[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10883-10886]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 10884]]

warning, devastating New Orleans and many communities in Louisiana, 
Mississippi, and Alabama. Even with 3 or 4 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

[[Page 10885]]

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 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

[[Page 10886]]

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.
  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.

                          ____________________