Latest Debates in Congress

Tobacco Regulation
Debating FDA's Role Should Congress Pass H.R. 1108, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act?

(Excerpted from Congressional Digest, December 2008)

Nearly half a century after the Office of the Surgeon General first warned that cigarettes were a health hazard, the House of Representatives approved legislation last summer that, for the first time, would give the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the power to regulate tobacco products.

The move is the latest chapter in a longstanding debate over the legal definition of such products and who is responsible for controlling their sale and use.

In 1965, the Federal Trade Commission required tobacco companies to place warning labels on cigarette packages, and in 1970, Congress voted to prohibit television and radio stations from airing cigarette commercials. During the 1980s, many States enacted restrictions on tobacco sales to minors. Yet despite increased demands for Federal action, the FDA continued to insist that tobacco products were outside its authority because they did not fit the definition of a food or a drug.

That changed in the 1990s, when President Bill Clinton initiated broad anti-smoking efforts, backed by new studies that showed the addictive effects of nicotine. The FDA administrator declared that the agency had the authority to regulate tobacco on the grounds that nicotine is a drug and announced sweeping new regulations aimed at reducing teen smoking. Tobacco companies challenged the regulations as illegal and in 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed.

The Court ruled that the FDA could not regulate tobacco since Congress had repeatedly rejected such proposals, despite evidence that “tobacco use, particularly among children and adolescents, poses perhaps the most significant threat to public health in the United States.”

The decision was widely viewed as an invitation for Congress to enact legislation giving FDA statutory authority over the manufacture, distribution, promotion, sale, and use of tobacco products. Such legislation was first introduced in 2004, but did not become law.

The latest legislation — the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, sponsored by Representative Henry Waxman (CA-D) and Senator Edward Kennedy (MA-D) — would grant the FDA broad authority to regulate both current and new tobacco products and would substantially restrict tobacco product marketing.

Supporters of the legislation cite the terrible toll that tobacco products take on society: 400,000 smoking-related deaths and nearly $100 billion in health care costs annually.

Critics in Congress and the Bush Administration object to what they see as an expansion of the Federal bureaucracy, and complain in particular that the FDA is already unable to fulfill its mission to oversee pharmaceuticals and food.

Even if the bill fails to come before the Senate during the upcoming lame-duck session, its chances for passage next year in the new, 111th Congress are good. The bill’s listed cosponsors (a majority of both the House and Senate), include President-elect Barack Obama, Senator John McCain (AZ-R), and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV-D). It may have taken decades to get this far, but it looks as though regulation of tobacco products is moving much closer to reality.

Forestalling Economic Disaster
Congress Responds to the Credit Crunch Should the Senate Pass H.R. 1424, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act?

(Excerpted from Congressional Digest, November 2008)

September 2008 will be remembered as one of the most suspenseful and dramatic times in U.S. economic and political history — and potentially one of most consequential. It began with the Federal takeover of government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and concluded with passage of a massive bailout package designed to provide relief for frozen credit markets and restore confidence in the Nation’s troubled financial system.

By early October, the turmoil had ballooned into the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, spreading to global markets. World leaders were coordinating their efforts to reduce fears, but it was clear that the economic problems were ongoing and changing daily.

Experts differ on the roots of the credit crisis, but it’s clear that a number of factors are to blame.

On September 21, as the stock market plunged, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson announced a $700 billion proposal that would allow the government to buy toxic assets from the Nation’s biggest banks.

The House initially rejected the measure, 228 to 205, on September 29, with an insurgent group of Republicans leading the opposition. Negotiations began anew, and a series of tax breaks were added to the legislation — along with other compromises and earmarks. The Senate passed a revised version on October 1 by a large margin.

The House followed suit two days later. The new law, called the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, sets up a Troubled Assets Relief Program to buy up “residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages.”

It requires that the money be parceled out in installments and includes new oversight mechanisms, limits on executive compensation, and a government insurance plan, paid for by financial institutions.

Even supports of the plan were hesitant to approve a relief package that carried such a high price tag, but argued that if government didn’t step in to shore up the financial institutions, the economy could slide into a severe recession or worse.

Opponents — a mix of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans — generally agreed that the bill had been hastily cobbled together and might amount to throwing good money after bad, essentially rewarding Wall Street gamblers for bad investments.

By mid-October, it was unclear how effective the new law will be in resolving the credit crisis, beyond providing a temporary fix. It will be up to a new President and Congress to follow through with additional measures. One way or another, the debate over the economic impact of the plan is likely to continue for years to come.

The 2008 Election
A Referendum on Change

(Excerpted from Congressional Digest, October 2008)

The 2008 presidential election is notable for a number of reasons. It is the first time in U.S. history that a major party has chosen an African American (Illinois Senator Barack Obama) as its nominee, and the first time that the Republican Party has named a woman (Alaska Governor Sarah Palin) to run as Vice President.

It is also the first time that two sitting senators will run against each other in a presidential race. And not since 1952 has there been a general election in which neither the incumbent President nor the incumbent Vice President is a candidate.

This election year is also breaking all financial records, marking the first time that candidates for President have raised more than $1 billion, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Senator Obama declined to accept public financing for the general election, becoming the first candidate of a major party to do so, declaring the system “broken.” Senator McCain, meanwhile, is eligible for $84 million from the U.S. Treasury, but in exchange is barred from spending more than that or accepting private donations. New media has also played a prominent role, especially with younger voters.

The innovation of YouTube, for example, has inserted voter-generated content — also called “citizen advertising” — into the mix, while social networking is enabling activists to create their own online communities around issues and candidates. In other ways, however, the 2008 election is looking very familiar.

With poll margins narrowing after Labor Day, the country still appeared to be sharply divided politically, and the two candidates were focusing more and more on the traditional “swing,” or “battleground,” States.

The issues, too, have solidified. During the early primaries, the war in Iraq was a top concern, but by late summer 2008, the economy was front and center. The burst of the housing “bubble” — followed by the Federal bailout of the investment bank Bear Stearns, the governmentsponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the Nation’s largest insurance company, American International Group (AIG) — brought Wall Street to a crisis point.

The price of gasoline, which peaked at over $4 a gallon in the spring, also knocked war and terrorism off the front pages, for the time being anyway, and surveys showed that at least 80 percent of Americans thought the country was on the wrong track. In response, going into the final stretch of the campaign, both candidates have adopted the mantel of “change” — promising a new era of fiscal discipline and more open and responsive government.

The two major party platforms, however, reflect distinctly different approaches and philosophies. For the Republicans, the emphasis is on keeping the country safe and limiting government’s role in domestic policy. Their platform spells out their opposition to tax increases and earmarked funding for specific projects, as well as support for accelerated drilling, exploration, and development of domestic oil sources to bridge the transition to alternative fuels.

It places more importance on “values” issues, including the right to bear arms, opposition to abortion, a marriage protection constitutional amendment, and the participation of faith-based institutions in public programs.

The Democrats’ platform, on the other hand, stresses government solutions to promote the common good — through universal health care, job creation, education, and retirement security. It sets specific goals for energy-efficiency through the use of renewable resources and reduced oil consumption. It scales back tax cuts for high-income families, while offering new tax relief for the middle class. It includes a 16-month target for redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq and proposes a strategy for defeating terrorism that encompassses cooperation among allies as well as military power. It reaffirms the party’s support for Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose.

At its most basic level, the 2008 election is a referendum on the eight-year Republican Administration of President George W. Bush, and on whether Barack Obama — a relative newcomer, and one with a decidedly nontraditional background compared to Senate veteran and war hero John McCain — can ride voters’ hunger for change to victory in November.

Energy Consuption
2008–2009 Policy Debate Topic
Should the House Approve H.R. 6515, the
Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands (DRILL) Act?

(Excerpted from Congressional Digest, September 2008)

Early in the twenty-first century, oil has come to be viewed as more than just a commodity — Americans now associate it with terrorism, corporate greed, and global warming. It has also become a volatile political issue. When the 110th Congress adjourned recently for its August recess, it left unresolved a range of matters affecting America’s energy future, including rising gasoline prices, offshore drilling and exploration, and development and use of alternative fuels.

Although the United States makes up less than 5 percent of the world’s population, it consumes 25 percent of the oil; motor gasoline represents 44 percent of total U.S. consumption of petroleum products. When the average price at the pump reached $4 a gallon for the first time in June 2008, America’s oil addiction hit home, and consumers began to demand both short- and long-term action from Congress.

The current congressional debate centers on the ban on coastal oil exploration, instituted by President George H.W. Bush in 1990 and continued by President Bill Clinton. On July 14, 2008, President George W. Bush lifted the ban, saying that allowing offshore oil drilling is “one of the most important steps we can take” to reduce the burden of high gasoline prices on Americans.

The Democratic leadership has used procedural techniques to prevent Republicans from introducing amendments to end the offshore ban; Republicans, in turn, have thwarted Democratic efforts to pass legislation on a range of energy issues, including retail gas price-gouging, oil futures market speculation, tapping the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (maintained by the Department of Energy) in an effort to temporarily reduce energy costs, and tax credits for investment in solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources.

Twice this summer, the Democratic House leadership brought up legislation — dubbed “Use it or Lose it” — to pressure energy companies to drill for oil on already leased lands and waters. On both occasions, the votes fell short of the two-thirds majority required to proceed to a vote.

The bill’s supporters contended that offshore drilling is not the answer to U.S. energy needs, and would only deepen America’s oil dependence while doing nothing to reduce the current price of gas.

Opponents claimed that burdensome environmental regulations and court challenges create years of delay before drilling is feasible on approved offshore lease sites.

Congress may vote on compromise legislation when it returns in September, or it may put off any solution until after the November elections. In the meantime, America stands at a crossroads in its energy consumption — facing a choice between continued reliance on oil, both foreign and domestic, and investment in clean alternatives that leads to energy independence in a global economy.

Biofuels Expansion
The Food vs. Fuel Debate
Should Congress Reassess the Renewable Fuel Standard in the Energy Independence and Security Act?

(Excerpted from Congressional Digest, June 2008)

Ever since the invention of farming, crops have been produced mainly to feed people and livestock. Now that’s changing in response to concerns about pollution, air quality, and the price and availability of oil. Biofuels — fuels derived from organic matter, usually plants — are increasingly being used as an alternative to fossil fuels — coal, natural gas, and oil.

The most common biofuels are ethanol, usually produced from corn and sugar, and biodiesel, made by combining alcohol with vegetable oil. The United States is the world’s largest producer of ethanol, followed by Brazil. According to the Renewable Fuels Association, 147 ethanol plants produce 8.5 billion gallons of corn-derived ethanol annually and many more are planned or under construction. Biofuels are not yet cost-effective without government subsidies.

Until recently, this support came mainly in the form of tax incentives and loan and grant programs. In 2005, however, Congress established a renewable fuel standard (RFS) requiring the blending of renewable fuels into transportation fuel. The new law mandated that 7.5 billion gallons of the Nation’s annual gasoline consumption — roughly 5 percent— come from sources such as ethanol and biodiesel by 2012, increasing to 8.6 gallons in 2022. In late 2007, with passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), Congress expanded the RFS to 36 billion gallons by 2022.

This major biofuels expansion is one of the few policies that both parties in Congress and the White House have agreed on.

Yet the economic, environmental, and social impacts of biofuels remain unclear. As a renewable energy source, biofuels may help to mitigate climate change and reduce dependence on oil in the transportation sector. They may also offer large new markets for agricultural producers that could stimulate rural growth and farm incomes. On the downside, they pose environmental risks relating to intensified competition for land and water and possible deforestation, and upward pressure on food prices.

On Capitol Hill, the ink was barely dry on the expanded RFS when critics began clamoring for change. Those who favor a reassessment of the policy note that, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the country will use 18 to 20 percent of its total corn crop for the production of ethanol in 2008 and 25 percent in 2009.

Supporters of the RFS contend that biofuels account for a mere fraction of the increase in global and domestic food costs, and that tampering with the mandate could have unintended consequences in terms of supply disruptions and higher gas prices.

They point out that within a few years the technology will exist to make “cellulosic” ethanol from garbage, switch grass, and other nonfood products, decreasing the demand for corn. Meanwhile, the use of ethanol and other low-carbon fuels is reducing greenhouse gas emissions on America’s roads.

The fuel vs. food debate is likely to continue as long as these dual interests fight for the same raw commodities. The alternative energy sector is growing rapidly, however, and there may soon be more options. Significantly, the recently passed farm bill reduces corn-based ethanol subsidies from 51 cents to 45 cents a gallon, with the money diverted into a fund to encourage cellulosic ethanol production.

No Child Left Behind
The New Debate on Education Reform
Should Congress Make Fundamental Changes in the No Child Left Behind Act?

(Excerpted from Congressional Digest, May 2008)

The 1983 publication of A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform is considered a landmark event in the history of American education. The product of President Ronald Reagan’s Commission on Excellence in Education Reform, the report concluded that America’s schools were failing miserably, with scores dropping steadily in all subject areas. Especially disturbing were study’s the unfavorable comparisons with the academic achievements of other nations.

The report touched off a wave of reform efforts at every level of government and led to the release of another manifesto during the Administration of President George H.W. Bush, who set forth a series of education goals to be achieved by the start of the twenty-first century. “Goals 2000,” as the policy later became known, was later enacted into law under President Bill Clinton.

With these mostly unrealistic goals still unmet, an even larger progeny sprang from the Administration of George W. Bush: No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), approved by Congress in 2001 and signed into law in early 2002.

NCLB was the result of a rare and short-lived bipartisan collaboration between the Bush White House and Democratic leaders in Congress.

In the six years since its passage, however, NCLB has drawn fire from many local school officials who say the law is too focused on standardized testing, forcing many teachers to spend excessive classroom time “teaching to the test.” For its part, the Bush Administration claims that the law’s systematic testing provides comprehensive data — for the first time ever — that shed light on which schools are not teaching basic skills effectively, so that appropriate interventions can be taken.

With ESEA overdue for reauthorization, Democratic leaders in Congress are holding out for a major overhaul of No Child Left Behind that would shift the emphasis from standardized testing to other means of measuring yearly progress. The Administration, meanwhile, has proposed its own set of improvements — some controversial (such as awarding of merit pay for teachers) and others representing only a modest “tweaking” of the law.

Proponents of fundamental changes in NCLB are calling for greater flexibility for States in considering indicators of academic success; a broader, richer curriculum encompassing critical thinking and problem-solving; and an accountability system that distinguishes between different schools and their individual challenges.

The ESEA reauthorization debate has become entangled with the dynamics of election year politics and the Administration’s determination to protect this key component of the President’s legacy.

So far, it remains uncertain whether a compromise can be forged during the remaining months of the 110th Congress that will result in yet another bipartisan education reform effort.

Food Safety
Streamlining Federal Oversight in a New Era of Challenges
Are the Bush Administration's FDA Reforms Sufficient to Ensure the Safety of the Nation's Food Supply?

(Excerpted from Congressional Digest, April 2008)

Although the U.S. food supply is considered one of the safest in the world, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 76 million Americans get sick, more than 300,000 are hospitalized, and about 5,000 die each year because of something they ate. Recent food scares have involved such all-American staples as spinach, peanut butter, hamburger meat, and pet food.

A number of genetic, environmental, and behavioral factors contribute to the emergence of these outbreaks, along with centralized processing and broader distribution, which facilitate the spread of food-borne microorganisms. Also to blame, many believe, is an outdated, fragmented, and complex Federal oversight system that has evolved piecemeal over the years, usually in response to specific health threats.

The origins of the current food-safety system are in the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which — though it strengthened food-quality standards and authorized factory inspections — was enacted at a time when Americans had a much simpler diet and processed foods were almost unheard of. Congress has amended the law numerous times since then to account for changes in American tastes, including the growing popularity of seafood and other products imported from other countries, where diverse controls apply. As a result, 15 Federal agencies now administer at least 30 food-safety laws.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office has called for a “fundamental re-examination” of the current regulatory structure by Congress, and in 2007, listed food safety as one of 27 “high-risk” Federal program areas. Lawmakers and regulators generally agree that Federal food-safety oversight warrants an overhaul. The conflict lies in what approach to take.

The George W. Bush Administration has proposed a Food Protection Plan based on the identification of system vulnerabilities, targeted intervention of domestic and imported products, and an improved emergency response system.

On the congressional front, the most far-reaching proposal — introduced by Representative Rosa DeLauro (CTD) and Senator Richard Durbin (IL-D) — would strip FDA and USDA of their disparate food safety and inspection duties and consolidate them within a new, freestanding Food Safety Administration with greater authority to take immediate and decisive action.

Those favoring the Administration’s strategy say significant progress can be made by augmenting existing programs and resources to meet risks.

Others argue that the patchwork nature of the current system can only be remedied through fundamental change — not incremental measures.

With Americans increasingly mistrustful of the food they eat, a rare consensus is developing among food industry representatives and consumer advocates in support of a streamlined regulatory process backed by adequate funding. Thus, while the debate continues over the specifics and degree of reform, all interests at least agree that there are few objectives as important as protecting the Nation’s food supply.

Foreign Intelligence Gathering
The Scope of Executive Branch Surveillance

Should the Senate Adopt the Judiciary Committee Substitute to S. 2248, the FISA Amendments Act?

(Excerpted from Congressional Digest, March 2008)

Government surveillance of private citizens has always been controversial in America, but especially as new technologies have made it easier to discover personal information without performing a traditional physical search of properties or possessions.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures ...” When it comes to foreign surveillance during wartime, many have argued that the President is inherently free of constitutional restraints; however, in 1972, the Supreme Court determined that warrantless wiretaps of domestic groups for national security reasons violated the Constitution.

To create a legal process for authorizing foreign intelligence wiretaps, and to define the power of the Executive Branch in conducting such surveillance, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1978.

FISA barred electronic eavesdropping on persons within the United States without the approval of a new foreign intelligence court, but also provided a grace period for retroactive warrants, when needed, and for warrantless wiretapping during times of war.

Soon after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct warrantless surveillance of individuals who might be linked to the al Qaeda terrorist network or its affiliates without going through the FISA court. Some of these international communications involved U.S. citizens and others located within the United States.

In May 2006, it was revealed that the Administration had been compiling a database of telephone calls with the cooperation of three of the largest U.S. telephone carriers, who were paid to provide the information to the NSA. The companies now face some 40 lawsuits for obtaining personal information without warrants.

In the summer of 2007, the Bush Administration, pushed for changes in FISA to close what it termed a “surveillance gap” — the requirement that the government get court approval to capture communications between foreigners that go through computers inside the United States. In response, Congress hastily approved the Protect America Act (PAA), a temporary measure removing the prohibition on warrantless spying on Americans abroad and giving the government wide powers to order telecommunciations companies to make their networks available to government eavesdroppers.

With the PAA set to expire at the end of 2007, the House and Senate, after much partisan wrangling, passed differing bills to replace it. The Senate bill includes many of the broad new surveillance powers the White House wanted and gives retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies. The House bill, similar in nature to a Senate Judiciary Committee substitute rejected on the Senate floor, does not include the immunity clause.

Supporters of the Senate bill argue that the new electronic surveillance authority is needed to identify terrorists and prevent future attacks in a timely manner.

Those who favor the House version say that it provides the intelligence community with the tools it needs to conduct surveillance on foreign targets while restoring constitutional checks and balances.

In mid-February, House Democrats — in their greatest challenge yet to the President on a national security issue — refused to capitulate to White House demands, allowing the Protect America Act to expire. Behind-thescene negotiations were underway to forge a compromise, but how or when that might occur remained uncertain.

The Torture Debate
Determining Limits on Interrogation Techniques

Should U.S. Intelligence Agents Be Required to Comply With U.S. Army Interrogation and Prisoner Treatment Standards?

(Excerpted from Congressional Digest, February 2008)

More than four years after images depicting of abuse of Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prisoners by U.S. military personnel came to public attention, America’s use — and definition — of torture remains controversial.

Internal memoranda within the George W. Bush Administration have led to ambiguities concerning whether U.S. intelligence agency personnel could legally use techniques such as waterboarding (simulated drowning) to illicit information from detainees at Guantánamo Bay and in Iraq and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, congressional investigations are underway into the Central Intelligence Agency’s destruction of videotapes that reportedly depicted the use of disputed interrogation tactics.

The primary source of international humanitarian law is the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit any form of torture or inhumane treatment of prisoners of war and detained civilians. Such individuals are also protected during both peacetime and wartime by the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which defines torture as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental” is intentionally inflicted by or at the instigation of someone acting in an “official capacity.”

There remain unanswered questions over the nation’s interrogation policies, however — namely, are they legal and humane, do they produce reliable intelligence, and is their damage to the U.S. image abroad outweighed by any demonstrated worth in keeping the country safe?

The U.S. Army Field Manual’s interrogation guide explicitly prohibits the use of waterboarding, electrocution, sensory deprivation, or the withholding of food, water, or medical care. It also specifics that the Geneva Conventions apply to all detainees, including prisoners of war and enemy combatants. Language inserted into the conference report on the 2008 Intelligence Authorization bill, approved by the House in December 2007, would apply these standards to all government agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

This provision contradicts an Executive Order signed by President Bush in July 2007 that bans cruel and inhuman treatment during the interrogation of terrorism suspects detained by the CIA, but allows “enhanced interrogation techniques,” classified as secret, and may exempt intelligence personnel from prohibitions contained in the Geneva Conventions.

Supporters of the conference report interrogation language contend that it is in the U.S. national interest to adhere to one clearly defined standard of treatment for prisoners of war and other detainees, and that the techniques used by military and law enforcement interrogators have worked successfully for decades. Opponents of the interrogation language in Congress and the Administration charge that the proposed restrictions would prevent the United States from obtaining intelligence needed to protect the country.

The White House has issued a policy statement to the effect that the President will veto the Intelligence Authorization bill because of the interrogation language and other provisions. A veto override is unlikely. Meanwhile, the debate over torture and the abstract and real-life consequences of the practice is certain to continue.

Affordable Housing
Addressing the Basic Needs of Low-Income Families

Should the House Approve H.R. 2895, the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act?

(Excerpted from Congressional Digest, January 2008)

On January 2, 2006, an explosion ripped through the Sago mine in Upshur County, West Virginia, trapping 13 miners underground; only one person was brought up alive. Two weeks later, a fire at a mine in another West Virginia county killed two miners, and on May 20, 2006, five miners lost their lives in a mine explosion in Harlan Country, Kentucky. By the end of 2006, 47 miners had died on the job — a 10- year high and more than twice the number of deaths in 2005.

These accidents were a grim reminder that mining is still one of the most dangerous occupations in the United States. Mining fatalities occur at more than seven times the average rate for all private industries, according to the House Education and Labor Committee. Many thousands of miners are also injured. During the 1990s, an average of 21,351 mining injuries occurred each year.

The first Federal mine safety law was enacted in the late 1800s, with increasingly stronger measures passed thereafter.

The current prevailing law is the Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, which created the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), strengthened and expanded the rights of miners, required at least four yearly inspections of all underground mines, and toughened the penalty system for rules violators.

In the spring of 2006, in response to that year’s mine disasters, Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response (MINER) Act.

A year later, concerned that implementation of the MINER Act was proceeding too slowly and unevenly, Chairman George Miller (CA-D) of the House Education and Labor Committee introduced the Supplementary Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response (S-MINER) Act and the Miner Health Enhancement Act. Tragically, a short time later, the Nation’s attention was riveted once again on a mine disaster, this time at the Crandall Canyon mine in Utah, where six trapped miners could not be freed and three rescue workers were killed while trying to reach them.

Supporters of the legislation contend that it is especially important to help prevent dangerous mining situations from occurring in the first place.

Opponents counter that the legislation fails to recognize the complexities of today’s mining environment.

The outlook for enactment of enhanced mine safety and health legislation is uncertain, but if the past is any guide, public concern about the toll of deaths and injuries will continue to intensify the demand for safer methods, improved technology, and stricter enforcement throughout the industry.

View 2007 Debates