Senator WILLIAMS. Parenthetically, Mr. Boyle, I reviewed the debate on the 1941 act this morning. That is why I referred to the leading role that Senator Randolph played in that debate back then.

Mr. BOYLE. And the inspectors had no authority whatsoever under the 1941 act except to go in and find, if the coal operator would let him go in, violations of the law, and make recommendations.

And then in 1952 we came to the Congress session after session after session during the interim period, and in 1952, after the disasters occurred in the State of Illinois and elsewhere, the Congress of the United States said it was high time that we gave these Federal inspectors some authority. They vested their men with the authority in 1952 to not only make inspections and recommendations, but to close mines and withdraw men if imminent danger existed. So we had been living with those things.

Then year after year we tried to get all mines in the United States covered by some legislation. Union mines and nonunion mines. Mines that employed from one man to 15 men were excluded. We tried to get them covered. We failed, miserably failed, before the Congress of the United States to get any consideration on that until 1966, when I appeared before both Houses.

They passed legislation then that included and protected those men who worked in mines employing less than 15 men, and it has eliminated and cut down the accident rate in coal mines.

Contrary to what the coal operators who opposed that legislation at that time, contrary to what they had to say, and they tried to impress upon the Congress of the United States that the mines would close down because they were in no position to operate under those restrictive laws-I am happy to relate to you that I know of no coal mines that have been closed down because of the passage of that law. But to the contrary, new mines have been opened up, both large and small.

Mr. Chairman, I am now ready to give you my prepared statement. Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you.

Mr. BOYLE. My name is W. A. Boyle. I have the proud and happy experience of being president of the United Mine Workers of America, one of the greatest labor organizations in the history of the labor movement in the United States of America.

On behalf of that union, which had its beginning in 1890, I wish to express my deepest appreciation to this committee for the opportunity of appearing here today. I am here to present the views of our membership on questions regarding health and safety in the coal mines of this Nation. My appearance is neither unique nor unusual. Year after year, my great predecessors and I have appeared before congressional committees and, in the strongest possible language, have expressed the views of America's coal miners on the very issues you are going to discuss in your subcommittee hearings beginning today.

There is nothing new about those who try to jump on the bandwagon or those who attempt to carry the flag when it presents an opportunity for personal publicity or to become a Pied Piper. Such false prophets lead people astray by distorting the truth, indulging in falsification, and distorting every facet of the truth in order to create evidence of self-importance. Where were these modernday prophets of doom when the chips were down? For years, it has required guts, and plenty of guts, in order to speak up for the maimed, the broken, and the deceased coal

miners who have gone to other fields long before the time of those publicity seeking, self-appointed saviors who would mislead and deceive the membership of the United Mine Workers of America. I use this strong language, not because it provides any pleasure or delight for myself, but in order to place the engine on the track and remove the wreckers who would destroy the efforts to improve the lot of the workingman.

I know my words have been harsh, but I make no apologies because my record and that of my predecessors has been precise, clear, and self-evident to those who have followed the efforts of the United Mine Workers of America to improve both the safety and the economic status of the men who have toiled in the mines.

I appear here today to support, on behalf of the United Mine Workers of America, S. 467 and S. 1178, as well as their companion bills in the House of Representatives. S. 467, as you know deals with the establishment of standards and procedures which will protect the health of workers involved in coal mining, and S. 1178 has its relevancy in coal mine safety and related matters. The draftsmanship of these bills was the work of representatives of the United Mine Workers of America and presented to these various committees at our behest.

It is our matured and considered judgment that the bills we espouse are the best to improve both the health and safety conditions in the coal mining industry. There are those who question why these bills are introduced separately as to health and safety. One has the right to question anything he so desires, but, after a long period of experience in the legislative halls, the United Mine Workers of America, after prolonged and deliberate judgment, determined that the best strategy was to proceed with separate bills because of the greater prospect of success of each if this procedure was followed. We make no apology for this manner of proceeding.

It is not strange that for many years we have always been alone in the fight to improve the workers' interest, both as to health and safety in the coal mines of the United States. In fact, we have always been alone, and always were opposed most vigorously by those resisting better working conditions both as to health and safety in the coal mines.

Most departments of mines in the various States, many organizations and, specifically, on one occasion, the Director of the Bureau of Mines opposed legislation which would inure to the benefit of the coal miner. During that long and lonesome struggle, from the creation of the union in 1890, until 1966, we did not receive any support from anyone until one coal company, of the coal companies in the United States, was found to be in our corner in the strategy to improve the health and safety of the coal miners.

You may wonder why we speak harshly and vigorously, but it is most aggravating, to say the least, to find that we have now spewing from all sources around the country alleged experts on coal mine disasters, following the disaster which occurred in Mannington, W. Va. Now we find those who were silent are coming out and criticizing us, criticizing the only people who demonstrated any interest in the coal miners of America.

Let me further suggest that our interest was compelled by both a

sense of duty as officers of the United Mine Workers of America and by our deep faith and affection for our fellow men. Where were these so-called experts whom we now find running to the TV, radio and newspapers with old information-not with anything new, anything novel, or anything ingenious on their part.

Several months ago I had occasion to testify before a committee, a group under the chairmanship of Secretary of Interior Udall and Secretary of Labor Wirtz and, at that time, I said we always get a great deal of sympathy when a tragedy occurs involving a number of men in the coal mines.

Senator PROUTY. Mr. Boyle, I wonder if you would care to identify some of these so-called experts you have been referring to thus far in your statement.

Mr. BOYLE. I will be very happy to as soon as I conclude my statement. I will give you all of them.

Senator PROUTY. Fine.

Mr. BOYLE. I will be delighted.

But, after the publicity has subsided and things have returned to a calmer atmosphere, we find that those people who protested so loudly are nowhere to be found, but are hiding in the air raid shelters. Where are those people today? Where were they in all the years gone by? These newly discovered friends of the coal miners are not children. They are not people who have suddenly reached the majority age of 21. They are people who are 50 and 60 years of age. Coal mining was a problem as to health hazards 40 years ago. Coal mining, with its health and safety hazards, was a hazard in 1940. Where were these adults of 40, 50, and 60, and some who have reached the biblical age of 70, when we were agitating for improved safety and health conditions?

The reason I concentrate in my opening remarks on these people whose names appear in the press, who are calling mass meetings, who are speaking on the radio, who are writing articles, who have been in Congress for several terms, is because they have suddenly awakened to the fact there is danger in working in the coal mines. Why this prolonged muteness? Why this prolonged silence? Why this prolonged quietness? Why all this inactivity or lack of any interest in the coal miners until the present day? I hope it it quite apparent by now through my remarks that I hold in disdain and contempt those who provided not one significant bit of aid to the United Mine Workers of America during its long and tortuous struggle to improve health and safety in the coal mines.

As I indicated earlier, we have exercised our judgment and concluded that, if both health and safety standards are included in one bill, there will be no bill. Why do I say this? Because there are opponents who are opposed to some features of the health bill, and there are opponents who are opposed to some features of the safety bill, and, if you allow your opposition to concentrate against one bill, your prospects of success are diminished, if not completely destroyed. For these reasons, we proceeded in two directions, both with the same basic motivation, to improve the health and safety of the coal miners of the United States.

We believe that we have proposed a vigorous and strong health bill and a vigorous and strong safety bill. It is our purpose to proceed

with all the strength that we can summon in order to assure the passage of both of these bills as quickly as such can be done.

I direct my remarks to S. 467, the health bill pending before your committee. Before I discuss the specifics of the bill, I think it advisable to provide a historical background, particularly with comments involving coal miners' chest diseases, in general. The medical profession had concluded that, in its opinion, coal dust was not harmful to the lungs. It was their view that only exposure to silica dust was damaging to the lungs. However, in recent years, medical evidence has revealed that coal dust in the lungs does cause a major disabling disease. In fact, in recent years, there has been a rapid rise in the incidence of chest disease among coal miners and, more importantly, this incidence has developed in greater percentage among men in their forties and fifties, a most unhappy situation.

In our opinion, the increasing incidence of coal miners' dust disease has developed because of the introduction of mechanical machinery in the mines. This is particularly true when one is aware of the fact that more than 50 percent of the underground coal produced in the United States is mined by continuous-mining machinery. The coal industry was one of the first basic industries in the United States to be completely mechanized.

The union did not oppose mechanization. It recognized the industry was undergoing a serious economic depression and, in fact, its very existence was at stake. The union subscribed to the philosophy that it was much better to have fewer coal miners working in the industry, with mechanization, since it would provide full-time work and better working conditions, as contrasted to the most difficult situations which existed in the industry prior to mechanization. It was the consensus of those, both on management's and on labor's side, that if there were not mechanization, there would be total elimination of coal mining in America.

However, we were not fortunetellers, nor could we look through crystal balls to realize that the introduction of machinery would increase the innumerable dust diseases which now exist. Nor did our crystal ball or our fortunetellers inform us of the other problems which would come into play, particularly involving ventilation, roof control, and methane emissions. These are things which result from experience, and it is very similar to the Monday morning quarterback who criticizes, with the advantage of hindsight, the mistakes which occurred on Sunday afternoon.

We proceeded with the information and experience at our command, and we did not foresee the many problems which would arise from the mechanization of the coal industry. In fact, it is much akin to the industrial revolution which occurred in the 19th century. Who could foresee or anticipate the many problems the industrial revolution would cause in our modern civilization?

We plead, we demand, and we implore the coal industry to join with us in supporting a strong and effective health bill. We plead, we demand, and we implore that the manufacturers of coal mining equipment give priority to developing dust-collecting apparatus. Dust-collecting apparatus should have the highest priority in any research which is done by the manufacturing companies.

Fortunately, the coal industry and the manufacturers of coal mining equipment are financially and structurally sound, and we see no reason why both of these groups cannot make a reappraisal and come to a conclusion that something must be done now.

I do not attempt to pose as an environmental scientist or a mining engineer. I am a practical coal miner who worked in the coal mines. for many years, and I don't have to be an expert to know coal dust when I see it and, particularly, when I see it in heavy concentrations in the mine. I further know the resulting and destroying effect that dust has upon coal miners of America. The health bill which we offered set standards of 3 milligrams of respirable dust in a cubic meter of air. Under its provisions, the Bureau of Mines would be empowered to close a mine, or a section of a mine, where the 3 milligrams standard was being exceeded. The Bureau would inspect these mines at least once each 60 days and would take samples of the atmosphere at various locations with an instrument approved by the Bureau. The coal operators would be required to continuously monitor the coal dust levels in their mines. A permanent record of such tests would be kept for the information of the Bureau inspector.

Further, and of greatest importance, the bill sponsored by the United Mine Workers of America imposes penalties for operators who exceed the dust standards, or who fail to maintain accurate records.

Our health bill provides that all coal mined underground must be undercut, centercut, topcut, or sheared, except where it can be proven that other mining methods can reasonably be expected to meet the 3 milligrams standard. That section is in our bill because we want to highlight the tremendous adverse effect of mechanized mining equipment upon the health of coal miners. It is there also because the manufacturers of equipment and the operators of coal mines have not seen fit to concern themselves with the problem of dust disease. Finally, if the conditions continue to exist, we can expect a great increase in the incidence of dust disease caused by the use of mechanical mining equipment.

The effective date of our health bill would be 1 year after its passage.

I am sure there are those who will say the standards are too restrictive. We recognize there is a great engineering skill in the coal mining industry, and there is no doubt in my mind that, if the industry applies this skill properly and is willing to assume the financial burden of providing collection equipment, our standards can be met at a cost which represents only a small percentage of the cost of continuousmining machinery.

Information has been reported to us that the industry is now working vigorously on the problem of perfecting dust-collection apparatus and, further, we have been informed that one of the large manufacturers has a machine already built which will be used at a large mine in the Midwest within several weeks. We optimistically hope that this problem will be solved more quickly than any of us now foresee.

Our safety bill was introduced in the Senate and the House of Representatives within the last several days. Thirty days after its enactment, it would go into effect and would repeal the present coal