the old timbering and they can get right up to the biting surface of the face with the roof safety now. I am sorry you were not able to be with us last week, but maybe between now and the end of the hearings we will find a mine where they will let the ladies in.

Mrs. MINK. I was going to try to test that.

Mr. O'LEARY. A provision in the new administration proposal runs specifically to this roof control of the face and as the chairman points out, there are techniques available for such control.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Esch.

Mr. ESCH. I would like to express my pleasure at your being here. I would like to refer back to two or three statements today.

It was suggested that the accident rate has continued on at the same level, Mr. O'Leary. Is it not true that the number of miners killed in the last 20 years has been substantially reduced because of the reduction in the number of miners working in the mines?

Mr. O'LEARY. The number of people involved in mining has gone from the late forties with a work force of 650,000 or thereabouts to currently about 150,000 of whom about 90,000 are underground. I think the only real measure here that you can point to is rate per million or some other per shift of exposure.

Mr. Escн. However, in the last two decades the number of miners killed has been substantially reduced because of mechanization-is that correct-fewer miners in the mine?

Mr. O'LEARY. The number of miners exposed has been reduced.

Mr. Escн. You have suggested in the last decade, at least, there has been a corresponding increase in the problem of health because of the mechanization?

Mr. O'LEARY. Yes.

Mr. ESCH. Would you concur that in the last 10 years there has been a lack of emphasis by both Public Health and by the Bureau of Mines in a cooperative effort of research to develop adequate standards, health standards, in the mine?

Mr. O'LEARY. It is absolutely evident that the Bureau of Mines has not fulfilled its responsibilities as the chairman pointed out with regard to section 1 of the 1952 act.

Mr. Escн. You would say that is a major goal of the new Bureau of Mines working with the Public Health?

Mr. O'LEARY. The Bureau of Mines and the Public Health Service must move into this field and change some of the practices that are leading to these extremely high mortality rates as a result of dust inhalation.

Mr. EscH. Am I correct that because of the lack of research in the last decade we do not have adequate information at our disposal to make judgment as to what the "minimal dust standard" should be at this time?

Mr. O'LEARY. No, sir. I think we have enough information on dust standards to make adequate judgment as to what the standard should be.

Mr. Escн. Should that be 4.5 or 3 or 1?

Mr. O'LEARY. The dust standard should be in the same sense of smoking. It should be as low as it possibly can be. Mr. ESCH. What is as low as it possibly can be?

Mr. O'LEARY. I assume if you were exposed to the dust count in this room for a very, very long period of time and if you were highly susceptible, it would have adverse effects on your health because people are smoking. This is the sort of thing you must direct to the Public Health Service. There are no absolutes. This is a combination of what we do as we make the measurements and do the engineering. What they do is they register the effects of exposures on peoples' health.

Mr. ESCH. What you are suggesting is that this might also be diversified according to the environmental conditions found in the various mines. Is that correct?

Mr. O'LEARY. I think that you find different dust counts in different occupations in the mines, clearly.

Mr. ESCH. Would your regulations take into account the various environmental conditions found in the mine?

Mr. O'LEARY. Yes. You said earlier that we had not done our job, the Bureau of Mines, and the Public Health Service, and I did concur with that. You went on to say there wasn't a sufficient basis for making these judgments. There has been extensive work done by StatesPennsylvania, as an example, has done a good deal of work in this field, and by foreign government. The British have done a good deal of work in this field and they are sharing the results of their work with us.

Mr. ESCH. I am aware of that. You have emphasized that some States have been very effective in dealing with these problems and the legislation which I had the opportunity to introduce yesterday also emphasizes a cooperative effort between the States. I would hope that we could get an attitude from the Bureau as to what States have been most effective and where the effort might be further extended in certain States. I think that would be helpful for our consideration, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much.

Mr. DENT. Before you got here, we asked for that report as well as whatever reports they have that might have been made pursuant to title I of the 1952 act on studies and statistics on occupational disease in the mines. I might say that the mine that you visited last week was a particularly dry mine and they have a high dust count and they have made an extreme effort to keep their dust down.

There is another type that has a dampness in the atmospheric conditions and that mine evidently is not as injurious to the miner as the dry mines are. Every mine has different conditions that have to be considered.

Mr. STOKES. Mr. O'Leary, does your bill address itself to the situation which now exists because of the lack of educational standards and criterias for your mine inspectors?

Mr. O'LEARY. Mr. Stokes, in the old legislation there was a requirement that the mine inspector have 5 years of practical experience. We are substituting for that that they have adequate experience.

This would mean that we would apply the same sort of a standard setting that is done in all other areas of the civil service. We can set our own standards, and I think that there is to a degree a tradeoff between practical experience and education.

For example, we have some difficulties including young people and if we could find a young person with an engineering degree and, say 3 years of experience, it seems to me we ought to be able to make that tradeoff. I, therefore, would oppose an arbitrary restriction written in the legislation in that some that might meet these requirements would be meaningless in the fact.

Mr. STOKES. Would you also set up training programs in conjunction with this?

Mr. O'LEARY. Yes.

Mr. STOKES. Thank you.

I have no further questions.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Landgrebe.

Mr. LANDGREBE. I appreciate Secretary Hickel's appearance here, but I will be gracious and let him go. I have some questions, but they can be answered at some other time.

Mr. HAWKINS. The same is true of me. It is all right to let the

Secretary go.

Mr. DENT. Both of these gentlemen went along last week on the mine inspection tour, and I am sure it was the first time for either one to be down in a mine about 400-some feet under ground.

Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for your fine cooperation, and I am sure that as time goes on we will be able to call upon you, if necessary. I am sure it will be necessary as we get into the final writing of the bill.

We would like to emphasize the need of this committee for the reports that I have asked for in order that we can review them. I think the Public Health Service at your direction would be able to come up with some kind of a standard that would be as near perfect with the knowledge that we can now obtain.

It is my opinion, after having gone through the battles in Pennsylvania to pass the first occupational disease law, that if we get five. doctors in the room you have five opinions. You have to have some standards set. I know this committee does not want to make a mistake. I am sure the Secretary doesn't want us to make a mistake. So, if possible, I would like to have you start on that project immediately to give us the benefit of your study.

Secretary HICKEL. We will do that, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. DENT. Thank you all for coming today.

(Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned to reconvene at the call of the Chair.)

COAL MINE HEALTH AND SAFETY

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 1969

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

GENERAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR

OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 9:55 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 2261, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John H. Dent (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Dent, Pucinski, Hawkins, Mink, Clay, Erlenborn, Ashbrook, and Landgrebe.

Staff members present: Robert Vagley, director; Michael J. Bernstein, minority counsel; and Thomas Hart, staff member.

Mr. DENT. The committee will come to order. We will take up the hearings on mine safety and health.

We are privileged to have as our first witness this morning a distinguished Member of the Congress of the United States, from the State of West Virginia, which is a major, probably the major, coal-producing State in the Union today.

We are happy to have you with us, Ken, and I wish that you would give your testimony in any way you believe would be most helpful to the committee, and call upon your witnesses you have with you, if you so desire.

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN HECHLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; ACCOMPANIED BY ELMER YOCUM AND ELIJAH WOLFORD

Mr. HECHLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you remarked in the opening of these hearings on March 4, "legislation doesn't come very often" in the field of coal mine health and safety. You indicated this to underline the need for thorough and objective consideration of the issues involved, and in that vein I would also extend my compliments to the committee for the fieldwork being done in visiting the mines.

I am honored today to have with me two active coal miners, Elijah Wolford of Morgantown, W. Va., and on my right, Elmer Yocum of Jere, W. Va. Both are employees of Christopher Coal Co., a subsidiary of Consolidation Coal Co.

Mr. Wolford has an opening comment that he would like to make to the committee, and perhaps the members of the committee would care to ask him questions.

Mr. DENT. He may proceed.