1039 



Louisiana is so subjective that Louisiana is left to the whim and fancy of the 

 Secretary of Commerce. No other state is faced with such a melding of ongoing 

 and "new or expanded" OCS activity. 



IV. CONCLUSION 



The law is not, of course, without its ambiguity. Indeed, there are several 

 provisions which a sympathetic Secretary could stretch to help Louisiana. (For 

 example (Section 7) (Section 308) (b) (4) (c) ). 



In sum, however, we regard the Conference Report as an unmitigated disaster 

 for Louisiana and a very sad end to almost four years of work crowned by vic- 

 tories and compromises on the Senate floor. Rather than provide a program which 

 offers certain relief to Louisiana, this legislation, due to the fact that both ex- 

 tensive ongoing and "new and expanded" activity exist on the OCS off the 

 coast of Louisiana, provides Louisiana relief based solely on the subjective deci- 

 sion of an appointed Secretary of Commerce. The state which has carried the 

 burden of the only extensive OCS development deserves better than that. 



I hope and trust you will reconsider and return the report to the Conference 

 Committee where the offending language can be expunged. 

 Sincerely, 



J. Bennett Johnston, 



U.S. Senator. 



U.S. Senate, 

 Washington, B.C., June 28, 1976. 

 Hon. J. Bennett Johnston, 

 Russell Office Building, 

 Washington, D.C. 



Dear Bennett : I am relieved to receive your letter of the record and "our 

 previous agreements" on S. 586. S. 586 passed the Senate on July 16, 1975 by 

 a vote of (3-15. It was passed after thorough debate on the floor which reflected 

 the negotiations between the Interior and Commerce Committees and more speci- 

 fically between yourself and other members relative to whether or not the im- 

 pact fund and automatic grants provided under the bill could be used as revenue- 

 sharing for past impacts or facilities not related to an adverse impact caused 

 by OCS activity. Since the bill's passage, you have from time to time referred 

 to "revenue-sharing" inferring as you now do in your letter that the formula 

 grant fund was totally automatic and could be used as revenue-sharing. I knew 

 we had faced this squarely in del)ate and so resting your case on the Senate record 

 relieves us both of any misunderstanding. I agree — the record reflects "our 

 previous agreements." Most importantly, the conference report is in lock-step with 

 the Senate record, in lock-step with what you agreed to. 



I. FOR adverse impact, NOT REVENUE-SHARING 



At S. 12816 : 



Mr. HoLLiNGS. I know that the principal negotiations today have been carried 

 on by the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Louisiana. As I under- 

 stand it, under the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana, we have joined 

 under the costal impact fund rather than the revenue sharing fund originally 

 proposed in S. 621. Is that correct? 



Mr. Johnston. It was not really a revenue sharing fund. It was an impact 

 fund. 



Mr. Rollings. All right, an impact fund. This agreement would supplant the 

 fund in S. 521 * * *." 



Empliasizing tliat the automatic grants did not constitute revenue sharing. 

 Senator Stevens on S12812 stated : 



"Let me emphasize that this is not a revenue sharing bill. We have no provi- 

 sions in here pertaining to revenue sharing. * * * Again, I emphasize these are not 

 revenue sliaring proposals." 



And on S12813, Senator Stevens stated : 



"It should be noted that since the autonuitic grants must be spent on impact- 

 related projects and tlie surplus returned to the Federal Treasury, the automatic 

 grants are not revenue sharing." 



