650 



But, Mr, President, this is entirely misleading. Many of these ac- 

 tions, if funded under other Federal programs would likely be major 

 Federal actions and, thus, require impact statements. However, once 

 these programs are funded under S. 586 rather than other Federal 

 programs, they are no longer "major Federal actions" to which NEPA 

 would be applicable. S. 586 says they are not major Federal actions 

 despite Federal funding under S. 586, and there is no longer any other 

 Federal funding or other Federal nexus to make them "Federal ac- 

 tions" for purposes of NEPA. Thus the words "which requires an 

 environmental impact statement on its own merits" are totally illusory 

 for, once S. 586 exempts all projects funded under its grants or 

 loans from NEPA, there would be no residual impact statement 

 requirement. 



Mr. President, as the Congress and the executive branch consider 

 various new approaches to the development of off-shore oil and gas 

 resources, including ways to expedite offshore leasing and production, 

 it is essential that the provisions of NEPA remain fully applicable. 

 It would be premature and unwise to dictate by this legislation that 

 NEPA shall not apply to decisions to make impact fund grants. It 

 would be doubly unwise to insert such a provision after as little legisla- 

 tive analysis and public attention as this NEPA exemption has 

 received. 



Mr. Ste-v^ns. Mr. President, will the Senator yield ? 



Mr. Jackson. Yes. 



Mr. Stevens. On my own time, if we have enough time on this 

 amendment, and I assume we do. 



As the Senator knows, one of the first things I did when I came to 

 the Senate was to sit with the Senator through discussions leading to 

 the formulation of NEPA, as one of the original sponsors of the NEPA 

 Act. and I believe in it. 



Mr. Jackson. The Senator is correct, and he was most active in sup- 

 port and in the passage of that legislation. 



Mr. Stevens. I would like to point out that our problem is this: 

 We are trying to assist in financing the actions taken by the munici- 

 palities or States which would otherwise not involve any Federal ac- 

 tion, and that provision here — and it may not be stated as expertly 

 as it could be to m-oet that objective, and I want to explore with my 

 good friend from Washington whether he would be able to agree with 

 us on some limited aspect of this provision — we are talking not about 

 the areas where there has been no environmental impact statement. 

 In the first place, there will be an environmental impact statement on 

 the approval of the coastal zone plan. That is, in fact, an environ- 

 mental impact statement. 



]\[r. Jackson. I understand. 



Mr. Stevens. Second, we are dealing with the action to be taken 

 by a small town, say, Yakutat, Alaska, which wants to build a facility, 

 a dock. It would have to have, if it needed Corps of Engineers ap- 

 proval an environmental impact statement to begin with. 



In any area where there would be required a substantial Federal ac- 

 tion other than the making of a grant, there would be an environ- 

 mental impact statement. We tried not to bring these problems into 

 Washington and require the procedure of an environmental impact 



