George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. My colleague from California said that we had a study in this. Yes, we have a study for the Secretary to determine the best way to implement a drug testing and treatment program after 6 months of talking to the States and local agencies and the companies and the miners. We don't impose this from Washington. And then the Secretary, if she determines that it is feasible, she is instructed to start the program. We just thought it would be wise to consult the companies who have programs, States that have programs, the miners themselves, the local public health agencies. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell). (Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. The gentleman should have finished reading the rest of the letter where NIOSH says that these technical modifications can be addressed quickly. And, in fact, the preliminary feedback is that manufacturers have already made many of these, and they have already been implemented. Read the whole letter. I suggest that the gentleman on the other side of the aisle read the legislation, and when they want to introduce evidence, read the complete evidence. I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for his support of this legislation, and more importantly, to thank him for all of his support on behalf of workers during our first session of Congress. I thank you for your attendance at the hearings and advocacy and questions on behalf of workers. I know of your very strong interest in miners, and I want to thank you for your advocacy on behalf of all workers.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. May I inquire of the Chair how much time each side has remaining.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield myself 30 seconds. I want to thank the gentleman. I've had an opportunity to read the letter from his constituents, and I want to thank him for entering it into the Record. It's on behalf of those families and the families of the other mining tragedies who have also written to us that we made a pledge in our committee, as the gentleman knows, that this committee was going to be very diligent about pursuing mine safety. It had been ignored for too long. The families had been closed out of the process. They were not allowed to testify. They were not allowed to go to the investigations. They were not allowed to attend the hearings, and this legislation changes much of that. And you're quite correct and I want to thank him and his constituents for the support of this legislation. Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the committee. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I'm the only speaker. We were looking for a gentlewoman to do a colloquy, but she's not here. If she shows up, I would do the colloquy with her, but I wouldn't take additional time. So you can go ahead and use your time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. If the gentlewoman would yield.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I want to thank you for your support of this legislation. I would note that the manager's amendment will slow down the required schedule of underground mines to convert to the new more fire-resistant conveyer belts. These belts will help prevent deaths in all kinds of underground mines. And the amendment will ensure that mine operators have a chance to use up the perfectly good belts that they have in their inventory. Also, the S-MINER Act will not adopt new safety standards for underground non-coal mines, except for the conveyor belt, and in this case, the mines which regularly emit methane gas, new rules for explosion-proof seals. It certainly does not treat these mines like coal mines. The current air quality standards for underground salt mines are based on 1973 rules established by a private organization and incorporated by reference into the MSHA regulations. It is hard to even locate a copy of these old standards. It is the intent of S-MINER to adopt air standards that are justified by the unbiased scientific evidence as preventing health risks to miners and are feasible for the mines to achieve. If mine operators object to the new mine health limits based upon concerns of technological or economic feasibility, the bill requires them to fully analyze these concerns before adopting new standards. By speeding up the rulemaking process, we want to accelerate MSHA to address real hazards, but do not intend to adopt unsupported standards that do not create significant benefits or are not feasible for compliance. The S-MINER Act does increase minimum and maximum penalties for violation of requirements that specifically protect the health and safety in underground metal and non-metal mines. However, it leaves in place the requirements in the law that small mines get a break, that a mine operator's history is a factor in assessment, and that the degree of negligence and seriousness of the hazard is to be considered. Also, I want to note that our colleague, Congressman Ellsworth, has an amendment which would eliminate the requirement from the bill that concerns many of your constituents with respect to escrowing proposed penalties before contest.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that, first of all, on the question, I'm sure we had both the same reaction when we read the story in The Washington Post that we had an opportunity in this legislation to address, the issue of substance abuse by those in the mining industry. You drafted your amendment and we drafted our amendment. Ours is, in fact, a study and then the implementation of the program. The gentleman from the other side of the aisle and his colleagues are always saying they don't want a solution made in Washington. They want to consult other parties. We thought we should consult the companies. We thought we should consult the States that have experience in this, the public health agencies that have some experience in this, and have the Secretary develop the best program and then enact that program with drug testing. That's what we thought we should do, and I think it makes the most sense. There are States that have extensive experience, and rather than just somehow creating a program sent from Washington, whether those programs have drug testing or not, didn't make any sense to us. With the rest of the criticisms of the amendment, I think it's sort of like maybe the ``Abbey Road'' album, where you guys play it backwards and it says ``Paul is dead'' or something. You're reading the amendments upside down or something because that's not what the amendments do. These are good amendments. They address some concerns that the industry has raised with us. And the fact of the matter is miners are entitled to have breathable air, to have 96 hours of air underground today. When the chambers come, they will come, but in the meantime they should not be unprotected given the history of the accidents that we have witnessed in this country and the problems that the miners have reaching those breathable supplies after the explosions. So I would encourage all of my colleagues to support this amendment, the manager's amendment, by voting for it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. What this amendment would do would be to strike many of the very important provisions in the underlying bill that are there to protect the lives and the safety of those who mine coal in this country's coal mines. They would change the retreat mining where we just saw a disaster of a mine accident in Utah this last August. They would provide a provision of a study. Rather than changing the regulations by which that happened, they would provide a study. A study was not going to save those miners. They would also take out the provision that we have that miners should have 96 hours of air available to them in the mines until such time as we have the refuge chambers. They take that out. Those miners need that air today. The fact that a refuge chamber is on order, may not be delivered for six months, a year, a year and a half, does nothing for the miner who goes to work today and tomorrow, and that is why we did it. We did it so that we could provide that margin of safety for those individuals. We also look at conveyor belts, a major ignition point of fires in the mine, and if not properly installed, if not properly taken care of, can take the fire and the gases directly to where the miners are working. So they take that provision out. We say that MSHA cannot investigate itself. It cannot investigate itself. These must be independent investigations, because you have to look at whether or not MSHA properly did its job, properly enforced the requirements of the law, properly inspected the mines and all that that entails, and to have them redo that themselves is a disservice to the miners and to the families. It's the single most provided complaint to this committee by the families, that they just don't understand how the watch dog can investigate themselves when their family members died in these mines. They want somebody else to take a look at it. They want somebody else to see whether or not it was done properly or not, and that is out in this provision. It also limits the family participation. Why is it that the victims aren't able to testify and to participate and understand the design of the investigation? They are excluded from this process today. These are family members, these are victims of the disaster, these are taxpayers, and they're told, Just stand on the side, we'll tell you what happened. In many instances, they know more about what happens because when their spouses come home from work, they talk to them about what is wrong in the mines, what's dangerous, about their fear of going to work. So we provided an ombudsman so that that could happen. They should also be part of that investigation. We think it's very important that this amendment be defeated because it wipes out, it guts those provisions of the law that we envision in this legislation that are so important to those miners and to their families. We cannot do what we have done in the past and assume that we can just leave this to the Mine Safety Health Administration. They essentially did nothing for 8 years. Now, tragically, year after year those mining families are paying the price for that. That must come to an end. That is what this legislation does. This amendment destroys the ability of this legislation to provide that margin of safety to the miners and to their families, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the Wilson amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time I may consume. Just in response to the question that was asked, the whole point is the chambers are not available. We are asking that they put 96 hours of air available in canisters until such time as the refuge chambers are available. Currently now, apparently if you order a chamber, you are considered to be in compliance. No new air has come into that mine. No new resources of air are available. Nothing is available to the miner, but you are in compliance with the law. We saw miners lose their lives because they simply ran out of air. They weren't killed in the explosion. They weren't killed in a slide. They weren't killed in a roof collapse. They ran out of air. So what we are saying is we appreciate that you have gone ahead and you have ordered the chambers because you have made the decision to put the chambers in. Until such time as they are there, we ought to provide that kind of margin of safety. One is not inconsistent with the other.