Go2 



Mr. JoHNSTOx. Will the Senator yield ? 



Mr. Jacksox [continuing]. In connection with NEPA, but this does 

 open up Pandora's box. 



Mr. Stevens. May we pursue this for 1 minute ? 



Mr. Jackson. Surely. 



Mr. Stevens. At least in terms of the automatic grants provided 

 under this bill, vrhich are payable annually to repay bonds that would 

 be guaranteed years in advance, we do not want to have to go back and 

 have an environmental impact statement when production finally oc- 

 curs and they get ready to repay the bonds. We do not want an en- 

 vironmental impact statement when an automatic grant is made, based 

 upon production 2, 3, or 5 years later. The automatic grants at the 

 very least ought to be exempt from the procedure; they are not major 

 Federal actions. 



Mr. Jackson. I agree. NEPA does not necessarily apply in that 

 situation. 



^Ir. Stevens. If the Senator, who is the principal sponsor of NEPA, 

 will agree with me that an automatic grant under this act is not a 

 major Federal action, I am prepared to accept that concept and I think 

 the Senator from Louisiana will, too. 



Mr. Jackson. No, it all depends on what it is. It could be a major 

 Federal action. I do not want a blanket exemption. It may or may not 

 be a major Federal action. That is the trouble with the exemption. 



Mr. STE^^^Ns. I am talking about the sums that would be paid under 

 this amendment which are based upon production concepts and will 

 not occur until production commences and, as I said, that will be years 

 after the project is built, to repay bonds. 



Mr. Johnston. Will the Senator yield ? 



Mr. Stevens. Yes. 



Mr. Johnston. I want to ask the Senator from Washington if this 

 is not correct, the stage at which the automatic grants are made from 

 the Federal Government to the State does not require an impact state- 

 ment, that part does not require the impact statement. 



Mr. Stevens. We have not had agreement on that yet. 



Mr. Johnston. I think what the Senator is saying is when the State 

 undertakes to use that money and the impact statement would now be 

 required, as an example, they might build a highway in its coastal 

 zone for the purpose of serving the offshore industry and have it pre- 

 sented, in fact, they would use Federal funds and an impact state- 

 ment Avould be required, then that same kind of impact statement 

 would be required under the Senator from Washington's amendment 

 ns is now required, but unless this amenrlmont werf^ adopted, then if 

 this money were used it would completely be freed from any impact 

 statement even though it might be commingled with other Federal 

 monev which itself would require an impact statement, am I correct? 



]Mr. Jackson. The Senator is correct. 



Mr. Ste\t:ns. The Senator from Louisiana has stated what I hope 

 IK going to be placed in the record by my good friend from Washing- 

 ton because we had no intention of waiving an environmental impact 

 statement in any area where it would be required by any other Federal 

 law. 



We did intend to waive the requirement of an environmental im- 

 pact statement where moneys were raised under the grant or loan pro- 



