632 



A major reason for the administration's failure to produce its 

 energy facilities siting bill, I understand, was recognition of the fact 

 that the Coastal Zone ]Management Act of 1972 had already created 

 a State operated coastal zone management program for planning 

 and management in the coastal zone which included State planning 

 for, and management of facility siting. 



This was a problem in the administration because some groups 

 within the adTuinisti-ation sought to ignore the Coastal Zone Man- 

 agement Act and to foist upon the States a federally mandated com- 

 pulsory law, contrary to the existing coastal zone law. 



Finally, in the 94th Congress the administration belatedly produced 

 a proposed energy facility siting law which gives lipservice to the State 

 Coastal Zone Management programs but is, in effect, contrary to the 

 intent and spirit of the 1972 act. 



I am told that there was no consensus in the administration on the 

 bill which was sent to Congress but, instead, it was finally sent so the 

 administration could say it had, in fact, at last transmitted a bill to us. 



The bill before the Senate today. S. 58(i, reiects the motion that 

 the coastal States must be bludgeoned into adhering to some fed- 

 erallx^ directed facility siting process which can tell them to site 

 certain energy facilities. Instead, S. 586 amends the Coastal Zone 

 Management Act of 1972 in which all of the coastal States have vol- 

 untarily elected to participate. The amendment adds to the specific 

 requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act a proviso that 

 the Stnte program should include an energy facility siting planninn: 

 process and a process for the planning for anticipated impacts from 

 such facilities. 



I have confidence in the constal States and believe that this reouire- 

 ment for a State developed planning process and the provision of Fed- 

 eral money to help to develop and administer these processes is all 

 that is required or is appropriate. 



Each of the coastal States has different circumstances for which I 

 believe that they alone cm develop the planning process. The Coastal 

 Zone Management Act is flexible in permitting each State to develop 

 its own prop-ram and the coastal States have responded remarkedly 

 well in developing their individual programs in a responsible manner. 



I will vote for S. 586 because it reco5rnizes a pressing national need, 

 provides for it under existino- Federal and State mechanisms, elimi- 

 natino- duplication and needless bureaueracy. and because that exist- 

 ing mechanism is one which gives full recognition to the rightful 

 authority and ability of State governments. 



The approacli which is provid<^d by S. 586, T believe, will result in 

 the expenditure of less Federal funds to accomplish its purpose. 



The question could be asked by some as to why energy facility siting, 

 planning and matters i^elating thereto, should be provided for in the 

 Coastal Zone Management Act rather than in some law of nation- 

 wide applicability. 



T think this is a logical question which might be asked by those 

 who are not familiar with the Coastal Zone Management Act and its 

 history. 



I believe that the history of the act has been explained in the 

 committee report on S. 586 but, for the benefit of my colleagues who 



