Madam Speaker, on August 6, 2007, a collapse at the Crandall Canyon mine in Utah took the lives of six miners. Days later, three rescuers were lost as well. We all grieved with this tragedy, and we…
Madam Speaker, on August 6, 2007, a collapse at the Crandall Canyon mine in Utah took the lives of six miners. Days later, three rescuers were lost as well. We all grieved with this tragedy, and we all share a commitment to doing what we can to prevent such an event from happening in the future.
The Education and Labor Committee has initiated an investigation into possible causes of the collapse, as well as the handling of its aftermath by the mine ownership and Federal regulators. Our committee has at its disposal
significant tools and resources to conduct this investigation, including the power to hold hearings, demand documents, interview witnesses, and enter evidence into the record.
At the same time as our committee pursues its inquiry, there are a series of official investigations underway by the Department of Labor and the State of Utah. The investigations by the Mine Safety and Health Administration are of a law enforcement nature--if it is determined that criminal conduct occurred, they can at any time make a referral to the Department of Justice.
Although our committee investigation is still in its early stages, it has already been fruitful. In addition to the single hearing that has been held, we have requested--and the Department of Labor has produced--hundreds of thousands of pages of documents. We have conducted interviews with witnesses, and visited the site of the accident.
Despite the progress that has been made with our significant existing oversight capabilities, the majority today is seeking to confer on our committee the extraordinary power to subpoena witnesses for closed- door, staff-led depositions. This is an authority granted only in the rarest of circumstances, such as the protection of national security, the impeachment of a President, or the alleged defrauding of a national organization by its leadership.
I have serious reservations about establishment of deposition authority at this early stage of our investigation. The majority has not established any clear need for this authority. In fact, we are not aware of a single witness who has refused to cooperate with the committee after an official invitation. Moreover, while the majority has been unwilling to disclose exactly whose testimony this authority is intended to compel, they have indicated that just a handful of individuals are expected to require a subpoena. Members on our side of the aisle are more than willing to cooperate with regular committee procedures including hearings for this purpose, and as such, it remains unclear to me why this authority is necessary.
In addition to being premature and unnecessary, I believe this authority carries with it the possibility of grave unintended consequences. Deposition authority will allow dozens of interviews to be conducted under oath and compelled by subpoena. This could create the possibility of conflicts of interest, privilege claims and rulings, requests for immunity, leaks, and contradictory evidence.
Previous congressional probes should serve as a cautionary tale as we head down this path. Tactics used in the congressional investigation of the Iran-Contra affair caused key testimony against Oliver North to be thrown out, and his convictions to be overturned.
The Acting Solicitor of Labor voiced concerns that this investigation could similarly imperil any civil or criminal enforcement that may be necessary in this matter. In September, he wrote to Chairman Miller and me, along with the leadership of the House, saying that the Committee's ``parallel investigation . . . may compromise the integrity of MSHA's law enforcement investigation and potentially jeopardize its ability to enforce the law and hold violators accountable. ``
Up to this point, the majority has heeded our warnings and those of the Department of Labor. Our hearing and the series of interviews that have been conducted were structured in such a way as to avoid endangering the investigations. I'm concerned that by granting this extraordinary deposition authority, the House is backing away from that cautious approach and rekindling the threat that our activities could undermine the aggressive enforcement that MSHA and other investigators have an obligation to pursue.
The deposition authority proposed today is crafted narrowly to cover only the Crandall Canyon mine collapse, and the rules adopted in our committee to govern these depositions were developed fairly to ensure the full participation of the minority. I believe these steps are acknowledgements by the majority that deposition authority is truly an extraordinary step, and must be undertaken with great care. I appreciate their cooperation on these points.
As I have made clear, there are serious questions about the timing and necessity of this narrowly crafted authority. Beyond that, however, I want to be perfectly clear that the specific authority being granted in this instance should in no way be viewed as precedent for future oversight functions of our committee or any committee of this House. Committee rules allow for a range of tools and resources that can be used to conduct rigorous oversight. Any effort to grant broader deposition authority will surely bring greater danger, and therefore greater objection.
