416 



the consensus of the full committee that the word "shall" should be 

 modified in this manner : 



The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, apply the program — 



I believe the members of the Committee of the Whole are entitled 

 to that explanation. The language was modified. 



In my mind, there is some question as to whether or not the "Secre- 

 tary may apply" is as strong as or a little less strong than the "Secre- 

 tary shall apply, to the maximum extent practicable.".^ 



I indicated to my friend here I would have no basic objection to the 

 acceptance of his amendment as a Member, but at that time I had not 

 been advised that the gentleman from California and one or two other 

 Members opposed the amendment. So my position will be to stay with 

 the original position of the full committee. 



Mr. Teague of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 

 requisite number of words. 



I compliment the gentleman from California (]\Ir. Anderson) on 

 the statement he made. I associate myself with that statement. 



Inasmuch as Santa Barbara is in my district, I can say we have a 

 continuing pollution problem in that district. 



I am delighted to hear the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentle- 

 man from North Carolina, state that he, too, will stick with the com- 

 mittee in opposing the amendment, as I do. 



I urge that the amendment be rejected. 



The Chairman. The question is on the amendment offered by the 

 gentleman from Pemisylvania (Mr. Clark). 



The question was taken, and the chairman announced that the noes 

 appeared to have it. 



Mr. Clark. Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers. 



Tellers were refused. 



So the amendment was rejected. 



AMENDMENT OFFERED BT MR. KYL 



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

 The Clerk read as follows : 



Amendment offered by Mr. Kyi : On page 48, line 7, through page 49, line 8, 

 delete section 312 and renumber subsequent subsections accordingly. 



Mr. Ktl. Mr. Chairman, this bill before us is primaril}^ a land 

 and water management bill. An authorization for the establishment 

 of estuarine sanctuaries as natural field laboratories purchased in part 

 with Federal funds is not appropriate to the objectives of this legis- 

 lation, that is, the adoption by coastal States of a viable land-use 

 policy. 



At the present time, under existing statute, the Secretary of the In- 

 terior is empowered by the so-called Estuary Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 

 1221 and following, to participate in cost sharing and in the manage- 

 ment, administration, and development of estuarine areas and is di- 

 rected to encourage the acquisition of these estuarine areas with Fed- 

 eral funds made available to States under categorical grant programs 

 administered by the Department. 



In other words, we already have essentially the kind of thing which 

 is proposed in this bill. 



