1105 



operations, the planning and development of public facilities, and the 

 prevention or amelioration of unavoidable losses brought about by 

 offshore energy activities. 



A second part of the program would authorize $800 million for loans 

 and Federal bond guarantees to coastal States or local governments to 

 assist in providing new or improved public facilities and services re- 

 lated to coastal energy activities. If the net increases in employment 

 and population in a State are not sufficient to generate necessary tax 

 revenues to cover the costs of such projects, the loans or guarantees 

 could be converted into grants. 



The conferees on S. 586 have done a good job considering the circum- 

 stances. They have been under considerable pressure from the adminis- 

 trtaion to al)andon the grant provisions of this important legislation 

 entirely. The legislation recommended by the conferees represents a 

 compromise in tliat it contains $400 million for grants as contained 

 in the original House-passed version of this legislation, but the $800 

 million for discretionary grants has now been converted into a pro- 

 gram of loans and guarantees. 



It is my earnest hope that, in implementing this new program, the 

 Secretary will proceed expeditiously to develop the necessary guide- 

 lines and allocate funds so that our coastal States can be in a position 

 to take advantage of the program. 



It is very disturbing to me that the press has reported recently that 

 the President is considering vetoing this legislation. All things con- 

 sidered, this administration in its leasing policies has followed a course 

 of complete disregard for the needs of our coastal areas. Their needs 

 are rarely considered and their voices are rarely heard at the Depart- 

 ment of the Interior where important OCS decisions are made. 



Under the doctrine of Maine against United States, it is now clear 

 that the Federal Government owns our Nation's lands beyond the 3- 

 mile limit. Accordingly, it has been the Federal treasury which has 

 been the prime beneficiary of revenues received from offshore leasing 

 bids and royalties. 



But it is the coastal areas, such as New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, 

 New England, Alaska and the West and Gulf Coast States which 

 are going to be bearing the burdens of OCS development. These are 

 the States and communities which will have to cope with new indus- 

 trial development and withstand the jjressures which might lead to the 

 despoliation of our valuable coastal lands and resources. It is the 

 coastal states which will have to expend public funds for new^ facilities 

 to meet the needs of new industry and population. 



It seems only fair and equitable under the circumstances that the 

 coastal areas should share, in some measure, the revenues w^hich will 

 be derived as a result of offshore leasing and development. 



The coastal zone management amendments represents a way to 

 channel a very small poi-tion of those Federal funds to the coastal 

 states so that they can protect their coastal areas from harmful devel- 

 opment. I might point out that the total funds provided, approximate- 

 ly $1.2 billion over a period of 8 years, are only a small fraction of 

 the funds which will be received in this year alone from OCS bonus 

 bids. The budget indicates that appi'oximately $6 billion is expected 

 in offshore revenues in fiscal 11)77 alone. 



