amendments to the bill.
As is well known, I was and remain opposed to two successful amendments striking the sanctions from the Act and reducing the funding by two thirds. Several amendments proposed by Mr. Muskie which were not adopted did raise significant issues which deserve further scrutiny. Therefore, although the proposal I introduce today is virtually identical to the Senate-passed measure, the Committee will hold hearings early in February where these issues and the critical questions of funding and sanctions can be fully explored.115
Also introduced in the 93d Congress was the Administration's bill, S. 924.116
Hearings on the two bills, S. 268 and S. 924, were held on six days, February 6, 7, 26, 27, April 2 and 3.117 In an attempt to focus critical attention on the legislation, Senator Jackson invited the chairmen of the Senate Committees on Agriculture and Forestry, Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, Commerce, Public Works and the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution to testify before and participate with the Interior Committee in the hearings. Only two Senators, Magnuson
(Congressional Record, January 9, 1973, at 380.
(S. Rep. 93-197, 93d Congress, 1st Sess. (1973) at 85 (hereinafter Senate Report S. 268). There were four significant differences between the Jackson bill and the Administration's bill, as introduced:
1.the executive's bill provides for land use programs to be developed within three years, as opposed to five years in S. 268;
2.the administration's bill contained the sanctions provision, as originally proposed;
3.S. 924 provides for a federal review board to hear appeals from states who have been determined ineligible for the grant program. The Jackson bill provides for an ad hoc board comprised of federal and state members.
4.the Nixon bill would link the implementation of the Coastal Zone Management Act with the national land use policy act.
James Noone, Senate Committee Acts on Land Reform; Bill Would Aid States' Planning Role, National Journal, June 2, 1973 at 796.
(Senate Report S. 268, supra note 116, at 85.