[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 75 (Tuesday, June 13, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5737-S5740]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
OPPOSITION TO THE NOMINATION OF RICHARD STICKLER
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the confirmation of
Richard Sticker as Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety. I also
ask the Senate to send a message of confidence and hope to the miners
across America that we in the Senate are no longer willing to put coal
industry executives that care more about profits than lives in charge
of their safety.
How many of us recall the recent news stories coming out of Kentucky
and West Virginia--heartbreaking stories--where lives were lost and
families waited expectantly aboveground praying that those miners would
be found and be brought back safely, and how many times that was not
the case.
What brings about safety in these coal mines, so deep in the Earth?
The vigilance of the agencies, Federal and State, that keep an eye on
the companies that are operating out of the view of most of the world.
Those are the things that are important. Today, we will have a chance
to vote on a man who wants to head the Federal agency when it comes to
mine safety. Unfortunately, Mr. Stickler is yet another in a long line
of coal industry executives nominated by this administration.
The last industry appointee to the Mine Safety and Health
Administration withdrew or delayed final action on 18 mine safety
rules. The result was disastrous--disastrous to the tune of 33 coal
mine deaths in America in 2006.
Two of the rules that could have been enacted and were not by the
predecessor to the man being appointed to this position had the
potential to speed the rescue and increase the chance of survival for
the 14 miners killed in the recent West Virginian Sago and Alma mine
disasters. One would have sped up the formation of rescue teams. The
other would have provided more oxygen for the miners. Both of these
rules could have saved miners' lives this year. But the Mine Safety and
Health Administration didn't enact the rules. Why? Because doing so
would have cost the coal companies money. It is just that simple. And
now 33 miners have paid with their lives, and Congress was forced to
act.
We passed a new law this year--a law that was pushed by the Senators
from West Virginia, Senators Byrd and Rockefeller--which I was happy to
support because of the coal mining in my own home State of Illinois. It
is called the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006.
It mandates the formation of two mine safety teams available within an
hour of an accident. Such quick response mine rescue teams might have
saved lives at these coal mines in America this year.
This new law also mandates the purchase of wireless tracking and
messaging equipment and extra oxygen for miners underground. Both of
these provisions could also have saved lives.
My concern with Mr. Stickler's nomination is not solely that he is a
coal executive--that doesn't disqualify him--but that he clearly stated
during his confirmation hearing that these new provisions in the law
are not needed. He unequivocally stated that no new laws are needed and
that the laws on the books, which haven't been updated, incidentally,
in 30 years, to adjust for new technology in coal mining, according to
Mr. Stickler, those 30-year-old laws are just fine. And he said this
after the Sago mine explosion that took the lives of 12 coal miners.
I can't support a nominee to be head of mine safety when he opposes
the recently passed Miner Act. This law, which the Senate passed by
unanimous consent, without one single Senator dissenting, was a
recognition by all of us that mine safety laws need to be updated in
order to protect the coal miners and to stop the unnecessary and sad
and tragic loss of life. But Mr. Stickler, who wants to be head of this
Federal agency to protect coal miners across America, disagrees.
Furthermore, Mr. Stickler argues that the duty to comply with safety
laws falls on the shoulders of the mine companies, and that the agency
he wants to head plays no role. He told a committee of the Senate that
he believes there is a compliance problem, not an enforcement problem,
in the mine industry. Mr. Stickler doesn't seem to understand that
without enforcement, there will be no compliance. Any industry left on
its own to comply with Federal and local laws will often fail to do so.
That is a reality--a reality Mr. Stickler doesn't even understand.
I am astonished that President Bush would nominate a person to head
this important safety agency who has such little regard for the need to
enforce the laws of the land, to protect the lives of coal miners, and
to spare families from the grief that so many have suffered this year.
Mr. Stickler's statements at his confirmation hearing fly in the face
of reality, and I ask: What do his comments say to the families of
those 33 lost miners?
Many of these families oppose the confirmation of Mr. Stickler
because of his opposition to revising mine safety laws and his live-
and-let-live position on enforcement regulations. They are not alone.
The United Mine Workers and the AFL-CIO also oppose Mr. Stickler's
nomination. All of us in the Senate supported passage of a new law to
save miners' lives. We unanimously supported it. Mr. Stickler doesn't
believe that legislation was even necessary.
We also know that enforcement of the laws is needed to compel mine
operators to comply with the laws. Mr. Stickler, again, disagrees.
We learned a bitter lesson about 11 months ago on the gulf coast.
Hurricane Katrina, the worst natural disaster to strike America, came
with warning, devastating New Orleans and many communities in
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Even with 3 or 4
[[Page S5738]]
days' warning that this hurricane was about to strike and could have
devastating impact, the Federal Emergency Management Administration was
not ready. They were not prepared.
Unfortunately, the person who headed up the agency effort, Mr.
Michael Brown, didn't do everything he could have done and, as a
result, lives were lost, people suffered, there was damage that was
totally unnecessary, and the rescue effort was slow to come and, sadly,
too late for many.
The lesson from Michael Brown at FEMA was that you don't put a person
whose speciality in life is Arabian horses in charge of the Federal
Emergency Management Administration. He wasn't ready for the job, and
as a result of that people died and people suffered.
So now what do we have today? We have Mr. Richard Stickler, an
executive from a coal company, who is now going to be put in charge of
watching coal companies. Why? Because he is charged with the safety of
coal miners. When one listens to his responses to the questions at the
committee hearing, it is clear that he has taken a position with which
most coal companies would agree: We don't need no more regulation; we
don't need no more enforcement; we don't need no more meddling Federal
agencies.
Maybe that point of view would have prevailed some time past, but
this year we know better.
Coal mining, one of the most dangerous occupations in America, has
claimed 33 lives this year. This Congress understood it. We passed
unanimously a change in the law to protect those coal miners. We cannot
afford to put in that agency a person in charge who is not going to
spend every minute and every ounce of his strength to protect those
coal miners and be an advocate for their families. Mr. Stickler is not
that person.
On behalf of the 3,500 coal miners in my home State of Illinois and
all of the coal miners across the country, I urge my fellow Senators to
oppose the confirmation of Mr. Stickler for this important position.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from
Illinois in expressing my deep concern about the nomination of Richard
Stickler to be Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.
That is a long title, but it means one thing: This is the person who is
going to be in charge of the health and safety of every miner in
America.
That is a very serious responsibility, and it requires a serious
leader, someone with a strong background in mine safety and a strong
commitment to aggressively protect America's mine workers. I sit on the
committee that oversees the nomination. I have to tell the Senate, Mr.
Stickler offered neither. I believe the President, respectfully, should
withdraw his nomination and send us at this time a more suitable
nominee.
As we all know, just 6 months ago, 12 miners were killed in the Sago
disaster. In the wake of that tragedy, many of us in the Senate worked
hard--and I commend the Senator who is sitting in the chair for his
work--on this incredibly important issue. We did the right thing. We
came together and passed the most comprehensive mine safety update in a
generation.
I was honored to work on that historic bill with Senators Kennedy and
Enzi, Senator Isakson, who is in the chair, and Senators Rockefeller
and Byrd. But we have to do more than just pass a law. We need to make
sure we provide the resources, and we need to make sure we provide the
leadership to carry this out. That is why it is so disturbing to me
that the Senate majority leader is today trying to push an unqualified
nominee through to head this agency.
Senator Byrd, who represents the Sago families, has raised some very
valid concerns about Mr. Stickler's qualifications and, following
Senate tradition, those concerns should be heeded. They should give all
of us pause. Indeed, we see the leadership today departing from the
usual process and trying now to push this nominee through the Senate. I
believe that is the wrong course of action when the lives of our
American miners are at stake.
Mr. President, as you well know, I am very passionate about this
issue because I have worked on mine safety issues with you and with the
Senator who is arriving on the floor as I speak, Senator Kennedy. In
fact, at the hearing of this nominee, it was my questioning of his
confirmation hearing that revealed to me his business-as-usual approach
to miner health and safety.
When Richard Stickler testified at his HELP confirmation hearing in
January, he told me he believed the current mine safety laws are
adequate. That was before we passed our legislation. He said those
current mine safety laws were adequate. I couldn't disagree more, and
neither could the House and Senate, which, after that, passed the most
significant mine safety improvements in a generation.
I was disappointed in his responses at the hearing, so I asked him
further questions in writing. In reply to that, Mr. Stickler could not
suggest a single way to improve mine safety--not one single suggestion.
Think about that for a minute. We would not put someone in charge of
food safety who has no idea about how to make consumers safe.
We wouldn't put someone in charge of airline safety who has no idea how
to make air traffic safer. And we certainly shouldn't put someone in
charge of mine safety who has no idea about how to make our mines
safer.
We need a leader now more than ever at the Mine Safety and Health
Administration who will not just accept the status quo that has cost
miners their lives in this country. It is a wrong turn to have the
enforcement of our mine safety laws turned over to a former coal
company executive with no background in miner health and safety.
Here is how the head of the United Mine Workers of America put it in
a letter to President Bush. He said:
The Nation's miners cannot tolerate having another mine
executive running the agency responsible for protecting their
health and their safety. For too many years, miners have
endured an agency directed by coal mining executives. Too
often these mining executives place a priority on
productivity, but fail to focus on miners' health and safety.
Too many times MSHA has not done all it is charged with doing
to promote miners' health and safety.
Clearly, we need a new direction at that agency and, clearly, Mr.
Stickler does not provide a new kind of direction.
The words that I just quoted are the words of Cecil Roberts,
international president of the United Mine Workers of America. He and
the AFL-CIO oppose this nomination and with good reason.
With America's miners risking their lives every day, as we all know--
and a new law in place, thankfully, because of the leadership of the
Presiding Officer, that has to be vigorously enforced--we cannot
entrust our mine safety to someone who has not shown the background or
the passion or the desire to make sure those laws work well and will
fight for the health and safety of American miners.
When it comes to mine safety, we know now that we cannot tolerate
business as usual. I believe the Senate should reject this nominee and
demand a leader, someone who will stand up for our miners.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator be good enough to yield?
Mrs. MURRAY. Yes, I will.
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask the Chair, how much time do we have remaining on
our side?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 12 minutes 55 seconds
remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Presiding Officer let us know when we have 7
minutes remaining?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington, who
is the ranking member of the subcommittee that has been dealing with
this issue, for an excellent statement. I wonder if she agrees with me
that we have passed very important mine safety legislation that the
President of the United States is going to sign. It has strong
bipartisan support. Our committee, which was led by Chairman Enzi,
visited the Sago mine. We had extensive hearings on the issue. Does the
Senator agree with me that if we are going to have this new beginning
in terms of mine safety that we need to have someone who is going to
effectively run that program, who is going
[[Page S5739]]
to be someone who understands both the history of what has been
happening in the mines in West Virginia, in Pennsylvania, in Kentucky,
and throughout the Midwest, and has demonstrated leadership in terms of
protecting miners? Does the Senator agree with me that what we are
looking for is strong leadership to implement that legislation?
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would say to my friend from
Massachusetts through the Acting President pro tempore, I couldn't
agree more. I think the country sat at its dinner tables and watched
the mine accidents that have occurred increasingly over the past year.
So we understand what it takes in this country is leadership at an
agency. Just look back at what happened with Katrina with the head of
FEMA. It takes leadership in an agency. It takes all of us to put laws
in place. But if there is not someone at the head of that agency who is
sending a direction down through the ranks that our miners' safety and
health has to come first, any law we pass will just be something
written in a book.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, would the Senator agree with me that
there are, it seems to me, three major tests. We all know that Mr.
Stickler was a miner and comes from a mining family, and we respect
that. We have a great deal of respect for that. I am sure he was a
great miner, as is his family, I am sure. But what we are looking at
now is the record of Mr. Stickler regarding mine safety.
Would the Senator agree with me that if you look over the record that
he has in terms of mine safety--this chart represents the Stickler-
managed mines which racked up thousands of safety citations. This is
1989 all the way through 1996. There were a total of 2,800 citations,
97 closures, and we have here--there is some time overlap between that
chart and this one--the Eagle's Nest Mine where the managed mine injury
rate is nearly triple the national average.
So we have the citations which are an indication in terms of the mine
safety, we have a comparison with what has happened in terms of the
average, and then when he was running the mine safety program in
Pennsylvania, we had inspectors who were threatening to quit because
they thought he was failing to protect miners. This chart shows the
mine safety inspectors and harmed coal miners, and his policy--that is
the policy of Mr. Stickler--is a detriment to safety that would,
without a doubt, make the coal industry less safe for two-thirds of its
workers.
So we have his record in terms of mine safety in the mines. As an
administrator, we have inspectors of the mines who are prepared to
resign. Then, the third strike, which I think is enormously powerful,
is, as the Senator from Washington pointed out, his response to the
questions.
The Senator remembers, because she commented on this, when he was
asked whether there needed to be any changes in the existing law, he
said he thought that the existing laws were adequate. This is prior to
the time that we passed the new legislation, as I remember.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would answer the Senator in saying,
that is absolutely correct. Prior to any action by this body and the
House in passing tougher laws, this nominee said no changes were
needed.
Mr. KENNEDY. And when he was asked whether he would implement the law
requiring a mine rescue team on site at every mine, Mr. Stickler said:
No, Senator, I can't commit to that at this time. I will study this.
Does the Senator remember that when asked what he would do with
information about new mine safety technology, Stickler said: I think
that needs to be looked at.
When asked whether he would require the use of new technology like
tracking devices, Stickler said: I look forward to reviewing the
results of the technical evaluation.
When asked whether he would enforce the current standard prohibiting
the use of belt air if it was shown that the use of belt air caused the
Alma mine fire, Stickler said: I would reevaluate the standard. Here
are the series of questions, many of them asked by the Senator from
Washington and others.
Does the Senator not agree with me having read the answers, plus
attending the hearing, that one could say that the miners of this
country deserve to have someone who is going to be more aggressive in
terms of looking at new technology and in looking at additional safety
standards, in looking at more effective kinds of enforcement and
protecting the lives of the workers?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There are 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY. I would ask the Chair to let us know when 2 minutes
remain.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would just say to the Senator from
Massachusetts, I want in charge of this agency someone who will stand
up and say, We are going to make the mines safer for the families who
send a loved one there every day.
I went to that hearing, and all of what the Senator from
Massachusetts just presented and the attitude this nominee presented--
to me, this is not someone, despite his background, who is going to
stand up and lead. I believe that we need to send this nominee back and
we need to have somebody who we can proudly say is going to lead this
agency at a most critical time.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, finally, I would like to get the
Senator's reaction to these letters that we have gotten from families
of those who were lost in the Sago mines and in other mines. I found
them enormously powerful. When we visited the Sago mine, we had--I see
in the Chair presiding over the Senate a member of our committee and
someone who was enormously involved and active in getting this
legislation passed, and I pay tribute to Senator Isakson. But in that
meeting, I can remember it was the sense of all of the members,
Republicans and Democrats, who were so moved by the tremendous tragedy
and sadness, particularly when they had the sense of hope at the Sago
mines that their loved ones might have been able to survive we made a
commitment to them that we were going to do everything possible to make
sure that others who go into the mines were going to be protected. We
have come back here and passed a good, bipartisan bill, and also in the
House of Representatives. There was a real question among many of us
here whether we could get a good one that the President would sign, and
now the President has announced that he is going to sign it on
Thursday.
The mines themselves are having record problems. The mines themselves
we find out are having record deaths. We passed good legislation and we
promised those individuals that we were going to do everything we
possibly could to make sure that the tragedies that happened to their
loved ones would not happen again.
We passed the legislation. Now we have the letters from so many of
these families who have read the record of this individual and have
pleaded with us--pleaded with us--pleaded with us, that if we honor the
memory of those who died in these mines, that we put someone in charge
who is going to really implement that legislation and to fight for
safety.
Is the Senator not moved, as I am, by the letters we received from
the miners' families who have been lost, many of whom came to our
hearings and who listened to the testimony on this individual? They
have studied his record, and now they plead with us--plead with us--
that we get someone else to provide the leadership for implementing the
mine safety laws. Is the Senator moved by those letters?
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would say to the Senator from
Massachusetts, every Senator on this floor should take a few minutes to
read those letters from the families who have been impacted by mining
disasters. I would say to my colleagues and to the President that we
ought to be thinking we have to put someone in place in this agency who
is going to wake up every single day he is on the job and say, What am
I doing to make sure that in my responsibility of taking care of
hundreds of miners every single day, I am moving the ball forward.
I have to say to the Senator from Massachusetts, there was no passion
when I saw the presentation. I did not see someone in front of me who
understood the tremendous responsibility that he was being given and
who would wake up every single day and say, What am I doing to improve
mine safety? That is my responsibility.
[[Page S5740]]
That is the kind of person I want in charge of this agency, I say to
my friend from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. If I could have
recognition myself.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized for 2
minutes and 30 seconds.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from
Washington again. We have worked very closely together. We have worked
with the administration. We have worked with our colleagues and
friends, Senator Rockefeller and Senator Byrd. We have worked together
with Governor Manchin and other Governors. We have worked with the
workers, the mine workers, the families. We have worked very closely
together. This isn't in any sense a partisan issue. We have come
together. There wasn't a dissenting vote here in the U.S. Senate in
passing this legislation. There were a few votes in the House that
wanted to have even stronger legislation. So we are basically all
together and we are asking ourselves, given the fact we are all
together and given the fact that we have this extraordinary challenge
and problem that is affecting these workers, are they not entitled to
someone who is going to be an effective leader in terms of providing
safety.
I commend the Senator from Washington for making a strong case. We
want to try to have a common position with our colleagues and friends
within the administration. But this person--if we are going to I think
meet our responsibility to those miners, we have to do better.
I thank my friend from Washington for her excellent presentation. I
thank her for her conclusions.
We are facing a major challenge in this Nation about safety in our
mines. We have seen the expansion of these mines as our energy
situation has become more acute, and now is the time to have real
implementation. Now is the time to fulfill our commitment to these
families and to these workers. Now is the time to honor the memory of
those who have gone into the mines and who have lost their lives. Now
is the time to help those whose primary desire is honoring the members
of their families by passing an effective bill and have it implemented
effectively. Now is the time to do that. If we are going to do that,
this is not the individual who is equipped to be able to do it. He is a
fine gentleman, and I admire the fact he and his family have been
miners. But you have to look at the record: Whether he has been running
the mines and overseeing the mines effectively. In testifying, by
nature of disposition, he is not the man to implement this, and we
should reject his nomination.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority time has expired.
____________________