Order Code RL32373
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Abandoned Mine Land Fund Reauthorization:
Selected Issues
April 30, 2004
Robert L. Bamberger
Specialist in Energy Policy
Resources, Sciences, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Abandoned Mine Land Fund Reauthorization:
Selected Issues
Summary
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA, P.L. 95-87),
enacted in 1977, established reclamation standards for all coal surface mining
operations and for the surface effects of underground mining. It also established the
Abandoned Mine Land (AML) program to promote the reclamation of sites mined
and abandoned prior to the enactment of SMCRA. To finance reclamation of
abandoned mine sites, the legislation established fees on coal production. These
collections are divided into federal and state shares; subject to annual appropriation,
AML funds are distributed annually to states with approved reclamation programs.
Since the program’s inception and through FY2003, collections have totaled $6.8
billion; appropriations from the fund have totaled $5.3 billion. The unappropriated
balance in the fund exceeded $1.4 billion at the end of 2003. As of the end of March
2004, nearly $1 billion of this sum is credited to the state share accounts, of which
nearly $400 million alone is in Wyoming’s account, because — even though most
of the sites awaiting cleanup are in the eastern part of the nation — coal production
has shifted westward. Consequently, the western states have been making
significantly larger contributions to the fund in recent years.
Authorization for collection of AML fees expires at the end of FY2004. A Bush
Administration proposal (S. 2049/H.R. 3778) proposes to refund, through additional
appropriations, unobligated state balances over a 10-year period. These balances
would be returned to states and Indian tribes with certified reclamation programs that
have completed reclamation of their Priority 1 sites. These states would no longer
receive grants from the AML fund itself, freeing up funds from the regular AML
appropriation to be targeted to states with sites awaiting cleanup. The Administration
argues that this will finish cleanup years sooner.
House and Senate legislation — H.R. 3796 and S. 2086 — differ greatly in some
respects from the Administration proposal. These bills would maintain the
distinction between state and federal shares and require that 50% of annual
contributions be returned to states even if cleanup of priority abandoned mine sites
had been completed. States and tribes could use the money for other purposes if
cleanup of AML sites had been completed.
The House, Senate, and Administration proposals would all end the allocation
of a portion of AML collections to the Rural Abandoned Mine Land Program
administered by the Department of Agriculture. This program has received no
appropriation since FY1995, but carries an unappropriated balance of slightly more
than $300 million. H.R. 3796 would make the money available for any purpose,
while S. 2086 would provide $65 million of this pool of money for grants to certified
states and tribes without lands available for leasing under the Mineral Leasing Act.
This report summarizes major features and some of the differences between the
Administration proposal and congressional alternatives. The report will be updated
as developments warrant.

Contents
Grants Distribution: The Current Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Major Features of the Administration and Competing Proposals . . . . . . . . . 5
The Combined Benefits Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
List of Figures
Figure 1. Fiscal Year 2004 Grant Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
List of Tables
Table 1. FY2004 AML Fund Appropriation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 2. FY2004 State Reclamation Grant Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 3. State Share Balances and Distributions, FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Abandoned Mine Land Fund
Reauthorization: Selected Issues
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA, P.L. 95-87),
enacted in 1977, established reclamation standards for all coal surface mining
operations, and for the surface effects of underground mining. It also established the
Abandoned Mine Land (AML) program to promote the reclamation of sites mined
and abandoned prior to the enactment of SMCRA. To finance reclamation of
abandoned mine sites, the legislation established fees on coal production, which are
deposited in an AML fund administered by the Department of the Interior (DOI)
Office of Surface Mining (OSM). Authorization to collect these fees expires on
September 30, 2004.
On February 2, 2004, in company with the Bush Administration budget request
for the Department of the Interior (DOI), the Department released a reauthorization
proposal that would make changes in the collection of fees for, and disbursement of
grant monies from, the AML Fund. Prominent among the provisions is a phased
reduction in the AML fees assessed on coal production. Under the Administration
plan, unobligated balances that have accumulated in individual state share accounts
would be returned over a 10-year period. This proposal, and other changes sought by
the Administration, would address a number of long-standing complaints about the
formulas that are applied to the fees and the calculation of grants disbursements, and
will require congressional action to implement. Full initial implementation of the
Administration proposal would require a substantial increase in the FY2005 AML
appropriation — from $190.6 million in FY2004 to $243.9 million, an increase of
$53.3 million, or nearly 28%.1 The Administration proposal has been introduced as
H.R. 3778/S. 2049.
There are a number of issues for Congress in the disposition of the
reauthorization. A prominent issue will be whether the changes in the program
proposed by the Administration would leave the fund with adequate resources over
time to meet all the fund’s obligations. The United Mine Workers Combined
Benefits Fund (CBF), which provides health care benefits to retired miners, is also
dependent upon transfers from the AML fund.
A second issue concerns the geographic balance between collections and
disbursements. As coal production has moved westward, western states have been
paying larger sums into the AML fund while grants distribution has favored eastern
states that have a larger number of priority sites to be reclaimed. At issue, too, will
be how the return of unobligated state share balances should be funded. The
1 A summary of the FY2004 appropriation and AML distribution appears in Tables 1 and
2
at the end of this report.

CRS-2
Administration proposes to finance the return through a higher appropriation from
the AML fund at a time of growing concern over federal spending. One competing
proposal, H.R. 3796, would partly finance the return of these balances with proceeds
from federal coal leasing. This bill and one in the Senate, S. 2086, would also —
among other provisions — provide for the return to states of a greater portion of
current fee collections.
Grants Distribution: The Current Structure
Collections for the AML fund are divided into federal and state shares; subject
to annual appropriation, AML funds are distributed annually to states with approved
reclamation programs.2 Since the program’s inception and through March 31, 2004,
collections have totaled $6.94 billion; appropriations from the fund have totaled $5.5
billion. The unappropriated balance in the fund slightly exceeds $1.5 billion (also as
of the end of March 2004). Of this figure, the federal share represents a little more
than $500 million, and the unobligated balances in state share accounts approaches
$1 billion.3 OSM, which runs the program, has estimated that it will require roughly
$3 billion to address the remaining high-priority sites.4
The design and purpose of the AML fund has raised some significant issues,
some of which are common to trust funds in general. The AML program touches
upon long-held state concerns about levying fees on residents or businesses operating
in one state to remedy nationwide problems — albeit for the “common good” — but
which dot the landscape disproportionately among the several states. The allocation
and distribution of AML collections are designed to preserve a rough equity, given
the anomaly that the states with the greatest inventory of priority AML sites are no
longer among the largest coal producers. But not all states have been comfortable
with the distribution.
Nor are they sanguine about the level of annual congressional appropriations
from the fund. From the inception of the program, the fund has had unappropriated
balances. This places the AML fund in company with other trust funds held by the
federal government (such as the Highway Trust, and Land and Water Conservation
Funds) in which some states — eyeing the unappropriated balances — believe their
citizens, and businesses operating within their borders, pay more into the fund than
the state receives in benefits.
To finance reclamation of abandoned mine sites, SMCRA established a fee on
coal production that is paid by coal producers into an Abandoned Mine Land Recla-
2 Twenty-three states and three Indian tribes received reclamation grants during FY2003.
3 Current figures are available from the OSM website. See [http://www.osmre.gov/
fundstat.htm].
4 See, for example, Statement of Jeffrey D. Jarrett, Director, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Interior, before the [House
Committee on Resources] Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, U.S. House of
Representatives, on H.R. 3778 and H.R. 3796, March 30, 2004. Available at
[http://www.osmre.gov/reports/033004statement.txt].

CRS-3
mation trust fund.5 SMCRA authorized collection of AML fees through the end of
1992; the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT, P.L. 102-486) extended the AML
authorization through the end of FY2004. In between the passage of those two bills,
the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA, P.L. 101-508) had
extended authority for AML collections through FY1995. Additionally, OBRA
authorized the OSM to invest the unappropriated balance of AML funds in U.S.
Treasury securities. The investment interest is deposited in the AML fund; however,
EPACT authorized transfer of up to $70 million annually of this interest income,
beginning in FY1996, to the United Mine Workers of America (UMW) to help pay
the health benefits of retired miners. In recent years, low interest rates have generated
less money to be transferred to the UMWA Combined Benefits Fund (CBF).6

SMCRA also provided that 50% of AML collections would be allocated to the
states; this is generally referred to as the “state share” of AML fees. The balance of
the collections is under the control of the Secretary of the Interior and is generally
referred to as the “federal share.” As amended by P.L. 101-508, 40% of this federal
share (or 20% of the whole of AML collections) is designated for (1) emergency
projects in states and on tribal lands; (2) projects in states and on tribal lands without
approved reclamation plans; (3) the Small Operator Assistance Program (SOAP); and
(4) federal administrative costs. Twenty percent (or 10% percent of total AML
collections) is set aside to be transferred to the Department of Agriculture for its
Rural Abandoned Mine Program (RAMP).7 An additional earmark is made for the
Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative (ACSI). The ACSI program was initiated in
FY1994 to clean up and restore streams damaged by acid mine drainage, largely the
result of past coal mining. The remaining 40% of the federal half of total AML
collections constitutes a pool from which supplemental grants may be awarded to the
states for remedy of Priority 1 and 2 sites,8 based upon historic coal production.
Congress annually appropriates money from the AML fund. OSM then calcu-
lates the distribution to each eligible state and Indian tribe from its shares of state and
federal apportionments of AML collections. Annual distributions are paid from both
shares. The formula is complex and applies differently to the state and federal share
5 The current schedule is $.35/ton of coal produced by surface mining; $.15/ton of coal
produced by underground mining; and $.10/ton of mined lignite.
6 No appropriation is required for this transfer.
7 RAMP was designed to restore agricultural land that had been disturbed by strip mining.
While entitled by SMCRA to one-fifth of AML collection, the program had been receiving
significantly less — $10 million in the years before appropriations to the program ceased
after FY1995. There have been repeated attempts to abolish RAMP. Critics claimed it was
duplicative and that sites subject to regular AML grants were higher priority. See archived
CRS Report 95-706 ENR, The Rural Abandoned Mine Program — A Fact Sheet, by Duane
Thompson, June 12, 1995, available from the author.
8 SMCRA defines Priority 1 sites as those warranting “the protection of public health,
safety, general welfare, and property from extreme danger of adverse effects of coal mining
practices.” Priority 2 sites are similarly defined, with the exception that the “adverse
effects” do not pose “extreme danger,” as with Priority 1 sites. Sec. 403(a) of SMCRA, 30
U.S.C. 1233.

CRS-4
of AML collections.9 While the draw from the pool of AML revenues allocated to
individual state shares is fairly straightforward and proportional, more complex
adjustments affect the proportionality of the final distribution paid from the federal
share. This makes it difficult to measure a direct transfer of wealth among individual
states.
Calculation of the distribution of grants to a state from its share of AML
collections is based on the state’s share of previously collected but yet undistributed
AML fees. The distribution to a state from the federal share is based on (1) a state’s
coal production prior to 1978, before enactment of SMCRA that established the
AML fund; and (2) adjustments to the distribution made on behalf of minimum
program states to bring their grants up to a designated minimum level of funding for
reclamation.
Minimum program states are states with relatively low annual coal production.
For these states, SMCRA was amended in 1990 to authorize appropriations for the
reclamation of the most dangerous sites (so-called Priority 1 and 2 sites) listed in the
AML inventory at the lesser of (1) the estimated cost to reclaim those sites, or (2) a
minimum program level of $2.0 million per state. Prior to that, annual appropriations
had provided $1.5 million annually to minimum program states.
These minimum program levels, however, are subject to annual appropriations
by the Congress. Congress may appropriate all, or less than, the $2.0 million
currently authorized. For FY1995, Congress reduced the minimum program
appropriation to $1.5 million and it has remained there into FY2004.
As noted above, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 provided that payments of up
to $70 million (referred to as the “cap”) from interest earned annually on AML funds
would be transferred to the retired miners health benefits fund, the United Mine
Workers of America Combined Benefits Fund (CBF). This fund pays the premiums
of retirees who worked for companies that went bankrupt, or which no longer exist.
In earlier years, expenses of the CBF were less than the annual interest generated by
the AML fund, leaving interest balances that have been transferred as needed in
subsequent years when CBF expenses exceeded the annual interest generated.
Transfers of roughly $680 million have been made to the CBF as of the end of March
2004.10
9 Table 2 shows the breakdown in the distributions from the federal and state share
accounts.
10 Office of Surface Mining. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 provided that the unobligated
balances would begin to earn interest in FY1993; however, transfers did not begin until
FY1996, so as not to violate deficit-control measures included in the Budget Enforcement
Act of 1990 provisions of P.L. 101-508. For a complete discussion of the genesis and
implications of this transfer payment, see Nonna Noto, “Interest Transfers from the
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund,” in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and
Means, Development and Implementation of the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act
of 1992
, June 22, 1995, WMCP: 104-3, pp. 50-54.

CRS-5
Major Features of the Administration and
Competing Proposals

The Administration proposal is intended to address the major concerns outlined
above. The Administration plan would:
! extend the program through FY2018;
! reduce the AML fee assessed on each ton of coal produced by 15%
during the period FY2005-FY2009, and by 25% from FY2010 until
the expiration of the reauthorization in FY2018;
! return unobligated state share balances over a 10-year period to
states that have been certified to have completed reclamation of their
Priority 1 sites — these states would no longer receive AML grants
from the remaining unappropriated balances in the fund or from new
collections; non-certified states would have their state share balances
returned to them as part of their annual grants for reclamation
activities;11
! end the division and assignment of fee collections into state and
federal shares; all future AML collections would be deposited in a
single account;
! remove the $70 million cap on the amount of interest to be
transferred annually to the United Mine Workers’ Combined
Benefits Fund, and make other changes to provide the CBF with
$310 million over the next few years;
! provide minimum program states with $2 million each annually; and
! end the reservation of AML funds for the Rural Abandoned Mine
Land Program, which is under the jurisdiction of the Department of
Agriculture, and which has received no appropriation since 1995.
The cessation of assigning AML collections to a “state share” is one of the most
interesting features of the Administration proposal. This assignment has been
responsible for one of the greatest pressures on OSM. The creation of the separate
state and federal funds was more an accounting convenience than intended to be
literal. However, states have been displeased with the accumulating unobligated
11 Section 1240a provides for states to apply for certification that they have completed
reclamation of high priority sites. However, under the Administration proposal, certified
states would only receive return of unobligated balances in the state share account. Non-
certified states would receive both a return of state share balances and reclamation grants
from the general portion of the AML fund, creating a disincentive to apply for certification.
The Administration proposal would allow the Department of the Interior to initiate
certification without waiting for states to make application. At present, Louisiana,
Wyoming, Montana, Texas, and the Hopi and Navajo tribes are certified.

CRS-6
balances in their state share accounts and regard these balances as “state” money to
which they are entitled.
Certain states have a special interest in how this particular issue is resolved. As
shown in Table 3, more than half of the nearly $1 billion in unobligated state share
balances is held in the accounts of Wyoming, West Virginia, and Kentucky.12 The
Administration proposes to return the state share balances over a 10-year period, and
has requested in the FY2005 budget an additional $53 million to begin disbursement
of the unobligated state share balances in FY2005. Under the Administration plan,
states that have been certified would receive only the disbursement from their
unobligated state share balances; they would receive no further grants from the AML
fund. By seeking an additional appropriation for returning state share balances —
assuming that the appropriation for grants from the AML fund remains around
current levels — the Administration argues that it will free up more grant resources
to be awarded to those states with the most sites awaiting reclamation. A further
benefit, the Administration argues, is that cleanup of these sites will be completed
“decades sooner.”13 Grants to states and tribes still with high-priority sites would be
drawn first on the state share account until the state share accounts for these states
were also exhausted.
Under the Administration proposal, unobligated state balances would be largely
divorced from OSM and current AML mechanics. All future collections would go
into a single account, eliminating the state share designation altogether and ending
any further accumulation of unobligated balances in the state share. By predicating
return of these balances to a straightforward appropriation determined by Congress,
it would also eliminate the argument that OSM and the current, complex formula for
grant distribution is the bottleneck for return of these funds.
The unobligated balances in the state AML fund account have especially nettled
some states as coal production has shifted west of the Mississippi. Contributions to
the AML fund have been increasingly borne by western states. In 1950, nearly 525
million tons of coal were mined in the eastern portion of the country, while western
production was roughly 36 million tons. By 2002, western coal production exceeded
600 million tons, while production in the East had declined moderately to more than
490 million tons.14
However, the prospects for approval of the sort of significant increase in
appropriated funds for this purpose that is part of the FY2005 request are unclear in
a climate of renewed concern over federal spending and borrowing. It is possible
12 Montana has completed reclamation of all 18 of its Priority 1 and 2 sites. In contrast,
Kentucky has reclaimed 253 of 640 Priority 1 and 2 sites, and West Virginia has reclaimed
323 of 1,069 such sites. Source: Office of Surface Mining. Abandoned Mine Land
Inventory System (AMLIS): [http://www.osmre.gov/aml/inven/zintroin.htm].
13 Summary sheet from DOI, Abandoned Mine Land (AML) Reclamation Program
Extension and Reform Act of 2004
, Feb. 2, 2004.
14 Energy Information Adminstration, as cited by Congressional Quarterly:
[http://www.cq.com/display.do?dockey=/cqonline/prod/data/docs/html/billwatch/108/bill
watch108-000001076433.html@allbills&metapub=CQ-BILLWATCH].

CRS-7
that, if the essential features of the reauthorization plan proposed by the
Administration were enacted, the calendar for return of state share monies could be
lengthened or even deferred. While disbursement of AML grants has always been
dependent upon Congressional appropriation, the Congressional role in the AML
program could have even more visibility if reimbursement of unobligated state
balances is tied to Congressional appropriation as well.
Isolating the refund of the state share balances from the AML fund itself may
also contribute to making possible the Administration’s proposed reduction in the
fees to be collected on coal production. The fees, assessed on each ton of coal
produced, would be reduced 15% for FY2005-FY2009, and 25% from FY2010 until
the expiration of the Administration’s reauthorization at the end of FY2018.
A competing proposal, S. 2086, introduced by Senator Thomas, differs from the
Administration proposal in some important respects. That bill would:
! extend the program through FY2014;
! reduce reclamation fees in a single stage to $.25/ton of surface
mined coal; $.12/ton for underground mined coal; and $.08/ton for
lignite mined coal;
! preserve the distinction between state and federal shares, requiring
that 50% of state contributions be returned to states even if cleanup
of abandoned mine sites had been completed;
! base grants on current, rather than historic, coal production,
reflecting the shift of production westward;
! allow transfer to the CBF of all interest generated by the AML fund
prior to FY2005 if needed to cover health care costs of unassigned
beneficiaries;
! to the extent that grants to certified states and tribes from the AML
appropriation fall short of the state-share allocation of collections,
fund the difference from land lease revenues paid to the Treasury
under the Mineral Leasing Act; the transfer would not be subject to
appropriations, and states and tribes could use the money for other
purposes if cleanup of AML sites had been completed; and
! end the reservation of AML funds for the Rural Abandoned Mine
Land Program (RAMP), and release $65 million of the current
RAMP balance to pay for the return of unobligated state share
balances to certified states and tribes that have no lands available for
leasing. Grants would be proportional to a state’s or tribe’s
unappropriated state share balance.
The Thomas proposal would reduce the fee assessed on surface-mined coal by
nearly 30%, a significantly larger reduction than in the other proposals, thus changing
the historic relationship between the fees assessed on the different categories of coal

CRS-8
production. To more or less equalize collections from the eastern and western coal-
producing states, the original fee structure may have been structured to reflect that
western coal was generally surface-mined while eastern coal was largely produced
from underground mines. Now that production has shifted westward, proponents of
S. 2086 argue that the fee relationship between the various types of coal-mining
should be adjusted. Whatever fee structure is settled upon will no doubt be a
reflection of regional considerations as well as the size of the fee collections that a
majority of policymakers favor, whether for the purpose of making reclamation
grants or meeting the needs of the CBF.
In the House, H.R. 3796, introduced by Representatives Cubin and Rahall, is
very similar to S. 2086, with some differences. Among these, H.R. 3796 would:
! extend the program through FY2019;
! reduce reclamation fees in a single stage to $.28/ton of surface
mined coal; $.12/ton for underground mined coal; and $.08/ton for
lignite mined coal; and
! end the allocation of any AML collections to RAMP, and make the
money available for transfer to the CBF.15
The Combined Benefits Fund
The Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 (the Coal Act), enacted
as part of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-486, EPACT), established the
United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefits Fund. The function of the
CBF is to cover the unreimbursed health cost requirements of retired miners. Some
such costs are assigned to former employers, and some comprise a category of
“unassigned” beneficiaries. Premiums for assigned retirees are paid by former
employers or entities to which these individuals have been assigned. EPACT
provided that the expenses of the unassigned beneficiaries would be supported by
interest generated by the unobligated balances in the AML fund, capping annual
transfers at $70 million. While the fund began to earn interest in FY1993, transfers
to the CBF did not begin until FY1996 so as not to violate deficit-control measures
included in the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 provisions of P.L. 101-508.16 There
are currently 17,000 unassigned beneficiaries.
Assuring that there are sufficient funds to meet the expenses of the CBF is a
major consideration in the AML reauthorization debate. While the CBF ran
15 In this respect, H.R. 3796 incorporates the language of H.R. 313, the Coal Accountability
and Retired Employee Act for the 21st Century, generally referred to as CARE-21.
Introduced by Representative Rahall on January 8, 2003, it was reported from the House
Committee on Resources, October 28, 2003. H.Rept. 108-328.
16 For a complete discussion of the genesis and implications of this transfer payment, see
Nonna Noto, “Interest Transfers from the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund,” in U.S.
Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, Development and Implementation of the
Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992
, June 22, 1995, WMCP: 104-3, pp. 50-54.

CRS-9
surpluses in its early years, it began to run deficits in FY1997. Interest generated
prior to 1996 was transferred to the CBF by the Interior Appropriations Acts for
FY2000 and FY2001. Low interest rates in recent years also reduced transfers to the
CBF.
The Clinton Administration established a trial Medicare drug prescription
program to provide reimbursement to the CBF for drug expenses. In January 2004,
the Bush Administration announced that the program, set to expire in June 2004,
would be extended through the end of FY2005. The United Mine Workers of
America estimates that the extension will increase the CBF’s Medicare
reimbursement by $190 million.17 As noted earlier, the Administration also proposes
to remove the $70 million cap on the amount of AML interest that can be transferred
annually, and estimates that — between the removal of this cap and extension of the
Medicare drug program — the CBF could be provided with $310 million over the
next few years. S. 2086 would provide for the transfer of any interest earned prior
to FY2005 if needed to cover the costs of benefits for unassigned beneficiaries.
While the UMWA is favorably disposed toward some features of the AML
reauthorization advanced by the Administration, the union supports provisions in
H.R. 3796 that would — in addition to the transfer of interest earned by the AML
fund — allow transfers to be used to cover any deficit in the expenses of the CBF for
coverage of assigned beneficiaries as well.18 EPACT also provides that — in the
event that authorization for collection of AML fees expires — “the fee shall be
established at a rate to continue to provide for the deposit” of funds to the CBF. It
is not apparent by what mechanism that fee would be determined or how it is to be
designed to meet the needs of the CBF.19 Whatever resolution is reached on AML
reuathorization, treatment of the CBF is likely to be a major piece in the negotiations
and debate.
Conclusion
Dissatisfaction with the AML program has coalesced around perceptions that
the current structure has not been even-handed in the distribution of AML
collections. As noted earlier, the distribution formulas make it difficult to measure
a direct transfer of wealth among individual states. While it is impossible to predict
17 United Mine Workers of America, Crisis Averted: United Mine Workers of America
Praises Administration’s Plan to Increase Medicare Prescription Drug Demonstration
Program Funding
, Press Release, January 29, 2003. The Administration projects that the
drug program and other provisions of its AML reauthorization will provide $310 million to
the CBF during the next two years.
18 See News from the United Mine Workers of America, “United Mine Workers of America
International President Cecil Roberts Hails Introduction of Legislation by Reps. Rahall and
Cubin to Extend America’s Vital Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program and Ensure the
Federal Government Keeps Its Promise to America’s Coal Miners of Lifetime Health Care
Benefits,” February 12, 2004.
19 Section 1232. The language does not vest the authority with the Secretary of the Interior
or specify any particular mechanism. This and other dimensions and complexities of the
issues concerning the Combined Benefits Fund are beyond the scope of this report.

CRS-10
the outcome of this debate, opponents of the Administration proposal seem intent on
making annual distributions more predictable, particularly with respect to treatment
of the balances in the state share accounts.
Some of the competing proposals, by establishing a component of distribution
outside of regular appropriations, would isolate some grant elements from what states
consider to be the vagaries of the current AML structure. In part, this may be owing
to some skepticism about the likelihood that Congress will raise AML appropriations
sufficiently to institute the Administration’s proposed 10-year return of the
unobligated state balances. However, it may be equally possible that Congress will
not be inclined to free up the RAMP balance to the AML program, or the mineral
leasing revenues.
Resolution of a number of issues affecting provisions for the CBF could prove
to have a major influence on any final resolution of the broader AML reauthorization.
As noted earlier, should Congress and the Administration fail to reach some
compromise before the authority for AML collections expires, statute provides for
the establishment of a fee expressly to provide for maintaining a transfer of funds to
the CBF. In the event of this scenario, Congress could continue, or suspend,
disbursements from the AML fund. The broader AML mission could be significantly
affected, given that the current AML balances are well short of the $3 billion
estimated cost of addressing remaining Priority 1 and 2 sites.

CRS-11
Table 1. FY2004 AML Fund Appropriation
RAMP
$0
Federal Expenses
$31,983,734
Total AML Grant Appropriation
$158,600,169
Total FY2004 AML Fund Appropriation
$190,583,903
Source: Office of Surface Mining (OSM).
Table 2. FY2004 State Reclamation Grant Distribution
State Share Distribution
$78,188,093
55% x $142,160,169
Federal Share Distribution
$63,972,076
45% x $142,160,169
State Emergency Program
$9,640,000
Appalachian Clean Streams Initiative (ACSI)
$6,800,000
Total State Reclamation Grant Distribution
$158,600,169
Source: Office of Surface Mining (OSM).

CRS-12
Table 3. State Share Balances and Distributions, FY2004
State/Tribe
State Share
State Share
State Share
State Share
Collections
Distributions
Balances as of
Distribution,
Through
Through
3/31/04
FY2004
FY2003
FY2003
Alabama
$70,665,017
$54,071,299
$16,256,165
$1,324,615
Alaska
$5,770,291
$3,875,994
$1,856,726
$155,421
Arkansas
$402,959
$396,306
$8,202
$453
Colorado
$66,890,260
$44,092,455
$22,867,067
$1,741,088
Illinois
$138,834,244
$110,494,931
$27,535,018
$2,284,815
Indiana
$133,688,710
$94,298,550
$30,994,149
$3,076,525
Iowa
$1,208,092
$1,172,990
$32,374
$3,163
Kansas
$3,292,367
$2,881,020
$390,909
$33,932
Kentucky
$437,669,635
$317,087,406
$117,773,032
$9,663,661
Louisiana
$2,830,710
$1,531,582
$1,301,796
$98,715
Maryland
$10,856,477
$7,623,940
$3,233,055
$244,042
Missouri
$13,016,398
$12,103,814
$891,310
$75,855
Montana
$142,881,355
$98,686,568
$43,672,701
$3,512,316
New Mexico
$53,096,356
$32,695,400
$19,745,791
$1,612,445
North Dakota
$33,647,137
$22,080,625
$11,472,022
$901,550
Ohio
$107,818,760
$84,490,723
$22,760,202
$1,882,157
Oklahoma
$12,046,087
$10,014,560
$2,003,364
$164,598
Pennsylvania
$219,044,461
$162,833,587
$54,759,115
$4,522,117
Texas
$59,386,659
$40,234,829
$18,917,118
$1,518,154
Utah
$37,388,266
$23,479,746
$13,693,379
$1,093,044
Virginia
$93,267,896
$67,551,029
$25,347,078
$2,033,593
West Virginia
$363,668,998
$241,221,880
$120,534,686
$9,572,163
Wyoming
$883,932,837
$493,756,180
$393,390,219
$29,305,188
Crow Tribe
$16,971,153
$9,961,270
$7,013,415
$545,954
Hopi Tribe
$13,303,707
$8,104,934
$5,119,902
$414,114
Navajo Tribe
$88,999,943
$59,705,609
$29,022,693
$2,315,769
National Total
$3,010,578,780
$2,004,427,227
$998,591,490
$78,188,093
Source: Office of Surface Mining.


CRS-13
Figure 1. Fiscal Year 2004 Grant Distribution
Source: Office of Surface Mining.