[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 75 (Tuesday, June 13, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5746-S5750]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ORDER OF PROCEDURE
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the scheduled
recess today be extended until 3:30 p.m.; further that the cloture vote
on the nomination of Richard Stickler be vitiated and that at 3:30 p.m.
the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the conference
report to accompany H.R. 4939, the emergency supplemental
appropriations bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I thought
we talked with the leader about a process and a procedure, of which the
leader was agreeable, that we would have a chance--if there is going to
be a recess appointment--that we would have an opportunity to go ahead
and have a cloture vote prior to that time.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the discussion among the Democratic
leadership and Republican leadership was, indeed, that we vitiate the
vote today and that at a time that is mutually agreed upon this vote
will come back to this body.
Mr. KENNEDY. To this body prior to the recess appointment?
Mr. FRIST. Prior. That is the understanding. And the discussion was--
I have had absolutely no conversations with the administration about a
recess appointment----
Mr. KENNEDY. Right.
Mr. FRIST. But if there were to be such a recess appointment, that
then this vote could come back, would come back at that time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the leader. We are going to have a very
important Thursday signing of the Mine Safety Act. It is a reflection
of the good work of our chairman, Senator Enzi, and many others on our
Human Resources Committee. It is very good legislation, passed by the
House of Representatives, and to be signed by the President. It is
going to be enormously important. We look forward to that and hopefully
to its effective enforcement.
I thank the leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, without objection,
it is so ordered.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for the
nomination of Richard M. Stickler to be the Assistant Secretary of
Labor for Mine Safety and Health. Mr. Stickler's nomination was
referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. On
March 8 of this year, the committee reported the nomination favorably
out of the committee.
The Senate acted just 2 weeks ago on mine safety legislation which
the House passed on Wednesday. It is anticipated that the President
will sign this into law expeditiously. It is extremely important for
the Mine Safety and Health Administration to have permanent leadership
to implement this important mine safety law; therefore, I urge my
colleagues to vote in favor of Mr. Stickler's nomination today.
Despite decades of improving safety in our Nation's mines, this year
we witnessed a series of tragic accidents in the coal mines of West
Virginia and Kentucky. Those tragedies, in part, led to a thorough
review of our mine safety laws. The Senate Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions Committee, which I am privileged to chair, and the
Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety, chaired by Senator
Johnny Isakson, conducted extensive hearings and roundtables on the
issues related to mine safety. We conducted an exhaustive review of the
current Mine Safety and Health Act and met, at length, with
representatives from the mining industry, labor, the professional
safety community and State and Federal regulators, all in an effort to
determine how we could act in a responsible and constructive way to
improve workplace safety for our Nation's miners. The result of these
collective efforts was the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response
Act. The MINER Act is the first comprehensive
[[Page S5747]]
reform of U.S. mine safety laws in a generation. Following its
introduction, the MINER Act was unanimously reported out of the HELP
Committee and, almost immediately thereafter, was passed in this body
by unanimous consent on May 24. The House passed this bill on Wednesday
night. It is expected that the President will sign the bill into law
very soon.
What has marked the MINER Act from the outset has been its bipartisan
nature. The bill was drafted and moved through Congress as the direct
result of continual efforts, on both sides, to reach across the aisle
and reconcile differences. The passage of the MINER Act has shown that
ensuring the safety of miners is not a partisan issue.
While amending the Mine Safety Act is an important step in meeting
our responsibility to ensure miner safety, it is not the only step. We
must not only give the Mine Safety and Health Administration the
statutory tools it needs to get the job done; we must give it the
permanent leadership it needs as well. This, too, should be an action
in which partisanship should play no part. The Mine Safety and Health
Administration has been without a permanent, Senate-confirmed,
Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health since November of 2004.
This is too long under any circumstance but particularly in the wake of
the recent coal mining tragedies, and on the eve of implementing the
many changes that will result from enactment of the MINER Act.
We have the opportunity today to address this issue and to provide
MSHA with the permanent leadership it needs by voting to confirm
Richard M. Stickler, the President's nominee to head MSHA. Mr. Stickler
is an experienced nominee whose leadership is needed during this
critically important period. He is one of a very few individuals who
has experience in mining at all levels from a miner to management to
State regulator.
Born and raised in West Virginia the son and grandson of underground
coal miners, Mr. Stickler has spent his entire 37-seven year career in
the mining industry. He began his career as an underground miner and
worked his way up to foreman, assistant superintendent, superintendent
and manager. The bulk of this experience was not behind a desk but was
underground, actually working in a mining environment. Because of this
practical, day-to-day experience, he will be better able to understand
and respond to the needs of today's underground coal miners and to
provide seasoned leadership at MSHA.
While working as a miner, Mr. Stickler also attended Fairmont State
College and earned a degree in engineering. In addition to his
engineering background, he is certified as a mine safety professional
by the International Society of Mine Safety Professionals.
Mr. Stickler also served as captain of a mine rescue team. As we have
all seen over the course of the last several months, mine rescue teams
are a critically important component of mine safety. The heroic miners
who volunteer for this service endanger their own lives and donate
significant amounts of time to ensure they are prepared to help their
fellow miners. The MINER Act, which passed the Senate unanimously 2
weeks ago, mandates some changes to the mine rescue team system.
Namely, we require mine rescue team members to have a higher level of
training and experience and to be available more quickly when needed. I
believe there could be no one better to implement these changes than a
former mine rescue team captain.
In 1997, Richard Stickler left employment in the private sector to
become director of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Deep Mine Safety, where
he served for 6 years. He held that position at the time of the
Quecreek mine accident in the summer of 2002. The accident drew
national attention as nine miners were trapped underground for several
days before being successfully rescued.
The Mine Safety and Health Administration is facing its most
significant challenge in decades. It needs an experienced leader at its
helm to implement the MINER Act and to continue the vital task of
ensuring the safety and well-being of our Nation's miners. I urge my
colleagues to support the nomination of Richard Stickler and vote in
favor of his nomination.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record additional
materials regarding the nomination.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Arguments and the Facts About Richard Stickler
Argument: Stickler Opposed the MINER Act.
Fact: Mr. Stickler has NEVER stated that he opposes the
MINER Act. In fact he SUPPORTS the MINER Act and has stated
that he would expeditiously implement its provisions.
Fact: When he testified before the HELP Committee the bill
had not even been introduced yet. No Senator who made this
allegation this morning has ever asked Mr. Stickler if he
opposed the MINER Act. If they had bothered to do so, as I
have, they would have learned that he supports the bill, as
does President Bush who nominated him.
Argument: Stickler does not believe any changes to the Mine
Safety and Health Act are necessary.
Fact: In the committee testimony he is on record as
supporting an additional penalty provision for Flagrant
Violators of mine regulations with a new, higher monetary
penalty of up to $220,000. This is included in the MINER Act.
Fact: The record shows that he also stated support for
storing additional supplies of breathable air in mine exit
ways to assist miners in escaping in the event of a fire or
explosion. This change would also be required by the MINER
Act. It is a safety precaution that Mr. Stickler instituted
in the mines he managed many years ago, even though it was
not required by any law or regulation.
Fact: His record testimony also reveals unqualified support
for the use of any and all technology that would make miners
safer.
Fact: Mr. Stickler supports the changes made by the MINER
Act.
Argument: Stickler was a mining company executive.
Fact: Richard Stickler grew up in West Virginia as the son
and grandson of underground coal miners. He is only the third
presidential nominee to head MSHA to have worked as a rank
and file miner.
Fact: Richard Stickler worked his way through college to
become an engineer. He continued working his way up the
ladder to mine manager. He never worked at corporate
headquarters.
Fact: Richard Stickler left employment in the private
sector to become Director of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Deep
Mine Safety, where he served for six years. He has been
retired since 2003 and has no current ties to industry.
Argument: Mines managed by Stickler had injury rates double
the national average.
Fact: Richard Stickler was a hands-on manager committed to
safety. All of the mines he managed for Beth Energy
Corporation had lower injury rates when he left than when he
began managing the mine.
Fact: Data from both MSHA and the Pennsylvania Bureau of
Deep Mine Safety (PA BDMS) show that injury rates declined
steadily during Richard Stickler's tenure as Director of the
PA BDMS from 1997-2003. During the last 3 years of his
service (2001-2003), the injury rate for underground coal
mines was below the national average.
Argument: A grand jury determined that the PA BDMS should
have noticed problems with mine maps earlier.
Fact: The grand jury found no evidence of reckless conduct
and made no finding with regard to negligence by the PA BDMS.
The faulty mine map that was found to have caused the
accident at Quecreek carried the certification of a qualified
engineer as required. Likewise, the report of the Office of
Inspector General made no negative findings with respect to
PA BDMS or Richard Stickler.
Fact: Investigations into tragic mine accidents like
Quecreek always provide an opportunity for viewing an
accident with 20/20 hindsight. Improvements in mine map
records were a direct result of the Quecreek experience.
Argument: Stickler believes existing mine laws are
sufficient.
Fact: Richard Stickler testified that the Mine Act provided
sufficient tools for enforcement, but that tough enforcement
measures allowed under the Act should be used more often
against mine operators who only comply with standards when
MSHA inspectors are on site or against operators who appear
to view MSHA penalties as just a cost of doing business.
Fact: Richard Stickler also testified that he supported
increased minimum and maximum penalties, unwarrantable
failure orders, and would not hesitate to invoke ``pattern''
provision for recalcitrant operators having repeat serious
violations.
Argument: Stickler does not have the expertise or vision to
head MSHA.
Fact: The President nominated a highly qualified candidate
for this important position. Richard Stickler has nearly 40
years experience in mining. He worked underground. He was an
eye witness to the awful tragedy of the Farmington Mine
accident that gave rise to the 1969 mine safety laws. He
served as captain of a mine rescue team. He was a mine
superintendent and manager. He is a trained engineer. He
served as the chief enforcement officer for the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania.
Fact: Richard Stickler has a clear agenda for moving MSHA
forward.
(1) Learn the lessons from Sago, Aracoma, and Darby. Follow
through on the investigations and internal reviews.
[[Page S5748]]
(2) Review the regulatory agenda. Determine whether items
previously dropped should be reinstated or if new items
should be added.
(3) Use all the tools in the Mine Safety and Health Act,
including warrantable failure orders and pattern of
violations orders where appropriate.
(4) Examine the penalty structure. Penalties must be
effective incentives for compliance.
(5) Analyze accident and violations data. Focus technology
development, training, and enforcement on areas of most
frequent accidents.
(6) Establish goals and performance measures.
____
Statement of Richard Stickler, Nominee for Assistant Secretary of Labor
for Mine Safety and Health
I fully support the recently passed MINER Act and will do
my best to expeditiously implement it if I am confirmed to be
MSHA Administrator. I have never stated that I did not
support this legislation.
I would like to clarify what I stated during my
confirmation hearing. I testified that I support tough
enforcement and that I would make use of the enforcement
tools that already exist in the statute. I testified that I
believe penalties must be meaningful deterrents to violating
MSHA safety standards, and appreciate that the MINER Act
raises both minimum and maximum penalties.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the nomination of
Richard Stickler to be the head of the Mine Safety and Health
Administration. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on cloture
on this nomination.
There is a safety crisis in our Nation's mines. In less than 6
months, 33 workers have been killed in our coal mines--11 more than
lost their lives in all of last year. Since Richard Stickler was
nominated to lead MSHA last September, 53 miners have been killed in
mining accidents.
As a recent front page article in the Wall Street Journal said, there
has been ``an alarming upswing in coal-mining accidents, at a time when
the coal industry is in the midst of a boom.'' Coal profits are
skyrocketing, but miners are paying the price with their lives.
This was brought home to me all too painfully when I traveled with
other members of the HELP Committee to West Virginia this winter. We
met with the families of the 12 miners killed at Sago Mine, and we
promised to fix this broken system.
As these grieving families can tell you, their government has let
coal miners down. And if we confirm Richard Stickler to head the Mine
Safety and Health Administration, we will be letting them down again.
Our Nation's miners and their families deserve a strong and visionary
leader to lead the Mine Safety and Health Administration during this
time of turmoil in the mine industry. As his record clearly
demonstrates, Mr. Stickler is not the man for this critical job. He has
shown over and over again that safety is his last priority.
He spent the overwhelming part of his career as a coal industry
executive, focused on profits and production, not on worker safety. In
some mines that he managed, injury rates actually went up--sometimes
far above the national average.
For example, when he was Senior Manager at the Eagle's Nest Mine in
Van, WV, the injury rate was almost three times the national average.
While he ran the Marianna Mine from 1983 to 1987, the injury rate
climbed dramatically during his tenure.
In the 8 years leading up to his appointment to lead the Pennsylvania
Bureau of Deep Mine Safety, mines he managed had a total of nearly
3,000 safety violations. One hundred of the violations were so serious,
they resulted in MSHA closing part of the mine.
During Mr. Stickler's tenure as the head of the Pennsylvania Bureau
of Deep Mine Safety, he continued to favor mining companies over miner
safety. He granted waivers and bent the rules for coal mining companies
over and over again. He created huge loopholes in rules designed to
prevent mine fires on conveyor belts and to guarantee that miners could
reach safe places to protect themselves from runaway railcars.
Things got so bad in Pennsylvania during his tenure that one mine
inspector called Stickler's special favors for the coal industry, ``a
detriment to safety . . . that would, without a doubt, make the coal
industry less safe for two-thirds of its workers.''
He was also in charge when the terrible accident at Quecreek
occurred, trapping nine men underground in a flooded mine shaft for
more than 3 days. We all sent our prayers and support to the miners'
families as we watched the rescue operation hour by hour on television.
America was horrified that this could happen. A grand jury inquiring
into that accident confirmed our suspicions when it found that the
system of regulating underground coal mines in Pennsylvania, which
included Mr. Stickler's job of protecting miner safety, was
``inadequate, antiquated, and in need of significant changes.''
That accident was a clarion call for the need to dramatically improve
mine safety. The lessons of Quecreek mean that Mr. Stickler, more than
anyone, should have known of the need to overhaul our mine safety, and
particularly emergency rescue laws.
In addition to the Quecreek experience, when Mr. Stickler testified
before our committee earlier this year, the coal mine tragedies in West
Virginia had just gripped the Nation. Sixteen men had already died in
our Nation's coal mines in just 4 weeks. They had lost their lives
doing their jobs. Their families were left only with their memories. We
owed it to those families to stand with them and demand immediate
action to prevent more deaths.
Yet when we asked Mr. Stickler whether mine safety laws needed
reform, he told us that he ``thinks the laws are generally adequate.''
Time and again, his response to the most pressing questions on mine
safety was that he needed to think about it. We asked him about how to
speed the adoption and encourage the development of new mine safety
technology. We asked him whether he thought mine rescue teams should be
readily available, as required by current law. We asked him whether
rescue chambers should be required in every coal mine. We asked him
whether he would ban the use of conveyor belts to ventilate mines. We
asked him whether he would implement MSHA's rule decreasing diesel
fumes in mines.
Did he agree with our call to action? Did he promise to take concrete
steps to save the lives of coal miners in danger? Not at all. Over and
over again in the hearing, in the midst of the tragedy, he responded
only that he needed to ``study,'' ``analyze,'' ``review,'' or
``reevaluate'' the situation.
This heartless performance showed how out of step he is with this
Congress and with mining families in America. Congress has enacted
sweeping mine safety legislation that is now on its way to the
President's desk. Four States--including West Virginia, Illinois,
Pennsylvania, and Kentucky--have also passed or are considering strong
new mine safety laws. Yet the person the President wants to lead our
mine safety agency is content with the status quo. It is no wonder that
Mr. Stickler's nomination is opposed by the United Mineworkers of
America, the Steelworkers and Petrochemical Atomic Workers, the
Boilermakers, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and
the AFL-CIO.
The Charleston West Virginia Gazette also opposes this nomination,
and urges President Bush to ``find a qualified MSHA nominee to send
before the U.S. Senate.''
Most importantly, Mr. Stickler's nomination is opposed by the people
who have the most to lose with a weak mine safety leader--the families
of coal miners themselves. I have received letters from women in West
Virginia, Kentucky, and Alabama, who lost their husbands and fathers in
mining accidents this year--pleading with this Congress to oppose this
nomination.
I think Peggy Ware from West Virginia summarizes their thoughts best:
``I know it is too late for my father and the other miners that have
lost their lives this year but we can make it safe for all our current
miners. Our miners deserve better leadership than someone who will not
be aggressive and someone that doesn't appear to recognize there is a
problem with our mining industry. This has been one of the deadliest
years in mining history. So once again I ask you to please oppose Mr.
Stickler's nomination.'' I will ask that these letters be printed in
the Record.
Our Nation's miners and their families have had enough of the status
quo. They deserve someone who is going to fundamentally change course
in miner safety, not cover for the industry. They
[[Page S5749]]
deserve someone who will make the United States once again a leader in
mine safety, instead of a place where miners have to rely on safety
equipment that is 30 years old. They deserve more than more of the same
cuts to mine safety enforcement, and withdrawal of safety regulations,
instead of pioneering new safety standards. Congress decided it is time
for a change by passing the MINER Act, the most significant improvement
to mine safety law in a generation, and President Bush is expected to
sign it into law this week. We saw unprecedented cooperation between
industry and labor, Republicans and Democrats on this legislation
because the mandate for action was clear. We had to act to stop the
tragic trend that started with the New Year and the disaster at Sago.
The act imposes broad new requirements to protect miners in the event
of an emergency, and ensures that communications, oxygen, and rescue
teams are in place to help miners survive.
This new law will usher in a new era in mine emergency response. MSHA
will be responsible for reviewing mines' emergency response plans. It
will issue regulations to raise the standard for seals on abandoned
sections of mines to prevent the next Sago or Darby disaster, and it
must make critical decisions about the use of conveyor belts to
ventilate mines and refuge chambers.
These choices will determine the state of mine safety for another
generation. They will determine whether coal miners will live or die
the next time there is an accident. How can we entrust these critical
reforms in the MINER Act to an agency head like Richard Stickler who
thinks they are unnecessary?
We owe it to the miners who have died this year and to those who go
into those same mines every day to demand a leader for MSHA who find
solutions, not someone who can't even recognize the problem.
For the sake of the miners and their families, I am voting no on
cloture on this nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
I ask unanimous consent that the aforementioned letters be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
June 11, 2006.
Dear Senator Kennedy and Senator Rockefeller: First, we
would like to express our gratitude to you for your steadfast
commitment to the Mine Act. We hope that passing the Mine Act
will aid in preventing future deaths of miners and save other
families from the grief that we have endured because of the
Sago Disaster. We would like to see additional requirements
set forth to protect the health and safety of our nation's
miners and we will continue to serve as advocates for miners.
We are profoundly disheartened by President Bush's
nomination of Richard Stickler for Assistant Secretary of
Labor for Mine Health and Safety. Mr. Stickler is a long-time
coal executive and because of his connections with the coal
industry, we are concerned that his primary objectives may be
solely on compliance and production, not on miners' health
and safety. Richard Stickler worked 30 years in numerous
management positions for the coal industry. He was a mining
company executive at a subsidiary of Massey Energy in West
Virginia, one of the nation's biggest coal companies. This is
not the type of person we want to head MSHA.
The Clinton administration was working on a rulemaking
proposal to require additional oxygen, a rule that could have
saved the lives of our Sago Miners and many other miners who
have perished due to an insufficient supply of oxygen in
America's underground coal mines. This proposal was dropped
after President George W. Bush took office. MSHA has also
admitted to knowing since at least 1998, that the previously
required one-hour air supply was inadequate to allow escape
by miners in more than a third of the nation's underground
coal mines.
At his nomination hearing, Mr. Stickler declined to endorse
new mine safety rules, such as those passed in January 2006
by the West Virginia legislature. He failed to recognize the
inadequacies within MSHA and the coal industry. This lack of
awareness and concern on behalf of Richard Stickler is
appalling, especially following one of the deadliest seasons
of coal mining in recent history. He offered no insights
about what he would do if he were to become head of MSHA. It
is our opinion that Mr. Stickler displays no signs of
leadership or competence in the ability to head MSHA.
President Bush's nomination of Richard Stickler is
characteristic of his pattern in appointing coal industry
insiders to serve as senior executives to MSHA. Under this
administration, regulations have been mitigated in favor of
industry, fines have been reduced for mine safety violations,
and MSHA's requirements have not been updated to keep pace
with the advancement of mine safety technologies. We conclude
that the nomination of Richard Stickler would best be
described by a quote taken from UMWA President, Cecil
Roberts, ``just another fox guarding the henhouse''.
MSHA is an agency that was developed to protect miners'
health and safety and not to promote the interests of coal
companies. Our nation's miners deserve an agency staffed with
executives who would aggressively advocate miners' health and
safety. We oppose the nomination of Richard Stickler as
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Health and Safety. We
assert that Mr. Stickler is not the right person for the job
and urge you to oppose his nomination. Please do not allow
the government to fail our nation's coal miners as it failed
our fallen miners at Sago.
Thank you,
Debbie Hamner,
Sara Bailey.
____
June 11, 2006.
Dear Senator Byrd and Senator Rockefeller: I first would
like to thank you for all the leadership and efforts you have
put forth helping to get the Miner Act together and passed. I
admire you for being so concerned about our miners' safety.
These changes needed made due to the recent tragic deaths of
all our miners. I am the daughter of Fred G. Ware, Jr. He was
one of the miners killed at the Sago Accident. I have been
following closely to make sure changes are being made.
However, I am writing this letter to express my concern of
President Bush's nominee for Assistant Secretary of MSHA:
Richard Stickler. I know that he has background in mine
management. My concern is that he will yet be another one
worried about ``compliance'' but not aggressive enough to
enforce the Mine Act. During his nomination hearing, Mr.
Stickler didn't even seem to recognize that there are any
problems at MSHA or within the industry.
Mr. Stickler seems to have a lack of awareness of the
current conditions of the coal industry. This lack of
awareness bothers me due to the fact we have had so many
deadly mining accidents since January 2, 2006. My father was
taken away from me in one of these deadly accidents. Mr.
Stickler offered no insights about what he would do if he
were to become the head of MSHA. This is not the kind of
leader we need for MSHA. We need a leader that will assure
the health and safety of our miners by being aggressive and
enforcing the Mine Act.
Thirty years ago when the Mine Act was passed, Congress
said that miners' health and safety are supposed to be the
top priorities, and MSHA being responsible with pursuing that
mission. Mr. Stickler said nothing at his confirmation
hearing that suggests he would serve as an aggressive
advocate for miners' health and safety. Our miners deserve
nothing less. I believe that Mr. Stickler is not the right
person for the job and thus urge you to oppose his
nomination.
I urge you to do this for all the miners' health and
safety. I know it is too late for my father and the other
miners that have lost their lives this year but we can make
it safe for all our current miners. Our miners deserve better
leadership than someone who will not be aggressive and
someone that doesn't appear to recognize there is a problem
with our mining industry. This has been one of the deadliest
years in mining history. So, once again, I ask you to please
oppose Mr. Stickler's nomination.
May God bless you all and your families. God bless our
miners!!!!!!
Sincerely,
Peggy Ware Cohen.
____
June 10, 2006.
Dear Senators: As you probably remember, our husbands were
two of the 13 coal miners who were killed in the Jim Walters
Mine No. 5 on September 23, 2001. Since then we have spoken
out in favor of improving the health and safety of coal
miners. To that end, we thank you for your vote in favor of
the MINER Act. We hope it will prevent more needless deaths
in the coal mine industry and will save other coal mining
families from the grief we have suffered. Of course, there is
still a lot to do to further miners' safety and health; we
continue to serve as advocates for coal miners.
Today we write to you to voice our serious reservations
about President Bush's nominee for Assistant Secretary of
MSHA, Richard Stickler. Mr. Stickler has a background in mine
management. From all that he has indicated so far in
connection with the confirmation process, he will be much
more inclined to continue Mr. Lauriski's focus on
``compliance'' at the expense of Mine Act enforcement. In
fact, when he had his hearing, which followed the terrible
tragedies in West Virginia in January 2006, Mr. Stickler
didn't even recognize that there's any problem at MSHA or
within the industry. He had no absolutely no new ideas about
what should be done to make MSHA any better. In short, he
showed no leadership at all.
When Congress passed the Mine Act, it stated unequivocally
that miners' health and safety are supposed to be the top
priorities. MSHA's job should be to protect miners.
Unfortunately, Mr. Stickler has said nothing to suggest he
would serve as an aggressive advocate for miners' health and
safety. However, miners deserve nothing less. We believe that
Mr. Stickler is not the right person for
[[Page S5750]]
the job and thus urge you to oppose his nomination.
Thank you,
Freda Sorah,
Debord, KY.
Wanda Blevins,
Tuscaloosa, AL.
____
June 10, 2006.
Dear Senator Kennedy and Senator Rockefeller: First, thank
you for your leadership and persistence in bringing the MINER
Act to reality. We hope it will prevent more needless deaths
in the coal mine industry and will save other coal mining
families from the grief we have suffered. Of course, there is
still a lot to do to further miners' safety and health. We
will continue to serve as advocates for miners, as we have
already traveled to speak on the subject.
Our most immediate concern today is President Bush's
nominee for Assistant Secretary of MSHA: Richard Stickler.
Mr. Stickler comes out of a background in mine management. At
first I thought this would be a good idea, but I fear he will
be yet another ``fox'' charged with minding the henhouse. He
will be more likely to pursue ``compliance'' rather than
aggressive enforcement of the Mine Act, though enforcement is
what's needed now more than ever. We need someone to stand up
for the mining community, not go along with what ever seems
to please the companies.
At his nomination hearing, Mr. Stickler failed to even
recognize that there's any problem at MSHA or within the
industry. How will he be able to fix and improve something he
thinks has no problems. This lack of awareness was startling
because his hearing was held on the heels of the deadliest
season of coal mining in recent history. He offered no
insights about what he would do if he were to become the head
of MSHA, and he showed no signs of leadership.
When it passed the Mine Act nearly 30 years ago, Congress
said that miners' health and safety are supposed to be the
top priorities, and MSHA is charged with pursuing that
mission. Mr. Stickler said nothing at his confirmation
hearing that suggests he would serve as an aggressive
advocate for miners' health and safety. However, miners
deserve nothing less. We believe that Mr. Stickler is not the
right person for the job and thus urge you to oppose his
nomination. Please help us get someone to stand up for us and
many other miners and there families.
Thank you very much for your time and I hope you consider
my suggestion.
Sincerely,
Amber Dawn Helms.
____________________