Robert C. Byrd Mine Safety Protection Act of 2010
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
On April 5 of this year, tragedy struck Montcoal, West Virginia. On that day, an explosion at the Upper Big Branch coal mine killed 29 miners and provided a stark reminder that coal mining is a profession marked by risk and danger. And while steps have been taken to strengthen protections for miners, this tragedy and others like it remind us that more work remains to be done.
I believe steps can be taken by Federal and State regulators, mine operators, and miners, themselves, to reduce the dangers inherent for those who mine for natural resources that power our Nation. That is why it is with deep regret that I oppose the legislation before us today.
Once again, well-intended reforms addressing a vital issue are being rushed through a flawed process that results in a deeply flawed bill. This is not the way to govern. This is not the way to advance the concerns and interests of the American people, and it is not the way to strengthen important safety protections for miners.
The bill we are considering today under a suspension of the House rules is the wrong response for several important reasons. First, it seeks to create a solution to a problem we do not fully understand. The explosion at Upper Big Branch resulted in the worst mining disaster in 40 years. Since that time, significant State and Federal resources have been brought to bear to investigate the cause of the incident, help identify weaknesses in existing law, and determine whether current law is being obeyed by mining operators and aggressively enforced by Federal authorities. These are critical questions for which we are still awaiting answers.
The majority's proposal also ignores important steps the Mine Safety and Health Administration has taken in recent months to strengthen standards to existing law. Republicans have consistently called on the Mine Safety and Health Administration to utilize all the tools at its disposal to protect miners and hold bad actors accountable. I am pleased to see the agency is finally beginning to do just that.
As part of its efforts, the Mine Safety and Health Administration has revised the current framework of identifying mines operating with a pattern of violations. For 30 years, this process has been broken. Today, that process has changed, and we are just beginning to see the results. The Mine Safety Administration has reformed the process and has notified more than a dozen mine operators that they are at risk of being placed in a pattern of violations. It is a step in the right direction.
The agency is also implementing new rock dusting standards, issued a proposal to increase the use of personal dust monitors, and is looking at ways to improve the broken conference process. We may question why the agency did not act sooner, but it is important to recognize that steps are being taken today. Congress should not preempt and potentially undercut reforms underway before we have had the opportunity to learn whether they work.
Some of my colleagues may argue that these are simply process arguments that ordinary Americans don't care about. I don't like discussing process any more than the next person, but I think we have learned over the last 2 years that the American people care a great deal about the manner in which Congress conducts its business, because a flawed process results in bad law. Today's legislation is no exception.
The process we are considering today puts punishment before prevention. It is based on the faulty premise that simply increasing penalties can lead to better safety. Our goal is to prevent injuries and illnesses before they occur. Everyone agrees bad actors should face stiff penalties for jeopardizing the safety of miners, but we shouldn't establish a regime that may discourage employers from taking actions they believe to strengthen their worker safety. We can punish bad actors, but we must never lose sight of the fact that promoting safety and preventing hazard should be our first priority.
There are other flaws in the legislation, including a provision that will expand the criminalization of a person's knowing conduct as well as upending, in some cases, the long-established at-will employment doctrine which will insert Federal judges into voluntary hiring and firing decisions of mine operators and their workers.
Last Friday, the majority introduced H.R. 6495 with no advance warning and not consulting with Republicans. Yet here we are days later being told this is the only opportunity Members of the House will have to enhance safety protections for underground miners. Following the same playbook used by the majority time and time again by this majority, we have no opportunity for a full and open debate and no opportunity to offer amendments to fix the errors I have just described. A flawed process is resulting in yet another flawed bill.
On behalf of miners and their families, let me respectfully say they deserve better. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, in the days that followed the tragedy at the Upper Big Branch, Republicans joined many Members here on the House floor to mourn this tragedy. Our incoming chairman has said that our Nation would be searching for answers, and our response must follow a comprehensive review of how such a tragic event could have happened.
We had then, as we do today, a responsibility to look at the laws on the books and how those laws are being implemented and followed. We will in due course have the answers to many of those questions, but the rush to legislate means the answers will arrive too late to inform our debate and help ensure we are doing the right thing.
We are all committed to work in good faith to answer tough questions and pursue commonsense reforms that would enhance miner safety. Unfortunately, such a good faith process has not occurred. This legislation was crafted behind closed doors without input from Republican lawmakers concerned with miners' safety and pushed through the Education and Labor Committee.
Today, we are considering a different proposal developed through the same closed process. There has been has been no effort to consider or incorporate Republican ideas for strengthening mine safety. In fact, the majority was so focused on corralling votes with their own caucus that they modified this bill in the dark of night.
Throughout this process, the majority has taken out the carving knives, exempting a mine type here and a mine type there, hoping that the more of the bill they eliminate, the more support they will gather. How can anyone believe this is the best approach to meaningful mine safety?
It is unfortunate that we are here today under these circumstances. As I stated earlier, the miners and their families who deserve strong worker protections also deserve better than this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' so we can take the time to understand and respond to the tragedy in the Upper Big Branch Mine.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source