706 



It is understandable that my colleagues from the coastal and Great 

 Lakes States support this legislation, and those oi us who come from 

 the land-locked States have the obligation to call a spade a spade. 



In my opinion, this bill is no more than a pa^'off to the coastal States 

 for them to go on with the development of their energy resources. 



There is no reason why funds beyond those already available for 

 the coastal zone States legislated back in 1972 are necessary to plan 

 for energy resource development in the Outer Continental Shelf for 

 onshore impact. Moreover, the States and localities have their taxing, 

 zoning, State, and police powers to deal with in the construction of 

 energy-related facilities. 



It is necessary for me to call attention to the rising tide of national 

 dismay at the short-sighted attitude of some of the coastal States 

 which, up to now, prohibited offshore drilling or the construction of 

 refineries or other energy-related developments which are necessarj- 

 to help the Nation out of its energy dilemma. 



Oklahoma and other similarly situated States have allowed, in fact 

 we have encouraged, the development of our energy resources for many 

 years. Now, through controls on the price of crude oil and natural gas, 

 we are having our property literally expropriated for the benefit of 

 some of those same coastal States that seek this legislation, in the very 

 heavy cost of this bill. We are even presently losing millions of dollars 

 in tax revenues every year because of our State and local taxes being 

 necessarily based upon the artificially low prices that Congress has 

 mandated. 



The question is, Where is the payoff for States like Oklahoma or 

 other energy-producing areas ? The passage of this act is an invitation 

 to every State to lock up its natural resources against development 

 until the Federal Government submits itself to this kind of blackmaiL 



Already the political powers of the populous States are taking na- 

 tural gas and old oil from the producing States at from one-third to 

 one-half the value of these products by what I consider to be short- 

 sighted actions. 



Now, the same forces are undertaking to legislate this kind of a bill 

 that pays the States, that have not been willing to have their energy 

 resources developed, to go ahead and do the things which we have 

 been doing for many years. 



Mr. President, this bill can only be described as a midtibillion- 

 dollar ripoff of the coastal States, and I urge its defeat. 



ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS OF S. 5 86 



Mr. Kennedy. Mr. President, the Coastal Zone Management Act 

 Amendments we have before us today are a recogniztion by the Con- 

 gress of the significant impacts which will result from accelerated 

 offshore leasing and of the needs of coastal States for assistance in 

 planning to absorb those impacts. It is the result of nearly 2 years of 

 study, hearings and investigations. It takes into account the views of 

 local and State officials, concerned public interest groups, and repre- 

 sentatives of business and industry — all of whom presented testimony 

 during the development of the legislation. 



My own Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure 

 participated actively in this process. It was just a year ago that my 



