Слике страница
PDF

to Public Law 87-300, and reports which Public Law 87-300 required each mine operator whose operations substantially affected commerce to submit, on request, to the Secretary. Much statistical data and other information was also furnished to the Board by the mine inspection and safety agencies of individual States, labor unions, and others.

The study by the Mine Safety Study Board—the only nationwide study that has ever been made on the basis of mandatory, rather than voluntary, reporting of employment and accident information by metal and nonmetallic mine operators—clearly demonstrated the widespread existence of correctable hazards to life and health in mines inspected during the study, a high casualty rate suffered by working miners from dangerous conditions beyond their own control, and the ineffectiveness of State and local efforts to reduce mine health and safety hazards. These findings were documented in a report embodying approximately 200 pages of text and statistical tables.

Mr. Chairman, opponents of HR. 8989 have made much of the fact that injury frequency rates in coal mining, in which there is Federal safety regulation, have been generally higher than such rates in the non-coal-mining operations proposed to be covered by this legislation. Comparisons of injury frequency rates of the two industries and of injury frequency rates in coal mining before and after the Bureau of Mines acquired enforcement powers fail to take into account several important factors. They are:

First. Coal mining is somewhat more dangerous than the mining of other minerals because of the greater risk of gas and coal-dust explosion.

Second. The Coal Mine Safety Act has not permitted the Bureau of Mines to enforce safety recommendations in mines employing 14 men or less or in any strip mine.

Third. The Coal Mine Safety Act is designed to prevent only hazards so grave as to be the cause of a “major disaster" and is not directed to the same extent toward health and safety hazards to individuals or small groups of individuals.

As a matter of fact, the number of major disasters and the number killed in coal mine disasters have declined since adoption of the Coal Mine Safety Act.

Those asserting the ineffectiveness of Federal health and safety regulations ignore the experience gained under the amendments to the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act adopted in 1958.

Federal health and safety regulations became fully effective in that industry in 1960. During that year the injury frequency rate stood at 131.8 injuries per million man-hours of exposure. The injury frequency rate in the industry showed a steady decline after that date and in the fifth year of operation1964—the injury frequency rate in longshoring had been reduced to 96.8 per million man-hours of exposure.

It might also be noted that radioactive dust levels in uranium mines on public lands and, therefore, subject to Federal regulation have been consistent

1y lower than in uranium mines located on private lands and not subject to Federal regulation.

Mr. Chairman, the scope of this bill is warranted. The proposed Federal Metal and Nonmetallic Mine Safety Act will cover every “mine"—as this term is defined in the act—whose products regularly enter commerce or whose operations affect commerce.

Mr. Chairman, it is time for us to ratify legislation largely overlooked in the past. This bill will unquestionably improve the conditions under which these miners work and therefore increase the safety of such work. The end result is certainly a highly value one—the protection of human lives.

Mr. O'HARA of Michigan. the gentleman.

What I know about handling mine safety legislation I have learned from observing the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and I hope we can do as well with this as he has with coal mine safety.

Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. O’HARA of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be associated with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in support of HR. 8989, a bill which has as its objective the promotion of health and safety in metallic and nonmetallic mines.

This bill, and some of the ideas embodied therein, has been a long time in reaching the floor of the House. The first bill that had the metallic and nonmetallic miners under consideration was introduced in the Senate during the 82d Congress. The passage of time has not diminished the need for this legislation.

I supported the original mine safety bill, which was limited to coal, and did not apply to the metallic and nonmetallic mines. I stated recently in support of HR. 3584, a bill to amend the Federal Coal Mine Safety Act, that even though mining is considered a hazardous occupation, we must hope and strive for the time when there will be no fatalities. Mine safety actually is a battle which must be fought constantly by all concerned—miners, operators, State and Federal mines departments and bureaus, State legislatures, and the Congress of the United States.

With respect to the operators and the American Mining Congress, many of whom I know personally, I am at a loss to understand why they are not in here today endorsing HR. 8989 instead of being so unalterably opposed to this legislation.

The operators have maintained that the States are doing a good job and should be left alone. The hearings held by the Select Subcommittee on Labor in the 87th Congress, under the chairmanship of Representative Herbert Zelenko, and the recent hearings held under the guidance of Representative JAMES O'HARA, shows the weight of the evidence produced is in the other direction, for it proves that more than a few States have not faced up to the problems confronting them. The safety of the miner must be placed first by our U.S. Congress just as

I thank

the families, widows, and orphans of the miners place it first.

HR. 8989 gives the States the opportunity to render a real contribution to mine safety. Section 13 of the bill, gives them the chance to put their house in order. The very thing that the American Mining Congress fears according to a resolution adopted in 1963 on mine safety which states; on page 171 of the hearings on mine safety, 89th Congress:

To put policing powers in its hands (Bureau of Mines) as has been proposed, will duplicate activity of other agencies, reducing its technical effectiveness and leading to confusion and interference in managementemployee-State cooperation, which is essential to optimum performance.

This has certainly not been the case in coal under Public Law 552. All the terrible predictions prior to passage of Public Law 552 have now been forgotten, and the results of this legislation are uniformly favorable and beneficial. We from the coal mining areas of the United States know by experience.

When the States are given the opportunity, the American Mining Congress should join in the struggle for more effective mine safety. The American Mining Congress knows, as we interested officeholders do, that seven in a hundred underground metal miners can expect to be killed at work in a working lifetime.

In December 1963 issue of the Mining Congress Journal, an article by James Boyd states as follows:

We must acknowledge that all mines do not live up to safety standards that are well recognized, and that there are no means by which the industry itself can enforce compliance; hence, some public authority with enforcement powers is necessary. We firmly believe that these powers should remain with the State or local authorities.

Enlightened management recognizes that both the human and the economic considerations require strict attention to safety standards and by far the majority of mining administrations enforce within their own operations standards which are more stringent than can be feasibly set by law.

There are only a few who do not live up to these standards and whose accident rates give rise to the clamor for Federal enforcement powers.

Responsible operators realize that all mines do not live up to safety standards, and that there is no means by which the industry can enforce compliance on itself.

Industry admits to a few who do not live up to standards and whose accident rates are high. The factor of safety is not limited to the guilty or the slack operators.

The very nature of underground mining makes it a dangerous industry in which to operate and to work. Because of this, we cannot have too many involved in safety, be they State or Federal agencies, or private associations. The companies admit they cannot enforce compliance, as competing companies do not have the means.

The States where they have codes are shown to be unequal to the task by the accident rates. The task at hand is such that State inspection, where it is experienced, benefits from the work of the Federal inspectors, as the operations in coal have shown. The States have benefited from close contact with the U.S. Bureau of Mines to the benefit of all concerned. They look to the Bureau of Mines for guidance and information.

The failure of the American Mining Congress to endorse HR. 8989 is to be deplored, inasmuch as they depend on the States in face of all the evidence that the States have not been equal to the task. This continued opposition does not make any sense, except that a pessimistic philosophy is depended on, "accidents will always happen." This need not be true under modern, eflicient conditions.

On the contrary the U.S. Bureau of Mines has been praised most highly by the American Mining Congress. The Bureau of Mines will be reviewing the programs submitted by the States. There is real need for this legislation. While I am disturbed by the opposition of this industry to HR. 8989, preferring instead to see labor and management united where safety is concerned, the facts in this case are clearly on the side of safety, regardless of any one group’s opposition. That is one reason why I am voting for HR. 8989.

Mr. SENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. O'HARA of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. SENNER. I would like to compliment the distinguished gentleman from Michigan now in the well, who has worked so hard and diligently on this legislation, and who has contributed so much to it. I also wish to praise the gentleman from Colorado, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, for his contribution.

Mr. Chairman. I intend to vote for HR. 8989 because there is a need for this legislation. Coming as I do from the State of Arizona, I am no stranger to the accident and fatality rates in mining especially where copper, uranium, gold, silver, and other minerals are concerned.

I availed myself of the privilege of filing a statement with the select subcommittee on labor of the House Commitfee on Education and Labor. When the subcommittee was holding hearings on HR. 6961 and similar bills.

In 1961 Congress adopted the metal and nonmetallic mine safety study act directing the Secretary of the Interior to make a study into the problems of providing a Federal mine safety law that would give protection to 230,013 men working in metal and nonmetallic mines.

The Secretary of Interior was called upon to investigate the causes of accidents, the hazards in the industry, the inadequacy of the State mine safety laws and enforcements, and to make recommendations to the Congress for an effective safety program. Secretary Udall's report reveals that 800 mines were inspected and that 12,155 dangerous safety hazards were discovered by Federal inspectors.

Mine operators were notified in writing of every one of the hazards. yet in regard to the inspection, 57.2 percent of the recommendations were found to be

ignored by mine operators and 2,159 new hazardous conditions had developed and remained uncorrected at the time of the inspection.

As far as I am concerned, this report shows the need once and for all for the present legislation that we have under consideration today. HR. 8989, in my opinion. will blaze a new trail in the field of mine safety because it calls for cooperation between the several States and the Bureau of Mines in the Department of the Interior.

I feel that annual inspection is the key factor that will curtail accidents and fatalities. Inspection of the mines on a regular basis in conjunction with the safety education courses of the Bureau of Mines and the activities of the Division of Health as provided in this bill will I feel go a long way toward eliminating the accidents that have and will take place in metal and nonmetallic mines. The very nature of underground mines makes it a very dangerous industry in which to operate and work.

I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for this much needed and long delayed safety legislation in the metal and nonmetallic mines.

Mr. O'HARA of Michigan. I thank the gentleman, and may I say that he likewise has made a valuable contribution. I have profited from my discussions with him. He is as knowledgeable on this subject as anyone I have ever talked to, and has had personal experience in the industry. For that reason he has been a great help to us on the committee.

Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. O’HARA of Michigan. the gentleman from Montana.

Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Chairman, I too want to compliment my colleague from Michigan and to express commendation to the chairman of the subcommittee on his work on metal mine safety.

I was raised in a metal mining camp, I worked in the metal mines of western Montana, and I know very well that we must have uniformity in mine safety laws throughout the United States. We have to relieve ourselves of one setup, jealousy, so that we might have something less than safety put into effect. We want to encourage the industry in safety rather than in lack of safety.

I commend the chairman, that he has taken the attitude he has, and also the committee, and I am sure the Congress is going to take the same attitude that we are going to have a policy of encouraging safety throughout the United States, and that it is going to be uniform, so we may not play one State against the other, or one metal mine against the other, and that we will discourage the recent record. The recent record is that accidents in the metal mines have increased while accidents in the coal mining industry have decreased. I am proud of the gentleman and the committee, and I am proud of the Congress because I know we are soing to pass this bill and make it uniform, and eliminate accidents in the metal mines all over the United States.

I yield to

Mr. O‘HARA of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for his kind comments. His experience as attorney general of the State of Montana prior to coming to Congress was very helpful in making our determinations so that we could accomplish the objectives sought, and I thank him for his help.

Mr. OLSEN of Montana. I want to say it was in the period when I was attorney general that we wrote the new Metal Mines Safety Act in Montana. We had previously written a new Coal Mine Safety Act in my State. I believe that in Montana, in law, at least, we have the best regulations and the best laws in governing safety in the mines. But we did not have uniform inspections, and I think we will bring that about with this bill, which is so necessary to the enforcement of a good mine safety law.

Mr. Chairman, it is a self-evident proposition that the prevention of accidents and occupational diseases represents the highest order of human conservation. The health and welfare of America’s miners is of paramount concern for this legislative body, and without such mining protection, truly eflicient mining is impossible.

This bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate and enforce a code of reasonable standards, rules, and regulations to protect the life, health, and safety of employees in metallic and nonmetallic mines and quarries.

I was born and raised in the mining community of Butte, Mont. I have worked in the mines, and I have strong convictions about what must be done to guard the health and safety of the miners.

In 1961, the Congress adopted the Metal and Nonmetallic Mines Safety Study Act, directing the Secretary of the Interior to make a 2-year study of a Federal mine safety law that would give protection to the 230.000 men working in metal and nonmetallic mines, quarries, and sand and gravel pits.

The Secretary was directed to investigate the causes of accidents, the hazards in the industry, the adequacy of State mine safety laws and their enforcement, and to make recommendations to the Congress for an effective safety program.

Secretary Udall submitted his report to the Congress in November of 1963. The Members of the House should have full knowledge of this report. They will find it as shocking as I have.

In 1962, there were 10,189 injuries in the Nation’s open pit and underground metallic and nonmetallic mines and quarries; 212 men were killed; 329 were permanently crippled. In 1963 there were an unnecessary 12,215 injuries and 179 deaths in these pits and mines. These accidents will continue unless effective preventive Federal legislation is passed.

Secretary Udall's report further revealed that 800 mines were inspected. and that 12,155 dangerous safety hazards were discovered by Federal inspectors. Mine operators were notified in writing of every one of the hazards. Yet. upon reinspection 57.2 percent of the recommendations were found to have been ignored by mine operators, and 2,159 new hazardous conditions had developed.

Insofar as State safety laws are concerned, the Udall survey found that 47,000 miners—28 percent of those employed in 1960—were not covered. There were 4,080 violations of State mine safety law provisions at 544 mines.

Mr. Chairman, the State safety programs are just not adequate. Little provision is made for safety education. Some employers have outstanding programs, others virtually none.

The arguments against more strict State safety regulations were always, have always, and still are always that local mines would then no longer be competitive with mines in other States, or mills in other States.

Now, that is, I think, one of the real basic justifications for Federal mine safety regulations, so that employers of mines and mills throughout the States will have uniform regulations to live up to, and so they will have uniform costs. With this program, there will not be discriminations among the States and among the employers in this field.

Mr. Chairman, the facts and figures of the Udall report cannot be ignored. America cannot tolerate the present system of mine safety legislation, and our miners must be assured of a reasonable protection in their work.

Mr. WILLIAM D. FORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. O’HARA of Michigan. the gentleman.

Mr. WILLIAM D. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this bill and associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman in the well who has been known to me for a long time before I came to Congress as a person having a very direct and continuing concern for the welfare of working people and particularly with regard to them working in a safe environment. The gentleman has demonstrated this on many occasions in the handling of industrial legislation and is well known for his work in this field throughout the State of Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to have had the opportunity to serve on the Committee on Education and Labor under JIM O'HARA because I rely very heavily on him as my mentor on the committee as do a good many other members of the committee who respect him as one of the most learned members in the subject matters that come before our committee.

Mr. O’HARA of Michigan. I thank the gentleman. I will say that I am sure that I have learned more from him than he has from me.

Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. O’HARA of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Mr. Chairman, I particularly want to commend the gentleman from Michigan for bringing this legislation before the House, and also to commend him for his attitude during the preparation of this legislation. As I understand, there has been agreement as

I yield t0

to amendments to be offered to the legislation that will take care of some of the difficulties that may arise in States such as mine, the State of Idaho.

I believe that probably more than any other Member of this Congress, I can speak on the subject of mine safety having worked myself in underground mines for 10 years. I know what the conditions are and I have seen men injured and killed in mines. I know we do have the necessity for legislation in this area.

I do, however, want to bring to the attention of my colleagues in the House that a State such as mine, Idaho, and the State of the previous speaker, the gentleman from Montana, do have mine safety codes that are well drafted and are equal to the best codes that could be put together even by the national Congress. But I know there are exceptions in the matter of inspection of mines and mine safety conditions and notwithstanding that we do have an able mine inspector in the State of Idaho, I believe there are gray areas that should be looked at. Of course, I do not mean to say anything to reflect on our mine inspector in the State of Idaho, but I know he has only one deputy in the entire State with an expanding mining industry.

When the amendments that I referred to are brought before the committee this afternoon, I am sure the necessity for them will be developed and that they will be accepted.

I want to thank the gentleman for accepting these amendments in the spirit that he did.

Mr. O’HARA of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for his kind remarks.

Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. O'HARA of Michigan.

the gentleman.

Mr. OLSEN of Montana. In regard to what my dear colleague, the gentleman from Idaho lMr. WHITE] brought out, in Montana we only have one inspector to enforce these very adequate mining laws. So the problem is to have some uniformity of inspection and enforcement. We have good mining laws out there in the West but what we need is uniformity in inspection and enforcement. Of course, this is not taking anything away from the inspector that we might have, but the point is he is spreading himself too thin and we have to help him out.

Mr. O’HARA of Michigan. the gentleman.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. O’HARA of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Chairman, I intend to vote for HR. 8989 because there is a need for this legislation. Coming as I do from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I am no stranger to the accident and fatality rates in mining, especially where anthracite and bituminous coal are concerned.

While I do not have this type of mine in my district, I have always had an interest in safety, especially where mining is concerned. I have lived through

I yield to

I thank

the era where there were no effective nationwide statutes and we were dependent entirely on State regulations, if there were any in existence, to bring some degree of safety to the coal mines. I am fully convinced that you cannot leave the crucial problem of mine safety to the States alone and expect to attain some degree of uniformity as far as health and safety are concerned.

HR. 8989, the bill before us today gives the several States an opportunity to put their houses in order. If they choose to do so they can continue to be master in their own house. I must admit in all frankness that section 13 of HR. 8989 flies in the teeth of the evidence presented in the hearings before the Select Subcommittee on Labor and my experience as far as mine safety is concerned in bituminous and anthracite coal. The legislation recently enacted affecting coal gives full authority to the Bureau of Mines, and responsibility for the health and safety conditions under which the miners work.

I am aware of the fact that HR. 8989 was reported out of committee unanimously, and that this bill is truly representative of the members of the Committee on Education and Labor, as it applies to conditions involved in the mining of these minerals. This bill, HR. 8989, could blaze a new trail in the field of mine safety, wherein the States are given the initial responsibility. If the States fail to face up to the problem confronting them, the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Mines, steps in and assumes that responsibility.

The sections of HR. 8989, related to inspection are good and necessary and are a definite improvement over HR. 6961. as is the section relating to the reporting of accidents and fatalities.

I have always believed that periodic inspection, along with the accident prevention training activities of the Bureau of Mines for the miners and company personnel is the most effective method of preventing accidents in the mines.

Annual inspection makes it possible to compile a case history on these mines which can be checked when accidents take place, and it provides an invaluable reference for any corrections that may have to be made.

The knowledge gained from these annual inspections in conjunction with the filing of yearly reports can and will render a real and lasting contribution toward making these metallic and nonmetallic mines a safer place to work.

The very nature of underground mining makes it a dangerous industry in which to operate and to work. I feel that you cannot have too many involved in safety, be they State or Federal agencies, or private associations.

The enactment of HR. 8989 will go a long way toward curtailing accidents and fatalities in the metallic and nonmetallic mines, and that is as good a reason as any for supporting this bill.

I want to take this opportunity in closing to commend the chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor and the minority chairman for the manner in which they have handled this difficult subject. They deserve our thanks. The chairman of the Rules Committee handied this bill with fairness and dispatch, which is the way it should be.

The 89th Congress has compiled a tremendous record. The passage of HR. 8989 will add in no small way to that record.

Mr. O’HARA of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for the help he has given us to get this legislation adopted.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Quml

Mr. QUIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, at the present time there are no Federal inspection standards for mines other than coal mines.

When the bill came before the Committee on Education and Labor and we began holding hearings, I immediately heard opposition to the legislation. I have a natural reaction against the Fed— eral Government stepping into new areas; so, my natural reaction at that time was to oppose this legislation.

However, going over the testimony, I felt that the study that was made under the authority of the Department of the Interior showed that it had been adequately proved that some uniform standards were needed, and in some States an improvement in inspection was needed.

In the course of the hearings, I came to the conclusion that we needed a bill of the nature of the pending measure. Therefore, I stand before the House in support of HR. 8989.

The bill received the support of every Republican, as well as the Democrats, in the Committee on Education and Labor. So, the bill received in a committee, which considers a tremendous amount of controversial legislation, unanimous approval.

A great deal of the credit for that accomplishment should go to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. O'HARA]. He tried his best to accept the amendments that were offered in good faith to help those, who believed in the State inspections, to have an ample opportunity to carry on the metallic and nonmetallic mine inspection in States by State inspectors.

As a result of the cooperation and the stability that he has given, we have worked out a piece of legislation which we can all support from the Committee on Education and Labor.

The question as to whether States should be able to continue to inspect the mines if they are presently doing a fairly good job of inspection arose. Those who asked the question had some good grounds for asking that such States be permitted to continue their inspection.

Some people who came before us said that there would be a continuous duplication of State and Federal inspectors, and they gave us some good recommendations. As a result, we have followed the pattern which we followed a few years ago in relation to grain inspection. In instances in which States wanted their own grain inspectors inspecting the movement of grain, the State inspectors

were used. To prevent the duplication by both State and Federal inspectors we worked out a cooperative arrangement so that if the State wished to continue that inspection, as long as the standards of the inspection met Federal standards, Federal inspectors would stay out and would let the State inspectors continue their work.

The same thing has been worked out in HR. 8989. If there is inadequate inspection in a State, and the mine owners desire State inspectors, it will be up to them to go before their State legislatures and ask them to pass a mine safety law which will meet the standards established by the Federal Government. In States that presently have no laws to protect miners in the type of mines about which we are speaking, it will be up to them to provide the kind of legislation that is needed.

In some States, there is only one inspector. In some States the inspectors are not paid adequate salaries, and some have not had sufiicient experience as inspectors. Some inspectors are elected rather than appointed. The bill will serve notice that if such States wish to protect their rights to act at the State level, they will have an opportunity to do so. They can go to their State legislatures and get it worked out with adequate State legislation.

I understand that an amendment has been worked out, which is agreeable to me, whereby the States will have until their next session of their legislature to take action.

If the amendment is adopted, we shall not impose anything on them. We will not impose anything on them that they cannot correct and remedy before the measure actually goes into effect.

I believe we are about to take a wise action.

I give the bill my enthusiastic support. There has been a great number of accidents, resulting in deaths and severe bodily injury, in the mines which are defined in this bill. In the interest of protecting the lives of men. I believe this legislation is necessary. In the study that was made, it was indicated that at least 50 percent of the deaths occurred not from a failure of the workers themselves but rather through a lack of actual safety precautions in the mines or pits.

Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Chairman. will the gentleman yield?

Mr. QUIE. I believe this legislation is wise and action should be taken now.

I yield to the gentleman from Montana.

Mr. OLSEN of Montana. There is nothing in the bill which would prevent States from increasing the enforcement of present State safety acts; is that correct?

Mr. QUIE. The gentleman is correct. There is nothing to prevent it. The bill will really give such States encouragement, because they can then pattern their safety acts after the standards which will be promulgated by the Department of the Interior based upon the recommendations of the advisory committees.

Mr. OLSEN of Montana. I wonder if the gentleman in the well is not discour

aged with the States on the question of enforcement of safety acts.

Mr. QUIE. I am discouraged with some of the States where they have only one inspector, but there are other States where I am quite encouraged with respect to their actions.

Mr. OLSEN of Montana. How many are there that you are encouraged about?

Mr. QUIE. Oh, I could not tell you how many. There are not very many.

Mr. OLSEN of Montana. You know there are not very many. I think the gentleman joins with me in stating that the States need some real enforcible encouragements stating that they have to get in line and do something about enforcing these safety acts. Is that right?

Mr. QUIE. That is what this legislation intends to do.

Mr. OLSEN of Montana. do it better even than this.

I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. QUIE. Yes. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. In regard to the colloquy which you just had with the gentleman from Montana, would you say that the first three States with the best inspections and lowest accident rates, either in terms of injuries or deaths, are doing a pretty good job?

Mr. QUIE. Yes. I would say again, basing my estimate on the testimony of the man who is the chief of health and safety in the mines of Pennsylvania, he indicated a very excellent job was being done there. However, I do not believe there is any State—and I will check with the gentleman from Michigan on this-— that meets every one of the factors necessary to have a perfect mine safety program. Is that correct?

Mr. O’HARA of Michigan. If the gentleman will yield, the gentleman is correct. Some of them come quite close.

M'r. FULTON of Pennsylvania. How about Pennsylvania?

Mr. O’HARA of Michigan. Thirtyeight out of fifty-five. I have to look it up to see if they also have authority to enforce judgment recommendations in addition to the standards. That also makes a difference.

I hope we

Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. You mean Pennsylvania is the 38th? Mr. O’HARA of Michigan. No. The

Bureau of Mines inspectors actually conducted an inspection and so forth in connection with a study and they set forth 57 basic safety standards and safety law requirements. Then they assessed the situation as to how many of them were applicable to each State. In Pennsylvania they considered all 57 to be applicable there, and 38 of them were contained in the law. However, I would have to look further to see whether or not the inspectors in Pennsylvania also have the authority to enforce judgment recommendations, which might make up for the fact to an extent that they did not have full coverage.

Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. I am trying to get a standard where we could say that unless these standards of the first three States in mine safety are met. then this is prima facie evidence to the Department of the Interior that the standards set by the State are not adequate and that their rules are not good and should be changed. Then there will be Federal inspection there. My point is maybe we ought to take the three best States from the standpoint of safety regulations and results and say that unless the three best States or the level of the three best States is met, the Department of the Interior at the Federal level shall have the right to inspect those States.

Mr. O'HARA of Michigan. We are doing something very close to that, which I am sure the gentleman from Minnesota will explain. We are saying that we are getting these advisory committees together to draft a code and then saying that the State plans must provide for enforcing mandatory standards comparable to those contained in this code that they draw up.

Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. Then, if they do not, it is the Department of the Interior of the Federal Government that has the responsibility to and will enforce the requirements under this statute. Is that correct?

Mr. O'HARA of Michigan. correct.

Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. And, furthermore, if the accident rate for either injuries or deaths is higher than the Department of the Interior feels is within the area of reference with respect to the type of mining which takes place in a particular State, then that is prima facie evidence for the Department that the State must meet those standards; otherwise the Federal Government has the responsibility of inspection. Is that not correct?

Mr. O'HARA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. QUIE. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. O’HARA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is quite that simple, because there could be a number of causes for a State encountering a relatively high injury frequency rate during that period that might or might not be associated with lax enforcement of their safety code. I think we would have to go beyond the mere rate.

Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield?

Mr. QUIE. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. That is the reason I used the words prima facie. Unless the State shows specific instances to take itself out of the general rule, so that the Department of the Interior can prima facie make a judgment, then it is up to the State to take the responsibility of submitting evidence to show that they do conform. I am just indicating where the burden of proof should be.

Mr. QUIE. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that the Secretary of the Interior very likely would not be taking the experience of a particular State as evidence that another State is failing to comply. You cannot take three States and assume that they are superior in all of these factors. There would be a number of States that are superior in each 1 of the 57 factors. Some States are doing a good job in some

That is

of these factors, others are doing a good job in most of them, others in few of them and no one in all of them.

But out of this whole mix will come, as the result of the work of the Advisory Committee with the Secretary of the Interior, a mandatory standard which will be published in the Federal Register, and after each State takes action, they will be able to judge whether a State is meeting the requirements of these unified standards or not.

Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. QUIE. I yield.

Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. If the top three States have an experience of accident rate or injury or death that is very low and the other States do not come up to that level, do not meet those particular standards, the prima facie evidence is that they are not doing a good job.

Mr. QUIE. I guess you could say that that would be up to the Secretary, when he administers the act, whether he did this or not. But I think the gentleman can tell by the remarks of the gentleman from Michigan and myself that we have drafted a bill, HR. 8989, which we believe will go a long way to bring about the development of uniform standards in the States and bring about a reduction of deaths and injury in metallic and nonmetallic mines, that will give the States an opportunity to solve this problem themselves without Federal intervention in any way if they so desire. And it would also make certain to us who look at this from the national scene, that a State that neglects to do this, that neglects to do its duty, will find that the Secretary of the Interior will step in to protect the lives of the men who work in the mines.

Mr. O’HARA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. QUIE. I yield.

Mr. O’HARA of Michigan. The gentleman's statement is absolutely correct as far as I am concerned, and I want to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman and to express publicly my appreciation of the very constructive part he played in working out a solution to these rather difficult problems.

Mr. QUIE. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, may I join in complimenting the gentleman on his explicit statements and say that we on this side take pride in his good work on this committee.

Mr. QUIE. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. QUIE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask either the gentleman from Minnesota or the gentleman from Michigan, whoever has the figures available, what the report says is the record of the State of New York on mine safety inspections.

Mr. QUIE. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. O’HARA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, with respect to the statement by the gentleman from Pennsylvania earlier, the State of New York has rela

tively one of the very best mine safety laws among the States. The State of New York has a law which covers 50 of the 57 basic health provisions described by the Bureau of Mines in making these inspections. It is bettered only by California with 51 and Colorado with 52. So it is relatively certainly one of the best of the State laws.

Mr. McEWEN. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. QUIE. Iyield.

Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman could put in the Rscoan at this point, or if the gentleman from Michigan could put it in the Rsconn at this point where Pennsylvania stands in these statistics, I will have that in the hands of my good friend, Governor Scranton, before the weekend is out.

Mr. O'HARA of Michigan. I shall be glad to do that.

Mr. QUIE. Mr. Chairman, there are I understand some questions that will be brought up and resolved when the amendments are offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. O'HARA]. But let me point out one phrase in one subsection of the bill about which there were some questions in the committee and that is the language which can be found on page 2 of the bill, line 14.

Mr. Chairman, there is some question by some of the Members as to whether this would provide for Federal inspectors to follow the minerals all the way through to the milling and processing part of their development into the final product.

Mr. Chairman, in order to clear this up I wrote to the Secretary of Interior, the Honorable Stewart Udall, on June 10, and at that time the bill had the number of HR. 6961, and asked him about the language of section 2(b)(3) which reads “or used in the milling of such minerals," and asked, "Does this mean the complete processing of crushed stone?”

Mr. Chairman, some of the people engaged in the stone quarries were concerned that this might mean that the Federal inspectors could inspect and issue orders concerning the equipment and processes in a lime-burning plant, an asphalt-producing plant, or ready-mix concrete plant.

Mr. Chairman, the Secretary wrote to me on the date of July 8, 1965, in which he said:

We offer the following comments in response to your letter of June 10, 1965, regardlng the references to "milling" in HR. 6961, which was replaced by I-LR. 8989 sub

sequent to the transmittal time of your letter.

The term “‘ ’ * used in the milling of such minerals," refers in general to the processes of grinding, washing, concentrating, and sizing of the minerals. In brief, milling ends where refining or manufacturing begins.

Inasmuch as lime-burning plants, asphalt plants, ready-mixed concrete plants, and the like would be considered in the refining or manufacturing phase, the provisions of HR. 8989. in our opinion, would not apply.

STEWART UDALL, Secretary of the Interior.

« ПретходнаНастави »