637 



States and nnmicipalities impacted by Outer Continental Shelf oil and 

 natural gas development but also provides, through a system of bond 

 i^uai-antees and nonrcvenue sharing automatic grants, for the niuch 

 needed front -end money designed to allow State and nnmicipalities 

 to prepare, in advance', for the severe impact of large Outer Con- 

 tinental Shelf energy resource projection projects. 



I wish to point "out to the Senate that many of us have discussed 

 revenue sharing concepts. I have discussed it at length with my good 

 friend from Delaware (Mr. Roth). We realize there is growing senti- 

 ment in the country to accept the concept of revenue sharing from tiie 

 OCS. I am one who favors it and I have a bill pending before the Sen- 

 ate to authorize revenue sharing from OCS funds. 



This is not that proposal. ^Ye know that when we get to the point 

 where we have substantial production, we will, in fact, be in a position 

 tlien to define what kind of revenue sliaring we want and to seek the 

 aid of people from the Atlantic coast States, the gulf coast States, the 

 Pacific coast and the Alaska coast. I think when we are finally able 

 to show the country what it means to produce oil and gas from the 

 OCS. there will, in i'act, be accepted a revenue-sharing concept, as there 

 has been from Federal lands in the West. 



I also point out that if this production which we contemplate now 

 of my State were actually within the o-mile limit, my State would 

 receive, at the very minimum, an 8-percent severance tax. Based on a 

 price of $7 a barrel for oil, we would get 56 cents a barrel. This pro- 

 posal provides that there would be available to the State, to meet 

 agreed-upon impacts, 8 cents a barrel. So we are a great deal below 

 the taxing level of oil and gas producing States; but we are, I think, 

 acting responsibly to give the local communities and the States the 

 opportunity to enter into bonds to finance the facilities and to take 

 care of the impacts ahead of time and provide the financing means 

 so that, when production occurs, the money that will come from the 

 cents-per-barrel concept that is in the bill will retire those bonds 

 and meet the impacts when the income is produced from the OCS. 



Mr. Bextsen. Mr. President, I rise today to speak today in favor 

 of S. 586. T feel it is a beginning, a step in the right direction. 



The bill would strengthen the Coastal Zone Management A<"t, while 

 keeping the program on an incentive, nonmandatory basis. My home 

 State of Texas has made good use of the act, and has an exemplary 

 coastal zone management progi'am. It has served well to protect the 

 1,081 miles of Texas coastline. 



r)ne section of this bill is a concern to me, however, because I feel it 

 falls short of meeting the need that generated it. It is a first step in 

 the right direction. 



T am speaking of the provisions that recognize and would compen- 

 sate the coastal States for the adverse impact of energy production 

 offshore. The bill would nssi<rn $;^>00 million foi- this purpose, but this 

 figure falls short of the actual need. 



7^he Coastal States Organization, which represents all the various 

 Costal States, has conducted a careful survey to determine the actual 

 financial needs of the several States in regard to Outer Continental 

 Shelf development. The orgauizntion's able president, Texas State 

 Senator A. R. Swartz, has testified that the coastal State need between 



