654 



In that county it is next to impossible. For 7 years we have been try- 

 ing- to check off all the different impact statements. 



So the trust of the amendment which was included in the committee 

 at that time, at the behest of the Senator from California, was not in 

 any way to avoid, evade or go around NEPA. On the contrary, the 

 Senator from Alaska has been a warm supporter of the Environmental 

 Protection Agency and the various impact statement requirements un- 

 der the particular law of Senator Jackson. 



I am sure the Senator would insist on including it, because if we have 

 to err, I would rather err, on the side of the Senator from Washing- 

 ton — that there be a little more reporting rather than a little bit less. 

 We are not trying to weaken in any way the National Environmental 

 Policy Act. 



Mr. Jacksox. Will the Senator yield ? 



Mr. HoLLiNGS. I yield. 



Mr. Jagksox. I want to agree with the Senator's comments Avitl) 

 regard to the Senator from Alaska. As I indicated earlier, we worked 

 together on the original National Environmental Policy Act when it 

 Avas up for final action taken in 1969. The President signed it, as I re- 

 call, on January 1, 1970. The Senator from Alaska has always been sup- 

 portive. I just wanted to call this matter to the attention of the Senate, 

 and I offered the amendment for that reason. I hope the Senator will 

 accept the amendment. 



Mr. Stearns. I would prefer to see it retained at least as to section 

 308 (k). If the Senator from Washington would agree with me with 

 regard to the automatic grants that are payable under 308 (k) , that the 

 environmental impact statements are not required, then I do not see any 

 necessity for it. 



Some of them will be sizeable payments. I call the attention of the 

 Senator from Washington to the fact that it is possible that we will 

 have a $30 million payment made to a State. 



It is dedicated, pursuant to this law, to the repayment of invest- 

 ments made years prior to the actual payment. But I think it could 

 be argued by some people later on that there would have to be a new 

 environmental impact statement everj^ time the Secretary of Connnerce 

 prepared to pay that grant over to the States. It is automatic under the 

 terms of this bill. I think at least as to the automatic grants there is 

 absolutely no requirement for an EIS because it is not a major Fed- 

 eral action. We are taking that Federal action if we pass this bill, 

 and I do not think we ought to have an environmental impact state- 

 ment on that. 



If the Senator from Washington will agree to that, line. If he does 

 not agree with it, I think we ought to retain the section at least for 

 308 (k). 



Mr. Jackson. The real question is whether it is a major Federal 

 action. That is what Ave are talking about. That is the test. If we just 

 say it is automatic, that, in itself, an automatic grant, is not the test. 

 The real test is whether it concerns a major Federal action signifi- 

 cantly affecting the quality of the environment. That is what we are 

 talking about. 



Mr. Stevens. If the Secretary of Commerce guarantees bonds in 

 1976, and they are for facilities in Yakutat. Alaska, and the monev 

 starts coming in from production in 1981. this bill mandates the pay- 



