1036 



had to modify it. I think that is unfortunate, but that was a judgment 

 decision that they made. 



I say to the Senate and to my colleague from Louisiana that the 

 Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs will pui*sue this 

 matter with diligence, that it is a matter that we are greatly concerned 

 about, because it does affect the Outer Continental Shelf, and the 

 revenues from that shelf, as such, come within the jurisdiction of the 

 Committee on Interior and Insular Affaire. I want to assure the Senator 

 that I will do all I can to assist him in this regard and there is legisla- 

 tion pending at the present time. I want to work with the distinguished 

 Senator from the Committee on Commerce (Mr. Hollings) so that we 

 can get back to where we were in the first place. 



It is very clear what the undertsanding was. I just do not want a 

 recurrence of the kind of action here from the executive branch which 

 led to both sides, having agreed on a formula that was substantially 

 the same, revising that in light of the representations made by the ex- 

 ecutive branch of the Government that there is going to be a veto. 



I assure the Senator that I shall do all that I can. The Senator knows 

 that we have done that before, but we will really follow up on this to 

 see that we do equity, so to speak, to the situation that is involved here. 



Mr. Johnston. I thank the Senator from Washington. I appreci- 

 ate his support, his knowledge and work, and his willingness to do 

 equity in this matter. 



The Presiding Officer. The Senator from South Carolina is once 

 again recognized. 



Mr. Rollings. May I have, by unanimous consent, my 5 minutes 

 now? 



The Presiding Officer. Without objection, it is so ordered. 



Mr. Hollings. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Louisi- 

 ana and myself have been working over the years. The fact is that I 

 commenced this some 6 years ago with the hearings, covering a 3-year 

 period which led to enactment of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 

 1972, of course allowing for planning and development grants to set up 

 the coastal zone area management program in the States. When we 

 started on the offshore impact issue, I introduced S. 426 prior to the 

 introduction of S. 521, which contained an impact fund, and also intro- 

 duced the amendment to the Coastal Zone Act, S. 586, which is pres- 

 ently under consideration. There had been a give and take. We have 

 been meeting with the Committee on Interior, and I do agree that the 

 record of last July 16 upon the passage of this bill in the Senate is the 

 best representation of our agreement. The distinguished Senator and I 

 exchanged letters relative to that record. I have two letters, one dated 

 June 26, 1976, from the Senator from Louisiana to me, and one dated 

 June 28 from myself to the Senator from Louisiana. I ask unanimous 

 consent to have those letters printed in the Record. 



There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the 



Record, as follows: 



U.S. Senate, 

 Washington, D.C., June 26, 1976. 

 Hon. Ernest F. Rollings, 

 U.S. Senate, 

 Washington, B.C. 



Dear Fritz : This memo is submitted in hopes of securing your reconsidera- 

 tion of the restrictions on the use of the formuhi impact fund grants of the Coastal 

 Zone Management bill. I believe that fairness, together with our previous agree- 

 ments, requires it. 



