Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2768) to establish improved mandatory standards to protect miners during emergencies, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of mine safety and in opposition to this bill, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The men and women who work in and around our Nation's mines are often unrecognized for the integral role they play in powering our country. These individuals work hard, in difficult and often dangerous conditions, to unearth the raw materials that each of us relies upon in our day-to-day lives.

While mining is inherently dangerous, there are steps we can take to mitigate that risk. For that reason, mine safety has been an ongoing priority both legislatively and within the context of oversight.

Although our commitment to mine safety is constant, we also recognize that new mandates from Washington translate into major changes within the operation of our Nation's mines. For that reason, we do not and we must not take a piecemeal approach to mine reform. Rather, we should develop thoughtful, comprehensive consensus reforms, and then give those reforms a chance to work. I am pleased to say that we did just that less than 2 years ago. In 2006, Congress passed the MINER Act which required MSHA to revise its penalties, increase penalties for major violations, undertake several studies regarding mining practices, and work to improve the technology for communications underground. The MINER Act received strong bipartisan, bicameral support. It was backed by both industry and labor, and its reforms were understood to be the most significant in a generation.

With the MINER Act, we called on the mining industry to overhaul itself, to develop and implement new technologies, and to comply with strong new protections that were to be developed by the experts. This type of transformation cannot take place overnight; but let there be no doubt, change is well under way.

Mr. Chairman, I fear that with this bill before us, we run a very real risk of derailing that progress and returning to square one on many critical mine safety issues. H.R. 2768 ignores the safety guidelines being developed through expert research and review, and replaces them with arbitrary new mandates established by Congress. This bill makes an end run around the regulatory process, shutting stakeholders out.

Simply put, the S-MINER Act abandons the mine safety momentum of the MINER Act and sends us back to the drawing board.

I appreciate Chairman Miller's concern about the dangers faced by our Nation's miners, and I share his desire to see strong reforms in place that will promote safety. That is why Republicans will offer a substitute amendment that would accomplish exactly that.

The Wilson/Kline amendment will balance successful implementation of the 2006 MINER Act with a number of mine safety enhancements. I look forward to supporting that amendment when it is offered, because it provides a real opportunity to promote mine safety without backing away from the progress that has been made.

In addition to the Republican substitute, we will consider a number of other amendments today, including one to be offered by Chairman Miller. I would be remiss, however, if I did not point out the rather transparent political expediency of one portion of that amendment.

Included in the Republican substitute is a proposal to implement mandatory drug testing within the mining industry. A similar proposal was offered by the late Charlie Norwood, our colleague from Georgia, who was a stalwart on this issue. The ravaging impact of drug abuse among miners came into sharp focus this past weekend, when the front page of the Washington Post carried a story of miners who struggle with addiction to pain killers. We believe that mandatory drug testing is the most effective and, indeed, the only way to immediately address the prevalence of drug abuse that is putting miners' lives at risk.

Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, however, appear to have discovered the devastation of drug abuse among miners only late yesterday afternoon. At that time, several hours after the deadline for submitting amendments, the chairman was permitted to resubmit a revised version of his manager's package that included a hastily drafted study of drug abuse among miners. While this amendment may offer a fig leaf now that the issue of drug abuse can no longer be ignored, it should not be mistaken for a legitimate attempt to deter drug abuse in the way that testing would.

Mr. Chairman, the S-MINER Act is fundamentally flawed. It brings the progress of the 2006 MINER Act to a jarring halt, creating instead a package of new prescriptive mandates from Washington. The bill imposes $1 billion in unfunded mandates on the mining community, placing the jobs of miners in jeopardy. This bill is the wrong answer at the wrong time for our Nation's miners. There is a better way.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I am happy now to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), the ranking member of the committee, such time as he may consume.

Mr. Chairman, we have some speakers on their way to the floor and I would like to reserve our time.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield at this time to the ranking member on the Resources Committee, the senior Republican from Alaska, Mr. Young, such time as he may consume.

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman 30 seconds to respond.

I am happy to yield to the gentlelady from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) such time as she may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson). He's the senior ranking member on the subcommittee.

May I ask about the remaining time?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Today we've heard a great deal about how to keep miners safe. It should go without saying that mine safety is the proposition to which we're all committed. However, we're not here today debating whether to protect miners. Instead, we're here considering a bill that would actually derail the most comprehensive mine safety overhaul in decades.

All of us are for mine safety. You know, during this campaign, I have been listening to some of the candidates running, and I think the feeling amongst many people is that Washington is broken and that we don't seem to attack things that are really important.

Well, in 2006, we passed a miner safety bill, the first one in 30 years. That was passed with the support of 381 Members to 37 Members here in the House and unanimously in the Senate.

Now here we are less than 2 years later talking about another bill that's going to, after a 30-year hiatus, we pass a bill, we're doing what we can to implement that bill. By the time regulations are written, by the time people are trained on enforcing those regulations, by the time the mine owners put those regulations into effect, it takes some time, and then here we're stepping on that bill with a new approach to change some things.

And we heard from Mr. Wilson the President's response and why he says we should give the time to fully implement the bill that was just passed less than 2 years ago. It makes sense. We live in a large country, and to try to disseminate this information and get it all into effect takes some time, and we're just saying that's why people think Washington's broke. We're stepping on something that we haven't even implemented yet.

And I don't question any motives because I think the motives are good. We should be out to protect miners. It's just which way will protect them best: implementing the bill that was already passed overwhelmingly or trying to pass a bill that will step on some of those concerns.

This law was only given 1\1/2\ years to take hold, as mentioned. It's already having an impact on our Nation's mines. Stringent safety standards are being put in place and they're being enforced. A recent article in a mining industry publication explored the impact on the mines as seen from the eyes of a miner.

He says, ``As you can imagine, the regulatory environment for safety has

evolved a lot in the last few months, and we're seeing as much as a 50 percent increase in underground mine inspections on an annualized basis.'' That's the words of a miner to an analyst.

With all the progress that has been made, it seems to me that the last thing we should be considering is the disruption of that momentum, yet that's exactly what will happen if the S-MINER Act becomes law. This bill discards the expert studies already under way, replacing the wisdom and recommendations of professionals with arbitrary mandates from Washington.

Although the bill purports to protect miners, in reality it threatens the jobs we rely on. That's another thing that I'm learning, that people are very interested in the economy and jobs, and here we have an effort that probably will cut jobs. With $1 billion in unfunded mandates in the underlying bill, the majority's attempt to mask these burdensome costs by extending the implementation timeline is a weak attempt to divert attention from the toll that will be taken on the mining community.

Mr. Chairman, as a strong supporter of mine safety, I want to be clear that there is a better way to protect the interests of the Nation's miners. We can stand for strong safety protections without diverting attention and resources from the work already under way. Later today, Representatives Wilson and Kline will offer an amendment to do exactly that. The Wilson/Kline amendment incorporates a strong drug testing requirement that will protect miners from the dangers of illegal substance abuse in the already dangerous mining environment.

I am pleased to see our colleagues on the other side of the aisle joining us in our concern about the danger and devastation of drug use among miners. I am saddened, however, by the appearance of cynicism in the last-minute addition of this issue to the manager's package. I hope they will join us in supporting a real solution in the form of drug testing, something that our colleague, Charlie Norwood, who passed away last year, had been working on for years before, rather than a mere study that provides more political cover than genuine safety protections.

Despite the best intentions of its sponsors, this bill will do much more harm than good. It will layer new rules and requirements on top of the critical mine safety reforms already in place. With this bill, we are abandoning the bipartisan reforms of the 2006 MINER Act and abandoning all the progress that has been made.

Members on both sides of the aisle have expressed concern that this legislation is premature. A group of seven respected Democrats representing districts with a history of underground and surface mining wrote to the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee to urge us to proceed with caution. From them I quote: ``We believe that before moving forward on new mine safety legislation, it would be prudent for the committee to wait for the conclusion of the studies called for in the MINER Act and the implementation of all the major requirements of the MINER Act.'' They were right. The academic experts are right. The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission is right. The National Mining Association is right. Each of these stakeholders understands that the S-MINER Act is the wrong bill at the wrong time.

As a strong supporter of mine safety, I have no choice but to oppose this bill. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the S-MINER Act was first introduced nearly 7 months ago. It was voted on in the Education Committee more than 2 months ago. Yet in all this time this bill has been under consideration, the critical issue of drug testing was not inserted until the second try on the manager's amendment, submitted after yesterday's deadline. Forgive me if I am skeptical that we would have been given the same opportunity to revise our amendment at the last minute if we had sought to do so. Nevertheless, the amendment now before us replaces the previous version of the legislation, and it deserves our thorough review.

I want to thank Chairman Miller for recognizing some of the flaws in the S-MINER Act and attempting to address them. The amendment includes some modest improvements, including an extension in the timeline for installation of the new generation of fire-resistant conveyor belts. At the same time, I am troubled by the proposal to limit the ability of mine operators to comply with breathable air requirements. With the ongoing backlog of the SCSRs, the breathing device required in mines, today we demand mine operators to, at a minimum, offer a purchase order to demonstrate their effort to comply with the requirement.

By preventing mine operators from producing proof of SCSR purchases as evidence of compliance, this amendment could push mines across the country out of compliance, despite their proven effort to comply with the requirement in the only way possible. What would the penalty be for the Nation's mines being deemed noncompliant? Would these mines be shut down, leaving miners without work? What possible rationale could there be for threatening mine workers' jobs as they struggle with today's economic pressures just because there aren't companies that have the ability to produce these required instruments?

Similarly, but perhaps even more troubling, the amendment imposes the same backwards logic on the new requirement for possible refuge chambers. On the one hand, it mandates that mines have these refuge chambers in order to operate. On the other hand, it makes clear that mines which purchase the chambers but through no fault of their own must wait for them to be manufactured, will be unable to operate without this very specific and widely unavailable product.

The majority knows that portable refuge chambers will have a production backlog of years. They also know that

in being so specific as to mandate portable refuge chambers with no alternative, this provision guarantees that mines will be shut down while waiting for the product to be manufactured. I don't know if that is the goal, to shut down mines, but that will be the net result.

On the issue of drug testing, while I question the last-minute addition of this proposal, I appreciate the belated acknowledgment that drug abuse in the mining community is a significant problem that demands action. Unfortunately, this amendment offers little in the way of action. Instead of immediately implementing a drug testing program, this amendment calls for a study. We don't need a study to tell us whether drug abuse is a problem in the mines. All you need to do is pick up the front page of The Washington Post Sunday edition and read about it.

At this time I would like to submit this article, written by Nick Miroff, into the Record. You will see the pervasiveness of this problem.

[From the Washington Post, Jan. 13, 2008]

A Dark Addiction

(By Nick Miroff)

Tazewell County, VA.--The crowd is gathering early in the

dirt parking lot outside the Clinch Valley Treatment Center,

the only methadone clinic within 80 miles. Third in line,

Jeff Trapp smokes Winstons in his pickup, watching the cars

turn off the highway and settle behind him, tires crunching

on cold gravel, headlights glaring. It is 2:45 a.m., and

Trapp has been awake for two hours. The clinic does not start

dosing until 5.

Like Trapp, many of the patients who filled the lot one

recent morning have jobs at far-off mines that start at 6 or

7. They sleep upright in their vehicles, slumped against the

steering wheel, dressed for work in steel-toed black boots

and coveralls lined with orange reflective strips. Dark rings

circle their eyes where the previous day's coal dust didn't

wash off.

``Everybody you see here works,'' says Trapp, his smoke-

cured voice a low rumble. A $14 plug-in heater from ``Wally''

(Wal-Mart) whirs on the dash. ``Ain't no spongers. No

loafers,'' he says.

Work in the mines hasn't been as good as it is now in a

generation. With per-ton prices doubling in the past six

years, Virginia unearthed about $1.6 billion worth of coal in

2006, much of it to feed the growing energy demands of the

Washington region.

Wages are up, bosses are hiring and rookie miners can start

at $18 an hour--a small fortune in a region where, as Trapp

says, ``if you ain't working in the mines or in the prisons,

you don't make money.''

But it is a boom clouded by drugs. Nearly a decade after

OxyContin slammed into southwestern Virginia and much of

Appalachia, the abuse of prescription painkillers in the

region is worse than ever, police and public health officials

say.

Publicized efforts to crack down on drug dealers and

manufacturers through tougher street-level enforcement and

tighter prescription regulations have failed to curb the

crisis, and the result is a quiet catastrophe unfolding

largely out of sight, in private bedrooms and isolated

trailers far from the drug war's urban front lines.

A record 248 people died of overdoses in Virginia's western

region in 2006, more than those who died from homicides,

house fires and alcohol-related car accidents combined. That

was an 18 percent increase from 2005 and a 270 percent

increase from a decade ago, state medical examiner records

show.

The problem is most acute in Virginia's poorest rural

areas, and it is not limited to miners. In 2006, accidental

pain pill overdoses killed more people in Tazewell County

(pop. 44,000) than in Fairfax County (pop. 1.1 million). In

Wise County, where Trapp lives and the per capita income is

$14,000 a year, the fatal overdose rate for pain pills was 13

times those of Loudoun and Fairfax counties.

``The abuse and misuse of painkillers is the worst I have

seen it in the 16 years I have worked narcotics in this

area,'' said Lt. Richard Stallard of the Big Stone Gap police

department. He is director of the Southwest Virginia Drug

Task Force, which operates in Dickinson, Lee, Scott and Wise

counties. His officers made 442 arrests through the first

nine months of last year, an 86 percent increase from the

same period in 2006.

In what is perhaps the most troubling sign of the problem's

intractability, the single deadliest drug in the region in

2006 was the same one being legally distributed to addicts

through treatment clinics such as the one Trapp visits:

methadone.

A large black market has emerged for the drug, which is

supposed to treat addiction or chronic pain with less risk

than OxyContin and other oxycodone-based opioids. But

methadone was linked to 78 deaths in western Virginia in

2006, and experts say that whatever ground was gained against

the illegal use of OxyContin is being lost, engulfed in a

widening circle of abuse that extends to painkillers,

antidepressants and other prescription drugs.

Round-the-clock security is posted at Clinch Valley

Treatment Center, a two-story cement building along Route 19

that was once a hamburger restaurant. It serves almost 1,000

patients, drawing them from steep-sided mountain ``hollers''

and tiny coal towns such as Dante, Dungannon, Honaker and

other places where the winter sun casts long shadows but

little light.

Every morning before sunup, Trapp drives 120 miles--from

his home in Coeburn to the clinic and back--stopping once for

coffee and gas at the Double Kwik in Lebanon. He has been

going for two years, trading this dependency for the $600-a-

day oxycodone habit that made his nose bleed and his wife

cry. He is 54, with a pale moustache, a four-pack-a-day

wheeze and the drained, sallow expression of someone who has

not slept in a long time.

When the clinic doors open at 5, the crowd streams into the

warm hallway, squinting in the indoor light. Trapp hands over

$12.50 at a payment window, then lines up at another window

for his dose: 80 milligrams of liquid methadone, mixed with

juice in a little white cup. He must gulp it down quickly and

get back on the road. His boss expects him at 6:30.

``This methadone makes you feel like a human being again,''

Trapp says.

With disability rates as high as 37 percent in coal-mining

areas such as Buchanan County, the region has many people

with long-term pain management needs. As is the case with

lots of aging miners, Trapp's addiction to pills began in a

doctor's office, not a back-alley drug deal.

``Busted-up'' from 30 years working as a heavy-equipment

operator and mechanic on the massive excavators used for

strip mining and mountaintop removal, Trapp needed multiple

surgeries to fix seven ruptured and herniated discs. Doctors

wanted to implant a magnesium rod to stabilize his spine, but

Trapp refused.

``I've known too many people who've done it, and they can't

tie their shoes,'' he said.

So Trapp loaded up on painkillers, first Percocet and later

OxyContin. When the prescribed dose no longer did the job,

Trapp took more. Then more. He began ``doctor shopping,''

driving to Roanoke and Richmond to find physicians who would

give him prescriptions.

When the pharmacies couldn't provide enough pills, Trapp

found dealers who would. Friends were melting oxycodone

tablets and injecting themselves--``bangin' OCs''--but Trapp

was too squeamish to mess with needles. He crushed the

tablets and snorted them like cocaine off his kitchen table.

He didn't feel high, just ``good.'' The relief was instant.

``I got hooked on those bad boys real bad,'' he says.

But when Trapp didn't have pills, the withdrawal symptoms

left him ``sick as a dog'' and bedridden. ``Every muscle in

your body craves it,'' he says. ``You can't sleep, can't eat.

It's like the flu, but 10 times worse.''

In two years, Trapp put $60,000 of his retirement savings,

maybe more, up his nose. His daughter begged him to get help,

as did his wife, Sue, who works as a shift manager at a

Hardee's and as a guard at Red Onion State Prison, the

supermax facility where sniper Lee Boyd Malvo is being held.

Trapp was ``wormed over'' after three days into involuntary

withdrawal when his wife took him to a clinic to get help in

2005. He couldn't walk, and he couldn't hold up his head. He

began taking methadone that week.

Foreman Gary Boyd steers through the tunnels of Pioneer

Coal No. 1 in a low-rise electric cart, sloshing across

channels of cold, muddy water. His nickname, Stork, is

stenciled on his scuffed plastic helmet, and a slug of

dipping tobacco bulges in his lower lip.

``The good Lord put me on this Earth to be a coal miner,''

he says, ``and I can't think of nothing I'd rather do.'' He

ducks slightly when the ceiling height drops to 40 inches.

A bearish man with a soot-streaked beard, Boyd stands well

over 6 feet tall outside the mine. But underground, in a 3\1/

2\-foot ``low coal'' operation such as this one in the

mountains near Vansant, VA, Boyd mostly works on his hands

and knees, crawling like an infant. He and the other men

spend the entire shift, sometimes 12 hours or more, without

ever standing up.

Compared with the large, corporate-owned mines that use the

latest technology and enforce tighter safety codes, Pioneer

No. 1, the company's only mine, is a mom-and-pop affair, run

by a single operator and a 10-man crew. It extends

horizontally into the mountain through a maze-like network of

wide, low tunnels, and a red plastic sign along the access

road outside reads ``AMBULANCE ENTRANCE.''

With narrower profit margins, small-scale outfits such as

Pioneer, often known as ``dog holes,'' typically pay less and

don't offer benefits such as health insurance. But for miners

who have been fired from corporate mines for drug violations

or other infractions, smaller mines, which must still meet

state safety standards, are a good fallback.

The ``face,'' where Boyd's crew was working that day, was a

half-mile into the mountain. A massive grinding machine

called a continuous miner chewed at the coal seam with a

spinning, snaggle-toothed steel cylinder. Water seeped from

its mouth and trickled from its sides to cool the metal teeth

and keep the dust down. The greasy, jet-black rock came off

in chunks onto a conveyor belt.

As the machine worked, the tunnel walls cracked and groaned

under the shifting pressure of the mountain. Crew members

scrambled to stabilize the roof with wooden posts, wedging

them into place with hammers.

``You're as safe as you would be in your mommy's arms--if

you watch what you're doing,'' Boyd said. He checked a hand-

held meter every few minutes to measure carbon dioxide, which

is poisonous, and methane, which can explode. Flecks of coal

dust swirled in the yellow beams of the miners' headlamps.

Drug use by miners who snort or shoot up underground has

been a growing cause for concern among state regulators, and

a law approved last year in the General Assembly imposed

stringent drug-testing policies. All newly hired miners must

be screened, and random testing requirements have increased.

Those who fail risk losing their miner's license.

The impact of the new policies was immediate. ``I can't

find nobody to work,'' said Noah Vandyke, 60, a lifelong

miner who runs Pioneer Coal. ``The younger generation, you

can't hardly find one that will pass a drug test.''

Since the new testing policy went into effect in July,

Vandyke has lost eight crew members who were fired because of

drugs or quit, possibly to avoid having their miner's license

revoked for a ``dirty'' urine sample.

``Every family in the area has been affected by drug

abuse,'' Vandyke said, ``and it ain't just coal miners.'' In

recent years, two of his sisters have died because of drugs,

and two brothers, both injured miners, are deep in the grip

of addiction.

Unlike some operators, Vandyke is known as a boss who will

not turn a man away for trying to get help at the methadone

clinic. One of those is his on-again, off-again ``scoop

man,'' Jeff Vandyke, who shuttles coal inside the mine in a

huge, spoon-shaped electric cart. The two men are not

directly related--Vandyke is a common name in the area--but

their lives have been intertwined since the elder miner gave

the younger his first job underground 15 years ago.

Like Noah, Jeff Vandyke, 34, grew up in Buchanan County

near the town of Grundy. With his horizons blocked by the

mountainsides, he found a new world underground. ``There's

nothing like coal mining,'' he said. ``You know that nobody

else will ever go where you're going. Just the people in that

mine, that day.''

The mines led Jeff Vandyke to another love: drugs. He got

his first prescription for OxyContin after a rock fall

accident that left him with broken ribs, shoulder damage and

spinal injuries. Disabled and addicted, he thought he could

get away from drugs by leaving, so he moved with his brother

to Arizona and got a job as a trucker. Soon they were buying

pills along the Mexican border, 1,000 at a time, he said.

Methamphetamine kept them awake, and OxyContin kept them

high.

By 2003, Jeff Vandyke was back home and drifting deeper

into addiction. He lived for more than a year in a broken-

down trailer with the electricity, water and heat cut off. He

spent most of his days on a couch in the dark, stirring every

few hours to warm the air under his blankets with a propane

camping stove.

The crippling pain and nausea of withdrawal pushed him to

get help. He drives to a Kentucky clinic for a two-week

supply of liquid methadone and says he has been clean for

three years. He and his girlfriend, Daisy Ratliff, live with

her two sons in a trailer with a thick coal seam visible on

the hillside in their back yard. She has brightened the black

lockbox where Vandyke stores his methadone with stickers of

hearts, stars and red letters that spell ``I LV U.''

``My truck's paid off,'' Vandyke says, his long, blond hair

tucked under a camouflage cap. ``I've got four bows, three

shotguns.'' He takes time off from the mines in the fall to

hunt deer, grouse and squirrel for winter meat.

And yet, some of the damage from his drug years can't be

undone. Vandyke's father no longer speaks to him, and he and

his brother haven't said a word to each other in nearly two

years, ever since he said his brother shot at him with a .38

and tried to steal Ratliff's car.

``I'll probably never get off methadone because of the

shape I'm in,'' said Mick Wampler, a disabled coal miner who

lives in a small room at the end of a narrow hallway in his

sister's house.

Wampler, 47, started working in the mines four days after

his 18th birthday. His mother needed the money after floods

wiped out the family's home in Haysi, VA. But he never had

the nerves for it, he said, and the sight of accidents sent

him over the edge. He watched one friend lose an arm to a

rock hauler and saw another electrocuted by a 900-volt mining

cable. Wampler began taking Valium just to go underground.

``A lot of people are scared on the job,'' he said.

``They'll use alcohol, anything.'' After falling off a loader

and breaking his leg, Wampler got a prescription for

oxycodone. A diabetic, he had needles, and shooting up was

easy. Soon he was hooked on high-potency Fentanyl patches,

ripping them in two to wring out the drug, which he would

cook up with vinegar and inject through the veins in his

feet. ``It was as good as heroin,'' he said. He dabbled in

that, too.

Years of negative publicity about OxyContin have made

doctors wary of it and other oxycodone-based drugs, local

health officials say, but records show that sales of the drug

have increased. In 2006, 746,901 grams of oxycodone were

distributed for retail sale in Virginia, nearly triple the

amount sold in 1999, according to the Virginia Department of

Health Professions. Although sales have slowed since 2001,

they increased 9 percent from 2005 to 2006.

Police in the region say pain pills are entering Virginia

from other states, even Mexico, where they can be casually

bought along the border. They can also be ordered on the

Internet through shady online pharmacies. The familiar

schemes remain popular, too.

We can't stop people from going doctor shopping,'' Tazewell

Sheriff H.S. Caudill said. ``We need a nationwide program to

check if John Doe has already been to another pharmacy.''

Doctors, meanwhile, have been giving out more methadone

than ever. From 1999 to 2006, the amount of methadone

distributed for retail sale in Virginia jumped from 30,531

grams to 146,479. An underground market for illegally

diverted tablets and liquid doses is thriving.

``When we had problems with OxyContin being diverted,

doctors started prescribing methadone,'' said Martha Wunsch,

a researcher who has a grant from the National Institutes of

Health to study southwestern Virginia's drug deaths.

Wunsch says that methadone in pill form, not the liquid

version legally distributed through addiction clinics, is to

blame for the bulk of fatal overdoses. In one study, she

found that more than half of all fatal overdose victims had

legitimate prescriptions for methadone tablets.

On its own, methadone can't deliver a ``high'' like

oxycodone or other opiates, so users combine it with anti-

anxiety drugs such as Xanax to intensify the effect, creating

a toxic, often fatal, cocktail. Prescription pills have

surpassed marijuana as the top drug of choice for new drug

users nationwide, according to the White House's Office of

National Drug Control Policy.

``There's not much to do around here,'' said Jeremy Lowe,

22, a miner who got hooked on Lortab (hydrocodone) after

breaking his hand in an accident a year ago. Now he is one of

the patients who wait in line at the methadone clinic every

morning.

``A lot of my friends who went off to universities ended up

coming back home and getting hooked,'' he said. ``It's like

it's fashionable to do drugs.''

To many, the growing traffic at the Clinch Valley Treatment

Center has made it a shameful symbol of the region's drug

problem. Several Tazewell officials want to shut the center

down or force it to move, seeing its for-profit business

model and treatment mission as a conflict of interest.

According to the clinic's policy, patients can buy methadone

as long as they want; detoxification is voluntary.

The clinic's counseling staff members say that many

patients need to be on some sort of drug to cope with severe,

long-term pain and that methadone has made them functional.

And for those who lack insurance or access to more

personalized care, it is often the only affordable option.

``We need to change the way people look at successful drug

addiction treatment,'' said the clinic's director, Sterlyn

Lineberry. ``Are we reducing harm to the individual? Is the

person working? Taking care of their family?''

Wunsch, who used to run a methadone clinic in the region,

says the biggest problem is the lack of state and federal

support for more comprehensive treatment programs. And

powerful stigmas persist. ``A lot of people in southwest

Virginia believe this is a moral weakness, not a public

health problem,'' she said.

Jeff Trapp knows people who have died from methadone but no

one who has gotten off it the hard way. He has tried to

decrease his dose, but the cravings come back every time. So

instead, he drives.

Trapp sets his alarm for 12:30 a.m., waking after a few

hours of sleep, and gets dressed in a dark room. His boss

does not like that he goes to the clinic, and even less that

it has made him late to work, and has threatened to fire him.

In the kitchen, Trapp makes coffee with the light low.

There is a plastic bin above the cabinets to catch the

rainwater where the roof leaks, and a picture of his wife at

her high school graduation hangs on the wall. He carries

another photo of her riding a motorcycle. She weighs 95

pounds, but she's a tough lady, he says.

When Trapp starts the pickup down the driveway at 1 a.m.,

the dogs stand on the doorstep and watch him go. Last year,

he put 60,000 miles on the pickup, a 1993 Chevy. The road

signs say his route is a designated scenic byway, the Trail

of the Lonesome Pine, but Trapp drives it in the dark, and

there is nothing to see.

``I don't want to be dependent on doing this every day,''

Trapp says. He could get permission for a two-week take-home

supply of methadone, if he wanted it. He hasn't had a dirty

test yet. But does he trust himself? No.

So instead, he drives.

``I don't want that temptation on me,'' he says. ``I'd

probably drink two bottles just to see how it felt.''

He opens the window a crack to light another Winston,

watching the shoulder for deer. When a car passes him on the

left, Trapp recognizes the vehicle. He has seen it before,

parked outside the clinic.

There seems to be no hesitation in this body about implementing mandatory drug testing for Major League Baseball. Yesterday, Members on both sides of the aisle spent more than 4 hours examining the question of drug abuse among baseball players. I don't

know what the danger is there. I hate to see records broken by somebody because he's taken drugs, but the danger underground in mines of somebody using drugs is really a real live danger. One area on which everyone seemed to agree was on the need for mandatory drug testing for the ballplayers. Yet for our Nation's mine workers who risk their lives by entering the mines, we propose only a study.

We need to protect these miners now. That means testing and nothing less.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment includes some modest improvements. It makes other changes that are ill defined that create new unanswered questions, and it makes some changes that could actually worsen the bill. On the whole, this amendment, like the S-MINER Act itself, remains an unnecessary diversion from the bipartisan, widely supported mine safety reforms enacted in 2006 through the MINER Act. I oppose this amendment because I continue to oppose the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, but I will not oppose its passage.

Mr. Chairman, I really want to thank Congressman Boucher for his effort to address this problem of drug use among miners. I think it's very, very important. I would even go so far as to say if this bill doesn't show much progress, if you brought this up as a separate bill, I'd be happy to work with you on it.

This amendment takes an important first step by acknowledging the problem and establishing opportunities for treatment. This amendment is a positive first step, but it does not go far enough.

To complement the Boucher amendment, Republicans are proposing a strong framework for mandatory drug testing. We want to ensure that miners are tested and those who are under the influence are prevented from entering the mines and putting their own lives and the lives of their coworkers at risk.

Drug abuse among miners is a serious problem, and according to recent media accounts, it is also a widespread problem. Already States are taking the lead on stringent testing initiatives to protect miners from the hazards that come from combining substance abuse and the dangerous work environment. The Federal Government needs to catch up on what is being done in the States.

I urge my colleagues to support the Republican proposal to implement drug testing. At this time I also urge passage of the Boucher amendment as an acknowledgment of the problem and an important first step toward resolving it.

Mr. Chairman, I likewise support the amendment, and I thank the gentleman for presenting it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, but I will not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the Ellsworth amendment, as it has been explained, would modify the collection of fines to provide relief to those mine operators who pay their fines in a timely fashion. At the same time, it establishes a trust fund so that fines collected will be used for inspections and investigations. The amendment also creates a list of those mine operators who do not pay their fines, shining a spotlight to help promote payment in a timely fashion.

Unlike the underlying bill, this amendment would not do anything to inhibit implementation of the bipartisan MINER Act of 2006. Because this amendment offers positive reforms without dismantling the mine safety improvements under way, I am pleased to support its passage.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong support of the Wilson/Kline amendment to preserve bipartisan mine safety reforms.

The S-MINER Act is based on a flawed premise. It begins by abandoning the widely supported mine safety reforms enacted in 2006. Rather than building on the progress that has been made, the S-MINER Act brings those bipartisan reforms to a screeching halt.

Republicans have a better way. The Wilson/Kline amendment strikes the appropriate balance between strengthening mine safety and maintaining the widely supported reforms enacted less than 2 years ago.

First and foremost, the substitute underscores the importance of the MINER Act reforms and restates our commitment to seeing them implemented fully and forcefully. Our substitute builds on those reforms rather than tearing them down.

Among the most important steps taken in the Republican substitute is the effort to fully, more fully engage the miners in mine safety. During the Education and Labor Committee's consideration of this bill, Representative Kline offered an amendment that, like our substitute, would empower miners by directly involving them in the development of safety policies and procedures through the formation of safety teams. Currently, nonunionized miners may be prohibited from working with management to promote safety through teams.

Mine safety is too important an issue to fall victim to the politics of unionization. Every miner should have the opportunity to work cooperatively with the mine operator to promote their own safety and the safety of those with them in the mines.

To further protect miners, the Republican substitute calls for a strong program of drug testing. In fact, the Republican plan is the only proposal that offers drug testing. Representative Boucher is proposing drug rehabilitation, an important first step, but one that will be incomplete without testing. Indeed, Representative Boucher's own State of Virginia has taken a leadership role on requiring drug testing in the mines, something the Federal Government should require as well.

Sadly, the proposal offered in the manager's package would do even less, calling for just a study of drug abuse among miners. No one here seems to object to drug testing for professional baseball players. An entire hearing was devoted to the topic of drug use in Major League Baseball just yesterday, yet not a single hearing has been held to explore the problem of drug abuse among miners. And when our friend, the late Representative Charlie Norwood, had the courage to call for drug testing in miners in years past, he was rebuked for daring to draw attention to this pervasive problem.

I am pleased we are finally acknowledging this problem among miners, but I want to be clear; anything short of the Republican plan for drug testing fails to fully protect miners.

Finally, our substitute recognizes some of the very specific issues brought to light with the tragic collapse of the Crandall Canyon Mine in August of 2007. To address those issues, it would improve communication between MSHA and the Bureau of Land Management, study the conditions the next generation of miners will face with deep mine conditions and retreat mining using pillar removal, and clarify how information is to be disseminated in the event of a tragedy.

I urge my colleagues to preserve bipartisan mine safety reforms by supporting the Wilson/Kline amendment.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of legislation that would greatly enhance the health and safety protections in the Nation's coal mines.

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 of all private industries; and we are reminded of how dangerous mining can be by the tragedies like the one in Utah in August of this last year, where six miners and three rescuers died in what appears to have been a preventable disaster, and the tragedies of Kentucky and West Virginia in 2006.

Accidents every year claim the lives of one or two miners at a time. In 2007, according to the Mine Safety and Health Administration, 32 coal miners and 31 metal and nonmetal miners died on the job. Miners also face serious health risks, including a resurgence of black lung disease.

The legislation we are considering today, the S-MINER Act, builds on the work of the last Congress when it passed the MINER Act of 2006. The S-MINER Act represents a comprehensive approach to minimize the health and safety risks facing miners. It is critical that Congress take this action, because one of the things that is clear is that we cannot leave mine safety and health to the Bush administration.

When the Sago Mine disaster occurred, we learned that the Bush administration had withdrawn or delayed more than a dozen health and safety proposals that would have benefited miners. The Bush administration filled top-level positions at MSHA with executives from the very industry that the agency was charged with regulating. Dangerous rules favored by the industry, which would leave miners vulnerable to aggressive ``belt air'' fires, became law under this administration.

From 2001 to 2006, the Bush administration gutted MSHA by cutting funding and staffing, and especially in coal mine enforcement, where the worst tragedies would strike in 2006 and 2007. Even as coal production increased around the country, the Bush administration cut the Mine Safety and Health Administration's coal enforcement personnel by 9 percent by 2006. And then came the Sago disaster, Aracoma Alma, Darby, and Crandall Canyon mines. Even after these recent tragedies, even after the MINER Act was enacted, we continue to see neglect from this administration.

The Inspector General found this past fall that MSHA was failing to conduct mandated inspections on time, leaving thousands of miners unprotected. In 2006 alone, MSHA failed to complete the required inspections of 107 mines, employing 7,500 miners. And,

Secretary Chao failed to meet a simple deadline under the MINER Act to produce regulations on rescue teams, fundamental regulations on rescue teams, at the end of this last year.

The track record of this administration on mine safety and health has been horrendous, and Congress needs to act. That is why we are here today, to make sure that our government fulfills its obligations to protect those brave men and women who risk their safety to keep this country running.

The S-MINER Act addresses three broad issues: disaster prevention; improved emergency response; and long-term health risks. And I will talk more about those areas in a moment.

Later today, in addition to the underlying bill, I will be offering a manager's amendment that makes modifications to the bill. Among other things, that amendment will address the troubling problems of substance abuse. Because of injuries, overwork, and stress that miners often suffer, we have heard reports of substance abuse among miners.

I want to be absolutely clear. None of the recent mine tragedies have been linked to drug use in any way, but we should nevertheless be proactive in heading off the dangers that drug use poses to the miners. A few States have already adopted drug testing requirements for miners. Most, if not all, of the large coal mining companies already utilize some form of drug testing program. It will take further study to determine what role, if any, the Federal Government should play here, but this issue should be dealt with. That is why the amendment I will offer later today will require the Secretary of Labor to conduct a study on best practices and will authorize her, within 6 months, to set up a drug testing and rehabilitation program for miners, in consultation with miners, their unions, operators, State agencies, and public health experts.

Two other amendments will be offered by Representatives Boucher and Ellsworth to build upon and modify this legislation, and I support those amendments.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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.

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

I yield myself 30 seconds.

The gentleman from Alaska is quite correct. It's a pathetic sight to see the President of the United States begging the Saudi prince to release more oil 8 years after that President has been in office; several energy bills passed by the Republican Congress, and the President is left going hat in hand begging the Saudi prince for more oil. It just shows the opportunity cost of this administration, of that Republican Congress and the pathetic energy policy that we were left with.

The new energy bill, however, reverses that trend. I'm very proud to be part of it.

That's 10 years ago.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

May I inquire of the Chair how much time each side has remaining.

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

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

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

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

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. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

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

If the gentlewoman would yield.

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. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

This amendment, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, does four things. First, it will authorize $30 million for the Department of Labor to buy a new generation of personal dust monitors required by the builder and provide them to miners. These dust monitors greatly enhance the accuracy in measuring the concentration of coal dust in underground coal mines. Both miner and industry representatives have expressed support for this initiative. It will go a long way in helping us reverse the rise in black lung and save untold amounts of costs in dealing with such debilitating disease.

Second, the amendment will increase the time permitted for the mining industry to install a new generation of fire-resistant conveyor belts, significantly cutting industry compliance costs with the underlying bill. This amendment takes into account the industry concerns about significant amounts of old-style conveyor belts already purchased and in reserve. Under this provision, miners can use up the reserved belts before purchasing new fire-resistant belts so long as after 5 years of use they pass a proper annual inspection.

Third, the amendment would eliminate delays by some mine operators in providing supplies of breathable air in underground coal mines for miners who may become trapped as required under the MINER Act of 2006. We recently learned that some miner operators are putting refuge chambers on order, with a wait of several years in some cases, and MSHA has been treating these purchase orders as sufficient to comply with the MINER Act's breathable air requirement. In the meantime, miners are underground without the breathable air that this Congress intended them to have. At least 11 of the 12 miners of the Sago explosion, for example, did not die because of the explosion. They died because, after many hours of awaiting rescue, they ran out of air. So this provision closes an apparent loophole in the MINER Act and ensures that breathable air is readily available to miners underground today while operators await the delivery of refuge chambers. Such air supplies can be provided via air cylinders or through boreholes to the surface pursuant to MSHA instructions.

Finally, this amendment deals with the potential safety problems posed by substance abuse in a direct and responsible fashion. Many of us have seen the recent reports about the rise of substance abuse problems in mines and mining communities. There is no doubt that the injuries, overwork and stress that miners experience can leave some of them vulnerable to abusing substances like painkillers. Now, none of the recent tragedies have been linked in any way to drug use, but we should be proactive in this area.

The amendment directs the Secretary of Labor to study the problem in consultation with all parties and to impose the program if she determines it to be feasible.

I urge my colleagues to pass the manager's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of his amendment. I think it's well thought out. It recognizes the problems that were described in the article and experienced among his constituents to provide the kinds of resources for what clearly, from the narrative in the story, is a very difficult problem, encountering numerous substances, of people who are caught in very difficult situations, many of whom are struggling to stay employed. And I think the kinds of services that the gentleman provides in his amendment are absolutely necessary, and I rise in strong support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in strong support of the gentleman from Indiana's amendment and commend him for his very thoughtful work and his diligence on putting this amendment together to make sure that we in fact attack the problem at hand, which was those few irresponsible miners who refused to pay their fines and that have a history of not paying. Then, also the creative use of these fines to provide better enforcement, better safety for our mine workers. I rise in strong support and ask all of our colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Ellsworth amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

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. 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.

These are air cylinders that are readily available. These are not the individual-sized packs that we deal with here in terms of inspections that didn't work in the Sago Mine. Canisters of air are readily available all throughout American society. We just say you should

put some in the mines so people can use them.

Then let me just say the question that is raised here, currently the law allows for employer and employee involvement in safety issues. Many, many organizations and businesses have these committees. But we want those committees to remain independent.

This suggests that somehow the employer should select those employees to engage in those discussions. We think that the workers ought to be able to do that and do it independently so that, in fact, they can have a true discussion about the conditions and the safety of the mines and not be establishing unilateral committees to make those determinations.

The fact of the matter is, where people have these employer-employee safety committees, very often the efficiency of the mines improves, the productivity of the mines improves and the safety improves, and we think that that is the model that ought to be continued.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Rahall.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to reiterate my strong opposition to this legislation. I believe that it does eliminate most of the very important provisions in the underlying bill and the manager's amendment to ensure that we increase the margins of safety for miners and for their families. We should not give up that opportunity to this substitute, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Wilson/Kline amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, over this weekend we were treated to a very sad and disturbing story in the Washington Post about drug use in the mining community in Virginia and other States, about miners who have been crushed by equipment in the mines, who have been crushed in roof falls in the mine, who had been run over by other equipment in the mine, whose bodies were wracked with pain, who got addicted to painkillers, to OxyContin, to other drugs such as that, prescription drugs, and then were struggling with their addiction.

There was also the story of a miner who got up every night at midnight,

fixed himself a quick meal, and drove 135 miles round trip before he went to work so he could get his methadone treatment at the clinic and get on his job, and do that with the knowledge of his employer, struggling with his addiction, struggling to stay employed.

In this bill, we had the opportunity to address this situation. Rick Boucher, our colleague, addressed it by authorizing with almost unanimous support $10 million for treatment and to work with these miners, that the Secretary can use.

We have suggested an amendment in the manager's amendment, which you voted for, which says that the Secretary will spend 6 months to work with the industry, to work with the miners, to work with the States. Virginia has a program. Kentucky has a program. West Virginia does not. Pennsylvania apparently does not. Indiana does not. Illinois does not. The Secretary will work with them to see how they're doing it, the best way to do it, and at the end of that 6 months, after those consultations, after her study, to impose a drug program with drug testing and treatment and rehabilitation.

How is that different than what is being offered here by my colleagues on the other side? They impose drug testing, and then they impose a blacklist for those who test positive. You want to talk about baseball? You're being a hell of a lot harder on hardworking miners in this country than you are on the baseball stars because they use drugs, and they go to work every day and nobody says anything.

But a miner who's been crushed on the job, who's trying to provide for their families, tests positive, we don't know if it's a false positive. They don't make allowances for false positives. He gets on the blacklist and he may never work again.

Rick Boucher had a better idea. Our committee had a better idea. Have the Secretary work with the States and the companies and the mining industries and the miners and the unions and say how can we best do this because I'm going to do it. So what's the best way for us to do this.

So many of you from both sides of the aisle during the consideration of this bill have said to me one thing over and over again: Will you work with the companies? Will you work with the companies? Now, along comes drug testing, nobody says work with the companies. Nobody says work with the unions. Nobody says work with the community health facilities. They just say test them and list them.

What the hell kind of thing is that to do to hardworking people in one of the most dangerous industries? We've had spouses come to this committee and talk about the fear in their spouses at night when they come home from work and before they leave, the fear that these miners have of going into that workplace.

In that article, one of the miners said he takes drugs and he used to drink because he's fighting, he hates the job. Some of them love the job in that article. They said, This is my life, mining. Digging coal is what I do best, but my legs have been crushed, my arm has been crushed.

Let's give them testing. Let's give them treatment, and let's give them some understanding of the kind of industry that they're in. We benefit, we burn the coal, we run the economy, and these families live in fear.

This is a very good bill. This is a very good bill. We should not suggest for a moment that because there is no link between the tragedies of the mining accidents last year and the year before, that drugs were involved at all. We have a nutty owner in Utah, but we're not going to test him. We're not going to test that owner, who is running around giving all these false reasons to these poor victims and their families as to what happened.

So yes, you can talk about baseball. But at the end of the day, those baseball players, just as they did last season and next season, they'll be playing. And they'll get a warning, and they'll get treatment. And they'll get a second warning, and they'll get treatment. These guys get a test and a list. It's unfair. It's outrageous. And you should not support it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Congressman McKeon very much for the introduction. I appreciate his leadership on the committee.

I speak in opposition to the bill and in favor of mine safety, as fully explained by the Statement of Administration Policy dated January 15, 2008, from the Office of Management and Budget.

In 2006, the President signed the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response, MINER, Act, the most significant mine safety legislation in nearly 30 years. The administration has worked with miners, mine owners, miners' representatives, and other stakeholders in the mining industry to meet the safety improvement goals set forth in the original MINER Act, including issuing regulations to strengthen emergency mine evacuation practices, improve the strength requirements for seals, and increase civil penalties. In addition, on December 26, 2007, the President signed the Omnibus Appropriations Act, which mandates additional rulemaking on belt air and refuge chambers on rigorous timetables.

H.R. 2768, the Supplemental Mine Improvement New Emergency Response Act, the S-MINER bill, would place in jeopardy meaningful achievements and efforts currently under way as a result of these measures. In particular, several of the regulatory mandates in the S-MINER bill would weaken several existing regulations and overturn regulatory processes that were required by the MINER Act and are ongoing.

These changes would provide no opportunity for stakeholder participation in the regulatory process and would impose burdensome and unrealistic time requirements. The S-MINER bill would also fundamentally change the investigation of mining accidents and jeopardize the ability to hold mine operators accountable for violations of mine safety regulations.

For these reasons, the administration strongly opposes House passage of the bill. If H.R. 2768 were presented to the President in its current form, the President's senior advisers would recommend he veto the bill.

The S-MINER bill requires new regulations on the strength of mine seals, even though a new emergency temporary standard on mine seals was issued in May 2007 and a final regulation will be issued in February 2008. To reopen this process would cause confusion within the industry and put on hold improvements already being made to underground mine seals.

The S-MINER bill would weaken current regulations requiring a mine operator to contact the Mine Safety and Health Administration, MSHA, within 15 minutes of a serious accident by creating a new two-tiered notification system of 15 minutes or 1 hour, depending on the severity of the incident.

Of particular concern is a provision requiring the MSHA to adopt the recommended exposure limits issued by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health as permissible exposure limits, PELs. This provision overturns a Federal court decision that requires agencies like the MSHA to perform a risk assessment prior to issuing a PEL. This provision would mandate the adoption of potentially hundreds of PELs without any input from stakeholders and without determination of whether the PEL is economically and technologically feasible.

The S-MINER bill would allow a stakeholder to challenge a PEL only after its issuance. This process undermines the rigor of the normal rulemaking process and places the burden

of proof of technological and economic feasibility on stakeholders instead of the Department of Labor.

The S-MINER bill would potentially quadruple the number of investigations into multi-injury or multifatality accidents by adding a requirement for another investigation by an independent investigative team and by giving the Chemical Safety Board, as well as the Office of the Inspector General within the Department of Labor, the right to investigate mine accidents. These provisions undermine the government's ability to hold accountable mine operators who violate mine safety and health regulations since multiple investigations potentially using different methodologies and reaching different conclusions could prejudice the government's ability to prosecute civil or criminal investigations of mine safety and health standards that contributed to or exacerbated an accident.

Current law gives MSHA the sole authority to investigate mine accidents, and when MSHA investigators uncover possible criminal violations, they identify the necessary enforcement action to take against a mine operator and make an appropriate referral to the Department of Justice.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of mine safety and in opposition to this bill.

The Wilson/Kline amendment combines the key elements of the Wilson amendment offered in committee with the important safety teams amendment also considered during markup. There is much that we do not know about the tragedy of Crandall Canyon. It would be premature to legislate on many of these issues until the Crandall Canyon investigation is complete. Once the investigation is complete, we can determine if any further initiatives are necessary. It also should be noted that few, if any, of the provisions in the underlying legislation would have had any impact in preventing the accident in Utah this summer.

Our amendment would require the Department of Labor to more regularly communicate with the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, regarding safety concerns. Given that personnel from the BLM inspect mines daily, the Mine Safety Health Administration, MSHA, should have the benefit of knowing what BLM is observing and what concerns the agency has regarding safety.

Our amendment would also require two studies: one to address deep mine safety, and another to address pillar removal. Regarding deep mining, it is no secret that the mining industry is mining deeper underground. In order to assure that they have the most sophisticated science available to them, a study about the elements of deep mining should be undertaken. It is also important to recognize that deep mining and pillar removal are two separate issues, and our amendment was crafted accordingly to give each issue thorough consideration.

Finally, there is great concern about how information during a mine rescue and recovery effort is communicated to the public. Our amendment would create a public relations protocol similar to that used by the National Transportation Safety Board. In this way, all parties to the rescue and recovery effort must clear any information through MSHA before releasing it to the public.

This amendment takes the NTSB's well-regarded approach to communications. Before anyone associated with the rescue and recovery effort can make public comments, they must be approved by MSHA. In this way, we can ensure that the families have been fully briefed, that any information given to the media is factual, and that it does not interfere with the ongoing efforts of any future investigation.

The S-MINER Act may address some of these issues, but ultimately the underlying bill is not narrowly crafted to focus on the Crandall Canyon tragedy. Instead, it provides for a complete rewrite of a successful law. In addition to these four specific policy opportunities that respond to the tragedy that occurred at the Crandall Canyon mine, our substitute builds on the MINER Act by actively engaging miners in safety teams and implementing substance abuse testing. It is important to note that the MINER Act was the most significant piece of mining legislation passed in 30 years, which was signed into law in 2006.

The Wilson/Kline substitute ensures that the MINER Act is not derailed by excessive new regulations. The MINER Act has put in motion regulations, studies, and industry improvements that will be negatively impacted by H.R. 2768. I oppose the S-MINER Act and urge you to vote in favor of the Wilson/Kline substitute.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), a ranking and valued member of the Education and Labor Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the distinguished ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I urge the strongest consideration of the Wilson/Kline amendment. I would like to point out that it would provide for full implementation of the MINER Act of June 2006. Additionally, it has the provisions, as well explained by Congressman McKeon of California, the provisions and concerns of the late Congressman Charlie Norwood of Georgia, providing for drug testing are included.

As I conclude today, I would like to read and summarize an op-ed which was in the Lexington Herald Leader, a McClatchy newspaper. This op-ed was printed on November 26, 2007: ``New mining bill premature.'' The author is Rick Honaker. Professor Honaker is the Mining Foundation's distinguished professor and chairman of the University of Kentucky Department of Mining Engineering.

Professor Honaker says, ``Eliminating coal mine accidents is an achievable goal. In recent years we have seen a dramatic decline in fatalities at the Nation's 550 underground mines, though the tragic accident earlier this year at a mine in Utah underscores some of the serious problems we face.

``But Congress has gotten ahead of itself. However well-intentioned, it is considering new legislation before the industry has been able to implement and assess the effectiveness of a major mine safety law passed last year.

``It seems very strange, almost incomprehensible, that a move is afoot in

Congress to impose an entirely new set of requirements on coal mine operators and mine inspectors, even before there has been an opportunity to comply with the far-reaching provisions of the MINER Act. It threatens to disrupt the all-important emergency rescue provisions of the law.

``That process will require more work from the coal community, not more laws from Congress. Rather than leap into an abyss with new legislation, let's give mine safety and health experts an opportunity to implement the existing law.''

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, it is imperative that the over 200,000 miners in the United States work in a safe environment. Tragedies in recent years have highlighted the need to improve mine safety. In an effort to improve mine safety and prevent future tragedies, I was pleased that in 2006 the Senate unanimously, and the House overwhelmingly, passed the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response (MINER) Act, which was signed into law. This comprehensive, overwhelmingly bipartisan law represented a significant step, the first in some 30 years, forward in improving mine safety. But, Madam Speaker, it's unfortunate that today Democrat leaders have put bipartisanship aside and brought forth a rule to allow the House to consider legislation that threatens to jeopardize, not improve, meaningful achievements and efforts currently under way.

The MINER law of 2006 is still being implemented, and to date, the Mine Safety and Health Administration has met all of its statutory deadlines in implementing the new law. However, Democratic leaders have chosen to bring forth the Supplemental Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act, which ignores the progress that has been made, and further, provides no opportunity for stakeholder participation in the regulatory process and imposes unrealistic time requirements on employers.

In addition, it is concerning that this bill would allow technology to be placed in mines that has not been deemed ``intrinsically safe'' by the Mine Safety and Health Administration. This has the potential, Madam Speaker, to result in serious safety issues, such as maybe an explosion.

Another major safety concern is that this bill creates a two-tiered notification system in the event of an accident, with one set of reportable incidents being subject to be reported within 15 minutes and another set within an hour. Madam Speaker, current law requires a mine operator to call the Mine Safety and Health Administration within 15 minutes of a reportable incident or face a fine. This new confusing tiered system could potentially lessen protection to miners.

Lastly, this bill does not empower all miners to participate in the development of safety policies and procedures through the formation of safety teams. Currently, miners who are not part of a union can be prohibited from working with management to promote safety. Representatives Kline of Minnesota and Wilson of South Carolina will be offering a substitute amendment later to end this discrimination between union and nonunion employees. All miners should be able to have a say when it comes to their safety, and this bill fails to do that.

Before enacting additional legislation that could be counterproductive, Congress should allow current law to be fully implemented. Congress should also review the law first before dictating mine safety regulations that fail to advance safety, potentially threatens jobs, and impose over $1 billion in unfunded mandates on the mining industry.

So, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I do have another speaker.

At this time, I would like to recognize the ranking member of the Workforce Committee, Mr. McKeon, for 5 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, for the last several months, Republicans have highlighted the need to change the House rules in order to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule.

Clearly, the rules are flawed when it comes to enforceability of earmarks. House Republicans believe every earmark should be debatable on the House floor, but time after time Members have been denied the opportunity to challenge earmarks during consideration of the rule and the bill.

Over the last several months, we have learned that the earmark rule does not apply when considering amendments between the Houses. This loophole has prevented numerous earmarks from being challenged in the energy bill, the State Children's Health Insurance Program expansion legislation, and the omnibus bill, which contained nearly 9,000 earmarks, including at least 150 earmarks that were air-dropped in the bill at the last minute.

Madam Speaker, in October Parliamentarian John Sullivan sent a letter to Chairwoman Slaughter confirming that the current rules are flawed as they relate to earmarks. In his letter, he states the earmark rule ``does not comprehensively apply to all legislative propositions at all stages of the legislative process.''

Madam Speaker, I will insert this letter from House Parliamentarian John Sullivan into the Record.

House of Representatives,

Office of the Parliamentarian,

Washington, DC, October 2, 2007.

Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter,

Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, Washington, DC

Dear Chairwoman Slaughter: Thank you for your letter of

October 2, 2007, asking for an elucidation of our advice on

how best to word a special rule. As you also know, we have

advised the committee that language waiving all points of

order ``except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI''

should not be adopted as boilerplate for all special rules,

notwithstanding that the committee may be resolved not to

recommend that the House waive the earmark-disclosure

requirements of clause 9.

In rule XXI, clause 9(a) establishes a point of order

against undisclosed earmarks in certain measures and clause

9(b) establishes a point of order against a special rule that

waives the application of clause 9(a). As illuminated in the

rulings of September 25 and 27, 2007, clause 9(a) of rule XXI

does not comprehensively apply to all legislative

propositions at all stages of the legislative process.

Clause 9(a) addresses the disclosure of earmarks in a bill

or joint resolution, in a conference report on a bill or

joint resolution, or in a so-called ``manager's amendment''

to a bill or joint resolution. Other forms of amendment--

whether they be floor amendments during initial House

consideration or later amendments between the Houses--are not

covered. (One might surmise that those who developed the rule

felt that proposals to amend are naturally subject to

immediate peer review, though they harbored reservations

about the so-called ``manager's amendment,'' i.e., one

offered at the outset of consideration for amendment by a

member of a committee of initial referral under the terms of

a special rule.)

The question of order on September 25 involved a special

rule providing for a motion to dispose of an amendment

between the Houses. As such, clause 9(a) was inapposite. It

had no application to the motion in the first instance.

Accordingly, Speaker pro tempore Holden held that the special

rule had no tendency to waive any application of clause 9(a).

The question of order on September 27 involved a special rule

providing (in pertinent part) that an amendment be considered

as adopted. Speaker pro tempore Blumenauer employed the same

rationale to hold that, because clause 9(a) had no

application to the amendment in the first instance, the

special rule had no tendency to waive any application of

clause 9(a).

The same would be true in the more common case of a

committee amendment in the nature of a substitute made in

order as original text for the purpose of further amendment.

Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is inapposite to such an amendment.

In none of these scenarios would a ruling by a presiding

officer hold that earmarks are or are not included in a

particular measure or proposition. Under clause 9(b) of rule

XXI, the threshold question for the Chair--the cognizability

of a point of order--turns on whether the earmark-disclosure

requirements of clause 9(a) of rule XXI apply to the object

of the special rule in the first place. Embedded in the

question whether a special rule waives the application of

clause 9(a) is the question whether clause 9(a) has any

application.

In these cases to which clause 9 of rule XXI has no

application in the first instance, stating a waiver of all

points of order except those arising under that rule--when

none can so arise--would be, at best, gratuitous. Its

negative implication would be that such a point of order

might lie. That would be as confusing as a waiver of all

points of order against provisions of an authorization bill

except those that can only arise in the case of a general

appropriation bill (e.g., clause 2 of rule XXI). Both in this

area and as a general principle, we try hard not to use

language that yields a misleading implication.

I appreciate your consideration and trust that this

response is to be shared among all members of the committee.

Our office will share it with all inquiring parties.

Sincerely,

John V. Sullivan,

Parliamentarian.

.Madam Speaker, today I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the rule in order to close the loopholes and restore accountability and enforceability to the House earmark rules.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and extraneous material be inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, oppose the rule.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 918 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 918.

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.

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman from Washington has any remaining speakers.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question so that we can give more safety to the miners who work day after day in

sometimes unsafe and unspeakable conditions. I also urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 918

Offered By Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this

resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point

of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the

Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for

enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House

of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion

or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour

of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2)

one motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.