[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10892-10896]
[From the U.S. 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.

[[Page 10893]]


  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 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.

[[Page 10894]]

       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.
       (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,

[[Page 10895]]

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 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

[[Page 10896]]

     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 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.

                          ____________________