Mia B. Love

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6751, the Banking Transparency for Sanctioned Persons Act, which is a commonsense reporting requirement that will allow our Congress to better oversee financial sanctions against state sponsors of terrorism, human rights abusers, and perpetrators of corruption around the world.

This bill is simple but important. Every 180 days, the Treasury Department would be required to send Congress a report with two sets of information. The first is a copy of any license issued by Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control that authorizes a financial institution to provide services benefitting a state sponsor of terrorism--such as Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Sudan--that would otherwise be prohibited.

Second, Treasury would have to provide a list of any foreign banks that conduct significant transactions for persons we have sanctioned for serious human rights abuses and corruption, a group that includes Russian Government officials behind the imprisonment and death of Sergei Magnitsky, Burmese military officers responsible for ethnic cleansing, and individuals in Latin America responsible for beating and killing of peaceful protesters.

Such a report would be a tremendous asset for Congress, and sharing this kind of information with Congress should be automatic, because licenses represent exemptions to our sanction programs. Some of those exemptions may be controversial, while others may enjoy broad support. The point is that congressional oversight of sanctions is limited without visibility into transactions Treasury is authorizing.

As for foreign banks' dealings with perpetrators of corruption and human rights abuses, Congress can use this information not only to better oversee existing sanctions, but to design a more effective program in the future.

Some of the questions we can begin to answer by having greater awareness of sanctioned persons' access to foreign financial services include: Are foreign banks exposing themselves to money laundering risk or facilitating activities that run counter to our national interests? And should our diplomats be exerting stronger pressure on those banks' governments in order to cut off bad actors?

Finally, I would like to note that we have been very deliberate in ensuring that the reporting required by this bill is as easy to administer as possible because we don't want to impose reporting requirements that could keep Treasury from the day-to-day work of designating bad actors. Therefore, this is a twice-a-year submission that entails no analysis and no narrative. It is as straightforward as scanning licenses and assembling a list to Treasury that that they already have components of, after which we could then follow up with questions in hearings, briefings, and the like.

I would like to thank the chairman for his support on this bill and thank all the members of the Financial Services Committee on both sides of the aisle for supporting this.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6751.

Mr. Speaker, this is about the medical technology industry and a manufacturing success story, one of the last expanding manufacturing enterprises in the United States. While the U.S. is the current worldwide leader in medical technology innovation, that leadership is being threatened.

I am speaking to you today about the medical device tax. This industry has a huge presence in Utah, and this unfair tax would have a negative effect on my district and the country as a whole.

In Utah, this industry has created more than 10,300 jobs and contributes over $5 billion to the State's economy.

Recently, Congress has been focused on reducing taxes to make the United States a more attractive place to do business, but the medical technology industry would get a significant tax increase. Even with the recent tax changes, industry gains would be neutralized by this tax.

Under the 2.3 percent excise tax, medical device manufacturers would be required to pay the IRS an estimated average of $194 million per month in medical device tax payments. In Utah, BD's total impact of the device tax is about $90 million on an annualized basis. For Edwards Lifesciences, this would be a $30 million expense.

In a competitive global economy, this tax threatens the industry that directly employs 400,000 Americans, generates $25 billion in payroll, and invests nearly $10 billion in research and development annually.

American companies represent 38 percent of the global market, and the suspended tax looms over our Nation's ability to innovate and to stay competitive. As companies look to make cuts to offset the tax, research and development is often the first one to go. This tradeoff undermines the future of the industry and puts discovery of new breakthrough medical technologies at risk. In other words, it is putting the livelihoods of people and their health at risk.

According to figures from the U.S. Department of Commerce, the United States medical technology industry lost nearly 29,000 jobs while the medical device tax was in effect. When the medical device tax was suspended, most medical device companies reinvested most of their savings into their innovative strategies and improving United States facilities. But long-term investment has been postponed because of the threat that it might come back.

Mr. Speaker, it has been said that, by repealing the medical device tax, we are going to be taking money out of Medicare. That is absolutely ridiculous. As a matter of fact, there was a $700 billion cut to Medicare to pay for the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Speaker, Utah's Merit Medical was planning on spending $1.5 million for salary increases and 401(k) benefits for hourly workers, but they can't, unless this tax is repealed.

Merit Medical is also planning a $60 million R&D facility, but it is now on hold because of the tax. In Utah, with the last suspension, BD increased R&D spending from 6 percent to 6.5 percent in sales.

If this tax does not get repealed, the industry is forced to start making payments. Investments will be the tradeoff, and innovation will be stifled. This means less jobs for Americans, a less competitive America in the medical device industry, and, potentially, an increase in the medical cost for our constituents so that this industry can pay for the tax.

It is time to make sure that we put money back into the hands of Americans, American businesses, and out of the hands of government.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this bill is being considered today. This bill is both timely and extremely important to my constituents.

This summer, tens of thousands of acres have burned throughout Utah. Unfortunately, many regions in the State remain at high risk due to prolonged drought. One of these regions is Juab County, which sits within my district.

Juab County consists of more than 2 million acres of land, much of which is covered with dry, flammable vegetation. The county is also experiencing a years-long drought. In fact, last year, the USDA designated the county as a disaster area due to the damages caused by the drought.

More than 70 percent of Juab is controlled by the Federal Government. While significant Federal ownership and control of land in Utah is often a source of contention, Juab County has developed a cooperative and constructive relationship with their local Federal partners.

The Forest Service currently owns a small property, just over 2 acres, within the town of Nephi, the county seat of Juab County. It has been vacant and unused for years and was identified as available for disposal several years ago. This property is known as the Nephi Work Center.

My bill, the Juab County Conveyance Act, would simply convey this property to the county. Juab intends to use this property to house their wildlands fire team, which is part of their special service fire district. This would enable the county to more effectively mitigate fire risks and protect Juab County residents and both Forest Service and BLM land within the county.

As a former mayor who has dealt with fires in and around my community, including on public lands, I want to do all I can to help my constituents. This bill will benefit both the county and Federal agencies that own and manage lands within the county.

We are talking about a city of about 1,000 people fighting fires on millions of acres. We just want to do everything we can to make sure we get to the fires as soon as possible and help not just protect costs, but the homes and the livelihoods of the families that live there.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote in support of this bill.