[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 164 (Thursday, November 18, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14781-S14785]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           MOUNTAINTOP MINING

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, in the rush to complete work on an omnibus 
appropriations bill that will attract enough votes to pass both 
Chambers of Congress without incurring a veto from the White House, a 
number of important measures that should have been in the conference 
report have ended up on the cutting room floor. One of those issues is 
mountaintop mining.
  I am extremely disappointed at the shortsightedness of the White 
House, as well as some Members of Congress, on this issue. We had a 
chance on the omnibus package to right a wrong, to remedy the crisis in 
West Virginia's coal fields that was triggered by a recent Federal 
court ruling. But the White House blocked that effort, leading the 
charge to exclude the proposed legislative remedy from the omnibus 
bill. As a result, thousands of coal miners in West Virginia, and 
throughout Appalachia, are facing a bleak and uncertain future.
  Particularly troubling to me is that the ammunition used to defeat 
this proposal, the ammunition used to keep it out of the omnibus 
package, was, in large part, a campaign of misinformation, led by the 
White House.
  My proposal is not antienvironment. The White House would have you 
believe otherwise. My proposal would not weaken or in any way alter the 
Clean Water Act. Let the White House hear! The White House would have 
the people believe otherwise. Let me say it again. This amendment which 
is cosponsored by Mr. McConnell, the senior Senator from Kentucky; Mr. 
Rockefeller, the junior Senator from West Virginia; and Mr. Bunning, 
the junior Senator from Kentucky, would not weaken or in any way alter, 
modify, change, repeal, amend, or undermine the Clean Water Act.
  I know the White House has tried to mislead people into believing 
that it would. It would not. Fie on the White House! fie for attempting 
to mislead the people. Now, one can honestly believe what he is saying 
and can mislead or one can mislead with the intention of misleading.
  All the Byrd-McConnell amendment would do is preserve the status quo 
until an environmental impact assessment, which is already underway, is 
completed and regulations resulting from it are issued. That 
environmental impact assessment was not put in motion by the White 
House; it was put in motion by a court action last December.
  No laws would be weakened by the Byrd-McConnell amendment. No 
regulations would be discarded. The legislative remedy that is proposed 
by this amendment is not an either/or proposition. This amendment would 
permit carefully controlled mountaintop mining while allowing work to 
continue on a broad environmental study that could spur better 
oversight and more environmentally friendly mining practices nationally 
in the years ahead. In my book, that is a win/win situation.
  This mountaintop mining proposal is an effort to stand up for 
America's coal miners--and the railway workers, and the truckers, and 
the suppliers, and all who are involved directly or indirectly with 
mining. This proposal is an effort to stand up for the coal miners and 
the hundreds of thousands of jobs and the scores of other industries 
they support. Allowing this opportunity to slip through our fingers 
would be a grievous mistake.
  We can't control what the people at the other end of Pennsylvania 
Avenue say. We can't control how they treat America's coal miners. But 
we can speak up for what we believe here in the Senate. We can send our 
message to the White House.
  To get that message across, I hope to offer an amendment. I could 
speak at length on the omnibus appropriations bill when it comes before 
the Senate. We could be here another week. We could be here another 2 
weeks.
  They say time is running out for the continuing resolution. Madam 
President, time is running out for the coal miners and their families, 
and for the retired coal miners, and their wives, or their widows, and 
their families. Time is running out for them. The President wants this 
Appropriations Bill sent to him, in Greece. Indeed! What are we going 
to send to the coal miners who have been working for this country 
before he was born? What are we going to send them?
  I have seriously considered this matter. This issue merits the time 
and the attention of Congress. I am prepared to give it some time.
  I don't want to hold this measure up interminably. I want to see 
action on it. I want to vote. I want to vote on this amendment--the 
Byrd, McConnell, Rockefeller, Bunning, et al. amendment.
  So, I take these few moments to speak the truth, to try to set the 
record straight on the impact of this amendment, of which I am the 
chief cosponsor, and to give this body, and hopefully the other body, 
one more chance this year to protect the jobs and the livelihoods of 
thousands of working men and women in West Virginia and throughout 
America, and to give the White House one more chance to reverse its 
current position and protect the jobs of the coal miners.
  We are not just talking about coal miners; we are also talking about 
the coal industry; we are talking about other laborers--the truckers, 
the railway operators, the barge operators who go up and down the Ohio 
and other rivers. It isn't just the coal miners union that is 
concerned. The AFL-CIO is concerned. Take another look! Take another 
look at those who are opposed and who work against legislation that 
will benefit the working men and women of America.
  On October 20, a Federal district court in West Virginia issued an 
opinion in a lawsuit involving Federal regulatory agencies that 
virtually set off an explosion in the coal fields. Mining companies 
immediately announced that there would be hundreds of coal miners who 
would be cut off, and new mines which were in the plans by companies to 
be built, would be scuttled.
  In some instances, a new mine costs $50 million; it costs $75 million 
in some instances; and in some instances it costs $90 million, or more, 
to open a new mine. What mining company is going to invest $90 million 
in a new mine when the Federal judge issues a ruling such as this? 
There is no predictability at all in the future.

  Before the court issued its opinion, as part of a settlement the 
mining industry in West Virginia was operating under two memoranda of 
understanding--two memoranda of understanding that had been agreed 
upon. Hear this: Two memoranda of understanding. I didn't have anything 
to do with those memoranda of understanding. Who agreed? Who entered 
into agreements concerning mountaintop mining? Who entered into 
agreements concerning mountaintop mining? Who entered into the 
memoranda of understanding? These were agreed upon by the Federal and 
State regulatory agencies. Hear me now! These were entered into and 
agreed upon by the regulatory agencies--both State and Federal--that 
oversee mining permits.
  What are those agencies that entered into this agreement? The Federal 
Office of Surface Mining, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the 
State Division of Environmental Protection, the Environmental 
Protection Agency. These are this administration's regulatory agencies. 
This administration's regulatory agencies entered into those 
agreements.
  Let me say that again. Hear me.
  Who entered into those regulations? Who were the parties to those 
agreements? This administration's regulatory agencies, the EPA, the 
Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of the Interior through the 
Office of Surface Mining, and the West Virginia Division of 
Environmental Protection--Federal and State agencies--created these 
agreements, devised these memoranda of understanding. They weren't 
created by me. The administration's own Environmental Protection 
Agency, the great Federal protector of our land, water, and air, helped 
to write and signed onto these memoranda of understanding.
  Do you, my friends, really believe that the EPA signed agreements 
that weakened environmental protections?

[[Page S14782]]

  Let me say to the White House: Do you believe that your own 
Environmental Protection Agency signed onto agreements that weakened 
environmental protections? No. No. These memoranda of understanding--
called MOUs--put into place stronger environmental protections in West 
Virginia.
  Listen to this: These MOUs put into place stronger--get it, now--
stronger environmental protections and regulations in West Virginia 
than exist in any other State in the Union. Hear me, environmentalists; 
you ought to be fighting for this amendment. You ought to be urging us 
on in our fight for this amendment. I am an environmentalist. Who was 
the majority leader of the Senate when SMCRA was passed in this body, 
the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act? Who was the majority 
leader of the Senate then? Who stood up for you environmentalists then?
  West Virginia at one time was the only State in the United States 
that had no wildlife refuge. I put money in Appropriations bills, to 
bring the first wildlife refuge to West Virginia, the last State among 
the 50 that got a wildlife refuge. Hear me, environmentalists. Who put 
the money in for the Canaan Valley Wildlife Refuge--that West Virginia 
refuge was the 500th in the nation? I did.
  I am an environmentalist. Who put the $138 million in for the fish 
and wildlife's national conservation and training facilities at 
Terrapin Neck, three miles out of Shepherdstown, WV? Who fought 5 years 
in the Senate Appropriations Committee for that $138 million? Who 
fought for it in the House-Senate conferences? This Senator; this 
environmentalist fought for it.
  Nobody wants a cleaner environment than I do. But I hope I also have 
some common sense. We know that in West Virginia the great core 
industries have fueled the powerplants of the Nation, have fueled the 
war machine of the Nation. The coal industry, the steel industry, the 
glass industry, the chemical industry, these and other core industries 
have employed hundreds of people in West Virginia. The core industries 
are still there, but they are diminishing. There were 125,000 coal 
miners in West Virginia when I first ran for the House of 
Representatives in 1952. Today, there are only 20,000, give or take, in 
West Virginia.
  These core industries cannot always be what they once were. But there 
are those who want coal mining stopped now. They want it stopped 
tonight. They want it stopped tomorrow. Shut it down! That is what they 
want. But we can't do that. It can't be done overnight. People have to 
work. Children have to eat. Widows have to live. We have to continue to 
operate the mines. We are trying to develop other industries in West 
Virginia--high-tech industries. I have tried to encourage Federal 
agencies to look to West Virginia for a better quality of life, for a 
safer life, where the people who work can at last buy a home, where 
people want to work and will turn in a good day's work.
  We are trying to diversify our industries. It takes time. I have put 
appropriations into the corridor highways of West Virginia, so that 
other industries will be encouraged to come into West Virginia and to 
expand. They won't come where there are bad roads. They need an 
infrastructure that will support their industries and their people. It 
takes time. It can't be done overnight. Those environmentalists who 
want it done overnight, it can't be done overnight.

  Those MOUs established stronger environmental protections and 
regulations in West Virginia than exist in any other State in the 
Nation, bar none. I say to the Administration, your own regulatory 
agencies agreed and worked out those regulations, and now you, the 
White House, want to turn your back on your own environmental agency, 
on your own Army Corps of Engineers, on your own Office of Surface 
Mining.
  Peter heard the cock crow three times, and then he hung his head in 
shame. He denied his Lord thrice and then hung his own head in shame 
and walked away.
  White House, hang your head in shame!
  But the court's opinion, throw all these things out the window. The 
MOUs, the agreements that have been entered into by this 
administration's regulatory agencies, are all thrown out the window. 
The court ruled that the way in which the agencies were operating did 
not follow the letter and intent of the law.
  Hear that. I helped to create those laws. I supported the Clean Water 
Act. I supported the Surface Mining and Control Reclamation Act. I 
supported it. But the court ruled that the way in which these agencies 
were operating did not follow the letter of the law and intent of the 
law.
  Congress passed the law. The court disagreed with the way in which 
the Federal regulatory agencies and the State regulatory agency 
interpreted the law. But the court was wrong. There are 20,000 miners, 
20,000 voices that come from the coal fields who say that the court was 
wrong. Its decision was completely contrary to the intent of Congress 
in passing those two laws, the Clean Water Act and the Surface Mining 
and Control and Reclamation Act.
  While I disagree with the court, the ball is here. It is in our court 
now because the judge in his ruling said if application of Federal 
regulation prevents certain activities in the Appalachian coal fields 
``it is up to Congress.'' That is this body and the other body. He said 
. . . ``it is up to Congress''--and the legislature--``to alter that 
result.''

  So we have accepted the responsibility. The judge said it is up to 
Congress. We, who are supporting this amendment, have accepted that 
responsibility and we are trying to do something about it. We are being 
impeded and we are being undercut by the White House, by my own White 
House.
  Almost immediately after the judge issued his ruling, confusion 
reigned. There was chaos in the coal fields. Layoff notices went out. 
Mining companies announced that they might not make significant 
investments in the State that had long ago been planned. That is real 
money that has to be spent. Those are real risks they take on. As a 
result of the court ruling, coal companies, truckers, barge operators, 
railroads--none of them had any certainty that the investments they 
might make today would be justifiable tomorrow.
  Some say, it's just a West Virginia problem. You tell the people of 
Kentucky that. Tell the people of Pennsylvania that. Too bad for West 
Virginia. But I am here to say to my colleagues it is a national 
problem. Look out. Look out. That cloud that is over West Virginia is 
headed your way next, Kentucky. And Mitch McConnell knows that. That is 
why he is a cosponsor of this amendment. That cloud just over the 
border, that cloud is just over the horizon in West Virginia. You will 
be next. And they know it. Look out, it is coming your way next. But if 
you want to head it off, the opportunity is here with this amendment. 
This is the time to head off this dragon. Beat it back. Take the sword 
that I offer, that Mitch McConnell offers, that Jay Rockefeller offers, 
that Senator Bunning offers, and all the other Senators whose names are 
on this amendment offer--take this sword. Take this sword, and fight 
for the working men and women of this Nation, and do it now.
  Some may say, ``I would like to. I would like to sign up. I am 
willing to put on the suit of armor--but what about the environment? We 
can't upset the environment.''
  Let me assure my colleagues and the people who are watching out 
there--let me assure you, this amendment is not the toxic monster it is 
purported to be by some of the environmental organizations and by this 
White House. It is not the toxic monster they purport it to be. In 
fact, this amendment puts into place in West Virginia--get this--this 
amendment puts into place in West Virginia the tougher environmental 
standards prescribed by the very MOUs that this administration's own 
EPA helped to negotiate. But you certainly would not know that from all 
of the frothing at the mouth by people who either have no idea what 
they are talking about, or who, for some reason, are deliberately 
trying to mislead the people of this country. They either have no idea 
of what they are talking about or they are deliberately and dishonestly 
trying to mislead.
  Those who have expressed opposition to this amendment, including the 
White House, claim it would harm

[[Page S14783]]

clean water protections under both the Clean Water Act and SMCRA. There 
is not a word--not a word--of that true, and they ought to know it, the 
people who are saying it. As a matter of fact, as far as I am 
concerned, they do know it. But they certainly ought to if they don't.
  This amendment would not harm the Clean Water and the Surface Mining 
Reclamation Acts, would not harm those protections. This amendment 
would not lay a hand on those protections. It would not touch--not 
touch them. It would not even brush up against them. This amendment 
specifically states --now hear this, hear this Senators--this amendment 
specifically states:

       Nothing in this section modifies, supersedes, undermines, 
     displaces or amends any requirement of or regulation issued 
     under the Federal Water Pollution Act commonly known as the 
     Clean Water Act, or the Surface Mining Control and 
     Reclamation Act of 1977.

  What could be plainer? What could be clearer? What could give greater 
assurance than these words that are in the amendment?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator from West Virginia yield for a 
question?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield to my friend, Senator McConnell. Yes, I do.
  Mr. McCONNELL. So the Senator from West Virginia is referring to the 
sentence in a letter from John Podesta, the Chief of Staff of the 
President, which says:

       As you know, this is consistent with the President's 
     opposition to appropriation riders that would weaken or 
     undermine environmental protections under current law.

  I say to my friend from West Virginia--I ask him, that is simply 
incorrect, isn't it?
  Mr. BYRD. Absolutely.
  Mr. McCONNELL. They are not telling the truth, are they?
  Mr. BYRD. They are not telling the truth.
  Mr. McCONNELL. They either know it, in which case they are not 
telling the truth, or they are woefully uninformed, aren't they?
  Mr. BYRD. They either know they are not telling the truth or they are 
woefully uninformed; exactly, preeminently precise.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The President came to Hazard, KY, this year, and he 
bit his lip, and he felt our pain. And he said: What can we do for you? 
I am here in Appalachia to find out what I can do for you, to make life 
better.
  This is it, isn't it? I say to my friend from Virginia. This is what 
they can do for us to make life better?
  Mr. BYRD. That is it, that is it, and it has my fingerprints on it, 
and it has your fingerprints on it, may I say to my dear friend from 
Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. And we have 20,000, 15,000 coal miners jobs in 
Kentucky, and 65,000 additional jobs that would not be there but for 
coal. And the only impression we can get from this is, they don't care.
  Mr. BYRD. Exactly.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend.
  Mr. BYRD. What other impression could one get?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Because we have made it clear to them, haven't we, 
what this is all about? It does not change current law at all?
  Mr. BYRD. It does not change current law at all. It doesn't touch 
current law.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank my friend from West Virginia.
  (Mr. ROBERTS assumed the chair.)
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the White House has pressed for changes in 
this amendment. The White House, according to Mr. Podesta's letter to 
the Speaker and Mr. Podesta's letter to me, wants a ``time limited 
solution.'' This amendment is limited to 2 years or to the completion 
of the ongoing Federal study which was ordered by a court in December 
of last year and the issuance of any regulations resulting from that 
study.
  The White House argues that because the district court has stayed its 
ruling, the jobs of thousands of miners in West Virginia and hundreds 
of thousands of workers in mining and related jobs on the east coast 
are no longer threatened. The White House is wrong.
  The court, when it ordered the stay, said this stay has no legal 
basis. In other words, he said: The only reason I am issuing this stay 
is to pour a little oil on troubled waters, let the waters calm down a 
little bit. All this chaos and confusion flows from my decision; I am 
going to put a stay on that. You can have a little time to get your 
breath.
  But he said there is no legal basis for it, which means that the 
court could lift the stay. When Congress gets out of town, who knows, 
the court may lift that stay. The court itself, as I say, noted that 
there is no legal basis for the stay, but, in fact, that the stay was 
issued in response to the uproar created by the court's ruling. That is 
why we have a stay.
  The administration, whose representatives had been working with me on 
the language of this amendment, said to me there is no need now for any 
legislation. Do not believe it.
  The White House argues that because the district court has stayed its 
ruling, the jobs of thousands miners in West Virginia and hundreds of 
thousands of workers in mining and related jobs on the east coast are 
no longer threatened. The court could lift its stay. Let me say again, 
the court itself noted that there was no legal basis for the stay.
  We have no assurances as to how long that stay will remain in place. 
It provides no comfort for coal miners. It provides no comfort for 
mining companies who want to invest in new mines to employ more miners 
than their sons. It provides no comfort to others whose jobs rely on 
coal, such as the trucking industry, the barge industry, the railroad 
industry, the suppliers. To them, the stay is a stay. It is more like a 
weekend pass. That stay has placed a cloud of uncertainty, a cloud that 
hangs over the mining industry in West Virginia, a cloud that is 
sprouting long, gray tentacles that will stretch across the skies of 
other States.
  I ask my colleagues and those who are watching--and I hope the White 
House is watching--just how many companies do you think are going to 
sign up to any real commitment of financial resources and invest the 
millions of dollars that it takes to operate? How many of them are 
going to sign up with this stay hanging over their heads? Why would 
they want to?
  The permitting process was going along swimmingly before the judge's 
decision. It was going along under the regulations that were agreed to 
and created by the White House's own regulatory agencies: the EPA, the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Interior Department through the 
Office of Surface Mining. Fifty-nine of 62 pending permits could not be 
approved under that stay. There are 62 pending permits; 59 of these 
could not be approved under that stay, according to the West Virginia 
Division of Environmental Protection as of Monday of this week.

  If this amendment is not adopted, there are those who will point to 
this day and call it a victory for environmental protection, but those 
individuals have not lifted a finger--they have not lifted a finger, 
have not lifted the smallest finger--to help the many residents of 
Appalachia who do not have safe water piped into their modest homes for 
their little children to drink. They do not carry banners. They do not 
carry banners and placards and write letters and lobby Congress about 
the fact that those same streams they applaud themselves for protecting 
from rock and dirt are being polluted by the wastewater of communities 
that are too poor to build sewage plants.
  These head-in-the-clouds individuals peddle dreams of an idyllic life 
among old growth trees, but they seem to be ignorant of the fact that 
without the mines, jobs will disappear, the tables will go bare, the 
cupboards will be empty, schools will not have the revenue to teach the 
children, and towns will not have the income to provide even basics. 
But what do they care? They will have already thrown down their 
placards and their banners and gone off somewhere else.
  These dreamers--I know, I have been down there. They have been 
carrying their banners around some of the meetings that I have 
addressed. They might as well talk to the trees. I am speaking for the 
coal miners. I lived in a coal miner's home. I grew up in a coal 
miner's home. I ate from a coal miner's table. I slept on a coal 
miner's bed. I lived under a coal miner's roof.
  Loretta Lynn sings the song ``I'm a Coal Miner's Daughter.'' I 
married a coal miner's daughter more than 62 years ago. My wife's 
brother died of

[[Page S14784]]

pneumoconiosis. He died of black lung, contracted in the coal mines. 
And his father died under a slate fall--under a slate fall. He died in 
the darkness. He died in the darkness.

  Many times I have gone to the miners' bath house and pulled back the 
canvas cover and peered into the face of a coal miner whom I knew and 
who had been killed under a slate fall or killed by being run over by 
an electric motor.
  Many times I have walked those steep hillsides and helped to carry 
the heavy--and I mean heavy--coffins of miners who died following the 
edict of the Creator, when he drove Adam and Eve from the Garden of 
Eden, saying: In the sweat of thy brow shall thou eat bread. And those 
coal miners know what that means.
  But this court ruling will take away the right of thousands of coal 
miners and truckers and railroad workers and barge operators to earn 
their bread in the sweat of their brow.
  Hear me, coal miners! If you do not know now who your friends are, 
you soon will know. These dreamers would have us believe that if only 
our mountains--if only our mountains--remain pristine, new jobs will 
come. ``Or,'' they suggest, ``perhaps coalfields residents should 
simply commute to other areas for employment.'' To these individuals I 
say, ``Get real!''
  Those of you in the White House, who have been working behind my back 
on this amendment, go down there and talk to those coal miners. Tell 
them what you have done.
  You do not have to drive the dangerous, winding, narrow roads over 
which these workers would have to commute each morning and evening.
  When the picket signs are gone, when the editorials in the big city 
papers are lining bird cages, the people of the small mining 
communities will be left. You will be gone. You have thrown down your 
banners. You have thrown down your placards. You have thrown down your 
candles. But those people of the small mining communities will still be 
there. They will be left to repair the economic damage.
  Mining will be part of the economic base of my State for the 
foreseeable future, and new ways must be explored to make mining 
practices more environmentally friendly. And I am for that. At the same 
time, we have to recognize that the amount of coal reserves in West 
Virginia is finite. We must continue to broaden our State's economic 
base. But such change cannot happen over night.
  A new economic base cannot spring from the ocean foam. It cannot 
emanate from the brain of Jove, like Minerva, fully clothed and in 
armor. That effort requires time. And it requires money. And if you 
want to know the worth of money, try to borrow some. It requires the 
development of improved infrastructure, better highways, more modern 
highways, up-to-date highways, safer highways, like those Appalachian 
corridors that I have been trying for years to build, and for which I 
have been horse whipped orally and with the pen. I do not mind. I know 
for whom I am working. I am working for the people of West Virginia, 
and always will as long as the Lord lets me stand.
  Water and sewer systems, accessible health care, safe schools--these 
are the kinds of basic facilities and programs that I have been 
promoting for many years. I do not carry my banner today and throw it 
down when the speech is over and go on somewhere else. Those coal 
miners are still there. And they are going to still have my attention, 
my respect, my reverence.
  In a letter threatening a veto of legislation containing this 
amendment, the White House claimed to be prepared to discuss a solution 
that would ensure that ``any adverse impacts on mining communities in 
West Virginia are minimized.'' Well, talk is cheap. But any real 
solution to minimize economic impact on these West Virginian 
communities won't be cheap.
  Back in July, the President of the United States appeared in Hazard, 
KY, where he delivered an address to the people of Appalachia. 
Appalachia is my home. I was married there. Our first daughter was born 
there. Our second daughter was born there. I went to school there. I 
graduated from high school there in Appalachia.
  The President of the United States expressed great sympathy for the 
economic distress in these mountainous States. It was an uplifting 
speech. He is very capable of giving uplifting speeches. It was a 
speech that reached out to the human spirit and built great 
expectations. Calling on corporate America to invest in rural America, 
President Clinton said: ``This is a time to bring more jobs and 
investment and hope to the areas of our country that have not fully 
participated in this economic recovery.'' And I say: Amen, brother! 
Amen.
  I agree with that message. It is the right thing to do. We should be 
bringing jobs to Appalachia. We should be bringing new businesses, too. 
But how can one peddle hope while undercutting the real jobs and 
businesses that do exist in Appalachia? If we don't act now, if the 
court lifts its stay, we will be back here a few months from now 
battling this issue all over again. It may not just be West Virginia 
then. It may be your own States, Senators. It may be your people, 
Senators. It may be your families.

  There may be an appeal of the judges ruling, and that appeal may lead 
to a more equitable outcome. However, that appeal may simply maintain 
the judge's decision and put us squarely back where we have been in 
recent weeks, trying to address the matter Congressionally--trying to 
reaffirm well-established Congressional intent that has been followed 
for the past 20 years while striving for improvements in the way mining 
is conducted.
  In the meantime, with the scales tipped against them, mining families 
must hold on to a crumbling ledge. The heel is poised above their 
fingertips, ready to mash down.
  We have a pretty good idea who the opponents of this effort are. But 
what of the supporters? Let me tell you who is standing by us: The 
United Mine Workers of America; the National Mining Association; the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce; the Bituminous Coal Operators Association; 
the AFL-CIO--hear that, White House, the AFL-CIO--the National 
Association of Manufacturers; the Association of American Railroads; 
the United Transportation Union; the Norfolk Southern Railroad; CSX 
Railroad; the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen; the International 
Union of Operating Engineers; the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way 
Employees; the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; the Transport 
Workers of America; the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers; the 
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; the Utility Workers 
Union of America; American Electric Power.
  You see, the environmentalists sent a letter to the White House, and 
they listed a few organizations that were supporting their opposition 
to this amendment. But listen to this list, too. This amendment has its 
friends.
  I continue with the reading of the list: the Southern States Energy 
Board; the Southern Company; the United Steelworkers of America; the 
Independent Steelworkers Union--it isn't just coal miners, you see; 
these are brothers--the Laborers International Union of North America; 
the American Truckers Association; the International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters; the American Waterways Operators; the International Union of 
Transportation Communications; the American Federation of Teachers; the 
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; the 
American Federation of Government Employees--White House, it isn't just 
Robert Byrd and Mitch McConnell and Jay Rockefeller and Senator 
Bunning, Pete Domenici, Larry Craig, and Phil Gramm, and the fine 
Senator who sits in the Chair, Pat Roberts. It isn't just these. It 
isn't just the House delegation, the three Members of the House from 
West Virginia. These are not alone.
  It is also the National Council of Senior Citizens.
  These groups--representing millions of citizens--agree with us that a 
legislative remedy is needed, and is needed now. They agree that there 
must be a balanced approach. What this amendment does is simple. It 
establishes a fair, moderate balance between jobs and the environment, 
while also providing for additional review and regulation once the 
environmental impact study is complete.
  It is time to put aside whatever animosity exists between the coal 
mining industry and the environmental movement.
  I am not much for making predictions, but I can make this one: the

[[Page S14785]]

coming years will bring us more challenges like this, when the 
environment and the economy must be harmonized. Today is a test of our 
ability to deal those challenges ahead.
  This nation can put a man on the moon. Surely, we can adopt a 
solution to this problem that protects the environment and protects 
jobs of the coalfields.
  This amendment seeks to go back to the regulations and the agreements 
that made up the status quo ante before the judge's order--that is all 
we ask--the status quo ante agreed upon by the administration's EPA, by 
the administration's Army Corps of Engineers, by the administration's 
Department of the Interior, the Office of Surface Mining. That is what 
we ask. And we ask not only for justice, but we ask also for mercy for 
the coal miners and the other working people of America.
  I ask unanimous consent that the names of the cosponsors and sponsors 
of this amendment be printed in the Record, and they are as follows:
  Senators Byrd, McConnell, Rockefeller, Bunning, Reid, Craig, Bryan, 
Hatch, Bennett, Murkowski, Crapo, Enzi, Burns, and Kyl. I have not put 
forth any big effort to shop this around. I also add Senators Breaux, 
Shelby, Gramm, and Grams, as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Kentucky is 
recognized.

                          ____________________