Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Conyers.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 982 provides that upon its adoption, House Resolution 979 and House Resolution 980 are hereby adopted. House Resolution 979 recommends that the House of Representatives find Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten, the White House Chief of Staff, in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas duly issued by the Judiciary Committee. House Resolution 980 authorizes the Judiciary Committee to initiate or to intervene in any judicial proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas. Madam Speaker, I've had so many requests for time that I will cut my own time short. I simply want to give some reasons why it's important that we're here today. In my 21 years in the House, I have known that there were Members who came to Congress simply hoping that throughout their career they will always land on the safe square; not wanting to take a vote that might challenge them in any way, not wanting to take a vote that might require explanation. Fortunately, this is the safe square today. What we are doing here today is protecting the Constitution of the United States of America, which all of us are pleased, when we come here, to raise our hand and swear so to do. It is critically important that we protect the powers of the Congress of the United States for future generations. It would be dreadful if a future President, having looked back over the recent events, used it as a precedent. We have a strong case on the merits, is the first point I want to make. The administration's assertions of executive privilege are weak, excessively broad, and unprecedented. We win the executive privilege argument both on legal grounds and our compelling need for requested information. Aside from prevailing on the merits of the executive privilege dispute, enforcing our subpoenas is part and parcel of our current ability to perform effective oversight. If we accept the White House stonewalling in this instance, the House, in the future, will not be able to conduct its oversight. And every future President can view Congress, not as a coequal branch of this government, but as subordinate to the executive. The enforcement of the subpoenas in this investigation seeks to strengthen, rather than weaken, the House's prerogatives by demonstrating that we are serious about citizens resisting the issuance of validly authorized congressional subpoenas. If we countenance a process where subpoenas can be readily ignored, where a witness, under a duly authorized subpoena, doesn't even bother to appear, where privilege can be asserted on the thinnest of reeds and the broadest possible manner, then we have already lost, and we may be in much more danger than even we believe. There's ample precedent supporting the House's prerogative to initiate a civil action. If we pursue this course of action and it proves to be legally incorrect, then we here in Congress, where the laws are passed, can take necessary steps to correct that procedure. If we do not pursue this course of action at all, we, again, have already lost. There are some who believe that the court will say that indeed we have no rights here. If that is the case, if that even should be a possibility, then I think we have to say that if the Justice Department has become that politicized and that weak, then we are in worse shape in this democracy than we know. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Ms. SLAUGHTER. That's correct, if the gentleman is prepared to close.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I believe I have just one. And so I will yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler) from the Judiciary Committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) of the Judiciary Committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) who serves on both the Committee on Rules and Judiciary.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Possibly five, Madam Speaker.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), Chair of the Judiciary Committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Arcuri.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader of the House, Mr. Hoyer of Maryland.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi of California.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 982 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, this is an interesting turn of events. They are apparently attaching no importance whatsoever to the Constitution of the United States. But that has not always been the case. I want to read to you a little from the debate in 1998 when Mr. Boehner speaks. Mr. Boehner says: ``Mr. Speaker, it is time for the stonewall tactics to end and the cooperating to begin. Whether it is stalling on basic requests for information or invoking executive privilege, the result is the same: the American people are denied the right to know what is going on inside their White House. In the end, Mr. Speaker, this is what this fight is about, the American people's right to know what happens in their government. ``The government does not belong to politicians in Washington, D.C. This government belongs to the American people, and they have a right to know what happens in Washington, D.C. They have a right to know what is going on in their White House.'' I concur completely with Mr. Boehner on that statement. I want neither Republican nor Democrat President to stonewall the House of Representatives or Congress. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I want to say a word about my friend, Tom Lantos. I had the opportunity to travel with Tom, and I served with him some 20 years here. Believe me, a giant of a man has fallen. As grief stricken as we are here, we need to know that throughout the world tonight there are people who were touched by Tom Lantos in many ways whose hearts are broken. And to his beloved Annette, and to his daughters and family that he loved so much, we give our great condolences and our love forever.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote No. 27. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 27.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 27, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed Rollcall vote 18. Had been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 18.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H. Res. 918 provides for consideration of H.R. 2768, the Supplemental Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act, under a structured rule. As the Clerk just read, the rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Education and Labor. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order all four amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee on this bill, including a full substitute. The amendments are debatable for 10 minutes each, except for the substitute which is debatable for 30 minutes. The rule also provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Madam Speaker, like most Americans, I vividly remember the terrible mine tragedy at Crandall Canyon Mine in Utah last August as we waited day after day, praying for the safety of the miners. We watched with great trepidation and sadness as three rescue workers were also killed attempting to save six miners who were trapped in a horrific mine collapse, all of whom, I am sad to say, did not survive. As a native Kentuckian and one who remembers vividly the mines and particularly the whistles in the middle of the night indicating something had gone wrong at the mine, I was touched by that tragedy on a very personal level. It reminded me not only of the dangers of the profession but also the important role of Congress to do all that we can to ensure their safety. I was simply shocked by some of the disturbing facts that were revealed after just a brief review of the evidence. The Crandall Canyon tragedy appears to have been preventable, and the rescue effort handled by the Mine Safety and Health Administration was tragically mismanaged. Following the tragedy, the New York Times and other publications reported that the Mine Safety and Health Administration ``failed to conduct the required inspections . . . at 107 of the Nation's 731 underground coal mines,'' and ``that the agency had misstated the number of inspections it had conducted, apparently to inflate its rate of completed inspections.'' How tragic that is when lives are at stake. Sadly, on the day of the accident, we saw it was not NIOSH that was in charge of safety for the miners, but the owner, concerned only with his bottom line. Madam Speaker, the evidence shows that, despite significant progress over the last several decades, mining remains one of the most dangerous jobs in America. Mining fatalities occur at a rate more than seven times the average for all private industries, far exceeding other dangerous occupations. Last year alone, 56 miners died on the job in the United States. Unfortunately, the tragedy at Crandall Canyon Mine was only the latest in a series of mine disasters, including three others last year which combined claimed 19 lives, the Sago Mine explosion, the fire at Aracoma Alma Mine, and the Kentucky Darmy Mine. Madam Speaker, Congress owes it to the victims and to their families to perform a vigorous investigation to uncover what went wrong during these tragedies and how we can ensure that it never happens again. I am proud to say that we stand here today resolute in our promise to enhance the safety of our mine workers, bringing forth a bill that will aim to fulfill that pledge. The Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act, or H.R. 2768, will help to prevent future disasters as well as improve our emergency response should another tragedy occur. We took an important step last Congress enacting into law the MINER Act, the bill intended to prevent disasters such as Crandall Canyon. However, the administration made it crystal clear that it did not intend to go any further or move more quickly than required under the MINER Act, despite new evidence that quicker action is necessary to ensure the safety of miners. This bill empowers the Mine Safety and Health Administration to protect miners, providing them with the much-needed authority to investigate mine operators and punish those that ignore or break the law. Unfortunately, too many persons on the Oversight Committee are mine owners themselves. By providing the agency with subpoena authority, it will be permitted to stop production in mines that do not pay off delinquent accounts, and to shut down mines that do not abate violations. That is certainly long overdue and should have been done at least a century ago. The bill also requires oversight and accountability by the agency, demanding that MSHA take a more active role in protecting the safety of the workers. For example, MSHA will be required to carefully review every plan for the notoriously dangerous practice known as ``retreat mining'' and to physically observe the process when it begins. In addition, they will be required to issue emergency response plans. Remember that the Crandall Canyon Mine had already been retreat-mined before these miners started work. Furthermore, the bill is an important tool to enhance the safety and security of miners. It creates a miner ombudsman office to process incoming complaints and to assist whistleblowers while establishing solid ground rules for independent investigation of multiple fatality mine accidents. In addition, it requires improved communications and tracking systems, and it cuts the coal dust exposure limit in half, which is so important because I learned yesterday from Chairman Miller that black lung disease, one of the most awful ways to live and die, is on the upsurge. While this legislation takes groundbreaking steps to protect miners, we still have a long way to go to ensure that mining no longer carries the ominous description of ``one of America's most deadly professions.'' More must be done to reduce long-term health risks facing miners, such as black lung disease, which can be just as deadly as on-the-job tragedies. We must expand on the MINER Act until tragedies like Crandall Canyon are a thing of the past and the death toll ceases to rise. Many oversight hearings conducted by the Committee on Education and Labor concluded that not only were the recent mining disasters preventable, but that the risk of a repeat incident is still very real. I would like to take a moment to commend the House Education and Labor Committee under the wonderful leadership of Chairman George Miller. It was Mr. Miller who leapt into action to take on this immense responsibility. This represents a marked change in the way the Congress has been operating following last year's election. Since Democrats regained control of the House and Senate last November, we have once again begun to use two of the most basic tools in our legislative tool box, they are oversight and investigation, and today's bill is no exception. The bill shows our commitment to proactively advocate for working men and women, especially the victims and families of disasters like that that occurred at Crandall Canyon last August. We must do everything we can to ensure that every single miner is able to return home at the end of the day to their family. I am proud to say this is, at its heart, the true intention of this bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.