94th Congress, lst Session House Document No. 94-160

VETO OF THE SURFACE MINING CONTROL

AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1975

MESSAGE

FROMf

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES VETOING

H.R. 25, AN ACT 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

MAY 20, 1975.-Message and accompanying act ordered to be printed

as a House Document

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1975 38-0110
To the House of Representatives:

I am today returning without my approval, H.R. 25, the proposed

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1975. I am unable to

sign this bill because:

1. As many as 36,000 people would lose jobs when unemployment

already is too high.

2. Consumers would pay higher costs-particularly for electric

bills-when consumer costs are already too high.

3. The Nation would be more dependent on foreign oil-when

we are already overly dependent and dangerously vulnerable.

4. Coal production would be unnecessarily reduced-when this

vital domestic energy resource is needed more than ever.

America is approaching a more serious domestic energy shortage,

and we are not facing up to it.

We can develop our energy sources while protecting our environment. But this bill does not do that. I have supported responsible action

to control surface mining and to reclaim damaged land. I continue to

support actions which strike a proper balance between our energy and

economic goals and important environmental objectives.

Unfortunately, H.R. 25 does not strike such a balance.

Since I submitted my comprehensive national energy program earlier

this year-a program which included a tough but balanced surface

mining bill-our energy situation has continued to deteriorate. With

domestic energy production continuing to drop, we are today more

vulnerable to the disruption of oil supplies than we were during the

Mid-East oil embargo. We will be even more vulnerable as our economy

recovers and energy consumption increases. This vulnerability places

us in an untenable situation and could result in new and serious economic problems.

Coupled with this steadily deteriorating situation is the fact that the

Congress has yet to act on a comprehensive energy program capable

of achieving goals on which we all agree. Several Congressional committees have worked hard to develop solutions. Unfortunately, their

proposals are inadequate to achieve the energy objectives I have set.

As the one abundant energy source over which the United States has

total control, coal is critical to the achievement of American energy

independence. In the face of our deteriorating energy situation, we

must not arbitrarily place restrictions on the development of this

energy resource.

It is with a deep sense of regret that I find it necessary to reject

this legislation. My Administration has worked hard with the Congress to try to develop an acceptable surface mining bill and other

energy programs which could, when taken together, enable us to reduce energy imports and meet environmental objectives. While the

Congress accepted in H.R. 25 some of my proposals, it rejected others

necessary to reduce the adverse impact on coal production and to clarify

various provisions of the legislation to make it precise and more

workable.

HD. 160
The Department of the Interior and the Federal Energy Administration now advise me that, if this bill were to become law, a production loss of 40 to 162 million tons would result in 1977. This would

mean that six to twenty-four percent of expected 1977 coal production

would be lost. Actually, production losses resulting from H.R. 25 could

run considerably higher because of ambiguities in the bill and uncertainties over many of its provisions.

The bill I sent to the Congress in February would have also entailed

production losses estimated between 33 and 80 million tons. Even

though these losses would have been substantial, we could have accepted them if Congress had enacted the comprehensive energy program I proposed. But, now the potential losses of H.R. 25 are

intolerable.

The reduction in coal production would mean that the United States

will be forced to import more foreign oil. To demonstrate the serious- ness of this problem, it is estimated that we would be forced to import

ain additional 215 million barrels of oil a year at a cost of $2.3 billion

for every 50 million tons of coal not mined. At a time when our depend- ence on Mid-East oil is expected to double in just 21/ years, I believe

it would be unwise to further increase this dependency by signing into

law H.R. 25. This kind of setback in coal production would cause our

dependence on Mid-East oil to triple by 1977.

Additional reasons for withholding approval of H.R. 25 are its

legislative shortcomings. These include:

-Ambiguous, vague and complex provisions-as the record of

Congressional debate indicates. The bill would lead to years of

regulatory delays, litigation and uncertainty against the best in- terests of achieving either our environmental or energy objectives.

-Cumbersome and unwieldy Federal-State rep-ulatory and enforce- ment provisions. H.R. 25 would inject the Federal Government

immediately into a field which is already regulated by most states. Since 1971, 21 states which produce over 90 percent of the nation's

surface mined coal have either enacted new environmental legisla- tion governing surface mining or have strengthened laws already

on the books.

-1.R. 25's tax provisions which would be excessive and unnecessarily increase the price of coal.

-Its provisions which enable State governments to ban surface

mining of coal on Federal lands-thus preventing a national re- source from being used in the national interest.

-Its provisions permitting the Federal government to pay private

landowners 80 percent or more of the cost of reclaiming previously-mined land, leaving title to the land in private hands, could

provide windfall profits at the expense of coal consumers.

In short, I favor action to protect the environment, to prevent abuses

that have accompanied surface mining of coal, and to reclaim land

distributed by surface mining. I believe that we can achieve those

goals without imposing unreasonable restraints on our ability to achieve energy independence, without adding unnecessary costs, with- out creating more unemployment and without precluding the use of

vital domestic energy resources.

GERALD R. FoRD. THE WHITE HOUSE, May 20, 1975.

HD. 160