paid for federal lobbying each quarter rounded to the nearest $10,000—and if it's less than $3,000 in a given quarter (or less than $13,000 for organizations with in-house lobbyists), they don't have to disclose it at all. Plus, some organizations include spending that doesn’t belong in the report—for instance, money spent lobbying state governments or other legal work.

Agencies lobbied since 2017: President of the U.S., U.S. Senate, House of Representatives, U.S. Copyright Office, Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Labor - Dept of (DOL), Agriculture - Dept of (USDA), Homeland Security - Dept of (DHS), White House Office, Treasury - Dept of, Executive Office of the President (EOP), Office of Management & Budget (OMB), U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), Federal Trade Commission (FTC)