830 



The first of these amendments would bring the administrative 

 expenses of the new bond guarantee section of the bill under better 

 congressional control and subject such expenses to the regular appro- 

 priations process. The second amendment would place the bond guar- 

 antee program itself under better control and would require that the 

 Congress enact appropriations before any bond guarantee could be 

 made. 



Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the objectives of these 

 two amendments are shared by the managers and sponsors of the bill 

 and that they are in support of them. 



Mr. Chairman, I would also like to point out that we have worked 

 with the managers of the bill in trying to make the bond guarantee 

 section as well drafted a piece of legislation as possible. This was done 

 with the cooperation of the gentlelady from Missouri (Mrs. Sullivan) 

 the gentleman from New York (Mr. Murphy) and the gentleman from 

 Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the ranking minority member of the 

 Committee the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. du Pont). In fact, 

 Mr. Chairman, I believe that after these amendments are adopted, 

 and with certain other language that is already included in the bill, 

 this bill can serve as a model of well-drafted bond guarantee legisla- 

 tion. After these amendments are adopted, Congress can retain control 

 over this program and will be able to provide appropriations for it 

 in the future in accordance with the priorties and other considerations 

 that exist at the time. 



I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this is what the spirit of the budget 

 Control Act is all about. Once again let me express my appreciation 

 for the splendid cooperation and work of the managers and sponsors 

 of this bill in regard to this matter. 



Mr, DU Pont. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 

 from New Jersey (Mr. Forsythe). 



(Mr. Forsythe asked and was given permission to revise and extend 

 his remarks.) 



Mr. Forsythe. Mr. Chairman, before I do begin to talk about the 

 legislation before us today, I must join with all my colleagues who 

 have mentioned the chairman of our committee and the sad news that 

 she gave us this week that she will not be returning for the 95th 

 Congress. 



It has been a real pleasure to work on that committee and under her 

 leadership. I think there have been very many great pieces of legisla- 

 tion that have moved to this floor, and by and large, they just kind of 

 roll through the House without much problem, which is a kind of 

 a point of pride with us. I think that this committee does bring 

 legislation to the floor that gets wide support. 



Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of these amendments to the Coastal 

 Zone Management Act of 1972. We need to reemphasize the congres- 

 sional intent embodied in the 1972 act of providing Federal assistance 

 to the States in developing their own plans without also providing 

 stifling Federal control. The financial incentives and technical assist- 

 ance provided in the original act functioned as a stimulus for State 

 involvement in dealing with coastal resource preservation and careful 

 development of those resources. Unfortunately, real participation of 

 the State governments in energy development planning has been lost 

 in the recent attempt of the Federal Government to accelerate the oil 



