Buck McKeon

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, we have some speakers on their way to the floor and I would like to reserve our time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield at this time to the ranking member on the Resources Committee, the senior Republican from Alaska, Mr. Young, such time as he may consume. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McKEON. I am happy to yield to the gentlelady from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) such time as she may consume.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson). He's the senior ranking member on the subcommittee.

Mr. McKEON. May I ask about the remaining time?

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Today we've heard a great deal about how to keep miners safe. It should go without saying that mine safety is the proposition to which we're all committed. However, we're not here today debating whether to protect miners. Instead, we're here considering a bill that would actually derail the most comprehensive mine safety overhaul in decades. All of us are for mine safety. You know, during this campaign, I have been listening to some of the candidates running, and I think the feeling amongst many people is that Washington is broken and that we don't seem to attack things that are really important. Well, in 2006, we passed a miner safety bill, the first one in 30 years. That was passed with the support of 381 Members to 37 Members here in the House and unanimously in the Senate. Now here we are less than 2 years later talking about another bill that's going to, after a 30-year hiatus, we pass a bill, we're doing what we can to implement that bill. By the time regulations are written, by the time people are trained on enforcing those regulations, by the time the mine owners put those regulations into effect, it takes some time, and then here we're stepping on that bill with a new approach to change some things. And we heard from Mr. Wilson the President's response and why he says we should give the time to fully implement the bill that was just passed less than 2 years ago. It makes sense. We live in a large country, and to try to disseminate this information and get it all into effect takes some time, and we're just saying that's why people think Washington's broke. We're stepping on something that we haven't even implemented yet. And I don't question any motives because I think the motives are good. We should be out to protect miners. It's just which way will protect them best: implementing the bill that was already passed overwhelmingly or trying to pass a bill that will step on some of those concerns. This law was only given 1\1/2\ years to take hold, as mentioned. It's already having an impact on our Nation's mines. Stringent safety standards are being put in place and they're being enforced. A recent article in a mining industry publication explored the impact on the mines as seen from the eyes of a miner. He says, ``As you can imagine, the regulatory environment for safety has evolved a lot in the last few months, and we're seeing as much as a 50 percent increase in underground mine inspections on an annualized basis.'' That's the words of a miner to an analyst. With all the progress that has been made, it seems to me that the last thing we should be considering is the disruption of that momentum, yet that's exactly what will happen if the S-MINER Act becomes law. This bill discards the expert studies already under way, replacing the wisdom and recommendations of professionals with arbitrary mandates from Washington. Although the bill purports to protect miners, in reality it threatens the jobs we rely on. That's another thing that I'm learning, that people are very interested in the economy and jobs, and here we have an effort that probably will cut jobs. With $1 billion in unfunded mandates in the underlying bill, the majority's attempt to mask these burdensome costs by extending the implementation timeline is a weak attempt to divert attention from the toll that will be taken on the mining community. Mr. Chairman, as a strong supporter of mine safety, I want to be clear that there is a better way to protect the interests of the Nation's miners. We can stand for strong safety protections without diverting attention and resources from the work already under way. Later today, Representatives Wilson and Kline will offer an amendment to do exactly that. The Wilson/Kline amendment incorporates a strong drug testing requirement that will protect miners from the dangers of illegal substance abuse in the already dangerous mining environment. I am pleased to see our colleagues on the other side of the aisle joining us in our concern about the danger and devastation of drug use among miners. I am saddened, however, by the appearance of cynicism in the last-minute addition of this issue to the manager's package. I hope they will join us in supporting a real solution in the form of drug testing, something that our colleague, Charlie Norwood, who passed away last year, had been working on for years before, rather than a mere study that provides more political cover than genuine safety protections. Despite the best intentions of its sponsors, this bill will do much more harm than good. It will layer new rules and requirements on top of the critical mine safety reforms already in place. With this bill, we are abandoning the bipartisan reforms of the 2006 MINER Act and abandoning all the progress that has been made. Members on both sides of the aisle have expressed concern that this legislation is premature. A group of seven respected Democrats representing districts with a history of underground and surface mining wrote to the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee to urge us to proceed with caution. From them I quote: ``We believe that before moving forward on new mine safety legislation, it would be prudent for the committee to wait for the conclusion of the studies called for in the MINER Act and the implementation of all the major requirements of the MINER Act.'' They were right. The academic experts are right. The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission is right. The National Mining Association is right. Each of these stakeholders understands that the S-MINER Act is the wrong bill at the wrong time. As a strong supporter of mine safety, I have no choice but to oppose this bill. I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, but I will not oppose its passage.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I really want to thank Congressman Boucher for his effort to address this problem of drug use among miners. I think it's very, very important. I would even go so far as to say if this bill doesn't show much progress, if you brought this up as a separate bill, I'd be happy to work with you on it. This amendment takes an important first step by acknowledging the problem and establishing opportunities for treatment. This amendment is a positive first step, but it does not go far enough. To complement the Boucher amendment, Republicans are proposing a strong framework for mandatory drug testing. We want to ensure that miners are tested and those who are under the influence are prevented from entering the mines and putting their own lives and the lives of their coworkers at risk. Drug abuse among miners is a serious problem, and according to recent media accounts, it is also a widespread problem. Already States are taking the lead on stringent testing initiatives to protect miners from the hazards that come from combining substance abuse and the dangerous work environment. The Federal Government needs to catch up on what is being done in the States. I urge my colleagues to support the Republican proposal to implement drug testing. At this time I also urge passage of the Boucher amendment as an acknowledgment of the problem and an important first step toward resolving it.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, but I will not oppose the amendment.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong support of the Wilson/Kline amendment to preserve bipartisan mine safety reforms. The S-MINER Act is based on a flawed premise. It begins by abandoning the widely supported mine safety reforms enacted in 2006. Rather than building on the progress that has been made, the S-MINER Act brings those bipartisan reforms to a screeching halt. Republicans have a better way. The Wilson/Kline amendment strikes the appropriate balance between strengthening mine safety and maintaining the widely supported reforms enacted less than 2 years ago. First and foremost, the substitute underscores the importance of the MINER Act reforms and restates our commitment to seeing them implemented fully and forcefully. Our substitute builds on those reforms rather than tearing them down. Among the most important steps taken in the Republican substitute is the effort to fully, more fully engage the miners in mine safety. During the Education and Labor Committee's consideration of this bill, Representative Kline offered an amendment that, like our substitute, would empower miners by directly involving them in the development of safety policies and procedures through the formation of safety teams. Currently, nonunionized miners may be prohibited from working with management to promote safety through teams. Mine safety is too important an issue to fall victim to the politics of unionization. Every miner should have the opportunity to work cooperatively with the mine operator to promote their own safety and the safety of those with them in the mines. To further protect miners, the Republican substitute calls for a strong program of drug testing. In fact, the Republican plan is the only proposal that offers drug testing. Representative Boucher is proposing drug rehabilitation, an important first step, but one that will be incomplete without testing. Indeed, Representative Boucher's own State of Virginia has taken a leadership role on requiring drug testing in the mines, something the Federal Government should require as well. Sadly, the proposal offered in the manager's package would do even less, calling for just a study of drug abuse among miners. No one here seems to object to drug testing for professional baseball players. An entire hearing was devoted to the topic of drug use in Major League Baseball just yesterday, yet not a single hearing has been held to explore the problem of drug abuse among miners. And when our friend, the late Representative Charlie Norwood, had the courage to call for drug testing in miners in years past, he was rebuked for daring to draw attention to this pervasive problem. I am pleased we are finally acknowledging this problem among miners, but I want to be clear; anything short of the Republican plan for drug testing fails to fully protect miners. Finally, our substitute recognizes some of the very specific issues brought to light with the tragic collapse of the Crandall Canyon Mine in August of 2007. To address those issues, it would improve communication between MSHA and the Bureau of Land Management, study the conditions the next generation of miners will face with deep mine conditions and retreat mining using pillar removal, and clarify how information is to be disseminated in the event of a tragedy. I urge my colleagues to preserve bipartisan mine safety reforms by supporting the Wilson/Kline amendment.

Mr. McKEON. I yield the gentleman 30 seconds to respond.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, the Ellsworth amendment, as it has been explained, would modify the collection of fines to provide relief to those mine operators who pay their fines in a timely fashion. At the same time, it establishes a trust fund so that fines collected will be used for inspections and investigations. The amendment also creates a list of those mine operators who do not pay their fines, shining a spotlight to help promote payment in a timely fashion. Unlike the underlying bill, this amendment would not do anything to inhibit implementation of the bipartisan MINER Act of 2006. Because this amendment offers positive reforms without dismantling the mine safety improvements under way, I am pleased to support its passage. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition to H.R. 6, the Democrat no energy plan. As senior Republican on the Education and Labor Committee, I oppose not only the bill's remarkable lack of any new energy, but also its inclusion of bureaucratic mandates that will kill American jobs and complicate job-training. Just yesterday, a letter was sent to the National Economic Council Director Allan Hubbard claiming that the bill, and I quote, ``Will not significantly expand the application of Davis- Bacon prevailing wage requirements.'' Now, I don't know how the majority defines the words ``significantly expand,'' but by my count, this bill contains at least seven separate instances in which the Davis-Bacon wage mandates are imposed. Simply put, this bill furthers the majority's aggressive application of Davis-Bacon wage mandates. Davis-Bacon wages can inflate project costs by as much as 15 percent, costs that get passed on to taxpayers. They also force private companies to do hundreds of millions of dollars of excessive administrative work each year, squandering resources that would be better spent creating jobs and spurring innovation. As if the job killing Davis-Bacon requirements weren't bad enough, this bill also complicates our job training system by creating a redundant and unnecessary program to expand the energy efficient and renewable energy workforce. If this no energy package becomes law, it will mean more red tape, more bureaucracy and more hurdles for job seekers. We are talking about energy efficiency. Why not talk about job training efficiency as well? For these and other reasons, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the Democrat no energy bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no.''

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, on August 6, 2007, a collapse at the Crandall Canyon mine in Utah took the lives of six miners. Days later, three rescuers were lost as well. We all grieved with this tragedy, and we all share a commitment to doing what we can to prevent such an event from happening in the future. The Education and Labor Committee has initiated an investigation into possible causes of the collapse, as well as the handling of its aftermath by the mine ownership and Federal regulators. Our committee has at its disposal significant tools and resources to conduct this investigation, including the power to hold hearings, demand documents, interview witnesses, and enter evidence into the record. At the same time as our committee pursues its inquiry, there are a series of official investigations underway by the Department of Labor and the State of Utah. The investigations by the Mine Safety and Health Administration are of a law enforcement nature--if it is determined that criminal conduct occurred, they can at any time make a referral to the Department of Justice. Although our committee investigation is still in its early stages, it has already been fruitful. In addition to the single hearing that has been held, we have requested--and the Department of Labor has produced--hundreds of thousands of pages of documents. We have conducted interviews with witnesses, and visited the site of the accident. Despite the progress that has been made with our significant existing oversight capabilities, the majority today is seeking to confer on our committee the extraordinary power to subpoena witnesses for closed- door, staff-led depositions. This is an authority granted only in the rarest of circumstances, such as the protection of national security, the impeachment of a President, or the alleged defrauding of a national organization by its leadership. I have serious reservations about establishment of deposition authority at this early stage of our investigation. The majority has not established any clear need for this authority. In fact, we are not aware of a single witness who has refused to cooperate with the committee after an official invitation. Moreover, while the majority has been unwilling to disclose exactly whose testimony this authority is intended to compel, they have indicated that just a handful of individuals are expected to require a subpoena. Members on our side of the aisle are more than willing to cooperate with regular committee procedures including hearings for this purpose, and as such, it remains unclear to me why this authority is necessary. In addition to being premature and unnecessary, I believe this authority carries with it the possibility of grave unintended consequences. Deposition authority will allow dozens of interviews to be conducted under oath and compelled by subpoena. This could create the possibility of conflicts of interest, privilege claims and rulings, requests for immunity, leaks, and contradictory evidence. Previous congressional probes should serve as a cautionary tale as we head down this path. Tactics used in the congressional investigation of the Iran-Contra affair caused key testimony against Oliver North to be thrown out, and his convictions to be overturned. The Acting Solicitor of Labor voiced concerns that this investigation could similarly imperil any civil or criminal enforcement that may be necessary in this matter. In September, he wrote to Chairman Miller and me, along with the leadership of the House, saying that the Committee's ``parallel investigation . . . may compromise the integrity of MSHA's law enforcement investigation and potentially jeopardize its ability to enforce the law and hold violators accountable. `` Up to this point, the majority has heeded our warnings and those of the Department of Labor. Our hearing and the series of interviews that have been conducted were structured in such a way as to avoid endangering the investigations. I'm concerned that by granting this extraordinary deposition authority, the House is backing away from that cautious approach and rekindling the threat that our activities could undermine the aggressive enforcement that MSHA and other investigators have an obligation to pursue. The deposition authority proposed today is crafted narrowly to cover only the Crandall Canyon mine collapse, and the rules adopted in our committee to govern these depositions were developed fairly to ensure the full participation of the minority. I believe these steps are acknowledgements by the majority that deposition authority is truly an extraordinary step, and must be undertaken with great care. I appreciate their cooperation on these points. As I have made clear, there are serious questions about the timing and necessity of this narrowly crafted authority. Beyond that, however, I want to be perfectly clear that the specific authority being granted in this instance should in no way be viewed as precedent for future oversight functions of our committee or any committee of this House. Committee rules allow for a range of tools and resources that can be used to conduct rigorous oversight. Any effort to grant broader deposition authority will surely bring greater danger, and therefore greater objection.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, it is with great privilege that I rise today to pay tribute to the 135th year of continuous business conducted by the Borax Company, which was celebrated on October 12, 2007. This occasion makes Borax one of the longest surviving mining firms in the United States. I am proud that between 1993 and 2006, the national headquarters for Borax remained in Valencia, CA, in my home district. Borax traces its roots back to 1872, when F.M. ``Borax'' Smith discovered Borax in Teel's Marsh, NV. Borate deposits, which are used in insulation, textile fiberglass, detergents, ceramics, plant fertilizers, flame retardants, pest control, cosmetics, medicines, and more, were also discovered in California's Death Valley. By 1883, teams of 20 mules were used by the company to haul Borax out of the remote Death Valley 165 miles away to Mojave. Though the mule- hauling years only lasted from 1883 to 1888, the teams continue to live on as a symbol of the company's commitment to innovation. In 2000, Borax's global operations achieved certification for excellence in environmental management. Then in 2001, the company formed partnership with Millennium Cell to develop a safe, clean fuel alternative based on sodium borohydride. This was followed by the pit- stop of the 2002 Chrysler Natrium, the world's first sodium borohydride-powered zero-emission vehicle, at the Borax Company's national headquarters. Today, Borax employs over 1,000 people and is acknowledged as the world leader in Borate technology, research and development. Technical support for customers, product quality, and supply reliability are the pillars of the company's commercial commitment. Borax proudly reflects a respectable commitment to ensuring that practices and products are socially, environmentally, and economically sustainable. Madam Speaker and my colleagues, I ask that you join me in honoring the 135th year of continuous business for this admirable mining company. It is a special occasion when businesses witness such good fortune resulting from the many long hours of dedicated teamwork which are given by employees for the good of the company and its customers.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy now to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the ranking member on the subcommittee and at the same time thank him for the key role he played in getting this legislation to this point.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Since 1965, the Head Start program has been instrumental in our efforts to close the gap between disadvantaged children and their peers. This program provides health, developmental and educational services to low-income and at-risk children before they enroll in school in order to help close the readiness gap. Head Start helps establish a foundation for these children's future success. This conference report is the product of a bipartisan collaboration and compromise. I'd like to thank Chairman Miller, along with Mr. Castle and Mr. Kildee. And I appreciate Mr. Kildee's words, and I appreciate the opportunity I've had to get to know him and work with him closely over the years. I thank them for their work to strengthen and improve Head Start. I'd also like to acknowledge the staff on both sides for their instrumental role in developing this legislation. Their work was critical to producing such a strong, widely supported measure. On my staff, I'd like to recognize Kirsten Duncan, along with Susan Ross and James Bergeron, for their tireless efforts on this legislation. Studies have shown that children enrolled in Head Start do make some progress. We also know that even greater results are possible. With this in mind, the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act will strengthen Head Start's academic standards by emphasizing cognitive development and the results of scientifically valid research in topics critical to children's school readiness. The conference report will improve teacher quality by ensuring a greater number of Head Start teachers have degrees and are adequately trained in early childhood development, particularly in teaching the fundamentals. Despite the many successes of the Head Start program, it's reputation has, unfortunately, been marred in recent years by instances of financial abuse and mismanagement. In communities across the country, we've heard reports of taxpayer dollars being squandered. A March 2005 report from the Government Accountability Office warned the financial control system in the Head Start program is flawed and failing to prevent multimillion dollar financial abuses that cheat poor children, taxpayers and law-abiding Head Start operators. This conference report builds on efforts of Republicans in the 109th Congress to address weaknesses in the Head Start financial control system in order to better protect taxpayers and ensure funds are being used to help prepare disadvantaged children for school. I'm particularly pleased that the conference report includes strong protections to ensure Head Start dollars are not used to pay excessive salaries to program executives. The House voted unanimously last week to instruct conferees to include clear, unambiguous protections in this area. Thanks to that vote, we were able to visit the negotiations and agree to even stronger language. Mr. Speaker, the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act is a solid reauthorization bill built on bipartisan collaboration. Head Start is a good program capable of achieving even greater results, and the bill before us will help achieve that goal. I support passage of this conference report so we can send the bill to the President. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes at this time to the gentleman from Indiana, a member of the committee (Mr. Souder).

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time we have left, please.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time. I am pleased to be here in support of a conference report that will make Head Start even stronger. This program serves nearly 1 million underprivileged children and eases the divide between the haves and the have-nots when it comes to preparing them for kindergarten. The bipartisan support we've seen today should lend all of us confidence that the program will remain on a solid foundation for generations to come. By reauthorizing Head Start, we're going to strengthen academic standards by emphasizing cognitive development using scientifically valid research, improve teacher quality by ensuring more Head Start teachers have degrees and are adequately trained in early childhood development, increase financial disclosure requirements by Head Start operators as custodians of Federal Head Start grants, and require local governance boards to actively oversee grantees. These are commonsense reforms that I wholeheartedly support. I would like to join the Republican leader and my other colleagues who have spoken here today in commenting on the bipartisanship with which this bill was brought to this point. It's one that the President will sign. It's one that will bring good reforms to a good program. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this conference report. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio, the Republican leader, former chairman of our committee, Mr. Boehner.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I am pleased to rise in support of the rule on the conference report for the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act. This rule will allow the House to give final endorsement to a bill that will strengthen and improve the Head Start early childhood education program. I would like to begin by recognizing members of the Education and Labor Committee for their efforts to produce this bipartisan conference report. Representatives Castle and Kildee, along with Chairman Miller and our staffs, have done great work to strengthen and improve this critical program. In more than 50,000 Head Start classrooms around the Nation, nearly 1 million disadvantaged children are being given the tools and resources to help put them on a path to success which is a win-win for the country. We have spent a great deal of time this year working to strengthen the No Child Left Behind Act. That law is, at its most basic level, about closing the achievement gap in our Nation's schools. However, the gaps between disadvantaged students and their peers do not begin in elementary school. That's why we have Head Start. This program is designed to help close the readiness gap in children before they ever enroll in school. The health, developmental and educational services offered through this program truly do give a head start to those children than they otherwise enter school already lagging behind. Some studies have shown that children enrolled in Head Start do make progress, but there's significant work yet to be done in closing that readiness gap. I also believe it's critical to strengthen the financial controls in Head Start so that we can prevent the types of waste, fraud and abuse that have been uncovered over the past 5 years. Republicans acted aggressively to root out cases of financial abuse and mismanagement. We sought the expertise of the Government Accountability Office to identify weaknesses in the financial control network of the program. Through this bill, we will institute structural changes to prevent future breaches in the program's trust. Our committee has been working to strengthen and reform this program going on 5 years, and I believe that dedication has paid off. Certainly this bill is not perfect, but on issues where there were disagreements, I am pleased that we have forged compromises. Head Start is a good program, capable of achieving even greater results. With this bill, I believe we can make that happen. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of this rule, and I look forward to House passage of this conference report so it can go to the President for his signature.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor and extend my congratulations to Eugene Felix Cervantes and his family on the occasion of his 100th birthday, which will be celebrated on November 10, 2007 at the California Mission Inn in Rosemead, California. Mr. Cervantes is an example of one of the many Americans that have brought about the profound change that make this country what it is today. Starting a successful business, serving as a private civilian employee of the U.S. Navy, membership in community and business organizations, and a sincere appreciation for the natural wonders of our State are all parts of a life that serves as a definitive example of the American dream. Born on November 15, 1907 in San Gabriel, California, Mr. Cervantes has many grand achievements to look back upon. In the early 1930s, Mr. Cervantes received his pilot's license. He went on to own two aircrafts and part of an airport. When the depression of the 1930s hit hard, he kept his head up and enrolled in night classes, teaching himself engineering. Though he never received an official degree in engineering, he was truly a self-taught engineer. In 1934, Mr. Cervantes married Mary Loya and had two sons, Richard and Donald. The young family moved to Mare Island in Vallejo, California, where Mr. Cervantes worked for the U.S. Navy at the naval submarine base. There, he did a great deal of work with ship board ventilation. His engineering background soon made him stand out, and he rose to the head of the department. The early 1930s were a peaceful time for the family, with plenty of recreation opportunities on the base. However, war clouds were looming on the horizon in Europe, and chaos broke loose with the December 7, 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Mr. Cervantes moved his family back to Alhambra, California to take a job with Bethlehem Steel's Ship Building Division as an engineer in charge of on-board ventilation at the company's design facility at the Port of San Pedro. He was divorced and married his second wife, his beloved of 62 years, Betty Helgeson from Brainerd, Minnesota. At the end of World War II, Mr. Cervantes put everything on the line to pursue the American dream of owning a business. The sheet metal company that he started in Compton, California in 1945 grew to handle some of the largest mechanical projects in the State. It was incorporated in 1962 and moved to Orange County, where it became known as Air Conditioning Systems, Inc. In 1985, the company was awarded a contract to design and build a portable ground support air conditioning unit for the Space Shuttle. The company went on to design and fabricate many highly specialized air conditioning systems, including B1 ground support, NAVSTAR Tracking Van, and Space Shuttle Assembly Building. In national recognition, the company was presented the Administrators Award for Excellence by the Small Business Administration. Throughout his life, Mr. Cervantes remained an avid golfer and a dedicated member of the Rio Honda Country Club. He played into his 92nd Birthday and shot his age on several occasions. He held membership in many clubs and community and business organizations. When he fully retired in 1987, he moved to his new home at Canyon Crest Country Club in Riverside, California. Mr. Cervantes' love for the beautiful Sierra Nevada Mountains, involvement in the community, and passion for helping people who were ``down on their luck'' are just a few of the things that have made his life so special. In 100 years, he has gone from horse and buggy to space exploration. Few people are blessed with such an exciting and extraordinary life. Mr. Cervantes is truly a great American, Californian, father, grandfather, and great grandfather. Madam Speaker and my colleagues, I ask that you join me in honoring Eugene Felix Cervantes today. I hope we all have the good fortune to live such a full life as he has. He is a great man and his family and friends are very proud of all of these achievements.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. McKEON. This is an emotional issue, it's a serious issue, and I think it's hard for some of us, I know on this, to control our passions. It's disturbing that some are offended, have been offended during the debate today, and I feel badly about that. My concerns are more with the flaws that I see in the bill. I am concerned that we are all trying to end discrimination. I don't think you do that by passing laws. I think we have to engage people in their hearts, in their minds and try to work with that approach. While this amendment does not correct or even address all of the challenges created by the underlying legislation, I recognize the incremental steps it takes. I appreciate the chairman for making this effort at trying to resolve these issues. I will support its passage. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.