Raúl Grijalva

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 5 minutes. The United States flag has flown over Puerto Rico for more than a century. Those born on the island are American citizens, and more than 200,000 have served in the United States military, including roughly 10,000 serving today. Millions more live on the U.S. mainland but consider Puerto Rico their home. Mr. Chairman, we are here today because our fellow Americans are suffering, and it is our constitutional responsibility to help them. They are suffering from the effects of a debt crisis more than a decade in the making. A devastating combination of mismanagement, unfair Federal policies, opportunistic hedge funds, and desperate budget cuts have destroyed the economy on the island. The monstrous burden of Puerto Rico's $70 billion debt is swallowing the funds needed to provide health care, education, transportation, and public safety for the Commonwealth's families. Almost 100,000 people have left the Commonwealth last year to look for better economic opportunities, which only makes the situation on the island worse. About 80 percent of children in Puerto Rico live in high- poverty areas, compared to about 11 percent of children on the mainland. The island's poverty rate is about 44 percent, and unemployment is 13 percent. If Congress fails to act, the island and its people face another decade of further economic and social collapse. Our fellow citizens of Puerto Rico should not have to endure this coming humanitarian crisis. Our colleague, Nydia Velazquez, has described the status quo as a ``recipe to lose an entire generation to forced migration to the mainland.'' After 6 months of difficult bipartisan negotiations, four hearings, and a series of draft bills, we are here today to consider H.R. 5278. H.R. 5278 will provide the tools necessary to get the economy of Puerto Rico on a more stable footing and allow the Commonwealth to regain access to credit markets. The bill would allow restructuring of all outstanding debt without favoring any particular creditor; require transparent audits, combined with annual fiscal plans and budgets; and temporarily pause the ongoing flurry of litigation to allow the oversight board to begin its work and create a space for voluntary negotiations. As I have said throughout this process, this is not a bill that I or Democrats would have written. The oversight board is too powerful and is yet another infringement of the sovereignty of the people of Puerto Rico, and they have a right to find it offensive. The provisions undermining minimum wage and overtime rules don't belong in the bill. What is worse, they threaten the effectiveness of the overall legislation. Provisions that should be included--like full pension protections, an earned income tax credit, equal funding for Medicaid, and a Zika response--are missing. But the reality is that this is the only bill that would attract enough support from my colleagues across the aisle to pass in a Congress which they control. There is no other avenue available to address the crisis. This compromise is the bill we can and should pass. When measured against a perfect bill, this legislation is inadequate. When measured against the worsening crisis in Puerto Rico, this legislation is vitally necessary. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5278. I would like to take a moment to clarify for the record a number of inaccurate and misleading statements in the Committee Report on H.R. 5278. It appears that the Committee Report on H.R. 5278 was prepared based on earlier non-public drafts of the bill--not the version considered by the Committee. Several references plainly do not reflect the current language in H.R. 5278 as introduced or as voted on by the House Committee on Natural Resources during its markup hearing. The following statement on page 40 of the Committee Report oversimplifies a complex problem facing Puerto Rico and, in my view, mischaracterizes the nature of the territory government's action: It says, ``Puerto Rico's local politicians have accelerated the crisis on the island through the passage of harmful legislation, including the imposition of a moratorium on the payment of debt.'' Puerto Rico's passage of a moratorium law was a local response to attempt to address its fiscal and debt emergency in the absence of necessary Congressional action. It is misleading and unreasonable to characterize the passage of a local moratorium law as accelerating the crisis. The Committee Report's summary of section 101 provides that: ``[additionally, this section provides for the appointment of seven individuals to the Oversight Board through a process that ensures that a majority of its members are effectively chosen by Republican congressional leaders on an expedited timeframe, while upholding the President's constitutional role in making appointments.'' Let's be very clear: The President appoints all seven members of this Puerto Rico Board. To be sure, members of Congress may make suggestions to the President, but the power to appoint members of this territorial entity remains with the President. The Committee Report's summary of section 201 is inaccurate in a number of respects. The report states, on page 45, that ``[i]mportantly, Fiscal Plans ensure the protection of the lawful priorities and liens as guaranteed by the territorial constitution and applicable laws, and prevent unlawful inter-debtor transfers of funds.'' This interpretation is misleading and does not reflect the language of the bill or the evolution of the language throughout the legislative process. Section 201(b)(1)(N) provides that a Fiscal Plan certified by the Oversight Board must ``respect'' the relative lawful priorities or lawful liens under territory laws, not ``ensure the protection'' of such priorities or liens. The verb ``respect'' was specifically chosen by the drafters of the bill and carefully considered by the Committee. For instance, at the Committee markup, Representative Fleming twice offered amendments that would have changed the ``respect'' language in section 201(b)(1)(N) to ``comply with.'' The Committee twice rejected those amendments--the first time on a voice vote and the second time on a roll call vote, 16 yeas to 23 nays. The Committee recognized that the verb ``comply with'' was unduly restrictive and that the Oversight Board needed the flexibility afforded by the verb ``respect,'' which is more open-ended. For that reason, it is inaccurate for the Committee Report to state--contrary to the current legislative text and the Committee's intent--that Fiscal Plans ensure the protection of lawful priorities and liens. In addition, the summary of section 201 explains that ``[w]hile this language seeks to provide an adequate level of funding for pension systems, it does not allow for pensions to be unduly favored over other indebtedness in a restructuring.'' But Section 201(b)(1)(C) has nothing to do with relative priorities among various creditors; the provision requires the Board to provide for adequate funding of pensions, which relates to the Fiscal Plan and the manner by which annual budgets comply with the Fiscal Plan. Of course, any restructuring under Title III must be consistent with the Fiscal Plan under Section 314 of the bill, but the Committee Report is inaccurate in suggesting that this provision relates to relative priorities. The following statement on page 48 summarizing section 303 is missing a critical adjective: ``nor may an executive order divert funds from one instrumentality to another or to the territory.'' Certain executive orders that divert funds from one territorial instrumentality to another or to the territory may be lawful under applicable territory laws. The only types of executive orders that are preempted by section 303(3) of this Act are ``unlawful'' executive orders, as the text of section 303(3) makes abundantly clear. For instance, if an executive order is permitted by the territory's constitution or its laws, it is not an unlawful executive order and is not preempted by section 303. The drafters intended section 303(3) to make clear that PROMESA preempts and renders void any executive orders issued beyond the scope of what would have been authorized by its local laws; lawful exercises of executive authority are unaffected. In summarizing section 314 on page 50, the report states: ``[b]y incorporating consistency with the Fiscal Plan into the requirements of confirmation of a plan of adjustment, the Committee has ensured lawful priorities and liens, as provided for by the territory's constitution, laws, and agreements, will be respected in any debt restructuring that occurs.'' This summary suffers from the same problem that the summary of the provisions of section 201 suffered: It refers to language that has never existed in a public version of the bill; rather, it reflects staff-level draft text that was ultimately rejected. Section 201 clarifies that Fiscal Plans must ``respect'' lawful priorities and lawful liens. The Committee carefully considered this language and twice rejected amendments proposed to change it to ``comply with'' such priorities and liens. The summary of section 407 on page 52 explains that: ``[t]his section grants creditors the right to sue upon the conclusion of the stay, if the government of Puerto Rico transfers property between instrumentalities during the tenure of the Oversight Board in violation of any agreement, or applicable law that a creditor has or would have a pledge of, security interest in, or lien on such property.'' Section 407, as drafted and passed through Committee establishes a federal remedy for Puerto Rico's creditors in certain circumstances. But the addition of the language ``or would have'' in the Committee Report, again, reflects staff-level text that was not ultimately included in the version approved by the Committee. The current text provides a cause of action for creditors that--at the time of the alleged unlawful transfer--in fact have ``a pledge of, security interest in, or lien on'' the transferred property. Contrary to the suggestion of the Committee Report, the provision does not permit such a cause of action if the plaintiff only ``would have'' in some future circumstance such an interest. Indeed, the fact that the addition of words like ``or would have'' were discussed but not ultimately included in the text is strong evidence that Congress did not intend for such prospective, contingent rights to be within the scope of this provision. It would have been extraordinary to provide certain creditors an argument that federal law establishes for them a property interest where no such property interest existed under the terms of the agreements they negotiated. The Committee rightly declined to do so. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our whip.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Missouri for his support of the legislation. As we heard, H.R. 2009 is the culmination of a longstanding land agreement between Tucson Unified School District, TUSD, and the Pascua Yaqui Tribe. Last Congress we finalized the first part of the agreement with the passage and signing of H.R. 507, which conveyed two 10-acre parcels to the tribe. Passage of this bill will complete the second part of the agreement to the mutual benefit of both parties involved as well as the surrounding communities. The 40-acre parcel of land referenced in the bill is currently deeded to TUSD under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, but TUSD has no intention of using the land for the stated purpose. Instead, the tribe will be able to utilize the parcel to construct flood control measures to protect the reservation and surrounding communities from flash flooding during Arizona monsoon season. Additionally, the land conveyed to TUSD will allow the district to better plan for future expansion and best use scenarios without the encumbrances encountered under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. I would like to note that the tribe and TUSD have had, and continue to have, a great working relationship, especially when it comes to the land use decisions around the Pascua Yaqui reservation. This bill is a direct result of that relationship and was negotiated with input from all parties involved and with an eye to the most effective use of the parcels. In closing, let me take the time to thank Chairman Young and Ranking Member Ruiz for their work on the legislation in the subcommittee; and, of course, a special thanks to Chairman Bishop for working with me to bring it to the floor today. I urge adoption of the legislation.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Some of the claims that the Land and Water Conservation Fund is some kind of a slush fund are completely false. All LWCF expenditures are approved by Congress through the appropriations process. The proposed land acquisitions are developed over many years after a public land management planning process. This is a far more responsible and transparent process than many Federal expenditures, and it is opposite of a slush fund. The allegation that the Land and Water Conservation Fund has drifted from its original intent is also false. The purpose of the program is to provide balance. As we allow oil companies to reap massive profits from Federal oil reserves, we should set some of the revenue aside for conservation purposes, and that is still what LWCF does today. Funding for State matching grants has fluctuated over the years, but that is not a drift. That is the result of previous Congress' appropriations decisions, many of which were made during Republican Congresses. The truth is, LWCF is under attack precisely because for 50 years it has not drifted from its conservation goals. We do not need to rob LWCF in order to pay the maintenance costs. Federal land management agencies have maintenance backlogs because Congress refuses to give them the funding they deserve and need. Any Member concerned about backlogged maintenance should contact the Committee on Appropriations immediately and express support for an increase in maintenance budgets. You can do this without gutting LWCF. Finally, LWCF is not a Federal land grab. At least 40 percent of LWCF money goes to States in the form of matching grants. The Federal funding is targeted at in-holdings, already surrounded by Federal land. Acquiring an in-holding does not increase the size of the Federal footprint. Buying in-holdings can provide access to parcels that are closed because there is no public access route. These purchases are from willing sellers. These are people who want to sell their land. Those who oppose this motion to instruct or oppose LWCF are part of a larger campaign to hand over all remaining open space to private development. Oil and gas companies, mining conglomerates, timber companies, real estate developers, and large scale agribusinesses would love to get their hands on the open space in the West. Some in Congress want to help them, and they see LWCF standing in the way because it conserves open space for public and not private use. Congress should reauthorize and strengthen this program. We face more habitat fragmentation, greater urban sprawl, and more severe climate change than ever before. It is time to double down on the promise of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, not fold so developers can cash out. The energy bill is the place to do that, and I urge the adoption of the motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic motion would instruct House conferees to insist that section 5002 of S. 2012 be included in the final conference report on this energy package. Section 5002 of the Senate bill would permanently reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund and make other minor changes to the program. The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 is based on a simple idea. If we are going to allow Big Oil to make huge profits from drilling off our coasts, then a small percentage of those profits should be set aside for parks and recreational opportunities onshore. The oil and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf belongs to all our constituents, so it is only right that all of our constituents should see the same benefit when Big Oil develops these resources. Fifty years later, the program has been a huge success. More than $36 billion has accrued to the fund. Millions of acres have been conserved and projects have been funded in every State in the Union. Meanwhile, the companies paying into the fund have become some of the most profitable multinational conglomerates in human history. Over the same five decades, States with large amounts of public land have developed robust tourism and recreation economies, with job and economic opportunities and a quality of life attractive enough to make them among the fastest growing communities in the country. By investing and expanding recreational opportunities, Congress gets a significant return on its investment as outdoor recreation generates $646 billion in spending each year, supports 6.1 million jobs, and $39.9 billion in tax revenue. The Land and Water Conservation Fund benefits people. It benefits the environment. It benefits companies and allows them to drill off our shores. It benefits the Federal budget. It benefits those mainly western States with lots of public land. It is a win-win-win. Our colleagues in the Senate saw fit to include permanent reauthorization for LWCF in the Senate-passed energy bill, a bill which received overwhelming support, including most Republicans. The Land and Water Conservation Fund is pretty popular here in the House as well. My legislation to permanently reauthorize the program, H.R. 1814, has 207 bipartisan cosponsors. There is no doubt that many of the provisions in the House and Senate energy bills are controversial. It is, frankly, difficult to see a path toward a bipartisan conference report. In such a contentious conference situation, a provision reauthorizing a program as widely popular as LWCF would play a constructive role in moving toward consensus. Section 5002 from the Senate bill should be absolutely included in the conference report. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and memory of Teresa Leal, a passionate historian and activist and curator of the Pimeria Alta Historical Society Museum. Teresa passed away on May 1, 2016 in Nogales, Arizona at the place dearest to her, the museum at which she proudly worked for over 20 years. Teresa's roots are every bit as eclectic as our nation as a whole, with lineage tracing back to Mexican, Chinese and Opata native ancestors. Born in Navojoa, Sonora, she was raised in Tucson, Arizona, and attended Catalina High School. Teresa was only sixteen years old when she joined the United Farm Workers to educate female cotton workers on the risks they faced at their jobs. As a young girl, her mother, Isabel Leal, was a chef to the United States Ambassador to the court of St. James in Great Britain, Lewis Douglas, who later became Teresa's friend and mentor. Growing up, Teresa was fortunate to meet important figures in the reconstruction of the post-World War II world like John McCloy, the postwar High Commissioner of Germany. After graduation she enrolled at the University of San Carlos in Guatemala where she studied social anthropology. Teresa later came back to Nogales, Sonora where she spent the rest of her life. In 1986, Teresa founded the women's group known as Proyecto Comadres, where she addressed labor, environmental, and civil rights issues concerning women who labored at the ``maquiladoras'' in Nogales, Sonora. As the group's membership grew they expanded their efforts to include women who faced domestic violence and economic or family struggles. At the same time she served as a substitute teacher in Mexico. Teresa also worked with the Binational Health Council to examine health issues affecting both sides of the Nogales border, as well as the nongovernmental organization Gente de I'itoi in Sonora, where she trained indigenous women as health educators throughout the Yaqui, Seri and Tohono tribes. Teresa was the grantee recipient from the Southwest Network for Environmental and Economic Justice and also a member of the National Advisory Council for the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation. Teresa was also a freelance journalist, working with La Voz Del Norte newspaper in Sonora from 1984-1989 and the Nogales International Newspaper, among several other publications. Teresa ended her career as the curator of Pimeria Alta Historical Society Museum, where family, friends, and colleagues remembered her as a selfless person committed to keeping local history alive. Southern Arizona and the borderlands will miss Teresa Leal's passion, sense of justice, and love of her community. Teresa leaves a living legacy of leadership, empowerment, and a commitment to social and economic justice. This legacy will continue to make all of us better and our community a better place.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of national Senior Corps Week. Older Americans bring a lifetime of skills and experience as parents, workers, and citizens that can be tapped to meet challenges in our communities. For more than four decades Senior Corps, and its three programs-- RSVP, Senior Companions, and Foster Grandparents--have proven to be a highly effective way to engage Americans age 55 and over in meeting national and community needs. Each year Senior Corps provides opportunities for nearly 330,000 older Americans across the nation, including approximately 435 in Southern Arizona, to serve their communities. Foster Grandparents serve one-on-one as tutors and mentors to young Arizonans who have special needs. Senior Companions help homebound Arizona seniors and other adults maintain independence in their own homes. RSVP volunteers conduct safety patrols for local police departments, protect the environment, tutor and mentor youth, respond to natural disasters, and provide other services through more than 130 groups across Arizona. Senior Corps volunteers last year provided more than 96.2 million hours of service, helping to improve the lives of our most vulnerable citizens, strengthen our educational system, protect our environment, provide independent living services, and contribute to our public safety. Senior Corps volunteers build a capacity of organizations and communities by serving through more than 65,000 nonprofit, community, educational, and faith-based community groups nationwide. At a time of mounting social needs and growing interest in service by older Americans, there is an unprecedented opportunity to harness the talents of 55-plus volunteers to address community challenges. Service by older Americans helps volunteers by keeping them active, healthy, and engaged, helps our communities by solving local problems, and helps our nation by saving taxpayer dollars, reducing healthcare costs, and strengthening our democracy. The sixth annual Senior Corps Week, taking place May 16-20, 2016, is a time to thank Senior Corps volunteers for their service and recognize their positive impact and value to our communities and nation.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize April 17 as World Hemophilia Day, a day where the international community speaks as one to honor the hundreds of thousands of people across the globe suffering from hemophilia. Now, more than ever, we must renew our commitment to hemophilia patients, ensure that they can receive the most advanced care known to modern medicine, and redouble our efforts to discovering new treatments--and ultimately a cure--for this dangerous condition. Hemophilia is a genetic disorder that prevents blood from clotting properly, making even seemingly slight injuries a terrifying prospect for a bleeding episode that can lead to serious injury and even death. While the disease is rare in statistical terms, an estimated 400 newborns are diagnosed with the disease every year, and approximately 20,000 hemophiliacs live in the United States at this very moment. And all too often, this vulnerable patient population is put into jeopardy by the financial hurdles obstructing access to the intensive care needed for combatting such a pervasive disease. Even with the protections put into place by the Affordable Care Act, too many American families are faced with the daunting challenge of tackling the financial burden of hemophilia--a burden that can grow to a quarter of a million dollars per year--alone. This World Hemophilia Day, I stand to speak out on behalf of the patients battling this complicated disease and hope that by raising awareness in this body, we move closer to a day where the treatment of hemophilia is practical, sustainable, and accessible for all Americans.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, the bill overall is a push to continue to deal only with austerity as a plausible budgetary policy for this country. We can see what that austerity only has done to our country so far. This is how we ended up with sequestration. This is how we stifled GDP growth and harmed our overall economic recovery. The best way to address our long-term debt is to maximize our economic potential. We can't cut our way to prosperity. Instead, we should focus on protecting American workers and families so that they have the wealth necessary to make our economy grow and prosper again. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply asks that, in the spirit of this bill and the context of examining the debt, we take a look at Federal revenue trends, which are a critical part of the conversation we are having. Specifically, this amendment asks Treasury to include in their report the historical levels of Federal revenue, including information on corporate and individual Federal income taxes. While we may disagree on the merits of the underlying bill, I hope that we can agree that it is important to have a complete picture of the Federal budget when looking at debt and deficit issues. When we look closer at our current revenue policies, a fuller picture emerges. This picture could change our perspective on the need to cut programs that Americans hold so high and, instead, raise questions about the need to close loopholes that prevent us from investing in areas of the budget that support the middle class and working families. Here are a few reasons that we may want to consider changes to this conversation: Corporations used to contribute $1 out of every $3 in Federal revenue. Today, it is $1 out of every $10. At the same time, corporations are more profitable than almost ever before. American taxpayers are losing about $90 billion every year due to offshore tax loopholes. In the 1950s, corporate taxes were about 6 percent of the economy. Today, they are 1.9 percent. All in all, Federal revenue contributed by corporate taxes has dropped by two-thirds over the last six decades. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would also allow Treasury to look at individual tax rates so that we can examine if the wealthy are really paying their fair share. Currently, many tax loopholes are reserved for wealthy Americans. These tax giveaways are leaving the middle class to pick up their tab. Some multimillionaires and billionaires are paying a lower effective tax rate than the average American family. This is wrong. Hard work should never be taxed at a higher rate than making money off Wall Street. Our Tax Code is full of tax loopholes and tax breaks benefiting big corporations and the rich. When they don't pay their fair share of the taxes, the rest of us pick up the tab. American families end up paying higher taxes or getting fewer services, and the country goes deeper into debt. If corporations and the rich paid their fair share, then the economy will work better for everyone. Instead of making seniors pay more for Medicare or cutting Social Security benefits, we should close loopholes that allow large corporations to hide profits offshore. Instead of cutting funding for repairing our roads and bridges, we should end huge tax subsidies to oil and gas companies making record profits. Instead of cutting funding for teachers and firefighters, we should ask multimillionaires and billionaires to pay at least as high a tax rate as those public servants pay. America's richest corporations should not be able to dodge fair taxes to pay lower rates than middle class families. It is time to address corporate tax dodging and invest in America again. If we close these tax loopholes for corporations that ship jobs overseas and hide profits offshore, we can raise billions of dollars to invest in America. We could make our classrooms less crowded, improve roads and bridges, and provide more security for the American people. Unfortunately, the bill we are voting on today leaves out this entire conversation and, instead, offers false choices of austerity or default. Please, I hope my colleagues will join me in asking for a fuller picture of our tax policies by supporting this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment requires the Treasury Secretary's report to also include individual salary and wage information as well as projections of consumer spending and the impact of spending cuts on the gross domestic product. Stagnant American wages in recent decades are, without a question, the country's most central economic challenge, and the issue of wealth and income inequality continues to be a persistent strain on our economy and, indeed, our society. Raising wages is the key in strengthening the middle class, reducing income inequality, and moving families out of poverty. I am offering this amendment because we have to start getting realistic about the priorities of the American people. When Americans sit around their dinner tables, their number one discussion is not about the national debt. Their number one concern and discussion is providing for their families and how they are managing their own budgets. Many are seeing that, while costs are rising, their paychecks are not. Everyday items are becoming unaffordable, and workers are sick and tired of working full time and still struggling to get by. Since 1979, the vast majority of American workers have seen their hourly wages stagnate or, indeed, decline. From 1973 to 2013, hourly compensation of a typical production worker rose just 9 percent, while productivity increased 74 percent. In short, people are working harder and harder, and their paychecks are getting smaller and smaller. America now has more wealth and income inequality than any major developed country on Earth, and the gap between the very rich and everyone else is wider than at anytime since the 1920s. Shrinking American paychecks are the root cause of rising income inequality, and a host of issues have come with that. Wages drive our economy and consumer spending amounts to more than two-thirds of U.S. economic activity. A rise in consumer spending would provide a needed boost to the U.S. GDP. It is time to stop suppressing wages through policy choices that are slanted toward helping the wealthy. It is time to recognize that our decisions have a direct impact on a person's paycheck. Any report attempting to look at long-term fiscal issues of this country must examine why 58 percent of all new income since the Wall Street crash has gone to the top 1 percent. We should be considering how every decision will impact a family's income, and the fact that the underlying bill does not include information on wages is an injustice to struggling American families. I urge you to support this amendment and show the American people that the Members of Congress are not just fighting for policies that protect the wealthy but, indeed, for policies that protect us all. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill, as we know, designates the 9/11 Memorial at the World Trade Center as the National September 11 Memorial and authorizes a grant program of up to $25 million per year for the next 7 years to support the operation and the maintenance of the memorial. The bill was amended at markup to make the grant program available to other September 11 memorials located in the United States. Money for the grant program will be subject to appropriation and come out of the overall budget of the Department of Interior. I want to thank and congratulate my colleague from New York, Representative Nadler, as the lead Democratic cosponsor. He has diligently guided this bill through the legislative process. It is because of his hard work and advocacy that it has come this far. September 11 both rattled and united this country like few other events in our history. We still live with the repercussions, and the memorial is a fitting tribute and a solemn reminder. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not extend to Representative MacArthur my appreciation for his leadership and for bringing the bill to this point as well. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), whom I thank for his leadership and hard work in getting this bill to this point.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I urge passage of this legislation. This legislation, this 9/11 National Memorial, no matter what corner of this great Nation of ours we are from, we have a shared legacy here. That shared legacy is about sacrifice, heroism, and indeed loss as well. We have a shared future from this memorial about determination, resilience, and the very nature of this Nation to be hopeful and to look forward. To one another, we have a shared responsibility. This memorial will remind us of that and keep that thought very much alive in all of us. Again, let me congratulate and thank the sponsors of the legislation, Mr. Nadler and Mr. MacArthur, for their fine work and for bringing this before us today. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, or CBRA, requires the identification of hazardous areas on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts and makes Federal subsidies off limits to people who choose to develop these lands. Particularly in this time of rising sea levels and increased storm surge brought on by global warming, CBRA is critical to protecting American taxpayers and sensitive coastal ecosystems. H.R. 890 would adjust the boundaries of several Coastal Barrier Resources System units in Florida. These changes have been carefully mapped by the Fish and Wildlife Service and reflect improvements in technology that have allowed us to show with great accuracy which parcels of land do and do not constitute coastal barrier resources under the law. As a result, numerous properties that were originally included by mistake will be removed, and other properties that have been identified as at risk will be included. These changes to the CBRS are protective of private property rights, the environment, and the taxpayers. I urge support of this bipartisan legislation. Mr. Speaker, having no other Members to address this legislation on my side, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, not long ago, the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, said that he wanted to make the House an ``ideas factory.'' But with this bill today, it is clear that the only items being produced by the House are cookie-cutters, because we have done this before, again and again and again. House Republicans have made it their mission to kill the stream protection rule and protect the ability of coal companies to dump their mining waste wherever they want. They didn't see the rule until last July, but that hasn't kept them from a 5-year crusade to prioritize mining company profits over the health and welfare of nearby communities, wildlife, and the environment. First, they carried out a multiyear investigation into this rule, holding no less than 12 hearings and demanding tens of thousands of pages of documents, and ultimately coming up with nothing. Then they passed a bill last Congress to block the rule. Actually, they liked it so much, they passed the bill twice. Those bills, however, went nowhere. This Congress, they included a rider on the appropriations bill to block this rule and voted down my amendment to strip the rider out. The rider was eventually removed before the bill became law. This bill will suffer the same fate. It will not become law. President Obama has said he would rightly veto this bill, and there are not nearly enough votes to override that veto. So why are we wasting this Chamber's time on this meaningless cookie- cutter legislation when we could be facing the real energy crises confronting the Nation, such as admitting that climate change is real and helping coal mining regions make a smooth transition off dirty fuel? But if we want to talk about the stream protection rule and the devastating impacts of mountaintop removal coal mining, we would have a hearing on it in the Natural Resources Committee, and I would welcome such a hearing. But, as my colleague and friend from California has pointed out, despite the 12 hearings the majority held on this rule before they ever read it, they have not held one since it was published. It is almost as if their minds were made up about the rule before it even came out. That doesn't sound much like an idea factory to me, Mr. Chairman.