Copyright 2000 Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.
Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony
January 24, 2000
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 2814 words
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY January 24, 2000 DON YOUNG CHAIRMAN HOUSE RESOURCES
RECLAMATION OF PENNSYLAVINA MINING LANDS
BODY:
Statement of the Honorable Don Young Chairman, Committee on Resources
Oversight Hearing on Abandoned Mined Land Reclamation Needs of the Pennsylvania
Anthracite Fields Scranton, Pennsylvania January 24, 2000 The Committee on
Resources is meeting today under its oversight jurisdiction to take testimony on
the subject of mined land reclamation needs of the Pennsylvania anthracite
fields. Congressman Don Sherwood of the 10th District, a valued Member of the
Committee, has graciously hosted our visit to this historic region and aided the
logistical efforts for this field hearing. I'd like to thank the University of
Scranton, as well, for making this venue available to us, and the efforts of all
involved today to coordinate the helicopter tour we had this morning flown by
the Pennsylvania National Guard. Seeing with my own eyes the magnitude of the
environmental impacts of the unreclaimed coal mines and facilities of this area
will help guide our understanding of the testimony which we are about to hear. I
understand that this great anthracite coal-bearing region was where our Nation's
industrial revolution first took hold. My staff reports to me that some seven
billion tons of hard coal have been mined from the anthracite fields of eastern
Pennsylvania since 1769 - and that estimates are about twenty billion tons
remain in the earth here. Furthermore, my understanding is the demand for your
anthracite gave way as bituminous coal elsewhere was found to be more economic
to mine and burn. But, for many decades the hard coal from the Lackawanna Valley
and nearby fields fueled the forges of our Nation's industry, fired the boilers
of our locomotives, and heated many homes and buildings served by the barge and
railroad network which grew up here to get the anthracite to market. That's your
historical legacy, and one in which I am sure the folks of Scranton and eastern
Pennsylvania are quite proud, and rightly so. Unfortunately, there is an
environmental legacy that followed from your industry, as well. The hard coal
was mined, broken and shipped under few regulations then, but the environmental
consequences of those practices did not really hit home until our Nation became
wealthy enough to afford a clean, safe environment. I was in my second term in
office when Congress enacted the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977. This law, which we know as SMCRA, made it a national policy to require
more stringent regulation of active coal-mining and required reclamation plans
of such operators, backed up with financial guarantees to ensure the restoration
of the surface impacts of those mines. The feds stepped in then, in 1977,
because it was widely perceived that the states were lax in their own regulation
out of concern that an operator would simply move to a less regulated
jurisdiction if the rules got too tough in their state. Now, the states were
allowed to seek enforcement "primacy" from the new federal agency created to
administer SMCRA, the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) in the Interior Department,
but the feds; were there to oversee the state agency's "commitment" to the task.
This was all well and good for active operations, but Congress decided that
mining disturbances made prior to SMCRA ought to be reclaimed, too, and
recognized that in many cases the former operator had no obligation under state
law to do so. Thus, the abandoned mined land reclamation trust fund was
established, in Title IV of SMCRA, to create a funding source to begin to tackle
this problem and a delivery mechanism to get the money out for on-the-ground
remediation. Congress estimated then that fifteen years of an AML fee levied on
every ton of coal mined in the country would provide the necessary funds, but in
1992 we extended this fee collection thru fiscal year 2004. Furthermore,
Congress also provided for the trust fund to earn interest and allowed the
diversion of a portion of the interest into the combined benefits fund for
retired coal miners and their dependents. During the debate over the
establishment of the AML fund many states were concerned that their producers
would pay into the fund for reclamation projects elsewhere so Congress obliged
by guaranteeing that for every AML dollar collected from active producers within
a state, fifty cents would be dedicated within the fund for ultimate
appropriation back to that same state. The remainder would be known as "the
Secretary's share," basically to pay for federal administrative costs and
additional grants to states based upon an "historic production" factor. Members
understood this would be a net transfer of funds from the coal states of the
West - Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico , but this was the
compromise reached. So, what is the problem? Well, like the federal highway
trust fund which grew fat from gasoline taxes levied for years, but which were
not sufficiently appropriated back out annually for roads and bridges, the AML
fund, too, was been used to disguise the true magnitude of the federal operating
budget deficit for many years. OSM would collect 35 cents per ton of surface-
mined coal, 15 cents per ton for underground-mined coal and 10 cents for lignite
and send it to the Treasury, but our budget enforcement rules kept both Congress
and the President from spending - on reclamation, that is - even half what had
been collected each year. Instead, an IOU went into the Treasury and the real
money went to pay for a government program that lacked a dedicated funding
source. So, the states who had been promised a return of at least half their
collections had to wait, and are still waiting. OSM records indicate that
approximately 49 million dollars worth of IOU's to Pennsylvania are in overall
AML trust fund "state share" balance, which doesn't take into account the funds
which your commonwealth is destined to receive from the historic production
factor in the Secretary's share. For comparison purposes, I note that the state
with the most to complain about is Wyoming, because the feds are sitting on some
258 million dollars of its "guaranteed" share. And, please remember that the
interest earned on the AML fund balance goes into the Secretary's share, not the
state's, so that the 50 cents on the dollar promised to active mining states is
more like 40 cents or less by the time the states see appropriated for
reclamation grants. The AML trust fund is not the only example of a federal
revenue- sharing program gone awry. Indeed, the highway trust fund I mentioned
earlier was an example until recently. But under the skillful leadership of
Pennsylvania Congressman Bud Shuster that trust fund is now on its way to a
steady- state basis, i.e., for every dollar that flows in during the prior year,
a dollar will flow out the following year. Another broken promise to the states
has been the Land & Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, in which the
federal government dedicated 900 million dollars of annual outer continental
shelf oil and gas royalties to efforts for conservation of environmentally
sensitive lands - half to federal agencies and half to the states. As with the
Coastal Zone Management Act, however, the budget priorities always seemed to
prevent full funding of this program, and often no significant funding for state
grants at all. But, there is hope. The Conservation and Reinvestment
Act of 2000, which I have sponsored and negotiated a fair amendment
with the ranking Democrat of my Committee, Congressman George Miller of
California, would put an end to such broken promises. If enacted H.R. 701 will
ensure that 3 billion dollars per year of the 6 billion dollar annual OCS
royalties collection flows to the seven conservation programs in this bill. The
latest tally sheet shows that Pennsylvania would see nearly 50 million dollars
each year, much of it to be managed directly by your Governor and legislature
and the remainder by federal agencies operating within the Commonwealth's
boundaries. I am not suggesting that Pennsylvania's share be dedicated to AML
needs per se, indeed there are constraints as to how the states may spend their
funds within several of these conservation programs, but it is quite obvious
that the Commonwealth would far better able to budget its own reclamation
priorities if your treasury had this kind of money flowing into it each year. My
bill has been heard, debated and passed out of the Resources Committee awaiting
action by the full House of Representatives. I am proud to report that Don
Sherwood joined with me in supporting the amended bill adopted in strong
bipartisan fashion last November. Likewise, Governor Tom Ridge has written us
with his support for CARA. Both these gentlemen understand that for too long we
have passed legislation authorizing programs we deem to have benefits for
society but then Congress doesn't put its (your) money where its mouth is. Any
future amendments to SMCRA, or other legislative fixes for abandoned mined land
restoration efforts, including those for the Pennsylvania anthracite fields,
must not suffer the same fate. Today's record will be compelling, I'm sure, for
freeing up AML trust funds owed to the Commonwealth, as well as establishing a
continuing need for some funding mechanism beyond 2004. But, lets not lose sight
of where the money comes from and recognize it will be a battle to be sure its
there for each and every deserving state.
LOAD-DATE:
January 28, 2000 
