1044 



My own Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure 

 participated actively in this process. It was just 2 years a^o that my 

 subcommittee, together with the National Ocean Policy Study, held 

 field hearings in Boston to solicit the views of concerned Xew England- 

 ere on what legislative and administrative actions were necessary to 

 assure full protection of the public interest, both in the procedures 

 leading up to a final decision on whether offshore leasing should go 

 forward and in insuring adequate protection of the interests of New 

 England if exploration and development is undertaken on Georges 

 Bank. 



Those hearings made clear the deep concern which exists in all sec- 

 tors of the New England economy over the adequacy of petroleum sup- 

 plies and the price we are paying for oil. New England has led the 

 Nation in conservation. Our State officials have been in the forefront 

 of efforts to bring about lower prices and to remove the burden which 

 results from our dependence on high-priced foreign oil imports. 



Nevertheless, those hearings also made clear just how pervasive the 

 concern is — among business and industry, among fishing interests, 

 among tourist and recreation interests and among citizens groups — 

 that they have not been brought into the formulation of Federal energy 

 policy. A suspicious and distrustful attitude had developed between 

 our regional, State, and local groups and the Federal Government. It 

 threatened to stand in the way of the necessary cooperative effort we 

 must make to develop national energy policies which are fair and 

 equitable to all regions. 



One critical portion of the Federal energy policy is the decisionmak- 

 ing process involving our offshore oil and gas i-eserves. If offshore oil 

 and gas will help reduce energy costs, it can be developed without 

 jeopardizing our environment, if it can be brought in without destroy- 

 ing our tourist and fishing industries, if it can be carried out without 

 distorting our future coastal development, I believe we will be able to 

 win the support of the people of New England for a well-planned off- 

 shore leasing program. 



At present, however, there is little incentive for coastal States like 

 New England to offer their support to such a program. The oil that 

 becomes available will sell at premium prices, not subject to price con- 

 trols. In Massachusetts, where many of our communities are operating 

 on a marginal tax base, we cannot afford the schools, hospitals, and 

 other facilities which will be required during an intensive effort to 

 bring off-shore areas into production. And with an unemployment rate 

 now close to 8 percent in Massachusetts, we cannot afford a cycle of 

 boom and bust economies, where communities may gain jobs for a short 

 period, only to be plunged back into high unemployment once the rigs 

 are in place and the demand for labor returns to predevelopment levels. 



We know that large amounts of land will be needed if we are to con- 

 struct refineries, petrochemical plants and other related facilities — but 

 lacking information on the extent of deposits on Georges Bank we can- 

 not make even the roughest estimate of the extent of four potential need 

 for such facilities. The possibility exists of having 17 percent of the 

 prime industrial land in Rhode Island and eastern Massachusetts util- 

 ized in the full development of offshore oil and gas. A commitment of 



