Mr. KELLEY. Where a penalty is required or permitted in certain States, a Federal mine inspector could report it to the State inspector, and the State inspector could then bring the action, and it has been done.

Mr. WELSH. That is correct, and that still leaves, it, I think, consistent with the theory of this bill, that there is a theory where the State should take action and not have the Federal Government in that field.

Mr. LUCAS. I am glad to hear you say that, Mr. Welsh. What other field will be left to the States after this bill is passed?

Mr. WELSH. Speaking as a layman technically again, but based on the education these gentlemen have given me, I am convinced that the first 13 feet from the working face, the safety of individual miners, will still be left to the States, insofar as enforcement of any safety regulations are concerned.

Mr. LUCAS. These last questions, I have skipped over some which are less important, or which I shall discuss later, and they are directed to you gentlemen of the Bureau of Mines. I asked you this morning how much it was going to cost you to administer this act. Do you have any idea how much it is going to cost to administer the act as presently written?

Mr. ANKENY. We had figures on the Price bill, as you mentioned here this morning, and we prepared no figures on what the cost of administering this act would be.

Mr. McCONNELL. Can I put it this way, Mr. Ankeny, as I tried to figure this out myself, under the Price bill which was quite all-inclusive in what it allowed in the way of regulations, and so on, and it certainly would endeavor to investigate all of the mines in the United States, I believe that bill called for quarterly inspections, if I recall correctly-now, based on that, it was figured to be $6,000,000, and now in H. R. 7408 we have called for one annual inspection and dealing with specific things, like mine disasters, and not the whole field of accident prevention and health measures, and so on, as was originally in the Price bill, and so if you could make any rough estimate for that, certainly it would be less than the amount figured for the Price bill.

Mr. ANKENY. What you say is correct. You have to take into account the fact that the administration of this act is going to be somewhat more cumbersome than the Price amendment, because this act requires or will require the return of the inspector to the mine sometimes repeatedly until a violation has been disposed of, and I do not think that that was the procedure in the Price bill.

Mr. McCONNELL. What were you going to do under the Price bill if inspectors found violations of many more regulations than are in this bill, and were they going to let them go unheeded, or what? You see that argument would not hold on that.

Mr. WELSH. I think that you are correct, Mr. McConnell. The idea was, however, here, in view of the fact that an operator can call for a reinspection at any time up to the Supreme Court, and frequently it is desirable which I do not believe followed in the Price bill, it is very difficult for us to estimate how many times a mine might have to be inspected. However, I am sure that I reflect the Director's views on this, that once we get these specific requirements for rock dusting, and for a couple of the other features of this bill into effect, there is going

to be considerable voluntary compliance which is not going to require these constant reinspections or even very lengthy special inspections, but there will be, of course, an initial expense, which is going to be the extra thorough inspections to be made in conformity with this bill, and there will be an additional expense the first year or two. Of course, there will be a continuing additional expense over and above our present level.

Mr. McCONNELL. You would say it would be less than $6,000,000 estimated for the Price bill?

Mr. WELSH. I am sure it would be substantially less.

Mr. KELLEY. Do you not think it would be at least half?

Mr. ANKENY. It would not be more than half.

Mr. SLOMAN. I would like to make a slight correction. I believe that the testimony of the Director said that under the Price bill it would be $6,000,000 in addition to what we are now spending.

Mr. McCONNELL. That is what was meant by the question. Mr. SLOMAN. I thought there might be some misunderstanding. Mr. McCONNELL. We are already spending a certain amount, and whatever additional would be required by the new legislation would be additional. That is what was meant by the question, I am sure.

Mr. HYSLOP. I think this should be pointed out, since there is a serious question about the costs, that this bill has some advantages over the present situation. The Bureau of Mines is already making inspections of these mines without authority to enforce their findings. The result of that has been to some considerable extent that there has been an ignoring of the recommendations, and a repetitious finding of the same things over and over again.

It seems to me logical that where their inspections are reinforced with enforcement powers, that it is not likely that an operator is going to be a repeated offender. Therefore, their work should be simplified to a considerable extent by eliminating dangerous situations by inspection.

Mr. BAILEY. How much of the added expense would be attributed to the requirement that you make at least one annual inspection of a lot of the smaller mines that you are not inspecting at all?

Mr. ANKENY. The fact that this includes small mines, I do not think would make a great deal of difference, because we are making most of these small mines now, and we are inspecting the small mines.

Mr. BAILEY. Why?

Mr. ANKENY. We are required to inspect them. Up until 4 years ago

Mr. BAILEY. Somewhere I got the impression that there are several thousand that you have never inspected.

Mr. ANKENY. Not many small mines that we have not inspected, unless it is some mines that we cannot find.

Mr. LUCAS. You spent last year, Mr. Welsh, $27,000,000 in the Bureau of Mines, did you not?

Mr. WELSH. I think that that figure over all is substantially correct. Mr. LUCAS. You say this will not exceed more than $3,000,000 annually?

Mr. WELSH. The additional expense for this, the first year or two of operations, those figures were based upon a workload which was clearly required under the Price bill, as compared to what we are doing

now. With respect to this bill, we have halved that as an outside figure. But that is a pure guess, because we do not believe it will exceed that, but how much less than that it would be, we are not prepared to state at this moment.

Mr. LUCAS. Then you should not object to an amendment to this bill limiting you to $3,000,000 annually in addition to your regular budget for the enforcement of this act?

Mr. WELSH. You have me across the barrel, because as a lawyer I do not have a thing to do with budgets in our organization; that is one duty they do not impose upon us, thank heaven.

Mr. LUCAS. We are constantly, Mr. Welsh, passing these open authorizations, and it has come to the situation now where the Appropriations Committee is governing the activities of our agencies and bureaus. The Appropriations Committee is really the Congress. If we here could exercise the prerogatives vested in this committee by limiting you not to expend more than $3,000,000 annually, above your regular budget, and, of course, I know that this would be worked in with your regular budget so that perhaps you would not need to spend more than a million and a half dollars-I think that we might have some deterrent effect upon the contagious disease in the bureaus for expansion.

Mr. McCONNELL. May I ask the gentleman whether that figure would include the amount which Congress cut the Bureau by just reecntly, or how does that fit into that figure?

Mr. LUCAS. I was going to apply it against the regular budget, and say not more than $3,000,000 additional.

Mr. McCONNELL. But you cut them down seven or eight hundred thousand dollars

Mr. LUCAS. That would limit them to $3,000,000 to administer this act, because not a witness here has testified that it would cost more than $3,000,000, and most of them said it would likely cost less.

Mr. KELLEY. Of course, they are only guessing at it now; they have no figures.

Mr. WELSH. If I understand you correctly, Mr. Lucas, that would read something to the effect-I am not trying to put words in anybody's mouth, but I envision it would say that the authorization for appropriations or the amount of money to be appropriated to enforce the provisions of this title shall not exceed $3,000,000 a year. The present work is done under title I.

Mr. LUCAS. I take it that you would not object to some limitation by this committee to the expenditures which you might be called upon to use in order to enforce the act.

Now, one other question.

Mr. WELSH. I have been unable to speak because of my lack of familiarity with the budget procedure. However, my offhand view would be an additional $3,000,000 authorized in any way it would be would probably be ample to cover it as we now see our duties under this act.

With that statement, that is as far as I can go because of my lack of familiarity with the way budgets are drawn up.

Mr. KELLEY. We desire to continue in executive session for a bit, and if you will retire, we will call you back when we get through. (Short recess.)

Mr. LUCAS. I ask unanimous consent that I may insert in the record at this point the objections of the Progressive Mine Workers of America International Union to H. R. 7408.

Mr. KELLEY. That may be done.

Mr. LUCAS. I also ask unanimous consent at this point that I may insert in the record various letters which I have received.

Mr. KELLEY. Without objection, that will be done.

The subcommittee will recess the hearing subject to call of the Chair.

(Thereupon at 3 p. m., a recess was taken subject to call.)
(The documents referred to follow :)

STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS OF PROGRESSIVE MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
INTERNATIONAL UNION, TO H. R. 7408
I

This bill attempts to define a gassy mine as a mine in which the air contains more than 0.25 percent of methane. We sincerely believe that this figure is much too low and is most unfair, particularly in view of the testimony of Mr. Forbes, Director of the Bureau of Mines, in a hearing before the subcommittee in February 1952, when he made the following answers to certain questions:

Question by Mr. Bailey: "Is the situation in Pennsylvania the same as in Illinois, or was that a violation of the law in the State of Pennsylvania?"

Answer by Mr. Forbes: "I would say that the Pennsylvania law classifies a mine gassy only when they find it with an approved permissible flame safety lamp. About 1 percent methane is the minimum amount that can be detected with a permissible flame safety lamp by a trained person."

Question by Mr. Vail: "Do you recommend the 0.25 methane content as justifying classification as a gassy mine? From your statement here, the Illinois laws permit 0.75 as the point at which classification is applicable. Would you say a spark could ignite mine air at 0.75 without propagation in the mine?" Answer by Mr. Forbes: "No."

Question by Mr. Vail: "That is not a factor?"

Answer by Mr. Forbes: "The methane air mixture must contain between 5 and 15 percent methane before it is explosive. The 0.25 percent methane refers to the gassy classification."

The answers by Mr. Forbes are correct, except that it is very doubtful if 1 percent methane can be detected by the most skilled person with a flame safety lamp.

If methane air mixture will not ignite until it has from between 5 to 15 percent methane, why is it fair to penalize mines that are not now considered gassy mines by reducing the figure to the ridiculously low content of 0.25?

Practically all of the mines in the State of Illinois which are operated by the Progressive Mine Workers are now considered as nongassy mines. As we have consistently proved to this subcommittee by our last statement filed with the subcommittee, there has not been a major disaster in one of these mines since December 24, 1932.

The passage of this bill will bring every one of these mines under the act classified as gassy mines, and will require the expenditure of large sums of money, needlessly, in order to comply with the provisions of this law. Of course, it is argued that these expenditures may not be made right away but may be upon replacement.

You gentlemen are overlooking the fact that dozens of mines have been closed down in the State of Illinois in the last 90 days and, since our last appearance in Washington in February, at least 10 or 12 more mines have been closed down and permanently abandoned. The smaller mines and many of the larger mines that are able to hang on, are able to do so because they are buying used equipment from the mines that have been abandoned at a fraction of the cost of new equipment. This will be prohibited in the future. These mines cannot afford to buy the new permissible equipment and, if they are able to survive for a few months, will be forced out of business when the equipment must be replaced.

To classify these Illinois mines as gassy because of 0.25 percent methane is grossly unfair.

II

This bill is drafted apparently according to the needs of eastern coal mines and should not be applicable to Illinois mines.

All of the testimony before your subcommittee brings out completely the proof that one set of standards cannot be applied to all of the coal mines in the various States. If a law is to be adopted, it should be made applicable to individual States according to the needs of that State.

To force one State to adopt needless regulations, install needless equipment, and follow needless rules and regulations is to impose upon the mines of that State an economic disadvantage and give to another State, where these same things are needed, an unfair advantage.

III

It is our understanding that this bill will exempt strip mines. This, again, will give an unfair economic advantage to the operators of strip mines and will result in needless punishment of shaft mines, which cannot afford the expenditures involved in complying with this bill.

IV

This bill bans the use of black powder in mines. We realize that Kentucky has recently adopted this same regulation.

In Illinois, this is not necessary because by State law the shooting of powder charges in mines while the men are on duty is prohibited. This was passed at a recent session of our legislature, where at the same time, the legislature did not ban the use of black powder after this bill had been passed. Illinois lump coal is best produced by the use of black powder. The other alternative is to install airdox and cardox equipment, which can only be afforded by the large operators. This one item alone would force the small mines in Illinois out of business.

V

We have previously offered to your committee an amendment, which we still feel is the answer to this problem. That amendment will allow the mining law of each State to be adopted by the Bureau of Mines as the standard applicable to that State. The Federal Government will then have the power to enforce that code which has been adopted by the authorities of that State, who are familiar with the local problems involved.

We again urge this committee to give serious consideration to this suggestion.

VI

The figures before this committee show that the majority of coal mines in the United States are small mines. The bill is aimed primarily at destroying the economic existence of these small mines, by imposing upon them unnecessary conditions and requirements which they cannot meet. When these mines are closed down, there will be a monopoly in the coal industry in the United States. There are those people who desire this monopoly. The passage of this bill will help further the cause of those who desire this monopoly.

It is respectfully suggested that this bill be recommended by this committee, "Do Not Pass".

COAL MINE EQUIPMENT SALES Co.,
Terre Haute, Ind., April 28, 1952.

Hon. WINGATE H. LUCAS,

Member, Education and Labor Committee, House Office Building,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN: I am writing to you about the proposed Federal safety mining law. I am not technically informed enough to discuss the constitutionality of this legislation under the interstate commerce clause; however, as a businessman and one connected closely with the coal-mining industry, I know that this bill only guarantees greater centralization of power for the Federal Government, and thereby pyramids one more bureau atop the list in Washington. As in the past, bureaucratic handling leads to political football and political favoritism.