Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1668846
label
1974/12/30 S425 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974 (vetoed) (1)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1668846
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
1974/12/30 S425 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974 (vetoed) (1)
citationUrl
collections
White House Records Office: Legislation Case Files
Legislation Case Files
subjects
Legislation
Strip mining
Vetoes
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1668846
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1974-12-31
month
12
year
1974
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1974-12-01
month
12
year
1974
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
3aedd751c7db298f
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 17, folder "12/30/74 S425 Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1974 (vetoed) (1)" of the White House Records Office:
Legislation Case Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Exact duplicates within this folder were not digitized.
Digitized from Box 17 of the White House Records Office Legislation Case Files
at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
MEMOSSUED
ACTION
Last day - Monday, Dec. 30
December 26, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
KEN COLE
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill: The Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of
1974 -- S. 425
BACKGROUND
Attached for your consideration is Senate bill, S. 425, sponsored by
Senator Jackson of Washington. Under this legislation the Secretary
of the Interior, in cooperation with the States, regulates surface coal
mining operations and acquires and reclaims abandoned mines. The
bill would establish Federal standards for the environmental protection
and reclamation of surface coal mining operations including the
reclamation of orphaned lands. The bill would encourage the States
to implement and enforce a program for the regulation of surface
coal mining with Federal administration of the program substituted
if the States do not act. Roy Ash provides detailed comments at Tab A.
ARGUMENTS FOR SIGNING
The environmental damage from strip mining is excessive and should
be subject to effective control. A strip mining bill would provide
industry with environmental groundrules and standards governing
future production, the lack of which is said to be presently inhibiting
expansion of coal mining.
A bill next year may contain more problems than the current one.
This legislation would provide a degree of uniformity in the regulation
of surface mining operations throughout the applicable regions. Present
State laws and performance standards vary significantly which in turn
economically discriminates against operations in some States.
GERAL FIBRARY
-2-
There is in excess of one-half million acres in the United States of
"orphan lands" or lands upon which the surface has been spoiled by
previous surface mining operations and then abandoned. This
legislation would provide for reclamation of this land. Such
reclamation would improve the environmental status as well as
return a part of the land to agricultural or other productive uses.
Russell Train states that there is no reason to believe that the
legislation will result in unacceptable increases in cost to the
industry or losses of production. He believes that any legislation
of the complex and controversial nature of this is necessarily going
to involve compromise and some ambiguity of language most of
which should be resolvable by carefully drawn regulations.
Train personally feels strongly in this matter. His views are attached
at Tab B.
ARGUMENTS FOR VETO
Coal is the only basic and abundant energy source over which the
United States has total control. This legislation would unduly impair
our ability to use it properly. The United States must import four
barrels of expensive foreign oil for every ton of coal that we cannot
produce domestically, a situation which cannot long be tolerated
without continued, serious economic consequences. This bill would
exacerbate this problem. In addition this bill provides for excessive
Federal expenditures and would clearly have an inflationary impact
on the economy.
The legislation would have an adverse impact on our domestic coal
production which is unacceptable. By 1977, the first year after the
Act would take full effect, the Federal Energy Administration has
estimated that coal production losses would range from a minimum
of 48 million tons to a maximum of 141 million tons.
The Administration is currently undertaking a major energy policy
review. This bill would limit your freedom to adopt the best energy
options for the Nation.
MALD LIBRARY
=3=
You met on December 13 with your energy, economic and environmental
advisors on this legislation. After reviewing the bill you found it
unacceptable. The production losses would range between 5 and 15
percent exclusive of several very ambiguous administrative provisions
and a very broad citizen suit provision. Ron Nessen made an announce-
ment to this effect. Frank Zarb, John Whitaker and John Quarles
gave an extensive press briefing on your decision.
STAFF AND AGENCY POSITIONS
Interior
Approval
EPA
Approval
CEQ
Approval
Agriculture
Approval
Friedersdorf
Pocket veto
Ash (Tab A provides detailed comments)
Pocket veto
Cole
Pocket veto
Areeda
Pocket veto
Seidman
Pocket veto
Greenspan
Pocket veto
Treasury
Pocket veto
Commerce
Pocket veto
FEA
Pocket veto
RECOMMENDATION
That you pocket veto S. 425 and sign the Paul Theis approved
memorandum of disapproval at Tab D.
DECISION - - S. 425
Sign (Tab C)
Veto ART
(Sign memorandum of
dissapproval at Tab D)
FORD
OFFICE WIR PRESIDENT o STATES UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
DEC 2 3 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
Subject: Enrolled Bill S. 425 - The Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1974
Sponsor - Sen. Jackson (D) Washington
Last Day for Action
December 30, 1974 - Monday
Purpose
Provides 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.
Agency Recommendations
Office of Management and Budget
Disapproval (Veto
message attached)
Department of the Treasury
Disapproval (Informally)
Department of Commerce
Disapproval
(Informally)
Federal Energy Administration
Disapproval
(Thfc
Department of Labor
Cites concerns(Informally)
Tennessee Valley Authority
No objection Inf
)
Department of the Interior
Approval
Environmental Protection Agency
Approval(Informally)
Council on Environmental Quality
Approval (Informally)
Department of Agriculture
Approval (Informally)
Department of Justice
Defers to other
agencies
Informally)
Discussion
The Executive Branch submitted to both the 92nd and 93rd
Congresses legislation that would have established reasonable
and effective reclamation and environmental protection
FORD & LIBRARY
2
requirements for mining activities. Throughout this period
the Administration made every effort in working with the
Congress to produce a bill that strikes the delicate balance
between our desire for reclamation and environmental protection
and our need to increase coal production in the United States.
Unfortunately, the efforts to produce a balanced bill have
failed.
S. 425 would establish Federal standards for the environ-
mental protection and reclamation of surface coal mining
operations including the reclamation of orphaned lands. Under
a complex procedural framework, the bill would encourage the
States to implement and enforce a program for the regulation
of surface coal mining with Federal administration of the
program substituted if the States do not act.
Principal aspects of the bill considered objectionable by
one or more of the agencies are:
-- A 35¢/25¢ per ton excise tax on surface/under-
ground coal with receipts going to a Federal
fund for reclaiming orphaned strip mined land,
public facilities, disaster relief, etc.
($206 million would be produced in 1975).
-- $95 - 110 million for grants, research, and
Federal regulation (includes funding for a
Mineral Research Institutes program -- a
similar bill was vetoed by President Nixon in
1972).
-- Excessive direct Federal involvement in
reclamation and enforcement programs.
-- Precedent setting unemployment assistance.
-- Coal production losses in 1975 of 2 to 8 percent
(not counting unknown impact of provisions
listed below) -- FEA estimates that by 1977,
the first year after the Act would take full
effect, losses could exceed 18 percent or some
141 million tons (Interior's estimates for
this period are somewhat lower).
FORD
3
-- Surface owner protection provisions that will
limit access to Federal coal lands, produce
windfall profits to surface owners and reduce
Federal revenue from leases.
-- Complex procedural requirements and standards
in the lengthy bill which could involve
extensive litigation and potential production
impact, particularly:
- A very broad citizens suit provision.
- Near prohibition on mining that disturbs
alluvial valley floors or water supplies in
the west.
- Limited administrative discretion.
- Procedural requirements that could delay
permits for new operations and impose a
temporary moratorium on mining permits for
Federal lands (including mineral rights).
- Requirement to prevent any increase in
siltation above premining conditions.
- Designation of areas not suitable for surface
mining.
- Construction of certain impoundments prohibited.
In voting on the rule to consider the conference report on
S. 425, the House vote was 198 to 129. The Senate passed
the conference report by a voice vote.
Agency Views (informal)
Veto -- OMB, Treasury, FEA and Commerce (the arguments in
favor of veto as shown below summarize the key points raised
by the agencies)
Approval -- Interior, EPA, CEQ, and Agriculture (the arguments
in favor of approval as shown below summarize the key points
raised by the agencies).
FORD
4
In addition, Labor objects to the bill's unemployment
provision, TVA does not object to approval, and Justice
defers to the agencies more directly affected.
Arguments in favor of veto
1. The enrolled bill would have an unacceptable adverse
impact on our domestic coal production.
2. Coal is the only basic energy source over which the
United States has total control -- we should not
unduly impair our ability to use it properly.
3. The Administration is currently undertaking a major
energy policy review -- this bill would limit the
President's freedom to adopt the best energy options
for the Nation.
4. The United States must import four barrels of expensive
foreign oil for every ton of coal that is lost in
domestic production, yet the importation of such oil
cannot long be tolerated even at present levels without
continued, serious economic consequences -- S. 425 would
exacerbate this problem (i.e., if 50 million tons of
utility coal had to be replaced with 200 million barrels
of foreign oil, the net oil replacement cost would run
$1.65 billion with utility fuel costs increasing by
around 18 percent).
5. Unemployment would increase in both the coal fields and
in those industries that could not obtain replacement
fuel sources. Also, the undesirable unemployment
assistance provision could serve as a precedent for other
industries which are suffering high unemployment rates.
6. The bill provides for excessive Federal involvement and
expenditures, and would have an inflationary impact on
the economy.
7. S. 425 contains numerous other technical and institutional
deficiencies.
5
Arguments in favor of approval
1. The environmental protection achieved outweighs the
production loss problem (this view is not shared by
those agencies recommending veto).
2. A bill next year may contain more problems than this
one.
3. A strip mining bill would provide industry with
environmental groundrules and standards governing
future production, the lack of which is said to be
presently inhibiting expansion of coal mining.
On balance, we believe the arguments cited above strongly
support a veto. Accordingly, we recommend that you dis-
approve the bill. We have prepared the attached draft of
a Memorandum of Disapproval for your consideration.
Acting Director
Enclosures
FORD
UNITED STATES.
AGENCY
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
PROTECTION
Mashington, D.C. 20460
December 17, 1974
The Administrator
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
SUBJECT: Surface Mining Legislation
I regret that I was on my way back from Moscow at the time of
your decision-meeting on the strip mining legislation and could not
participate. John Quarles, EPA Deputy Administrator, has reported
to me on the meeting, and I appreciate the full opportunity that he
had to represent EPA views. However, because I feel so strongly
personally in this matter, I wish respectfully to set out my views
before you take final action.
1. The environmental damage from strip mining is excessive and
should be subject to effective control. Legislation on the subject is
long overdue.
2. There is no reason to believe that the legislation will result
in unacceptable increases in cost to the industry or losses of produc-
tion. On the contrary, any such impacts would be relatively modest.
3. It is claimed that there are a number of uncertainties and
ambiguities in the legislation which will invite litigation and, thus,
production losses and delays. First of all, any legislation of the com-
plex and controversial nature of this is necessarily going to involve
compromise and some ambiguity of language, most of which should be
resolvable by carefully drawn regulations. Secondly, the greatest
single impediment to increased coal production and the needed invest-
ment in new productive capacity is the continuing uncertainty as to
what the future rules are going to be. The failure to enact legislation
now can only continue and compound this uncertainty. It is highly
problematical whether improved certainty or better balance will be
achieved by the next Congress. The Interior Departme nt believes that
a sensible program can be implemented.
GERALD FORD CIBRAST
- 2 -
Recommendation: Recognizing that there may well be infirmities
in the legislation which need correction but that continuing failure to
provide a statutory framework which will permit the Department of the
Interior to move ahead with regulation now will itself have an adverse
effect on production, I would urge approval of the legislation subject
to the express understanding that you will be submitting perfecting
amendments at the beginning of the next Congress and subject further
to the express agreement by the Chairmen of the respective committees
that they will give high priority to prompt consideration of those
amendments early in the session.
If, however, it should be your final decision not to approve the
legislation, I would urge that the development and submission of
effective surface mining legislation be given the highest priority in
the Administration's legislative program for 1975.
Russell E. Train
FORD is LIBRARY 078830
STATES DEPARTMENT OF PRIVENTING
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20250
December 24, 1974
TORD
Honorable Roy L. Ash
Director
Office of Management and Budget
Dear Mr. Ash:
Your office requested the following report on the enrolled enactment of
S. 425, "To provide for the regulation of surface coal mining operations
in the United States, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make
grants to States to encourage State regulation of surface mining and for
other purposes."
This Department recommends that the President approve the enactment.
The enactment authorizes (1) the establishment of the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, (2) grants-in-aid to State mining and
mineral resources institutes, (3) abandoned mine reclamation, (4) control
of the environmental impacts of surface coal mining, and (5) a program
for non-coal mine environmental impact control and various necessary
administrative and miscellaneous provisions.
In recommending approval, we are cognizant of Presidential concerns regard-
ing certain provisions of this legislation. While some coal sources may
be made unavailable, thereby affecting unemployment, opportunities for
employment will be increased by an active reclamation program. Such a
program requires labor, materials and equipment, all of which stimulate
employment. Budget outlays would increase, principally because of grants-
in-aid to resources institutes, and administrative costs. However, most
of the money used in restoration of abandoned mines will come from the
private sector through the Abandoned Coal Mine Reclamation Fund. Even
though coal prices may increase, returning land to productive capacity
would be a National gain.
This Department would have preferred that the prohibition of surface coal
mining operations on Federal lands within the boundaries of National Forests
not be included in the legislation and that surface coal mining on these
lands continue to be at our discretion. We are also concerned with the
Federal lessee protection provision of the enactment. This provision would
require the written consent or execution of a bond in favor of grazing or
other surface lessees prior to the issuance of a Federal permit for surface
coal mining operations. This provision appears to grant to the surface
land lessee a degree of control or authority over the surface lands that
exceed the conditions of the lease. We believe that the responsibility to
ensure protection or adequate restoration of surface resources and associ-
ated improvements should be a condition of the Federal coal permit or
lease and be established at the Federal discretion.
RECEIVED
'74 DEC 24 AM 10:46
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET
Honorable Roy L. Ash
2
This Department has cooperated with the Department of the Interior through-
out the evolution of this legislation. We recognize that it is the result
of compromise. At the Department of the Interior's request, we have pro-
vided technical assistance in drafting Federal regulations which would be
needed to implement the act.
Even though we have concerns regarding certain provisions of the enactment,
this recommended approval is based on the need for national guidance in
surface mining and to ensure the restoration of our mined lands. This
Department provides the leadership in surface mine reclamation and has
demonstrated that certain lands can be surface mined and returned to sus-
tained productive use in agriculture, forestry, recreation, wildlife, and
other purposes. Lack of national leadership has led to the eroding surface
mined lands that exist today. This Department believes it to be in the
national interest to provide that guidance now.
Under Title IV of the enactment, the Secretary of the Interior shall trans-
fer funds to this Department for technical assistance to landowners entering
into long-term agreements for reclamation purposes. Based on an estimated
annual production of 600 million tons of coal, approximately $35 million
would be available annually from the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund to the
Department of Agriculture for use in the rural lands reclamation program.
Current inventories indicate that these funds are needed in the restoration
of abandoned surface mined lands.
Sincerely,
FORD
Campbell
Acting Secretary
-
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
DEC 24 1974
Honorable Roy L. Ash
Director
Office of Management and Budget
Washington, D.C. 20503
Dear Mr. Ash:
In compliance with your request, I have examined
a facsimile of the enrolled bill (S. 425), "Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1974."
The Department of Justice defers to those agencies
more directly concerned with the subject matter of the bill
as to whether it should receive Executive approval.
Sincerely,
MRakeshaw W. Vincent Rakestraw
Assistant Attorney General
FORD & LIBRA
RECEIVED
'74 DEC 24 PM 3 : 02
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
722 JACKSON PLACE, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
December 24, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR W.H. ROMMEL
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
ATTN: Ms. Mohr.
SUBJECT: S.425 -- Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1974
The Council supports this legislation and recommends
that the President sign the enrolled bill.
This bill creates a workable system which provides
adequate safeguards for the land without unduly
restricting mining activities. The bill is the
product of long and bitterly fought Congressional
controversy, and we recognize that it contains some
measures for which there is questionable need. But
there is no reason to expect that the next Congress
would produce a better bill, that would justify the
delays in both mining and regulatory activities that
would necessarily follow a veto.
By approving the bill now, the uncertainties which have
discouraged new surface mining operations would be
resolved and the mining industry, the public and the
Congress could all proceed to other, more urgent matters.
Steven Staff Director D. Jellinek
FORD & LIBO
RECEIVED
'74 DEC 24- PM 1:47 / : 47
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET
OF COMMERCE
GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Washington, D.C. 20230
DEC 3 n 1974
Honorable Roy L. Ash
Director, Office of Management
and Budget
Washington, D. C. 20503
Attention: Assistant Director for Legislative Reference
Dear Mr. Ash:
This is to confirm the verbal views of the Department of Commerce
communicated to the Office of Management and Budget on December 17,
1974, with respect to S. 425, an enrolled enactment entitled
"Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974".
The Department of Commerce recommends disapproval by the President
of the enrolled enactment.
Throughout the course of Executive Branch and Congressional considera-
tion of this legislation, the Department has strongly and consistently
maintained that any strip mining bill must permit the continued and
accelerated development of our domestic coal resources, taking into
consideration appropriate measures to protect the environment.
However, this legislation, if enacted into law, would cause a severe
restriction or loss of coal production. The results of this would be:
(1) increased costs to consumers of electric power; (2) increased
unemployment in the domestic coal mining industry; and (3) a general
adverse affect on our national economy evidenced by a loss to our Gross
National Product, both directly and indirectly, attributable to lost coal
production. Moreover, additional inflationary pressures would be
created by the high administrative costs associated with a new Federal
enforcement program and the uncertainties created as a result of the
extreme complexity of the bill and the resulting proliferation of citizen
suits and other court cases. Finally, in direct contravention of the
need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil supplies, enactment of
this legislation would require even greater oil imports at higher prices,
thus creating a balance of payments deficit.
FORD
&
Sincerely,
Barrette
SALD
ACTING General Counsel
AMERICAN REVOLUTION WENTENNING
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20444
December 30, 1974
1776-1976
Mr. Wilfred H. Rommel
Assistant Director for
Legislative Reference
Office of Management and Budget
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. Rommel:
In response to a request from Mr. Ron Peterson of your
office, this will confirm TVA's view on S. 425, dealing
with surface mine reclamation.
For many years, the Tennessee Valley Authority has
supported the enactment of strong surface mine reclamation
legislation which would provide both effective reclamation
and allow the mining of the nation's vital coal resources.
The uncertainty of coal production losses associated with
S. 425 continues to give us concern. However, based on
our analysis of its effect on the TVA area of coal supply,
we have no objection to the enrolled bill.
Sincerely,
Lawrence L. Calvert
Washington Representative
An Equal Opportunity Employer
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
823
Date:
December 24, 1974
Time: 11:07 a.m.
FOR ACTION:
Mike Duval
CC (for information): Warren Hendr
Max Friedersdorf
Jerry Jones
Phil Areeda
Paul Theis
12/24/14
1974 DEC
Bill Seidman
24
Alan
eenspan
OK/WO
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date: December 26, 1974
Time: 4:00 p.m.
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill S. 425 - The Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act of 1974
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
X For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
Please return to Judy Johnson, Ground Floor, West Wing
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
Warren K. Hendriks
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
For the President
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
823
Date:
December 24, 1974
Time: 11:07 a.m.
FOR ACTION:
Mike Duval
Max Friedersdorf
CC (for information): Warren Hendriks
Phil Areeda
Jerry Jones
Paul Theis
Bill Seidman
Alan Greenspan
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date: December 26, 1974
Time: 4:00 p.m.
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill S. 425 - The Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act of 1974
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
X For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
Please return to Judy Johnson, Ground Floor, West Wing
Veto gws per
position of .OM B - Treasury
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
Warren K. Handrik
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
For the President
OFFICE will OFFICE OF PRESIDENT & UNITED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
DEC 24 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR ROBERT D. LINDER
Subject: Enrolled Bill S. 425 - Strip Mining
Frank Zarb, the new Administrator of the Federal Energy
Administration, asked to be recorded as strongly
recommending that the above enrolled bill be disapproved.
Hill Romand
Assistant Director for
Legislative Reference
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Decmeber 24, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
WARREN HENDRIKS
FROM:
MAX FRIEDERSDORF m.G.
SUBJECT:
Action Memorandum - Log No. 823
Enrolled Bill S. 425 - The Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1974.
The Office of Legislative Affairs concurs in the attached proposal
and has no additional comments, other than to say it would be
impossible to get a worse bill next year - VETO IT.
Attachment.
FORD & LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
746
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
823
Date:
December 24, 1974
Time: 11:07 a.m.
FOR ACTION:
Mike Duval
Max Friedersdorf
CC (for information): Warren Hendriks
Phil Areeda
Jerry Jones
Paul Theis
Bill Seidman
Alan Greenspan
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date: December 26, 1974
Time: 4:00 p.m.
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill S. 425 - The Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act of 1974
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
X For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
REMARKS:
Please return to Judy Johnson, Ground Floor, West Wing
1) on the ments, 2 defen to thre who know something about loss the subject.
2) unless of vetued, we are very the message confident shone of 1 the not refer numbers. to specific to those That production the who bill 2 would think would the
lemt fur options has will mne not then Deem a year presmasive to consider aptims;
obut Adminishal Nason # 2 of the deaft statemed
P. Aceda
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
Warren K. Hendriks
For the President
THE WHITE HOUSE
824
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.: 893
Date:
December 24, 1974
Time: 11:07 a.m.
FOR ACTION: Mike Duval
vets
CC (for information): Warren Hendriks
Max Friedersdorf
Jerry Jones
Phil Areeda
Paul Theis
\
Bill Seidman
Alan Greenspan
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date: December 26, 1974
Time: 4:00 p.m.
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill S. 425 - The Surface Mining Control
and Replameménn Act of 1974
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
X For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
FORD is LIBRARY 07/1139
REMARKS:
Please return to Judy Johnson, Ground Floor, West Wing
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
K. R. COLE, JR.
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
For the President
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION MEMORANDUM
WASHINGTON
LOG NO.:
823
Date:
December 24, 1974
Time: 11:07 a.m.
FOR ACTION:
Mike Duval
CC (for information): Warren Hendr
Max Friedersdorf
Jerry Jones
Phil Areeda
Paul Theis
12/24/24
1974
DEC
24
Bill DU Seidman
Alan Beenspan
FROM THE STAFF SECRETARY
DUE: Date: December 26, 1974
Time: 4:00 p.m.
SUBJECT:
Enrolled Bill S. 425 - The Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act of 1974
ACTION REQUESTED:
For Necessary Action
X For Your Recommendations
Prepare Agenda and Brief
Draft Reply
X For Your Comments
Draft Remarks
REMARKS:
Please return to Judy Johnson, Ground Floor, West Wing
FORD LIBRARY 938839
PLEASE ATTACH THIS COPY TO MATERIAL SUBMITTED.
If you have any questions or if you anticipate a
delay in submitting the required material, please
Warren M. Hendriks
telephone the Staff Secretary immediately.
For the President
aw
RETURN TO RESEARCH
ROOM 123
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL
on
ok
I am withholding my approval from S. 425, the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974.
S. 425 would establish Federal standards for the
environmental protection and reclamation of surface coal
mining operations, including the reclamation of orphaned
lands. Under a complex procedural framework, the bill
would encourage the States to implement and enforce a
program for the regulation of surface coal mining with substitution
A Jedually admin administred
of if the
States do not act.
The Executive Branch submitted to both the 92nd and
93rd Congresses legislation that would have established
reasonable and effective reclamation and environmental
protection requirements for mining activities. Throughout
this period the Administration made every effort in
would
working with the Congress to produce a bill that strike
the delicate balance between our desire for reclamation and
environmental protection and our need to increase coal
production in the United States.
Unfortunately; S. 425, as enrolled, would have an
unacceptable adverse impact on our domestic coal production
which b unacceptable
By 1977, the first year after the Act would take full effect,
the Federal Energy Administration has estimated that coal
2
ok
production losses would range from a minimum of 48 million
ok
tons to a maximum of 141 million tons. In addition, further
losses Could result which cannot be quantified
from
n
forcing
Perticated
various ambiquities in the bill,
could
regulatory
disputes and protracted litigation. In my judgment the most
significant reasons why such coal losses cannot be accepted
are as follows:
ONE Abundant
1. Coal is the only energy source over which
the United States has total control we should
X
not unduly impair our ability to use it properly.
we Are engaged iN A mAjor review
2.
The Administration is currently undertaking
of NAtional energy policies. Unnecessary
major energy policy review This bill would
restrictions ON COAl production would Timit
limit the President's Freedom to adopt the best
energy our NATION'S options for freedom the Nation. to Adopt the best
FORD LIBRARY &
energy options. uses the equivalent of 4 barrels of
3 The United States A must import barrels or
NV improduced domestic
expensive foreign oil for every ton of coal that
we cannot produce doines Lically, yet the
Sand
a setuation what
impoxtation of such oil cannot long be tolerated
even at present levels without continued, serious
This but
economic consequences would exacerbate
&
this problem.
Aven)
4. Unemployment would increase in both the coal
fields and in those industries that could-not
unable to obtain acternative fuel.
3
5.425
In addition, the bill provides for excessive Federal
expenditures and would clearly have an inflationary impact
it
on the economy. . Moreover, S. 425 contains numerous other
deficiencies which have recently been addressed in Executive
Branch communications to the Congress concerning this
legislation.
the
In sum, I find that S. 425 would produce an unacceptable
This hel
adverse impact on our domestic coal production offorts at a
time when the Nation can ill afford significant losses
from this critical energy resource. It would also further
complicate our battle against inflation. Accordingly, I am
withholding my approval from S. 425.
In doing so, I am truly disappointed and sympathetic
with those in Congress who have labored so hard to come
up with a good bill / We must continue to diligently strive
to ensure that laws and regulations are which
(chans)
establish environmental protection and reclamation
Jack
requirements appropriately balanced against the Nation's
need for increased coal production. This will continue to
be my Administration's goal in the new year.
LIBRARY FORD 'if
GERALD
December 27, 1974
Mr. Robert Linder,
In the event that the President
decides to approve H.R. 8193, the Energy
Transportation Security Act, we have
prepared the attached draft of a Signing
Statement for his consideration.
Wief Remuel
Wilf Rommel
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
I have today signed H.R. 8193, the Energy Transportation
Security Act, 1974. The purpose of this Act is to help assure
that a much larger portion of U.S. petroleum imports will be
carried in U.S. flag ships. It is the objective of the Act to
have 20% of our oil imports carried in U.S. flag ships as soon
as possible, 25% by June 1975 and 30% by June 1977. This com-
pares to about 5% of the U.S. oil imports now being carried in
U.S. flag ships.
The Act also provides authority to the President to waive
the application of the cargo preference requirements in emergencies
where he finds it to be in the national interest to do SO.
Application of the preference at this time would result in
a large increase in demand to build new ships in U.S. shipyards
to carry the oil at the preferential rates. Shipyards are
already in the midst of a strong boom and are operating near
capacity. The increased demand created by application of this
Act is likely to jeopardize the ability of our shipyards to meet
the requirements of the Navy for new ships to fulfill our national
defense needs.
Furthermore, application of the preference would increase
the cost of transporting oil to the U.S. at a time when the cost
of imported oil is already unreasonably high. These higher oil
costs would result in increased prices for all products and
services which depend on petroleum. This would be a serious
set-back in our war on inflation. While I have always been
supportive of a strong U.S. flag merchant marine, it is the
inflationary aspect of the Act which most concerns me. We must
continue to review and modify those Federal actions which add to our
economic problems and which may not provide sufficient offsetting
benefits to the public.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
2
Therefore, I intend to seriously consider whether present
economic conditions compel me to waive the cargo preference
provisions of this Act at this time until the national interest
and economic conditions permit application of the preferences
in whole or in part.
GERALD LIGARA GERALD R. FORD
MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL
I am withholding my approval from S. 425, the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974.
S. 425 would establish Federal standards for the
environmental protection and reclamation of surface coal
mining operations including the reclamation of orphaned
lands. Under a complex procedural framework, the bill
would encourage the States to implement and enforce a
program for the regulation of surface coal mining with
Federal administration of the program substituted if the
States do not act.
The Executive Branch submitted to both the 92nd and
93rd Congresses legislation that would have established
reasonable and effective reclamation and environmental
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
protection requirements for mining activities. Throughout
this period the Administration made every effort in
working with the Congress to produce a bill that strikes
the delicate balance between our desire for reclamation and
environmental protection and our need to increase coal
production in the United States.
Unfortunately, S. 425, as enrolled, would have an
unacceptable adverse impact on our domestic coal production.
By 1977, the first year after the Act would take full effect,
the Federal Energy Administration has estimated that coal
2
production losses would range from a minimum of 48 million
ton
to a maximum of 141 million tons. In addition, further
losses would result which cannot be quantified because
various ambiquities in the bill could result in regulatory
disputes and protracted litigation. In my judgment the most
significant reasons why such coal losses cannot be accepted
are as follows:
1. Coal is the only basic energy source over which
the United States has total control -- we should
not unduly impair our ability to use it properly.
2. The Administration is currently undertaking a
major energy policy review -- this bill would
limit the President's freedom to adopt the best
energy options for the Nation.
3. The United States must import four barrels of
expensive foreign oil for every ton of coal that
we cannot produce domestically, yet the
importation of such oil cannot long be tolerated
even at present levels without continued, serious
economic consequences -- S. 425 would exacerbate
this problem.
4. Unemployment would increase in both the coal
fields and in those industries that could not
obtain replacement fuel sources.
FORD LIBRARY i GERALD
3
In addition, the bill provides for excessive Federal
expenditures and would clearly have an inflationary impact
on the economy. Moreover, S. 425 contains numerous other
deficiencies which have recently been addressed in Executive
Branch communications to the Congress concerning this
legislation.
In sum, I find that S. 425 would produce an unacceptable
adverse impact on our domestic coal production efforts at a
time when the Nation can ill afford significant losses
from this critical energy resource. It would also further
complicate our battle against inflation. Accordingly, I am
withholding my approval from S. 425.
In doing so, I am truly disappointed and sympathetic
with those in Congress who have labored so hard to come
up with a good bill. We must continue to diligently strive
to ensure that law and regulations are in effect which
establish environmental protection and reclamation
requirements appropriately balanced against the Nation's
need for increased coal production. This will continue to
be my Administration's goal in the new year.
THE WHITE HOUSE
December
, 1974
FORD LIBRARY
aw
RETURN TO RESEARCH
ROOM 126
MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL
I am withholding my approval from S. on 425, the Surface ok
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974.
S. 425 would establish Federal standards for the
environmental protection and reclamation of surface coal
mining operations, including the reclamation of orphaned
lands. Under a complex procedural framework, the bill
would encourage the States to implement and enforce a
program for the administred regulation of surface coal mining with substitution of a
Federal administration of the program substituted if the
fedually progra
States do not act.
The Executive Branch submitted to both the 92nd and
93rd Congresses legislation that would have established
reasonable and effective reclamation and environmental
protection requirements for mining activities. Throughout
this period the Administration made every effort in
working with the Congress to produce a bill that would strike
the delicate balance between our desire for reclamation and
environmental protection and our need to increase coal
production in the United States.
Unfortunately, S. 425, as enrolled, would have an
adverse impact on our domestic coal production,
which is unacceptable
By 1977, the first year after the Act would take full effect,
the Federal Energy Administration has estimated that coal
GERRIDA FORD LIBRARY
2
on
production losses would range from a minimum of 48 million
ok
tons to a maximum of 141 million tons. In addition, further
from
losses Could result which cannot be quantified
n
various ambiquities in the bill,
forcing
Protracted
regulatory
disputes and protracted litigation. In my judgment the most
significant reasons why such coal losses cannot be accepted
are as follows:
1. Coal is the only basic energy source over which
the United States has total control
should
not unduly impair our ability to use it properly.
2.
She The Administration is currently undertaking a
major energy policy review An this bill would
limit the President' my freedom to adopt the best
energy options for the Nation.
3
The United States must import four barrels of
resproduced domestic
expensive foreign oil for every ton of coal that
wescannot
a cituation which
importation of such ofl cannot long be tolerated
even at present levels without continued, serious
This hil
economic consequences 5 would exacerbate
@
this problem.
4. Unemployment would increase in both the coal
unable to
fields and in those industries that couldnot
obtain replacement fuel sources.
FORD
3
5.425
In addition, the bill provides for excessive Federal
expenditures and would clearly have an inflationary impact
it
on the economy. Moreover, 3.425 contains numerous other
deficiencies which have recently been addressed in Executive
Branch communications to the Congress concerning this
legislation.
In sum, I find that the S would produce an unacceptable
of This he
adverse impact on our domestic coal production offorts at a
time when the Nation can ill afford significant losses
from this critical energy resource. It would also further
complicate our battle against inflation. Accordingly, I am
withholding my approval from S. 425.
In doing so, I am truly disappointed and sympathetic
with those in Congress who have labored SO hard to come
up with a good bill. We must continue to diligently strive
to ensure that law and regulations are in offect which
establish environmental protection and reclamation
requirements appropriately balanced against the Nation's
need for increased coal production. This will continue to
be my Administration's goal in the new year.
THE WHITE HOUSE
FORD LIBRARY
December , 1974
THE WY
THE
MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL
I am withholding my approval from S. 425, the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1974.
S. 425 would establish Federal standards for the
environmental protection and reclamation of surface coal
mining operations, including the reclamation of orphaned
lands. Under a complex procedural framework, the bill
would encourage the States to implement and enforce a
program for the regulation of surface coal mining with
substitution of a federally administered program if the
States do not act.
The Executive Branch submitted to both the 92nd and
93rd Congresses legislation that would have established
reasonable and effective reclamation and environmental
protection requirements for mining activities. Throughout
this period, the Administration made every effort in working
with the Congress to produce a bill that would strike the
delicate balance between our desire for reclamation and
environmental protection and our need to increase coal
production in the United States.
Unfortunately, S. 425, as enrolled, would have an
adverse impact on our domestic coal production which is
unacceptable. By 1977, the first year after the Act would
take full effect, the Federal Energy Administration has
estimated that coal production losses would range from a
minimum of 48 million tons to a maximum of 141 million tons.
In addition, further losses which cannot be quantified
could result from ambiguities in the bill, forcing pro-
tracted regulatory disputes and litigation. In my judgment,
the most significant reasons why such coal losses cannot be
accepted are as follows:
2
1. Coal is the one abundant energy source over
which the United States has total control.
We should not unduly impair our ability to
use it properly.
2. We are engaged in a major review of national
energy policies. Unnecessary restrictions
on coal production would limit our Nation's
freedom to adopt the best energy options.
3. The United States uses the equivalent of
4 barrels of expensive foreign oil for every
ton of unproduced domestic coal --- a situation
which cannot long be tolerated without con-
tinued, serious economic consequences. This
bill would exacerbate this problem.
4. Unemployment would increase in both the coal
fields and in those industries unable to
obtain alternative fuel.
In addition, S. 425 provides for excessive Federal
expenditures and would clearly have an inflationary
impact on the economy. Moreover, it contains numerous
other deficiencies which have recently been addressed in
Executive Branch communications to the Congress concerning
this legislation.
In sum, I find that the adverse impact of this bill
on our domestic coal production is unacceptable at a time
when the Nation can ill afford significant losses from
this critical energy resource. It would also further
complicate our battle against inflation. Accordingly,
I am withholding my approval from S. 425.
In doing so, I am truly disappointed and sympathetic
with those in Congress who have labored so hard to come up
with a good bill. We must continue to strive diligently
n
3
to ensure that laws and regulations are in effect which
establish environmental protection and reclamation require-
ments appropriately balanced against the Nation's need for
increased coal production. This will continue to be my
Administration's goal in the new year.
GEOLD R.FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 30,1974
STATE FORD LIBRARY
FOR IMMEDIATE CLEASE
DECEMBER 30, 1974
Office of the White House Press Secretary
(Vail, Colorado)
THE WHITE HOUSE
MEMORANDUM OF DISAPPROVAL
I am withholding my approval from S. 425, the Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act of 1974.
S. 425 would establish Federal standards for the environmental protection
and reclamation of surface coal mining operations, including the reclana tion
of surface coal mining operations, including the reclamation of orphaned
lands. Under a complex procedural framswork, the bill would encourage
the States to implement and enforce a program for the regulation of surface
coal mining with subs titution of a federally administered program if the
States do not act.
The Executive Branch submitted to both the 92nd and 93rd Congresses
legislation that would have established reasonable and effective reclamation
and environmental protection requirements for mining activities. Through-
out this period, the Administration made every effort in working with the
Congress to produce a bill that would strike the delicate balance between
our desire for reclamation and environmental protection and our need to
increase coal production in the United States.
Unfortunately, S. 425, as enrolled, would have an adverse impact on our
domestic coal production which is unacceptable. By 1977, the first year
after the Act would take full effect, the Federal Energy Administration has
estimated that coal production losses would range from a minimum of 48
million tons to a maximum of 141 million tons. In addition, further losses
which cannot be quantified could result from ambiguities in the bill, forcing
protracted regulatory disputes and litigation. In my judgment, the most
significant reasons why such coal losses cannot a fulloits:
1. Coal is the one abundant energy source over which the United
States has total control We should not unduly impair our ability
to use it properly.
FORD
2. We are engaged in a major review of national energy policies.
LISRARY
Unnecessary restrictions on coal production would limit our
Nation's freedom to adopt the best energy options.
3. The United States uses the equivalent of 4 barrels of expensive
foreign oil for every ton of unproduced domestic coal -- a situa-
tion which cannot long be tolerated without continued, serious
economic consequences. This bill would exacerbate this problem
4. Unemployment would increase in both the coal field and in those
industries unable to obtain alternative fueld.
In addition, S. 425 provides for excessive Federal expenditures and would
clearly have an inflationary impact on the economy Moreover, it contains
numerous other deficiencies which have recently been addressed In Exec-
utive Branch communications to the Congress concerning this legislation.
(MORE)
-2-
In sum, I find that the adverse impact of this bill on our domestic coal
production is unacceptable at a time when the Nation can ill afford signi-
ficant losses from this critical energy resource. It would also further
complicate our battle against inflation. Accordingly, I am withholding
my approval from S. 425
In doing so, I am truly disap; ointed and sympathetic with those in Congress
who have labored so hard to come up with a good bill. We must continue to
strive diligently to ensure that laws and regulations are in effect which
establish environmental protection and reclamation requirements appropriately
balanced against the Nation's need for increased coal production This will
continue to be my Administration's goal in the new year.
GERALD R FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 30, 1974
#
#
#
GERATE FORD