1037 



I. BACKGROUND 



In January 1973, I sought membership on the Interior Committee because it 

 has jurisdiction over OCS legislation. My state has long perceived the actions of 

 the Supreme Court and Congress with respect to OCS revenues to be an injustice 

 to Louisiana. I made it a prime campaign issue in my race for the Senate. 



I and others introduced legislation in the 93rd Congress dealing with offshore 

 revenue sharing. Extensive hearings were held. In 1974. the Committee reported 

 and the full Senate passed S. 3221, amending the OCS Lands Act. On Septem- 

 ber IS, 1974, by a vote of 64 to 23, the Senate approved this legislation. You will 

 recall that, at the time this legislation was coming up for floor action, extensive 

 negotiations were had between you, your staff and me. In S. 3221, as reported, 

 the granting agency was the Department of Interior. However, by way of com- 

 promise, we agreed to allow the Department of Commerce to be the granting 

 agency. With this and certain other compromises, you and your Committee 

 supported the bill. See Attachment A) . 



This legislation was generous to Louisiana, granting it approximately $100 

 million per year in the early years of the program and much more in the later 

 years of the program. The grants were automatic and virtually unlimited in the 

 uses to which they could be applied. Clearly, under this legislation, the grants 

 could be used for impacts attributable to on going OCS production. Furthermore, 

 funding was automatic as a dedication from OCS revenues and did not require 

 annual appropriations for funding. The House took no action on this legislation, 

 which passed late in the 93rd Congress. 



When the Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments were in your Committee, 

 we similarly had long and extensive negotiations on the impact fund provisions 

 of your Committee's bill (S. 586) and of my Committee's bill (S. 521). You 

 will recall that Interior Committee members met with you and other Commerce 

 Committee members complaining about the raid on the jurisdiction of the 

 Interior Committee. These concerns were later incorporated in a memo signed 

 by each Interior Committee member. 



The final result was, of course, S. 586, the Coastal Zone Management Act 

 Amendments of 1975. 



Under this Compromise Act, as finally adopted by the Senate, Louisiana had 

 yielded considerably ; 



(1) Impact funding to Louisiana was reduced from approximately $100 million 

 per year (more in later years) to approximately $45 million per year; and 



(2) Funding of the impact grant was no longer automatic, but rather re- 

 quired annual appropriation. 



However, in the spirit of compromise and harmony, we accepted the amend- 

 ment. The extensive negotiations over a period of months, the extensive conces- 

 sions on the part of the Interior Committee with respect to jurisdiction, and the 

 extensive concessions on the part of Louisiana (the main OCS producing state) 

 provided the background of the explicit compromise agreement which is re- 

 flected in the Congressional Record of July 15, 1975 at S. 12815. 



II. AGREEMENT 



The verbal agreements involved in all of these negotiations ripened into the 

 amendment submitted jointly by Senator Jackson and me on behalf of the 

 Interior Committee and Senator Magnuson and you on behalf of the Commerce 

 Committee. (See attached exihibit B) The amendment, of course, provided for 

 a $100 million automatic grant fund with a .state's allocation to be strictly 

 in accordance with the amount of oil nad gas produced adjacent to the state or 

 landed in that state. The Secretary of Commerce was mandated to make these 

 grants : 



"(k) The Secretary shall, in addition to any financial assistance provided 

 to . . . coastal states pursuant to any other subsection of this section . . , 

 distribute grants annually in accordance with the provisions of this subsection." 



The purpose for which the monies could be used was very broad. It included 

 the ability to spend money to reduce "adverse impacts" from ongoing OCS 

 production : 



"(k) . . . The moneys received under this subsection shall be expended by 

 each State receiving such grants solely for the purpose of reducing or ameliorat- 

 ing adverse impacts resulting from the exploration for, or the development or pro- 



