February 12th, 2026

The Honorable Members
United States Congress
Washington, D.C. 20515

RE: Coalition Opposing the Codification of Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing

Dear Members of Congress,

We, the undersigned organizations, write in opposition to codifying a Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) prescription drug pricing model into law.

In addition to doing nothing to address foreign freeloading, MFN would reduce access to new cures and reduce U.S. global competitiveness, ceding ground to China.

While supporters of this proposal correctly identify the unique problems facing the American health care system – namely, wealthy countries paying artificially lower prices for prescription drugs than the U.S. and the fact that this depresses innovation and inflates our costs – MFN would not solve these problems. In fact, it would exacerbate them.

Instead, lawmakers should focus on reforms that unleash the free market and protect intellectual property rights, encouraging competition and innovation. These policies lower drug costs over time while expanding patient choice and preserving incentives for lifesaving medical breakthroughs. Diplomatic pressure should be brought to bear on foreign governments to insist that they begin to pay their freight.

MFN would do nothing to stop foreign freeloading.

MFN would surrender to foreign freeloading by basing U.S. prices on the prices of countries with socialist policies. Supporters of MFN hope that it will incentivize manufacturers to negotiate better deals. However, this is based on the flawed assumption that American manufacturers are not already fighting as hard as they can against foreign price controls.

There is little or no negotiation between foreign governments and manufacturers, forcing innovators to accept lower prices in a “take-it-or-leave it” proposition. The fact is that European countries would likely retaliate if pharmaceutical manufacturers took offensive action to try to negotiate away from government-set prices. For example, if a pharmaceutical company withdrew from a market, a European government could revoke its patents. Article 5 of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property allows for compulsory licensing if a company declines to sell its product.

Additionally, if multiple companies were to withdraw from a market, the European Commission could accuse said companies of “cartel-like strategy” to manipulate prices, a violation of EU competition law. In the EU, “cartel participation” carries high penalties, including fines up to 10 percent of the company’s worldwide, total revenue over a year. In certain cases, it could also result in fines and imprisonment of specific individuals.

MFN would reduce access to new cures.

If the U.S. implements the same price controls utilized by foreign countries, companies cannot expect to recuperate the R&D costs for the medicines they create. This will depress innovation and reduce cures available to patients while causing an unacceptable degree of drug shortages.

According to a study by the Galen Institute, patients in the U.S. had access to nearly 90 percent of new medical substances launched between 2011 and 2018. By contrast, other developed countries had a fraction of these new cures. Patients in the United Kingdom had 60 percent of new substances, Japan had 50 percent, Canada had 44 percent, and Spain had 14 percent.

The drug development industry already faces a high level of risk in recouping R&D costs. During an average drug development process, a manufacturer must invest an average of $2.6 billion and spend 11.5 to 15 years in research and development. In addition, most drug development programs fail. As detailed by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF), for 5,000 to 10,000 compounds screened during basic drug discovery phases, 250 molecular compounds (2.5 to 5 percent) make it to preclinical testing. Of the 250 molecular compounds, 5 make it to clinical testing. Thus, as little as 0.05 percent of drugs make it from drug discovery to clinical trials. Of the few medicines that make it to clinical testing, only about 12 percent of medicines that begin clinical trials are approved for introduction by the FDA. Even if a drug is approved, it is likely that the profits from said drug will not recoup its R&D costs.

MFN would reduce the United States’ global competitiveness in medical innovation.

Not only is this lack of innovation a threat to patients and the health of future patients, but it would cause the United States to be a follower, not a leader, in medical innovation. At a time when China is rapidly narrowing the innovation gap, causing our research and development to stagnate or fall would seal our fate as second-best in biotechnology.

ITIF describes the ways in which China is catching up to the U.S. in biotech:

• Clinical trial activity in China more than doubled from 2,979 trials in 2017 to 6,497 trials in 2021. Alternatively, the United States saw only a 10 percent increase during this time, from 4,557 to 5,008 trials.
• Chinese oncology trials grew 146 percent from 1,040 in 2017 to 2,564 in 2021, the highest for any country. In the United States, oncology clinical trials grew from 1,664 in 2017 to 1,690 in 2021, a 1.56 percent increase.
• China increased its global share of value-added pharmaceuticals output from roughly 5.6 percent in 2002 to 24.2 percent in 2019.
• From 2013 to 2023, the number of biotech PCT patents awarded to Chinese entities increased by more than 720 percent, from 266 to 1,920, exceeding the European Union’s annual number starting in 2021. The number of patents awarded to U.S. filers over the same period increased by 67 percent.
• China’s share of global biotechnology venture capital raised grew from a mere 3.5 percent in 2010 to 18.9 percent in 2020. At the same time, the U.S. share declined from about 68.6 percent to 62.1 percent.

We urge all members of Congress to oppose codifying an MFN drug pricing model.

Unfortunately, this policy would not cause other countries to pay their fair share of the cost of prescription drugs. Instead, it would import socialist price controls and values into our country. Medical innovation in the U.S. would take a significant hit, harming patients and ceding the U.S.’s position as the world’s biotech leader to China.

Signed,

Grover Norquist
President, Americans for Tax Reform

Tim Chapman
President, Advancing American Freedom

Saulius “Saul” Anuzis
President, American Association of Senior Citizens

Marty Connors
Chair, Alabama Center Right Coalition

Phil Kerpen
President, American Commitment

Tirzah Duren
President, American Consumer Institute

Dee Stewart
President, Americans for a Balanced Budget

Richard Manning
President, Americans for Limited Government

Rea S. Hederman Jr.
Vice President of Policy, The Buckeye Institute

Anthony J. Zagotta
President, Center for American Principles

Ryan Ellis
President, Center for a Free Economy

Daniel J. Mitchell
President, Center for Freedom and Prosperity

Jeffrey Mazzella
President, Center for Individual Freedom

Ginevra Joyce-Myers
Executive Director, Center for Innovation and Free Enterprise (CIFE)

Bob Johnson
Senior Advisor, Commitment to Seniors

Jeremy Nighohossian
Senior Fellow and Economist, Competitive Enterprise Institute

James Edwards
Executive Director, Conservatives for Property Rights

Matthew Kandrach
President, Consumer Action for a Strong Economy

Elizabeth Hayes
Head of External Affairs, Consumer Choice Center

Sal Nuzzo
Executive Director, Consumers Defense

Joel C. White
President, Council for Affordable Health Coverage

Tom Schatz
President, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

Kendall Cotton
President and CEO, Frontier Institute

George Landrith
President, Frontiers of Freedom

Mario H. Lopez
President, Hispanic Leadership Fund

Stephen Ezell
VP for Global Innovation Policy, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation

Bartlett Cleland
Executive Director, Innovation Economy Alliance

Tom Giovanetti
President, Institute for Policy Innovation

Andrew Langer
President, Institute for Liberty

Annette Olson
Chief Executive Officer, The John K. MacIver Institute for Public Policy, Inc.

Brian Balfour
Senior VP of Research, John Locke Foundation

Alfredo Ortiz
CEO, Job Creators Network

Carlos F. Orta
President & CEO, The Latino Coalition

Charles Sauer
President, Market Institute

Emily Stack
Executive Director, Moms for America Action

Chris Cargill
President, Mountain States Policy Center

Pete Sepp
President, National Taxpayers Union

Gerard Kassar
State Chairman, New York State Conservative Party

Sally Pipes
President and CEO, Pacific Research Institute

Daniel J. Erspamer
Chief Executive Officer, Pelican Institute for Public Policy

Lorenzo Montanari
Executive Director, Property Rights Alliance

Paul Gessing
President, Rio Grande Foundation

James Erwin
Executive Director, Digital Liberty
Interim Director, Shareholder Advocacy Forum

James L. Martin
Founder/Chairman, 60 Plus Association

Karen Kerrigan
President & CEO, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council

Kerri Toloczko
Chair, Southwest Florida Center Right Coalition

David Miller
Chair, Center Right Southwest Ohio

David Williams
President, Taxpayers Protection Alliance

Kent Kaiser, Ph.D.
Executive Director, Trade Alliance to Promote Prosperity

Steve Moore
Co-Founder, Unleash Prosperity Now

Morton Blackwell
Virginia Republican National Committeeman

Kevin Riffe
Chairman, West Virginia Center Right Coalition

Dear Representative/Senator,

We appreciate your leadership in advancing President Trump’s agenda to reduce government spending and restore accountability by reining in bureaucracy and rooting out waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement in Washington.

That work is essential, and as you move forward to build on your success for the remainder of the 119th Congress, there is a clear opportunity to deliver more meaningful results by eliminating the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI).

CMMI was created in the Affordable Care Act with a narrow mandate to test limited payment “models” for Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program that would reduce costs and improve care. The Congressional Budget Office originally projected that CMMI would save $2.8 billion between 2011 and 2020. Instead, it lost $5.4 billion during that period and is projected to lose another $1.3 billion by 2030.

A June 2021 report found that only four of 174 CMMI models sufficiently met the required standards of reduced spending or improved quality to be expanded across Medicare nationwide.   Common sense dictates that any federal program with such an abysmal rate of success should not be given any further opportunity to waste the taxpayers’ money.

Yet CMMI’s defenders argue the agency will eventually “get better.” Fifteen years of failure prove otherwise. No private enterprise with this record would be allowed to continue operating, let alone expand its authority.

Rather than correcting course, CMMI has expanded the scale, scope, and coerciveness of its models. They interfere with the decisions of doctors and patients about the best course of care, and override policy decisions made by Congress. They also disrupt care delivery and burden providers with administrative complexity and undermine patient choice.

CMMI has a guaranteed source of funding that gives unelected bureaucrats broad authority to make healthcare policy decisions without any obligation to succeed. The lack of accountability and transparency and disregard for outcomes are costly for taxpayers and dangerous for patients.

CMMI is a failure. It is time for Congress to shut it down.

Sincerely,

Tom Schatz
President
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

James L. Martin
Founder and Chairman
60 Plus Association

Tim Chapman
President
Advancing American Freedom

Saulius Anuzis
President
American Association of Senior Citizens

Phil Kerpen
President
American Commitment

Dee Stewart
President & CEO
Americans for a Balanced Budget

Grover Norquist
President
Americans for Tax Reform

Rebecca Weber
CEO
Association of Mature American Citizens

Melissa Ortiz
Founder & Principal
Capability Consulting

Anthony Zagotta
President
Center for American Principles

Ryan Ellis
President
Center for a Free Economy

Jeff Mazzella
President
Center for Individual Freedom

Ginevra Joyce-Myers
Executive Director
Center for Innovation and Free Enterprise

Andrew Langer
Executive Director
Coalition Against Socialized Medicine

Bob Johnson
Senior Advisor
Commitment to Seniors

Jeremy Nighohossian
Senior Fellow & Economist
Competitive Enterprise Institute

James Edwards
Executive Director
Conservatives for Property Rights

Gerard Scimeca
Chairman
Consumer Action for a Strong Economy

Joel White
President
Council for Affordable Health Coverage

Eunie Smith
President
Eagle Forum of Alabama

George Landrith
President
Frontiers of Freedom

Beverly Gossage
President
HSA Benefits Consulting

Carol Davis
Chair
Illinois Conservative Union

Tom Giovanetti
President
Institute for Policy Innovation

Brian Balfour
Senior Vice President of Research
John Locke Foundation

Seton Motley
President
Less Government

Colin Hanna
President
Let Freedom Ring

Tim Jones
Former Speaker
Missouri House of Representatives
Founder
Leadership for America Institute

Pete Sepp
President
National Taxpayers Union

Tami L. Fitzgerald J.D.
Executive Director
NC Values Coalition

Sally C. Pipes
President & CEO
Pacific Research Institute

Drew White
Founder & CEO
Palisade Policy Group

Paul Gessing
President
Rio Grande Foundation

Trent England
Executive Director
Save Our States

Karen Kerrigan
President & CEO
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council

Kerri Toloczko
Founder & Chair
Southwest Florida Center-Right Coalition

David Williams
President
Taxpayers Protection Alliance

Paul Teller
President
Teller Strategies

Bob Carlstrom
President
The Carlstrom Group

Kent Kaiser
Executive Director
Trade Alliance to Promote Prosperity

Steve Moore
Co-Founder
Unleash Prosperity Now

Kevin Riffe
Chairman
West Virginia Center-Right Coalition

Mario H. Lopez
President
Hispanic Leadership Fund

Andrew Langer
President
Institute for Liberty

Tom Giovanetti
President
Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI)

Ian Adams
Executive Director
International Center for Law and Economics

Seton Motley
President
Less Government

Matthew Gagnon
Chief Executive Officer
Maine Policy Institute

Charlie Sauer
President
Market Institute

Patrick A. McLaughlin
Research Fellow, Hoover Institution*
Visiting Research Fellow, Pacific Legal Foundation*
*Affiliation for identification purposes only

Roslyn Layton
Senior Fellow
National Security Institute

Pete Sepp
President
National Taxpayers Union

John Tamny
President
Parkview Institute

Daniel J. Erspamer
Chief Executive Officer
Pelican Institute for Public Policy

Paul Gessing
President
Rio Grande Foundation

Karen Kerrigan
President & CEO
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council

Patrick Brenner
President and CEO
Southwest Public Policy Institute

Ross Marchand
Executive Director
Taxpayers Protection Alliance

March 13, 2025

Dear Secretary Yellen:

We represent a broad coalition of free-market, conservative, and individual liberty organizations united in our support of a market free of government interference – in this case Nippon Steel’s proposed acquisition of U.S. Steel.

Nippon Steel is paying $14 billion for U. S. Steel because free market tax and regulatory policies pursued over time have made the United States an attractive destination for foreign investment. In particular, lowering the corporate income tax rate from 35 percent (the highest in the developed world) to 21 percent, along with providing full business expensing, neutral treatment of interest derived from investment debt, and full research deductibility (all vital to steel manufacturers) have vastly improved the U.S. investment climate.

Additionally, if Nippon Steel purchases U. S. Steel it will maintain all plants and workers in the United States, a big improvement over a status quo where the American steel industry lost workers nearly every year since World War II. If U.S. Steel is acquired by a competitor other than Nippon Steel, there is no doubt these job slides will continue.

The combination of Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel will create one of the world’s largest and most globally competitive steel companies. Finally, the United States–along with our longtime allies in Japan–will be able to challenge the socialist, government-subsidized Chinese steel industry anywhere in the world. A free market steel industry that comes from democratic republics will give emerging countries a better choice against China than they have today. There is no understating both the soft and hard power advantages to this for the United States.

The acquisition of U.S. Steel by Nippon Steel is a good outcome from our perspective, and we urge the Administration to let it proceed without political interference.

Sincerely,

Charles Sauer
Market Institute

Grover Norquist
Americans for Tax Reform

John Tamny
Parkview Institute

David McIntosh
Club for Growth

Gerard Scimeca
Case for Consumers

Steve Moore
Unleash Prosperity Network

James Martin
60 Plus

Dan Mitchell
Center for Freedom and Prosperity

James Edwards
Conservatives for Property Rights

Jason Pye
Freedomworks

George Landrith
Frontiers of Freedom

Jeff Cargerman
Inventor’s Project

Terry Neese
National Grassroots Network

Yael Ossowski
Consumer Choice Center

Tom Giovanetti
Institute for Policy Innovation

Ryan Ellis
Center for a Free Economy

Pete Sepp
National Taxpayers Union

Phil Kerpen
American Commitment

Angela McArdle
Libertarian National Committee

Ryan Young
Competitive Enterprise Institute

Jeff Mazzella
Center for Individual Freedom

Saul Anuzis
American Association of Senior Citizens

Julie Cho
Fairer America

James Davis
Fans for Fair Play

Colonel Rob Maness
Gator PAC

James Golden
New Journey PAC

Norm Singleton
US Policy

Mario H. Lopez
Hispanic Leadership Fund

Ralph Benko
Capitalist League

Steve Pociask
American Consumer Institute

Tom Hebert
Open Competition Center

Lisa Cathy
African American Education Alliance

Donny Ferguson
Americans for a Better Economy

Donna Jackson
Project 21

Joshua Delano
Southeast Texans for Liberty

David Williams
Taxpayer Protection Alliance

Gene Mills
Louisiana Family Forum

Karen Kerrigan
Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council

Paul Gessing
Rio Grande Foundation

Patrick Brenner
Southwest Public Policy Center

Autry Pruitt
MAGA Black

Casey Given
Young Voices

Jerry Rogers
Institute for Liberty

July 10, 2025

Dear Commissioner,

We, the undersigned organizations, urge you to reject the National Association of Broadcaster’s petition to force competitors to use their preferred technology. While broadcasters operate under the strain of onerous regulation dating from the Second World War, new mandates on other technologies are not the solution.

NAB petitioned the Commission to mandate the adoption of Next Generation Television (Next Gen TV) with Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) standards, despite widespread adoption already. Next Gen TV is already operating on ATSC 1.0 to ATSC 3.0 technologies available for broadcasters and multichannel video programming distributers (cable and satellite) should they choose to use it.

And they have chosen. More than three out of every four Americans have access to ATSC 3.0. It is available in more than 80 markets in parallel to ATSC 1.0 technology delivering digital television. The argument that this is even a problem demanding the Commission’s intervention is flimsy given this fact.

By any reasonable standard, this is a success. Under the Commission’s original 2017 report and order authorizing ATSC 3.0, broadcasters are allowed use the new standard on a “voluntary, market-driven basis.” The Commission should maintain its voluntary, market-driven adoption policy that has reached the vast majority of Americans, not embrace a mandate just to reach the small minority of markets broadcasters have struggled to penetrate.

NAB effectively asks the FCC to do their job for them by mandating ATSC adoption in the remaining markets to reach the untapped 25 percent or so of the population. In what is unfortunately a tale as old as time, they would rather use the government to limit genuine competition by forcing their competitors to adopt their standards, ironically in the name of “competition,” than petition the government to reduce their own regulatory burden so they can meet the challenges of the 21st Century.

The Commission should take the plight of broadcasters seriously. They should be understood as a legacy technology that was saddled with a steep regulatory burden back when that was in vogue in the mid-20th Century. The solution now is to deregulate and allow genuine market competition to dictate which technologies survive and thrive. This is precisely what the FCC did in 2017 with the original ATSC 3.0 order. The FCC should stick to this roadmap that has empowered consumer choice while allowing broadcasters to consolidate and capitalize.

We thank the FCC for its attention to this matter and urge you reject mandates and maintain market-driven approaches to new technologies.

Sincerely,

Grover Norquist 
President
Americans for Tax Reform 

James Erwin
Executive Director
Digital Liberty

Deborah Collier
Executive Director
Citizens Against Government Waste

Chuck Muth
President
Citizen Outreach

Daniel Erspamer
CEO
Pelican Institute

Jarrett Skorup
Vice President for Marketing and Communications
Mackinac Center for Public Policy

Tom Giovanetti
President 
Institute for Policy Innovation

Bartlett Cleland
Executive Director
Innovation Economy Alliance

Jeff Mazzella
President
Center for Individual Freedom

Paul Gessing
President
Rio Grande Foundation

David Williams
President
Taxpayer Protection Alliance

Matthew Kandrach
President
Consumer Action for a Strong Economy

Edward Longe
Director of Technology and Innovation
James Madison Institute

Rosemary Becchi
Founder and President
Jersey 1st

Jeff Westling*

Luke Hogg*

*Indicates Individual Signer

May 5, 2025

The Honorable Scott Bessent
Secretary
United States Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC. 20220

Kevin Hassett
Director
National Economic Council
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington DC  20500

The Honorable John Thune (R-SD)
Senate Majority Leader
United States Senate
Washington DC 20510

The Honorable Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Chairman Senate Finance
United States Senate
Washington DC  20510

The Honorable Mike Johnson (R-LA)
Speaker of the House
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington DC. 20515

The Honorable Jason Smith (R-MO)
Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington DC  20515

We write today in opposition to any limits on the ability of businesses to deduct state and local taxes paid, unless offset dollar for dollar by new, broad-based, and permanent pro-growth tax reforms.

The ability of businesses to deduct state and local taxes paid on their profits is a longstanding “ordinary and necessary expense” embedded in the U.S. tax code. Corporations have been able to deduct state corporate income tax paid for as long as such taxes have existed. “Pass through” entities like Subchapter-S companies, partnerships, etc. were confirmed in their ability to deduct state and local profit taxes paid at the entity level in the 2017 “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.” And businesses have always been able to deduct all other state and local taxes, such as property taxes and severance/extraction taxes.

The challenges businesses face in the current economic environment means that tax hikes on them should be avoided. Tariffs, wild stock and bond market swings, and widespread predictions of a recession mean that now is the wrong time to raise taxes on businesses.

President Trump and the Congressional Republican majority did not run on business tax increases. In fact, the GOP trifecta was achieved with the opposite promise–to stop tax increases across the board, and to make the Trump tax cuts permanent. Eliminating longstanding, ordinary and necessary business deductions raises average effective income tax rates.

Business taxes paid on business profits are fundamentally different from the individual SALT cap debate. Businesses deduct costs incurred for all ordinary and necessary expenses–rent, salaries, equipment, and state and local taxes. This has nothing to do with how much personal income tax, sales tax, and property tax an individual or family gets to deduct on their tax return. The two issues are only loosely connected because income taxes on businesses are apportioned based on where transactions take place, not where businesses are located.

It’s vitally important that all the provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act be made permanent. We look forward to working with you in the coming weeks to enact permanent, pro-growth tax reforms for American families and employers.

Sincerely,

Ryan Ellis
Center for a Free Economy

Kent Kaiser
Trade Alliance to Promote Prosperity

Patrick M. Brenner
Southwest Public Policy Institute

David Wallace
Fair Energy

Tom Giovanetti
Institute for Policy Innovation

James Davis
Fans for Fair Play

Paul Gessing
Rio Grande Foundation

Terry Neese
National Grassroots Network

Casey Givens
Young Voices

J.W. Delano
Southeast Texans for Liberty

S Corporation Association

National Ready Mixed Concrete Association

The Association for Hose and Accessories Distribution

Air Conditioning Contractors of America

National Roofing Contractors Association

National Wooden Pallet & Container Association

Hartz Mountain Industries

National Association of Convenience Stores

Saulius “Saul” Anuzis
American Association of Senior Citizens

Colonel Rob Maness
Gator PAC

The Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association

Glass Packaging Institute

Air Conditioning Contractors for America

National Tooling and Machining Association

Precision Metalforming Association

Performance Racing Industry

Charles Sauer
Market Institute

John Goodman
Goodman Institute

Susan Carleson
Carleson Center for Welfare Reform

Jeff Cargerman
Inventors Project

George Landrith
Frontiers of Freedom

Norm Singleton
US Policy

Jeffrey Mazzella
Center for Individual Freedom

C. Preston Noell III
Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.

Ryan McGowan
Institute for Legislative Analysis

Larry Ward
Constitutional Rights PAC

Palmer Schoening
Family Business Coalition

Associated Equipment Distributors

National Lumber & Building Material Dealers Association

American Subcontractors Association

Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council

Forest Resources Association

National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors

North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers

James L. Martin
60 Plus Association

Chadwick Hagan
Founding Principles PAC

International Foodservice Distributors Association

Jim Pfaff
Conservative Caucus

Water and Sewer Distributors of American

North American of Food Equipment Manufacturers

Precision Machined Products Association

Pete Sepp
National Taxpayers Union

Patrice Onwuka
Independent Women’s Voice

Jim Edwards
Conservatives for Property Rights

Andrew Langer
Institute for Liberty

Gabriel Llanes
Legacy of Liberty PAC

Bartlett Cleland, Innovation Economy Alliance

Kevin Kearns
US Business and Industry Council

Julio Rivera
Reactionary Times

Autry Pruitt
New Journey PAC

Matthew Kandrach
Case for Consumers

Angie Wong
Capitol Hill Fight Club PAC

Independent Electrical Contractors

Energy Marketers of America

Leading Builders of America

National Association of Professional Insurance Agents

Specialty Equipment Market Association

National Council of Farmer Cooperatives

National Propane Gas Association

Ralph Benko
Capitalist League

Structural Insulated Panel Association (SIPA)

Wholesale Florist and Floral Supplier Association

Irrigation Association

National Utility Contractors Association

National Retail Federation

FCA International

June 23, 2025

The Honorable Mike Johnson
Speaker of the House
521 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Jason Smith
Chairman, House Committee on Ways and Means
1011 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Speaker Johnson and Chairman Smith:

As Congress considers how to make the 2017 Trump tax cuts permanent, the undersigned organizations write to express our strong opposition to any proposals that would impose new taxes or restrictions on private charitable foundations. We support the recently released Senate Finance Committee’s language that eliminates the harmful private foundation tax increases included in the House-passed version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBA).

As nonprofit organizations that support individual liberty, limited government and free enterprise, we know policies that siphon private dollars away from charities to line the government’s coffers are antithetical to conservative values and significantly impair the ability to pursue our missions.

Our organizations support conservative and free market leaders whose research and analysis inform policy ideas, increase government accountability and transparency efforts, educate the public, drive civic engagement and promote American values.

We would not be the only ones harmed by such policies, however. Charitable giving supports nearly every conservative cause from advancing the school choice and pro- life movements to protecting our constitutional rights and religious freedoms—as well as community groups nationwide that support our country’s most vulnerable.

While President Trump and congressional leadership have made laudable strides toward lowering taxes and addressing runaway federal spending, imposing additional taxes and restrictions on charitable giving undermines their goal of uplifting Americans.

The draft Senate bill rightly eliminates the private foundation tax increases included in the House version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBA). The House-passed bill would raise taxes on charities by more than 600%, allowing the IRS to take nearly $16 billion from private charitable foundations that would otherwise help improve the lives of many Americans. Countless programs and services that provide for the needs of people in every state are funded by the generosity of private citizens. Without them, we would see more Americans reliant on government, which ultimately costs us all more for what is often an inefficient bureaucratic solution.

This enormous transfer of private resources to fund big government spending runs counter to conservative principles and the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce the size and scope of the federal bureaucracy. Instead of targeting the resources of private foundations, Congress should view them as the perfect partner to fill the gaps as policymakers roll back bloated and ineffective government programs.

The truth is that most private foundations operate with lean staff, long-term vision and a deep commitment to serving their communities. Increasing their tax burden would discourage the generosity of families and individuals who voluntarily choose to dedicate time and resources to improving the world for those around them.

Charitable giving helps form the bedrock of a resilient America by supporting organizations committed to creating a stronger, healthier society where every person has the opportunity to thrive. We support our nation’s long history of encouraging private initiative and generosity that benefits the common good, and we will work to advance conservative and free market policies that continue this legacy.

Respectfully,

Christie Herrera
Philanthropy Roundtable

Brent Gardner
Americans for Prosperity

Tim Chapman
Advancing American Freedom

Nathan A. Benefield
Commonwealth Foundation

Nicole Neily
Defending Education

Kristina Rasmussen
Do No Harm

Annette Meeks
Freedom Foundation of Minnesota

Victor Riches
Goldwater Institute

Randy Hicks
Georgia Center for Opportunity

Ronald M. Nate, Ph.D.
Idaho Freedom Foundation

Jon Caldara
Independence Institute

Patrice Onwuka
Independent Women

Tom Giovanetti
Institute for Policy Innovation

Mary Ellen Beatty
Institute for the American Worker

Jenna A. Robinson
James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal

Joseph G. Lehman
Mackinac Center for Public Policy

Jason Mercier
Mountain States Policy Center

Pete Sepp
National Taxpayers Union

Jonathan Small
Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs

Sally Pipes
Pacific Research Institute

Wendy Damron
Palmetto Promise Institute

Daniel J. Erspamer
Pelican Institute for Public Policy

Heather Lauer
People United for Privacy Foundation

Brenda Talent
Show-Me Institute

Paul J. Gessing
Rio Grande Foundation

Tracie Sharp
State Policy Network

David Williams
Taxpayers Protection Alliance

Todd F. Gaziano
The Center for Individual Rights

Roger R. Ream
The Fund for American Studies

Jennifer Schubert-Akin
The Steamboat Institute

CC: All members of the House Republican Conference

June 27, 2025

The Honorable Howard Lutnick 
Secretary of Commerce
1401 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20230

Dear Secretary Lutnick:

We sincerely appreciate your and President Trump’s continuing efforts to fix the many problems left to you by the Biden Administration. We know you are dealing with an array of significant challenges and applaud the work you have done thus far. We write to bring to your attention another example of Biden Administration injustice that we believe merits your prompt attention.

The undersigned conservative organizations are strong supporters of property rights and applaud the steps the Administration has already taken to support a strong patent system which drives tremendous innovation and economic activity. We are extremely concerned about the Biden Administration’s tolerance of the abuse of the Inter Partes Review (IPR) process, and urge you to take immediate steps to remedy those matters.

This matter concerns the United States patent system, the integrity of which has been eroded by misguided policies heavily influenced by opponents of strong property rights. We applaud the work of the Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Coke Morgan Stewart, who has demonstrated bold leadership in swiftly rescinding Biden Administration policies that enabled large companies to weaponize the administrative state against American inventors and entrepreneurs.

For example, former USPTO Director Kathi Vidal created an arbitrary and widely criticized “compelling merits” standard in a June 21, 2022 policy memo, which she wielded to institute administrative proceedings against issued patents that Article III courts previously had found valid and infringed. Acting Director Stewart rescinded that policy on February 28, 2025, and she has vacated proceedings against patent owners that would not otherwise have been instituted.

Yet despite all of this progress, it has come to our attention that the USPTO continues to defend two of the most egregious and high-profile applications of the repudiated “compelling merits” standard. These cases are currently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: VLSI Tech. LLC v. OpenSky Indus., LLC & Intel Corp., Nos. 23-2158, 23-2159 (Fed. Cir.), and VLSI Tech. LLC v. Patent Quality Assurance LLC & Intel Corp., Nos. 23-2298, 23-2354 (Fed. Cir.). The USPTO has intervened in these appeals to defend the decisions of the Biden Administration, but should—in our view—request immediate remands to the agency.

In these cases, former Director Vidal personally intervened and handed Intel Corporation—her former client—an unwarranted opportunity to revive challenges to VLSI Technology LLC’s patents previously rejected by the PTAB after a jury determined that Intel infringed those patents and owed VLSI billions of dollars in damages. These inter partes review (IPR) patent challenges never should have been permitted in the first place. They were requested by mysterious shell entities and—in Director Vidal’s own words—abused “the IPR process, the patent system, and the USPTO.” See OpenSky Indus., LLC v. VLSI Tech. LLC, IPR2021-01064, Paper 102 (PTAB Oct. 4, 2022); Patent Quality Assurance, LLC v. VLSI Tech. LLC, IPR2021-01229, Paper 102 (PTAB Dec. 22, 2022). Former Director Vidal should have terminated those proceedings.

But that is not what she did. Instead, former Director Vidal expressly invoked her “compelling merits” standard to enable statutorily time-barred petitioner Intel Corporation to step into the shoes of these shell entities. She also suppressed and sealed an anonymous whistleblower report linking Intel to one of these abusive shell entities. That result is not only legally suspect, but also plainly unfair. Intel already had attempted to challenge these same patents during the first Trump Administration. Intel lost and was statutorily barred from bring further challenges. Moreover, a jury found the patent infringed to the tune of over $2 billion in damages, and an Article III court also rejected Intel’s validity challenges.

Acting Director Stewart has not only rescinded the policy underlying this miscarriage of justice, she also stated her disagreement with these outcomes. In a brief recently submitted to the Federal Circuit in the pending appeals, the USPTO unequivocally states that “the current Acting Director would not have similarly decided this case, particularly in view of the fact that petitioner had engaged in serious misconduct and the fact that the joined party was otherwise time barred and had prior IPR petitions denied . . . .” We fail to understand how the PTO continues to defend these Biden Administration decisions that countenance “serious misconduct.”

We ask that you consider directing the agency to request an immediate remand of these matters from the Federal Circuit back to the USPTO. Once these cases are remanded, the agency can conduct a full and honest investigation under the authority granted to it, consistent with the facts and the law, free of the political influence and manipulation that has created this situation. Indeed, we take no position on the ultimate merits, but believe proceedings from the government should be fair and free of abuse, misconduct, and gamesmanship. Further, it is not too much to ask that the PTO understand who or what is bankrolling Open Sky and PQA.

By securing remand of these cases to the USPTO, you will have restored integrity to the process, struck a blow against swamp culture, and reverse the abuses allowed during the Biden Administration. Conducting a thorough investigation will send a powerful message to abusers of the patent system: the Trump Administration will hold those who engage in “serious misconduct” accountable and such parties will no longer be allowed to run roughshod over the inventors and entrepreneurs whose ingenuity and investment propel innovation.

We applaud your and President Trump’s leadership in addressing the very significant problem of government agencies being captured by special interests and taking actions contrary to the interests of American workers, taxpayers, and our economy. You have made important progress in the Administration’s early days, and we look forward to seeing more in the days ahead.

We thank you in advance for your consideration of this important matter.

Sincerely,

George Landrith, President
Frontiers of Freedom Institute

James Edwards, Executive Director
Conservatives for Property Rights

John Schlafly, Treasurer
Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund
Phyllis Schlafly Eagles

Dick Patten, President
American Business Defense Council

Horace Cooper, Director
Project 21

Colin Hanna, Founder & President
Let Freedom Ring

James L. Martin, Founder & Chairman
60 Plus Association

Saulius “Saul” Anuzis, President
American Association of Senior Citizens

Chuck Muth, President
Citizen Outreach

Khaled Saffuri, President
National Interest Foundation

Kerri Toloczko, Chairman
SWFL Center-Right Coalition

Susan Taylor, President
Strengthening America for All

John Cooper, President
Defending America Foundation

Nicholas Willis, President
Americans for Liberty & Security

Mark Thomas, Founder
Freedom & Prosperity Caucus

Brian Crawford, President
The Last Best Hope on Earth Institute

Charles Sauer, President
Market Institue

Gerard Scimeca, Chairman
Consumer Action for a Strong Economy

David Wallace, Founder
Restore America's Mission

Tom Giovanetti, President
Institute for Policy Innovation

Ryan Ellis, President
Center for a Free Economy

Larry Harvey Policy Consultant

C. Preston Noell, III, President
Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.

Steve Pociask, Founder & Chairman
American Consumer Institute

Robert Romano, Executive Director
Americans for Limited Government

Timothy H. Lee, VP of Legal Affairs
Center for Individual Freedom

CC: Coke Morgan Stewart, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office

CC: Hon. Brendan Carr, Chairman, FCC

Hon. Anna Gomez, Commissioner, FCC

COMCAST CORPORATION

AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION

META PLATFORMS, INC.

OPEN TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE AT NEW AMERICA

PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE

QORVO, INC.

SHLB – Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition

WALLER COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP

March 31, 2025

The Honorable Howard Lutnick Secretary
U.S. Department of Commerce
1401 Constitution Ave NW Washington, D.C. 20230

Dear Secretary Lutnick,

Our companies and organizations write to express our strong support for preserving the fundamental aspects of the 3.5 GHz Citizens Broadband Radio Service (“CBRS”) band. CBRS is a shining example of U.S. leadership and innovation, proving that dynamic spectrum sharing between federal and commercial entities works, enabling a broad range of innovative wireless services and use cases, and positioning America as the clear global leader in private wireless networks.

Due to the diligent collaboration between the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (“NTIA”) within your department, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”), the Department of Defense (“DOD”), and industry, the CBRS sharing framework has proven so effective that in the over five years of commercial operations in the band not a single instance of harmful interference to the incumbent DOD systems in the band has been reported. And CBRS required no relocation or modification of these DOD systems. In fact, these government agencies and industry conducted a thorough review early last year of the CBRS experience thus far and collectively agreed to refinements to the DOD protection criteria that have significantly improved commercial services in the band.

The lower-power, localized nature of CBRS spectrum, coupled with options for both protected access with Priority Access Licenses (“PALs”) or opportunistic access at the General Authorized Access (“GAA”) tier, has resulted in widespread adoption across a range of use cases and applications. CBRS spectrum has been the key enabler of deployments for advanced manufacturing (semiconductors, electric vehicles and other automobiles, agricultural equipment, wireless systems, etc.), industrial and enterprise private networks, transportation and logistics connectivity (e.g., airports and shipping terminals), the U.S. military, rural broadband, competitive mobile services, school and library access, large public venues and sporting events, healthcare and more.

Of course, mobile operators utilize CBRS spectrum as well, with Verizon being the largest purchaser of CBRS licenses. Some key CBRS statistics from the latest NTIA report1 covering April 2021 thru July 2024 include the following:

• Since the Trump Administration’s late 2020 CBRS auction, well over 400,000 CBRS Base Stations have been installed (more than ALL of the of macro cellular sites in the U.S. combined), with over 1,000 entities actively using CBRS spectrum today.
• CBRS is utilized in nearly 83% of all counties in the United States.
• This exponential growth has been accomplished overwhelmingly through private investment, without the support of government subsidy programs.

CBRS, built largely by U.S. companies using U.S. products, has positioned the U.S. as the global leader in private wireless networks (5G and LTE networks deployed by industries and enterprise companies for internal connectivity needs). In this way, CBRS exemplifies your priority of making spectrum available for American businesses. The investments made in these private networks are one of the strongest growth areas in wireless, with the sector on track for annual growth of 20% through 2027.2 The Global mobile Suppliers Association (“GSA”) publishes a periodic report on Private Mobile Networks. In the latest report3 (February 2025), the GSA noted that CBRS was both the most widely used and fastest growing band globally for private mobile network deployments.

This has established the U.S. as the world leader in the fast-growing market for private networks, far exceeding other countries like China, as shown in the following chart from the report:

As your department evaluates our nation’s spectrum needs across federal and commercial uses, we urge you to maintain and protect the existing CBRS framework and the carefully selected and mutually agreed technical parameters that enable sharing. CBRS has proven successful, typifies American technology leadership, and can serve as the foundation for future federal/commercial spectrum sharing.

Very respectfully,

Access Humboldt

Barich, Inc.

Benton Institute for Broadband & Society

Cambium Networks

Celona, Inc.

Charter Communications, Inc.

Comcast Corporation

Consumer Action for a Strong Economy (CASE)

Cox Communications

Digital Global Systems

Dynamic Spectrum Alliance

Hewlett Packard Enterprise

Imagine Wireless

Innovation Economy Alliance

Institute for Policy Innovation

JMA Wireless

Mediacom Communications Corporation

Midcontinent Communications

NCTA – The Internet & Television Association

Open Technology Institute at New America

The Schools, Health, & Libraries Broadband (SHLB) Coalition

Nextlink Internet

Public Knowledge

Spectrum for the Future

Syracuse University

Tarana Wireless

U.S. Black Chambers, Inc.

United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce (USHCC)

WISPA – The Association for Broadband without Boundaries

CC: Mr. Adam Cassady, Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and Acting NTIA Administrator

February 5, 2025

BEFORE THE

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

Washington D.C.

Docket ID: USTR-2024-0024, Request for Comment on the Section 301 Investigation of China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Targeting of the Semiconductor Industry for Dominance.

The Honorable Juan Millán
Acting United States Trade Representative
Office of the United States Trade Representative
600 17^th Street NW
Washington, DC 20508

Dear Acting United State Trade Representative Millán:

I and my colleagues at the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) would like to thank the Office of the United States Trade Representative for inviting comment on the Section 301 proceeding into China’s targeting of the semiconductor industry, and for considering our input.

The Institute for Policy Innovation is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy “think tank” based in Irving, Texas, and founded in 1987 to research, develop and promote innovative and non-partisan solutions to today’s public policy problems. IPI is a public foundation, supported wholly by contributions from individuals, businesses and other non-profit foundations.

We at IPI believe in free trade, as in the most liberal trade policies possible. We generally oppose government interfering in a transaction between a willing seller and a willing buyer, regardless of whether that transaction crosses political borders. We’re fond of saying “countries don’t trade; people do.”

However, every policy position and principle must consider national security, which is among the most vital functions of government. Genuine national security concerns should always factor into any government policy decision. Too often recently national security has been used as a pretext for old fashioned protectionism and zero-sum thinking on trade, and we are critics of such pretext. However, the matter upon which we comment today is a genuine and obvious national security matter.

Through tightened export controls and the CHIPS Act, the United States has continued to expand policies to protect domestic semiconductor manufacturing capabilities—policies that encompass both industrial competitiveness and national security components. Initiatives to bolster U.S. semiconductor production, and thereby improve supply chain security, have been supported by each of the past three presidential administrations (Obama-Biden, Trump-Pence, Biden-Harris); Republican and Democrat lawmakers; and even U.S.-allied nations, including Japan and the Netherlands, which are dominant suppliers of lithography semiconductor equipment.

So long as China maintains its ideology and poses a threat to the free nations of the world, reducing our dependence on China for critical chips and depriving China of advanced technology are in the national security interests of the United States. Further, while total semiconductor supply chain self-sufficiency (i.e., no reliance on foreign suppliers) is inadvisable and unfeasible, preventing China from monopolizing the legacy chip market, including upstream inputs like Silicon Carbide (SiC) substrates and wafers, is necessary for America to have a secure and reliable supply via domestic production and  “friend-shoring”—reorienting global supply chains away from adversarial countries to those with which the U.S. has normalized relations.

As the USTR’s investigation docket notes, China has “nearly doubled its global share of foundational logic semiconductors production capacity” over the past six years. CIO magazine reported in December 2024 that China is poised to account for more than 60% of new global capacity for legacy chips by 2030, which is “supported by billions of dollars in subsidies, wage-suppressing labor practices, and state-directed technology transfers.”

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) remains committed to achieving dominance in emerging high-tech industries, as outlined by the national “Made in China 2025” plan, which is predicated on state-funded subsidization. Last year China established its “largest-ever” semiconductor investment fund, a $47.5 billion initiative spearheaded by the country’s six largest state-owned banks. This third and largest round of financing indicates the Chinese government is “doubling down” on its strategy to create overcapacity and thereby price out competitors.

SiC production is the latest industry targeted by the CCP to consolidate semiconductor supply chains. SiC wafers have become a preferred semiconductor base material because of their improved performance, especially in high-power applications, such as electric vehicles (EVs), aerospace technology, solar panels, and defense systems. Late last year media reported that Chinese oversupply depressed prices for six-inch SiC wafers to about 25% below manufacturing costs and caused eight-inch SiC wafer prices to fall 50% in six months.

Those trends corroborate that the Chinese government and its state-sponsored companies are applying the same strategy China used to monopolize global LED, renewable energy, and battery manufacturing markets, among others. That is, leverage state subsidies to bolster domestic production, deflate market prices, and force out free-market competitors.

Unlike China’s dominance in the other markets, its gains in SiC substrates wafer production pose a threat to the United States’ national security. SiC-wafer semiconductors are a critical component of EV powertrains, battery chargers, rail transit, and electrical power grids. If China is allowed to gain an even tighter grip on SiC production, U.S. supply chains for these important industries will become even more dependent on one of our country’s biggest adversaries.

Likewise, U.S. national defense systems could become dependent on Chinese suppliers in the same way. Many flagship defense networks—particularly radar-dependent systems, like the Aegis Missile Defense, avionics systems, and satellite programs—rely on SiC-wafer chips, which can operate in harsh conditions. Supply-chain dependence on China could jeopardize the integrity and functionality of these (and other) defense systems. American military leaders and reports consistently identify China as the greatest threat to U.S. national security, and it’s reasonable to assume that in the event of a military conflict with China or one of its allies, China would sever sales to the United States, significantly disrupting supply chains.

IPI commends the USTR and related U.S. government agencies for working to strengthen America’s semiconductor supply chains. IPI supports USTR’s Section 301 investigation and believes evidence warrants trade controls to prevent China from subverting U.S. legacy chip and particularly SiC-wafer semiconductor manufacturing.

Thank you for your consideration. I am available to answer questions and welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues with USTR leadership in greater detail.

Sincerely,

Tom Giovanetti
President
Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI)

September 16, 2024

Federal Communications Commission
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
45 L Street NE
Washington, DC 20554

Re: Promoting Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Through Handset Unlocking Requirements and Policies, WT Docket No. 24-186

Dear FCC Chairwoman and Commissioners:

The undersigned groups write to you today in support of the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on handset unlocking, which was adopted unanimously and with bipartisan support. The notice explores how best to achieve regulatory parity by crafting a uniform unlocking framework for the entire wireless industry. Fostering an industry-wide solution will create a level playing field for carriers and consumers alike. It is a common-sense policy approach and would be a welcome improvement to previous FCC unlocking decisions, which yielded asymmetric regulation and were imposed on an ad hoc basis with a limited record.

The current landscape for handset unlocking is a patchwork of requirements. Increasingly, it is driven by one-off regulatory conditions that are applied to individual wireless carriers as part of a transaction. For example, a carrier may have unlocking obligations tied to specific spectrum holdings or because of an acquisition. Meanwhile, other carriers may unilaterally set policies or follow industry best practices, such as the CTIA Consumer Code. A uniform approach applied across the industry will address this inconsistency, enhance competition, and create regulatory parity. In contrast, the current piecemeal approach to unlocking could further distort the market through the imposition of additional company-specific obligations in future mergers or spectrum acquisitions.

We believe uniformity benefits consumers and competition. A standard should be set after a close review of the record in this matter and with careful consideration of the impact of any obligations adopted by the Commission on various wireless industry segments.

In today’s dynamic wireless marketplace, carriers compete fiercely to win and retain customers by offering faster, better, and more affordable wireless products and services. Consumers, in turn, should have the freedom and flexibility to switch from one carrier to another competing provider. Adopting uniform unlocking standards across the mobile industry will enhance consumer choice and spur even greater competition. Unlike heavy-handed regulations such as price controls that discourage market entry and investment,
competition through parity will make the mobile market stronger. That is especially true where, as here, past FCC action already has created a regulatory imbalance.

Regulatory parity should be the Commission’s goal. Without a common framework, handset unlocking obligations will become even more convoluted as the market continues to evolve through future M&A, changes in spectrum holdings, new competitive entry, and the emergence of new business models and offerings.

Thank you for prioritizing this important issue. We look forward to working with the FCC on an approach that brings parity to handset unlocking across the mobile industry to the benefit of consumers and competition.

Sincerely,

James L. Martin, Founder/Chairman
60 Plus Association

Saulius “Saul” Anuzis, President
American Association of Senior Citizens

Steve Pociask, President and CEO
American Consumer Institute

Curt Levey, President
Committee for Justice

Roslyn Layton, PhD
Center for Communication, Media and Information Technologies, Aalborg University

Bronwyn Howell, PhD
Victoria University of Wellington
American Enterprise Institute

Petrus Potgieter, PhD
Institute for Technology and Network Economics

Silvia Elaluf-Calderwood, PhD
Jack D. Gordon Institute for Public Policy
Florida International University

Tom Giovanetti, President
Institute for Policy Innovation

Gerard Scimeca, Chairman
Consumer Action for a Strong Economy

Matthew Kandrach, President
Consumer Action for a Strong Economy

April 2, 2013 

Protecting Secondary Markets for Tickets 

HB 3041 / SB 1558

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, my name is Tom Giovanetti, and I am the president of the Institute for Policy Innovation, a 25 year-old free-market think tank in Dallas. IPI does not lobby, and we do not represent clients, but we do appreciate this opportunity to share our thoughts with you on HB 3041 / SB 1558. 

IPI commends this committee and the bill’s sponsor for taking action to protect secondary markets in tickets. 

The basis of the belief in limited government and free markets is our recognition of spontaneous order and the ability of people to self-organize and to self-govern. Our founders recognized that free people naturally create markets and organize themselves for the betterment of the community and for economic efficiency. We don’t need governments to do this for us. Government doesn’t create markets—markets happen naturally. We are not suspicious when a market naturally, spontaneously appears “out of nowhere”—that’s simply the latest example of natural self-organization of people into markets. Rather, our suspicions are aroused when somebody tries to squash or monopolize such a naturally occurring market. 

The secondary market for tickets is a great example of a natural, spontaneous market. People have always given away or resold tickets that they didn’t want or couldn’t use. It’s a natural, spontaneous, secondary market, and it’s the kind of self-organization that it is our duty to preserve, if we believe in spontaneous order, self-organization, and limited government. 

And secondary markets create greater economic efficiency, for all parties involved. The original ticket purchaser can be made whole, and the seats will still be filled, which is in the venue’s best interests. And no one is harmed. 

The folks on the other side of this issue may try to bring up licensing as a way to try to cloud the issue. We at IPI also do a lot of policy work on intellectual property. In fact, I’m an accredited observer with the World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva, Switzerland. Arguing that the ticket is a license and not real property doesn’t actually change anything in this argument. It is still improper for them to try to extend their envelope of licensing such as to kill or monopolize the secondary market. And it’s completely appropriate for the legislature to define the rights of ticket purchasers and to make sure that licensing terms and conditions are not used improperly to kill or monopolize the secondary market. 

There are, of course, reasonable terms and conditions for venues to place upon ticket purchasers. But as venues, promoters and ticketing companies increasingly try to extend the terms and conditions for a ticket beyond those reasonable and necessary for the first sale of those tickets in order to eliminate or monopolize the secondary market, it’s important for government to step in and clearly define the rights of ticket holders to participate in secondary markets. 

The legislation before you (HB 3041 / SB 1558) is an attempt to protect these natural secondary markets for tickets against those who seek to extinguish or monopolize them. It is a perfectly appropriate consumer protection, especially since no one is harmed from a vibrant secondary market for tickets, as venues have already received whatever price they chose for the ticket. It is appropriate for governments to protect these markets by limiting the attempts of venues to improperly extend their fine print restrictions so as to squash these secondary markets. 

The Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) commends you for taking up this important legislation and for moving to ensure that vibrant secondary markets for event tickets are protected in Texas. This legislation is a win for Texas consumers, for free markets, and don’t forget that no one is harmed by this legislation. 

IPI would be delighted to work with you as you continue to work on this important legislation. Thank you.

January 18, 2024

The Honorable Kathi Vidal
Director United States Patent and Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA  22313-1450 

Dear Director Vidal 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments in response to USPTO's request for input on the upcoming meetings at the World Intellectual Property Organization's Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge, and Folklore. 

I am a resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation, a 37-year-old Texas-based nonprofit NGO promoting economic growth and innovation. I am very familiar with and appreciative of USPTO's commitment to protecting patent rights and ensuring American leadership in such areas as the life sciences and biotechnology. It is clear that a strong intellectual property framework benefits our economy in a wide range of areas. I am thankful for USPTO’s efforts to promote and sustain such a framework. 

That's why I'm troubled by the initiative currently under way at the World Intellectual Property Organization. The proposal would require additional information in patent applications specifying the "genetic resources" involved in an invention and their geographical origins. These proposed new Patent Disclosure Requirements (PDRs) would weaken intellectual property rights and threaten American innovation. 

Proponents argue that these requirements would increase the flow of resources into countries of origin. In fact, the opposite would likely happen, as researchers seek to avoid use of genetic resources from countries with especially burdensome requirements or questionable claims of prior use. 

Indeed, I recall that several years ago Hindu scholars were combing through the Vedas in an effort to find any reference to plants, animals or other substances they might use to claim that the active ingredient in some new drug was really based on Hindu traditional medicine. Behind the scheme was an effort to demand royalties from pharmaceutical companies, even if there had been no reliance on Vedic literature. If the United States were to affirm WIPO’s effort to add genetic resources and other information to patent disclosures, it would break decades of precedent. 

Implementing PDRs for genetic resources would increase bureaucracy and red tape in global patent and licensure processes. It would inject a high degree of legal uncertainty into an already complex patent application system, deterring private sector investment. Additionally, enforcing compliance with the PDR would slow down the patent application process and impose heavy additional burdens of evaluation on the USPTO. 

Even more troubling, the addition of PDRs may allow countries to take advantage of the scientists and companies conducting research and development on site. The prospect of countries levying arbitrary or burdensome fees or demanding royalties could discourage investment into the very countries WIPO is interested in benefiting. American pharmaceutical and technological leadership is a result of strong partnerships both domestically and internationally. The proposed new PDRs might create perverse incentives undermining these partnerships, leading to a breakdown of international cooperation. 

Unfortunately, this initiative at WIPO is only the latest in a string of international and home-grown efforts to weaken American IP protections. The World Trade Organization is currently considering a waiver of patent protection for all COVID-19 diagnostics and therapeutics. It would follow a precedent-setting decision in 2022 to void international patent rights on COVID-19 vaccines. Domestically, an administration interagency group has suggested that under existing law the government has the new-found authority to seize and relicense patents on inventions derived however slightly from government-funded research whenever bureaucrats deem the commercial product's price is too high. 

All of these efforts will chill investor confidence and hamper innovation, even if some eventually prove to be illegal or unsuccessful. 

Through both Republican and Democratic administrations, protecting patent rights has been a top priority of the U.S. government because IP rights are foundational to our economy. That bipartisan commitment to IP has made the United States a global leader in life sciences investment. 

U.S. opposition to this WIPO proposal would help restore confidence in the commitment of the government to protect intellectual property at home and globally. I urge you to abandon any efforts that would serve to undermine the country’s long and well-founded commitment to ensuring IP protections.

Sincerely,

Merrill Matthews, Ph.D.
Resident Scholar
Institute for Policy Innovation

August 18, 2023

Dr. Lyric Jorgenson
Acting Associate Director for Science Policy
National Institutes of Health
Office of Science Policy
6705 Rockledge Dr. #750
Bethesda, MD 20817

Dear Director Jorgenson:

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the importance of private sector investment in prescription drug research and development and its relationship to NIH funding. 

The Institute for Policy Innovation is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy “think tank” based in Irving, Texas, and founded in 1987 to research, develop and promote innovative and non-partisan solutions to today’s public policy problems. IPI is supported wholly by contributions from individuals, businesses and non-profit foundations. 

By way of background, I am a resident scholar with IPI. I am also a past president of the Health Economics Roundtable for the National Association for Business Economics, the largest trade association of business economists. And I currently serve as Chair of the Texas Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. 

Comparing Federal Funding for Research and Development: The Pharmaceutical Industry vs. the Clean Energy Industry

There is a small but vocal and influential group of people who have increasingly pushed the narrative that most research and development funding for prescription drugs in the United States comes from the government. While the federal government does provide some funding, primarily for initial drug research—as well as medical devices and other health care-related research—the private sector pharmaceutical companies provide the lion’s share of R&D funding.

At a House Committee on Oversight and Reform meeting in January 2019, U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) claimed, “the public is acting as early investor, putting tons of money into the development of drugs that then become privatized, and then they the public receive no return on the investment that they have made.” Similar assertions have been made by other progressive elected officials and think tanks.

It’s a strange argument given that this very week President Joe Biden toured the country boasting the one-year anniversary of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which is pouring hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars into funding basic research and development for various types of clean energy projects and products.

For example, Reuters reports, “While the biggest impacts will begin in 2024 and 2025, there have been more than 270 new clean energy projects announced since its the IRA passage, with investments totaling some $132 billion, according to a Bank of America analyst report.” And that’s just the beginning.

Goldman Sachs recently released a report claiming the real cost of the IRA over 10 years will be $1.2 trillion, more than three times the initial estimate of $391 billion. According to Goldman, its estimate includes “electric vehicles (difference: $379 billion), green energy manufacturing ($156 billion), renewable electricity production ($82 billion), energy efficiency ($42 billion), hydrogen ($36 billion), biofuels ($34 billion) and carbon capture ($31 billion).”

We should also mention $39 billion in taxpayer-provided funding for the semiconductor industry—which has many very profitable companies—provided in the CHIPS and Science Act, which passed last summer.

The president and other progressives refer to all of these taxpayer-provided subsidies as “investments.”

Countless for-profit companies, with many wealthy investors (and political donors), will benefit from these taxpayer-provided subsidies. Some of those companies may survive and reap hefty profits. Most will likely end up filing for bankruptcy, as the electric bus company Protera has recently done. And yet we never hear progressives complain that taxpayers may “receive no return on the investment that they have made” in clean energy.

While the government will use the subsidies to impose regulatory strings on the receiving companies, there is no indication yet that the government intends to impose price controls on the clean energy companies, as the White House proposes to do with prescription drugs.

In fact, the clean energy industry, with all of its branches, could not survive without massive government subsidies. The U.S. pharmaceutical industry has thrived for decades almost entirely on private sector funding. And the health of patients around the world has benefited from those investments.

How much has the pharmaceutical industry invested? About $1.1 trillion since 2000. But the funding pace is accelerating. While members of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) invested $50.7 billion in R&D in 2010, that annual investment doubled to $102.3 billion by 2021.

Determining how much the National Institutes of Health (NIH) provides in basic research funding is complicated because money is fungible and can be used for a number of purposes that may or may not directly result in the discovery of a new molecule.

A 2019 study titled “Public sector financial support for late stage discovery of new drugs in the United States: cohort study” found, “Over the 10 year study period 2008-2017, the FDA approved 248 drugs containing one or more new molecular entities. Of these drugs, 48 (19%) had origins in publicly supported research and development and 14 (6%) originated in companies spun off from a publicly supported research program.”

A 2020 research paper titled “Public research funding and pharmaceutical prices: do Americans pay twice for drugs?” reviewed several studies, concluding:

“Detailed case studies reveal that public support has played at least some role in virtually all of the 26 most clinically and commercially significant drugs and drug classes approved over the past several decades. … But in a large majority of cases, the public sector’s contribution to new drugs has been in the form of early scientific findings, unrelated to current or potential applications. The public sector supported key basic research for 19 of the 26 ‘transformative’ drugs and drug classes cited above, contributed to the actual discovery of a new therapy in just 11, and could claim sole discovery credit in only four cases.”

So, yes, NIH funding plays a role in basic research, but it’s the innovator pharmaceutical companies that take a new molecule, or sometimes just a concept, and turn that into a product, guide it through the often very expensive clinical trials and time-consuming FDA approval process, manufacture the new drug, package, distribute and market it to health care providers and patients.

Of course, there are a number of factors that determine whether those drugs will actually make it to market. The Congressional Budget Office says, “Only about 12 percent of drugs entering clinical trials are ultimately approved for introduction by the FDA.”

No one reimburses the drug companies for the 88 percent of drugs entering clinical trials that don’t make it to market. And of those that do make it to market, only a handful are very profitable. But it is those very profitable drugs that cross-subsidize the ones that don’t make it to market. Yet it’s those profitable drugs that the government is targeting for price controls.

One more point. For the past two decades, the innovator drug companies have increasingly begun to target diseases that affect a relatively small percentage of the population—say, perhaps only 25,000 to 100,000 people—often referred to as “orphan drugs.” In those cases, the companies do not have the ability to spread the cost of creating those drugs over millions of patients. The smaller the patient population, the higher the cost, relatively speaking.

In conclusion, it is true the government funds some initial work in identifying new molecules and therapies. But that funding pales in comparison to the cost, time and effort it takes to bring a new drug to market. Most investigational drugs won’t make it. When that happens, it is the pharmaceutical industry and its investors who lose money, not taxpayers.

By contrast, the federal government is pouring hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars into multiple clean energy projects. Most of those clean energy companies will fail. If a drug company were to fail, investors would lose their capital. When government-backed clean energy companies fail, taxpayer money is lost. If Rep. Ocasio-Cortez really wants to discover where “the public is acting as early investor,” but then “receive no return on the investment that they have made,” she should turn to the clean energy industry rather than the pharmaceutical industry.

Sincerely,

Merrill Matthews, Ph.D.
Resident Scholar
Institute for Policy Innovation

Dear Members of Congress:

The undersigned individuals write to express concerns with the Railway Safety Act (S. 576). Safety advancement in any mode of transportation, including U.S. freight railroading, is critical; but public policy should be written to address specific problems. It should be rooted in data and pass the muster of cost-benefit analysis.

While the legislation that cleared the Senate Commerce Committee is better than the original bill introduced in March, it still includes far too many prescriptive policies, unduly favors organized labor, and would unduly empower unelected bureaucrats. This is why it garnered the support of just two Republicans on the Committee.

Sen. Ted Cruz, ranking member of the Commerce Committee, and energy experts have also outlined how the bill would disrupt domestic energy production, while the agriculture, propane, and intermodal transportation industries, to name a few, remain opposed.

The most glaring issues with the legislation include the following:

• The bill seeks to mandate that large railroads maintain two-person crews – the current standard set by voluntary collective bargaining – in perpetuity. Public policy groups have opposed this measure, also being pursued by the Biden administration’s Department of Transportation, because it is unneeded, ignores technology backstops, and would lessen competition. Two may seem better than one, and perhaps two will be the voluntary standard into the future, but lawmakers should not cement this into law, especially not in reaction to a February train derailment that included a three-member crew. Railroads should have the flexibility to adjust their operations in the future. This measure is likely why Sen. John Thune (R-SD) called the bill a “stalking horse for onerous regulatory mandates and union giveaways.”
  
  
• The largest section of the bill deals with the movement of hazardous materials, triggering an unfathomable number of future rulemakings pertaining to issues such as train size. As currently written, these rulemakings would avoid cost-benefit analysis (CBA). Conservatives have long championed the need for CBA because no human activity is 100% safe 100% of the time. Every activity involves some form of CBA. New railroad safety laws should certainly require them, including a survey of the likely risks created as railroads and shippers alter procedures to mitigate the cost of the new rules.
  
  
• Lastly, the bill also includes prescriptions on the use of trackside detectors, which exist today not because of regulatory wisdom but market innovation. Rather than dictate expansion of these proven technologies, government policies should seek to incentivize their evolution and adoption. Time and time again, when the federal government locks into a single technology the public suffers as industry lacks the flexibility or incentive to pursue next-generation technologies.

Railroads are crucial for the efficient running of the nation’s supply chain. That makes it all the more important that Congress pursue wise, cost-effective policies that benefit the entire nation, as opposed to ones that primarily aid a few well-placed special interests. Congress needs to avoid rushed policymaking that caters to special interests rather than addressing the issues at hand in a thoughtful, cost-effective manner.

Sincerely,

Iain Murray
Senior Fellow
Competitive Enterprise Institute

Sean Higgins
Research Fellow
Competitive Enterprise Institute

Paul J. Gessing
President
Rio Grande Foundation

James L. Martin
Founder/Chairman
60 Plus Association

John Shelton
Policy Advisor
Advancing American Freedom

Saul Anuzis
President
American Association of Senior Citizens

Steve Pociask
President and CEO
American Consumer Institute

Richard Manning
President
Americans for Limited Government

Brent Gardner
Chief Government Affairs Officer
Americans for Prosperity

John Hart
Executive Director
C3 Action (Conservative Coalition for Climate Solutions Action)

Garrett Ballengee
Executive Director
Cardinal Institute for West Virginia Policy

Ryan Ellis
President
Center for a Free Economy

Timothy H. Lee
Senior Vice President of Legal and Public Affairs
Center for Individual Freedom

Roslyn Layton
Co-Founder
China Tech Threat

Matthew Kandrach
President
Consumer Action for a Strong Economy

Nathan A. Benefield
Senior Vice President
Commonwealth Foundation

Hon. Kenneth “Ken” Cuccinelli II
Former VA Attorney General, Former Acting Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security

Benjamin R. Dierker
Executive Director
Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure*

Steve Forbes
Chairman and Editor-in-Chief
Forbes Media

Adam Brandon
President
FreedomWorks

George Landrith
President
Frontiers of Freedom

Cameron Sholty
Executive Director
Heartland Impact

James Taylor
President
Heartland Institute

David R. Henderson
Research Fellow
Hoover Institution, Stanford University

Tom Giovanetti
President
Institute for Policy Innovation

Andrew Langer
Founder
Institute for Regulatory Analysis and Engagement

Ike Brannon
Senior Fellow
Jack Kemp Foundation

Alfredo Ortiz
President & CEO
Job Creators Network

Brett Healy
President
The John K. MacIver Institute for Public Policy 

Drew Cline
President
Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy (NH)

Patrick McLaughlin
Senior Research Fellow, Dir. of Policy Analytics
Mercatus Center at George Mason University*

Matthew Gagnon
CEO
Maine Policy Institute

Charles Sauer
President
Market Institute

Douglas Carswell
President and CEO
Mississippi Center for Public Policy

Brandon Arnold
Executive Vice President
National Taxpayers Union

Marcos Lopez
Outreach & Coalitions Director
Nevada Policy Research Institute  

Daniel J. Erspamer
CEO
Pelican Institute for Public Policy

Karen Kerrigan
President & CEO
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council

David Williams
President
Taxpayers Protection Alliance

Mike Gallagher
Vice President
Washington Policy Center

Carol Platt Liebau
President
Yankee Institute

*Affiliation for Identification Purposes Only