827 



coastal management program and for specific purposes only, trig- 

 gered by OCS leasing. As a field is brought into production — and the 

 resulting impacts onshore grow — the amount a State would receive 

 would increase. This is because the automatic formula designed by 

 our committee pegs the assistance granted to actual need. 



Then, if States or localities such as the tiny communities of Alaska 

 which the oil industry plans to use as staging areas can show that they 

 still are net losers in the process, provision of additional assistance is 

 made. This is in the so-called net adverse impact section of the coastal 

 energy activity impact program. 



The third type of direct assistance contained in H.R. 3981 is a 

 program, again with specific limitations prescribed, of Federal guar- 

 antees of local and State bond issues to provide facilities and services 

 made necessary by OCS developments. 



In putting together a major piece of legislation of this complexity 

 and importance, and over such a long period of deliberation, it is obvi- 

 ous that many people contributed. 



I want at this time to pay particular tribute to the members of the 

 minority on the oceanography subcommittee led by Mr. Mosher of 

 Ohio. His knowledge of the broad field of ocean issues, and the par- 

 ticulars of the coastal zone program, particularly as it affects the 

 Great Lakes States, has been invaluable. His presence in this body will 

 be sorely missed next year. 



I would also single out the hard work contributed during the long 

 hearings and markup session by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 

 Forsythe). 



Lastly, I must mention the diligence of the gentleman from Dela- 

 ware. Together, he and I, with our respective staffs, worked out the 

 compromise approach to energy impact funding under the coastal 

 management program that forms the heart of H.R. 398L I have the 

 utmost respect for the gentleman and am pleased to join with him in 

 recommending this important piece of legislation for your approval 

 today. 



Mr. Chairman, at this point I would insert in the Record, an ex- 

 cerpt from Coastal Zone Management, a publication of Nautilus edited 

 by Mr. John R. Botzum, which is a statement that succinctly sums up 

 the situation relative to H.R. 3981 as it exists today and contains in- 

 formation which is germane to the current debate : 



Coastal Zone Management 



Passage of H.R. 3981 Thursday (11 Mar.) by the U.S. House of Representa- 

 tives will be a sort of fond farewell to retiring Rep. Leonor K. Sullivan (D-MO), 

 chairman — she always prefers to be called "Madam Chairman" rather than 

 "Chairwomen" or "Chairperson" — of the House Merchant Marine & Fisheries 

 Committee. She will not seek reelection in Xovem1)er. The bill contains very 

 significant, and needed, amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act, plus 

 a major departure in this country's procedures for dealing with the environ- 

 mental and social impacts of leasing its Outer Continental Shelf lands for oil and 

 gas exploration and development. The so-called "impact fund" approach to 

 ameliorating tho.se impacts passed the Senate overwhelmingly (S. 586) last year, 

 and while the Hou.se version differs, the concept seems certain to ibecome a 

 part of U.S. law. As chairman of the Merchant Marine Committee, Mrs. Sullivan 

 has been deeply involved with the reworking of the bill to meet suggestions by the 

 Republicans, while negotiating with the White House to achieve a compromi.se 

 between the Congress and the President. 



