410 



AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. KTL 



Mr. Ktx,. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. 

 The Clerk read as follows : 



Amendment offered by Mr. Kyi : On page 42, line 25 through page 45, line 6 — 

 delete the second sentence of subsection 304(b), and revise subsections (c) and 

 (d) to read as follows : 



"(c) Federal projects and activities significantly affecting land use within the 

 coastal zone and estuaries shall be consistent with coastal zone management pro- 

 grams funded under section 306 of this Act except in cases of overriding national 

 interest. Program coverage and procedures provided for in regulations issued 

 pursuant to section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Develop- 

 ment Act of 1966 and title IV of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 

 shall be applied in determining whether Federal projects and activities are con- 

 sistent with coastal zone management programs funded under section 306 of this 

 Act. 



"(d) After December 31, 1974, or the date the Secretary approves a grant under 

 Section 306, whichever is earlier, Federal agencies submitting statements required 

 by section 102(2) (C) of the National Environmental Policy Act shall include a 

 detailed statement by the responsible official on the relationship of proposed 

 actions to any applicable State land use program which has been found eligible 

 for a grant pursuant to section 306 of this Act." 



Mr. DiNGELL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amend- 

 ment. 



The Chairman. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 min- 

 utes in support of his amendment. 



Mr. Ktl. Mr. Chairman, the proposed language in this amendment is 

 language which was worked out very carefully over a long period of 

 time in the national land use policy proposal. The language is intended 

 here to assure that the same requirements of consistency are applicable 

 to the coastal zone as elsewhere within a State which has adopted a 

 comprehensive land use plan. I point out a number of States already 

 have developed comprehensive plans. It is my feeling that the language 

 of this bill ought to be consistent with the language and the purpose 

 which the State has and which the Federal Government has in calling 

 for comprehensive plans. 



This language would accomplish exactly the same results as section 

 307 in that the Federal activities within the coatsal zone are consistent 

 with a State's management program, but it does not establish, as does 

 the bill under consideration this afternoon a cumbersome certification 

 procedure in addition to all of the other procedures which are estab- 

 lished by law. 



Mr. Lennon. Will the gentleman yield? 



Mr. KYii. Certainly I yield. 



Mr. Lennon. I ask the gentleman to a little more definitively^ iden- 

 tify his amendment. It says — I have difficulty in finding it, but it says 

 page 42, line 25, through page 45, line 6. It would strike out the begin- 

 ning of line 25 on page 42 and continue through line 6 on page 45. 



Mr. Kyl.. It would eliminate, I would say to the gentleman from 

 North Carolina, that section dealing with the certification program in 

 the gentleman's bill. 



Mr. Lennon. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Iowa has 

 the wrong section referred to in his amendment because that section is 

 not the one. 



If the gentleman refers to section 304(b) , it is not within either one 

 of those several pages in which the section is referred to, certainly not 



