[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 30, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E67-E69]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




INTRODUCTION OF THE ABANDONED MINE LANDS RECLAMATION REFORM ACT OF 2001

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. NICK J. RAHALL II

                            of west virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, January 30, 2001

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Abandoned Mine 
Lands Reclamation Reform Act of 2001'' in recognition of the pressing 
need to make continued progress in restoring the environment in 
coalfield communities throughout the Nation.
  Originally authorized as part of the landmark Surface Mining Control 
and Reclamation Act of 1977, to date over $1.7 billion has been 
appropriated under the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program to restore 
lands and waters adversely affected by past coal mining practices. 
These restoration projects normally involve threats to the public 
health and safety from dangerous highwalls, subsidence, refuse piles 
and open mine portals. They also include the construction of new water 
supply systems to coalfield communities where water supplies have been 
contaminated by past coal mining practices. Over the years, other 
amounts have been appropriated under the program for emergency coal 
reclamation projects, the Rural Abandoned Mine Program, the Small 
Operators Assistance Program, certain non-coal mining reclamation 
projects and the administration of the program for a total $4 billion 
in appropriations.
  The primary delivery mechanism for these funds is through annual 
grants made through the annual appropriations process to 26 eligible 
States and Indian tribes. This effort is augmented by funds expended by 
the Interior Department's Office of Surface Mining (OSM) in States and 
tribes without approved reclamation programs. By most accounts, this 
effort has been a success achieving far more in real on-the-ground 
environmental restoration than programs such as the Superfund.
  Yet, the mission of this program has not yet fully been accomplished 
which is the reason for the legislation I am introducing today. As it 
stands, there currently exists about $2.5 billion worth of high 
priority human health and safety threatening abandoned coal mine 
reclamation costs in this country. There are other costs as well, 
associated with lower priority abandoned coal mine sites. The 
fundamental purpose of the ``Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation Reform 
Act of 2001'' is to raise sufficient revenues which, when coupled with 
the unappropriated balance in the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund and 
the reforms proposed by the legislation, to finance the reclamation of 
the remaining $2.5 billion inventory of high priority coal reclamation 
sites and draw this effort to a successful conclusion.
  In this regard, it is essential to note that this program is not 
financed by the general taxpayer but rather through a fee assessed on 
every ton of coal mined. The unreclaimed coal sites eligible for 
expenditures under the program were primarily abandoned prior to the

[[Page E68]]

enactment of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 
which placed stringent mining and reclamation standards in place. The 
authority to collect these fees was originally for a 15-year period. 
However, on two prior occasions through legislation I sponsored the 
Congress extended those fees collections in recognition of the 
continued need to address health, safety and environmental threats in 
the Nation's coalfield communities.
  A central feature of this legislation then is to extend that fee 
collection authority for an additional seven years to 2011. This is the 
period the OSM estimates will be necessary to generate the additional 
revenue to complete the high priority coal site inventory. However, 
that alone will not allow us to achieve that goal which is the reason 
for the reforms proposed by this bill.
  Simply put, in my view over the years there has been a hemorrhaging 
of some of the funding made available under this program to lower 
priority projects. Almost $200 million, for instance, for coal priority 
3 projects which do not involve protecting the public health and 
safety. One of the reasons this reduction in focus on health and safety 
threatening projects has occurred is due to a late 1994 OSM policy 
shift that corrupted what is known as the general welfare standard in 
the coal reclamation priority rankings. This new policy has had the 
affect of allowing States to bootstrap what would normally have been 
lower priority 3 projects into the higher priority 1 and 2 rankings. To 
be clear, not all States or even a majority of Sates have taken 
advantage of this new policy and I commend them for that. Yet it is a 
fact that as a result of this new policy the bona fide $2.5 billion 
inventory of unfunded priority 1 and 2 projects has swollen to over $6 
billion. I do not recognize this $6 billion figure and neither does 
this legislation.
  The reforms proposed by this bill include eliminating the general 
welfare standard and restricting the use of State/tribal share grants 
and supplemental federal share grants to bona fide coal priority 1 and 
2 projects involving threats to human health and safety. Once those 
projects are completed and only when those projects are completed, with 
two minor exceptions, can a State or tribe undertake the lower priority 
coal projects under the certification program with their State/tribal 
share grants. The exceptions to this rule involve situations where a 
priority 3 site is undertaken in conjunction with a priority 1 or 2 
site, or where a priority 3 sites is addressed in association with a 
coal remaining operation. In effect, this legislation seeks to target 
the lion's share of available funding to coal priority 1 or 2 keeping 
faith with the original mission of the program. Among other reforms 
envisioned are federal approval of any additions made to the official 
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Inventory and a review of those additions 
made since the OSM policy shift on the general welfare standard.
  The purposes of these reforms are intended, as previously noted, to 
complete those projects which are necessary to complete for the sake of 
protecting the health and safety of
  I would like to make note of two additional changes to current law 
proposed by this bill. As already noted, in the past appropriations 
were made available from the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund to the 
Rural Abandoned Mine Program (RAMP), an Agriculture Department program. 
No such appropriations have been forthcoming for six fiscal years now. 
I find this disappointing. While the Interior Department and the States 
from the very beginning were against RAMP funding, contending it was 
duplicative of their efforts, this in my view and in that of many 
others was not the case. RAMP served a distinctly different purpose 
involving a closer working relationship with landowners and sought to 
address reclamation projects on a more holistic basis. Another problem 
that also dogged Ramp was the fact that while it is an Agriculture 
Department program, its appropriations were being made out of an 
Interior Department trust fund by the Interior Appropriations bill. 
Obviously, Interior officials had little interest in this arrangement 
and so beginning in 1995 we have not been able to obtain funding for 
RAMP. In my view, this situation will not change if the status quo is 
maintained. For that reason, the legislation I am introducing today 
would authorize RAMP for general fund appropriations rather than out of 
the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund so that funding can be pursued 
through the Agriculture Department's Natural Resources Conservation 
Service's budget.
  Finally, this legislation also seeks to lift the restriction that 
interest accrued in the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund can only be 
transferred to what is known as the Combined Benefits Fund for 
unassigned beneficiaries. Under this bill, all accrued interest would 
be available to keep faith with the promise made by the federal 
government many years ago to guarantee health care benefit for certain 
retired coal miners.
  In introducing this legislation I do not purport to suggest it offers 
perfect solutions. It is a fact that the draft bill has been available 
for review by the affected States and tribes for 10 months now and I 
thank them for their comments. It has also been reviewed by the 
Citizens Coal Council, a coalfield-based environmental group. And, it 
has been reviewed by segments of the coal industry. Certainly, though, 
we have a long legislative process ahead of us and I look forward to 
working with interested Members of Congress on this matter.
  I submit the following detailed section-by-section analysis of the 
``Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation Reform Act of 2001'' for inclusion 
in the Record.

 Section-By-Section Analysis of the ``Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation 
                          Reform Act of 2001''

       Section 1 provides for a short title.
       Section 2, amendments to title IV--
       Subsection (a)(1) strikes form the purposes of Abandoned 
     Mine Reclamation Fund the transfer of amounts to the 
     Secretary of Agriculture for use under the Rural Abandoned 
     Mine Program and the use of funds for abandoned mine land 
     research projects conducted by the Bureau of Mines. The 
     bureau no longer is in existence.
       Subsection (a)(2) clarifies that all interest accrued to 
     the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund is for the purpose of 
     making transfers to the Combined Benefit Fund.
       Subsection (b)(1) extends the authorization to assess 
     reclamation fees from 2004 to 2011.
       Subsection (b)(2) modifies the provision of current law 
     requiring the redistribution of grant amounts not expended 
     within three years after being awarded. Amounts redistributed 
     would be expended under the historic coal production 
     supplemental grant program rather than any funding category 
     as under current law. [Note: this provision has never been 
     enforced].
       Subsection (b)(3) strikes the reservation of reclamation 
     fees and interest for the Rural Abandoned Mine Program. An 
     amendment made by this subsection requires the Secretary to 
     insure strict compliance with the priorities set forth in 
     section 403(a) in the expenditure of funds until 
     certification of the completion of all eligible coal 
     abandoned mine reclamation projects is made.
       Subsection (b)(4) contains two technical and conforming 
     amendments.
       Subsection (b)(5) rewrites section 402(g)(4) relating to 
     the eligibility of certain post August 4, 1977,sites for 
     expenditure of funds under the Abandoned Mine Reclamation 
     Fund. Current law allows such expenditures on certain sites 
     abandoned after August 4, 1977, but prior to a State or Tribe 
     receiving approval of this permanent program or where a 
     surety company insolvency resulted in abandoned coal mine 
     lands and waters. The amendment made by this subsection 
     primarily strikes the latter situation as such sites are no 
     longer prevalent.
       Subsection (b)(6) increases the amount of reclamation fees 
     dedicated to the historic coal production supplemental grant 
     program from 40% to 60% of the Secretary's 50% share of the 
     Abandoned Mine Reclamation fund (30% of the total). This 
     subsection also includes a technical and conforming 
     amendment.
       Subsection (b)(7) eliminates the set-aside of 10% of annual 
     grants for purposes of expenditure after September 30, 1995, 
     as the provision is no longer relevant. Amendments in this 
     subsection also streamline provisions relating to the 10% 
     set-aside for acid mine drainage abatement and treatment by 
     eliminating Secretarial approval of such expenditures and 
     provisions requiring consultation with the Soil Conservation 
     Service and the Bureau of Mines.
       Subsection (b)(8) provides that the expenditure of funds 
     for projects formerly identified as priority 3 may only be 
     made in conjunction with the expenditure of funds for 
     priority 1 or 2 projects or in association with coal remining 
     operations prior to the certification of the completion of 
     all eligible coal abandoned mine reclamation projects is made 
     (other amendments eliminate priority 3 from section 403 and 
     transfers it to the post-certification program).
       Subsection (b)(9) extends the authorization level for 
     minimum program States to post-certification priority 3 coal 
     sites.
       Subsection (b)(10) lifts restrictions relating to the 
     transfer of interest to the Combined Benefit Fund.
       Subsection (b)(11) is a technical and conforming amendment 
     relating to the amendment made by subsection (b)(9).
       Subsection (c)(1) strikes the term ``general welfare'' from 
     priority 1 and 2 and strikes priorities 3 thru 5.
       Subsection (c)(2) makes a technical and conforming 
     amendment and includes a requirement that amendments to the 
     AML Inventory are subject to the approval of the Secretary.
       Subsection (d) makes a technical and conforming amendment.
       Subsection (e) authorizes the Rural Abandoned Mine Program 
     to receive general fund appropriations.
       Subsection (f) updates requirements relating to the filing 
     of liens.
       Subsection (g) updates section 409 primarily by including 
     references to Indian

[[Page E69]]

     tribes, clarifying that annual grants may be used for 
     projects under the section excluding amounts received under 
     the historic coal production supplemental grant program, and 
     clarifying that States and Tribes rather than the Secretary 
     make expenditures under the section subject to the approval 
     of the Secretary. Provision is made allowing continued 
     eligibility under section 409 after a State or tribe has 
     certified the completion of all coal priority 1 and 2 
     projects but has not yet completed other remaining coal 
     projects under section 411.
       Subsection (h) rewrites the section 411 certification 
     program in two significant ways. First, it allows the 
     Secretary or a third party (in addition to a State or Tribe 
     as under current law) to seek the certification of the 
     completion of all coal priorities on eligible lands and 
     waters. Second, provision is made to require certification 
     after the completion of coal priority 1 and 2 projects. Once 
     this occurs, a State or Tribe would commence other remaining 
     coal projects eligible under section 404 (former priority 3 
     projects) prior to undertaking non-coal projects. Provisions 
     relating to non-coal projects remain unchanged from current 
     law.
       Subsection (i) strikes a moribund provision in section 413.
       Section 3, free-standing provisions--
       Subsection (a) provides that reclamation fees credited to 
     the Rural Abandoned Mine Program but not appropriated in the 
     past be available for historic coal production supplemental 
     grants. An amendment also provides for the transfer of 
     interest not transferred in the past to the Combined Benefit 
     Fund.
       Subsection (b) requires the Secretary to review all 
     additions to the AML Inventory made since December 31, 1998. 
     Provision is made deeming projects listed in the inventory 
     under the ``general welfare'' standard as being ineligible 
     under section 403(a) and may only be carried out under 
     section 411(c)(1). Provision is made for the Inspector 
     General to evaluate the review and together with the 
     Secretary report the results to committees of the House and 
     Senate. Provision is also made requiring the Inspector 
     General to conduct an annual review of any amendments to the 
     inventory.
       Subsection (c) is a savings clause noting that nothing in 
     the legislation affects any State or Tribal certification 
     made before the date of enactment of the bill.

     

                          ____________________