Congressional Record April 29, 1977
|
|
Legislative History Congressional Record April 29, 1977 |
| |
April 29, 1977
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 further 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.
H3810 The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. UDALL).
H3810 The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
H3810 Mr. BAUMAN. 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.
H3810 The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present.
H3810 The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
H3810 The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were - yeas 309, nays 1, not voting
123, as follows:
H3810 [Roll No. 170]
H3810 YEAS - 309
H3810 Akaka
H3810 Alexander
H3810 Allen
H3810 Ambro
H3810 Ammerman
H3810 Anderson, Calif.
H3810 Anderson, Ill.
H3810 Andrews, N.Dak.
H3810 Annunzio
H3810 Applegate
H3810 Archer
H3810 Armstrong
H3810 Ashbrook
H3810 Badillo
H3810 Bafalis
H3810 Baldus
H3810 Baucus
H3810 Bauman
H3810 Bedell
H3810 Beilenson
H3810 Benjamin
H3810 Bennett
H3810 Bevill
H3810 Bingham
H3810 Blanchard
H3810 Blouin
H3810 Bolling
H3810 Bonior
H3810 Bowen
H3810 Brademas
H3810 Breckinridge
H3810 Brodhead
H3810 Brooks
H3810 Broomfield
H3810 Brown, Calif.
H3810 Broyhill
H3810 Buchanan
H3810 Burgener
H3810 Burke, Mass.
H3810 Burleson, Tex.
H3810 Burlison, Mo.
H3810 Burton, John
H3810 Burton, Phillip
H3810 Butler
H3810 Byron
H3810 Caputo
H3810 Carney
H3810 Carr
H3810 Carter
H3810 Clausen, Don H.
H3810 Clawson, Del
H3810 Cochran
H3810 Cohen
H3810 Coleman
H3810 Collins, Ill.
H3810 Collins, Tex.
H3810 Conable
H3810 Conte
H3810 Corcoran
H3810 Corman
H3810 Cornell
H3810 Cornwell
H3810 Coughlin
H3810 D'Amours
H3810 Daniel, Dan
H3810 Daniel, R.w.
H3810 Danielson
H3810 de la Garza
H3810 Dellums
H3810 Derwinski
H3810 Devine
H3810 Dickinson
H3810 Dicks
H3810 Dingell
H3810 Dornan
H3810 Drinan
H3810 Duncan, Oreg.
H3810 Duncan, Tenn.
H3810 Eckhardt
H3810 Edgar
H3810 Edwards, Ala.
H3810 Edwards, Calif.
H3810 Edwards, Okla.
H3810 Emery
H3810 English
H3810 Erlenborn
H3810 Ertel
H3810 Evans, Colo.
H3810 Evans, Del.
H3810 Fary
H3810 Fascell
H3810 Fenwick
H3810 Findley
H3810 Fisher
H3810 Flippo
H3810 Flood
H3810 Flowers
H3810 Flynt
H3810 Ford, Tenn.
H3810 Fowler
H3810 Frey
H3810 Gammage
H3810 Gaydos
H3810 Gephardt
H3810 Giaimo
H3810 Gibbons
H3810 Ginn
H3810 Glickman
H3810 Goldwater
H3810 Gonzalez
H3810 Goodling
H3810 Gore
H3810 Grassley
H3810 Gudger
H3810 Guyer
H3810 Hagedorn
H3810 Hall
H3810 Hamilton
H3810 Hanley
H3810 Hanaford
H3810 Harris
H3810 Hawkins
H3810 Heckler
H3810 Hightower
H3810 Hillis
H3810 Hollenbeck
H3810 Holt
H3810 Holtzman
H3810 Howard
H3810 Hubbard
H3810 Huckaby
H3810 Hughes
H3810 Hyde
H3810 Jacobs
H3810 Jeffords
H3810 Jenkins
H3810 Jenrette
H3810 Johnson, Calif.
H3810 Johnson, Colo.
H3810 Jones, N.C.
H3810 Jones, Okla.
H3810 Jordan
H3810 Kasten
H3810 Kastenmeier
H3810 Kazen
H3810 Kelly
H3810 Kemp
H3810 Keys
H3810 Kildee
H3810 Kindness
H3810 Kostmayer
H3810 Krebs
H3810 LaFalce
H3810 Lagomarsino
H3810 Le Fante
H3810 Leach
H3810 Lederer
H3810 Lehman
H3810 Levitas
H3810 Lloyd, Calif.
H3810 Lloyd, Tenn.
H3810 Long, La.
H3810 Lott
H3810 Luken
H3810 Lundine
H3810 McClory
H3810 McCloskey
H3810 McCormack
H3810 McDade
H3810 McDonald
H3810 McFall
H3810 McHugh
H3810 McKinney
H3810 Madigan
H3810 Maguire
H3810 Mann
H3810 Markey
H3810 Marks
H3810 Marienee
H3810 Marriott
H3810 Martin
H3810 Mathis
H3810 Mattox
H3810 Meeds
H3810 Michel
H3810 Mikulski
H3810 Mikva
H3810 Miller, Calif.
H3810 Miller, Ohio
H3810 Mineta
H3810 Minish
H3810 Mitchell, N.Y.
H3810 Moffett
H3810 Mollohan
H3810 Montgomery
H3810 Moore
H3810 Moorhead, Pa.
H3810 Moss
H3810 Mottl
H3810 Murphy, Pa.
H3810 Murtha
H3810 Myers, Gary
H3810 Myers, Michael
H3810 Myers, Ind.
H3810 Natcher
H3810 Nedzi
H3810 Nichols
H3810 Nix
H3810 Nowak
H3810 O'Brien
H3810 Oakar
H3810 Oberstar
H3810 Obey
H3810 Ottinger
H3810 Panetta
H3810 Patten
H3810 Pattison
H3810 Pease
H3810 Pepper
H3810 Perkins
H3810 Pettis
H3810 Pike
H3810 Poage
H3810 Pressler
H3810 Preyer
H3810 Pursell
H3810 Quie
H3810 Quillen
H3810 Rahall
H3810 Regula
H3810 Reuss
H3810 Rhodes
H3810 Richmond
H3810 Risenhoover
H3810 Robinson
H3810 Rodino
H3810 Rogers
H3810 Roncalio
H3810 Rosenthal
H3810 Rostenkowski
H3810 Rudd
H3810 Runnels
H3810 Russo
H3810 Ryan
H3810 Santini
H3810 Satterfield
H3810 Scheuer
H3810 Schroeder
H3810 Schulze
H3810 Seiberling
H3810 Sharp
H3810 Shipley
H3810 Shuster
H3810 Sikes
H3810 Simon
H3810 Skelton
H3810 Skubitz
H3810 Slack
H3810 Smith, Iowa
H3810 Smith, Nebr.
H3810 Solarz
H3810 Spellman
H3810 Spence
H3810 Staggers
H3810 Stangeland
H3810 Stanton
H3810 Steers
H3810 Stockman
H3810 Stratton
H3810 Studds
H3810 Stump
H3810 Thompson
H3810 Thone
H3810 Tonry
H3810 Traxler
H3810 Treen
H3810 Trible
H3810 Tsongas
H3810 Tucker
H3810 Udall
H3810 Ullman
H3810 Van Deerlin
H3810 Vento
H3810 Waggonner
H3810 Walker
H3810 Walsh
H3810 Wampler
H3810 Watkins
H3810 Waxman
H3810 Weaver
H3810 Weiss
H3810 Whalen
H3810 White
H3810 Whitley
H3810 Whitten
H3810 Wilson, Bob
H3810 Wilson, Tex.
H3810 Winn
H3810 Wirth
H3810 Wolff
H3810 Wright
H3810 Wylie
H3810 Yates
H3810 Yatron
H3810 Young, Alaska
H3810 Young, Fla.
H3810 Young, Mo.
H3810 Young, Tex.
H3810 Zablocki
H3810 NAYS - 1
H3810 Symms
H3810 NOT VOTING - 123
H3810 Abdnor
H3810 Addabbo
H3810 Andrews, N.C.
H3810 Ashley
H3810 Aspin
H3810 AuCoin
H3810 Badham
H3810 Barnard
H3810 Beard, R.I.
H3810 Beard, Tenn.
H3810 Biaggi
H3810 Boggs
H3810 Boland
H3810 Bonker
H3810 Breaux
H3810 Brinkley
H3810 Brown, Mich.
H3810 Brown, Ohio
H3810 Burke, Calif.
H3810 Burke, Fla.
H3810 Cavanaugh
H3810 Cederberg
H3810 Chappell
H3810 Chisholm
H3810 Clay
H3810 Cleveland
H3810 Conyers
H3810 Cotter
H3810 Crane
H3810 Davis
H3810 Delaney
H3810 Dent
H3810 Derrick
H3810 Diggs
H3810 Dodd
H3810 Downey
H3810 Early
H3810 Eilberg
H3810 Evans, Ga.
H3810 Evans, Ind.
H3810 Fish
H3810 Fithian
H3810 Florio
H3810 Foley
H3810 Ford, Mich.
H3810 Forsythe
H3810 Fountain
H3810 Fraser
H3810 Frenzel
H3810 Fuqua
H3810 Gilman
H3810 Gradison
H3810 Hammerschmidt
H3810 Hansen
H3810 Harkin
H3810 Harrington
H3810 Harsha
H3810 Hefner
H3810 Heftel
H3810 Holland
H3810 Horton
H3810 Ichord
H3810 Ireland
H3810 Jones, Tenn.
H3810 Ketchum
H3810 Koch
H3810 Krueger
H3810 Latta
H3810 Leggett
H3810 Lent
H3810 Long, Md.
H3810 Lujan
H3810 McEwen
H3810 McKay
H3810 Mahon
H3810 Mazzoli
H3810 Metcalfe
H3810 Meyner
H3810 Milford
H3810 Mitchell, Md.
H3810 Moakley
H3810 Moorhead, Calif.
H3810 Murphy, Ill.
H3810 Murphy, N.Y.
H3810 Neal
H3810 Nolan
H3810 Patterson
H3810 Pickle
H3810 Price
H3810 Pritchard
H3810 Quayle
H3810 Railsback
H3810 Rangel
H3810 Rinaldo
H3810 Roberts
H3810 Roe
H3810 Rooney
H3810 Rose
H3810 Rousselot
H3810 Roybal
H3810 Ruppe
H3810 Sarasin
H3810 Sawyer
H3810 Sebelius
H3810 Sisk
H3810 Snyder
H3810 St Germain
H3810 Stark
H3810 Steed
H3810 Steiger
H3810 Stokes
H3810 Taylor
H3810 Teague
H3810 Thornton
H3810 Vander Jagt
H3810 Vanik
H3810 Volkmer
H3810 Walgren
H3810 Whitehurst
H3810 Wiggins
H3810 Wilson, C.H.
H3810 Wydler
H3810 Zeferetti
H3810 So the motion was agreed to.
H3810 The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
H3810 IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
H3810 Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union for the further consideration of the bill H.R. 2, with Mr. SMITH of Iowa in the chair.
H3810 The Clerk read the title of the bill.
H3810 The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, April 28, 1977,
title V had been considered as read and open to amendment at any point.
H3810 Are there further amendments?
H3810 AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BAUCUS
H3810 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
H3810 The Clerk read as follows:
H3810 Amendment offered by Mr. BAUCUS: Strike all of section 510(b)(5), page 258, lines
21-25 and page 259, lines 1-22 and insert in lieu thereof:
H3810 (5) the proposed surface coal mining operation if located west of the one hundredth
meridian west longitude, would -
H3810 (A) not be located within an alluvial valley floor, or
H3810 (B) not materially damage the quantity or quality of water in surface or underground
water systems that supply these valley floors referred to in (A) of subsection (B)(5): Provided, That
this paragraph, (5) shall not apply to those surface coal mining operations located within or adjacent
to alluvial valley floors which in the year preceding the enactment of this Act were engaged in the
commercial production of coal or which had obtained prior to January 4, 1977, specific permit
approval by the State regulatory authority to conduct surface coal mining operations within said
alluvial valley floors; and
H3810 (Mr. BAUCUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
H3810 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I think that it is obvious to
all of us that our Nation is embarking upon a tremendous coal rush that will last for the rest of this
century. Certainly, the President's energy message told the country of the mandatory conversion of
utilities to coal and industrial plants to coal.
H3810 There is no doubt that we in America, particularly the Western States, have been
providing the bulk of America's energy needs. At the same time, I would like to point out to the
committee that one of the most important resources, in addition to coal in the West, is alluvial
valleys and water. I need not remind the committee of the arid conditions in the West, particularly
the Great Plains, and I also need not remind the committee that, particularly this year, we in the
West are experiencing a tremendous drought, which makes the value of our water resource even
more precious.
H3810 The amendment which I am offering seeks to protect this resource, to help bring into
balance the conflict between providing coal for America's energy needs and the necessity for
protecting the most valuable resource in the West - water.
H3810 The problem is that alluvial valleys, which are unconsolidated aquifers and stream beds in
the West, of silt and sand materials, are extremely fragile.
H3810 Alluvial valleys are those lowlands in the arid West where there is some water, not very
much, but there is some. Alluvial valleys are those lowlands where there is water available for
irrigation or subirrigation, that is, where there is water just below the surface of those lowlands.
{H3811} The problem is that we do not have enough information to know if we can adequately
protect them, because underneath these alluvial valleys we have underground water resources. We
in the West are extremely concerned that if we proceed with mining of alluvial valleys not only are
we going to destroy the cropland, the little cropland that is available for this part of the country, but
also we will disturb the underground resources.
H3811 The amendment I am offering today is a ban on alluvial valley surface mining, with two
grandfathers. Those companies which have a permit before January 1, are grandfathered and those
companies which during the preceding year were in commercial production are grandfathered.
H3811 The main point I want to make is that this amendment is fair to America's energy
needs.Only 2 percent to 3 percent of the total strippable coal presently lies in alluvial valleys. If we
add in the grandfather, that even lowers that percentage. Again, on the other hand, 97 percent to 98
percent of total strippable coal in the West is outside of the alluvial valleys and is not covered by this
amendment.
H3811 Further, this amendment only applies to those alluvial valleys west of the 100th meridian.
That is western coal. It does not apply to Appalachian coal, Pennsylvania coal, or other coal that is
found in the East.
H3811 Second, this amendment provides that those companies with permits before January 4 are
grandfathered. Those companies which were engaged in commercial production the prior year are
grandfathered.
H3811 Secretary Andrus informed me by phone today that he will make arrangements for those
companies who would not be exempt or grandfathered to swap leases. Thus, their damage, if any,
would be minimized.
H3811 Furthermore, I think my amendment constitutes a reasonable approach. We have to buy
time. If we are going to be engaged in this pellmell headlong rush to develop coal, at least we can
do it a little more reasonably. Let us back off. Let us protect this very fragile resource on the West.
H3811 If it turns out that alluvial valleys can be completely reclamined after mining, then we can
at least revise the ban. If it turns out, on the other hand, that we are damaging this fragile system,
then we have protected it.
H3811 I say, let us exercise caution, let us be reasonable, and let us adopt the amendment and
take care of those competing needs with the proper balance.
H3811 Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Chairman, I intend to seek additional time so we may have a
rather long colloquy and put in the RECORD certain and definite facts dealing with this most
important amendment, in my opinion, one of the most important we will consider.
H3811 I now refer to page H3735 of yesterday's CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, and I direct the
attention of the gentleman in the well to the fact that I submitted schedules yesterday on said page
covering three classes of coal mines in Wyoming.Some have already exceeded 1 million tons a year
of production.
H3811 Some are now producing, others with permits but not yet producing, and class III mines
neither licensed or producing, but on which substantial money has already been expended in
preparing to mine.
H3811 The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Montana (Mr. BAUCUS) has
expired.
H3811 (On request of Mr. RONCALIO and by unanimous consent, Mr. BAUCUS was allowed
to proceed for 5 additional minutes.)
H3811 Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?
H3811 Mr. BAUCUS. I yield to the gentleman from Wyoming.
H3811 Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Chairman, I ask, is my good friend familiar with the three
categories of mines I have referred to?
H3811 Mr. BAUCUS. Yes, I am familiar with those.
H3811 Mr. RONCALIO. The third category are those mines in alluvial valley floors, with
neither production or permits granted yet, and they include these:
H3811 These class III items are: Amax - Belle Ayr North, 4.43 square miles; Carter Oil Co. -
Caballo, 8.24 square miles; Kerr-McGee No. 2 Gillette, 4.7 square miles; Peabody - Rochelle, 3.21
square miles; Sun Oil Co. - Belle Fourche, 6.42 square miles; and Arco - Coal Creek, 9.42 square
miles.
H3811 None of these has yet received a mining permit from the State, although each of these
companies holds mining permits or is now in production on similar operations within a few miles, in
the same county, on the same type of soils.
H3811 Under the gentleman's amendment, I would like him to show me how these corporations
could continue to mine these class III leases on which they have already spent vast sums of money to
acquire the property, to purchase the surface, or to purchase equipment. They do not have a permit
on these class III acreages, and I want to know the intent of the author of this amendment - the
gentlemen in the well, if they may be permitted to mine because they have made substantial legal
and financial obligations.
H3811 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, it is my understanding that where there are
mining plans included covering portions in alluvial floors, those are very, very small, compared with
the total acreages.
H3811 Mr. RONCALIO. That is correct. But if the gentleman will yield, let me proceed further.
H3811 Does the gentleman's amendment preclude them from getting any permit in any area at all,
because the amendment knocks out of the bill the fact that they may even be considered for a
permit? They may be permitted to mine under the grandfathered provision under the bill in my
opinion, but under the amendment may they be granted permits? The amendment, it seems to me,
has knocked our picture askew.
H3811 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. Chairman, the answer to the gentleman's question is that those
portions that lie in alluvial valleys where the company does not have a permit or where the company
has not engaged in prior commercial production are very, very small. Second, as I pointed out
earlier, the Secretary of the interior can make trades. He can trade those portions that would be
banned by my amendment for other portions outside alluvial valleys that are adiacent to the other
portion of the mining plan.
H3811 In no way is this amendment intended to exclude production permits.
H3811 Mr. RONCALIO. Then, Mr. Chairman, let me ask the gentleman this again specifically:
H3811 Regarding the Arco - Coal Creek site or coal mine, comprising the 9.24 square miles,
there is 0.19 percent thereof - or about 2 percent alluvial valley - lies in the proposed alluvial valley
floor.
H3811 Does the gentleman say that his amendment would deny a mining permit to only the 0.19
of an acre, and not the 9 square miles?
H3811 Mr. BAUCUS. That is absolutely correct. Even in that chance there is a good chance that
the Secretary of the Interior could make an arrangement relating to that particular portion.
H3811 Mr. RONCALIO. And similarly then, as to the Belle Fourche mine of the Sun Oil Co.,
with 6.42 square miles, with the Carter Oil Co. - Caballo, where only 2 percent of that area lies in
the alluvial valley, the gentleman's amendment OK's a permit to the 8 square miles, and not to the 2
percent classed as an alluvial valley floor?
H3811 Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct.
H3811 Mr. RONCALIO. And that is similarly true of the other mines in the list appearing on
page H3735 in class III?
H3811 Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct.
H3811 Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman may well have converted some Members
with his approach to this amendment, but let me ask him a few more questions.
H3811 If the gentleman's amendment is adopted, will all mines which produced coal in
commercial quantities in the year prior to enactment of this act be exempt from having to meet the
criteria of section 510(b)(5)?
H3811 Mr. BAUCUS. That is exactly one of the purposes of the amendment.
H3811 Mr. RONCALIO.If the gentleman's amendment is approved, will all mines which had
received State permits prior to January 4. 1977. be exempt from having to meet the criteria of that
section?
H3811 Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct.
H3811 Mr. RONCALIO. If the gentleman's amendment is approved, will mines located adjacent
to alluvial valley floors be allowed permits if their operations would not materially damage the
quality and quantity of water available for farming and ranching on these valley floors?
H3811 Mr. BAUCUS. Yes.
H3811 Mr. RONCALIO. Lastly, will the gentleman's amendment assure that the essential
hydrologic functions of alluvial valley floors are preserved?
{H3812} Mr. BAUCUS. Absolutely.
H3812 Mr. RONCALIO. I thank the gentleman very, very much.
H3812 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. Chairman, I have two further points to make.
H3812 This amendment is strongly supported by the administration. Secretary Andrus favors this
amendment. In fact, he appears to favor this amendment for the reasons I have outlined; but the
second reason is that the present provisions in the bill restricting mining in alluvial valleys is a
matter which also provides exceptions and is an administrative nightmare as well as being
unworkable. The language is so vague as to be unintellible.
H3812 The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Montanta (Mr. BAUCUS) has
expired.
H3812 (On request of Mr. BAUMAN and by unanimous consent, Mr. BAUCUS was allowed to
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
H3812 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. Chairman, the second point I want to make is that I also talked with
Dr. Schlesinger. He supports this amendment. I asked him whether he does, and he does.
H3812 Mr. Chairman, if anybody is for providing energy through coal, I think it would be Dr.
Schlesinger.
H3812 Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
H3812 Mr. BAUCUS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
H3812 Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to hear the gentleman's belated concern about
administrative nightmares. Every page of this bill contains that kind of potential.
H3812 The question I have is this: In the course of the gentleman's assurances in response to the
questions of the gentleman from Wyoming (Mr. RONCALIO), the gentleman made the rather
surprising statement that if these coal companies are suffering by losing the right to mine certain
lands, as a result of his amendment, the Secretary can somehow make provisions to alleviate the
situation by allocating other nonalluvial lands to the company.
H3812 Mr. Chairman, I know of no authority under the Coal Leasing Act of under this bill that
permits any transfer by the Secretary in a situation like that. Therefore, there is going to be a
significant loss of coal production, at least in the areas affected by the gentleman's amendment. The
impact of the amendment is much broader in scope than the gentleman has admitted today.
H3812 Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman respond to that. Where is the authority he describes to
switch around coal lease areas in the West to meet the losses that your amendment is going to
produce?
H3812 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding, from a conversation with the
Secretary, that there is no authority to do that in certain areas.
H3812 I am not as familiar with this portion of the bill as is the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
BAUMAN).All I can go on is on the assurance that the Secretary gave me. Of course, there cannot
always be a 100-percent certainty.
H3812 Mr. BAUMAN. If the gentleman will yield further, from what I know of the situation,
there is no existing authority in law to do what the gentleman is talking about, despite Mr. Andrus'
personal opinion.
H3812 The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Montana (Mr. BAUCUS) has
expired.
H3812 (On request of Mr. RONCALIO and by unanimous consent, Mr. BAUCUS was allowed
to proceed for 5 additional minutes.)
H3812 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. Chairman, the Secretary is very aware that this will occur in very few
instances, but there will be unwarranted hardships in certain cases.In those cases he is going to do
what he can within the authority he now has, at least, to do what he can to help out.It is the
Secretary's intention to do what he can to help out in those situations.
H3812 Mr. RONCALIO.Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
H3812 Mr. BAUCUS. I yield to the gentleman from Wyoming.
H3812 Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Chairman, I would like the record to show that I place no faith in
assurances by which the Secretary of the Interior will relieve any hardships. We have to go by strict
statute from this day forward in the western areas.
H3812 Mr. Chairman, I have already observed the Secretary of the Interior refusing to take
advantage of the very provisions of section 39, under which we gave him authority last year in the
Coal Leasing Act, to alleviate hardships and cut bureaucratic redtape regarding coal lease
modifications.
H3812 However, Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman in the well for his assurance on my
questions today. If future applicants do not qualify for a permit, and there is one instance in which
the Tongue River in Wyoming is involved, then it would appear they do not came under the
provisions of the grandfather clause; is that correct?
H3812 Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct.
H3812 Mr. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
H3812 Mr. BAUCUS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
H3812 Mr. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, one of the arguments used against this is that it will
lower recovery capablities in terms of our energy needs.
H3812 The fact is that one could only get this from industry sources.
H3812 There are enormous supplies of coal in the West, that would probably last for 100, 200, or
300 years, an extraordinary period.
H3812 What the gentleman is attempting to do in the West and what the bill is attempting to do is
to set the direction in which the companies must go in order to gain or get the coal we need.
H3812 Let me illustrate, to see whether the gentleman from Montana agrees.
H3812 The first area, as I understand, that would be used would be strippable coal on nonprime
lands, nonalluvial valley coal. Second, after that has been depleted we would go into deep-mine
reserves, and everybody is aware that deepmine reserve coal is greater than strippable coal, even in
the gentleman from Montana's State I believe the ratio is 2 to 1. And then, and only then, would we
move into areas where we would upset the prime agricultural lands and alluvial valley floors, so that
only in the last resort when the country would be to the point of desperation would we encourage the
incursion of mining in those lands that are necessary for agricultural production.
H3812 Is that a correct analysis?
H3812 Mr. BAUCUS.Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
TSONGAS) has stated the situation very well; the gentleman has stated the categories and the
priorities we will be pursuing as we mine coal. Obviously there is some coal that we should mine
before we mine the other coal. The gentleman has outlined that very well.
H3812 Mr. MARRIOTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
H3812 Mr. BAUCUS. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
H3812 Mr. MARRIOTT. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Montana whether the
gentleman is willing to accept the definition of alluvial valley floor that is contained in the bill?
H3812 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. Chairman, I must say that as a lawyer, I am never satisfied with any
definition, but I believe the definition in the bill is workable.
H3812 Mr. MARRIOTT. Mr. Chairman, I must say to the gentleman from Montana that in Utah
we have a lot of arid land which is erosioned and only gets water about 10 days out of the year.
During the time that this land gets the water, of course, we do have this drainage, and it would
appear to meet the requirements under the definition of this bill. Would it be the intent of the
gentleman from Montana that that type of land would not be classified as alluvial valley floor land?
H3812 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. Chairman, I wish that I could answer the gentleman from Utah with a
definite yes or no but the decision has to be worked out. It is a problem that depends upon whether
or not my amendment is agreed to. My amendment has nothing to do with the definition of alluvial
valley floor but that is a question that will have to be worked out.
H3812 Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
H3812 Mr. BAUCUS. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
H3812 Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I frankly do not understand why the
gentleman from Montana feels that there is a need for this particular amendment since the bill
contains a provision that says that there will be no mining in alluvial valley floors except in
undeveloped range land which are not significant to farming on said alluvial valley floors and those
lands as to which the regulatory authority finds that the farming that will be interrupted,
discontinued, or prevented is of such small acreage as to be of negligible impact.
H3812 The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
H3812 (On request of Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado, and by unanimous consent, Mr. BAUCUS
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
H3812 Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the bill
already takes care of the impact of mining on farming land and agricultare and the gentleman from
Montana is going a step further and says that there will be no mining whatsoever even in areas
where there is no agriculture and where agriculture is not contemplated.
{H3813} Why is the gentleman from Montana so restrictive about mining in areas that are
essentially undeveloped range lands? What is so essential in the undeveloped range lands in those
parts of the West where there is no farming of any kind going on?
H3813 Mr. BAUCUS. In the first place, the portion of the bill to which the gentleman from
Colorado referred is very vague and actually the exceptions are larger than the rule.
H3813 Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Let me ask the gentleman from Montana what is vague
about the term undeveloped range lands? I would assume that to mean range land that is not
developed. That is not difficult to understand.
H3813 Mr. BAUCUS. The point is that a company could secure leases on the land of
undeveloped range land and then develop that land and thus boot strap itself into an exception so it
could mine.
H3813 The problem is that the exceptions could very easily be as large as the rule itself. That is
why I believe this to be an administrative nightmare.
H3813 The second point is yes, I do want to cut down on the availability of strip mining in
alluvial valley floors.
H3813 The point is that we have sufficient strippable coal anyway and let us not use the alluvial
valleys. I believe that is all we are trying to do.
H3813 What is happening here is merely a microcosm of energy solutions in the entire country -
East, West, North, and South. Each section of the country will have to accept a little bit of sacrifice
and will have to give in a little bit. All I am asking is that all of us in the country realize that the
proper balance is to restrict some of the mining in the alluvial valley floors.
H3813 The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Montana has expired.
H3813 (On request of Mr. ROVCALIO, and by unanimous consent, Mr. BAUCUS was allowed
to proceed for 5 additional minutes.)
H3813 Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has suggested a scenario where the
company will buy up these alluvial valley floors and not develop them for a long time and claim
they are undeveloped range land and then they will be able to get exceptions.
H3813 The Department of the Interior can force them to develop that and if they are going to go
through that sort of ruse the Department of the Interior can invalidate their leases.
H3813 Mr. BAUCUS. If we give a lot of exemptions or categories, for example, a coal company
can find and there are all kinds of ways to skin a cat.I am trying for the sake of public policy and
clarity to tighten these exemptions.
H3813 Mr. RONCALIO. Is the gentleman familiar with Clear Creek that flows through the
area?
H3813 Mr. BAUCUS. I know the area.
H3813 Mr. RONCALIO. Would that not generaly apply as an alluvial valley floor?
H3813 Mr. BAUCUS. I would say yes.
H3813 Mr. RONCALIO. Is the gentleman familiar with the Campbell County area and east
thereof and would not the strip mining apply there?
H3813 Mr. BAUCUS. As the gentleman describes the area it sounds like this would be outside
that alluvial valley.
H3813 Mr. RONCALIO. I regret very much that in the years we have been working on this
complex matter we could not have taken ultra-high-elevation photos with infraray shots of the
alluvial valley floors, and made precise definitions that mandated certain sections and townships as
barred, and certain sections and townships could be mined. That would have been an appropriate
way to write this law.
H3813 I am terribly uneasy with this amendment. I am proud of what the gentleman is trying to
do but he must understand our situation. We have labored in committee with this for 4 or 5 years
and then he comes in here on the last day of the legislation, and causes my concern.
H3813 Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
H3813 Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. There may be
some question about an effete easterner standing up and defining what a western alluvial valley floor
is but some Members may be in doubt. These areas in the West have infrequent rains but may have
underground water supplies. There is at least enough water so there is a possibility of agricultural
development and many areas in the West fall into this category.
H3813 Unfortunately from the point of view of some these areas also often contain deposits of
minerals such as coal. I remember once passing over one such area in Kansas which was called the
Republican River.Members on the other side of the aisle may be pleased to know it was bone dry, as
is the situation around here sometimes.
H3813 But what the gentleman from Montana is suggesting by his amendment is a total banning
of any mining in these alluvial areas. The committee considered this section at great length.The
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. UDALL) and others worked on compromise language and they put
into the bill - and I do not particularly like the language in the bill - what is almost a total ban right
now. But as the gentleman from Colorado pointed out, there are two exceptions permitted.
H3813 The bill before us has more than adequate protective language covering alluvial valley
floors and mining. The bill allows the regulatory authority to say no, you cannot mine. There is
plenty of protection for these kinds of areas.
H3813 The gentleman is presenting an extreme position in this amendment. The real issue the
amendment raises is in terms of current and future coal production. I refer again to the EPA-CEQ
report which addressed itself to this kind of absolute ban. It would force up the utility rates in
Cleveland and Chicago and New York. By 1985, the Environmental Protection Agency tells us, we
will lose 211 million tons if a complete alluvial valley ban is imposed. That is current production.
But more importantly it will probably remove permanently known reserves of 12.6 billion tons. I
refer the Members again to a report which was prepared by these agencies which has been
completely ignored in this debate. It says plainly that this kind of ban is not needed.
H3813 If this amendment is adopted it guarantees that we are going to have a significant loss in
coal production with no great benefit to the environment as a balance. We will also have a
significant rise in coal prices and utility prices.This position was rejected by the committee and
ought to be rejected by the House.Certainly to come in at the last minute is not warranted.
H3813 What the gentleman from Montana is seeking in his amendment is a prohibition against
mining in "alluvial valley floors." This proposed amendment is not unlike the "prime agriculture
land" amendment offered yesterday and subsequently defeated by this body.
H3813 I would urge my colleagues to listen to some of the facts that have been developed from
studies conducted by governmental agencies as well as private consulting firms:
H3813 The ICF study to which I referred yesterday points out that -
H3813 There are indications that under site-specific circumstances, it is possible to mine on
alluvial valley floors and still be able to preserve the hydrologic functions.
H3813 The provisions could impact not only those mines on the alluvial valley floors, but also
those mines which could affect the water flowing into alluvial valley floors. Thus, if a mine site
contains (or is near) any alluvial valley floor, the entire mining operation could conceivably be
impacted. To this end, a more meaningful indication of the portion of the industry which could be
affected might be the percentage of the areas leased which contain any alluvial valley floors. Of the
88 sites examined by EPA, 62 sites (or 70 percent) contained alluvial valley floors.
H3813 Impacts on coal production and reserve impacts which would likely result if we approve
the Baucus amendment would be "211 million tons by 1985" and "12.6 billion tons" respectively.
H3813 On page 4 of a letter to Chairman UDALL from Mr. John A. Green, Regional
Administrator, EPA relating to alluvial valley floors, dated February 15, it states in part that -
H3813 The information also shows that larger amounts of coal, ranging from ten percent up to
one hundred percent of the coal in a mining operation intersecting an alluvial valley floor could be
affected by an outright ban on any mining affecting an alluvial valley floor.
H3813 The amendment proposed by the gentleman from Montana would certainly impose such
an outright ban. On page 7 of attachment II of the same letter it goes on to state that -
H3813 Based on work we have supported in Montana, our close association with other scientists,
and the effort conducted by this Regional Office of EPA, we believe that . . . areas of alluvial valley
floors can be surface mined without adverse impact on the longterm productivity of those
agricultural lands. Prevention of mining in all alluvial valley floors is, we believe, unwarranted.
H3813 Based on these statements by the EPA and ICF, Inc., I would urge my colleagues to reject
the gentleman's amendment.
{H3814} Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
H3814 Mr. BAUMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
H3814 Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that the language
of the bill as presently written states, if anything, a slight discretion for the Secretary. When we are
talking about the small acreage and negligible impact on agricultural livestock production, that
gives the Secretary some discretion. I suppose we could argue that should be removed; but the other
portion says there will be no mining on alluvial valley floors, except undeveloped rangelands which
are not significant and farms or lands presently grazed only by cattle or sheep.
H3814 Why do we want to prevent mining in areas where there is only grazing for cattle or
sheep? That makes no sense to me whatever.
H3814 I think the extension of the gentleman's amendment goes too far and is not warranted.
H3814 Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the gentleman from Colorado is a
sponsor of the bill and the gentleman takes the position that I take here.
H3814 I might say that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. RUPPE) takes the same position.The
gentleman has been a strong supporter of the bill and opposes this amendment.
H3814 The amendment goes too far. If we believe Mr. Carter when he says we need energy, this
is the kind of amendment that ought to be stopped.
H3814 Mr. SKUBITZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
H3814 Mr. BAUMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
H3814 Mr. SKUBITZ. Mr. Chairman, I stated I would support the bill, where we have a delicate
balance. We have a situation where I agreed to go along. If we start this sort of thing, some of us
will fall along the wayside.
H3814 Mr. MEEDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
H3814 (Mr. MEEDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
H3814 Mr. MEEDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment of the
gentleman from Montana.
H3814 Let me-point out at the outset that I have been one of the cosponsors of every strip mining
bill which has come down the pike since 1970, the first one.
H3814 I strongly support this bill. I will vote for the bill, whether or not the Baucus amendment
passes. I think it is essential that we have good strip mining legislation. I think this bill
encompasses and brings us good strip mining legislation; but I have to say that I do think that this
portion of the bill, if it is changed as the gentleman from Montana suggests it be changed, will
become extremely unfair on some people.
H3814 Now, if we will look at the section with which we are dealing, as the gentleman from
Colorado correctly pointed out, there are just two exceptions for mining in alluvial valleys. In those
exceptions, we will note that the concept is that where people have invested money, invested capital
and have started or have obtained permits, they are allowed to continue. As the bill now reads, if
they have invested "substantial sums of money or made substantial legal commitments," they also
may continue.
H3814 The concept of the substantial financial commitment and legal commitment is the same as
the permit or as the development which has gone on. The purpose there is to give those people who
have already changed their position and invested money and time and effort the opportunity to
proceed. Those are the very limited exceptions that the bill allows.
H3814 I think those who have made substantial financial commitments becaus they felt they
could mine those areas should not now be shut out by an amendment adopted on the floor, because it
becomes very unfair to them; just as it becomes unfair to people who have made substantial legal
commitments. Now, there are many instances where they are already mining. There are other
instances where they have permits, and there are a few instances where people have made substantial
financial commitments. They have gone and looked at these areas and made substantial legal
commitments for leases because they expected to mine coal there.
H3814 The other parts of the act applies to them.They are not going to ravage the alluvial valley
floors. They are not going to tear up the earth. They are going to do this in a proper manner.I would
not be here supporting an amendment which I thought was going to undo the very fine work I think
this committee has done, but if we change that "or" to "and," we make this bill very unfair to some
people.
H3814 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
H3814 Mr. MEEDS. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.
H3814 Mr. BAUCUS.Mr. Chairman, first I would like to commend the gentleman for his work
on this bill. He has worked long and hard for many years on it.The gentleman knows better than I
the tortuous history of the bill, and I commend the gentleman for his very diligent and fair work on
it.
H3814 I am wondering if the gentleman could tell me the number of companies or the amount of
financial hardship those companies would incur if this amendment were adopted.
H3814 Mr. MEEDS. I tried to get that information and was unable to get it in the very short time
that we have. I was just informed that this amendment would be presented yesterday, and the
language "or" is in the act now. I am informed that there are not very many people involved, but we
just made arrangements to exempt - it seemed to me - practically the whole State of Wyoming for
the gentleman from Wyoming. Perhaps we could exempt the rest of the country, which I am sure is
not very significant.
H3814 Mr. BAUCUS. The point obviously is that where there are a few companies - and the
gentleman said there are only a few - the Secretary is going to make every assurance to alleviate
those hardships. The Secretary is sympathetic with these problems in the few cases where there will
be hardships. It seems to me where that is the case, the Secretary under his present authority, can
help relieve that unnecessary hardship and burden. Yet, he cannot take care of everything. The
bottom line of all this is, I think, that it is important to protect the alluvial valleys.
H3814 The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Washington has expired.
H3814 (On request of Mr. EVANS of Colorado and by unanimous consent Mr. MEEDS was
allwed to proceed for 4 additional minutes.)
H3814 Mr. MEEDS. I have the same apprehension that the gentleman from Colorado and the
gentleman from Maryland expresed. That is, No. 1, I do not know where the authority for those
transfers exist of the Secretary. There may be some authority, but I am unaware of it.
H3814 Second, and very importantly, as the gentleman from Maryland stated, we passed the Coal
Leasing Act, and under that act the holders of leasehold interests are required to proceed with
diligence. A 5-year delay is going to put them into the position of not having responded to the Coal
Leasing Act, and I am afraid they are going to be out of their leases.
H3814 Mr. EVANS of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
H3814 Mr. MEEDS. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
H3814 Mr. EVANS of Colorado. I would like a clarification of the requirments of section
510(5)(A). Subsection (5) on page 258 appears to have two provions; one in which it states, "the
proposed surface coal mining operations . . . " and continues, "would not interrupt, discontinue, or
prevent farming on alluvial valley fllors."
H3814 That is subparagraph (A), and on page 259 subparagraph (A) ends with the word "or,".
Then, you have a new subparagraph (B), which savs, "not materially damage the quantity or quality
of water in surface or underground water systems that supply these valley floors."
H3814 It is my understanding, in reading both subsections (A) and (B), that an applicant would
have to satisfy both subsection (A) and subsection (B). It is not (A) or (B), but both (A) and (B), is
that correct?
H3814 Mr. MEEDS. I agree with the gentleman. I do not want, by my position, to be understood
to be opening alluvial valley floors for indiscriminate mining. I think they still have to, "not
materially damage the quantity or quality of water in surface or underground water systems."
H3814 Mr. EVANS of Colorado. Even though they were not interrupting or discontinuing?
H3814 Mr. MEEDS. That is correct.
H3814 Mr. EVANS of Colorado. I thank the gentleman.
H3814 Mr. MEEDS. I think it should be interpreted very tightly, but I do not feel that those
people who have made substantial investments should now, by an amendment on the floor, lose their
rights.
H3814 And notice, also, that they have to have acquired those rights and those substantial
financial investments or legal obligations prior to January 4, 1977. So this is nothing that somebody
is going to come in on. They have to have been there in January, of this year, before this bill was
conceived.
{H3815} Mr. MARRIOTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
H3815 Mr. MEEDS. I yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. MARRIOTT).
H3815 Mr. MARRIOTT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
H3815 Mr. Chairman, I applaud the gentleman in his opposition to this amendment. I think it is a
bad amendment.
H3815 I would like to put in the RECORD the words of the distinguished Chairman of the EPA,
and his remarks read as follows:
H3815 Based upon work we have supported in Montana, our close association with other
scientists, and the effort conducted by this Regional Office of EPA, we believe that selected areas of
alluvial valley floors can be surface-mined without adverse impact on the long-term productivity of
these agricultural lands.
H3815 The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Washington has expired.
H3815 (By unanimous consent, Mr. MEEDS was allwed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
H3815 Mr. MARRIOTT. If the gentleman will yield further, this goes on to say:
H3815 However, only the effort EPA has supported in Montana has begun to identify the true
role of the alluvial valley floor in the agricultural economy. Prevention of mining in all alluvial
valley floors is, we believe, unwarranted.
H3815 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question?
H3815 Mr. MEEDS. I yield to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. BAUCUS).
H3815 Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
H3815 Mr. Chairman, that letter the gentleman quotes from is from an earlier time. Subsequent
to that letter, the Administrator of EPA has checked off and agreed to this amendment.
H3815 Mr. MARRIOTT. This is a Febrauary 15 letter.
H3815 Mr. BAUCUS. Subsequent to that time the Administrator of EPA has agreed to the ban.
It is a matter which the Administrator of EPA has checked off on. This is the administration's
position. The Administrator wants this amendment.
H3815 Mr. MEEDS. Apparently the administration and EPA have given way to the giants in
Wyoming also. But what about the smaller people who have made a substantial investment? If we
accept the amendment, we miss them.
H3815 Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
H3815 (Mr. UDALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
H3815 Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I have the feeling that I have been here before.Nothing in
these last 4 or 5 years has taken more time and controversy than the protection of these fragile
alluvial valley floors, which are so critical out in the West. We have always had one position in the
committee, and there was a much stronger and different position in the House.
H3815 The identical amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana (Mr. BAUCUS) was
offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. EVANS) in the last two Congresses, and each time it
carried on the floor. When we went to the conference committee, the Senate had a much weaker
environmental position on this than the House did, and we had to make some accommodation.
H3815 I had thought that in the committee we did a pretty good job protecting these alluvial
valley floors. I want to protect them. They are fragile; they are critical. But there we are again, in
the same old situation. As for myself, I am going to vote for the Baucus amendment. I am going to
vote for it because it has been the position of the House twice before, because this is not the final
word. The final word will be written at conference committee. The administration, which I support
as often as I can, feel that this is the single important remaining environmental issue to be resolved.
So I am going to vote for this.
H3815 Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield at that point?
H3815 Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. BAUMAN).
H3815 Mr. BAUMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
H3815 Can we characterize this as one of the gentleman's "I am not happy with this but"
speeches?
H3815 Mr. UDALL. The gentleman can say that. I thought in the beginning that we did a pretty
good balanced job in committee in protecting the alluvial valley floors. We have had a whole
barrage of calls from environmental groups and calls from administrative officials, who think this
gives more adequate protection.
H3815 Mr. Chairman, we think somehow this is going to give more protection. I do not think it
gives very much more, and I do not view this as much of a lockup.We do not protect the whole
valley; we protect the valley floor. In most cases this comprises a hundred yards. This is the
subterranean stream, or this is where the alfalfa and forage crops are raised.
H3815 They can mine in the valley up to the floor, but they cannot mine in the floor itself.
H3815 Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, does the entleman from Arizona (Mr. UDALL) not admit
that the hydrological preservation requirement of this particular section could extend the area of the
ban which has been proposed miles and miles away from the valley floor?
H3815 Mr. UDALL.No. I do not think so.
H3815 Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment ought to be agreed to and I am going to vote for it.
H3815 Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
H3815 Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I promised the leadership last night, as well as a number of
our brethren today, that we would try to get through by 1 or 2 o'clock this afternoon.We have
already taken an hour on this amendment, and we have quite a few more to consider.
H3815 Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and
all amendments thereto close at 12:20 o'clock p.m.
H3815 The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arizona?
H3815 Mr. SEIBERLING.Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I believe the gentleman is
too generous.
H3815 Let us make it 12:15 p.m.
H3815 Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment
and all amendments thereto close at 12:20 o'clock p.m. That should give every Member enough
time.
H3815 Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I wonder if we could
establish with the consideration of this amendment the fact that there wil be none of this strawman
business of standing up while Members yield to other Members.If we do that, I would have to object.
I would hope that we can have an honest debate.
H3815 Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw my unanimous-consent request and put it in
the form of a motion.
H3815 Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on the pending amendment and all amendments
thereto close at 12:20 o'clock p.m.
H3815 The motion was agreed to.
H3815 The CHAIRMAN. Members standing at the time the motion was agreed to will each be
recognized for 45 seconds each.
H3815 The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. JOHNSON).
H3815 Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, the only reason I am taking this time to
speak again on this subject is because I think the chairman of the commitee misspoke himself when
he said something. I would like to correct it and give him the opportunity to correct it, unless I am
wrong.
H3815 I thought the gentleman said that this was to try to prevent farming that was taking place.
The gentleman gave the example when we were speaking of the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Montana (Mr. BAUCUS) that this was to stop farming from taking place.
H3815 The bill already provides for that, and there will not be any farming operations which are
interrupted except for that one narrow exception that I pointed out earlier. This would essentially
stop mining in areas that are presently being grazed by cattle and sheep.
H3815 Mr. Chairman, I will ask the gentleman, is that not correct?
H3815 Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, if it is in the valley floor itself,
then there would be a ban in the valley floor.
H3815 Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. That is where there is no present operation?
H3815 Mr. UDALL. That is right, where there is no mining in the valley floor.
H3815 The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
JEFFORDS).
H3815 (Mr. JEFFORDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
H3815 Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, you may consider a question of risk and I strongly
support the amendment.
{H3816} If we vote for the amendment, we may prevent what the administration feels is a
significant risk to the alluvial valley floors. If we do not vote for it, we will create that risk.
H3816 At the same time it has been demonstrated that we are not running any risk by voting for
it, with respect to the energy crisis because there is not any significant amount of coal there, and
there are much more substantial amounts of coal lying outside this area that can be mined without
any hindrance to filling our energy needs.
H3816 These floors are particularly rich agricultural areas, and as many of my colleagues here
know, we are facing a severe attrition in our prime agricultural lands.The Soil Conservation Service
has stated that strip mining as it is currently practiced in much of the Nation either ruins or severely
degrades the productivity of these lands. And it is still not clear that we have the ability to restore
these prime lands satisfactorily after they are strip mined. I am aware that much of the land in
question is used for cattle grazing, and is not presently under cultivation. But the underground
water systems which would be endangered by strip mining present a long-term potential for crop
cultivation, and with the annual attrition of prime lands, these floors may well be needed in the near
to midterm future. They, therefore, represent an insurance policy which we need to retain.
H3816 We will find, I think, that husbanding these agricultural resources now, while we mine our
coal outside prime lands will pay dividends many times over, and I commend my colleague for his
farreaching reaching perspective in offering his amendment.
H3816 The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. SYMMS).
H3816 (Mr. SYMMS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
H3816 Mr. SYMMS. Mr. Chairman, I am surprised that the chairman of the committee would be
for this amendment when we have, I believe, in the bill struck a delicate balance and reached some
sense of equity, as far as unified competion from State to State is concerned.
H3816 On the bottom line, Mr. Chairman, what this will do is preclude the mining of coal in
many areas where we have low sulphur coal, areas in which the cowboys say the cattle have to do
30 miles an hour to keep from starving to death because the grass is so sparse, these are the areas
that this amendment will deny Americans from mining.
H3816 Mr. Chairman, we are going to stop mining there and force mining of coal in areas like
Ohio, where there is highsulphur coal.
H3816 If we want a good environmental vote, let us vote against this amendment because it is
only going to be a way to block mining in Wyoming and in Montana and in places where we have
the most and biggest source of low-sulphur coal, the cleanest kind of coal, and the best kind to use to
solve our energy crisis.
H3816 Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of the amendment.
H3816 AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. RONCALIO TO THE AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY MR. BAUCUS
H3816 Mr. RONCALIO.Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
H3816 The Clerk read as follows:
H3816 Amendment offered by Mr. RONCALIO to the amendment offered by Mr. BAUCUS: at
the end thereof, add: "or for which financial commitments for equipment or surface rights as
determined by the Secretary of Interior had been made prior to January 4, 1977."
H3816 (Mr. RONCALIO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
H3816 Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Chairman, we have all heard my good friend, the gentleman from
Montana (Mr. BAUCUS), say that if determinations were made by the Secretary which would
warrant the granting of a permit for those areas which were elucidated in the prior colloquy here, the
permit should issue.
H3816 That is all this amendment does, and I urge its adoption.
H3816 The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. SEIBERLING).
H3816 (Mr. SEIBERLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
H3816 Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment which the gentleman from
Wyoming (Mr. RONCALIO) just offered points up the basic defect in the language of the bill which
would be stricken by the gentleman from Montana (Mr. BAUCUS).
H3816 Mr. Chairman, we already moved the cutoff date for the grandfather clause January 4 of
this year. The industry has known for 2 years of this potential ban on mining on alluvial valley
floors and has had ample time to obtain permits.
H3816 If the Members will look at page 119 of the committee report, they will see that we are
talking about 2 to 3 percent of the western coal reserves, which are only a fraction of the Nation's
coal. that could be affected by a ban on stripping alluvial valley floors. Therefore, we are not
talking about a lot of coal here.
H3816 Consequently, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Wyoming is the wrong amendment. If I were offering an amendment, it would be to knock out
the grandfather clause that covers substantial financial commitments. but restantial the rest of the
language of the section, which I think is reasonable language.
H3816 The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah (Mr. MARRIOTT).
H3816 (Mr. MARRIOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
H3816 Mr. MARRIOTT. Mr. Chairman, our distinguished chairman indicated that this bill
would not have a wide-range effect.
H3816 I would again like to quote from the EPA report of 15 days ago, on page 4:
H3816 But the information also shows that large amounts of coal, ranging from 10 percent up to
100 percent of the coal in a mining operation intersecting an alluvial valley floor could be affected
by an outright ban on any mining affecting an alluvial valley floor.
H3816 Mr. Chairman, I hope we will strike down both of these amendments.
H3816 The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. SKUBITZ).
H3816 (Mr. SKUBITZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
H3816 Mr. SKUBITZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
H3816 As I pointed out a few minutes ago, this is one of the provisos in the bill or that was
discussed by the committee for some time. We finally agreed upon the proviso found in the bill.
What is happened to that so-called delicate balance which the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
UDALL) speaks about when he agrees in principle with amendment presented but defends the bill?
H3816 Iregret that the chairman of the committee, who I thought would support the committee
bill as it came out of committee, is now supporting this amendment.
H3816 The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Montana (Mr. BAUCUS).
H3816 (Mr. BAUCUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
H3816 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. Chairman, first I commend the gentleman from Wyoming (Mr.
RONCALIO) for trying to accommodate different purposes here, but I have to oppose his
amendment because in my view it could exempt mining in alluvial valleys where expenditures for
equipment or surface rights of any kind were made. Such an exemption may be too broad in certain
circumstances.
H3816 I will have to oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wyoming (Mr.
RONCALIO) because it basically would exempt any expenditures whatsoever for equipment or
surface rights permits. I think that is too sweeping, and I will therefore oppose it.
H3816 With regard to the major amendment. I would like to remind the committee that the
amount of coal in the alluvial valleys is very, very insignificant. At most it is 3 percent, and perhaps
not even that much.
H3816 The fundamental point is that we are now engaged in a pellmell rush for coal in America
in this decade and the next so let us protect at least the alluvial valleys where there is such a small
amount covered by strip mines.
H3816 Let us buy time so that we can protect the underground water, the water tables. If we do
not, we in the West where we have such an arid country, and which now is suffering from a drought,
will be put in a very, very difficult position.
H3816 So, Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge that the Members adopt my amendment.
H3816 The CHAIRMAN. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
MEEDS).
H3816 (Mr. MEEDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
H3816 Mr. MEEDS. Mr. Chairman, I might remind the Members of the House that when all else
fails, support the committee.
{H3817} I will have to say that I am opposed to both amendments. First of all, the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Montana (Mr. BAUCUS) calls for an exemption of people who have
made substantial financial and legal commitments. The amendment offered by the gentleman from
Wyoming (Mr. RONCALIO) goes too far because it includes everybody who has made any
financial commitment.
H3817 This would really open the barn door. I do not think we ought to do that.I think we ought
to support the compromise now in the committee bill that came to the floor of this House and not
agree to either one of these amendments.
H3817 The CHAIRMAN.The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
BAUMAN).
H3817 (Mr. BAUMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
H3817 Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, the debate on this amendment is a microcosm of the
major issue that is raised by this bill.Less than 2 weeks after we heard the President of the United
States state that we are engaged in a crisis comparable to war and that we have to depend on coal in
order to meet our needs for energy, we are presented with the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Montana (Mr. BAUCUS) that would result in the loss of 211 million tons by 1985 and would
lock up forever 12.6 billion tons of coal reserves.
H3817 If that is what the Members want to do, go ahead.
H3817 There are plenty of environmental safeguards in the bill already. I do not think we ought
to be going backward in what the President has described as a serious crisis. If we adopt these
amendments, we do exactly that.
H3817 The CHAIRMAN.The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. UDALL).
H3817 (Mr. UDALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
H3817 Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Wyoming (Mr. RONCALIO) because it opens too wide a loophole.I think, for the reasons that I
stated earlier, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana (Mr. BAUCUS) ought to be
adopted. The final version of the bill, of course, will have to be that adopted in the committee of
conference and we can take a look at these issues at that time.
H3817 The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Wyoming (Mr. RONCALIO) to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Montana (Mr.
BAUCUS).
H3817 The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
H3817 The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Montana (Mr. BAUCUS).
H3817 The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. BAUCUS) there were - ayes
26, noes 41.
H3817 RECORDED VOTE
H3817 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
H3817 A recorded vote was ordered.
H3817 The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were - ayes 170, noes 149, answered
"present" 1, not voting 113, as follows:
H3817 [Roll No. 171]
H3817 AYES - 170
H3817 Akaka
H3817 Allen
H3817 Ambro
H3817 Ammerman
H3817 Anderson, Calif.
H3817 Anderson, Ill.
H3817 Applegate
H3817 Badillo
H3817 Baldus
H3817 Baucus
H3817 Beard, R.I.
H3817 Bedell
H3817 Beilenson
H3817 Benjamin
H3817 Bennett
H3817 Bingham
H3817 Blanchard
H3817 Blouin
H3817 Bolling
H3817 Bonior
H3817 Brademas
H3817 Brodhead
H3817 Broomfield
H3817 Brown, Calif.
H3817 Burgener
H3817 Burke, Mass.
H3817 Burton, John
H3817 Burton, Phillip
H3817 Byron
H3817 Carney
H3817 Carr
H3817 Cohen
H3817 Coleman
H3817 Conte
H3817 Conyers
H3817 Corman
H3817 Cornell
H3817 Cornwell
H3817 Coughlin
H3817 Danielson
H3817 Dellums
H3817 Diggs
H3817 Dingell
H3817 Drinan
H3817 Eckhardt
H3817 Edgar
H3817 Edwards, Calif.
H3817 Emery
H3817 Ertel
H3817 Fascell
H3817 Enwick
H3817 Fisher
H3817 Fowler
H3817 Gammage
H3817 Gephardt
H3817 Giaimo
H3817 Gibbons
H3817 Glickman
H3817 Goldwater
H3817 Gonzalez
H3817 Gore
H3817 Hagedorn
H3817 Hamilton
H3817 Hanley
H3817 Hannaford
H3817 Harris
H3817 Hawkins
H3817 Heckler
H3817 Hightower
H3817 Hollenbeck
H3817 Holtzman
H3817 Howard
H3817 Hughes
H3817 Jacobs
H3817 Jeffords
H3817 Kasten
H3817 Kastenmeier
H3817 Kazen
H3817 Keys
H3817 Kildee
H3817 Kostmayer
H3817 Krebs
H3817 Lagomarsino
H3817 Le Fante
H3817 Lehman
H3817 Levitas
H3817 Lloyd, Calif.
H3817 Long, Md.
H3817 Luken
H3817 Lundine
H3817 McCloskey
H3817 McDade
H3817 McHugh
H3817 Madigan
H3817 Maguire
H3817 Markey
H3817 Mattox
H3817 Mikulski
H3817 Mikva
H3817 Miller, Calif.
H3817 Miller, Ohio
H3817 Mineta
H3817 Mitchell, Md.
H3817 Mitchell, N.Y.
H3817 Moffett
H3817 Mollohan
H3817 Mottl
H3817 Myers, Gary
H3817 Neal
H3817 Nedzi
H3817 Nichols
H3817 Nolan
H3817 Nowak
H3817 Oakar
H3817 Oberstar
H3817 Obey
H3817 Ottinger
H3817 Panetta
H3817 Pattison
H3817 Pease
H3817 Pepper
H3817 Perkins
H3817 Pike
H3817 Pressler
H3817 Pursell
H3817 Rahall
H3817 Reuss
H3817 Richmond
H3817 Rinaldo
H3817 Rodino
H3817 Rogers
H3817 Rosenthal
H3817 Rostenkowski
H3817 Roybal
H3817 Russo
H3817 Ryan
H3817 Scheuer
H3817 Schroeder
H3817 Seiberling
H3817 Sharp
H3817 Sikes
H3817 Simon
H3817 Skelton
H3817 Slack
H3817 Solarz
H3817 Spellman
H3817 Staggers
H3817 Steers
H3817 Stokes
H3817 Studds
H3817 Thompson
H3817 Traxler
H3817 Tsongas
H3817 Tucker
H3817 Udall
H3817 Ullman
H3817 Van Deerlin
H3817 Vander Jagt
H3817 Vanik
H3817 Vento
H3817 Weaver
H3817 Weiss
H3817 Whalen
H3817 Wilson, Bob
H3817 Wilson, Tex.
H3817 Wirth
H3817 Wolff
H3817 Wylie
H3817 Yates
H3817 Young, Mo.
H3817 NOES - 149
H3817 Alexander
H3817 Andrews, N.C.
H3817 Andrews, N.C.
H3817 Andrews, N.Dak.
H3817 Annunzio
H3817 Archer
H3817 Armstrong
H3817 Ashbrook
H3817 Bauman
H3817 Bevill
H3817 Bowen
H3817 Breckinridge
H3817 Brown, Ohio
H3817 Broyhill
H3817 Buchanan
H3817 Burleson, Tex.
H3817 Burlison, Mo.
H3817 Butler
H3817 Caputo
H3817 Carter
H3817 Clausen, Don H.
H3817 Clawson, Del
H3817 Cochran
H3817 Collins, Tex.
H3817 Conable
H3817 Corcoran
H3817 D'Amours
H3817 Danlel, Dan
H3817 Danlel, R.W.
H3817 de la Garza
H3817 Dent
H3817 Derwinski
H3817 Devine
H3817 Dickinson
H3817 Dicks
H3817 Dornan
H3817 Duncan, Oreg.
H3817 Duncan, Tenn.
H3817 Edwards, Ala.
H3817 Edwards, Okla.
H3817 English
H3817 Erlenborn
H3817 Evans, Colo.
H3817 Evans, Del.
H3817 Fary
H3817 Findley
H3817 Flippo
H3817 Flood
H3817 Flowers
H3817 Flynt
H3817 Foley
H3817 Ford, Tenn.
H3817 Fountain
H3817 Frey
H3817 Gaydos
H3817 Ginn
H3817 Goodling
H3817 Grassley
H3817 Gudger
H3817 Guyer
H3817 Hall
H3817 Hansen
H3817 Hillts
H3817 Holt
H3817 Hubbard
H3817 Huckaby
H3817 Hyde
H3817 Jenkins
H3817 Jenrette
H3817 Johnson, Calif
H3817 Johnson, Colo.
H3817 Jones, N.C.
H3817 Jones, Okla.
H3817 Jordan
H3817 Kelly
H3817 Kemp
H3817 Kindness
H3817 LaFalce
H3817 Leach
H3817 Lederer
H3817 Lloyd, Tenn.
H3817 Long, La.
H3817 Lott
H3817 McClory
H3817 McCormack
H3817 McDonald
H3817 McFall
H3817 McKinney
H3817 Mann
H3817 Marks
H3817 Marlenee
H3817 Marriott
H3817 Martin
H3817 Meeds
H3817 Michel
H3817 Minish
H3817 Moore
H3817 Moorhead, Pa.
H3817 Moss
H3817 Murphy, Pa.
H3817 Murtha
H3817 Myers, Michael
H3817 Myers, Ind.
H3817 Natcher
H3817 Nix
H3817 O'Brien
H3817 Patten
H3817 Pettis
H3817 Poage
H3817 Quie
H3817 Quillen
H3817 Regula
H3817 Rhodes
H3817 Risenhoover
H3817 Robinson
H3817 Roncalio
H3817 Rudd
H3817 Runnels
H3817 Santini
H3817 Satterfield
H3817 Schulze
H3817 Shipley
H3817 Shuster
H3817 Sisk
H3817 Skubitz
H3817 Smith, Iowa
H3817 Smith, Nebr.
H3817 Spence
H3817 Stangeland
H3817 Stanton
H3817 Stump
H3817 Symms
H3817 Thone
H3817 Tonry
H3817 Treen
H3817 Trible
H3817 Waggonner
H3817 Walker
H3817 Walsh
H3817 Wampler
H3817 Watkins
H3817 White
H3817 Whitley
H3817 Whitten
H3817 Wiggins
H3817 Winn
H3817 Yatron
H3817 Young, Fla.
H3817 Young, Tex.
H3817 Zablocki
H3817 ANSWERED "PRESENT" - 1
H3817 Bafalis
H3817 NOT VOTING - 113
H3817 Abdnor
H3817 Addabbo
H3817 Ashley
H3817 Aspin
H3817 AuCoin
H3817 Badham
H3817 Barnard
H3817 Beard, Tenn.
H3817 Biaggi
H3817 Boggs
H3817 Boland
H3817 Bonker
H3817 Breaux
H3817 Brinkley
H3817 Brooks
H3817 Brown, Mich.
H3817 Burke, Calif.
H3817 Burke, Fla.
H3817 Cavanaugh
H3817 Cederberg
H3817 Chappell
H3817 Chisholm
H3817 Clay
H3817 Cleveland
H3817 Collins, Ill.
H3817 Cotter
H3817 Crane
H3817 Davis
H3817 Delaney
H3817 Derrick
H3817 Dodd
H3817 Downey
H3817 Early
H3817 Eilberg
H3817 Evans, Ga.
H3817 Evans, Ind.
H3817 Fish
H3817 Fithian
H3817 Florio
H3817 Ford, Mich.
H3817 Forsythe
H3817 Fraser
H3817 Frenzel
H3817 Fuqua
H3817 Gilman
H3817 Gradison
H3817 Hammerschmidt
H3817 Harkin
H3817 Harrington
H3817 Harsha
H3817 Hefner
H3817 Heftel
H3817 Holland
H3817 Horton
H3817 Ichord
H3817 Ireland
H3817 Jones, Tenn.
H3817 Ketchum
H3817 Koch
H3817 Krueger
H3817 Latta
H3817 Leggett
H3817 Lent
H3817 Lujan
H3817 McEwen
H3817 McKay
H3817 Mahon
H3817 Mathis
H3817 Mazzoli
H3817 Metcalfe
H3817 Meyner
H3817 Milford
H3817 Moakley
H3817 Montgomery
H3817 Moorhead, Calif.
H3817 Murphy, Ill.
H3817 Murphy, N.Y.
H3817 Patterson
H3817 Pickle
H3817 Preyer
H3817 Price
H3817 Pritchard
H3817 Quayle
H3817 Railsback
H3817 Rangel
H3817 Roberts
H3817 Roe
H3817 Rooney
H3817 Rose
H3817 Rousselot
H3817 Ruppe
H3817 Sarasin
H3817 Sawyer
H3817 Sebelius
H3817 Snyder
H3817 St Germain
H3817 Stark
H3817 Steed
H3817 Steiger
H3817 Stockman
H3817 Stratton
H3817 Taylor
H3817 Teague
H3817 Thornton
H3817 Volkmer
H3817 Walgren
H3817 Waxman
H3817 Whitehurst
H3817 Wilson, C.H.
H3817 Wright
H3817 Wydler
H3817 Young, Alaska
H3817 Zeferetti
H3817 The Clerk announced the following pairs:
H3817 On this vote:
H3817 Mr. Addabbo for, with Mr. Teague against.
H3817 Mr. Volkmer for, with Mr. Montgomery against.
H3817 Mr. Heftel for, with Mr. Eilberg against.
H3817 Mr. Rangel for, with Mrs. Boggs against.
H3817 Mr. Boland for, with Mr. Jones of Tennessee against.
H3817 Mr. Zeferetti for, with Mr. Price against.
H3817 Mr. Cotter for, with Mr. Roberts against.
H3817 Messrs. LOTT, FLOWERS, and FLIPPO changed their vote from "aye" to "no."
H3817 Mr. ERTEL changed his vote from "no" to "aye."
H3817 So the amendment was agreed to.
H3817 The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
H3817 AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. SEIBERLING
H3817 Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
H3817 The Clerk read as follows:
H3817 Amendment offered by Mr. SEIBERLING: Beginning on line 23, page 302, through line
2, page 303, delete subsection (e).
H3817 Also, on page 303, line 7, in lieu of the word "last", put the word "first".
H3817 Also on line 7, page 303, delete the word "above" and insert "required by subsection (a)".
H3817 Also on lines 15 and 16, page 303, delete the phrase "twice a week for two consecutive
weeks" and replace with the following phrase: "at least one week in advance of the date of the
hearing."
{H3818} } Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
H3818 Mr. SEIBERLING. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.
H3818 (Mr. BAUCUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
H3818 [Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Committee. His remarks will appear hereafter in the
Extensions of Remarks.]
H3818 Mr. SEIBERLING.Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. It is one that is
aimed at simplifying procedures that mine operators have to go through with respect to bond release.
H3818 On page 302 of the bill, subsection (e) provides that before a decision is made to release
an operator from a bond the regulatory authority must notify the municipality in which the coal
mining operation is located by certified mail at least 30 days prior to the release of all or a portion of
the bond.
H3818 It seems to me that that is an unnecessary procedure. The municipality is already required
to be notified of the proposed bond release when the application is made for release, and from that
point on it can follow the matter if it so desires. There is no need for adding a further 30 days delay,
which only costs money.
H3818 Second, this would change the requirement that any person with a valid legal interest be
notified of this proposed release 30 dyas after the last publication of the notice of the original
application for release to 30 days after the first publication, and this saves about 10 days of
additional time.
H3818 Finally, section (3)(f) on page 303 would require that public hearings, if they have to be
held on the proposed release of the bond, instead of being advertised, as the committee print now
requires, twice a week for 2 consecutive weeks, which means additional delay, would simply have to
be advertised at least 1 week in advance of the date of the hearing.
H3818 Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Members want to see this provision further streamlined
as far as redtape is concerned, and I believe they will want to support this amendment.
H3818 Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
H3818 Mr. SEIBERLING. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who I understand has a
different approach.
H3818 Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for
yielding.
H3818 Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. SEIBERLING) has introduced an
amendment which in part will make it more palatable for the release or partial release of bonding.
However, I do not believe he goes far enough to make it expeditious.
H3818 I would, therefore, like to offer a substitute amendment for his amendment and then
explain the ramifications of my substitute.
H3818 The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. SEIBERLING) yield back his
time?
H3818 Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
H3818 AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MURPHY OF PENNSYLVANIA AS A
SUBSTITUTE FOR THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. SEIBERLING
H3818 Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for
the amendment.
H3818 The Clerk read as follows:
H3818 Amendment offered by Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania as a substitute for the amendment
offered by Mr. SEIBERLING: Section 519(a), page 300 lines 4 through 22: Commencing on line 4
with the work "within" delete the remaining section in its entirety through line 22, and insert the
following: "As a part of any bond release application, the applicant shall submit a copy of a letter
which he has sent to the property owners, whose surface was affected and to the appropriate local
governmental body, notifying them of his intention to seek release from the bond."
H3818 Mr. UDALL (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be considered as read and printed in the RECORD.
H3818 The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arizona?
H3818 There was no objection.
H3818 Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, the substance of my amendment is to
adopt the Pennsylvania plan for the returning of bonds following the reclamation of land.
H3818 We have found over several years of experience that we have many small operators and
they are doing a very good job of mine reclamation. When they apply to the Pennsylvania
Department of Mines Bureau of Reclamation for a return of their bond in whole or in part, the
inspector from the State goes out and views the site in accordance with their application. If the State
inspectors are satisfied that reclamation has been fully complied with, the department then may order
a refund of the bond and allow that miner, who is usually a small operator, to proceed then with his
next application.
H3818 We have found that bonds are extremely difficult to get. Only the good operators are able
to be bonded in Pennsylvania.
H3818 Only the good operators secure a release of their bond from our Bureau of Reclamation.
H3818 Mr. Chairman, this is the way it should be. However, the way the bill is presently drafted,
it has a very, very cumbersome procedure in it that could stretch out from a minimum of 60 days to
a maximum of 3 months to 100 days before that operator could receive the return of any part of his
bond, thus precluding him from entering into the next job, because he has a certain limitation of the
size or amount of the bond that he may secure.
H3818 Mr. Chairman, the way the bill is presently drafted, any person with a "valid interest" may
object after the cumbersome procedure, causing a mandatory public hearing by the regulatory
authority.
H3818 It is our belief in Pennsylvania and it is the belief of our Bureau of Reclamation that this
will add a tremendous burden to the Bureau by frivolous objections being made, perhaps by
competing operators, perhaps by people from across the State who have no interest or from people
across the country who have no interest, thus mandating public hearings that our Bureau must hold.
H3818 Mr. Chairman, I remind my colleagues that under this bond provision in section 515 the
regulatory authority must retain a portion of the bond for upward of 5 years so that revegetation can
be secured. I am not so sure whether I agree that the 5-year period of time is necessary, particularly
in Pennsylvania; but that is thought to be a safeguard in the bill.
H3818 Mr. Chairman, we feel that the cumbersome process set forth in this section before a bond
may be returned will totally eliminate every small operator in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
H3818 Let me tell my good colleague here that our experience with the small operators has been
the best experience. They are the ones who are going out and competing for a lease on that farm
next month and on that adjoining farm the following month. They know what they are doing. They
know their work, and they know they must satisfy our Bureau of Reclamation or they will not be
reissued a mining permit.
H3818 Our experience in Pennsylvania has been a good one, and we plead with the Members not
to encumber us with this cumbersome section.
H3818 Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
H3818 (Mr. UDALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
H3818 Mr. UDALL.Mr. Chairman, this section deals with a very important process, and that is
the final moment when the revegetation has occurred, the 5 years have passed, and the last portion of
the bond is about to be released.
H3818 Mr. Chairman, one of the big objections of people in the coal mining areas has been that at
that point where we have the last remaining leverage on the operator, there has not been public
participation. There is not a chance to make a case that an adequate reclamation job has not been
done.
H3818 Mr. Chairman, we took a good, hard look at the Pennsylvania procedure. In the bill we
have adopted a procedure including an informal conference, which can be used in lieu of public
hearings. This is the Pennsylvania practice. We put in a strict time limitation at the instigation of
the Pennsylvania operators.
H3818 Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. SEIBERLING) goes a
little bit further to meet the legitimate concerns expressed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
MURPHY), a very valuable member of our committee.
H3818 Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think we would have a balanced bill and a balanced provision
with respect to bond release if we would defeat the Murphy substitute and adopt the Seiberling
amendment.
H3818 Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
{H} } 3819 Mr. UDALL.I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
H Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, Does any State have a better
history of reclamation than the State of Pennsylvania?
H Mr. UDALL. No.
H Mr. GOODLING. Then why should we do anything differently from what we are presently
doing? If we have done so well, why could we not just model the bill after Pennsylvania?
H Mr. UDALL. We are writing a national bill. There are variations in the situation around the
country. We are trying to write a bill to serve the needs of all of the States.
H Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
H Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
H Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to emphasize that I understood the
chairman is not opposing my amendment. He is opposing the substitute to my amendment.
H Second, I want to comment on the questions just raised. We are dealing with a concept here
that involves due process of law. The amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
MURPHY) would say that the only people that need to be notified of an application for a bond
release are the property owners whose surface is affected and the appropriate local government body.
It does not even specify what sort of time and advance notice they are going to give and who are the
property owners affected by the improper and premature release of bonds. The inability to correct a
possible slide or water pollution can affect people downstream for many miles. It could affect
people in areas far bevond the location of the immediate property owners.
H Therefore, Mr. Chairman, what our bill does is to say that any party with a valid legal interest -
and I stress "a valid legal interest" - can request a hearing.
H That does not mean he is going to get a delay. It does not mean that he is going to be able to
hold up the release of the bond.
H But at least the regulatory authority should grant that person the right to be heard. The
regulatory authority under the bill could decide that the request was frivolous, or that he did not
have a valid legal interest, and that would dispose of it then and there. But, certainly, anyone who
does have a valid legal interest should have the right to be heard. Indeed, I believe the Constitution
guarantees that right, as a matter of due process of law.
H Mr. GARY A. MYERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I believe that basically
what we are being presented with here today is a bill to control the application of strip mining and its
impact on the environment. In other sections of the bill there are other provisions that if, in fact, a
State is not doing its job properly, then they can be taken to court or the Federal Government can
come in and inflict certain controls on them. So that if a State has a pattern of giving the bond
money back too soon, and where the basic law is not being adhered to, that can be handled. I repeat
if, in fact, there is such a pattern that a State is releasing the bond money too early and not requiring
the law to be abided by, that there is, in fact, such protection in this bill already.
H All we are talking about in this particular instance is how do we get a small operator back into
the position where he can go out and start another operation?
H I agree that if, in fact, any State is not handling their responsibilities correctly that that should
be corrected, but why hold it over the head of the small operators? That is what we are doing here.
H Mr. SEIBERLING. Suspending a State's program for control of strip mining just because
certain people are affected by premature bond release is like using an elephant gun to swat a fly.
That is not the way to do it. Let us set up a procedure that makes sense, a procedure whereby we
give anyone having a legitimate interest the opportunity to be heard. Then we will not have all these
environmental lawsuits that bother some people so much.
H Mr. GARY A. MYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
H (Mr. GARY A. MYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remark.)
H Mr. GARY A. MYERS. Mr. Chairman, I think it is essential that I emphasize one thing. The
gentleman from Ohio said something about it is like hitting something with an elephant. I did not
understand exactly what the gentleman said.
H Mr. SEIBERLING. I said it is like using an elephant gun to swat a fly.
H Mr. GARY A. MYERS. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his characteristic explanation.
H The problem we are confronted with simply is this: We ask for a bond to be set aside so that the
State can have leverage to make sure the cleanup job is done correctly. The bill already provides
that the States have to make sure that certain criteria are fulfilled. But, if there is a pattern in any
State along the line of the surveillance of this act which is not working properly, then they can be
sued.
H Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. UDALL) talks about the delicate balance. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I supported the bill
before and supported overriding the Presidential veto, but it would appear, in fact, now, that we are
trying to put the small operators in Pennsylvania out of business, where strip mining is a very
difficult job and a very expensive business, and this at a time when we need all of the energy that we
can get, and in a State like Pennsylvania where coal gasification is moving ahead rapidly, and I do
not believe we should do that.
H Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I do not know where this great issue
came from, or who is stirring this up. We had a worse provision and a stronger position than this in
the bill 2 years ago and in the bill 4 years ago and at the instigation of the Pennsylvania operators, I
sat down with them and we made about three additional concessions in the bill.
H Now we are being told that the last 10 percent of the bond release, that, somehow, that is the
most critical.What is going on?
H Mr. GOODLING. Because the energy situation has become critical.
H Mr. GARY A. MYERS. I believe this is an unnecessary part of the bill and places an undue
burden because the rest of the bill actually provides the protection in law that we want. The only
question here is whether or not the States have an expeditious procedure for getting the money back
to the small operators who really depend upon the bond issue release more than the large operators.
H Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
H I just want to say it is true that the chairman of the committee spoke with some of the coal
operators. I am speaking for the State of Pennsylvania's government. I am speaking for the DER
and the Surface Mining Bureau of the State of Pennsylvania.
H We had this hit-or-miss situation in Pennsylvania for many years. Sometimes we were held up
as much as a year trying to get a bond released. The situation is very simple. We have to bond
every acre of coal land that we are going to strip, from $1,000 to $3 ,500 per acre. One a 100-acre
plot the bonding costs $3 50,000. In order to be able to afford that we have to cut our operation up
in such a manner that we can bond 20 acres, never more than 20 percent of the acreage we are going
to strip. As we proceed with the stripping we follow with the reclamation.
H When we are within two or three acres of finishing that particular strip operation, the DER
sends their man in to the scene and inspects it, the bonding agent is called to the scene, and the
operator and the owner are called to the scene, and the municipal officials are called to the scene.
They agreed that the reclamation has been done as required by law. They can relieve the bonding
necessity on the number of acres that have been approved. The operator then turns around and
bonds that many more acres ahead.
H Members must understand we are talking about something that has never been done before
anywhere else in any stripping area in the country, and the bonding is based upon the overburden or
what many people call high wall or the highest amount they have taken. The $1 ,000 an acre is all
we charge for a 5-foot overburden, but when they get to 150 feet of overburden it goes up to $3,500.
H In that particular instance we must understand we also have a very strict law as to how much
high wall can be exposed at one time. We allow only 400 feet of high wall to be exposed at one
time. They must never have unreclaimed more than 500 feet of high wall.
H But when we get into this situation of paying $3 ,500 for retrieving, remember there are 3 to 5
tons of coal per acre-foot. If we are at the limit we can get in our areas at home, which is about 5
feet, and that is really good high coal, and they are taking up a 150-foot overburden, they are
retrieving 750 tons of coal per acre. They are only getting out 250 tons of coal out of that particular
split and taking off 350.
{H} } 3820 Out in the West they take out there, incidentally, at a mine that is operating that has
no more than 150 feet of overburden, they have got it developed, it is known, and they have 30 feet
of coal that they can take out.
H But there is no feature in this bill whatsoever for bonding the reclamation part. If this bill
supersedes the Pennsylvania law our operators cannot be forced to put a $1,000 or $3,500 bond on
their operation.
H Where is the bonding feature? What guarantee are we going to have? If we have that kind of a
bonding feature, and they have admitted we have the best reclamation program in the whole country,
it is better than any country that has strip mining.I have seen strip mining in South Africa.I have
seen strip mining in Rhodesia.I have seen strip mining in England and I have seen strip mining in
Czechoslovakia. None of these countries have any law like what we have. I defy anybody to ride
over the State of Pennsylvania and see two hills anywhere together, one that has been reclaimed by
reclamation and the other that has not.
H The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania has expired.
H (By unanimous consent, Mr. DENT was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
H Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, one has been reclaimed and the other has not. I defy anybody to
tell me the hill that has been mined and which has not. I can tell, because the greener grass, the
taller corn, is growing on land we have reclaimed.
H All I ask this House to do is leave us alone. Let us go our way. It took us from 1947 to 1968.
H I am also going to ask the chairman if the gentleman will accept an amendment to allow
Pennsylvania to get back its $5 00 million bonded in 1968 to reclaim the old mines, not coal mines,
but old coal mines. We are going to take money out of my State for reclamation and reclaim old
coal mines. This House is not going to allow us to pay back the State of Pennsylvania the $5 00
million still owed at a high rate of interest and the taxes for our obligation.
H I will offer that amendment, if the gentleman from Arizona will accept it.
H Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I do not see how I could accept that in
fairness to the other States, some of which have done reclamation, but none of which have done as
good a job as the State of Pennsylvania.
H Mr. DENT. All right, make it for any State that has a bonded indebtedness. Why are we going
back and taking coal mines that have made no contribution to this? Why are we going back to
reclaim those old mines? We reclaimed some of ours. We tried to make ours the prettiest State in
the Union, as it once was, and we will if this House will let us alone.
H Mr. Chairman, I am asking again, will the gentleman from Arizona accept that? What is the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. UDALL) doing in this bill? Is this a reclamation bill?
H By the way, I want it clearly understood, I have been told right on this floor by a member of the
staff of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. UDALL) that the environmentalists are against our
position. The Governor of the State of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania environmentalists have
informed me they are for our position.
H Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the pending
amendment and amendments thereto close in 5 minutes.
H The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arizona?
H There was no objection.
H The CHAIRMAN. Members standing at the time the motion was made will be recognized for
three-quarters of a minute each.
H The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. ERTEL).
H (By unanimous consent, Messrs. ERTEL and MURTHA yielded their time to Mr. MURPHY
of Pennsylvania.)
H (Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
H Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate that my amendment
does not weaken the reclamation portions of this bill. In fact, it does not touch it. This bill provides
for a strong water and land reclamation program in every State, including my own, and I am in favor
of and support those provisions.
H This bill, including my amendment, requires a doubling of the bond now posted in
Pennsylvania and restricts the return of that bond for up to 5 years and only 60 percent of it can be
returned upon land backfill reclamation. All those procedures are contained and left by my
amendment. The property owners must be notified. The municipality must be notified. The
regulatory authority must fully inspect and guide. All these things my amendment does. It does not
weaken the bill in one iota.
H Mr. MURTHA. I would like to commend the chairman and the members of the committee who
have done such an outstanding job on this particular piece of legislation. I think we can refine it a
little better by accepting the Murphy of Pennsylvania amendment.
H The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. SEIBERLING).
H (Mr. SEIBERLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
H Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman, the issue is really very simple. My amendment cuts the
time for the bond release and eliminates some of the redtape. What Mr. MURPHY'S amendment
would do would be to prevent notice being given to any other interested party except the property
owner. I submit that would violate due process of law.
H The bill says any person with a valid legal interest is entitled to notice, and I think under the
Constitution he would be declared to have a right to have that. So, why take away that and raise a
constitutional objection? The bill, as amended by my amendment, does not produce any greater
delay, but merely provides that other people have a right to notice. The regulatory authority can
find that their request is frivolous, and that they do not have a valid legal interest, and that would
dispose of the matter; but if they do have such an interest they should be entitled to be heard.
H The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. EDWARDS).
H (Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
H Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the remarks of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. DENT). I think Mr. DENT had a very good point when he
pointed out the problem of this bill is that it is not just a reclamation bill, as the Members have been
led to believe, but goes far beyond reclamation, and that, Mr. Chairman, is why I am going to
oppose this bill.
H (By unanimous consent Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma yielded the balance of his time to Mr.
BAUMAN).
H The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. BAUMAN).
H (Mr. BAUMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
H Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Murphy amendment. I am glad to see,
as a result of the debate occurring here, that many of the Members who do not serve on the Interior
Committee now perceive the extent to which many of the bill's provisions apply. This particular
provision ought to be stricken since it will work great hardship on small coal companies.
H Members have to understand one basic premise: The reason the big coal companies, the
multinational corporations run by the oil companies, are not hollering too loudly against this bill is
that they have the hundreds of millions of dollars which will be necessary, in many instances, to
comply with the provisions of this bill. What we see here are provisions which are going to strike
hard at the small companies with small capitalization, who cannot afford these bonds for extended
periods of time.
H I honestly believe that a broad effort has been made by the drafters of this bill to deal small
companies out of the business simply because, many times, they have been the most offensive
environmentally.
H I do not happen to agree with this. I think we can bring them up to environmental standards,
but this is one small help we might give to many small businesses processing a great deal of
coal.Incidentally, they are providing a lot of jobs for people, and we do not want to see them
unemployed.
H Mr. COUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
H Mr. BAUMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
H Mr. COUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Murphy amendment. I think it is
important to recognize that there are differences in mining in different parts of the country.
{H3821} The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. LONG).
H3821 (Mr. LONG of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
H3821 Mr. LONG of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask a question of the author of the
amendment. Could he give some idea of what his amendment would mean financially, in terms of
saving per ton?
H3821 Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman will yield, I have not made a financial
estimate of that.
H3821 Mr. LONG of Maryland. Just approximately.
H3821 Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. It unquestionably could cost far more per ton of coal if
we have to go through the cumbersome proceedings before an operator -
H3821 Mr. LONG of Maryland. What does the gentleman mean, "far more"? Does he mean $1;
$10?
H3821 Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. No, it certainly would not be a dollar. I would say
somewhat less than a dollar. The biggest thing is that it would cause the doubling of our
Pennsylvania Bureau of Reclamation in staff personnel, and time in processing the paperwork.
H3821 Mr. LONG of Maryland. If the saving is less than a dollar per ton I find it hard to be
impressed.
H3821 The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. UDALL).
H3821 (Mr. UDALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
H3821 Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
H3821 Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsvlvania (Mr. DENT).
H3821 Mr. DENT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
H3821 Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that over 80 percent of the coal mined in Pennsvlvania
by strip mining is mined in plots of less than 100 acres.
H3821 Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, Pennsylvania has the best law, it does the best job. In fact,
the bond release program, a minor part of H.R. 2, is modeled on Pennsylvania.
H3821 We have gone the extra mile. We have adopted about nine features of the Pennsvlvania
plan, and the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. SEIBERLING) adopts a couple
more features.
H3821 I am for the small operator. I have stood on this hill in this photograph with those
35-degree slopes. The small operators are the ones who are doing a good job. I stood on the hill
over here in West Virginia in this other photo. This operation is a subsidiary of Pittston, one of the
largest companies in the world.
H3821 The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. MURPHY) as a substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. SEIBERLING).
H3821 The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. UDALL) there were - ayes
35, noes 20.
H3821 So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was agreed to.
H3821 The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. SEIBERLING), as amended.
H3821 The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
H3821 AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. WAMPLER
H3821 Mr. WAMPLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
H3821 The Clerk read as follows:
H3821 Amendment offered by Mr. WAMPLER: On Page 227, following line 3, strike the period
at the end of line 3 and add the following language, renumbering succeeding subsections
accordingly;, "except as provided in subsection (d).
H3821 "(d) All existing surface coal mining operations producing 250,000 tons or less per year
on lands on which such operations are regulated by a State shall be allowed 30 months from the date
of enactment of this Act to comply with the provisions of section 515 of this Act."
H3821 (Mr. WAMPLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
H3821 Mr. WAMPLER. Mr. Chairman, under subsection (c) of section 502 of H.R. 2, as it is
presented to us, existing surface coal operations are given 9 months to comply with the
environmental provisions of this act.
H3821 My amendment would give the small operations - and I classify and define a "small
operation" as those producing 250,000 tons or less per year - additional time to comply with these
provisions, or 30 months from the date of enactment of this bill.
H3821 Our small surface coal producers provide the largest percentage of our surface coal
production in my State of Virginia. Many will most likely be forced out of business if H.R. 2 is
enacted into law, as their financial resources for meeting the various provisions of the act required in
this section are limited and they do not have the expertise necessary for the required tests and studies
readily available.
H3821 Figures supplied to me by the Virginia Department of Conservation show that 13,873,000
tons of coal were obtained by surface methods in Virginia in 1976, and this included both strip
mining and auger mining; 351 individual mine sites produced less than 250,000 tons, while only 3
individual sites produced in excess of 250,000 tons.
H3821 Of the companies involved in surface mining operations in Virginia, 248 had a production
of less than 250 tons while only 34 had a production greater than 250,000 tons.
H3821 Mr. Chairman, very clearly, the bulk of our coal production comes from these small
producers, the ones who will be hardest hit by the implementation of this act.
H3821 I simply ask in this amendment that we put them in a position which will hopefully keep
them producing coal to meet our current and vital energy needs. If that is to happen, I feel this
amendment is most necessary.
H3821 Mr. Chairman, in the hearings of the Legislative Committee there is a communication
from the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the lieutenant governor, the attorney general,
the commissioner of taxation, and the commissioner of employment, in which they state
unequivocally from their study of H.R. 2 that it will have a substantial economic impact in Virginia.
It will result in substantial unemployment, and I would say to the committee that to the extent there
is competition in the coal industry today in Virginia it is provided largely by the small, independent
surface miners and operators.
H3821 A typical surface mining operation in my district would employ 10, 15, and perhaps 20
employees. In many cases they are family-type operations.
H3821 I say to the committee that an amendment of this type will at least give the small operators
an opportunity to comply with what I consider to be overly restrictive and unnecessary provisions as
contained in H.R. 2.
H3821 I am also advised that the President of the United States today sent his specific
recomendations to the Congress to meet the energy goals that he has set for this country. I repeat
what I said yesterday, that I think it is the height of inconsistency for the President to suggest on the
one hand that we increase production of coal by two-thirds by the year 1985 and then support
unnecessary legislation such as we have before us which will unquestionably make it more difficult
and more costly to mine coal to meet the critical energy needs of this country.
H3821 Mr. Chairman, I think it is unfortunate that H.R. 2. the bill before us, has been written on
the basis of what the several States did not do 10 years ago rather than on the basis of what they are
doing now.My State of Virginia has recognized this problem. They passed a meaningful surface
mining regulatory statute in 1966, and it has been twice amended. There are regulations pending
which hopefully will be fully implemented by July of this year. I am asking in the name of equity
that we adopt this amendment to help preserve competition, to help keep the price of coal at a
reasonable level, to help the consumer, and to help those of us who believe that this Nation should
once again become self-sufficient in energy.
H3821 Mr. Chairman, I ask for an aye vote on my amendment.
H3821 Mr. UDALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
H3821 Mr. Chairman, of all the amendments that have been considered in this debate, this
provides the biggest loophole. It is the biggest "granddaddy" of them all.
H3821 Ineffect, what this amendment says - and mark it well - is that for 30 months, for 2 1/2
years, all of next year, the year after that, and the remainder of this year, these operators can go
ahead and do exactly what they are now doing.
H3821 I respect the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. WAMPLER), but in my judgment the State
that has the furthest to go, the State that has made the least progress toward coming into modern
methods of mining coal, is the State of Virginia.
H3821 These people down in southwest Virginia are determined that they are going to go ahead
and do this as long as they can.
{H3822} } The amendment has one very basic defect. It says, "existing surface coal mining
operations." It does not say, "operators." It says, "operations." We could have Consolidation Coal,
the world's largest coal company, covered by this amendment,and as long as no single operation
produced more than 250,000 tons of coal a year - and many of them do not - they are exempt.
Under this amendment the big operators are exempted for 30 months as well.
H3822 Mr. WAMPLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
H3822 Mr. UDALL. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
H3822 Mr. WAMPLER. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman accept a modification of the
amendment if it were restricted to read, "operators?"
H3822 Mr. UDALL. I would say to the gentleman that would be an improvement. I do not want
to be in the position of helping the gentleman clean up his amendment.
H3822 Mr. WAMPLER. But the gentleman will not support it even then?
H3822 Mr. UDALL.No. It would still give us the biggest loophole we have heard in this whole
debate if this would occur. The committee defeated a similar amendment by a very large margin.
H3822 We do not have a very strong balance toward the environment in our committee; I do not
believe it is even as strong as it is in the House as a whole.
H3822 Even if the change were made, the amendment would not fly.It would open the door; it
would detract from the objectives of this bill. We would really be wiping this bill out for 30 months
if we adopted this amendment.
H3822 Mr. Chairman, I hope the amendment will be defeated.
H3822 The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. WAMPLER).
H3822 The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. UDALL) there were - ayes
22, noes 27.
H3822 Mr. SYMMS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
H3822 A recorded vote was refused.
H3822 So the amendment was rejected.
H3822 AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. NOLAN
H3822 Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
H3822 The Clerk read as follows:
H3822 Amendment offered by Mr. NOLAN: After line 24, add the following new sub-section (f)
to section 522: (f), Page 319:
H3822 For five years following the date of enactment, no application for a permit or revision
thereof shall be approved unless the applicant demonstrates that prime farmland does not comprise
more than 15% of the surface area to be disturbed pursuant to an applicant's mining plan. Such
demonstration shall be based upon soils maps and data verified for accuracy by the Secretary of
Agriculture; provided that nothing in this subparagraph shall apply to any permit issued prior to
April 1, 1977, or to any revisions or renewals thereof including those authorizing contiguous
expansion of such permitted areas. Provided, however that the regulatory authority may, after
consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, and pursuant to regulations issued hereunder by the
Secretary of Interior with the concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture, grant a variance if the
operator demonstrates and the regulatory authority finds on the basis of data relating to prime
farmlands comparable to those covered by the permit application that the operator can restore the
land affected to a condition at leas fully capable of supporting the uses least fully capable of
supporting prior to any mining. Within 60 days of the date of enactment, the Secretary of
Agriculture shall publish a definition of "prime farmland" and a notification of methods for
determination thereof. Within four years of the date of enactment, the Secretary of Agriculture shall
conduct such research, experimentation and studies as are necessary to determine whether, and with
what reclamation procedures, prime farmlands should be made available for surface mining
operations and based thereon make appropriate recommendations to the President.
H3822 Mr. NOLAN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be considered as read and printed in the RECORD.
H3822 The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota?
H3822 Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object.
H3822 Mr. NOLAN.Mr. Chairman, I can clarify the amendment for the gentleman.
H3822 Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, I will yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
NOLAN) for that purpose.
H3822 Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
H3822 This is roughly the same amendment that was proposed by the gentleman from Vermont
(Mr. JEFFORDS) and the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. PRESSLER).
H3822 It does amend a different section of the bill, and it represents a modification in the amount
of farmland that would trigger the special review procedure.
H3822 My purpose in offering the amendment at this point is not to delay the proceedings here in
the Committee of the Whole.
H3822 I realize the matter has been fully debated. It is my hope that this modification of the
amendment offered yesterday will make the amendment more acceptable and insure its favorable
consideration.
H3822 The CHAIRMAN.Will the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. NOLAN) suspend until we
hear whether there is objection to further reading of the amendment?
H3822 Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Chairman, if we are going to plow back over all of the same ground
we plowed over yesterday when we defeated a similar amendment, we may stay here all day.
H3822 Mr. Chairman, I object.
H3822 Mr. SYMMS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.
H3822 The CHAIRMAN.The Clerk will read the amendment first.
H3822 The Clerk concluded the reading of the amendment.
H3822 The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. SYMMS) wish to press his point
of order?
H3822 Mr. SYMMS. I do, Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.
H3822 The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Idaho (Mr. SYMMS) reserves a point of order
against the amendment.
H3822 (Mr. NOLAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
H3822 Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is not my intention at this
point to further discuss the merits of the amendment. I think that they have been amply discussed
and were amply discussed in the Committee of the Whole yesterday.
H3822 Mr. SYMMS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield at that point?
H3822 Mr. NOLAN. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
H3822 Mr. SYMMS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota says that they have been
amply discussed in the Committee of the Whole.When was that?
H3822 Mr. NOLAN. Yesterday, because a similar amendment was offered at that time