Congressional Record April 28, 1977
|
|
Legislative History Congressional Record April 28, 1977 |
| |
} Mr. MEEDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up
House Resolution 523 and ask for its immediate consideration.
H3726 The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H3726 H.RES. 523
H3726 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move, clause 7
of rule XIII to the contrary notwithstanding, that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 2) to provide for the
cooperation between the Secretary of the Initerior and the States with respect to the regulation of
surface coal mining operations, and the acquisition and reclamation of abandoned mines, and for
other purposes. After general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to
exceed one hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, the bill shall be read for amendment under
the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs now printed in the bill as an original
bill for the purpose of amendment, and said amendment shall be read for amendment by titles
instead of by sections. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted, and any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in
the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
H3726 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. FOLEY). The gentleman from Washington (Mr.
MEEDS) is recognized for 1 hour.
H3726 Mr. MEEDS. Mr. Speaker. I yield the usual 30 minutes for the minority to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. DEL CLAWSON), pending which I yield myself such
as as I may consume.
H3726 (Mr. MEEDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
H3726 Mr. MEEDS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 523 provides for an open rule with 1 hour
of debate on H.R. 2, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. This rule provides
that the committee substitute shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment.
The rule further provides for the reading of the measure by titles instead of by sections. The rule
also waives points of order against the consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 7 of
rule XIII. This waiver is necessary because the committee report failed to contain a statement of the
committee's cost estimate.
H3726 The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 would enact a set of national
environmental performance standards to be applied to all coal mining operations. These standards
would be enforced by the States with backup authority given the Department of the Interior.
H3726 The bill essentially would require strip miners of coal to restore the land to its original
condition. Under the terms of the bill States would develop their own regulatory programs that met
certain criteria established under the bill.
H3726 Additionally, H.R. 2 provides for a reclamation program to be funded by fees leveled, on
the industry. The bill also contains provisions for funding mining schools in our State institutions of
higher learning to encourage the development of mineral and mining technique research.
H3726 As my colleagues know, this body has considered and passed similar legislation over the
last few years. Each time the Committee on the Interior has modified and improved the bill. H.R. 2
is the product of a great deal of work and forethought and I believe it is an essential prerequisite to
this Nation having a rationale and viable energy policy. I, therefore, encourage my colleagues to
adopt House Resolution 523 so that we might debate and vote on H.R. 2.
{H3727} Mr. DEL CLAWSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
H3727 (Mr. DEL CLAWSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
H3727 Mr. DEL CLAWSON. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 523 provides an open rule with 1
hour of general debate for the consideration of H.R. 2, the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of
1977. This rule allows the committee amendment to be in order as an original bill for the purpose of
amendment, and provides that the substitute be read for amendment by titles rather than by sections.
In addition, the rule contains one waiver of points of order against the consideration of the bill for
failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XIII since the committee report failed to include a committee
cost estimate. The Congressional Budget Office cost estimate is included in the bill, but the
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs offered no estimate of their own.
H3727 Mr. Speaker, it should be brought to the attention of the House that the waiver which was
granted by the Rules Committee was not the waiver which the chairman of the Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs, Mr. UDALL, had originally requested. Within the letter addressed to
the Rules Committee on April 20, Mr. UDALL asked that the rule contain a waiver of points of
order against the bill based on procedures adopted by his committee during its deliberations.
H3727 It is my understanding that the problem arose when Chairman UDALL asked unanimous
consent that the bill be considered as read and open for amendment at any point. Mr. EDWARDS of
Oklahoma and Mr. BAUMAN of Maryland objected, but after a short interlude, the bill was
considered as read and open to amendment, in spite of the objections.
H3727 Mr. Speaker, the chairman of this committee apparently ruled in this instance in violation
of the House rules. There is relevant precedent on page 412 of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
of the 80th Congress. Mr. Rankin stated, and I quote:
H3727 Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that it is not in order to move to dispense with the
reading of the bill. If it cannot be done by unanimous consent, it cannot be done at all. It is not in
order to dispense with the reading of the bill.
H3727 Since the point of order was sustained in the precedent, Mr. UDALL was out of order by
permitting this bill to be considered as read without unanimous consent. It is imperative, Mr.
Speaker, that committee chairmen realize that they are not so powerful that they can act in violation
of the rules that govern us all equally in this body.
H3727 Mr. Speaker, the signers of the minority views suggest that H.R. 2 would superimpose
Federal standards and eventually could even preempt the statutes of the 38 States already in place
for strip mining operation, force small coal producers out of business, invite endless litigation,
increase bureaucracy, increase consumer costs - and reduce our annual output of coal. According to
some views, H.R. 2 could cause the removal from mining of up to 8 billion tons of known coal
reserves. It could reduce coal production by up to 200 million tons by 1985. Mr. WAMPLER of
Virginia has testified that the enactment of this bill would virtually put to an end the surface mining
industry in southwestern Virginia.
H3727 This piece of legislation is inconsistent with the national energy proposals which the
President recommended last week. In his address to Congress he called for an increase in the
production of coal from the current level of 650 million tons a year to 1 billion tons a year, a
two-thirds increase by 1985. Mr. Speaker, there is no guarantee that H.R. 2 will produce 1 extra ton
of coal. Its passage may only force us to become more dependent on other countries in order to meet
our energy needs.
H3727 My concern is leveled at the current and future energy problems facing our country. For
this reason, I recommend the referral of H.R. 2 to the recently established ad hoc Energy Committee.
Strip mining legislation should be woven into the fabric of a national energy policy. This is the only
way to assure the American public that we intend to formulate a realistic, workable energy program.
H3727 Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the consideration of this legislation at this time and urge my
colleagues to postpone any further deliberation by voting against the rule.
H3727 Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consumer to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
QUILLEN).
H3727 (Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
H3727 Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I think it is time that we as Members of this Congress
should look at the forest rather than the trees. It is time that the Nation put things in perspective
energywise. It is time that we produce more coal. It is time that we produce more nuclear energy.
It is time that we make use of more solar energy. It is time that we produce more energy, more oil,
more everything energywise for the benefit of all of the American people.
H3727 Today, as has happened over the past 4 years, we have the same bad bill before us, trying
to hamstring strip mining in the Appalachian area, trying to bring it to a dead halt, trying to stop the
production of coal, when we need more energy. And it is time that we look at the forest, the whole
forest, rather than just a tree.
H3727 In the Committee on Rules I tried to get this measure postponed until June 1. I think the
ad hoc Energy Committee ought to take a look at it, to see if it is in line with the President's
proposals. But more than that, it is time that we stood up and faced the facts, to say that we are
going to provide all of the energy necessary to bring down high electric rates and to bring down the
price of gasoline and the price of heating fuel. We can do it. Certainly, if we can go to the Moon,
we can accomplish this.
H3727 So I urge my colleagues in the House to vote against the rule, to postpone action until we
can in fact look at the whole forest instead of a single tree.
H3727 Mr. MEEDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wyoming (Mr.
RONCALIO).
H3727 (Mr. RONCALIO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
H3727 Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, this is the sixth year that I find my
efforts largely devoted to enactment of this eminently necessary and important and altogether
wholesome and beneficial legislation that will increase the production of coal, that will have some
regard for the reclamation of the land being mined, that would stimulate coal production by
resuming the leasing of tens of thousands of acres of rich coal fields in the public domain in the 11
Rocky Mountain States, and particularly in Wyoming, where most of it is located, frankly.
H3727 Mr. Speaker, I would recommend that the Members go over the report filed with H.R. 2.
It is one of the best reports filed in recent years. It is well prepared, and this includes the separate
minority views. Staffers are to be commended of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and
I hope the Members read all the 199 pages of the report accompanying this bill. It is a textbook, a
treatise, on this work of law. It is yours for the reading. I think it is unfortunate that some of us do
not have the time to digest all of this report. If we could read it all, I am sure we would find it would
warrant our support of this bill.
H3727 At lunch today I was disturbed to find there were members of the minority with whom I
was eating who stated that they would probably vote for the legislation, recognizing that it is
inevitable and a necessity, but that they are determined to vote again the rule. I find no real basis for
such a position.
H3727 I appreciate consistency, and we should have reasons for our vote. If there is a principle to
be upheld, a Member can vote against this bill and I can appreciate some Member who has a
difference of opinion from mine - and then that vote against the bill may well eliminate the danger of
enactment in his opinion. However, I suggest that our votes on the rule should be aye votes, and
then we can proceed to a consideration of the legislation.
H3727 If any member of the minority believes that this is not good law, we have the amendment
process. Amendments will be offered, including some from the administration, to which I take
exception. Then let us put on the statute books once and for all a strip mine bill, but let use not vote
against the rule.
H3727 To refer this legislation to a new ad hoc energy committee would be an absurdity. Let me
remind my colleagues that all 47 members of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs have
devoted countless hours to this bill. We have developed legislation during the past 2 years and, for
the elders, for 7 years. We have gone down the road to see the passage of 3 bills; we have gone down
the road to two vetoes.
{H3728} Mr. Speaker, we ought not to take too much time on the debate. I hope Members will
vote aye on the rule.
H3728 Mr. DEL CLAWSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. WAMPLER).
H3728 (Mr. WAMPLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
H3728 Mr. WAMPLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, the gentlman from
California, for yielding to me.
H3728 Mr. Speaker, someone has aptly described this bill before us as the "some old coon but
with a different ring around its tail."
H3728 I think it is basically the same bill that we have considered before. I believe this is perhaps
the fifth time we have considered it.
H3728 Speaking for myself, I find it as objectionable today as I have on previous occasions.
H3728 I assume that every Member of the House has received, as I did, a telegram from two
individuals who, I believe, are perhaps as knowledgeable about the production of coal as anyone in
this country. I refer to Mr. J. Allen Overton, Jr., president of the American Mining Congress, and
Mr. Carl E. Bagge, president of the National Coal Association. In these telegrams they set forth in
some detail their specific objections to the bill that is before us, and they are asking the Members of
the House to support substantial amendments to change these objectionable provisions in the bill, or,
failing that, to vote against the enactment of H.R. 2.
H3728 Mr. Speaker, I think it is significant to note that despite the fact that the chairman of the
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and other members of the same committee, if not directly,
at least by implication in testimony before the Committee on Rules, indicated that most of the
objections to this bill had been removed, there is still considerable opposition to this bill. I would
cite the fact that the United Mine Workers of America, the international union that represents
organized coal miners, both underground and surface miners, sent a resolution to the Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs, from their International Executive Board objecting to the enactment of
this legislation.
H3728 The Governor of Virginia, sent testimony to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
objecting to this bill. The Commissioner of Taxation and the Commissioner of Employment of my
State, as well as the Attorney General of Virginia, have all objected to this bill on sound grounds.
H3728 I believe it is rather ironic that we are considering this bill just 1 week after the President
of the United States in addressing a joint session of the Congress in this very Chamber - for which he
is to be commended - pointed out the seriousness of the energy crisis in this country. As I
understand it, the keystone of his energy proposal is to increase the production of coal by at least
two-thirds by the year 1985. It is ironic that the first major piece of legislation that this House is
considering since that messagr is H.R. 2, a bill that by the most conservative estimates would
dramatically reduce the production of coal in areas that I represent and in other areas where
steep-slope surface mining is carried on in Appalachia. This bill for all practical purposes would
eliminate steep-slope surface mining, with all the unnecessary environmental requirements.
H3728 Mr. Speaker, it would hamper surface coal production in all States. I am told that at least
38 States of the Union have surface coal mining to some degree or another; and those 38 States,
through their elected representatives in their State legislatures, have passed legislation regulating
coal surface mining, and reclamation.
H3728 Perhaps 20 years ago, 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago a case could have been made for
Federal legislation to regulate surface mining; but I would say the one objection I hear from every
segment of my constituency is, "Why does the Federal Government constantly have to involve itself
needlessly in areas that more properly should be left to the several States?"
H3728 Mr. Speaker, in my State of Virginia, most of the surface mine operators are small
operators. With the exception of three, they mine less than 250,000 tons of coal a year.
H3728 In talking with them, with their representatives, with their reclamation association, and
with officials of the State government of Virginia, there is no way in which they can comply with the
many objectionable features of this bill.
H3728 Therefore, I would say, Mr. Speaker, how is this House going to address the problem of
the shortage of energy in this country? Is it going to be with realism or with idealism?
H3728 I suggest that coal is the one fossil fuel whose production we should do everything
reasonable to expand.
H3728 Mr. Speaker, we passed a bill in 1969; and I voted for it, the Federal Coal Mine Health
and Safety Act; and under the provisions of that bill many of the small underground coal operators
were unable or unwilling to comply. They are no longer in business.
H3728 Mr. Speaker, to the extent that we have competition in the coal industry today, it is
afforded to a great extent in my district, at least, and in my State by the small surface coal mine
operators.
H3728 I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the enactment of legislation like H.R. 2 can only have one
inevitable result, and that is to reduce production and to drive up the cost of coal and thereby drive
up the cost of energy and related products that are derived from coal.
H3728 Mr. Speaker, I have printed in the RECORD a number of amendments which I intend to
offer at the appropriate time. I have others that I hope to offer, if recognized for that purpose.
H3728 It just seems to me that the legislation before us, H.R. 2, is overregulation; it is
overreaction; it is needless legislation; and if this House is really serious about its desire to achieve
self-sufficiency in energy, I suggest that one way to start is to reject this rule and to send this bill to
the Ad Hoc Committee on Energy to get a meaningful readout on what the cost of the bill is and
what it will do to the production of coal in this country, so that we can act then, hopefully, in an
intelligent way.
H3728 Mr. DEL CLAWSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr.
SYMMS).
H3728 (Mr. SYMMS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
H3728 Mr. SYMMS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
WAMPLER) for what I consider to be a very excellent statement filled with commonsense. I only
hope that the House will take the advice of the gentleman from Virginia and defeat this rule here
today and not waste our time further on this legislation, which is going to lower the standard of
living of millions and millions of Americans in years to come.
H3728 Mr. Speaker, I think the OPEC cartel people must be delighted with what has been going
on here in Washington, prohibiting the development of hydroelectric energy, prohibiting the
development of nuclear energy, regulating the price of natural gas at the wellhead and of domestic
oil to implement a disincentive program so that people will not want to produce petroleum products,
and now interfering with coal mining.
H3728 Mr. Speaker, I have before me here Joint Resolution No. 1 from the Senate of the 44th
Legislature of the State of Wyoming, 1977 session, dated March 4, 1977.
H3728 Mr. Speaker, it is a resolution providing for the recognition of the fact that it is in the best
interests of the State of Wyoming to have authority over all surface mining of coal. I will not
belabor the House with all of the resolution. I will just read the last paragraph, which is as follows:
H3728 Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming, That the
Congress of the United States resist impositions of Federal legislation or regulations which purport
to grant the state enforcement authority but in effect mandate federal control of the mining of coal
within the berders of the State of Wyoming.
H3728 I think, Mr. Speaker, this speaks very well not only of the people in the West who are
trying to produce coal, but of the people in the East, as has been pointed out.
H3728 This legislation will do nothing to help solve the energy crisis. It will do nothing to
protect the environment of the Nation, which is already adequately protected by Federal and State
regulations.
H3728 Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of the rule.
H3728 Mr. MEEDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
TSONGAS).
H3728 (Mr. TSONGAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
H3728 Mr. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that this Congress, in comparison to the
past one, is spending a great deal of its time in trying to come to grips with the fact that man is not
really understanding the finality of our natural resources. And this, of course, as time goes on,
means that more and more time and deliberations are going to be spent in trying to understand just
exactly what that all means.
{H3729} We now have a new energy committee Last Wednesday we were here when the
President spoke to a joint session of the Congress on the subject of our energy crisis.
H3729 I testified this morning before the gentleman's committee on the long-term impact of water
shortages and the increasing problems we will have in that regard.
H3729 One of the little known side effects of the strip mining problem is that it takes increasing
amounts of agricultural land, yet one of the elements of our natural resources that we will have to
deal with in the future is that of food and fiber.
H3729 One of the conditions expressed in H.R. 2 is that we should not go on to prime agricultural
land unless absolutely necessary or unless we can restore that prime agricultural land back to its
original productivity.
H3729 One of the problems with society and with Congress, really is that we suffer from tunnel
vision. We look at things from a very narrow perspective, only worrying about tomorrow and the
day after that. I believe we have the responsibility to consider these issues in terms of future
generations, that we must have a much longer perspective. H.R. 2 not only protects land but it
especially protects prime agricultural land from strip mining.
H3729 Mr. DEL CLAWSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. EDWARDS).
H3729 (Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
H3729 [Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma addressed the Committee. His remarks will appear
hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.]
H3729 Mr. DEL CLAWSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. KETCHUM).
H3729 (Mr. KETCHUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
H3729 [Mr. KETCHUM addressed the Committee. His remarks will appear hereafter in the
Extensions of Remarks.]
H3729 Mr. DEL CLAWSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. RUPPE).
H3729 Mr. RUPPE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the distinguished gentleman from California
yielding.
H3729 Let me say I rise in support of this rule. I think that the bill is a very wise and a very
balanced piece of legislation. I believe those of us who worked on the bill - and I believe all of the
members of the committee worked on it long and diligently - have developed a piece of legislation
that in large measure meets the requirements of the President's energy program in that we have made
a number of changes that will make it easier to mine coal. We have eased up on many procedures
and techniques in this legislation and I believe we can meet the President's goal under this
legislation.
H3729 At the same time I believe it is fair to say that members of the committee resisted a
number of efforts offered by the administration and others that in my opinion would have
significantly reduced the amount of coal that could be mined under this legislation.
H3729 So basically we do have balance. We have recognized the energy needs of this Nation and
we have materially changed the bill so coal can be mined more easily and readily than was the case
in legislation of prior years and have as a committee resisted a number of amendments that would
certainly have made it more difficult to mine coal in this country.
H3729 I am pleased to urge the passage of the rule.
H3729 The committee has worked long and hard. I do not believe it would be wise to refer this
bill to the Energy Committee. I cannot believe that august group with all the responsibilities and
challenges they will have before them will have the opportunity to put the same type and kind of
care into this bill as this committee.
H3729 Mr. MEEDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
CARR).
H3729 Mr. CARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding.
H3729 I rise merely to make one correction for the House. The gentleman from California I
believe stated that this year the committee had not taken additional hearings or additional
investigative field trips in the matter of strip mining. I want to make sure everybody understands we
did have 7 more days of hearings and that we did have additional field investigations, particularly
for the new members of the committee and for some of us who have been in this committee for 2
years but have not had a previous opportunity. One of the field investigations was to the district of
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. WAMPLER) and we learned about mining there, and also we
visited the district represented by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. RAHALL), and there was
a visit to strip mines in Pennsylvania. There was an additional field investigation that I was unable
to make to the west. We want you to know that the committee went into this very carefully.
H3729 Mr. DEL CLAWSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. BAUMAN).
H3729 (Mr. BAUMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
H3729 Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Speaker, it was just 8 days ago that this House heard an eloquent
appeal by the President of the United States describing the energy problem which has been with us
now for 3 or 4 years as so serious that we must act in the same way as we would react to a
declaration of war by a foreign power. That I believe was his comparison to the seriousness of the
challenge facing us. President Carter is indeed right about the seriousness of this situation.
H3729 He very correctly referred in his address to the fact that our most abundant national energy
resource, coal, will have to be looked to in the future as one of our major sources for producing
energy in this country.
H3729 It therefore seems a contradiction in terms, indeed ironic, that we should be gathered here
today discussing legislation which, by the estimate of all neutral observers, will significantly cut
back on coal production in the short term, and in both the long and short term will significantly
increase the costs of coal to consumers as well as the cost of all energy produced from coal including
electric power.
H3729 It should be very difficult for us to go back home if we, indeed, pass this bill into law and
explain to our constituents that the provisions of this legislation, for one example, could increase
utility bills for an average family from $34 to $8 0 a year. That may seem like a small amount, but
we have to consider that in the context of other laws we have enacted, this will place additional costs
on energy production that consumers must pay.
H3729 I am certain a number of people will say that the gentleman from Maryland is known for
his conservative views. I do oppose Government intrusion into any area, but do not take the word of
the gentleman from Maryland or, for that matter, the word of the distinguished and able chairman of
the committee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. UDALL).
H3729 I would hope that all Members would take the time to read both the dissenting and the
majority views and discover what the taxpayers of the United States learned when they paid $2
00,000 for a massive study, a copy of which I have here two inches thick, commissioned by the
Council on Environmental Quality and the Environmental Protection Agency. The study assesses
the impact of legislation such as H.R. 2. In the pages of this report, which remains unrefuted, it is
pointed out there will be, indeed, a loss of employment estimated to be at least 4,300 people.
President Ford, when he vetoed the bill, predicted that 19,000 people would be put out of work. No
one knows for sure.
H3729 The same report estimates that this type of strip mining legislation could permanently
remove from coal production anywhere from 800 million tons to 8 1/2 billion tons of coal.
Immediately the bill will result in the loss of 54 million tons of coal production in Appalachia alone
out of a national annual output of 600 million.
H3729 I know that the terms of this debate have been described as the environment versus coal
companies. The truth of the matter is that we have on the books the Federal Coal Leasing Act
Amendments, the Clean Air Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Water Quality
Act, all of which bear on the strip mining and protect the environment.
H3729 In addition, 38 States have already enacted statutes, many comparable to and many
stronger than this Federal law that is proposed today.
H3729 I can only suggest that if this bill is enacted, despite slight improvements in some areas
over past legislation, it will reduce greatly coal production; it will tie up in litigation, perhaps for
years, those that seek production of coal under the terms of this bill; it will greatly increase
unnecessary control of an energy source that we badly need. It will, indeed, remove States' rights
over an area which has traditionally been theirs, and likely will go a long way toward defeating the
very objectives that President Carter says he wants; energy sufficiency and an ability for this country
to move away from foreign imports of petroleum.
{3730} } Good men can differ, but I invite you to look at a new report issued by the General
Accounting Office only 2 weeks ago. It in large part confirms many of the estimates in the previous
report I mentioned earlier. If you want a massive decrease of coal production; if you want to raise
coal and electric prices for our constituents and add environmental restrictions that we do not need,
then support this bill. But every once in awhile logic prevails in the deliberations of this body.
Perhaps it will today. America's energy crisis could well be deepened by what we do here today.
3730 Mr. MEEDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.
3730 Mr. Speaker, it is not my intent to get into the merits of this bill, but I would like to address
myself to two points that have been raised with regard to the rationale of why one should vote
against the rule.
3730 First, it was suggested by the gentleman from California that there is some problem with this
point of order that will lie against it. Let me assure my colleagues that when the chairman of the
Committee on the Interior came before the Committee on Rules, the gentleman was suggesting a
waiver of three points of order. We discussed very thoroughly the waiver of all those with the House
Parliamentarian. With the exception of one which is granted in the bill, it was our feeling, and for
that reason we gave no further points of order waivers, that points of order would not lie. If the
gentleman wants to pursue that matter in the Committee of the Whole, the gentleman has every right
to do so. Of course, any point may be made to the Speaker and the ruling on that will be
determinative of that issue. So, I suggest that this is properly brought before the House and not at
this time on the rule.
3730 Second, the argument about postponing and combining this with the overall comprehensive
energy program which the President is sending up, at first blush seems like a very good reason. But,
when one looks at it closely, one can see that there are various segments to the program which the
President is suggesting. These segments are in various stages of the legislative process.
3730 Some of them have already been passed. The ERDA authorization which we passed last
week or 10 days ago, was very much an integral part of the comprehensive energy program of the
President. There are other parts of this program which are in transit now in the legislative process;
in committees, receiving hearings, which are not a part of the so-called comprehensive package, but
which are very much a part of the overall energy package. They are in committees and receiving
hearings and other things. They are like this bill, they are being brought on independently and they
still are very much a part of that overall package.
3730 There are some which will be combined in the comprehensive package, and they will be
heard all at once, or together, after they are reported out by the ad hoc Budget Committees and the
ad hoc Committee on Energy. So, no one is suggesting, I think, that we go back and redo ERDA or
slow down this bill so that we can make it a part of one bill. We have to take these in a logical
fashion, and those that have started the legislative process should be heard in an orderly procedure,
as we are suggesting we do with this bill.
3730 President Carter wants this bill passed now; the Speaker of the House wants this bill passed
now; the Secretary of the Interior wants this bill passed now; the chairman of the committee wants
this bill passed now; and all of us on the Interior Committee who have marched up and down the hill
with this legislation for the past 7 years want this legislation passed now.
3730 I therefore suggest that the Members vote up this rule so that we can get on with the
consideration of the bill and, hopefully, to its passage.
3730 Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
3730 The previous question was ordered.
3730 The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
3730 The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to
have it.
3730 Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not
present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
3730 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
3730 The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
3730 The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were - yeas 340, nays 58, answered
"present" 1, not voting 34, as follows:
3730 [Roll No. 169]
3730 YEAS - 340
3730 Abdnor
3730 Addabbo
3730 Akaka
3730 Alexander
3730 Allen
3730 Ambro
3730 Ammerman
3730 Anderson, Calif.
3730 Anderson, Ill.
3730 Andrews, N.C.
3730 Andrews, N. Dak.
3730 Annunzio
3730 Applegate
3730 Armstrong
3730 Ashley
3730 Aspin
3730 AuCoin
3730 Badillo
3730 Baldus
3730 Barnard
3730 Baucus
3730 Beard, R.I.
3730 Beard, Tenn.
3730 Bedell
3730 Beilenson
3730 Benjamin
3730 Bennett
3730 Biaggi
3730 Bingham
3730 Blanchard
3730 Blouin
3730 Boland
3730 Bolling
3730 Bonior
3730 Bonker
3730 Bowen
3730 Brademas
3730 Breaux
3730 Breckinridge
3730 Brinkley
3730 Brodhead
3730 Brooks
3730 Broomfield
3730 Brown, Ohio
3730 Broyhill
3730 Buchanan
3730 Burgener
3730 Burke, Calif.
3730 Burke, Fla.
3730 Burke, Mass.
3730 Burleson, Tex.
3730 Burlison, Mo.
3730 Burton, John
3730 Burton, Phillip
3730 Byron
3730 Carney
3730 Carr
3730 Cederberg
3730 Chappell
3730 Chisholm
3730 Clausen, Don. H.
3730 Clay
3730 Cleveland
3730 Cochran
3730 Cohen
3730 Collins, Ill.
3730 Conable
3730 Conte
3730 Conyers
3730 Corcoran
3730 Corman
3730 Cornell
3730 Cornwell
3730 Cotter
3730 Coughlin
3730 D'Amours
3730 Daniel, Dan
3730 Danielson
3730 de la Garza
3730 Delaney
3730 Dellums
3730 Dent
3730 Devine
3730 Dickinson
3730 Dicks
3730 Diggs
3730 Dingell
3730 Dornan
3730 Downey
3730 Drinan
3730 Duncan, Oreg.
3730 Early
3730 Eckhardt
3730 Edgar
3730 Edwards, Ala.
3730 Edwards, Calif.
3730 Eilberg
3730 Emery
3730 Erlenborn
3730 Ertel
3730 Evans, Colo.
3730 Evans, Del.
3730 Evans, Ga.
3730 Evans, Ind.
3730 Fary
3730 Fascell
3730 Fenwick
3730 Findley
3730 Fisher
3730 Fithian
3730 Flippo
3730 Florio
3730 Flowers
3730 Flynt
3730 Foley
3730 Ford, Mich.
3730 Ford, Tenn.
3730 Fountain
3730 Fowler
3730 Frenzel
3730 Frey
3730 Fuqua
3730 Gaydos
3730 Gephardt
3730 Gibbons
3730 Gilman
3730 Ginn
3730 Glickman
3730 Goldwater
3730 Goodling
3730 Gore
3730 Grassley
3730 Gudger
3730 Guyer
3730 Hagedorn
3730 Hamilton
3730 Hanley
3730 Hannaford
3730 Harrington
3730 Harris
3730 Harsha
3730 Hawkins
3730 Heckler
3730 Hefner
3730 Heftel
3730 Hightower
3730 Hillis
3730 Holland
3730 Holtzman
3730 Horton
3730 Hubbard
3730 Huckaby
3730 Hughes
3730 Hyde
3730 Ireland
3730 Jacobs
3730 Jeffords
3730 Jenkins
3730 Jenrette
3730 Johnson, Calif.
3730 Johnson, Colo.
3730 Jones, N.C.
3730 Jones, Tenn.
3730 Jordan
3730 Kasten
3730 Kastenmeier
3730 Kemp
3730 Keys
3730 Kildee
3730 Koch
3730 Kostmayer
3730 Krebs
3730 Krueger
3730 LaFalce
3730 Lagomarsino
3730 Leach
3730 Lederer
3730 Lehman
3730 Lent
3730 Levitas
3730 Lloyd, Calif.
3730 Lloyd, Tenn.
3730 Long, La.
3730 Long, Md.
3730 Luken
3730 Lundine
3730 McCloskey
3730 McCormack
3730 McDade
3730 McFall
3730 McHugh
3730 McKinney
3730 Madigan
3730 Maguire
3730 Mahon
3730 Mann
3730 Markey
3730 Marks
3730 Marlenee
3730 Martin
3730 Mathis
3730 Mattox
3730 Mazzoli
3730 Meeds
3730 Metcalfe
3730 Michel
3730 Mikulski
3730 Mikva
3730 Miller, Calif.
3730 Miller, Ohio
3730 Mineta
3730 Minish
3730 Mitchell, Md.
3730 Mitchell, N.Y.
3730 Moffett
3730 Mollohan
3730 Montgomery
3730 Moore
3730 Moorhead, Calif.
3730 Moorhead, Pa.
3730 Moss
3730 Mottl
3730 Murphy, Ill.
3730 Murphy, N.Y.
3730 Murphy, Pa.
3730 Murtha
3730 Myers, Gary
3730 Myers, Michael
3730 Natcher
3730 Neal
3730 Nedzi
3730 Nichols
3730 Nix
3730 Nolan
3730 Nowak
3730 O'Brien
3730 Oakar
3730 Oberstar
3730 Obey
3730 Ottinger
3730 Panetta
3730 Patten
3730 Patterson
3730 Pattison
3730 Pease
3730 Pepper
3730 Perkins
3730 Pettis
3730 Pickle
3730 Pike
3730 Pressler
3730 Preyer
3730 Pritchard
3730 Pursell
3730 Quie
3730 Rahall
3730 Railsback
3730 Rangel
3730 Regula
3730 Reuss
3730 Rhodes
3730 Richmond
3730 Rinaldo
3730 Rodino
3730 Rogers
3730 Roncalio
3730 Rose
3730 Rosenthal
3730 Roybal
3730 Ruppe
3730 Russo
3730 Ryan
3730 Santini
3730 Sawyer
3730 Scheuer
3730 Schroeder
3730 Sebelius
3730 Seiberling
3730 Sharp
3730 Shipley
3730 Sikes
3730 Simon
3730 Sisk
3730 Skelton
3730 Skubitz
3730 Slack
3730 Smith, Iowa.
3730 Smith, Nebr.
3730 Snyder
3730 Solarz
3730 Spellman
3730 St Germain
3730 Staggers
3730 Stangeland
3730 Stanton
3730 Stark
3730 Steed
3730 Steers
3730 Stokes
3730 Stratton
3730 Studds
3730 Stump
3730 Thompson
3730 Thone
3730 Thornton
3730 Tonry
3730 Traxler
3730 Tsongas
3730 Tucker
3730 Udall
3730 Ullman
3730 Van Deerlin
3730 Vanik
3730 Vento
3730 Volkmer
3730 Walsh
3730 Waxman
3730 Weaver
3730 Weiss
3730 Whalen
3730 White
3730 Whitley
3730 Whitten
3730 Wiggins
3730 Wilson, Bob
3730 Wilson, C.H.
3730 Wilson, Tex.
3730 Winn
3730 Wirth
3730 Wolff
3730 Wright
3730 Wylie
3730 Yates
3730 Yatron
3730 Young, Alaska
3730 Young, Fla.
3730 Young, Mo.
3730 Young, Tex.
3730 Zablocki
3730 Zeferetti
3730 NAYS - 58
3730 Aroher
3730 Ashbrook
3730 Badham
3730 Bauman
3730 Bevill
3730 Brown, Mich.
3730 Butler
3730 Caputo
3730 Carter
3730 Clawson, Del
3730 Coleman
3730 Collins, Tex.
3730 Crane
3730 Daniel, R.W.
3730 Davis
3730 Derwinski
3730 Duncan, Tenn.
3730 Edwards, Okla.
3730 English
3730 Gammage
3730 Gonzalez
3730 Hall
3730 Hammerschmidt
3730 Holt
3730 Ichord
3730 Jones, Okla.
3730 Kazen
3730 Kelly
3730 Ketchum
3730 Kindness
3730 Latta
3730 Lott
3730 Lujan
3730 McClory
3730 McDonald
3730 Marriott
3730 Poage
3730 Quayle
3730 Quillen
3730 Risenhoover
3730 Roberts
3730 Robinson
3730 Rousselot
3730 Rudd
3730 Runnels
3730 Satterfield
3730 Schulze
3730 Shuster
3730 Spence
3730 Symms
3730 Taylor
3730 Treen
3730 Trible
3730 Vander Jags
3730 Walker
3730 Wampler
3730 Watkins
3730 Wydler
3730 ANSWERED "PRESENT" - 1
3730 Bafalis
{H3731} NOT VOTING - 34
H3731 Boggs
H3731 Brown, Calif.
H3731 Cavanaugh
H3731 Derrick
H3731 Dodd
H3731 Fish
H3731 Flood
H3731 Forsythe
H3731 Fraser
H3731 Giaimo
H3731 Gradison
H3731 Hansen
H3731 Harkin
H3731 Hollenbeck
H3731 Howard
H3731 Le Fante
H3731 Leggett
H3731 McEwen
H3731 McKay
H3731 Meyner
H3731 Milford
H3731 Moakley
H3731 Myers, Ind.
H3731 Price
H3731 Roe
H3731 Rooney
H3731 Rostenkowski
H3731 Sarasin
H3731 Steiger
H3731 Stockman
H3731 Teague
H3731 Waggonner
H3731 Walgren
H3731 Whitehurst
H3731 The Clerk announced the following pairs:
H3731 On this vote:
H3731 Mr. Sarasin for, with Mr. Waggonner against.
H3731 Until further notice:
H3731 Mrs. Boggs with Mr. Brown of California.
H3731 Mr. Rooney with Mr. Fraser.
H3731 Mr. Teague with Mr. Leggett.
H3731 Mr. Walgren with Mr. McKay.
H3731 Mr. Le Fante with Mr. Hansen.
H3731 Mr. Howard with Mr. Fish.
H3731 Mr. Price with Mr. Steiger.
H3731 Mr. Giaimo with Mr. McEwen.
H3731 Mr. Flood with Mr. Gradison.
H3731 Mr. Cavanaugh with Mr. John T. Myers.
H3731 Mr. Derrick with Mr. Hollenbeck.
H3731 Mr. Harkin with Mr. Whitehurst.
H3731 Mrs. Meyner with Mr. Stockman.
H3731 Mr. Moakley with Mr. Forsythe.
H3731 Mr. Rostenkowski with Mr. Milford.
H3731 Mr. Roe with Mr. Dodd.
H3731 So the resolution was agreed to.
H3731 The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
H3731 A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
H3731 Mr. UDALL. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 2) to provide for the
cooperation between the Secretary of the Interior and the States with respect to the regulation of
surface coal mining operations, and the acquisition and reclamation of abandoned mines, and for
other purposes.
H3731 The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. UDALL).
H3731 The motion was agreed to.
H3731 IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
H3731 Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union for the consideration of the bill H.R. 2, with Mr. SMITH of Iowa in the chair.
H3731 The Clerk read the title of the bill.
H3731 The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the first reading of the bill will be dispensed with.
H3731 Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I object.
H3731 The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. The Clerk will read.
H3731 The Clerk commenced reading the bill.
H3731 Mr. UDALL (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to dispense
with the first reading of the bill.
H3731 The CHAIRMAN. Is therre objection to the request of the gentleman from Arizona?
H3731 Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I object.
H3731 The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
H3731 PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
H3731 Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
H3731 The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
H3731 Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, my parliamentary inquiry is this: This is just the first
reading of the bill, is that correct?
H3731 The CHAIRMAN. It is.
H3731 Mr. BAUMAN. Was the request of the gentleman from Arizona Mr. UDALL that the
first reading of the bill be dispensed with?
H3731 Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Maryland will yield to me, I would
now make that request, that the first reading of the bill be dispensed with.
H3731 The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arizona?
H3731 Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I have no
intention of putting the Members of this House to further delay. I, too, along with all of the rest of
the Members of the House, am tired after the long debate last night. However, Mr. Chairman, I do
wish to make a point:
H3731 During the markup in the Interior Committee, the chairman, the distinguished gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. UDALL) who is very sincerely presenting this piece of legislation, and who has
been a very fair and I think very tolerant chairman, at one point, because of his desire, I believe,
actually to get through with the bill, did not protect the rights of the Member from Oklahoma.
H3731 I had objected to a waiver of the reading of this bill in the committee. I did it to pursue a
strategy using what few rights still are available to the Members of the minority. And when the
chairman later decided that he would accept a motion to overrule the rights of the gentleman from
Oklahoma, I decided it was necessary to make a demonstration on the floor to show that the
Members of the minority will not be denied the right to protect the people they represent.
H3731 Mr. Chairman, I represent half a million people, and the minority members of the Interior
Committee combined represent 7 million people, and the members of the minority in this House
represent 70 million people. Mr. Chairman, we will not give up our right to insist that the people we
represent be treated with fairness and in accordance with the Rules of the House.
H3731 Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
H3731 The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
UDALL)?
H3731 There was no objection.
H3731 The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. UDALL) will be
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. BAUMAN) will be recognized
for 30 minutes.
H3731 The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. UDALL).
H3731 Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
H3731 (Mr. UDALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
H3731 Mr. WAMPLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me?
H3731 Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
H3731 Mr. WAMPLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
H3731 Mr. Chairman, while the gentleman from Arizona and I differ in our views on this bill, I
should like the record to show that the distinguished chairman of the committee, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. UDALL), and other members of the committee, plus staff members of the Committee
on Interior and Insular Affairs, did visit southwestern Virginia during the past several weeks. They
spent the better part of a day there looking on site at some of our problems in strip mining. I just
want the record to show that I appreciate - and I am sure that those I represent here in Congress
likewise appreciate - their coming to Virginia and seeing first-hand the problems that we have.
H3731 Mr. UDALL. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Virginia, for those comments, and I
will tell him that he represents one of the most beautiful areas of the country. Maybe we will have a
bill that will let us mine coal and protect that beauty.
H3731 Mr. Chairman, in the Committee on Rules I was telling one of my old political stories of
the 1960's. It appears that Khrushchev died and his successors, Brezhnev, and others, were very
worried about what to do with the body. They called John F. Kennedy, the President, and asked if
they could bring the body of Khrushchev to the United States and bury him quietly here. President
Kennedy said, No, it would probably cause great concern and apprehension. He would be attacked
by the Republicans, and he was sorry but he could not help.
H3731 Brezhnev then called England's Prime Minister, Macmillan, and asked him, and
Macmillan replied that he had a very fragile majority, and should the news of the arrival of the body
get out, it would set up a great furor, and his government would go down.
H3731 Brezhnev then called Ben-Gurion in Israel and made the same request. BenGurion said he
would always like to help the leaders of friendly foreign countries and that if they came in the
middle of the night, they could bury the body in a remote spot - he would give permission. He said,
"However, I must warn you that this country has the world's highest resurrection rate."
H3731 The highest resurrection rate for legislation belongs to this surface mining bill. We are
back today. The issue will not go away. The time has come, Mr. Chairman, for a decision on this
issue. This month, this year, now be ought to resolve it.
H3731 The central substance of this bill I think can be summed up in three principles. We are
saying to the country four basic things.
H3731 One is that we need coal. We have got to double the production of coal in the next 10
years. Coal buys time for developing solar energy and buys time to sort out the nuclear options, and
buys the ability to get the Arab nations off our backs. We can do it.
H3731 The President's energy policy calls for us to do it. Every energy policy has a strong
reliance on coal in the next 20 years. This is a bill not to decrease the production of coal but to
increase the production of coal.
{3732} The second guiding principle is that we are going to have uniformity. We are not going to
have one set of rules about what can be done to the mountains of southwestern Virginia and another
set of rules about what can be done to the mountains in Pennsylvania. There will be one set of rules,
one program in the whole country so there will not be unfair competition. It is going to give us
certainty.
3732 Coal companies have got to invest in new mines, buy drag lines, get new equipment, and
hire new men to open these mines they cannot do it when they do not know what the ground rules
are going to be. For the next 20 years they have got to make financial arrangements with the banks
and make long-term arrangements that need to be made if they are going to double the production of
coal.
3732 The third basic policy in this bill is that while we are going to mine more coal, this time we
are going to do it right.
3732 One can go to the beautiful mountains of Appalachia - the ones with trout streams and
places that have had beauty forever - and one can see the streams poisoned. There is not any life in
them. One can see these hills where for two or three decades these powerful machines pushed the
rocks, gravel, and trees down the slopes.
3732 We are going to mine coal and put the land back so we can use it 10 years from now or
1,000 years from now to grow trees and crops and serve the needs of the people of this planet.
3732 The fourth and final principle of this bill is that we are going to go back and do something
about the ravages of the past. There is a strip of land equal to a strip from New York to San
Francisco a mile wide - just imagine that strip of land a mile wide - ravaged and damaged and lying
exposed to the sun and wind, giving off acid drainage, and it stands there as a reproach to all
Americans. This bill says we are going to have a modest reclamation fee and half of it is going to go
back to the States from which the coal comes and we are going to begin the 30- or 40-year process
of putting the land back in condition.
3732 We will close old mines and stop acid drainage and make this land productive once again.
3732 One of the main arguments in the set of arguments surrounding this bill for the past few
years has been jobs.
3732 It has been said that we are going to lose jobs. In the last administration the argument was
made with a straight face that 36,000 people were going to be put out of work if the predecessor bill
to this bill was passed. I was amused to find there are only 36,000 people engaged in the whole coal
mining, strip mining industry in the country. Study after study has been made and one can get
differing opinions, but I am here to tell the Members today we are not going to have fewer jobs, we
are going to have more jobs. I will give $1 00 to any county in the district represented by the
gentleman from Virginia 3 years from now if employment is not up instead of down in the coal
business.
3732 The Federal Energy Administrator Mr. Schlesinger, who is in the business of promoting
more energy, gives his position on page 166 of the report. This administration through Mr.
Schlesinger after careful review of all the facts said:
3732 The modest costs of reclamation should not noticeably inflate fuel prices. It is money well
spent in terms of benefits to the Nation. And, with expanded deep mining and more intensive
reclamation efforts, more, not fewer, jobs will result.
3732 If we do it right we need a few more people to do it right, not many more people and not
much more expense, but there will be more jobs out of this bill in my judgment.
3732 This is basically the bill we brought here 2 years ago and lost by 3 votes on a motion to
override a veto. We strengthened it from what we previously presented on environment. We put in
some provisions about blasting so people will not have 300-pound rocks coming into their dining
rooms through their windows. We tightened up the reclamation of land requirements and made a
few necessary steps in the direction of tighter control.
3732 But there is another main thrust in the changes in this bill, and that is to simplify the bill and
to make it easier for industry to comply.
3732 I must say that industry people in most States have been very good. They have come around
and said:
3732 We want to do it right. Just give us a bill which is simple and easy to comply with.
3732 This bill has strong support. It came out of our committee with a 33 to 9 vote and with the
support of our friends on the other side, among them the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. RUPPE),
the gentleman from California (Mr. LAGOMARSINO), the gentleman from California (Mr. DON
H. CLAUSEN), who supported it. It is supported by the President and the Secretary of the Interior
and by most, not all, of the coal State governors, by the Interestate Mining Compact, and by many of
the environmental people and other groups across the country.
3732 It is a long bill, longer than it ought to be. I could write a shorter bill, but when we try to
accommodate the various views of all the people in the West and East and other coal-producing
regions we find difficulty. We think we have a good bill.
3732 Let us put this behind us. Let us put this one piece of our energy mosaic in place. We have
to pass before Christmas a whole range of energy measures. This is an essential and key piece of
our energy policy. With the help of my colleagues today we can get on with the other problems of
energy and put this bill on the books where it should have been long ago.
3732 Mr. RISENHOOVER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
3732 Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. RISENHOOVER).
3732 Mr. RISENHOOVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
3732 Mr. Chairman, I, too, have some reservations about the provisions in this bill. I would like
to point out that several Members of the majority of the Committee on the Interior also dissented in
the writing of this legislation. My district in northeastern Oklahoma for the past decade has been an
example of what can be done in the way of land reclamation; but unfortunately, prior to that time
there are some examples of very bad stripmining that the provisions of this bill will help to reclaim
and cure.
3732 I just want to say simply, as I said before, I disagree with the provisions of the bill. I think
all of us realize that the chairman had the votes in the committee to have written a much stronger
and, in my opinion, more detrimental position than the legislation that has come forth.
3732 Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for his fairness.
3732 Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has been a great help as a Member of our
committee. I thank the gentleman.
3732 Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
3732 Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arizona has once again presented his well-known views
on this legislation. Seven years of dealing with it has polished the gentleman's oratory. There is
very little change in the factual statements as the gentleman presents them.
3732 I noticed in presenting his views the gentleman did not address at all the points that I raised
about the the EPA, CEQ study that states unequivocally that from 800,000,000 to 8 1/2 billion tons
of coal will be removed from our reserve base forever and that 200 million tons by 1985 will be
precluded from-production; that at least 4,300 jobs will be lost, all because of this bill. The
gentleman talks in general terms. He predicts more jobs. The only possibility I can see in any of the
reports about increased employment is that it may take more new bureaucrats to administer the
programs in this bill than the number of people it will put out of work. That is hardly a laudable
goal by any means. He offers no answer to the increased costs consumers must pay because of this
bill. He accepts them, I gather, as desirable. But let us not fool the American people. We are faced
today by the same kind of legislation that Congress has passed dealing with clean air, with clean
water, all with laudable environmental goals. We know what the courts have done with this. This
bill is another open invitation to tie up coal production for years at a time we must have energy.
3732 President Carter demands a unified energy policy that will help America and its people.
This bill should not be part of such a policy.
3732 Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking Member, the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. SKUBITZ), who appears today with a slight infirmity.
3732 (Mr. SKUBITZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
3732 Mr. SKUBITZ. Mr. Chairman, this is a better constructed and a more reasonable bill than
presented to this committee last year.
3732 There are still provisions in this bill - particularly those relating to the distribution of
reclamation fee funds - which I strongly oppose and will attempt to remedy by offering amendments
when we reach the amending stage.
{3733} It is my belief that in view of President Carter's energy speech and the creation by this
body of an ad hoc committee to review all energy producing legislation, it would be wise to defer
action on this bill until the ad hoc committee has had an opportunity to review all energy legislation
and present its recommendation.
3733 However, having said all this, if, in the wisdom of this body my positions are not supported,
I shall still support the bill and vote for it.
3733 On April 25 I received a Dear Colleague letter from the chairman of our committee stating
that Secretary Andrus and Mr. Schlesinger both supported this bill. I read from Mr. UDALL's letter:
3733 Endorsed by President Carter, Secretary of the Interior Andrus and Dr. Schlesinger - the
strip mining bill is a vital part of the President's overall energy program in that enactment of the bill
will finally put environmental rules in place and allow the industry to get on with the job of
expanding coal production.
3733 With this conclusion I cannot agree.
3733 In the first place, Secretary Andrus appeared before our committee presumably to testify on
the bill.
3733 At that time I asked the Secretary if he was ready to give his views on the provisions of the
bill, and he said that he was not. I read from the hearings of February 8, pages 16 and 17:
3733 Mr. SKUBITZ. I hope that our chairman will have you down here once again before the
markup of this bill when you are thoroughly familiar with all of the provisions of the bill and can
speak to them. I can not believe, Mr. Secretary, that in this short time you have been able to master
all of the controversial qualities with respect to this bill.
3733 The CHAIRMAN. He is pretty quick.
3733 Mr. SKUBITZ. Will you assume that you are thoroughly familiar with every provision of
the bill and are you ready to testify at this moment to questions?
3733 Secretary ANDRUS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, No, I don't sit before you this morning
saying I know.
3733 Mr. SKUBITZ. I wouldn't think so, Mr. Secretary.
3733 Secretary ANDRUS. No, sir.
3733 I do not recall, nor can I find where Mr. Schlesinger appeared before the committee and
testified.
3733 Mr. Schlesinger did submit a letter on February 15, which stated, and I quote from the letter
which urges "expeditious passage of the legislation which your committee has so effectively
developed."
3733 The point I am trying to make is that neither Secretary Andrus nor Mr. Schlesinger
addressed themselves to the bill before us, but in fact were only endorsing the need for strip mining
legislation, and on that point, none of us are in disagreement.
3733 When I first came to the Congress of the United States, I became a member of the Interior
Committee, and was placed on the Subcommittee on Mines and mining.
3733 I immediately began exploring ways to legislate protection of the land and to receive some
sort of tax from coal operations that could be used to restore open lands which scarred the area, so
that these lands could once again be restored to production and placed back on the tax rolls.
3733 I began working on remedial legislation long before some of the so-called champions of
conservation and the environment were even Members of this body.
3733 I am no stranger to the environmental damage resulting from strip mine operations. I have
over 55,000 acres in my county and more in the adjoining county where I first started teaching
school. I saw the school in which I taught close its doors when the coal was mined and the shovels
left. No tax base, no school.
3733 Eleven years ago, before most of the sponsors of this bill were Members of this body, I was
seeking legislation that would levy a reclamation tax on coal that would be used to restore orphan
lands.
3733 I have always believed the objectives and purposes of H.R. 2.
3733 It is true I supported President Ford's veto and I did so because I thought that in view of the
critical shortage of energy and admonition of President Ford and the Federal Energy Administration
that the bill at that time would cause unemployment and would affect coal production. I thought it
was time to stop and take another look.
3733 However, we have a new administration now and that administration feels that it is willing
to assume the responsibility that this bill will not create unemployment, that it will not hinder the
production of coal. I think it is in error, but I am not going to be an obstacle to its course of action.
3733 Now, with regard to my major objection to this bill, the distribution of the reclamation fee.
Section 401(h) relating to abandoned mine reclamation funds states, I quote from page 207:
3733 Up to 50 percent of the funds on an annual basis derived from coal production in a State or
Indian reservation may be allocated to the State from which the reclamation funds are derived by the
Secretary of the Interior for the implementation of an approved State reclamation program pursuant
to section 404.
3733 Now, let me point out that the bill carries the word that up to 50 percent may be allocated. I
want to point out to the Committee that the bill initially provided that it "shall be allocated." Make
no mistake, when we get into conference, the word "may" will be changed to "shall" making it
mandatory for the Secretary to spend 50 percent in the States where coal is mined.
3733 Now, the facts are, that most of this coal is going to be mined in the Western States and
those States have little or no orphan lands to be reclaimed.
3733 So, why 50 percent of the reclamation fee to that area? Well, this bill takes care of that. In
section 401(c) of the bill, page 205, we find that the funds can be used for - and I quote:
3733 For the acquisition and filling of voids - and sealing of tunnels, shafts, and entryways under
section 407.
3733 Section 407 applies not only to abandoned coal mines, but to any kind of tunnel, or shaft,
whether it be an abandoned gold, abandoned silver - or any kind of a mine. I submit that the
reclamation collected from coal to be used to reclaim orphan coal lands should not be used for
another purpose.
3733 Let those industries take care of their own misdeeds. But that is not all. When you turn to
section 402, page 208, entitled "The Primary Objectives of the Fund," we find this.
3733 And I quote:
3733 The primary objective for the obligation of funds is the reclamation of areas affected by
previous mining, but other objectives shall reflect the following priorities in the order stated:
3733 "The protection - construction - or enhancement of public facilities - such as utilities, roads,
recreation and conservation facilities and their use."
3733 Why should a reclamation fee on coal to reclaim abandoned coal land be used to build
utilities, roads, and recreation, at the expense of the consumer of coal?
3733 It is not right, it is not fair, it is not just, and it is not reasonable.
3733 Mr. UDALL and the chairman of this committee made it quite clear to the committee that
the reason for this process was a compromise used in order to get votes.
3733 My amendment will be to strike these provisions so that the reclamation funds for orphan
lands will be used to reclaim orphan lands.
3733 I would like to point out to the committee that I offered such an amendment in committee
and it was accepted but on the following day - for reasons I am not familiar with - the committee
changed its position. I thank the committee for listening to me. I hope the Members will be present
when amendments are submitted to this bill.
3733 But whether these amendments are accepted or not. I reiterate that I will support the bill.
3733 Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
3733 Mr. SKUBITZ. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
3733 Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Kansas is a very constructive legislator.
He is a pleasure to work with, and it is a loss to the country that he does not have his voice today so
that he can help us in this bill. I want to say that we have a better bill here because of the gentleman
from Kansas. He has helped us improve it, and I thank him very much for his help in voting this bill
out of committee. I am very proud to have had his support.
3733 Mr. SKUBITZ. I thank the gentleman.
3733 Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
3733 I have been asked by a number of my colleagues about our plans for trying to conclude
consideration of this legislation. The Speaker and the leadership have advised me that it is their
policy on Thursdays to conclude whatever measure is on the floor by 5:30, or 6:00 at the very latest.
In the light of our experience last night, we might not all be standing on our feet much longer than
that.
3733 We will finish the general debate at about 3:30, and that will give us roughly 2 hours on
amendments. A number of amendments have been proposed which will not be offered, and we have
worked out modifications on some of the others.
{H3734} My judgment is that there is about one chance in two or three of finishing tonight.If the
speeches are kept short and we try to be harmonizing and agreeable, we might conceivably get
through today. If we do not, the leadership tells me that it plans to come in tomorrow at 11 o'clock.
I would think that within an hour or two we should wind up this bill tomorrow.
H3734 Mr. BAUMAN.Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
H3734 Mr. UDALL.I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
H3734 Mr. BAUMAN. Perhaps potential Presidents might have greater power than just the
leadership or the Speaker of the House.I would suspect that the House might wish to stay and finish
tonight despite our late hour last night. I would hope that the gentleman would use his great
influence in that direction.
H3734 Mr. UDALL. Let us see how we go. We are going to be rather careful of our time in
general debate and move along as rapidly as we can on the amendments.
H3734 Mr. BAUMAN.Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
RUPPE).
H3734 (Mr. RUPPE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
H3734 Mr. RUPPE. Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I rise in support of this legislation. As I said
during the discussion on the rule, I believe it is a very reasonable and very well-balanced piece of
legislation. I think the bill and its sponsors do take into account President Carter's energy message,
and I believe that there are a number of provisions in this bill that will make surface coal mining
easier to undertake in the future than would have been the case with pieces of legislation that have
been presented previously.
H3734 Also, I would like to say that in view of the fact that this legislation is apt to pass, and if
passed will be signed by the President, it appears to me that the mining industry this time has made a
number of constructive suggestions. I believe they are reasonably satisfied with this piece of
legislation, recognizing, I suppose, that no one likes to have any intrusions into his own business
affairs. As the same time, I do think that the members of the committee, recognizing that there
would be no veto of this legislation, have not considered this as the political exercise that perhaps
some people would have looked at it a year ago.
H3734 I think we recognize that it is most likely going to become law. Therefore, I compliment
the committee for working very hard and very diligently to make this a good piece of legislation
H3734 It does set standards for surface coal mining in the United States. I think that should be
done. Landowners, the public, and residents adjacent to mine areas should be protected.They
deserve and have the right to the environmental standards we have in this legislation. At the same
time.I believe for industry it does remove a great deal of uncertainty that has been in the air the last
several years.
H3734 I am convinced a lot of mining starts in the United States, certainly in the West, have not
been undertaken because companies were not certain of the ground rules under which they would
operate. Now, I believe they have that certainty. Again, I reiterate we have gone a long way to meet
the suggestions of President Carter that we increase by two-thirds our coal mining capacity in the
next 2 years. We have provided for mountaintop removal, which previously was not provided for.
H3734 We also have changed the definition of "original contour" to meet the criticism of those
who said it would be very difficult to achieve in all instances. We now provide for terracing in the
definition of "original contour." That is flexibility we did not have in previous legislation.
H3734 We have also gone a long way to permit, for a time at least, the mining of alluvial valley
floors. The alluvial valley floors are essential areas that should be protected, in most instances,
against mining; but we said in this piece of legislation that if a company is operating in that area
today, it can continue to operate in that alluvial area.
H3734 We also say that if a company has a State permit, it can continue ahead with its mining
operation.
H3734 So I believe we have gone a long way toward making it easier for those companies who
have present operations contemplated in the West to continue as planned. But I think we have done
specific things to be proud of. We certainly do protect the alluvial valley floors in the West if they
have been used for agricultural purposes and if mining would damage those alluvial valley floors. I
think that is right. We should protect those areas and the people who live near them and could be
affected by surface mining operations.
H3734 We do protect the prime agricultural lands in the Midwest, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa, and
we do protect the topsoils, the A, B, and C horizons. We do see to it that those lands have to be put
back so that they can be put into production in the same fashion as they were before the mining
operations so that these marvelous corn lands in the Midwest can be as productive after the mining
operations as they were before.
H3734 Under the previous bill, if an individual owned surface land, and the Federal Government
the minerals, he could sell the land for the best deal. If he decided just to live on that land, he had to
live with a very convoluted formula.
H3734 Let me say, finally, that the chairman of the Coal Association said that last year there were
100 million tons of unused coal productive capacity in this country. So the country can stand this
legislation.
H3734 Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Wyoming (Mr. RONCALIO), one of our most valuable committee members.
H3734 (Mr. RONCALIO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
H3734 Mr. RONCALIO.I thank the gentleman for yielding.
H3734 Mr. Chairman, I would like to take just a few minutes to discuss and get into the
RECORD an item to make legislative hisitory, on this legislation, on the effect of H.R. 2, this bill,
upon the alluvial valley floor grandfather clause on Wyoming mines existing now and planned. I
believe that a high percentage of coal to be strip mined in America will be coming from my own
State of Wyoming.
H3734 Section 510(b)(5) of this bill contains a proviso which grandfathers certain mines from
having to meet the alluvial valley floor criteria of paragraph (a) and (b) of section 510(b)(5).
Specifically, mines would be grandfathered if they, first, produced coal commercially in the year
prior to enactment of the act, or second, had obtained a State permit for the mine prior to January 4,
1977, or third, made substantial legal and financial commitments to the proposed mining operation
prior to January 4, 1977.
H3734 I have contacted the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Mr. Walter
Ackerman, and several of the companies involved, and, thanks o my excellent staff, we have
obtained the following information as to how the 510(b)(5) language, as presently drafted, might
affect existing or planned mines in Wyoming with State permits issued since late 1974.
H3734 Category 1 is the permitted mines now producing coal under the grandfather clause, and I
will give the names, the county or location, the State permit issued, and the status of these mines.
That will be included at the end of my remarks. These companies range from the Big Horn Coal
Co. on the Tongue River to the Cordero-Sun Oil Co. in Campbell County. In the interest of time, I
am skipping over those, but those names will be included in the RECORD.
H3734 Category 2 is a list of mines with permits but not yet producing. They will be
grandfathered in under provisions of paragraph (2). This list begins with the Black Thunder -
ARCO - Mine in Camppell County and runs down through six mines, through the Ash Creek
Mining Co. in Sheridan County, which is not producing.
H3734 Category 3 consists of mines with no State permits but which may be grandfathered under
test of paragraph (3) if the Secretary determines that they have made "substantial financial and legal
commitments" to the project prior to January 4, 1977. This list includes the very highly
controversial "Whitney Benefits" mines on the Tongue River in Sheridan County in northern
Wyoming, the E. Gillette Mine, the Rochelle - Peabody Coal - Mine, another Peabody coal mine, the
Coal Creek - ARCO - Mine, the Buckskin - Shell Oil - Mine, and the Consolidated Coal - Mobile
Oil - Mine in Johnson County. Those are the mines in that third category.
H3734 Thus, there is a strong possibility that the Whitney Benefits Mine may be grandfathered
under H.R. 2 as presently drafted. This result could be avoided by changing the "or" on line 19 of
page 259 back to "and" - thus undoing the Runnels amendment which I offered for him in
committee. This, of course, would affect all the mines listed under category 3, earn the praise of
environmental groups and a general damnation from the companies involved.
{H3735} } Mr. Chairman. I do not propose to think that we can write a bill that will eliminate
all litigation to take place in every State of the Union where coal may be strip mined in years to
come. I do hope - and I believe that is the intent of this bill - that we can fashion a law which will
permit the State licensing authorities to govern where there reclamation permits are more stringent.
H3735 The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wyoming (Mr. RONCALIO) has
expired.
H3735 Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Wyoming
(Mr. RONCALIO).
H3735 Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the chairman of the full committee
if he would concur with me or tell me if that statement of mine is accurate.This bill allows the States
to govern in this area when the State reclamation programs are more stringent?
H3735 Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
H3735 Mr. RONCALIO. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
H3735 Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. Absolutely.
H3735 Mr. RONCALIO. Very good. The reason for this is that I hope this will settle the mining
issue. Taking place in alluvial areas. It will stop mining - or more accurately prohibit it - in such
valleys as Clear Creek in Sheridan County, Wyo., and other places where, for the good of
agriculture and the love of the land, as well as the general good of the area, strip mining has to be
forbidden. Page 119 of the report elaborates on this.
H3735 Mr. Chairman, at this point I include the categories and the list of mines I mentioned
previously, as well as other extraneous material, as follows:
____________________________________________________________________________
____
*4*CLASS I
*4*1. PERMITTED
MINES WHICH ARE NOW
PRODUCING COAL
(GRANDFATHER UNDER
(1) ABOVE)
Name and company n1 County/location State permit issued State
Producing since
Big Horn Coal Co Tongue River Jan. 31, 1975 1944.
Welch Coal Co Sheridan Feb. 19, 1975 Producing.
Gunn Quealy Sweetwater Feb. 26, 1975 Do.
Columbine do Oct. 31, 1975 Do.
Producing since
Pac. Power & Light Converse Mar. 25, 1975 1958.
Muddy Creek Freemont Apr. 18, 1975 Producing.
Medicine Bow Coal
Co. n1 Carbon May 13, 1975 Longtime producing.
Energy Development do do Producing.
Bridger Coal Sweetwater May 22, 1975 Do.
Rosebud Coal Sales Carbon June 30, 1975 Do.
Arch Minerals do do Do.
Kemmerer Lincoln do Longtime producing.
Belle Ayr South Campbell Nov. 26, 1974 Producing.
Wyodak do do Do.
Producing December
Cordero-Sun Oil Co do Jan. 9, 1975 1976.
CLASS II
2. MINES WITH PERMITS BUT NOT YET PRODUCING (GRANDFATHER UNDER (2)
ABOVE)
Anticipated
Black Thunder production November
(ARCO) Campbell Dec. 3, 1974 1977 or early 1978.
Rawhide Producing July 1,
(Carter-Exxon) do Jan. 31, 1975 1977.
Producing July
Caballo 1977; no Federal
(Carter-Exxon) do June 21, 1976 permit yet.
Producing spring
Eagle Butte (AMAX) do May 5, 1976 1978.
Jacobs Ranch Producing late
(Kerr-McGee) do Mar. 19, 1975 1977.
Ash Creek Mining Co Sheridan Jan. 19, 1976 Not producing.
CLASS III
3. MINES WITH NO STATE PERMITS, BUT WHICH MAY BE GRANDFATHERED
UNDER TEST OF
(3) ABOVE IF SECRETARY DETERMINES THAT THEY HAVE MADE "SUBSTANTIAL
FINANCIAL
AND LEGAL COMMITMENTS" TO PROJECT PRIOR TO JAN. 4, 1977
"Whitney Benefits" State application
(Peter Kiewit withdrawn - to be
Sons). Tongue River No permit resubmitted.
E. Gillette Producing early
(Kerr-McGee) Campbell Feb. 15, 1977 1979.
Rochelle (Peabody
Coal) do No permit Producing 1979.
Peabody Coal (no Producing early
name) do do 1980's.
Coal Creek (ARCO) do do Do.
Buckskin (Shell
Oil) do do Do.
Consol. Coal (Mobil No current
Oil) Johnson do production.
____________________________________________________________________________
____
[See Table in Original]
H3735 n1 As indicated, many of these mines are long time producers whose permits were revised
in 1974 and 1975 to comply with Wyoming's new laws, Mines with permits issued prior to late
1974 are all in production and would be grandfathered under (1) above.
____________________________________________________________________________
____
*6*OCCURRENCE
OF ALLUVIAL
VALLEY FLOORS
N1 IN AREAS
OF PROPOSED
SURFACE COAL
MINES WITH
FEDERAL
INVOLVEMENT:
MONTANA,
WYOMING,
COLORADO, AND
NEW MEXICO n2
Size of
alluvial Percent of
Size of valley floor proposed
proposed mine in proposed mine area Agricultural
area (in mine area classed as activity in
Name of square (in square alluvial Source of alluvial
proposed mine miles)n2, n3 miles) valley floor information valley floor
Montana:
Dear Creek
Valley used
in places
for
cultivation
of hay.
Other
agricultural
activity
limited to
1.Decker Coal Open-file use as
Co. - Decker report natural
East 3.46 0.13 3.7 76-162 pasturage.
Agricultural
activity
limited to
2. Decker use as
Coal Co. - natural
Decker North 2.13 .07 3.3 do pasturage.
3. Shell Oil
Co. - Youngs
Creek 3.28 .03 1.0 do Do.
Wyoming:
Unpublished
surficial
geologic map
4. Amax - (V. S.
Belle Ayr Williams,
North 4.43 .07 1.6 1975). Do.
Unpublished
surficial
geologic map
5. Carter (D. S.
Oil Co. - Fullerton,
Caballo 824 .23 2.8 1975). D Do.
Unpublished
surficial
6. geoloigc map
Kerr-McGee (V. S.
No. 2 East Williams,
Gillette 4.73 .02 .4 1975). Do.
Unpublished
surficial
geologic map
7. Peabody (D. A.
Coal Co. - Coates,
Rochelle 3.21 .08 2.4 1975). Do.
Belle
Unpublished Fourche
surficial River Valley
geologic map used in
(D. S. places for
8. Sun Oil Fullerton, cultivation
Co. - Belle D. A. of hay and
Fourche Coates, forage
(Cordero) 6.42 .13 2.0 1975). crops.
Unpublished
surficial
geologic map
(D. A.
9. Arco - Coates,
Coal Creek 9.42 .19 2.0 1975). Do.
Colorado:
10. Peabody
Coal Co. - Photointerpr
Seneca II - etation, R. No alluvial
Yost (Area F. Madole, valley
B). .670 None 0 1976 floor.
Peabody Coal
Co. - Seneca
II-W (Area
C). 1.11 None 0 do Do.
11. Utah
International
- Yampa 10.50 None 0 do Do.
12. W. R.
Grace -
Colowyo 1.92 None 0 do Do.
New Mexico:
Photointerpr
13. Peabody eation, H.
Coal Co. - E. Malde,
Star Lake 17.07 None 0 1976 Do.
____________________________________________________________________________
____
H3735 n1 The term alluvial valley floor as used here includes [*] valleys where width exceeds
25 ft (8 m) and includes stream channel, flood plain, and law [*] terrace deposits. They may be
subirrigated by underflow of near-surface water or [*] [*] of flood flow. Included are alluvial
terraces generally not higher than 5 ft (1.5 m) [*] [*] floor of small streams but as alluvial fans or
colluvium, either at a steip a few [*] (about 1 m) high or, less commonly, along a line at which the
ground surface begins to slope upward.
H3735 n2 Excludes proposed extensions of three operating mines: Western Energy - Colstrip;
Utah International - Navajo (Wesco); and Westmoreland - Absaloka (Sarpy Creek); and proposed
Burnham mine of El Paso Natural Gas for which detailed mining plan has not been filed.
H3735 n3 Total area likely to be surface-mined according to mining plans on file with the
Conservation Division, USGS, data from Eastern Powder River EIS, and data from State agencies.
H3735 n4 Alluvial valley floor crosses $margin or corner of proposed mine or holdings.
{H3736} Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. RUDD), a valued member of our committee and a freshman Member.
H3736 (Mr. RUDD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
H3736 Mr. RUDD. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this bill and strongly urge its defeat.
H3736 This proposed surface mining legislation is highly restrictive against the mining of coal on
bottom land and most farm land.
H3736 It will add another level of Federal bureaucracy that is unnecessary and counterproductive
to efforts of the 34 States that already have good strip-mining legislation on the books.
H3736 This new level of Federal bureaucracy will have the power to review and overrule each
State program, and in effect will make State governments agents of the Federal bureaucracy to
enforce Federal laws and regulations, which will often be, against the best interests of the States
themselves.
H3736 This bill will shackle coal production - which is hardly consistent with the President's
energy proposals.
H3736 The President told Congress last week that the United States must look first to coal to
reduce our massive dependence upon oil. As part of his energy goals, to be achieved between now
and 1985, the President asked Congress to commit the Nation to increasing coal production on an
annual basis by at least 400 million tons - to more than a billion tons of coal produced each year.
H3736 Mr. Chairman, to produce the additional quantity of coal envisioned in the President's
energy program, it will require an estimated 40 additional surface mines producing five million tons
of coal per year.
H3736 It will also require an estimated 75 new underground mines producing 1.5 million tons of
coal per year.These underground mines would be over and above planned production and expansion
of the coal mining industry.
H3736 Reasonable people should be staggered by the standards and controls which this bill will
impose upon the surface mining of coal.They should also be numbed by the reality that the
procedural impediments written into this legislation could indefinitely delay the recovery and use of
coal resources.
H3736 Let us briefly review these requirements for overlapping and extremely time-consuming
environmental impact procedures that will seriously impede and delay needed coal production:
H3736 First, section 702(d) of this bill requires the preparation of three separate environmental
impact statements under section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
H3736 These must be prepared before approval of State implementation programs under section
503 of this bill, before promulgation of Federal programs under section 504 of the bill, and before
implementation of a Federal lands program under section 523 of the bill.
H3736 But these three separate environmental impact statement requirements under H.R. 2 are
only the beginning.
H3736 A careful reading of this bill in light of court decisions interpreting Federal environmental
statutes already on the books indicates that there are at least three additional environmental impact
statements that must be completed in implementing H.R. 2 - for a total of six separate environmental
impact statements.
H3736 Federal court decisions have required environmental impact statements at any point of
"significant Federal action."
H3736 This means that such impact statements would also be required under section 501 of the
bill - environmental protection standards, section 506 - permits, and section 522 - designating areas
unsitable for surface coal mining.
H3736 Experience has shown that preparation of an environmental impact statement can take
anywhere from 1 to 3 years.
H3736 The statement must be initially drafted, then circulated for review and comment by other
affected agencies, States, and the public. It must then be rewritten in final form.
H3736 If there are any conflicts over alternative courses of action, studies must be made to
develop or justify the final decision.
H3736 Assuming that the Government has the necessary manpower and resources to do all this
work - and that there are no court challenges - implementation of H.R. 2 could consume up to 4
years.
H3736 And for what useful purpose should these extensive and time-consuming environmental
impact statement requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act be imposed in
implementing H.R. 2?
H3736 Under National Environmental Policy Act, such statements require Federal agencies to
consider the environment and the alternatives to the proposed action.
H3736 H.R. 2 is itself a consideration of the environment. That is its whole purpose. And it does
not permit the consideration of alternative courses of action to conduct strip mining, since specific
action is mandated under its provisions.
H3736 Mr. Chairman, this legislation, which superimposes over already adequate State programs
a new network of national surface mining and reclamation controls, will require no less than 20
Federal actions which could require individual environmental impact statements.
H3736 And these would be prepared and filed after some 27 public hearings are held to
implement the terms and provisions of the bill.
H3736 I defy anyone to show how this bill will expedite the production of coal.
H3736 The President has asked for the production of a billion tons of coal a year. This will
require a 65-percent increase in current coal production.
H3736 The American people want Congress to support a reasonable and good energy program to
make the United States independent of foreign oil and to provide all our energy needs.
H3736 Members of the House should pass legislation that will strike a reasonable balance
between our environmental concerns and our energy needs.
H3736 This body should not pass a bill like H.R. 2 that threatens to undermine and subvert
needed energy production and priorities.
H3736 Proponents of H.R. 2 - and those who are prepared to vote for this bill's passage - must
justify to the American people their insistence on imposing restrictive legislation that refuses to
strike the needed reasonable balance between environmental concerns and our energy needs.
H3736 Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
PANETTA).
H3736 (Mr. PANETTA asked and was given permission to revise and extends his remarks.)
H3736 Mr. PANETTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2, as reported by the
Interior Committee. We have gone through this issue with five bills in three successive Congresses,
only to see four of those bills, all very similar to H.R. 2 defeated on a rule or vetoed. Now is the
time, under the strong leadership of Chairman UDALL and the support of the President finally to
pass a strip mining bill.
H3736 I need not go into the details of why this legislation is necessary. The issue is a very basic
one - will we make use of the technology we now have available to us to restore and preserve the
beauty of thousands of acres of land in this Nation? I believe we must.
H3736 In fact, I would go so gar as to say that there is no great debate about whether in fact we
need a strip mining bill, but rather about what kind of bill we need. H.R. 2 was reported by the
Interior Committee - a committee with a rather independent-minded and free-wheeling membership -
by a vote of 39 to 3. Certainly, such support for the bill as it stands attests to the fact that the bill
represents a fair and equitable compromise on the many complex details involved in regulating
strip-mining.
H3736 I would also suggest that there is another hidden benefit in H.R. 2, beyond the simple
preservation of our lands. The mining industry has been working for several years with a veritable
sword of Damocles over their heads - when would there be a strip mining bill and what would be its
provisions? Such doubts were an impediment to the full-steamahead kind of production of coal that
we must have. Passage of H.R. 2 would put an end to those doubts and allow the mining industry to
continue to make its vital and valuable contribution to our energy system.
H3736 On that note of conciliation, Mr. Chairman, I conclude by urging the support of every
Member of this body for H.R. 2, as reported by the committee.
H3736 Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman form California (Mr.
DON H. CLAUSEN).
H3736 (Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
H3736 Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2. In the past 5 years,
Congress has engaged in a prolonged legislative effort to produce an acceptable strip mining law.
Accordingly, H.R. 2 is better balanced and drafted than its predecessors, permitting orderly
implementation and mitigating production and employment losses.
{H3737} } Although the major coal producing States have legislation to regulate surface mining,
these laws vary greatly in procedure and enforcement. Federal legislation will alleviate these
discrepancies, removing unfair competitive advantage of States with less stringent regulations.
H3737 Based on President Carter's energy address to the Congress, coal will play an increasingly
important role in our total energy picture. As this shift to coal occurs, it is clear to me that we will
have to have some form of uniform and minimum standards for the reclamation and rehabilitation of
the lands which are mined. This legislation, H.R. 2, in my opinion, will apply these standards in a
fair and equitable manner for all engaged in surface mining activities.
H3737 Considering the arid climate and lack of water in that region, land reclamation may be
impossible following some surface mining operations. Under such circumstances, I believe it should
be national policy that mining not be allowed. In other words: If reclamation is not possible, coal
surface mining should not be permitted.
H3737 I continue to oppose section 510(b)(6) "consent of private surface owners to mine private
coal." The committee's amendment to this section appears to confer new property rights on some
surface owners in all States and to impose a new concept of Federal property law in an area
traditionally reserved for the States. I believe this provision should be closely scrutinized and
deleted.
H3737 With this reservation, I submit H.R. 2 to my colleagues for their approval.
H3737 Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
DUNCAN).
H3737 (Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
H3737 Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
H3737 Mr. Chairman, I have several objections to the bill we have before us now, H.R. 2, the
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1977. However, in the interest of brevity, I wish to address
only two concerns, problems with this legislation which I find particularly troublesome.
H3737 My first concern is with the requirements for strip mined land reclamation. I do not mean
to imply that such lands should be left as ugly, barren scars on the countryside. I do, though, feel it
is unrealistic and counterproductive, in many cases, to require that strip mined lands be returned to
their approximate original contours. Many strip mining areas, and this is certainly true of my own
State of Tennessee, are located on hilly, generally commercially unusable lands - unusable except, of
course, for strip mining. If, after the coal is removed, such lands must be restored to their original
contours, most, if not all possible future economic benefits the land may provide are lost. Lands
leveled through strip mining, if they could be restored but left level, would be suitable for farming
and other economically productive pursuits.
H3737 I do not wish to disparage the value of aesthetically pleasing landscapes. However, such
concerns do not mean much to a man who needs land on which he can support a family.
H3737 Another important consideration with regard to land reclamation involves increased costs
from this activity. No one will dispute the fact that to return a strip mined area to its approximate
original contours is a very expensive undertaking. These increased costs will have to be passed on
to consumers somewhere along the line. In areas where coal is used extensively in the production of
electricity, as it is in many sections of our Nation, the resulting increases in utility bills would mean
an even greater burden being placed upon economically strapped homeowners and others who have
already seen their utility costs skyrocket in the past few years.
H3737 The costs of this land reclamation would also place an undue burden on small strip mining
operators. It is reasonable to assume that many of them, unable to meet these costs, would be put
out of business.
H3737 My second major objection to H.R. 2 involves the authroity this legislation grants to the
Federal Government to dictate to the various States what should be done with their respective strip
mined lands. I seriously question whether we in Congress have the wisdom necessary to create strip
mining legislation which can be applied to every State fairly. Circumstances under which strip
mining is conducted vary greatly from State to State, from one area of the country to another. There
are also wide variances in the economic and social needs and values of the people involved. I am
not convinced that any omnibus Federal legislation can address all these variables, and others, in an
effective and equitable manner.
H3737 The problems associated with surface mining, and there are indeed problems, are, I
believe, problems best left to the individual States to resolve. Many States including Tennessee,
have strong, effective, and enforceable surface mining laws. Federal legislation would be, in my
opinion, unnecessary in many instances and in others would usurp powers which rightly belong to
the States.
H3737 Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues will give serious consideration to these objections,
and others, which, I feel, make H.R. 2 a bad piece of legislation.
H3737 Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
Maryland (Mr. SPELLMAN).
H3737 (Mrs. SPELLMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
H3737 Mrs. SPELLMAN. Mr. Chariman, I would like to have just a little colloquy with the
floor manager, the gentleman from Arizona, if I may.
H3737 As the gentleman knows, I have an amendment to section 502 to phase out strip mining
operations on steep slopes, that is, slopes of 20 degrees or more. As we all know, 19 degrees is
considered the angle of repose, that is, the angle above which matter has the greatest tendency to
slide. Since strip mining entails drastic disturbance of the land in order to get at the coal underneath,
there is a real danger on slopes or more than 20 degrees that the disturbed matter will slide and
create havoc.
H3737 Strip mining on slopes over 20 degrees is the most damaging of all. The Stanford
Research Institute, in a study done for the West Virginia Legislature, emphasized that when the
slope is 20 degrees and over, 3 to 5 acres are severely disturbed for every acre mined. When it rains
on the steep slopes - and much of the steep slope that would be mined happens to be in areas of
heavy rainfall - the environmental and property damage is severe - flooding, mud slides, landslides,
acid drainage. In fact, the recent floods in southwest Virginia this spring, which caused severe
damage, can be attributed (in great part, to the steep-slope mining operations in the area.
H3737 Mr. Chairman, we have seen some real devastation in Appalachia, in the State of
Maryland, and in other States. We have seen homes slide away, boulders roll down into backyards,
mud slide downhill and across town. This greatly concerns me and many of our colleagues.
H3737 I am advised that the committee has attempted to address itself to this problem.
H3737 Mr. Chairman, I would like to know what the committee has done in that regard.
H3737 I also have looked at the Pennsylvania experience, and have seen the revitalization of
slopes well over 20 degrees. I have seen restoration of enormously steep slopes in my own county
and know it can be done successfully. Since the committee has provided this protection for steep
slopes, that land which cannot be reclaimed cannot be mined, then I am willing to give those
regulations for reclamation a chance. Because I know that the committee chairman, the
distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. UDALL) is very much concerned about this problem,
and because I respect his judgment, I recommend that we give close and careful attention to the
implementation of this section over the next few years. If it adequately protects against further
damage, then we need not completely prohibit steep slope mining. If it does not work, then this body
should demand that the law be amended to prohibit such mining. I thank Mr. UDALL for his
assistance in clarifying the contents of the legislation and the intent of the committee.
H3737 Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs.
SPELLMAN) for her concern on this subject. I might say in reply to the gentlewoman that we have
taken a different approach. We have said that the test is: Can they put the land back? There will be
instances of slopes of 20 degrees or more where this cannot be done because of the climate and
because of the soil conditions and in other instances there can be slopes of 30 degrees to 35 degrees
where this can be done.
H3737 So we have tough, rigid, mean kind of standards. We say to the operator: "Don't go in and
take out the coal unless you can show us you can put the land back."
H3737 I visited one slope in Pennsylvania where there is a small operator who has less than 25
employees and very few pieces of equipment but who is one of the best in the business. He was
operating on a 30 degrees slope and, when finished, there were grass, trees, and good soil.
{3738} So, if they can put it back, then they can go in and get the coal out. If they cannot do that,
then they should not be able to go in there.
3738 So, as I say, we take a different approach.
3738 (Mr. UDALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
3738 Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
WHALEN).
3738 (Mr. WHLLEN ask and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
3738 Mr. WHALEN.Mr. Chairman, today we are considering H.R. 2, the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act.As a consponsor of this bill, I would like to take this opportunity to
discuss the need for the legislation and to urge my colleagues to support it without adding
weakening amendments.
3738 President Carter's energy message last week made it clear that our Nation must increase its
production and dependence on coal in the coming years. This resource represents over 90 percent of
our total hydrocarbon energy reserve. Yet, in 1973, coal comprised only 18 percent of the Nation's
energy supply. Petroleum and natural gas combined to produce approximately 77 percent of that
demand. Since 1973, two of the major factors contributing to the decreased use of coal - the low
prices of natural gas and imported crude oil - have changed drastically. Through the year 2000,
coal will become an important source of fuel for the Nation.
3738 However, surface coal mining involves the degradation of vast tracts of land. It has
increased the acidity of lakes and rivers, altered drainage patterns, and reduced water supplies. It
has destroyed prime hardwood forests and wildlife habitats, degraded productive farmland, and
contributed to recurent landslides.
3738 With some exceptions, there has been little effort on the part of coal operators to restore
these areas.Although some 34 States have enacted laws regulating surface coal mining, these have
proven to be generally ineffective in bringing about the necessary reclamation of these lands. Most
States are not inclined to impose tough standards on their own industries and put local businesses at
a competitive disadvantage. Thus, State laws vary greatly in stringency and enforcement, and some
States enjoy an unfair competitive advantage by allowing poorly regulated strip mining to continue.
3738 Unless we act now, prospects for improved land reclamation in the future are dim. A report
issued by the Soil Conservation Service concerning the status of disturbed lands indicates that -
3738 The present concerns about energy, combined with the knowledge about our huge coal
reserves will make it quite likely that the annual rate of land disturbance will be even greater . . .
3738 H.R. 2 addresses this environmental issue by establishing minimum, uniform Federal
regulations for coal production and reclamation.The bill requires mining companies to regarde the
land to its approximate original contour and to meet reasonable standards regarding the restoration
of water supplies. Of course these requirements will not eliminate environmental disturbances.
They will, however, insure that each State makes at least a minimum effort to reclaim mined land.
It is hoped that State regulatory authorities will strengthen the provisions and require additional
measures to meet local conditions.
3738 The expense of reclamation efforts required by H.R. 2 will not be prohibitive to the coal
industry. A review of available data on profits of coal companies and coal operating companies
reveals a tremendous increase in profits. Bituminous coal prices rose over 50 percent between 1969
and 1971, according to a report issued by the National Coal Association. Federal Power
Commission figures show an almost 100 percent increase in coal prices paid by utilities between
1973 and 1974. These increases cannot be fully explained by increases in the cost of production, for
unit labor cost increases are of much smaller magnitude than price increases. Employment and
output since 1967 have remained relatively constant. Thus, price increases have been translated into
profits.
3738 Industry spokesmen have indicated that reclamation costs are economically acceptable. The
cost of advanced reclamation techniques is small compared to the market value of coal - only 3 to 9
percent of the price of coal at the mine. A report presented by the Continental Oil Co., the Nation's
second largest producer of coal, states that -
3738 * * * even taking the largest of these reclamation costs would add only two to three percent
to the average residential electric bill.
3738 The Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs reports that -
3738 The industry can absorb any increased costs of reclamation consistent with the standards of
the Act.
3738 Thus, the requirements of H.R. 2 will not create an economic burden for the coal industry.
3738 The current energy crisis painfully illustrates that we as a Nation cannot afford to waste any
of our resources. In an effort to excavate our coal reserves, we cannot, and need not, exploit our
land and water assets. Our efforts to increase coal production must be accompanied by action to
insure the constructive, longterm use of our valuable land and water reserves. In view of this fact,
and in light of the economic feasibility of reclamation efforts, I urge my colleagues to support H.R.
2.
3738 Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. MICHEL) the majority whip.
3738 (Mr. MICHEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
3738 Mr. MICHEL.Mr. Chairman, I favor the principles of conservation and environmental
concern underlying H.R. 2, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977.
3738 Federal minimum standards for strip mining it seems to me are necessary and desirable. A
total of 38 States have already recognized the merit and need for mining regulation and sound
reclamations programs. In my home State of Illinois the dual goals of environmental protection and
greater coal recovery are being balanced effectively. The results overall have been good. Good for
the people of Illinois and good for the country.
3738 The key word here is balance.Out of need, we have had to put a very high priority on energy
resources. Out of concern for the quality of life of future generations, we have had to put a very
high priority on the natural environment from which we draw our energy.
3738 At the Federal level, it is absolutely essential that we maintain that delicate balance. We
cannot have it both ways. We cannot have all the coal we need and at the same time have the kind
of "absolutely pure" environment that special-interest groups demand.
3738 The task of the Congress is to write legislation that caters neither to the interests of the coal
industry or the absolutist environmentalists but, instead, to the interests of the American people.
H.R. 2, in its present form, has a number of defects which are not in the best interests of all the
people.
3738 Specifically, it is overburdened with the kind of bureaucratic redtape which could threaten
all that the bill is designed to achieve. I am concerned that provisions of the bill usurp the State's
primary responsibility for the regulation of mining and reclamation activities. This legislation
should foster and encourage a partnership in which the Federal Government provides assistance,
funding and expertise, but not, I repeat not, a string of endless executive and administrative rules and
regulations.
3738 H.R. 2 also contains a provision that would allow litigation at all stages of the permit
process thereby opening up any operator to costly and time-consuming legal harrassment. Our
society simply cannot afford this kind of obstructionism when the stakes are so high.
3738 In general terms, however, H.R. 2 is founded on the sound and justifiable concept that we
can extract the minerals from the Earth and preserve the beauty and productivity of the natural
environment at the same time. I applaud that concept.
3738 As I said there are some provisions of H.R. 2 which fly in the face of that concept and I hope
we can weed out those undesirable elements before taking final action on this bill.
3738 There is one other concern I have, and that has to do with the proposal or amendment that
would place a 5-year moratorium on the stripmining of coal on prime agricultural land. Such a
moratorium could literally wipe out coal production in some parts of the country. A moratorium
would be senseless, destructive and totally unjustifiable. Contrary to one line of thought, there is
little a 5-year moratorium can teach us about the actual damage done to the productivity of prime
agricultural land as a result of mining operations. We do know that with proper reclamation
procedures, good farmland can be returned to productive use. We are making progress with
reclamation because of public recognition that reclamation is necessary and highly beneficial.But to
slap an arbitrary moratorium on mining operations to dramatize environmental concerns is
ridiculous, especially at a time when our precious coal reserves are of equal importance to the
well-being of our society.
{3739} } Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
MARRIOTT).
3739 (Mr. MARRIOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
3739 Mr. MARRIOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2, not that I am against every
provision of the bill, because I think there are some very good provisions, and I am convinced that a
uniform national guideline is necessary to support a national energy policy.
3739 But there are four areas in this bill which I find unacceptable, and I believe they would have
an adverse effect on the production of coal, which is necessary to achieve energy independence by
1985.
3739 First is the surface owners' consent provision. I am in favor of protecting the rights of
surface owners. If their rights are not protected, there is little value in owning property.
3739 But the problem here is that the subsurface is owned by all of the people, and coal is
essential, and surface owners should not have veto power over the subsurface, especially when they
knew at the time they purchased the land that they only owned the surface rights.
3739 It is estimated that by giving them veto power, we could lose up to 8 1/2 billion tons of coal.
3739 H.R. 2 does not equitably solve this problem. If it can be established that substantial
reserves exist and that a reasonable level of production can be achieved, the subsurface must be
made accessible through a process of fair negotiations, a fair price, a reclamation program, and a
reimbursement for any future crop losses, which the existing bill does not even attempt to establish.
3739 Second, the alluvial valley floors and hydrologics provision is indeed important to protect
our water supply, to protect possible farmlands, to avoid toxic mine drainage.
3739 There needs to be more flexibility. Too many areas are being restricted which need not be
restricted and that have no real water problems.
3739 The definition of alluvial valley floors is questionable, and even members of the committee
and their legal counsels are hard pressed to define what is and what is not an alluvial valley.
3739 In Utah we could lose up to 50 million tons of coal production in one area because of this
ambiguous definition.
3739 As a general rule much of the