836 



Since that is my intention, I think I owe a word of explanation to my 

 colleagues who may find it incredible that a Representative of a 

 coastal State would interrupt this love feast and indicate some dissent. 

 I do not wish to speak to the amendments to the coastal zone man- 

 agement legislation which have heretofore been agreed to by Congress, 

 but I do want to talk about this new giveaway to the coastal States at 

 the expense of everybody else. 



I represent a coastal State. I represent a county which is adjacent 

 to the coast, and I would suppose that my parochial interests should 

 be to support this bill. But I find there i's something wrong with it. 

 The portion of the bill that I object to proceeds on the assumption 

 that the development of the OCS is going to heap economic devastation 

 on the adjacent States, and that the Federal Government ought to take 

 Federal revenues and provide a sum of money to the adjacent States 

 to accommodate that "burden." 



Mr. Chainnan, I challenge that assumption. In reality, the develop- 

 ment of the OCS is going to be an economic bonanza to the coastal 

 States, and everybody knows it. There may be some short-range prob- 

 lems which are confined almost exclusively to the State of Alaska, 

 and perhaps special consideration to those economic problems is in 

 order. But, Mr. Chairman, I will say to the Members that if they think 

 my State is going to suffer because hundreds of billions of dollars 

 worth of petroleum is to be produced on the adjacent OCS, they are 

 going to provide new jobs ; we are going to progress from that activity ; 

 we are going to provide new jobs, we are going to increase our tax 

 revenues. The only ones to suffer will be the taxpayers of tlie interior 

 States who will have to give up a portion of Federal revenues to add 

 to those of the State of California. 



Mr. Murphy of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield ? 



Mr. Wiggins. I yield to the gentleman from New York. 



Mr. MuBPHY of New^ York. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point 



out to the gentleman that the interior States would have Federal 



lands receive 371/2 percent of the revenues from these activities. I 



might say that the court has clearly laid out the guidelines for this. 



The Chairman. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. 



Wiggins) has expired. 



Mr. Du Pont, Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute to the gen- 

 tleman from California (Mr. Wiggins). 



Mr. Murphy of New York. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will 

 yield further, the problem is that these are Federal lands from which 

 OCS oil and gas will come, and this petroleum comes from offshore 

 California, and particularly Louisiana and Texas. We know that this 

 money goes into the Federal revenues, and yet these States have had 

 to pay for schools, for highways, and for the whole municipal mix. 

 These demands are all in the local areas. 



Mr. Chairman, we have had 13 Governors and their representatives 

 come in and testify in the various hearings, and they have all indicated 

 their support for this legislation on the basis of a tight money situation 

 which compels them to temporarily seek aid from the Federal Govern- 

 ment to cope with the massive onshore impacts of offshore oil and gas 

 resource development. As I said in my opening statement on this 

 legislation it is easy to imagine the feelinirs in rural counties faced 

 for the first time with the prospect of dealing with the huge offshore 



