1028 



agreement in conference with a veto threatened, flexibility was neces- 

 sary. But the conference bill completely reflects the basics contained in 

 both the Senate bill and the House amendments. We owe Senator 

 Hollings and Senator Stevens our gratitude for bringing this legisla- 

 tion this far. I understand that the President's signature on S. 586 is 

 very likely. 



For those of us who have been deeply involved in the protection of 

 our valuable ocean resources, the passage of S. 586 marks an impor- 

 tant step. It demonstrates congressional awareness of, and rapid re- 

 sponse to, the possible adverse effects of energy development on our 

 most valuable i-esource — the coastal margin where land and water meet. 



The history of Senate consideration of the problem of coastal im- 

 pacts associated with offshore energy resource development goes back 

 a number of years, to the early implementation of the Coastal Zone 

 Management Act of 1972. 



In the spring of 1974, the National Ocean Policy Study of the Senate 

 Committee on Commerce conducted 6 days of public hearings on this 

 issue, including OCS impacts. At the same time, NOPS, through the 

 Office of Technology Assessment, was undertaking a major study of 

 the question of national growth policy in the coastal zone as well as a 

 study — which has only recently been turned over to Congress — of the 

 onshore impacts of offshore energy production, including OCS, deep- 

 water ports, and floating nuclear power facilities. In addition, the 

 study has produced five major committee reports on the questions raised 

 by this legislation, all of which point to the need to deal with onshore 

 impacts in the method finally chosen by the conferees. 



It will be recalled that in September 1974, the Committee on Interior 

 and Insular Affairs reported to the floor for debate, S. 3221, amend- 

 ments to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. On behalf of the 

 Committee on Commerce, Senator Hollings and I offered amendments 

 to that bill because the so-called coastal State fund contained therein 

 was inconsistent with the developing Coastal Zone Management Act 

 program and could lead to establishment by the Secretary of the Inte- 

 rior of a competing and duplicate coastal zone program through the 

 use of revenue-sharing grants authorized by that bill. 



That bill was amended on September 13, 1974, to reflect in part the 

 concern of the Committee on Commerce. We pointed out that much 

 of the information being developed on coastal imj)acts was not yet 

 available at the time of the debate, but that the basic amendments to 

 the OCS act in that bill (S. 3221 ) were a step in the right direction. 



I wish to point out at this time that Senator Jackson, the chairman 

 of the Interior Committee, stated at that time. Page S16927, that : 



The Committee believes that the Federal Government should assist the States 

 in ameliorating adverse environmental impacts and controlling secondary eco- 

 nomic and social impacts associated with OOS oil and gas development. 



An agreement was made with the Interior Committee that the Sec- 

 retary of Commerce would have discretion to draft regulations and 

 make determinations as to whether a State is eligible for a grant pur- 

 suant to the fund created in that bill (S. 3221) . 



Even under that bill, Mr. President, Senator Jackson agreed that 

 the grants were not "automatic," but that the Secretary of Commerce 

 would have jurisdiction and responsibility to draw up regulations 

 which will determine eligibility. 



