Lessons learned from a win

Although Miller’s mine safety bill was defeated, the debate will continue with the new Congress. Learn what worked and remember it.

By Henry Chajet and Bob Horn

On Dec. 8, Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), the outgoing chairman of the House of Representatives’ Committee on Education and Labor, failed in his final effort as chairman to pass sweeping new safety law amendments aimed at increasing government enforcement powers, penalties, and regulations. Chairman Miller’s “lame duck” Congressional strategy (to seek passage before the Democratic majority is replaced with a Republican majority in January) drew nearly unanimous Republican opposition and key Democratic opposition. We were pleased to participate in the industry efforts and share our experience in the hope of benefiting future industry efforts.

While every member of Congress and every industry group supports workplace safety and an end to tragic workplace disasters, among the opponents to the Miller bill were members of Congress whose districts include thousands of safe and productive mines. They argued that these safe companies do not need nor deserve increased government regulation and enforcement, particularly at a time of high unemployment. Other opponents argued that the legislation should not be passed until the government disaster investigations are complete and the causes of the tragic failures are known and can be addressed. These were the key messages that led the successful opposition to the Miller legislation.

The legislation drew vocal opposition from every segment of the mining industry that was not “carved out” of its application in pre-vote compromises. Leading the “carve outs” were the stone, sand, and gravel industry, which was exempted from the bill several months ago by Chairman Miller. This occurred after the National Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association (NSSGA) argued that its safety record did not warrant the legislation, which would have adversely impacted every Congressional district, since they all contain quarry operations.

Since the tragic Upper Big Branch Coal Mine disaster, Congressman Miller and his supporters have attempted to pass Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) amendments supported by the administration and its labor union allies. They sought to justify increased penalties, expanded closure order powers, and new regulatory mandates with arguments that ineffective enforcement powers led to the Upper Big Branch disaster, the BP oil spill, and other recent industrial disasters. Critics responded by urging the completion of government investigations prior to legislating solutions, by demonstrating the excellent safety records of industries and companies adversely impacted by the Miller legislation, and by describing the massive enforcement, penalty powers, and budgets already provided to the federal agencies whose personnel were at the site of the disasters within days prior to their occurrence.

Even a last-minute Democratic strategy to remove OSHA amendments from the legislation and focus on the MSHA amendments did not save Miller’s bill from opposition and defeat. Before the vote, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce joined the National Mining Association, the Salt Institute, the Industrial Minerals Association, and various state associations in urging defeat of the unwarranted legislation.

Lessons learned from the defeat of Chairman Miller’s bill include the following:

Safety law should not be created in the immediate aftermath of tragic disasters when the opportunity for neutral fact finding is reduced;

Members of Congress and staff continue to require extensive briefings to provide information, data, and context for their positions and actions; and