lization of OCS resources in the national welfare, we must renew emphasis on our responsibility to shepherd our use of those resources carefully to ensure that they remain productive for generations to come. Yet at the same time that these needs are increasing, Federal support for essential programs is decreasing due to budget problems and the general state of the economy. The distinguished sponsor of this Senate bill then emphasized the national nature of these resources concerns, noting that "fisheries management, energy development, and coastal development have larger than local or even statewide significance"; also that . . . “Terminating Federal support to States for OCS impacts, and abdicating Federal ocean and policy will not result in expedited development, balanced development, or responsible development." For these and other cogent reasons, including the values of a block grant approach to Federal revenue sharing, Senator Stevens proposed his Ocean and Coastal Development Impact Assistance Fund.

Cosponsors of S. 2792 endorsed and amplified these concerns for continued Federal participation with the States in a coordinated approach to shared coastal and marine resource development and management. The Honorable Frank Murkowski of Alaska emphasized the "paramount national importance that we provide the policy framework for responsible management of the oceans and coasts"; also that

"to insure timely and responsible development of these resources, a productive and cooperative State-Federal relationship is essential." He noted that "There is a need to involve State government in this effort, and through the coordinated efforts of the State, to involve local governments as well." Notably, the Honorable Senator from Alaska placed "fisheries research and management" at the top of his list of State-Federal cooperative endeavors.

Maine's Senator William S. Cohen emphasized the degree to which the current fiscal and political climate has undercut these cooperative efforts, noting that “With the budget reductions of the recent past, many of the long-term programs that are designed to generate innovations in such areas as fisheries development and environmental protection have been placed in jeopardy." Clearly S. 2792, S. 2794, and H.R. 5543 all seek to rectify this growing gap between national needs for State-Federal cooperation in management of shared resources, and national sharing in the responsibilities, including costs of the work to be done. Notably, Honorable Lowell P. Weicker's bill, S. 2794 cites the two fisheries grant-in-aid programs (Anadromous Fish Conservation Act and Commercial Fisheries Research and Development Act) along with Sea Grant and the Coastal Zone Management Act, as principal mechanisms which must be supported if this cooperative endeavor is to survive.

Let me close this aspect of my remarks by noting the clearly supportive philosophy set forth in House Report No. 97-628 on H.R. 5543, the Ocean and Coastal Resources Management and Development Block Grant Act. Although the House bill differs significantly in approach and probable impact from S. 2792 (see later comments), the report clearly shows a bipartisan unity regarding the need for strengthening State-Federal interactions in development and wise use of marine and coastal

resources.

Mr. Chairman, we hope the general unanimity of concerns and purposes reviewed here will strengthen the resolve of our Congressional leaders to insure a continuing strong and constructive Federal role in a dynamic Federal-State partnership for development and wise management of shared marine and coastal resources. Let me turn now to what I perceive to be certain key differences in the several bills your Committee is considering, and particularly my concerns about the probable overall impact of S. 2792 on State-Federal management of marine and anadromous fisheries.

Concerning key differences, S. 2792 clearly mandates pass-through of a significant portion block grant funds (40 percent minimum) by each State to local coastal communities. Other bills endorse the pass-through concept, but without specific mandate or percentage. As a second key difference, State block grants are targeted to support a galaxy of programs and functions, including, but not limited to (Sec. 6d) fisheries research and management, coastal zone management planning and implementation, assessment and mitigation of impacts of OCS development, sea grant program activities, and improvements in coastal capital infrastructure. H.R. 5543 and S. 2794 designate significantly more limited target areas for funding under these block grants. Third, S. 2792 makes no comparative weighting or other specified allocation among these multiple uses for funds, whereas H.R. 5543 and S. 2794 earmark minimum support levels for broad areas considered to be in the national public interest (e.g. in H.R. 5543, 10-20 percent "off the top" for Sea Grant, and of the remainder, at least 20 percent for enhancement and management of living marine resources).

Finally, as a derivative of these differences, and because State-by-State allocations in S. 2792 and H.R. 5543 will be weighted heavilly in favor of States with major offshore OCS developments and impacts, the funds available to most States for fisheries purposes could range from none to very little, given a relatively small State block grant to begin with, and a multiplicity of competing uses to be funded from it. Let me offer now for your consideration and review by your staff a few questions and suggestions from the perspective of a fisheries scientist and manager. I am concerned first and foremost with enhancing our regional approaches to rational and coordinated development and management of fisheries resources and the habitats that nurture them. From that perspective, I very strongly support the diversified role of the Sea Grant College program in research, education, and public information transfer. I fully support the laudible intent of S. 2792 to assure transfer of significant levels of funding to coastal communities, where so much of the action must take place to preserve both the physical environment for fisheries spawning and nurture, but also the economic conditions and infrastructure upon which a viable fishing industry depends. Particularly through my role as a member of the Pacific Fishery Management Council, I'm painfully aware of the economic plight of most coastal fisheries communities, and I share the concern of Oregon's distinguished Governor that we find ways to mitigate these hardships to the extent practicable. In three areas, I have major questions and concerns however, which I will try to phrase with respect to provisions of S. 2792. These relate to (1) relative levels of funding among the coastal States; (2) designation of funding for fisheries programs; and (3) relationship of funding under the proposed new legislation to that which has been provided in the past for fisheries programs under other mandated programs (e.g. Anadromous Fish Conservation Act and Commercial Fisheries Research and Development Act).

Concerning allocations of available funds among coastal States, I consider the designation of a minimum level ($4-6 million depending on CZM plan approval) a desirable provision, although would note again that for a reasonably large and diversified State, that level of funding will not go very far for so broad an array of targets as are specified in S. 2792. I also see substantial merit in providing augmented levels of funding for those States enduring the major problems and taking the significant risks of OCS mineral development. Certainly they need and deserve a significantly larger allocation, particularly to cope with assessment and mitigation of impacts of that OCS development, and to carry out the coastal management planning and implementation, and the development of capital infrastructure, which is required by OCS development.

However, regional and national interests will be well-served only if regional and national problems are met on a broad-based regional basis. Among my own Pacific States, for example, Alaska and California must meet and overcome enormous and potentially devastating conservation and management problems in order to properly support and contain OCS mineral development off their shores-in the national interest as well as for State benefit. However, to properly conserve and manage shared salmon stocks, many of which traverse the length of the Pacific coast in their seaward migrations, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho must be full and effective partners with Alaska and California in protection and enhancement of spawning grounds, rivers, and estuaries, in maintaining the quality of our ocean waters, and in collecting and analyzing the data required for intelligent fisheries management. For these reasons, I respectfully urge that Congressional staff look for mechanisms for allocation among States that will assure the several OCS-developing States a full share of funding to meet their unique needs and problems, but will also assure reasonable allocations to the much larger number of States lacking those unique needs, but sharing in major challenges and demands upon their resources for conservation and management of shared fishery resources.

Two possibilities seem worth exploring. First, I suggest that there may not be a linear relationship between cumulative levels of OCS activity and need for funds to contain and manage that activity. Will doubling the number of oil completions off Louisiana truly double the problems and needs? I think not. A major (perhaps infinite) increase in problem areas occurs when one or a very few sites go into production; after that there must be a curve in impact which at some point very nearly levels off. On this basis, I suggest there may be a reasonable ceiling which could be established for any State as a percent of the total, very much as was done in establishing a formula for funding under the Commercial Fisheries Research and Development Act where allocations otherwise depend upon the value of landed catch and fish products (presently the law specifies a 6-percent maximum for any one State). Should such an approach be feasible, the funds remaining for distribution to other States could be considerably greater. As a second question/suggestion, I wonder if

there might be merit in a two-tier distribution of funds? The base tier might well be according to formula. A second tier, which I would hope might be earmarked specifically for fisheries and coastal zone programs of regional and national concern, might be made available on an incentive basis to States for truly cooperative multiState and State-Federal purposes. I would see this as a splended opportunity to assist all concerned entities to work together on the management-related research, data collection and monitoring, and other activities so essential to implementation of Regional Fishery Management Council plans under provisions of MFCMA. Such an interstate cooperative mechanism also could support multiagency planning lying outside the Regional Council aegis, as for territorial sea fisheries such as menhaden in the Gulf of Mexico or along the Atlantic Coast, or for multi-State estuarine research and protection on all our coasts.

Congressional legislation has clearly specified the national interest in these regional approaches to regional resource management problems. Congressional leaders have reiterated these concerns in formulating the OCS revenue-sharing bills we are considering today. I respectfully urge that innovative ways be sought to encourage and support truly regional activities—perhaps through the "second tier" approach to allocation of funds.

As noted earlier, I must express concern for fisheries interests that fisheries needs may become submerged in the welter of competing claims upon limited funds if there is no Federal mandate for some reasonable proportional allocation. Here I offer two suggestions. First, I believe a reasonable share of available funds should be allocated for fisheries research and management, in the national interest. The nation cannot afford to have any State so reduced in its capacity to act on marine and coastal fishery affairs as to jeopardize regional fisheries resources and programs. It was for this reason that MFCMA included a Federal preemption clause. It is in the national interest that some reasonable minimum level of expenditure be specified for fisheries conservation and management-perhaps at levels indicated in H.R. 5543 or S. 2794.

Second, I urge that legislation specify that allocations of Federal dollars for fisheries research and management be via the duly authorized State fisheries agency or agencies. This will normally be the case; however, I urge against creating a situation in which wasteful duplication and destructive competition might be fostered by lack of that specificity on the planning and execution of fisheries-related activities. Mr. Chairman, as final point of concern in this review, I think it important to emphasize that fisheries support provided under S. 2792 as currently drafted certainly is not equivalent to that which has been provided by the Federal government in the past via such categorical grant programs as the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act and the Commercial Fisheries Research and Development Act, nor is it an adequate substitute for programmatic funds made available under MFCMA to our Regional Fishery Management Councils.

Neither are the funding levels to be anticipated adequate, nor is the nature of the work to be carried out equivalent. Those existing programs all are task-oriented, and all have been used constructively over the past decade to provide the State-Federal cooperative resources for the research, data collection, and fisheries monitoring upon which Regional Council plans have been based, and by which those plans currently are implemented.

Through the block grants proposed, we certainly will be able to undertake much needed augmentation and extension of these and related tasks, particularly as they derive from local communities and their needs. As presently drafted, however, S. 2792 must be seen as supplement to, and in no way replacement for these well-established national programs for Federal participation with the States in programs of regional and national importance.

I respectfully suggest, however, that if our States and our Federal colleagues could work with members of your staff on modifications perhaps along lines suggested here, a revenue-sharing bill might be generated which could replace at least in part the present array of separate funding mechanisms.

Thank you for this opportunity to discuss these issues and concerns with you. Please call upon my office and upon the offices of our member States if we can be of further assistance to you and your staff.

The CHAIRMAN. That will conclude the hearing. Between here and Astoria, it has been most informative. I have picked up all kinds of ideas as to how this bill might be trimmed and sharpened, and I appreciate it.

Thank you. We are adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

ADDITIONAL ARTICLES, LETTERS, AND STATEMENTS

STATEMENT OF HON. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA Mr. CHAIRMAN. I am delighted that we are holding this hearing today on the two OCS Revenue Sharing Proposals, S. 2792 and S. 2794, as an author of S. 2792, I believe it important to make one point at the outset. This legislative effort by all concerned, in both House and Senate, might not have been necessary if the Administration would agree to fund the programs we provide for in both bills-coastal zone management, Sea Grant, fisheries programs, and coastal energy impact mitigation. It would, in fact, be a far lesser drain on the Treasury if this were the case, than the $500 million fund projected for our bill, or the $300 million fund projected for Senator Weicker's legislation.

However, in considering the alternatives for maintaining the legitimate national interests which are at stake in these programs, we have now gone several steps beyond supplanting appropriations in S. 2792. We have accounted for the need for expeditious development of our OCS oil and gas reserves, as well as other necessary coastal energy development for our Nation. We have recognized the increased and central decisionmaking role the coastal States must and should play in these efforts. And we have recognized the long-ignored equity issue that arises from the existence of other similar programs, such as the Mineral Leasing Act, payments-in-lieu of taxes, Forest Service stumpage fees, and grazing fees. Under the Mineral Leasing Act alone, the expenditure for fiscal year 1982 will be $750 million.

Under this Act, the Federal government has recognized since 1920 the need to compensate mainly inland States, where Federal activities and Federal land reduce the State revenue base, while creating impacts for which a State legitimately should be recompensed.

On the other hand, our coastal States must respond to impacts from OCS and other coastal energy development activities, and balance these with wise use and development of our other ocean resources, such as fisheries. But no similar reliable, dependable revenue source drawn from the use of these public lands on the OCS has been available. And this is in spite of the fact that almost one billion offshore acres are being proposed for leasing over the next 5 years.

The two proposals before us today are actually quite modest in fiscal terms, representing far less than 20 percent of the projected OCS receipts for the next fiscal year. The Mineral Leasing Act alone turns back 50 percent of the revenues collected to the States.

But there is an even better reason for these proposals than the equity argument. We have enacted legislation over more than a decade which carries clearly stated national interests, such as in the Coastal Zone Management Act, while permitting the coastal States, voluntarily, to shoulder the burden of implementation. It is no more equitable to dump total funding responsibility on the States for the FederalState partnership we developed, and our national concerns, than it is to respond to inland states while turning a deaf ear to our coastal areas.

I look forward to reviewing any suggestions for improving S. 2792 which may be made. For in the end, all of us who participated in drafting this legislation, and who support its purposes, want legislation which will wear well and wisely through the years, and help carry the responsibilities in ocean and coastal policy which are of shared State and Federal concern.

STATEMENT OF HON. LOWELL WEICKER, JR., U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss my views on outer continental shelf revenue sharing.

The world's oceans, constituting some 70 percent of the earth's surface, have long been used as a source of food and as an avenue for communications, trade, commerce, and conquest. The interaction of the oceans with the atmosphere controls most of the world's weather patterns. Recent scientific and technological advances have rapidly expanded our utilization of ocean space to encompass such diverse ac

tivities as widespread oil and natural gas exploration and extraction, exploration and research with deep-sea submersible vessels, undersea habitats, construction of offshore installations, as well as an expansion in both the intensity and sophistication of such traditional ocean activities as fishing and transportation. This increased utilization has also caused problems of pollution, overfishing, and exploitation of the coastal zones.

This rapid escalation of ocean-related activities has increased the potential for conflict. Offshore oil and gas exploration has already created pollution problems both on the high seas and in the coastal zones. Increased numbers and movement of massive oil tankers have increased the potential for widespread oil pollution with resultant damage to the marine ecosystem. Increased development of the fragile coastal zone areas of this country has had tremendous impacts on the coastal ecosystems. Also, increased pressures and poor management of the living resources of the sea have resulted in overfishing of many species. Long-term impacts of overfishing have endangered the continued economic viability of many important species.

The above is part of the reasoning behind the development of S. 2794, the Marine Resources Management and Research Act. This legislation is based on the need for us to intelligently utilize and protect our marine resources, which are so important to our national economy.

Congress has already declared that it is in the national interest to have effective management, beneficial use, protection, and development of our coastal zone resources. By doing so, we will be meeting our demands for food, energy, minerals, national defense, recreation, waste disposal, and transportation. It is also necessary, however, to avoid possible conflicts from this increased use so that we maximally utilize the world's fourth largest continental shelf and the almost 20 percent of all foodfish in the world.

With the enactment of this legislation, a supplemental source of funds for valuable marine resource education, managment, and research programs-the Marine Resource Management and Research Fund-will be established, along with the development of the National Coastal Zone and Fishery Management Plan. These two parts of the legislation will help us to avoid the potential conflicts as well as helping us to meet our national desire for intelligent and full utilization of our marine re

sources.

I will not spend time discussing the rationale for this country's need to become more energy independent. However, since all of the coastal states and territories assume most of the environmental and economic risks that are associated with offshore development, all of them should benefit from some of the funds that are generated by the federal government through the leasing of tracts of the outer continental shelf for oil and gas development.

This will be done by using the Marine Resource Management and Research Fund to provide partial support for four key National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration programs, all of which are slated for termination by the Reagan Administration. Using the revenues from the OCS tract leasing for Fiscal Year 1981 as the base year, the Fund will receive ten percent of the difference between the base year and each succeeding year. A maximum of $300 million may be paid into the Fund annually.

The first of the key programs maintained within NOAA deals with the management of coastal zones. The Coastal Zone Management Act has provided a valuable mechanism for achieving our goals of utilizing and protecting our marine resources by the coastal states with the availability of federal funding. As a result, many coastal states have developed coastal zone management plans in order to achieve this management. Unfortunately, the Reagan Administration has decided that the Coastal Zone Management Act funding should be terminated at a time when federal involvement is crucial in preventing conflicts over the coastal zone.

Another important mechanism for achieving our national desire for effective management and beneficial use of our marine resources is the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge about the marine resources. It is Sea Grant's mission to achieve this through the application of academic enterprise. Over the past two years, the present Administration has tried to eliminate the Sea Grant program. It is in our interest to see that funds are continually and consistently made available so that the Sea Grant program can continue to carry out this important function. However, I am not yet sure if Sea Grant belongs in this or any other similar legislation. I believe that the Sea Grant provision in S. 2794 is the only acceptable language. It keeps Sea Grant intact as a national program.

The remaining two programs within NOAA that come under this Act provide grants to the states for fisheries research. These are the Anadromous Fish Grants and the Commercial Fish Research and Development Grants. In the past, they have