Senator PROUTY. Mr. Boyle, did your union intervene in any way with respect to this court case you just referred to?

Mr. CAREY. May I respond to it, Senator. In fact, we knew nothing about the hearing, and through a circuitous route we learned after the tempory restraining order was issued that a hearing had been held in Abingdon, Va. At that time, I advised Justin McCarthy, editor of the UMW Journal, who called the wire services of this Nation, and, for the first time, the wire services were alerted to the fact that a temporary restraining order had been issued by a judge in Abingdon. If we interpret rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to deny us the right to intervene, the only time you can intervene is when the court decides that the party litigants are not being adequately represented. I think it would be rather brazen on our part to suggest that the Department of Justice was inadequate to defend a statute passed by the Congress of the United States.

However, at the present time, the court has now permitted amicus curiae briefs, and we are in the process of preparing a brief defending the constitutionality of the act and intend to present it to the court as soon as it is completed.

This hearing is not set until sometime in November. We knew nothing about the hearing in August, at which time the hearing was recessed from September, first part of September, until sometime in November.

Now, that is the situation as it stands at the present time. But we have been informed unofficially that the Department of Interior is going to issue regulations in the Code of the Federal Register which we anticipate will make the hearing moot at the time it is scheduled in November 1970.

Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you, One observation: I have just been advised the National Independent Coal Operators Association have intervened in the suit. You plan to go in as amicus curiae? They have formalized their position, and this was done on July 22.

Mr. CAREY. That is correct. I see no reason for us-well, the fact we filed it today or file it in two weeks makes no difference, because the hearing is not scheduled until November 1; and if the court should decide the issue is not moot, then our brief will be before the court.

I do not suggest for one moment that the Department of Justice is incompetent or inadequate to properly represent the Congress of the United States or the Secretary of the Interior in defending the statute passed by the legislative body.

Senator WILLIAMS. Well, the opportunity is there to be an intervenor in that suit, and, of course, you object to the long delay and I can understand that, an inordinate delay; and, as I understand, the judge in this case has invited you and others to intervene.

Mr. CAREY. He has not invited but permitted us. We were going to do it and be thrown out even if that was necessary, but I think I might further develop the history of this case. This case is a petition for a convening of a three-man court because the constitutionality of your statute is being challenged. That is being done to the chief justice of the Fifth Circuit, Justice Haynsworth, who took several weeks before a three-man court was convened.

Under the law, ordinarily a temporary restraining order is effective for only 10 days, but under the statute if a three-man court is being

convened to determine the constitutionality of the statute, that temporary restraining order remains in effect until such time as its finality. Senator WILLIAMS. We will return now to your testimony, Mr. Boyle, back to the specifics of the coal mine health and safety law.

Mr. BOYLE. The law directs the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to appoint an advisory committee on coal mine health research no later than March 30. The Mine Workers formally protested to HEW early in June that the deadline had passed and no committee had been appointed. We reminded HEW that further delay in naming the committee could seriously threaten the criteria developed by HEW and endanger the availability of funds essential for the extensive research necessary for control and prevention of coal workers pneumoconiosis.

The law also directs the Secretary of Interior to name an advisory committee on coal mine safety research no later than March 30. Again, March 30 passed and no committee was appointed by Interior. We reminded Secretary Hickel in June of the importance of naming a

committee.

Here it is August, and to this date neither HEW nor Interior has named advisory committees. This deliberate foot-dragging is intolerable. How can we have faith that these two departments are carrying out Congress' mandate with this sorry record facing us?

Finally, in desperation over the lack of enforcement, we decided to appeal to the President himself. We pointed out that the present attempts of the Interior Department to hide behind legal roadblocks could not continue. We reminded him that after all he had signed the law. We asked for a director of the Bureau of Mines. But still no action.

In some instances we seem to be worse off now than before the law became effective. The Social Security Administration has interpreted the black lung compensation section in such a manner that it led the State of Pennsylvania to amend its occupational disease law. Pennsylvania has stopped payment from its general funds of the $100 monthly payment to victims of pneumoconiosis. The interpretation of the Social Security Administration flies in the face of the meaning of the law as intended by the Congress.

This is the last point I will make, and I want to go into this in some detail because this committee is in a position to take action to help the victims of black lung in Pennsylvania.

The Joint House-Senate Conference Committee on the coal mine health and safety bill clearly stated that where State benefit payments are made from State general revenues, they are not deductible from Federal black lung compensation payments. The conference intent is made clear by the following language:

Benefit payments under State programs funded by general revenues are not included in the maintenance of effort in the House amendment for the reason that they are not considered to be workmen's compensation, unemployment compensation or disability insurance as such programs are generally understood within the context of this benefit program.

The Social Security Administration has chosen to ignore this language although the House amendment was included in the act as signed by the President. The Administration instead informed the State of Pennsylvania that it would deduct $100 of the $144 Federal black

lung payment due under the law if State payments continued. Pennsylvania has obliged by amending its law and depriving miners permanently disabled and unable to work of State benefits.

Black lung victims can barely subsist on the $144 Federal benefit, and the Social Security Administration ruling condemns some 27,000 victims in Pennsylvania to abject poverty. This bureaucratic ruling is an inhuman interpretation of the intent and meaning of that section of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act dealing with black lung benefits.

In rescinding its State law, the Pennsylvania Legislature noted that it was acting because of "Federal administrative interpretation" and that "State amending legislation must be so written to protect the recipient's right to receive both State and Federal payments in the event that any future action of Congress, Federal executive departments or the courts should change the administrative interpretation." The legislature further stated that "it is also the purpose and intent of this act to protect the continued and future eligibility of present recipients of State payments under the Pennsylvania Occupational Disease laws." As written, Pennsylvania law now makes it mandatory to reinstitute State benefits at any time Federal law is changed by Congress, court rulings, or administrative interpretation.

As a matter of justice and humanity to 27,000 Pennsylvania miners who now suffer the living death of black lung, the United Mine Workers of America has called upon the Commissioner of Social Security to reinterpret the law in a manner consistent with the clear intent of the Congress. The UMW intends to seek legislation in all coal States to permit both Federal and State benefits for coal miners suffering from black lung. We earnestly solicit the help and support of this committee in seeking to have the Commissioner of Social Security change his administrative interpretation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to appear before this committee.

Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. Boyle.

You heard my opening statement, and the failure this year to respond to the need for regular inspections is of great concern here. The statistical analysis, to me, is appalling, on the lack of inspection in the mines. This is one part of the law that is crystal clear. If there is any ambiguity about the part you were just talking about, the social security interpretation, all of that, there can be no ambiguity about our legislative demand for inspections.

I just wonder what has been done by you at the international level and your local officials to move in under the section of the law that would apply here, section 103, to demand these inspections within the mines.

Mr. BOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to respond to that by telling you I have with me the safety director, who, in the 222 or 23 years I have been in Washington, has made more trips to the Bureau of Mines and the Department of the Interior than any other safety director we have had, and he is quite familiar with the roadblocks he has been running into with inspectors down there, more so than I am. I would like you to hear from Mr. Evans. Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Evans.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I don't have a prepared statement either. I came here on short notice.

Senator WILLIAMS. Well, this was in response to a question, Mr. Evans.

Mr. EVANS. All right; may I find make some general observations and then submit myself to any questions that you may have.

Senator WILLIAMS. No; let us clear up that one point that was raised, which I raised in a question to Mr. Boyle. What have you done, on the international level, and what has been done at the local level within the union to move within your rights under the law to see that that requirement of inspection is now done-we now know it is not done by the Bureau?

Mr. EVANS. You mean what have we done by visiting the Bureau to see that the inspection provisions of this law are complied with? Senator WILLIAMS. Exactly.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, may I say first that the law in its entirety is not being complied with. The inspection provision of the act is not being complied with. The inspection provsions of the act require that at least four complete inspections be made a year and that a spot inspection be made once each 5 working days at certain mines that present peculiar and hazardous conditions, the emission of large quantities of methane gas and other peculiar conditions.

Now, I guess the question naturally follows: "Well, why isn't the inspection provision of the act being complied with and what have we done at the union to see that it is being complied with?"

Senator WILLIAMS. That is it, yes.

Mr. EVANS. The inspection provisions of the act are not being complied with because the Federal Bureau of Mines doesn't have sufficient inspectors out in the field to meet the requirements of this act; it is just that plain and simple.

Now, they have been doing a lot of foot dragging, in my opinion, in recruiting additional inspectors, and at the rate they are going, the inspection provisions of this act won't be complied with this time next year.

I think it was quite evident to everyone as far back as last summer and certainly at the beginning of last fall it was evident to anyone who had any interest, that we were going to have a new Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act and that it was going to be far more rigid than the act that we were presently operating under and that this act, without question, was going to require more inspections of coal mines to be made; and I might say, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, that it was our proposal that coal mines be inspected at least four times a year. The act that we were operating under required only at least one inspection annually.

The Federal Bureau of Mines should have begun last summer and 1 certainly no later than last fall, several months before the act was signed by the President, to conduct examinations and to set about establishing a register from which Federal coal mine inspectors could have been gotten. They neglected to do this, and it was not until February of this year, until they held walk-in examinations-it is my understanding that about 1.300 people took these examinations and about 300 were successful in the examinations.

Now, I made a number of trips to the Bureau of Mines, calling to their attention that they were not meeting the inspection requirements of this act. I was told by the Bureau that, after they got people from the register, put them on their payroll, that it took a year to train them and orient them, and there were some people in the Bureau of Mines who were contending that this period of time should be 2 years. Well, to me this was ridiculous. I know something about mine inspectors. I have hired mine inspectors myself and put them to work— not in the Federal Government, but I have done it in the State government. And I tried to impress on the Bureau that they should realize that the people who took these examinations and especially those who passed the examinations were people who are knowledgeable in coal mining, and to say that it would take a year or 2 years to train them beyond that before they could be sent out in the field on their own to inspect coal mines, in my opinion, is just ridiculous.

Senator WILLIAMS. Well, should we come back to the specifics of what have you done? I have a copy of the law, and it does say that when you feel inspections should be had, notice shall be reduced to writing. Did you proceed with written notice that you were demanding an inspection under the law?

Mr. EVANS. Written notice to the Bureau?

Senator WILLIAMS. Yes.

Mr. EVANS. I don't think I did with written notice.

Senator WILLIAMS. Well, we did make that provision, put that provision in the law, I suppose, so there wouldn't be a flood of casual demands for inspections. That is the demand of the law, it be reduced to writing to the Bureau.

Mr. EVANS. When an inspection is required where there is some dangerous condition existing at the mines?

Senator WILLIAMS. Yes.

Mr. EVANS. That is right, but we are talking now, at least I am talking about the regular inspections that are required of coal mines under this act.

Senator WILLIAMS. As I recall some of the statements that we received up in Pennsylvania 3 or 4 weeks ago, in mines where there was the demand because of the extra hazard of these mines, the law demanded a spot inspection every 4 or 5 days. Is it five?

Mr. EVANS. Five.

Senator WILLIAMS. Five days. And the men working at the mines there told me they had not seen an inspector for weeks. Would that be a situation where, if they felt they were in imminent danger, there had been no inspection, they can make a demand and request for an inspector, reduce it to writing, and then it should happen?

Mr. EVANS. They may do it that way; they have that privilege under the law. In many cases, I have gotten letters, I have gotten telephone calls from safety committees or from our safety coordinators out in the field that they had information from the men at the mine that there was a certain condition existing at the mine and would I get hold of the Bureau of Mines and have them send one of their inspectors out to the mine. I have done this on many occasions. Senator WILLIAMS. With what result?

Mr. EVANS. They would respond when I get ahold of them and ask them to go to a mine, that I have information that there is a certain condition existing at the mine that is dangerous and the men are re