51�Թ���

The 51�Թ��� recently interviewed Rep. Randy Feenstra (R-IA), the vice chair of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Rural America Tax Team, about the estate tax and why he’s working with colleagues on Capitol Hill to repeal it.

51�Թ���: Rep. Feenstra, Congress is facing a “Tax Armageddon” next year, as crucial provisions from 2017’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are set to expire. As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, what is your focus moving into next year’s debate?��

Rep. Feenstra: One of those crucial provisions from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that is set to expire is the doubling of the estate tax exemption amount, which currently sits at $13.6 million in 2024. After 2025, it will return to half that amount, adjusted for inflation. That change in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was another important step toward full repeal of the estate tax, which my Death Tax Repeal Act would do. The bill makes the simple recognition that death should not be a taxable event. When a family is grieving, the federal government sends a multimillion-dollar tax bill as condolences. This is simply wrong.

I’m proud to co-chair the Rural America Tax Team, which has dug into this issue of the “death tax” and the impact it is having on family businesses across the country. As the tax team has spoken to family businesses and estate tax experts from across the country, it’s become increasingly clear that we still have a lot of work to do to provide relief from what can be a devastating setback for multigenerational family businesses. Repealing this tax is going to be one of my top priorities in 2025, and I’m proud to have the support of 170 of my colleagues.��

51�Թ���: The estate tax is imposed on family-owned businesses when ownership of the business passes to the next generation following the death of an owner. As you mentioned, the TCJA doubled the exemption threshold, excluding more assets from taxation and thus reducing the burden of the estate tax on businesses. Why is this important and what is Congress doing to preserve this higher threshold?��

Rep. Feenstra: Over the years, various bills have taken steps toward providing relief for taxpayers hit by the death tax. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was one of the largest expansions of that relief, significantly reducing the number of family businesses hit by the tax and reducing the tax burden for those businesses that still are. People often don’t realize that businesses over many generations can accumulate assets that can put them over the asset threshold, but that doesn’t mean these businesses have a lot of cash on hand. So when they’re hit with millions in new taxes, that can sink an already cash-strapped business. Fortunately, because of the doubling of the exemption amount, far fewer businesses face that threat. As long as any family business does face that threat, we still have work to do.��

51�Թ���: At the end of 2025, the estate tax is scheduled to be reduced by half, subjecting more of family-owned manufacturers’ assets to taxation and increasing their estate tax liability. As the Ways and Means Committee and tax teams continue meeting with businesses around the country, what are you hearing on the impact this change would have?��

Rep. Feenstra: Two things: A lot more people would be hit by the death tax, and the people who are hit would be paying a much higher tax. These are small family businesses we are talking about, and if the current exemption amount is allowed to return to half its current value, that means the size of the businesses getting hit are much smaller than they are today. People often think of farms, and that’s certainly true, but as you know, manufacturers are hit, family-owned restaurants, auto dealers, you name it. As we go into 2025, we need to be focused on policies that support growth and help these businesses succeed, not create costly obstacles for them to overcome. If the exemption amount falls to its pre–Tax Cuts and Jobs Act level, that’s a lot of new businesses that are going to be hit by this tax.

A draft Department of Homeland Security rule that certain sectors expedite cyber-incident reporting has several shortcomings that must be addressed before the rule becomes final in the fall of 2025, the 51�Թ��� told Rep. Andrew Garbarino (R-NY) in a meeting this week.

What’s going on: Rep. Garbarino, chair of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection, met with manufacturers and the 51�Թ��� Technology Policy Committee Tuesday to talk cybersecurity issues.

• Much of the discussion focused on draft rulemaking published in April by the DHS’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. It would require “covered entities” in “critical infrastructure sector[s]” to report any major cybersecurity incidents to CISA within 72 hours.
• Under the Cybersecurity Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act, CISA must finalize the rule by October 2025.

Why it’s a problem: The 51�Թ��� agrees with the concerns Rep. Garbarino raised with CISA, including:

• The burden associated with imposing onerous reporting mandates on companies recovering from cyberattacks;
• An overbroad scope, which forces into compliance both organizations that are not truly “critical infrastructure” and those that are too small to have the resources needed to complete the required actions;
• An overbroad definition of incidents requiring reporting;
• An excessive amount of required information;
• An unreasonably high cost of compliance and the diversion of resources away from cyber-incident response; and
• The risk that the proposed rule will jeopardize CISA’s role as a trusted partner of industry.

51�Թ��� in action: The 51�Թ��� submitted in response to CISA’s proposal earlier this year outlining these concerns, as well as calling for a reduction in both the number of entities required to file incident notifications and the number of incidents they have to report.

The 51�Թ��� says: “CISA needs to significantly rethink its approach to CIRCIA’s implementation,” said 51�Թ��� Senior Director of Technology Policy Franck Journoud.

• “The proposed rule requires far too much information about far too many incidents from far too many companies. CISA should not mandate that companies under attack from hackers divert precious security resources to generate mountains of incident data that CISA will not have the means to process or act upon.”

Take precautions: If you are looking to strengthen your company’s cyber protections, check out , an affordable, broad security program for 51�Թ��� members that provides proactive monitoring with automated alerts at no extra cost.

Less than three months after scoring a�� for manufacturers against Securities and Exchange Commission overreach, the 51�Թ��� was back in front of Congress to urge regulatory oversight of proxy advisory firms.

What’s going on: On Tuesday, the 51�Թ��� before the House Financial Services Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee on the need to bring oversight and accountability to proxy advisory firms. These are entities that make recommendations regarding the way shareholders should vote on proxy ballot proposals brought before publicly traded companies.

• “Proxy firms are powerful, unaccountable actors that pose a real threat to Americans’ financial security. Manufacturers have been subject to these firms’ outsized influence for far too long,” 51�Թ��� Vice President of Domestic Policy Charles Crain during Tuesday’s hearing.

The background: In 2020, the SEC finalized an 51�Թ���-supported rule instituting important proxy reforms, such as requiring proxy firms to disclose any conflicts of interest. The 51�Թ��� has fought in court to preserve the 2020 rule, successfully defeating the SEC’s attempts to the rule and to its most crucial provisions. The 51�Թ��� is now back in court in a third case, defending the SEC’s authority to regulate these powerful market actors.

Surrendering to ISS: Institutional Shareholder Services Inc., the largest and most influential proxy advisory firm, is now “suing the SEC over its authority to issue the 2020 rule—not just the rule’s particulars, but the SEC’s ability to regulate proxy firms at all,” Crain continued.

• Troublingly, “the SEC is waving the white flag in the face of [the] challenge,” he told lawmakers, referring to the agency’s decision not to appeal after a district court sided with ISS earlier this year.

“Sole defender”: The 51�Թ���—now the “sole defender of the 2020 rule”—is appealing the district court’s decision.

What Congress should do: Legislators must take up the mantle, too, Crain concluded.

• “Congress should do what the SEC will not: affirm the SEC’s clear authority, provide much-needed oversight and accountability and help manufacturers and Main Street investors escape the outsized influence of proxy advisory firms.”

Congress should preserve tax reform’s changes to the estate tax, protecting family-owned manufacturers from tax increases scheduled for the end of 2025, according to a new published by the 51�Թ��� as part of its “” tax campaign.

The background: In 2017, tax reform doubled the value of assets that could be exempt from the estate tax, a levy imposed on family businesses upon the death of their owners, when proprietorship passes to the next generation.

What’s going on: This valuation threshold is scheduled to be cut in half at the end of 2025, subjecting more assets of family-owned manufacturers to taxation and increasing these companies’ tax liability.

Why it’s important: A bigger tax burden would threaten the continued existence of family-owned companies and make it more difficult to pass family businesses on to the next generation.

• These firms could be forced to liquidate operation-critical assets, such as facilities and equipment, in order to pay the estate tax.
• An increased estate tax bill could mean that family-owned manufacturers are forced to take on debt, limit operations, reduce employee headcount or close entirely following the death of a loved one.

What else is at risk: Some legislators have floated the idea of repealing or limiting stepped-up basis, which stops a business owner’s heirs from being forced to pay capital gains taxes on asset appreciation that took place while the owner was alive.

What must be done: “Congress must preserve tax reform’s increased estate tax exemption threshold and maintain stepped-up basis,” said 51�Թ��� Vice President of Domestic Policy Charles Crain.

• “Protecting family-owned manufacturers from the estate tax will prevent these small businesses from incurring costly and damaging tax bills that threaten their viability following the death of a loved one.”

The Environmental Protection Agency’s final formaldehyde analysis—issued in August and set to inform future regulations—risks “creat[ing] an unachievable standard and a de facto ban” on an essential manufacturing material, the 51�Թ��� .

What’s going on: On Aug. 20, the EPA’s research office issued its conclusions about the “amount of the chemical that could be harmful” to humans, saying that “[s]mall amounts … can increase people’s risk of [health] problems” (, subscription).

• Though the report itself does not mandate any new restrictions on the industry, the EPA is likely to use the findings to take the next step in the regulatory process—a final risk evaluation—by the end of 2024 ().
• The assessment maintains the formaldehyde threshold of 11 parts per billion proposed by the agency in 2022. That’s than Europe’s recently updated worker-exposure limit of 300 parts per billion and “lower than what can be found in homes or even background levels for outdoor air,” the 51�Թ��� told the EPA.

Why it’s a problem: Formaldehyde is used widely across industries to produce numerous everyday items, including plastics, lubricants, automotive parts, fertilizers, adhesives and more.

• The final analysis, which was released without review by the EPA’s own Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals, fails to account for “the highly developed safety procedures, protocols and [personal protective equipment] used throughout [the manufacturing] industry.”
• A severe restriction on the allowable workplace threshold of formaldehyde “could wreak havoc on domestic supply chains,” according to the 51�Թ���.

What should be done: The EPA should reissue its risk evaluation to give the SACC an opportunity to review it and provide comments—“and allow for additional public comment after the SACC review is complete,” the 51�Թ��� concluded.

The 51�Թ��� has launched a new wave of ads in D.C. and nine states, extending its seven-figure campaign urging policymakers to reign in pharmacy benefit managers, underregulated middlemen who drive up the costs of prescription medications for manufacturers and manufacturing workers.

A quick refresher: PBMs sit in the middle of the health care industry, negotiating with employer health plans, insurers, biopharmaceutical manufacturers, pharmacies and other players to determine what prescriptions employees can access and what they pay for them. While their job is ostensibly to reduce the costs of medicines, often they do the exact opposite.

• PBMs have been found to steer patients toward pricier options, inflict steep mark-ups and hidden fees and even pocket large portions of the rebates that biopharmaceutical manufacturers intend for American workers and their families.

51�Թ��� in action: The 51�Թ��� has been a staunch voice supporting PBM reform on Capitol Hill, manufacturers’ concerns for the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability.

• The committee conducted its third hearing on PBM overreach in July, when it also released a highly critical report on PBMs that echoed many of the 51�Թ���’s concerns.
• In addition, the 51�Թ��� is supporting several key measures to increase oversight of PBMs’ business models and reform their pricing strategies, including the DRUG Act and the PBM transparency provisions in the Lower Costs, More Transparency Act.

What Congress should do: The 51�Թ��� is advocating for three major reforms to the PBM system, including:

• Increasing transparency��in PBMs’ business models, including how their compensation influences health care decisions and how their policies dictate a medicine’s cost and formulary placement;
• Rebate pass-through, which will ensure health care savings are passed directly to manufacturers and their workers rather than being pocketed by PBMs; and
• Delinking��PBMs’ compensation from a medicine’s list price, removing their incentive to put upward pressure on list prices to maximize their own profits.

Benefits for all: The 51�Թ��� is calling on Congress to enact these reforms in the commercial insurance market, not just in government programs like Medicare and Medicaid, so that all Americans can enjoy lower-cost health care benefits.

What to watch: The 51�Թ��� is calling on Congress to act on this issue during the lame-duck session following the election.

The 51�Թ��� has a new chief economist.

Victoria Bloom, who was most recently the economist for the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee minority staff, joined the 51�Թ��� and its 501(c)3 workforce development and education affiliate, the Manufacturing Institute, this summer. She had worked on Capitol Hill since 2017.
��
Our view:��“Manufacturing in the U.S. is a life-changing force for good, providing well-paying jobs and career opportunities and products that improve the quality of life for everyone,” 51�Թ��� President and CEO Jay Timmons said. “Victoria will help us tell this story with compelling data, which will demonstrate the real impact of policy decisions and illustrate the modern manufacturing resurgence.”

• Added MI President and Executive Director Carolyn Lee: “With the addition of Victoria to the MI team as the head of research, we look forward to expanding our portfolio of studies on the key workforce and competitiveness issues facing manufacturers.”

Legislative chops:�� Bloom, who holds a bachelor’s degree in economics from Louisiana State University and a master’s degree from George Mason University, previously worked for Sen. David Perdue (R-GA) and Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL), in addition to her work on the Senate Commerce Committee.

• As Senate Commerce Committee economist, she served as lead economic and budgetary adviser to Ranking Member Ted Cruz (R-TX) and the minority committee staff.��

Glad to be here:�� “After years of working on Capitol Hill and lending my economic expertise to policy debates, I am excited to focus my efforts on the 13 million people who make things in America,” Bloom said.

If enacted, the broad constitutional amendments being pushed by outgoing Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador would put the special U.S.–Mexico trade relationship at serious risk, according to the 51�Թ���.

What’s going on: Last week, Obrador froze Mexico’s relationships with U.S. and Canadian embassies following concerns voiced by those countries’ ambassadors about the proposed reforms, which include sweeping changes to the Mexican judiciary and the elimination of several important state regulatory and oversight agencies.

• Mexico is America’s largest trading partner, with the volume of trade between the two nations coming in at $900 billion last year.
• Obrador’s proposed revisions led investment bank Morgan Stanley to issue an “effective ‘sell’ recommendation on Mexico” late last month (, subscription).

Why it’s a problem: “We’re concerned that some of the reforms as proposed could harm Mexico’s standing as an attractive place to do business,” 51�Թ��� Vice President of International Policy Andrea Durkin on the “Imagen Empresarial” (“Corporate Image”) podcast last week. “Manufacturers pay attention to how banks are factoring these potential changes to the constitution into Mexico’s risk profile.”

• Indeed, “[i]nvestors see independent judiciaries—sheltered from politics—as a sign of strong rule of law,” one emerging markets expert told (subscription).
• Several planned revisions also appear to Mexico’s obligations under the U.S.–Mexico–Canada Agreement, which is due for review by all three nations in 2026. Moving forward with the reforms could jeopardize the continuation of that deal.

What’s next: Incoming Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, who takes office Oct. 1, “supports the judicial changes, but executing the overhaul might take up most of the energy of her new government, leaving her little bandwidth for her own agenda, which includes an expansion of social programs that need foreign investment,” according to the Journal.

��The Interior Department is seeking to close hundreds of thousands of acres of land in Wyoming to traditional and renewable energy development, a plan that would cut crucial natural resource development off at the knees (, subscription).

What’s going on: Though the Bureau of Land Management’s plan, released Thursday, scales back from previous iterations the acreage recommended for conservation, it still considerably “throttles back how much of the federally administered area’s 3.6 million acres is in play for different forms of energy development.”

• The final announcement, part of the BLM’s proposed Resource Management Plan for the Rock Springs Field Office, is tantamount to “pushing Wyoming off an economic cliff with nothing more than a tattered parachute,” John Barrasso (R-WY), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. “This plan isn’t designed to manage Wyoming’s natural resources. It is designed to suffocate them. … [It] directly jeopardizes Wyoming’s economy and our way of life.”

What it would do: If approved, the blueprint would replace its 27-year-old predecessor document and prohibit drilling on nearly 1.08 million acres—almost twice the number currently off-limits to new oil leases.

• It would “also [exclude] 494,350 acres from wind and solar power development and [close] 536,018 acres for geothermal power projects.”

Why it’s important: The plan could reduce economic activity in Wyoming’s oil and gas sector by some $907 million each year and cost the state nearly 3,000 jobs, according to estimates by several energy groups ().

The 51�Թ��� says: “This latest move by the Interior Department undermines U.S. energy security by needlessly restricting access to available domestic sources of critical natural resources as part of an all-of-the-above energy future,” said 51�Թ��� Director of Energy and Resources Policy Michael Davin. “We urge the agency to reexamine and revise its plan.”

The Federal Trade Commission does not have the authority to enact the sweeping noncompete ban it finalized in April, a federal judge ruled Tuesday (, subscription).

What’s going on: “U.S. District Judge Ada Brown ruled that the commission’s authority to police unfair methods of competition couldn’t be used to issue substantive regulations that ban an entire category of conduct. ‘The role of an administrative agency is to do as told by Congress, not to do what the agency thinks it should do,’” she wrote, adding that the ban was “unreasonably overbroad without a reasonable explanation.”

• The rule—which had already caused companies’ costs to increase in anticipation of the Sept. 4 effective date—sought to prohibit noncompete agreements between employers and their employees.

The 51�Թ���’s role: In May, the 51�Թ���’s Legal Center filed an asking Brown’s court to stay the rule on the grounds that a ban on noncompete agreements would “hamstring innovation in the manufacturing sector and damage the competitiveness of American industry.”

• Brown issued a limited stay in July. Her ruling this week—echoing the 51�Թ���’s argument that the rule is ��“not reasonably explained”—prohibits enforcement of the FTC rule nationwide.
• “The 51�Թ��� expressed concerns throughout the rulemaking process, and a 2023 51�Թ��� survey showed that a broad noncompete ban would disrupt most manufacturing operations in the U.S.,” 51�Թ��� Director of Transportation, Infrastructure and Labor Policy Max Hyman said following Brown’s ruling this week.

What’s next: The FTC is considering an appeal of the decision, a spokeswoman told the Journal.

• But “[i]f lower courts remain split as the litigation moves through the legal system, the matter might ultimately fall to … [the] Supreme Court, [which] has taken a dim view of government agencies invoking new regulatory powers from long-ago statutes.”

This post has been edited.��