1017 



ADDITIONAL VIEWS ON H.R. 3981 



During consideration of H.R. 3981, I offered several amendments 

 to correct what I feel to be an inequitable situation in the structure 

 of the funding formula under this legislation. 



Without my amendment we have two funding categories, the first 

 which contains $50 million is distributed according to a tightly drawn 

 formula written by this committee. The second category has $125 

 million in it to be given out for planning, not tied to any formula 

 drawn by Congress, but to be distributed solely by a formula to be 

 drawn by the Secretary of Commerce. 



My amendment placed the largest part of the fund in the automatic 

 grant category which is locked-in, to be distributed according to our 

 formula written by our committee. To give the largest amount of 

 money to the discretionary, or so-called supplementary fund with 

 sole discretion with an appointed Secretary of Commerce is to create 

 a slush fund which we cannot control. 



If there is to be discretionary funding in the bill, the logical 

 approach would be to switch the funding in the categories. The major 

 funding now under discretionary should come under the direct grant 

 section as we can clearly define, under the established set of proportions, 

 the degree of impact. On the other hand, discretionary funding should 

 take the appearance of that proposed for direct grant funding, which 

 is during the five years on a sliding scale $50,000,000 (fiscal year 1977) , 

 $50,000,000 (fiscal year 1978), $75,000,000 (fiscal year 1979), 

 $100,000,000 (fiscal year 1980), $125,000,000 (fiscal year 1981). It only 

 makes sense that discretionary funding should be on a sliding scale as 

 the degree of activity will likely be on a sliding scale in the next five 

 to ten years. This way, should the degree of activity occur at a faster 

 rate than the proportional direct grant section can cover, the Secre- 

 tary can supplement the direct grant with additional funding after 

 finding of adverse impact. 



I certainly feel that this is a reasonable stand based on the facts 

 of the situation and history of energy development in our country. I 

 offer these additional views as to make my colleagues aware of what 

 I feel to be the proper approach taken in this legislation. 



John Breaux, 

 Member of Congress. 



ADDITIONAL VIEWS RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION 

 OF THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION FROM 

 EXERTING ITS MANDATED AUTHORITY WITH RE- 

 SPECT TO THE SHELLFISH SAFETY PROGRAM 



Section 310(d) of H.R. 3981 is a provision prohibiting all Federal 

 agencies from promulgating any regulations affecting the harvesting, 

 processing, or transporting of shellfish in interstate commerce before 



(131 ) 



