1101 



money not only for environmental impacts but also grant money for 

 planning, we did retain those grants. 



The Speaker pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired. 



Mr. Murphy of New York. INlr. Speaker, I yield 2 additional min- 

 utes to the gentleman from Louisiana. 



If the gentleman will yield, however, where the very expensive 

 mortar and brick requirement came, we felt that we would have to go 

 to the area of guaranteed loans, and that is what the conference 

 committee finally did agree to reluctantly, of course. I think this 

 conflict is similar to the conflict that we have taken on with our edu- 

 cation and health programs, and that is to guarantee loans. But, 

 as far as the States are concerned, after the calculations are made, 

 based on the four OCS criteria, the grants are to be disbursed to 

 the States which are affected by OCS activity, of course. Louisiana 

 being the major State at the present time. These grants are to be 

 used for the purposes set forth in the statute. If the Secretary de- 

 termines that the grants are not used for these purposes, such grants 

 will revert to the treasury. 



Mr. Breaux. I thank the gentleman for his interpretation which, 

 in my opinion, clearly indicates that the money, as the gentleman 

 from Delaware brought up, is allocated and actually given to the 

 States, and then if not used by the States, and only then, it does revert 

 back to the general treasury. 



The last question I need to ask is that the automatic grants can 

 now be used for amelioration of environmental and ecological losses 

 imder subsection (c) of section 308. 



My interpretation, and I would like to ask the chairman if it is 

 also his interpretation, is that the section is to be given broad inter- 

 pretation as far as what it can be used for and that we also can take 

 into consideration damages to the environment that have occurred 

 in the past as well as damages that can be occurring in the future. 

 Is that the chairman's interpretation? 



Mr. Murphy of New York. Yes. The answer is basically yes, but if 

 we could broaden it a little bit for the gentleman, the bill is designed 

 to provide assistance with respect to unavoidable environmental losses 

 caused by prior coastal energy activities. 



We know there has been environmental damage to the States such 

 as Louisiana, as we know from our hearings, and so on, but the term 

 "unavoidable loss"' is defined in the bill as a loss, the costs of pre- 

 vention, reduction or amelioration of which cannot be directly or 

 indirectly attributed to or assessed against, an identifiable person 

 and cannot be paid for with other Federal funds. This is in accord 

 with the generally accepted principle that the pollutei" pays. Funds 

 are provided in the bill for cases which cannot be dealt with under 

 existing Federal progi-ams. 



Examples of the above might include: P^rosion of coastal canals; 

 salt water intrusions into fr-esh water bodies; loss of wetlands; loss 

 of recreational lands; erosion of shorelines, and sedimentation or 

 "runoff" losses. 



Mr. Breaux. I thank the chairman. 



I would just conclude by saying T do intend to vote for the con- 

 ference report with the assurances of the full committee chairman 

 and myself as subcommittee chairman that oui' committee is going 



