Floor Statements

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.

Mr. Speaker, in the past few years, we the American people have been presented with false choices: between following the rule of law or showing compassion to people in need.

I have had the privilege of being born in the United States, but I grew up with parents who faced the hardships of living under a dictatorship. They came to America hoping that the peace and the opportunity they heard about really did exist. They worked hard jobs, scrubbing toilets, they learned our language, studied our history, learned our system of government and our Constitution. And after many years, when they finally had the privilege of taking the oath of citizenship and pledging their allegiance to the American flag, they knew exactly what they were saying and they meant every word of it.

They were not just enjoying the blessings of what this country had to offer, but they were willing to take on the responsibilities that came with it. They gave me an appreciation for this great Nation and told me every day that I was blessed to be born in it.

Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to attend a naturalization ceremony and see the journey and the sacrifices that people have made to achieve citizenship. I think every American should take that oath of allegiance.

The goal of any immigration reform should be about family, safety, economic and community stability. The practice of separating loving families from their children at the border is heartbreaking to watch, which is why we should support this bill.

We are a Nation of laws. We should provide laws that create certainty about the fate of these families.

Although H.R. 6136 is not a perfect bill for everyone, it does end the policies that make it easier to be here illegally than it is to be here legally. And it hits the sweet spot, allowing us both to follow the rule of law and show compassion to those who seek freedom and the blessings this country has to offer.

We cannot hide behind procedures and posturing. We must take a vote. We must be accountable to the people who we represent. It is our turn and our time to follow what the Constitution says in Article I, Section 8, to create a uniform rule of naturalization.

I am a daughter of immigrants. We are a proud American family of patriots. We believe that this country is worthy of all of our greatest efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, all of us, to support the rule for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to raise awareness about postpartum depression. I rise today to raise awareness about maternal deaths. I rise today to let the country know about one of my constituents, Emily Dykes.

Emily was a good person. She was active in her community and beloved by all who knew her. But most of all, she was an amazing mother. However, with her fifth child, she developed some difficulties, and Emily was overtaken by severe anxiety. It was so severe, in fact, that it led to her mistreatment, misdiagnosis, and misunderstanding of her condition. Eventually, it led to her suffering so badly that, in her search for safety, she ran onto a freeway and was killed by a semi truck.

The horrible fact is that Emily is not the only woman who suffers from this. Right now, there are thousands of women who suffer just like Emily suffered.

As a mother, I want those women to know that they are not alone. There are many who have gone through very similar experiences, and there are places that mothers can go and get help. I encourage them to reach out. I encourage families to help out.

This is not something that will go away unless we work to find a solution, that is, unless we as a society recognize it and take away the stigmas related to postpartum depression and help provide support to those who come forward for help.

As we raise this awareness, we can find solutions that will make sure that the tragedies that befell Emily and her family won't happen again. Mr. Speaker, I ask my community, State, colleagues, friends, and Members of Congress to come to the table to help save lives so that children like Emily's five children are not left without a mother.

Mr. Speaker, we have an economy that is humming right now. Utah's unemployment rate is better than the national average, and it is the best it has been in 10 years. We are adding jobs--1,400 just last month.

I am urging a ``yes'' vote on this bill because I want to keep the good news coming. America needs a financial system that is strong, resilient, and innovative.

As a former mayor, I know that access to credit is crucial for cities to build schools and roads, for families to buy a home, and for farmers to buy tractors. After the 2008 financial crisis, Congress passed laws to rein in large financial institutions, but the rules went

too far, and they are hurting the smaller banks, who can't handle all the red tape. S. 2155 would ease that burden without risk to the rest of the financial system.

My bill, H.R. 4771, is included in this package to help those small banks gain the access to capital they need to serve their community.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote for the good of people and for the health of our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Salt Lake Community College, also known as SLCC, for its leadership in making it more affordable to residents in Utah to earn a degree or certificate.

Early this month opened Open Education Week, and I would like to highlight ``Open SLCC,'' an initiative that started in 2014 and has grown to more than 600 open sections across a wide range of foundational courses online.

To date, Open SLCC has saved $5.8 million for over 40,000 students by using Open Educational Resources, or OER, as an alternative to costly textbooks. This is truly remarkable.

Combined with SLCC's promise, where the community college covers the tuition and fees for students with significant financial needs, SLCC is effectively addressing issues of access and affordability to help students complete college and compete in our workforce. I salute SLCC for this winning combination.

I also want to congratulate Mr. Jason Pickavance at SLCC for hosting the first ``State of the OER Conference'' in February. This is a great example of collaboration among education leaders in Utah and nationally to address college affordability and completion issues.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to bank regulation, the job of the regulator is to balance the need for economic growth with the safety and soundness of the financial system. With fresh memories of the most recent financial crisis, it is natural for regulators to err on the side of being overly cautious so they aren't blamed when something goes wrong.

Unfortunately, this has led to a situation in which regulators are evaluating stress tests based on subjective and unclear standards. The stress tests are opaque; it is like asking banks to kick a field goal when they don't even know where the goal posts are. What is more, the regulators keep ratcheting up the standards.

For the stress tests to achieve their goal, however--the goal of keeping the financial system safe and sound--they need to be transparent and they need to be fair.

H.R. 4293, a bill with bipartisan support, would approve the stress testing process for bank holding companies by repealing the ability of regulators to reject a financial institution's stress test based on subjective and opaque standards.

Another important improvement to the process would be the elimination of the overly burdensome midcycle review by shifting from biannual to annual stress testing requirements.

These reforms would make it easier for Congress, the markets, and the public to assess both the integrity of the findings of the stress tests and the effectiveness of the Fed's regulatory oversight.

Some critics, nonetheless, have claimed that this bill would weaken Dodd-Frank. On the contrary, H.R. 4293 would improve the flawed standards of Dodd-Frank and strengthen the stress testing process to ensure that it produces the results we seek: a safer and more stable financial system.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York, Lee Zeldin, and Congressman David Scott for supporting this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4771.

Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank Chairman Hensarling for his support of this bill, as well as the cosponsors, Mr. Gottheimer and Mr. Meeks, for making this a bipartisan effort to help community banks.

Economic freedom and personal freedom run hand in hand. In order to ensure personal freedoms, Americans need access to credit as individuals, on behalf of their families, and in their businesses. That is why I am proud to have introduced this bill.

H.R. 4771 is a very simple bill to help small banks and savings and loan companies get access to the capital they need to make credit available in their communities. These small banking institutions are critical to people in the local communities in which they reside. They support the credit needs of families, small businesses, farmers, and entrepreneurs.

Community banks are often the principal lending source for many people, whether they are purchasing a home or starting a business. In many counties around the Nation, our community banks are the only banking presence that residents have.

When these community banking institutions are overwhelmed with regulations and mandates, many of which are meant for larger institutions, it is the hardworking families and low-income Americans in those communities that suffer.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is about people. Community banks give people the credit they need to pursue their dreams, buy a home, buy a car, and own and grow their businesses. In fact, proximity to a community bank increases the chance that a new small business will be approved for a loan that they need to succeed.

By raising the consolidated asset threshold under the Federal Reserve's Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement from $1 billion to $3 billion in assets, hundreds of additional small banks and thrift holding companies will qualify for the coverage under the policy statement and, therefore, be exempt from certain regulatory and capital guidelines.

These capital standards were originally established for larger institutions and disproportionately harm small holding companies. Many holding companies that are above the current threshold face challenges with regard to capital formation, just when regulators are demanding higher capital levels.

The exemptions provided in the policy statement make it easier for a small holding company to raise capital and issue debt. This bill is about making sure that regulations fit the size of the institution.

Mr. Speaker, a similar effort was passed into law during the 113th Congress under suspension by the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate. That bill raised the threshold from $500 million, where it had been since 1996, to $1 billion.

That legislation also extended the exemption to savings and loan holding companies. While we are glad that we were able to achieve that increase, which roughly helped 500 small bank and thrift holding companies, why wouldn't we extend those benefits further?

H.R. 4771 would bring even more small institutions within the scope of the policy statement. We have already seen the benefits of the last increase. One success story we have heard was an instance where 35 bank holding companies pooled their resources together to issue debt under the policy statement. That debt was then downstreamed to their respective banks where the capital was then used to make loans in the communities they serve, illustrating the great multiplier effect that the policy statement can produce. H.R. 4771 seeks to extend that flexibility and success to a greater number of small institutions and the communities they serve.

Opponents of this increase have alleged that changing the regulatory threshold would put communities and the Deposit Insurance Fund at higher risk. But the policy statement contains not one but several safeguards designed to ensure that the small bank holding companies that operate with the higher levels of debt permitted under the policy statement do not present an undue risk to the safety and the soundness of the subsidiary banks.

Mr. Speaker, to sum it up, this bill is not about supporting banks. It is about supporting families. It is about supporting communities and small business. It is about making sure that small-business owners have access to the credit they need to expand and to thrive.

I recently heard of a businessowner in my community who employs about 30 people. Most of these people that she employs are women who are trying to take care of their families and make a little bit more so that they could put some money in their pocket or buy a car. She would like to expand her business, but it----

Mr. Speaker, she would like to expand her business to employ even more people, but she continuously receives red tape, and it makes it very difficult for her to be able to provide for her community. This is about families sitting around the kitchen table imagining the possibilities of renovating their home and the entrepreneur dreaming of starting a restaurant or being her own boss.

Raising the threshold received strong bipartisan support in the Financial Services Committee, and I hope that it will receive equal support in this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in support of the underlying bills: H.R. 772, the Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act of 2017; H.R. 1153, the Mortgage Choice Act of 2017; and my bill, H.R. 4771, the Small Bank Holding Company Relief Act of 2018.

Both H.R. 1153 and H.R. 4771 have received strong bipartisan support in the Financial Services Committee, and I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

The goal of H.R. 4771 is one that I have been pushing for the past few years to help our small banks thrive and serve their communities. Since that is a shared goal on both sides of the aisle, I am grateful that Mr. Gottheimer and Mr. Meeks joined me in cosponsoring this bill.

The Small Bank Holding Company Relief Act of 2018 is a very simple bill that helps small banks and savings and loan companies get the access to capital they need to serve the financial needs of small businesses and individuals in their communities.

This bill would simply raise the consolidated asset threshold under the Federal Reserve's Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement from $1 billion to $3 billion in assets.

Raising the asset threshold means that hundreds of additional small banks and thrift holding companies around the country will qualify for coverage under the policy statement and, therefore, be exempt from certain regulatory and capital guidelines.

These exemptions make it easier for these small holding companies to raise capital and issue debt. Many holding companies that are above the current threshold face challenges with regard to capital formation, which is particularly of concern for small institutions that are struggling to meet higher capital level demands by regulators.

The Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement was first issued in 1980 and provides exemptions from certain capital guidelines for small bank institutions. These capital standards were originally established for larger institutions and disproportionately harm small bank holding companies.

The policy statement also makes it easier to form new banks and thrift holding companies and to make the acquisitions by issuing debt at the holding company level.

These are all important tools in ensuring that our smallest institutions can continue to lend to consumers and small businesses in their communities and survive in an environment that continuously challenges our community banks.

The policy statement also contains several safeguards designed to ensure that small bank holding companies that operate with higher levels of debt permitted by the policy statement do not present an undue risk to the safety and the soundness of these subsidiary banks.

Mr. Speaker, this is a simple bill to help our small banks stay strong and continue to support their communities. The last time the threshold was raised in 2014, the effort received widespread bipartisan support.

H.R. 4771 also received strong bipartisan support in the Financial Services Committee during the most recent markup.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to give equal support to this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Harper and also Ranking Member Brady for including the STOP Act in the House Administration legislation.

Shockingly, the Office of Compliance confirms that hundreds of thousands of dollars have been paid with taxpayer money to settle sexual harassment cases against Members of Congress.

I am pleased to say that the bill that is before us today incorporates a bill that I introduced last December to stop this practice, H.R. 4674. The Stop Taxpayers Obligations to Perpetrators of Sexual Harassment Act will require Members of Congress to pay back any taxpayer money used to settle sexual harassment cases. Victims will be compensated, but taxpayers won't be footing the bill.

This bill promotes and supports due process. It sends a message that there isn't a set fund out there paid for by the taxpayer ready for someone to access, but it also doesn't encourage a Member who feels that they have done nothing wrong to settle so an issue can just go away.

If a Member of Congress behaves badly, the consequences of those actions are that person's responsibility, not the taxpayers'. I believe that Members should live by the laws that they create and the taxpayers should not be responsible for inappropriate behavior.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3971, the Community Institution Mortgage Relief Act, because the ability to purchase a home is one of the most sacred financial goals we have as Americans. This is an important path to home ownership, and we are doing everything we can to make sure it remains accessible.

This bill will help do that by ensuring that community banks and credit unions stay in the mortgage lending business and continue to provide potential homeowners with diverse credit options in their communities.

I would like to thank Representative Claudia Tenney from New York for providing such a great relief to community institutions.

Unfortunately, as we have seen too often, this is one more instance where government efforts to protect people are inadvertently having the opposite effect. Though intended to protect homeowners, the CFPB's final rule and guidance on escrow and mortgage service requirements are so burdensome and costly for smaller institutions, that we are driving mortgage businesses away from them.

This comes on top of an already burdensome regulatory environment in which our small financial institutions are facing rules and regulations that were made for larger banks, causing them to close their doors at a rate of one small institution a day.

We need a more tailored regulatory environment that balances the credit needs of consumers with appropriate consumer protections. This legislation would do that by exempting lenders with assets of $20 billion or less from escrow requirements on high-priced mortgage loans they hold in portfolio and would provide much-needed regulatory relief for small servicers.

With smaller staff and fewer resources, existing escrow rules are financially and technically prohibitive for small community institutions. In addition, these smaller lenders often hold the liability in portfolio for the term of the loan, making an escrow account unnecessary, because the lender has a strong interest in protecting its collateral by ensuring that taxes and insurance premiums get paid.

When it comes to purchasing or refinancing a home, it is tremendously important that consumers have credit options. We preserve those options by allowing community institutions to enter or remain in the mortgage market.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is, in my district, and in many other districts, there are small banks that are getting out of the mortgage lending business, and they cannot provide those options for the communities that they live in.

We need to do everything we can to make sure that we are allowing these institutions to stay in the market without being deterred by the high cost of regulatory compliance, and thank goodness H.R. 3971 achieves those goals. I support it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues at the CBC for the opportunity to speak at this Special Order hour.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, I traveled to Haiti to investigate sex trafficking, as part of my work on the Financial Services Committee's Subcommittee on Terrorism and Illicit Finance. While I was there, I had the opportunity to observe conditions as well as meet with leadership and the President.

What I saw was a nation struggling to rebuild after the 2010 tragedy that hurt and rattled the nation with an earthquake, a cholera epidemic, and Hurricane Matthew. What I heard was the nation was not prepared for the tens of thousands of Haitians that were to return.

Haitian TPS recipients contribute significantly to the United States' economy and to the Haitian economy. As Haiti works not only to rebuild, but to rise itself out of poverty that has plagued it for years, I ask the White House to please take a moment to help our friends and allies in Haiti and to extend the temporary protective status.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to send my love and prayers to the victims and the family members of those who were hurt in Nevada.

I would also like to plead to the American people today to be good to one another. We have enough people out there outside of our country trying to hurt us. We have enough natural disasters trying to tear down our homes and tear up our lives that we don't have to do that to each other.

I rise today as an American, as a wife, and mainly as a mother to address some of the double standards that we have in this country. As a member of the Select Panel on Infant Lives, I learned that Federal law increases criminal penalties for crimes involving pregnant women. These laws give protections to the mother and her unborn child--rightfully so.

However, this begs the question: When does the unborn have a right to protection just like their mother?

Obviously, this is an important issue.

Why is abortion not considered murder and killing a pregnant woman a double homicide?

Martin Luther King, Jr., said this about the civil rights movement: ``The Negro cannot win as long as he is willing to sacrifice the lives of his children for comfort and safety.'' How can the dream survive if we murder our children?

Each human life should be protected under the rule of law. Each life that feels pain should be free from being tortured.

I cannot believe that we are here on the floor of the House, the people's House, continuing to plead and advocate for life. I am asking that we support H.R. 36 and help provide these protections for our unborn.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for supporting this legislation.

More than 120 years ago, the Utah Enabling Act, which enabled my State--now the greatest State in the country--to be admitted into the Union, was approved. This granted Utah the right to select acreage to support various public institutions, including public schools and universities. Now, 123 years later, much of the acreage made available for State selection remains outstanding.

The BLM's Pony Express Resource Management Plan governs management practices for public lands in Utah's Tooele, Utah, and Salt Lake Counties. It has identified thousands of acres within the plan's area as available for disposal. The State can presently obtain these lands via land exchange. However, the resource management plan does not explicitly state that these lands can be obtained using the unfulfilled land credits granted by the Utah Enabling Act.

My bill, the Confirming State Land Grants for Education Act, would simply amend the Pony Express RMP to allow the State of Utah to use outstanding land grant credits to obtain lands within the limited area of RMP that already has been identified available for disposal.

This solution would satisfy both the State and Federal Government and help to keep the promises made to the State of Utah for more than 120 years. More importantly, it would ultimately raise funds for the benefit of Utah students by allowing Utah's School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration, SITLA, to manage these lands for the benefit of students. As Utah finds more ways to fund public schools and public education, this bill helps provide much-needed resources.

Notably, the passage of H.R. 2582 would not convey any land on its own. Existing conveyance processes would still apply.

Additionally, my bill does not dictate land use policies once the land is conveyed. As a former mayor, I respect the State and local officials and processes, and I certainly have no desire to supersede them. My bill is merely meant to facilitate the process that enables conveyance through the use of available selection credits. It was voted out of committee by unanimous consent, and I urge this body to show similar support today.