Katie McAuliffe

Commissioner Carr Brings Us One Step Closer to Being 5G Ready

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Katie McAuliffe on Wednesday, February 28th, 2018, 10:45 AM PERMALINK

America is and can remain the leader in Fifth Generation wireless technology (5G) development and deployment as long as regulators practice regulatory humility – taking a right sized role and stepping out of the way when appropriate. FCC Commissioner Carr’s announcement of the new plan to advance 5G deployment does just that; it makes the government role right-sized when it comes to small cell deployment. Literally.

The regulatory structures surrounding large cell tower deployments should not apply to small cells, which are often no larger than a pizza box. Exempting small cell deployment from federal and environmental historic review processes advances the 5G timeline, and, since small cells are most often deployed in already developed areas, it reduces the likelihood that historic and environmental review processes will be invoked redundantly.

5G will bring millions of new jobs, approximately $275 billion in private sector investment, and a $500 billion boom to GDP. It’s efficient deployment is necessary for autonomous cars, internet of things, remote surgery, telehealth, smart cities, faster home and mobile broadband, and so much more. The possibilities are endless, but there are hurdles to clear before we can realize the potential of our 5G future.

The FCC has created an exception to the burdensome requirements for small cells to speed up the rollout of 5G. Currently, the review process required for large towers is also required for small cells. A small cell is a new type of broadband infrastructure no larger than 3 cubic feet that helps densify wireless service networks in an area to enhance capacity. Despite the small footprint, service providers are forced to undergo the same regulatory review process as massive towers to install these small cells.

Wireless providers have run into roadblocks from various federal review processes, including reviews from tribes. The Tribal review process, which gives members of tribes the opportunity to challenge or assess fees as a prerequisite to placing equipment, in some states extends across the entire state, not just on tribal territory. While the review is an important mechanism to protect Tribal land, it should not be applied on already existing infrastructure or expanded to territory outside of tribal lands.

This process not only adds significant time to placing cells, it also adds significant cost. One wireless carrier estimates 17% of their costs for placing small cells goes towards these regulatory costs and expects to spend $29 million in 2018 just on these fees alone. A few noted examples of these high fees include: a fee of $13,525 for a review of collocation on a hotel in Minnesota, and $8,000 for placement on a civic center in Denver.  This is money that could facilitate investment and deployment for multiple projects that will provide better coverage, and services.

Exempting small cells from the environmental, historical, or tribal process (especially for deployment on already developed land such as parking lots, bus stops, streetlights, etc.) will not trample on the rights of those on tribal lands, but will expand opportunities through connectivity.

Commissioner Brendan Carr today announced a plan to exclude small wireless facilities from the environmental and historic review procedure designed for large macrocell deployments. Making a determination that they are neither federal undertakings nor major federal actions does this. This will reduce the regulatory costs of deployment by 80%. This will shave months off deployment timelines and expand 5G deployment. He addressed the Tribal review concerns by proposing a plan to streamline the historic review procedures and update the Section 106 Tribal Consultation process. By addressing upfront fees, the consultation process and creating a clear timeline for a Tribe to respond. These changes will only apply to deployments outside of reservation boundaries and Tribal lands.

As Commissioner Carr emphasized the importance of maintaining US leadership in wireless as we upgrade to 5G. To ensure that the US is 5G ready he announced the plan to streamline the federal historic and environmental review procedures that apply to wireless infrastructure deployments.

The government should get out the way, so the United States will remain pioneers in this new technology. It is critical that we are the first in the race to be 5G ready, and ensure that every American across the country has access to cheap, competitive, and lightening fast broadband services.

Photo Credit: Eggib

More from Americans for Tax Reform

The Federal Trade Commission Needs a Republican Majority

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Katie McAuliffe on Wednesday, February 14th, 2018, 3:06 PM PERMALINK

Today, the Senate Commerce Committee held confirmation hearings for nominees to the Federal Trade Commission. The President has nominated, Joseph Simons as Chairman, and Christine Wilson, Noah Phillips, and Rohit Chopra as Commissioners to fill four of the five vacant seats.

The following can be attributed to Grover G. Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform:

It is one year in and we still don’t have a pro-competitive republican majority able to make decisions at the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC has only two commissioners, who are both ready to depart, leaving space for the appointments of five commissioners.

We need a republican lead Federal Trade Commission committed to protecting the competitive marketplace. After today’s hearing, I hope to see the nominees move quickly to the floor for confirmation.

The following can be attributed to Katie McAuliffe, Executive Director of Digital Liberty:

A republican majority at the FTC is incredibly important and has been neglected until now. Digital Liberty urges the Senate to move as quickly as possible to finally confirm the Federal Trade Commission nominees.

With Acting Chairman Ohlhausen’s nomination to the Court of Federal Claims, and Terrell McSweeny’s planned departure, the Senate needs to move quickly to rebuild the Commission.

Mr. Simons, the nominee to become the next Chairman of the FTC, has worked at the FTC twice, most notably, having served as the Director of the Bureau of Competition. He is a passionate, and experienced attorney with both private practice and government experience.

Ms. Wilson, has worked her entire career as an antitrust lawyer, and has also served in the Federal Trade Commission, most notably as the Chief of Staff to former FTC Chairman Muris.

Mr. Philips serves as Chief Counsel to Senator Cornyn, and has advised on numerous antitrust, consumer protection policies. He also has strong private sector experience in mergers and acquisitions.

Mr. Chopra, was with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as an assistant director from 2010-2015 and is currently a Senior Fellow at the Consumer Federation of America.

It is expected that Rebecca Slaughter, Chief Counsel to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, will fill the final spot.

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Congress Prepared to Pay Songwriters & Producers Their Due?

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Katie McAuliffe on Friday, February 9th, 2018, 3:01 PM PERMALINK

The American copyright system is filled with complexity and gaps that leave many in the music industry without protections and proper compensation for their creative contributions. However, the House Judiciary Committee is considering three pieces of legislation that will fill some of the gaps.

In response, Americans for Tax Reform sent a letter to members of the House Judiciary Committee in support of the Music Modernization Act of 2017, H.R. 4706, The CLASSICS Act, H.R. 3301, and the AMP Act, H.R. 881. These bills strengthen Copyright protections for songwriters and artists  benefiting America’s creative community. 

The letter can be found here, and the full text of the letter is below.



February 9, 2018

Dear Members of the House Committee on the Judiciary:

On behalf of Americans for Tax Reform, I write to express ATR’s support for a suite of bills that significantly update copyright law to the benefit of America’s creative community. The Music Modernization Act of 2017, H. R. 4706; Compensating Legacy Artists for their Songs, Service and Important Contributions to Society (CLASSICS) Act, H.R. 330; and, the Allocation for Music Producers (AMP) Act, H.R. 881.

The Music Modernization Act of 2017, H. R. 4706, creates a single licensing entity for all digital compositions, rationalizing the digital music licensing process for both streaming entities and creators, so that distribution platforms can actually find the artists they want and need to compensate. It also raises the Copyright Royalty Board rate setting standard to one that will more clearly reflect rates that would likely result from an unencumbered market negotiation. Currently songwriter compensation from digital services is outrageously low.

Under current copyright law, pre-1972 sound recordings are not given federal copyright protection. The CLASSICS Act, H.R. 3301, creates protections for pre-1972 recordings by making unlicensed digital transmissions of these recordings illegal, and provides these recordings with the same licensing rules as later recordings. This brings parity for royalties for pre-1972 and later recordings.

The AMP Act, H.R. 881, creates a process by which producers and engineers receive compensation for their contributions in the creative process of a finalized sound recordings. The bills recognizes their efforts by codifying their right to receive royalties.

Digital creation and distribution of musical works have created a broader more inclusive musical ecosystem. The ability to create and disseminate musical works has never been easier than it is now through digital formats, and who knows what will come next. The world of 1s and 0s surpassed the protections of analog copyright law. These updates recognize those changes and update the compensation process in order to provide even more incentive and appreciation for the creative process.

Americans for Tax Reform asks that committee members vote favorably on these three bills to bring copyright law closer to the digital realities of music creation and distribution.

If you should have any questions or comments, please contact Katie McAuliffe by email,

kmcauliffe@atr.org, or phone, 202-785-0266.

Photo Credit: Martin Falbisoner

Restoring Internet Freedom is a Win for the Internet

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Katie McAuliffe on Tuesday, November 21st, 2017, 11:27 AM PERMALINK

Today the Federal Communications Commission released its "Restoring Internet Freedom Order." Undoing Title II restrictions is a win for all Americans.

The following statement can be attributed to Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform:

The “Restoring Internet Freedom Order” released today by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is a bold strike turning America away from the path we were on -- turning the internet into a cross between the  post office and the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Freedom, not top down control, is the best protector of a free and open internet worldwide.  

Today’s act reminds us that Chairman Ajit Pai’s confirmation to lead the Federal Communications Commission was second in importance only to Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch's confirmation in protecting and expanding liberty.

Pai’s leadership in reining in FCC overreach on issues from media ownership to restoring internet freedom has been instrumental in undoing the harms of the Obama administration’s FCC and supporting continued American innovation.

I congratulate Chairman Pai and Commissioners O'Rielly and Carr for their vision and  leadership. 

The following statement can be attributed to Katie McAuliffe, Executive Director of Digital Liberty:

Chairman Ajit Pai has been instrumental in reforming the FCC to reflect the rapidly changing telecommunications industry. Governing 21st century technologies with 20th century regulations is not a strategy for keeping the United States as a worldwide leader in technological innovation. Chairman Pai and the FCC have made reforms necessary to keep the United States competitive in the global economy and to ensure that all Americans have access to the information they need.

Connecting unserved and underserved Americans has been a cornerstone of the FCC’s work under Chairman Pai, and by eliminating and reforming outdated rules, Chairman Pai and the FCC have helped create a regulatory environment that supports much-needed investment and will lead to improved connectivity for Americans nationwide.        

Chairman Pai and the FCC should be commended for making reforms that will foster American innovation and keep the United States at the forefront of the telecommunications sector.

Photo Credit: Zaven

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Old Government Rules Suffocate Local News

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Katie McAuliffe on Thursday, November 2nd, 2017, 1:22 PM PERMALINK

Americans crave local news, but the sources for obtaining local news are in peril. 

Newspapers’ print circulation has been on the decline since the late 1980s, and local broadcast news stations are losing viewers and ad revenue. 

If Americans love local news so much, why are newspapers fading and broadcaster viewership numbers dropping? 

In 1975 the Federal Communications Commission instituted laws preventing broadcasters from owning newspapers in the same market, when even at the time FCC commissioned studies (under both Democrat and Republican Chairmen) demonstrated that cross ownership likely produced beneficial synergies – Broadcast news for the few broadcast-newspaper partnerships grandfathered in was often more varied and in depth than single ownership.

The news market was different then. In 1975, newspapers were king and there were only 3 broadcast stations – ABC, NBC, CBS. Cable television was around, but it was nowhere near as popular as today. CNN, the first cable news network didn’t come on air until 1980, and FOX didn’t start broadcasting until 1985. 

Now we look at the top television networks of which there are hundreds, and online content and social media are on par with television as to how Americans get their news. 

The American news market is highly competitive.

FCC rules preventing cross-ownership, the number of stations that can be owned in a market, and preventing joint sales agreements no longer make sense

A broadcast station can’t own a “published” newspaper, if a print edition comes out 4 or more times a week, but cable and online are “publishing” 24 hours a day. And cable and online news sources focus on national news, not local news and information.

With more and more people using websites, social networks, YouTube, podcasts, Amazon Prime and other sources to stay informed and entertained, advertising revenue has dipped for both television and radio stations. No one can dispute that newspapers have taken an especially hard hit. The New York Daily News was sold to Tronc, the LA Times Parent Company for just $1 dollar earlier in September.

Struggling, smaller news organizations with a common goal of providing local news would benefit from pooling their resources through joint sales agreements and cross-ownership of media organizations, but the old-world FCC rules prevent these from taking place.

Finally, the FCC is reconsidering these rules. In a proceeding on broadcast media ownership, the FCC is proposing to eliminate the cross-ownership rule, re-allow joint sales agreements, and examine ownership of more than one station in a broadcast market on a case-by-case basis rather than the inflexible requirement for eight voices in a market.

Complaints about diversity of news miss the point – these rules are not working. We are losing newspapers at an alarming clip.

To maintain diversity of news sources, we can’t keep doing the same thing and expect different results!

The elimination of these rules would help buoy local news outlets at little-to-no competitive cost, maintaining a vital component of the news media mix.

Photo Credit: Energy Commerce

More from Americans for Tax Reform

ICPA: Warrant Required for Email Content

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Katie McAuliffe on Wednesday, October 25th, 2017, 9:00 AM PERMALINK

The Fourth Amendment requires government officials to get a warrant to search citizens’ private property, but as technologies and times change, government will inevitably do its best to creep into areas when it has no right. This is particularly evident in the case of relatively common technologies like email, where the government still relies on the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) to regulate the government’s need to obtain a warrant in the digital sphere.

Under the ECPA, communications stored on third party servers beyond 180 days are considered “abandoned” and require only a subpoena for law enforcement to access. What’s worse, this consideration applies to all online communication, not just email. This ranges from Facebook messages to texts and even GroupMe chats. Changes are needed to this Act to prevent government authorities from skirting around Constitutional legal hurdles and violating the privacy of American citizens.

The International Communications Privacy Act (ICPA) would set up a clearer, modern legal framework for these types of government actions. This Act was introduced as S. 1671 in the Senate by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and is cosponsored by Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) and Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Del.). Companion legislation, H.R. 3718, has been introduced in the House by Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.). Americans for Tax Reform and Digital Liberty, in coordination with 11 other conservative groups, have released a letter in support of this legislation.

This Act would require officials get a warrant to access electronic communications stored with third party service providers, regardless of where that person or their information is located. It would also set up a framework for international searches, allowing US government officials to coordinate with and receive input from other countries about the purpose of their searches and US courts to weigh in on the validity of a search if necessary.

Not only does this framework respect US and international law, it limits the government’s ability to infringe upon the Fourth Amendment rights of American citizens by updating a telecommunications law that hasn’t been changed since texting was invented. This makes us safer by preventing government officials from being overwhelmed by too much information – as is the case when searches do not have to be narrowly tailored – and discourages foreign nations from retaliatory abuse of Americans’ privacy as well.

Lawmakers in 1986 never could have considered the cloud computing and storage that is prevalent in modern communications. Rather than downloading and deleting our emails, common in 1986, we create, share, and store a preponderance of personal information online.

Continuing to leave this 31-year-old loophole in place on an issue of such importance is unacceptable of lawmakers.

When you give government an inch, it does all it can to stretch and squeeze its way past its limits, but passing the ICPA would create certainty and a detailed process by which the government could no longer hide behind vague, out-of-date policy.

Photo Credit: Tal ETouch

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Open Source Code Would Make DoD Vulnerable

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Katie McAuliffe on Monday, October 23rd, 2017, 3:26 PM PERMALINK

We are moving full-steam ahead into conference on the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act. Of the issues to be debated, a seemingly obscure provision regarding open source code has caused a massive stir.

The Senate included provisions intended to reduce costs by giving preference to open source software; unfortunately, open source software will end up costing Americans dearly in terms of dollars and national security.

In a letter to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) noted that it is unwise to pass additional legislation before the Government-Industry panel on technical data rights has completed their review of sections 2320 and 2321.

Americans for Tax Reform and Digital Liberty agree with Congressman Lamborn, and express our concerns in a coalition letter signed by 10 conservative groups.  Requiring the Department of Defense use open source code for unclassified software as the preferred programming source code will adversely impact intellectual property rights and violate long-standing technology neutral procurement policies. As a result, we conclude that striking sections 881, 883, 884, 885, and 886 of the Act is vitally important as this legislation moves forward.

Under the language in section 881 of the Act, companies providing software to the DoD must turn over source code in its original format. This requirement violates U.S. copyright laws, as well as the Trade Secrets Act by mandating private companies give up their intellectual property rights to work with the federal government.

Section 883 requires that software projects being developed to be obtained through the General Services Administration’s Technology Transition Service, even if a similar tool or resource might be available through the private sector. This is economically inefficient, as it outsources work to 200 federal employees rather than the thousands of private sector employees available to solve these problems. This ineffective action only perpetuates dangerous government policy in this area.

Preferring open source code also creates a likely "front-door” opportunity for our nation’s enemies to infiltrate some of our most strategic systems. Section 886 sets a precedent that could lead to other agencies using this open source model for all future software licensing, further endangering American IT systems.

Striking these sections from the NDAA should not be difficult because these provisions are not included in the House version. Removal of these sections and allowing the current panel review to continue is the right move for Americans on both a fiscal and national security basis. 

Photo Credit: Hillyne2000

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Grover Norquist Statement In Support Of Reconfirming Federal Communications Commissioner Ajit Pai

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Katie McAuliffe on Thursday, September 28th, 2017, 4:59 PM PERMALINK

Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, issued the following statement in support of Federal Communications Commissioner Ajit Pai's reconfirmation:

Ajit Pai's confirmation to lead the Federal Communications Commission was second in importance only to Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch's confirmation. 

Under the Obama administration the number of people with quality internet access went down, and rather than work to connect Americans who are completely disconnected from the internet, they used that as an excuse to bring Venezuelan style regulation to the United States.

Ajit Pai's focus on connecting unserved Americans should be applauded not blocked. Your vote to reconfirm Ajit Pai as Chairman of the FCC will ensure that Americans control their own internet experience, not bureaucrats.

Photo Credit: USDA

Stop The FCC's False Privacy Rules

Posted by Katie McAuliffe on Tuesday, March 28th, 2017, 10:17 AM PERMALINK

Americans for Tax Reform supports using the Congressional Review Act authority to vacate the Federal Communications Commission's false privacy rules.

The rules are an excuse to expand agency power.  There is already a cop on the beat when it comes to privacy, the Federal Trade Commission.  There are already laws on the books governing the use of sensitive consumer data, including health and financial.  

By vacating the rules, we maintain the structure that has successfully protected consumer data while also encouraging innovation and a competitive ad based market for apps and other services.  This market gives consumers more choice often for free.

Read our letter to the House supporting the CRA.


Use the CRA to Remove
False Broadband Privacy Rules
Grover G. Norquist

March 27, 2017

RE:  Federal Communications Commission False Privacy Rules 

Dear Congressmen:

I write urging you to use your Congressional Review Act authority to withdraw the Federal Communications Commission’s broadband privacy rules and support the Federal Trade Commission framework for privacy protection.

We should always be wary of regulation for regulation’s sake. Duplicative rules at different agencies often create confusion and added costs without a significant benefit.

The Federal Trade Commission has been policing privacy for the last decade, and there has been no indication that another agency is needed.  The FCC is not needed here.

In a time when our goal is to pare down the cost of government and let taxpayers keep more of their hard earned paycheck, the FCC is no poster child for efficiency.  

FCC Commissioner Mike O’Rielly pointed out that the FCC, through information gathering requests alone, requires 73 million hours and $800 million just to fill out requests. The Competitive Enterprise Institute found that in FY 2015 the FCC spent around $464 million in regulatory development and enforcement, and it accounts for more than $100 billion annually in regulatory and economic impact.

Please find enclosed a coalition letter from 21 organizations detailing why the FTC rules are the correct approach and our opposition to the FCC rules.  This letter requested that Congress use its Congressional Review Act authority to rescind the broadband privacy rules. It also details why we do not believe the rules will do as they claim. 

Americans value their privacy.  That is why Americans for Tax Reform has been a vocal defender of privacy and the Fourth Amendment. However, the FCC rules use our highly valued privacy as a tool to empower agency regulatory expansion at the expense of consumers.

If you have any questions, please contact Katie McAuliffe by email, kmcauliffe@atr.org, or by phone, 202-785-0266.


Grover G. Norquist


21 State & Federal Organizations Support the CRA
January 26, 2017

The Honorable Paul Ryan
Speaker of the House
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi 
Minority Leader
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Speaker Ryan & Minority Leader Pelosi:

We urge you to use the authority provided in the Congressional Review Act to rescind the Federal
Communications Commission’s Broadband Privacy Order.

Congress is fully justified in rescinding these rules both because the Order lacks proper legal grounding and because of the need to ensure real consumer privacy across contexts of user experience.

The FCC’s approach is inconsistent with that of the Federal Trade Commission for nearly two decades, and will likely render harm unto consumers.

The FTC focuses on what data are held, the level of data sensitivity, and how consumers are affected if the data are misused. This outcomes-based approach takes consumers’ preferences into account while preventing actions that harm consumers.

The FTC’s approach rests on well-established standards of Unfairness (preventing substantial consumer injury) and Deception (enforcing material promises). Consumers generally agree on what constitutes financial and physical injury. Consumers deem data that could lead to these types of injuries more sensitive, and expect higher security for these data.

The sensitivity of other “private” information is, as the FTC rightly recognizes, often subjective, depending on its use. Some people might choose to post everything about themselves online — details that others might find invasive or embarrassing if made public — while others chose not to join social networks. Some might find value in an application using data about their geolocation in a particular way, while others decline participation because they consider the benefit of the service outweighed by its privacy cost. None of these approaches to privacy is incorrect. Each is a personal decision about tradeoffs. Taking varying consumer preferences into account, the FTC’s standards functioned reasonably well, requiring opt-out in most instances and opt-in only for particularly sensitive kinds of data.

The FCC approach focuses on who holds the data, rather than what — and how sensitive — the data are. This hinders services that consumers want while failing to protect sensitive data across contexts.

The FCC's questionable ability to regulate privacy standards, and its narrow view on what constitutes privacy protection, make its rules counterproductive to actual consumer privacy protections. In contrast, the FTC's approach to privacy does a better job of balancing protection of consumers’ privacy online with economic incentives to innovate in consumer products and services.

There are many reasons for Congress to negate these rules: The legality of the Open Internet Order, which these rules are based on, is questionable; the FCC's expanded interpretation of customer proprietary network information from section 222 is incorrect, as it applies specifically to voice services; and sections 201, 202, 303(b), 316 and 705 of the Communications Act also do not give the FCC the authority to enter rules of this nature.

Rescinding the Privacy Order would promote both innovation and effective, consistent privacy protections in over-the-top, application, wireless and wireline markets. It would also send a clear signal that the FCC has lost its way in interpreting the statute Congress gave it. Doing so would not create a gap in privacy protection because the FCC would retain the ability to police privacy practices of broadband companies on a case-by-case basis.

If Congress fails to use the CRA in such a clear-cut case of agency overreach, the statute will fail in its original goal: encouraging regulatory agencies to respect the bounds of Congressional authority.


Americans for Tax Reform
Digital Liberty 
American Commitment
American Consumer Institute
Caesar Rodeny Institute
Center for Freedom & Prosperity
Center for Individual Freedom
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Frontiers of Freedom
International Center for Law & Economics
Institute for Policy Innovation
The Jeffersonian Project
John Locke Foundation
Less Government
The Main Heritage Policy Center
Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council
Taxpayers Protection Alliance

ATR Supports the Register of Copyrights Selection & Accountability Act

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Katie McAuliffe on Friday, March 24th, 2017, 2:39 PM PERMALINK

The bipartisan, bicameral Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act was introduced today By House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlate (R-Va.), Ranking Member John Conyers (D-Mich.), Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

Americans for Tax Reform supports this legislation that makes the Register of Copyrights a Presidential appointment confirmed by the Senate.   

The following can be attributed to Americans for Tax Reform President, Grover Norquist:
"America’s copyrighted industries are the envy of the world and one of our greatest exports. Making the Register a Presidential appointment confirmed by the Senate is the first step in bringing the Office up-to-speed with the modern booming copyright industry. In America we protect people’s property and respect originality. We don’t praise plagiarism. We value the real McCoy."
The following can be attributed to Executive Director of Digital Liberty, Katie McAuliffe:
"By elevating the position, we raise the profile of the Copyright office within the United States government and around the world.  It shows that we recognize the importance of copyright to the United States’ and global economies. Countries that recognize and protect property rights, including copyright, have stronger economies that attract business investment, research and development. Its not a surprise that people and businesses prefer governments that don’t steal their stuff."

The Copyright Office needs autonomy to carry out its mission going forward. Designating the register of Copyrights as a Presidential appointment confirmed by the Senate is the first step in achieving that goal.

See ATR's comments on Copyright Office Modernization here.

More from Americans for Tax Reform