with probable reductions in responsibility. Moreover, those states such as New York, New Hampshire, and Virginia, which have made recent progress in coastal program development, would be unable to complete their efforts. With an abrupt termination of funding by the end of fiscal year 1983 for state coastal management programs, between 60 to 80 percent of the state staffs would also be lost. These potential staff reductions would undoubtedly affect the processing of various coastal permits, particularly those pertaining to OCS exploration and development plans. The currently commendable average of state review and consistency response of 31 days (120 days is permitted under law) would most assuredly be increased as states strain to meet their statutory responsibilities. Such delays in obtaining statutorily required permits and associated costs would clearly outweigh what could be saved by the Administration in not funding state coastal management programs. To successfully respond in a timely fashion to Federal consistency certification and to enable the Federal Government to meet its OCS goals, states must have capable, technical staff-currently supported in large measure by Federal CZM funding. It is shocking to those of us who are charged with managing state and this Nation's coastal resources, that just as the second year of a five year reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) nears its end and with many state coastal plans beginning to mature (seven states and two territorial plans have been approved since 1980), we are facing the demise of our achievements. This Administration, which recently approved an unprecedented 5-year plan to lease and develop the OCS, also seeks to terminate funding for state administered Federal ocean and coastal programs. In so doing it ignores the extent to which such programs serve the national interest-which is one of the reasons Congress initially enacted the programs and provided financial assistance under, the CZMA, the Coastal Energy Impact Program, Sea Grant, the Commercial Fisheries Research and Development Act and the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act. The Administration's commitment to managing its ocean and Great Lakes resources is heavily imbalanced toward energy production and revenue generation and seeks to erode the partnerships fostered by Congress between the Federal Government and state and local governments. Such partnerships have been responsible for many of the successes in coastal management. The recent litigation furthered by states regarding the Administration's OCS lease sales in California, were a direct result of the Federal Government being perceived by states as not recognizing a states' legitimate concerns and recommendations regarding OCS development. I would venture to say that if the Administration was to ever uphold the true partnership with states and local governments that is required by Federal statute, that the energy needs of the Nation would be met more quickly. The legislation before us today provides the mechanism to fund in an equitable manner a productive and sustaining teaming of interests between the Federal Government, state and local governments. Do coastal states have any alternatives to support and maintain coastal management programs from related Federal OCS development? Unlike inland states, coastal states are prohibited from directly taxing OCS petroleum exploration and development activities, since the OCS is, by definition, not within state territorial boundaries. Thus, OCS receipt sharing legislation proposes an equitable solution to coastal states to finance prorams to manage, research, and mitigate OCS activities. These activities may not be within state boundaries, but their impacts are. It is unreasonable to have states assume all the risks associated with OCS development-a Federal activity without an equitable and related means to recover associated costs. In closing Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer some specific comments regarding the two OCS receipt sharing measures. First, we support the provisions contained in the allocation formula of S. 2792, which provides an incentive for states to develop and implement state coastal management programs, as it is under existing law; Second, we suppoort a minimum funding allocation per state, such as the $4 million state minimum proposed in S 2792. We firmly believe and the Congress has held, that coastal management is in the national interest-deserving of Federal support to all coastal states; Third, although the CSO has not fully examined the proposed national coastal zone and fishery management and research plan in S. 2794, we believe the provision has merit and should be considered further by the committee; Fourth, we suggest that Section 6 of 6. 2792 be amended to require that the use of funds by local governments of a state with a federally approved coastal zone management program, be consistent with such a program. This added language would provide greater continuity between both levels of government within a state to manage its coastal resources; and, Lastly, we strongly support the principle embodied in the legislation that a share of those revenues derived from non-renewable offshore resources, which belong to all the citizens fo the United States, be allocated to ocean and coastal programs. Public investment in such programs is in the national interest and will provide needed long term management for affected renewable coastal resources. In conclusion, the Coastal States Organization strongly supports the concept of OCS receipt sharing and urges the committee to move forward on the legislation. It is extremely important to coastal states and the Nation, that funding be provided for vital state programs and activities, which will enable OCS and other coastal development to occur in a sound and well-managed fashion. The allotment of a modest share of revenue derived from the development of public lands off the shores of coastal states, will provide long-term benefits in the management of, and research on, renewable coastal resources. Coastal states are willing to accept the responsibility of managing such resources, and are willing to form a strong viable partnership with the Federal Government, with the effectiveness Congress intended when the CZMA and its amendments were passed, but they must be supported financially to do so. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared statement. Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Senator STEVENS. Mr. Corell, National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. Good morning. STATEMENT OF ROBERT CORELL, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UNIVERSITIES AND LAND GRANT COLLEGES Mr. CORELL. Good morning, Senator Stevens and members of the Senate Commerce Committee and the National Ocean Policy Study. It is a pleasure and a privilege for us to be here to testify before you today. It is my opportunity to speak in behalf of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges and of the Sea Grant Association. We would like to begin by expressing our appreciation to you, Mr. Chairman, and to other members of the committee for the long-term support and interest that has existed within this committee for the national sea grant college program. We are here to discuss two important pieces of legislation, S. 2792 and S. 2794. The sea grant community has no objection to revenue sharing per se. In fact, in previous statements, it has been our sea grant's position to support the concept of revenue sharing. What concerns us is how sea grant might or might not fit into such legislation, and that is the issue that I plan to address this morning. It is in that context that we will defer to other witnesses who will examine other aspects of this legislation, and I will confine my remarks solely to matters related to the sea grant college program. The basic point we want to make is that the national sea grant college program has been effective. It has become a national asset in the same sense that the land grant idea has evolved over many decades to become an important national asset. It is vital not only to the Nation as a whole but to the States of whom we are speaking so much this morning. It is our view that it continues to deserve authorization, and that whatever funding mechanism is provided, it should leave the basic benefits and purposes that have evolved in the last 16 years into that piece of legislation. It is an excellent piece of legislation, we think. It has been molded, adapt ed, and adjusted through the reauthorization process in both Houses of Congress. The concept of using a portion of the OCS revenues for long-term investment in our national marine resource strategy, an essential component of our national ocean policy, has many merits in our view. The two bills under consideration today address the use of such funds from several different vantage points via revenue sharing and block grant approaches, as well as trust fund mechanisms. During the past 15 years that sea grant has been in existence, and particularly as we have focused over the last several years, it has become clear that there are seven major principles or basic premises upon which the sea grant program has been built that in our judgment have made it the asset we think it is for this Nation. First, it is national in orientation, and it is a network building on strong local programing and allowing cooperation and eliminating duplication between States. Second, it is a university-based program involving education, research, and extension and advisory-like services. Third, it is a multiple partnership working between industry, commerce, business, the general public, and all levels of Government, from the Federal to the local. Fourth, it is a matching fund program demanding support from all sectors and participants. Fifth, it is a broad marine resource-oriented program concerned with the development, management, and conservation of our coastal and oceanic resources. Sixth, it is a competitively funded program allocating funds on the basis of quality and capacity to deliver. Finally, it is an accountable program, accountable to Congress, accountable to the partners funding the effort, and to the scientific community. In our view, it is one of the most thoroughly reviewed programs that has evolved in this country, and we believe it is this oversight that has led to its productivity. Let me choose an example or two as they particularly relate to our interests this morning. An important OCS-related effort developed at the MIT sea grant program integrated technical, economic and legal planning as it relates to oil spill control. This work was undertaken at the request of industry, Government, and citizens' groups, and after initial development by sea grant, additional support was provided by the U.S. Navy, the Coast Guard, the Spill Control Association of the United States, a manufacturer of oil-spill cleaning equipment, an oil company, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and a private foundation. Additional in kind support was supplied by these and other groups who have worked with citizens' groups and scientists from other universities to bring this idea into being. After 5 years of development, this spring, program managers have met with Federal and local officials in South Carolina who are now developing the plan to apply to Charleston Harbor. In our view, this is the real world validation of a research idea which leads to capabilities that are not only important to Massachusetts or MIT but to other States in this Nation. This kind of long-range, high-risk research followed by technology transfer is our model of how a nationally competitive multiple partnership idea works. Other sea grant OCS activities occur throughout the border coastal States, but also in the Great Lakes. For example, Wisconsin has pioneered underwater mining institutes and underwater mining research that have played so much of a role in our interest in the law of the sea, and in the Northeast there has been a substantial amount of work related to the Georges Bank situation, that not only involves our universities, but industry and Government. Mr. Chairman, these two pieces of legislation address important, legitimate national and State needs. A State government dimension is very critical from our point of view. As you know, most of our programs have strong State support and State match, and are deeply involved in locally perceived important issues and problems. All of us strongly believe that national problems are often best identified and solved at the local level. At the same time, problems and opportunities of the marine environment do not know State boundaries. Further, they are larger, long-term and generic rather than short-term problems that can be addressed in this fashion. The sea grant program would never have worked if it was solely a national program. Similarly, it would not work in our view if it became solely a State program or, for that matter, a private sector program. It is the combination of partners working together that have allowed a rounded, problem-oriented, goal-driven approach and that have allowed the sea grant program to increasingly concentrate on long-range, high-risk research that a recent study has shown to be the mainstay of sea grant's contribution to economic development. It would be a shame to change a system that has worked so well and that has become a national model for cooperative enterprise among government, the private sector, and the universities. In our view, sea grant is one of the most cost-effective programs in which the Federal Government has become involved, with significant achievements in technological and scientific areas. It is providing impartial technical assistance to all sectors of our community. It is a major source of technical manpower, particularly in the scientific and engineering domain as it relates to ocean needs. This committee, I am sure, is well aware of the critical national shortage in this area. We do not, at this point, have specific recommendations or suggestions to either bill. Ultimately, any changes will depend on your perception of the basic principles as they relate to sea grant. We look forward to working with you and your staff. They have been extraordinarily responsive to our needs and interests. While we must remain primarily concerned about the future of the national sea grant college program, we would like to underscore, in closing, that we support the aspiration and legitimate needs of States, local communities and other important national marine programs and that we are committed to working cooperatively with these units in the best interest of our national ocean policy. We thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and for your continued support of the sea grant idea. Thank you. [The attachments follow:] ATTACHMENT A MARINE RESOURCE INVESTMENT, OCS REVENUES AND THE NATIONAL SEA GRANT PROGRAM 1. The national interest requires a national ocean policy and a marine resource strategy which will promote economic development, enhance wise use of resources and provide for conflict resolution. 2. Investment in people, ideas and technology transfer is basic to any resource strategy. Partnership programs involving the public and private sectors are necessary means for carrying out investment. The National Sea Grant College Program is an important and effective element in this partnership approach. 3. The Sea Grant community urges that any legislation involving the National Sea Grant program should leave intact those elements that have been fundamental to the program's effectiveness: (a) Its national orientation and network, building on strong local programming; (b) its university base; (c) its multiple partnership approach, working with industry, business, the general public and all levels of government; (d) its matching fund nature; (e) its broad marine resource orientation; (f) its competitive funding; and (g) its accountability to Congress, its partners and the scientific community. 4. The Sea Grant Programs look forward to the 1983 reauthorization process. We have not asked to be exempted from the annual rigorous scrutiny of the appropriations process. At the same time, we realize that the Congress may decide on a different approach to the achievement of marine policy goals, or that a trust fund or block grants might be used to supplement regular appropriations. 5. The adoption of a new funding mechanism should not be used to change the fundamental nature of a program. 6. A portion of OCS revenues might be used in a number of ways, e.g., via revenue sharing, block grants or a trust fund approach. Each of these is a means toward achieving certain public goals. Revenue sharing and block grants are primarily federal/state/local funding mechanisms for government activities. If Sea grant is to be included in a new marine program funding mechanism, a trust fund approach or a mechanism specifically recognizing the essential characteristics of the National Sea Grant College Program and the capacities of the universities involved would seem to be the most desirable approach. 7. To insure accountability and responsiveness to national needs, any allocation with a primarily programmatic purpose should be subject to appropriations. Individual program elements should undergo separate scrutiny in the appropriations process. Except as explicitly decided in the authorization and appropriations processes, no covered program should be placed in greater jeopardy than is currently the case. 8. In the interest of stability, funds available for the purposes of the proposed legislation should perhaps be based on some form of three to five year average of OCS revenues, rather than on the vagaries of year-to-year income. Alternatively or in addition, a floor and a ceiling might be set. Wild swings of funding, up or down, do not lead to good programming, and should be avoided if possible. 9. While we concentrate on maintaining capacity for current national marine resource policy, we also ought to take stock of where we have come during the last 15 years of rapid progress in the marine field and to assess where we go in the future. There appears to be an opportunity and need for a new Stratton Commission. It is precisely when times are difficult that we should be examining new strategies for the future. ATTACHMENT B REAUTHORIZATION OF THE NATIONAL SEA GRANT COLLEGE PROGRAM: GUIDING 1. The national interest requires a national ocean policy and a marine resource strategy in order to promote economic development, enhance wise use of resources and provide for conflict resolution. 2. Investment in people, ideas and technology transfer is basic to any ocean policy. A strong, on-going, university-based research, education and technical assistance program is a fundamental part of this investment. 3. The National Sea Grant College Program has successfully carried out its role as the basic university marine resouce program, and it should be continued without fundamental change. 4. The essential characteristics of the National Sea Grant College Program should be maintained: (a) Its national orientation and network, building on strong local |