John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I am introducing a Jazz Appreciation Month piece of legislation entitled the ``National Jazz Preservation, Education and Promulgation Act of 2014.'' In 1986, I introduced a bill in which simply sought to make a compelling statement about the importance of Jazz within American culture. Its final clause read: Now, therefore be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), that it is the sense of the Congress that jazz is hereby designated as a rare and valuable national American treasure to which we should devote our attention, support and resources to make certain it is preserved, understood and promulgated. The jazz community came together in strong support of that legislation, and through many phone calls and letters generated enough cosponsorships to get House Concurrent Resolution 57 passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on September 23, 1987. The fact that the 23rd was John Coltrane's birthday made the accomplishment even more special for me and was able to secure approval of the bill by the U.S. Senate a little more than two months later, on December 4, 1987. During my work on that bill, which has come to be known as the ``Jazz Resolution,'' I saw it inspire successful jazz-related political activity at the local governmental level in New York City, in Philadelphia and in Washington, DC. While each of these legislative victories were a milestone for the music, with each making profound statements about the importance of jazz in those communities, none of them directed financial resources toward its support. So, a couple of years later, I began working through the Congressional appropriations process to do just that. In the Fall of 1990, I secured funding for the creation of the Smithsonian Jazz Masterworks Orchestra. I was able to obtain additional funds for the Smithsonian's Jazz program on three subsequent occasions. The result has been the solidification of a comprehensive Jazz program that involves preservation, education and performance. I chose to focus my efforts on the Smithsonian Institution because it serves as the nation's treasure chest. It is where all things American that are historic and valued are kept. I wanted Jazz to have an appropriate and permanent place at the Smithsonian. It has that now. I want to express my special thanks to Dr. John Hasse, the Smithsonian's Curator of American Music, for his leadership and strong support for Jazz. I also want to congratulate him on establishing Jazz Appreciation Month (JAM). Today, is the kick-off of the 13th JAM, which has grown to become a global celebration of Jazz as America's classical music. I am pleased that John Coltrane, one of our nation's greatest musibians and composers, was selected to be the focus of the 2014 JAM poster and today's JAM activities. The ``Acknowledgement'' of his recording ``A Love Supreme'' 50 years ago in December 1964 is a great way to honor John Coltrane. The fact that his original score of that iconic composition is a part of the Smithsonian's collections and is on display there today is much appreciated. Jazz is now well over 100 years old. Scores of many remarkable compositions, artifacts, documents, and photographs are in private hands, at risk of getting damaged, lost, or being sold abroad. In addition, jazz education at the elementary and secondary school level is virtually impossible to find. As such, in order to ensure the continued prominence of Jazz as a part America's cultural heritage, I have just introduced H.R. 4280, the National Jazz Preservation, Education, and Promulgation Act of 2014. This legislation would enable the further implementation the mandate established in H. Con. Res. 57. It will help our nation preserve its jazz heritage, educate our youth about this national treasure, and encourage the promulgation of jazz by fostering opportunities for jazz artists to create and share their music with the public here and abroad. H.R. 4280 would authorize funding to establish a National Jazz Preservation Program at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History. The Program would create oral and video histories of leading jazz artists, acquire, preserve and interpret artifacts, and conduct exhibitions and other educational activities that would enable generations of Americans to learn about and enjoy jazz. The Program would also work with local museums, educational institutions and community organizations to establish jazz collections and share artifacts between them. In addition, the legislation promotes jazz education in several ways. It encourages the introduction of jazz to our youth by authorizing funding to establish a Jazz Artists in the Schools Program. This program should be modeled on the successful one previously operated by the National Endowment for the Arts. It also authorizes funding for the development of jazz education curriculum and materials and their dissemination to educators at all levels. The bill authorizes funding for a Jazz Ambassadors Program. This program should be modeled on the historic one that the U.S. State Department launched back in 1956. That program sent noted American jazz musicians abroad to perform. My bill would enable young jazz musicians and jazz ensembles from secondary schools to be sent abroad on missions of goodwill, education, and cultural exchange. Finally, HR 4280 promotes the promulgation of jazz by authorizing funding to support a nationwide series of performances by jazz artists. This would be done through the establishment of a Jazz Appreciation Program at the Smithsonian Institution. This program would work through the network of Smithsonian Affiliates to host jazz concerts. The Affiliates network includes more than 180 museums, educational and cultural organizations in more than 40 states, Puerto Rico and Panama. I encourage all of you to take a look at and consider supporting H.R. 4280. I also encourage you to share a copy of it with others that have an interest in America's jazz music.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the fourth anniversary of the Jamie Grodsky Prize for Environmental Scholarship. It is awarded annually to a George Washington law student who contributes an original paper to the environmental law field. The award is given in memory of Jamie Grodsky, a law professor at George Washington University, who passed away on May 22, 2010. There is no doubt in my mind that legal scholarship in the field of environmental law plays a critical role in developing innovative ideas and thoughts to help preserve our citizens' quality of life, health, and safety. As a result, the annual award of the Jamie Grodsky Prize serves as not only a fitting tribute to Professor Grodsky, but helps preserve and protect our environment and our planet. The Grodsky Prize is funded through the generosity of her family and friends, and is awarded annually to a George Washington law student who contributes an original paper to the environmental law field, as judged by a panel of experts. Tomorrow will mark the fourth time this award has been given. This year's recipient is Molly Masterton, who wrote on ``Promoting Marine and Hydrokinetic Energy and Managing Environmental Risk: Toward an Adaptive Management Strategy.'' Past Grodsky Award recipients include: In 2011, Renee Martin-Nagle for her paper titled ``Fossil Aquifers: A Common Heritage of Mankind.'' In 2012, Lieutenant Commander Jonathan Dowling's paper titled ``Improving Energy Security with the Great Green Fleet: The Case for Transitioning from Ethanol to Drop-In Renewable Fuels.'' In 2013, Joel Meister, for his paper titled ``Sunny Dispositions: Modernizing Investment Tax Credit Recapture Rules for Solar Energy Project Finance After the Stimulus.'' We look forward to the award of many more Grodsky prizes to deserving George Washington University students. The fourth anniversary of the award is also an opportunity to recognize the life of Professor Grodsky, a preeminent member of the Nation's environmental bar, whose legal imprint continues to this day. Although time and space limitations do not permit me to itemize all of Jamie's contributions and unique talents and gifts, I would like to note a few highlights (many of Jamie's contributions were referenced in the Congressional Record by Rep. Miller on September 15, 2010): Prof. Grodsky left an indelible mark on all three branches of government, countless law students at the University of Minnesota and George Washington University, and the environmental and legal community as a whole. Jamie served the Congress initially as an analyst with the then Official of Technology Assessment, and later as counsel to the Natural Resources Committee in the House, and the Judiciary Committee in the Senate. She served as Senior Advisor to the General Counsel of the Environmental Protection Agency during the Clinton Administration. She served as clerk to the Chief Judge of Ninth Circuit, the Hon. Proctor Hug, who referred to Jamie as ``the most multi-talented person I have ever met.'' Jamie was dedicated to environmental causes, acting as Educational Director of the San Francisco Oceanic Society and she conducted marine research at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Massachusetts. After leaving government service, Jamie dedicated herself to passing along her passion for the environment through her work in academia, eventually becoming a tenured Professor of Environmental Law at George Washington University. Although Jamie's passing was a tremendous loss to us all, I am pleased that that her legacy is continuing to inspire the next generation of attorneys through the annual award of the Jamie Grodsky Prize.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the ENFORCE Act, like so many other bills that we have considered this Congress, is truly a solution in search of a problem. It was made clear during the two full committee oversight hearings that we held on the Constitution's Take Care Clause, the President, in fact, fully met his obligation to faithfully execute the laws. So let us acknowledge what this legislation is really about. It is simply yet another attempt by the majority to prevent the President of the United States from implementing duly enacted legislative initiatives that they oppose. Allowing the flexibility and the implementation of a new program, even where the statute mandates a specific deadline, is neither unusual nor a constitutional violation. It is the reality of administering sometimes complex programs and is part and parcel of the President's duty to ``take care'' that he ``faithfully'' execute laws. This has been especially true with respect to the Affordable Care Act. The President's decision to extend certain compliance dates to help phase-in the act is not a novel tactic. And even though not a single court has ever concluded that reasonable delay in implementing a complex law constitutes a violation of the Take Care Clause, the majority insists that there is a constitutional crisis. Additionally, the exercise of enforcement discussion is a traditional power of the Executive. For example, the decision to defer deportation of young adults who were brought to the United States as children, the DREAMers, is a classic exercise of such discretion. H.R. 4138 could also have the perverse effect of preventing the President from taking steps to protect people's rights. If H.R. 4138 had been law in 1861, the Congress could have sued President Lincoln for issuing the Emancipation Proclamation because Congress could have concluded that President Lincoln had failed to enforce then-existing laws protecting the institution of slavery, like the Fugitive Slave Law. Likewise, if H.R. 4138 had been law in 1948, Congress could have sued President Truman for issuing Executive Order 9981, which desegregated the armed services in contravention of then-existing military policy. And, it is no surprise that the Supreme Court has consistently held that the exercise of such discretion is a function of the President's power under the Take Care Clause. As the Court held in Heckler v. Chaney: An agency's decision not to prosecute or enforce, whether through civil or criminal process, is a decision generally committed to an agency's absolute discretion. Even assuming there is a problem to address, H.R. 4138 is itself flawed because it violates fundamental separation of powers principles and may be unconstitutional as applied. The ENFORCE Act would essentially allow Federal courts to second- guess decisions by the executive branch in a potentially vast range of areas that are committed under the Constitution to the discretion of the political branches like the conduct of foreign affairs. Additionally, it is highly unlikely that Congress could satisfy the standing requirements of Article III of the Constitution, which are meant to reinforce the Constitution's separation of powers principles. To meet those standing requirements, a plaintiff must show that it suffered a concrete and particularized injury. The kind of injury that would be the subject of a civil action under H.R. 4138, however, would amount only to an alleged violation of a right to have the administration enforce the law in a particular way. I reserve the balance of my time. In closing, I want to ask my colleagues when is enough enough? At what point can we say its time to put away the partisan rhetoric, the demagoguery, and the synthetic scandals and start really working on the issues the American people want solutions to. The American people are waiting for us to take action on a host of issues that this House refuses to address--from securing fair pay for a fair day's work, extending unemployment insurance, and fixing our broken immigration laws. So lets stop the games and finally get to work. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), who is the ranking member of the Constitution Subcommittee of House Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Lofgren), who is the ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee on Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a ranking member of a subcommittee on the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlelady from California (Ms. Chu).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, it is with great pleasure I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind my friend, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, that subpoenas are a regular exercise of power in the House of Representatives. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close if the other side is ready.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Ladies and gentlemen, let's acknowledge that this legislation is really another attempt by some of the Members here in the majority to prevent the President of the United States from implementing duly- enacted legislative initiatives that they oppose. It is rather unusual. But I want to ask my colleagues, friends, when is enough enough? At what point can we say, it is time to put away rhetoric of a partisan nature, of demagoguery, and of synthetic scandals and start really working on the issues that many people in this country really want solutions to? We have constituents, and so do you, that are waiting for us to take action on a host of problems that this House refuses to address, from securing fair pay for a fair day's work, to extending unemployment insurance, and also in the Judiciary Committee, fixing our broken immigration laws. So let's put aside some of the business that has gone on here today and finally get to work. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the House, my amendment would exclude actions to combat discrimination and protect civil rights enforcement from the scope of this bill before us. The last thing we should want to do as a Congress is to pass legislation that makes it more difficult to protect our citizens' civil rights, by executive action or otherwise; yet if H.R. 4138 had been law, several of the most critical civil rights milestones of our Nation would have been subject to unnecessary congressional challenge in the courts. In 1863, President Abraham Lincoln issued perhaps the most important executive order in our Nation's history, the Emancipation Proclamation; and by this order, Lincoln freed the slaves in those southern States that were engaged in military conflict with the Union. By doing so, Lincoln not only encouraged slaves to take up arms in fighting the Civil War for the Union, he also struck a blow for freedom that resonated around the world. By issuing the order, however, President Lincoln made a decision to not enforce then-existing laws, protecting the institution of slavery, including the Federal Fugitive Slave Act. Clearly, history has shown Lincoln's decision to be not only a legal and a military turning point, but morally correct; and clearly, had the so-called ENFORCE Act been law, the Emancipation Proclamation could have been subject to an unnecessary and unhelpful legal challenge in the courts from the Congress. Another example is President Truman's Executive Order 9981 issued in 1948 that desegregated the United States military. With more than 125,000 African Americans serving overseas in World War II, this was a worthwhile and appropriate action by the President. Nevertheless, by issuing this order, Truman contravened the then- military policy of segregating certain African American military units from white units. Again, had this bill before us been law, it would have permitted an unnecessary congressional legal challenge in the courts, and such a challenge would not have been politically unpopular in many quarters. Remember that 1948 was the year that Strom Thurmond bolted from the Democratic Party to form the Dixiecrats and went on to carry four States and strongly compete in many others in the Presidential election. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to please consider the unintended consequences of the legislation before us. It would not only represent a permanent stain on the principle of separation of powers written by our Founding Fathers into the Constitution, but it would make it far more difficult to protect our citizens' civil rights and other constitutional protections. Accordingly, I urge a ``yes'' vote to protect civil rights, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentlewoman very much because this is an important amendment. It doesn't gut the bill, and it isn't a loophole. This is a narrow amendment that only ensures that the President can comply with court decisions. The separation of powers principle is very important, and this amendment clarifies and adds to it.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Johnson, for the leadership that he has exercised here in bringing this discussion forward on a bill that is very disappointing to me. This bill imposes hard-and-fast deadlines that will be unrealistic in certain circumstances and would undercut responsible decisionmaking and public involvement in the Federal review and permitting processes. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2641 for various reasons. Let's begin with the very misleading short title of this bill, namely, the ``Responsibly and Professionally Invigorating Development Act.'' Rather than effectuating real reforms to the process by which federal agencies undertake environmental impact reviews as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, this legislation will actually result in making this process less responsible, less professional, and less accountable. Worse yet, this measure could jeopardize public health and safety by prioritizing project approval over meaningful analysis. To begin with, the bill--under the guise of streamlining the approval process--forecloses potentially critical input from federal, state, and local agencies as well as from members of the public to comment on environmentally-sensitive construction projects that are federally- funded or that require federal approval. The bill also imposes hard and fast deadlines that may be unrealistic under certain circumstances. Moreover, if an agency fails to meet these unrealistic deadlines, the bill simply declares that a project must be deemed approved, regardless of whether the agency has thoroughly assessed risks. As a result, this measure could allow projects to proceed that put public health and safety at risk. For example, as the Minority's witness astutely noted at the Committee's hearing on this bill, H.R. 2641 could effectively prevent the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from exercising its licensing authority pertaining to nuclear power reactors, waste management sites, and nuclear waste disposal facilities. And, the bill could allow such projects to be approved before the safety review is completed. This failing of the bill, along with many others, explains why the Administration and the President's Council on Environmental Quality, along with more than 20 respected environmental groups vigorously oppose this legislation. These organizations include the Audubon Society, League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and The Wilderness Society. In issuing its veto threat, the Administration warns that the bill ``would undercut responsible decision-making and public involvement in the Federal review and permitting processes.'' In addition, the Administration observes that the bill will ``increase litigation, regulatory delays, and potentially force agencies to approve a project if the review and analysis cannot be completed before the proposed arbitrary deadlines.'' Another concern that I have with this bill--like other measures that we have considered--is that it is a flawed solution in search of an imaginary problem. And, that is not just my opinion. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service issued a report last year stating that the primary source of approval delays for construction projects ``are more often tied to local/state and project-specific factors, primarily local/state agency priorities, project funding levels, local opposition to a project, project complexity, or late changes in project scope.'' CRS further notes that project delays based on environmental requirements stem not from NEPA, but from ``laws other than NEPA.'' So I have to ask, why do we need a measure like the so-called RAPID Act that will undoubtedly make the process less clear and less protective of public health and safety? My final major concern with this bill is that--rather than streamlining the environmental review process--it will sow utter confusion. H.R. 2641 does this by creating a separate, but only partly parallel environmental review process for construction projects that will only cause confusion, delay, and litigation. As I noted at the outset, the changes to the NEPA review process contemplated by this measure apply only to certain construction projects. NEPA, however, applies to a broad panoply of federal actions, including fishing, hunting, and grazing permits, land management plans, Base Realignment and Closure activities, and treaties. As a result of the bill, there could potentially be 2 different environmental review processes for the same project. For instance, the bill's requirements would apply to the construction of a nuclear reactor, but not to its decommissioning or to the transportation and storage of its spent fuel. Rather than improving the environmental review process, this bill will complicate it and generate litigation. But, more importantly, this bill is yet another effort by my friends on the other side of the aisle to undermine regulatory protections. As with all the other regulatory bills, this measure is a thinly disguised effort to hobble the ability of federal agencies to do the work that Congress requires them to do. Accordingly, I strenuously oppose this seriously flawed bill.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2804, the ``Achieving Less Excess in Regulation and Requiring Transparency Act of 2014,'' also known as the so-called ALERRT Act. I oppose this bill for numerous reasons, the most of important of which is that it would jeopardize critical public health and safety regulatory protections. For example, the bill requires agencies to consider potential costs and benefits associated with proposed and final rules ``[N]withstanding any other provision of law.'' This ``supermandate'' would effectively trump all other statutes-- such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act--that prohibit or limit the use of cost information in setting health and safety standards. In addition, title II of the bill would require agencies and federal courts to consider whether a rule has ``significant adverse effects on . . . the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.'' The practical effect of this definition is that it will require agencies and the courts to consider the business and regulatory environments of other nations. Consider, for example, a proposed rule that imposes heightened clean air requirements on American steel manufacturers. H.R. 2804 would necessarily require consideration of whether this regulation--which could potentially result in higher compliance costs-- could make American steel products less competitive in a country, such as China, that has a much less stringent regulatory regime. While the economic analysis under this requirement may be deceptively simple, its dangerous ramifications for public health cannot be underestimated. Chinese officials have only recently begun to acknowledge the health hazard risks presented by extensive air pollution that affects its cities, including its capital. The end result is that the public health of Americans and the safety of the environment will be compromised so that American manufacturers can better compete with their foreign counterparts. This is a shortsighted regulatory ``race to the bottom'' that prioritizes profits over saving lives. Another fundamental flaw with H.R. 2804 is that it will greatly lengthen--not shorten--the already time-consuming process by which federal rules are promulgated. Avoiding undue delay in rulemaking is important because strong regulation is vital to protecting Americans in nearly every aspect of their lives. On average, it already takes between 4 to 8 years for an agency to promulgate a new rule. But, instead of streamlining the rulemaking process, the bill extensively adds numerous procedural hurdles to this process. Title II of the bill, for example, adds more than 60 additional procedural steps to the rulemaking process. Not only that, title II re-institutes a long-discredited rulemaking process that requires ``trial-type'' procedures. Known as formal rulemaking, this time-consuming process was widely-rejected decades ago as being highly ineffective. Recently proposed regulations that could be impacted by this and other provisions in the bill include rules: implementing the Food Safety Modernization Act's standards to reduce food contaminants like salmonella and that would help prevent 1.75 million illnesses; ``strengthening chemical facility accident prevention standards in response to the 2013 fertilizer explosion in West, Texas that resulted in the deaths of 12 volunteer firefighters and 2 other individuals; preventing the manufacture and distribution of tainted and counterfeit prescription drugs; implementing the Justice Department's National Standards to prevent, detect, and respond to prison rape; adjusting the reimbursement rates to Medicare providers for end-stage renal diseases; setting payments to primary care physicians under the Vaccines for Children Program; establishing meal requirements for the National School Lunch Program under the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010; implementing Labor Department Standards for H-2B Aliens in the United States; establishing the subsistence allowance for veterans under the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program; and setting the Patent and Trademark Office's fees for patents. And, this is just a small sample of the many kinds of protections that this bill would jeopardize. I could go on and on. This also explains why more than 150 consumer groups, environmental organizations, labor unions, and other entities, strenuously oppose this bill. These organizations include: The AFL-CIO, The Alliance for Justice; The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; The American Lung Association; The Consumer Federation of America; Consumers Union; The International Brotherhood of Teamsters; The UAW; The League of Conservation Voters; The National Women's Law Center; The Natural Resources Defense Council; People for the American Way; Public Citizen; the Sierra Club; Service Employees International Union; the Union of Concerned Scientists; and the United Steelworkers; just to name a few. Likewise, the Administration issued a strongly worded veto threat against this bill. It warns that the bill ``would impose unneeded and costly analytical and procedural requirements on agencies that would prevent them from performing their statutory duties.'' Finally, H.R. 2804 will give well-funded, anti- regulatory interests even more opportunities to derail rulemaking. Agencies often spend many months, if not years, to perfect theses rules based on feedback from these sources and their own expertise. Under the bill, however, well-funded regulated industries could exert even more influence over federal rulemaking than they already do. For instance, the bill's less deferential standard of judicial review gives additional opportunities for anti-regulatory interests to engage in dilatory tactics that can substantially slow down an already slow rulemaking process. As Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization representing consumer interests, warns: ``This new and inappropriate role for the courts is a recipe for more activist judges, increased litigation, endless delays, and more rather than less uncertainty for regulated parties and the public.'' Similarly, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has expressed concerns about the provision's potential to make the rulemaking process more lengthy and costly. The American people deserve better. Accordingly, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this seriously flawed bill.