July 30, 1975
Page 26036
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the bill we are considering today, S. 521, is designed to improve our management policies toward the oil and gas reserves of the Outer Continental Shelf. The bill is therefore an important component of the Nation's energy program and represents a congressional initiative in meeting a critical national need.
S. 521 directs the Secretary of the Interior to prepare a 5-year leasing program for the energy reserves of the Outer Continental Shelf. Recognizing that the development of these reserves directly affects coastal States, the bill provides, through the establishment of regional Outer Continental Shelf advisory boards, for participation by our coastal States in the Outer Continental Shelf decision-making process. S. 521 also provides for a Federal survey program to improve our basic information about the oil and gas reserves we have offshore. It. directs the Secretary to promulgate appropriate safety regulations for Outer Continental Shelf energy operations and insure that we receive a fair market return for what are, after all, public resources.
The bill establishes a special fund in the Treasury from which the Secretary of the Interior will make grants to coastal States that are affected by the offshore energy development. These grants may be used for planning purposes, the provision of public services or the construction of public facilities. Money for the fund, which is limited to $200 million a year, will be earmarked from the Federal Outer Continental Shelf revenues.
In some ways, S. 521 is similar to a bill the Senate enacted 2 weeks ago, S. 586. Both bills deal with the all-important coastal areas of our country and are concerned with both the direct and secondary impact of offshore oil and gas development. Both bills establish a coastal State impact fund. Yet the bills differ basically. S. 586 amends the Coastal Zone Management Act and authorizes $450 million for a variety of coastal zone programs, including the impact fund. S. 521 amends the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and requires a 5-year leasing plan. The only money it authorizes is the $200 million for the impact fund. The coastal impact fund in S. 521, however, would derive its funding money from earmarked Outer Continental Shelf receipts while the fund in S. 586 will be funded directly from Federal expenditures.
It is my understanding that S. 521 will be amended, as S. 586 was amended, so that the level of funding for the impact fund in the two bills is identical. I know that the Senators involved have worked long and hard to reach what appears to be sensible and reasonable accommodation. The end result will be identical legislative authorization for one impact fund.
The agreed-upon joint amendment will also establish a program whereby $100 million would be set aside for an automatic grant of money to coastal States adjacent to or actually landing offshore oil.
The $300 million — $200 million for the impact fund and $100 million for the automatic grant program — to be provided in S. 521 through the joint amendment is identical to the $300 million in S. 586, and should not be counted twice. Because the authorized expenditures are greater in S. 586 — $450 million — than in S. 521, our attention, from a budgetary point of view, should focus on S. 586.
Several days ago I commented on the budgetary impact of S. 586. But the points I made then bear repeating today.
S. 586 does not in itself exceed the budget target for this category contemplated in our congressional budget. But in the context of additional legislation that the Senate will soon consider, the target that Congress adopted last May for this functional category may soon be breached. That is, if we appropriate the full authorizations contained in everything that we now seem likely to pass, the budgetary target we accepted for natural resources, environment, and energy will be exceeded.
Let me direct your attention to page 25 of the Senate budget scorekeeping report dated July 28.
Table A lays out quite simply what the situation is. If we pass — and fund — those bills that are going to come out of committee soon, we will add $2.8 billion in budget authority and $1.1 billion in outlays to the functional base, as line 117B shows. And if we do that, we will overshoot our functional target by $1.8 billion in budget authority and $0.2 billion in outlays, as the bottom line on page 25 indicates.
If these targets are breached, then the Budget Committee, and ultimately the full Senate, will have to weigh very carefully what the appropriate response should be.
Indeed, as chairman of the committee, I myself intend to take a hard look at these forthcoming proposals and may be compelled to speak out in opposition to them if, as reported, they are likely to breach the budget targets we have set for ourselves.
In one respect, the situation may not be as bleak as it seems. Within the natural resources, environment, and energy function we may, in fact, have more leeway than our scorekeeping report indicates; $5 billion in budget authority is actually borrowing authority for the TVA and will not result in Federal outlays, now or in the future. It is listed here because, strictly speaking, it is a budgetary item and is carried as such on the books. But it is not budget authority like most budget authority. It is not an authorization for TVA to incur a Federal obligation. Thus our budget authority column on page 25 is "soft."
However, this is not the case with outlays. The outlay column is "hard," and I call your attention to the bottom line: If we pass — and fund — those bills we seem likely to have before us soon, then our outlay target will be breached by $200 million.
In reaching our functional targets the Budget Committee had the benefit of the views of the other Senate committees which reported to us on March 15. Two committees reported to us then on the need for assistance to coastal States impacted by offshore energy development. Although they provided us with differing estimates, we carefully considered their recommendations in coming to conclusions about the need for additional funds in this functional category.
It may be said that our targets were too low, that we did not make proper allowance for energy legislation and that we should have. I can only respond by pointing out that in the natural resource functional target we allocated $1.6 billion in budget authority and $1.5 billion in outlays above the President's budget request.
And in our Senate report on the budget resolution we explained that we recommended these substantial increases precisely because we recognized the need for additional energy legislation and funds.
S. 586 uses up $0.3 billion of that additional $1.6 billion in budget authority and $0.2 billion of the additional $1.5 billion in outlays. This is clearly reflected on page 27 of the Senate Budget Scorekeeping Report.
Let me close by emphasizing that the real significance of these numbers lies in the collective impact of legislation upon which the Senate will shortly act and which — if passed and funded — may lead to the breaching of the targets we set last May.
Mr. President, I intend to vote for this bill, as I did for S. 586. S. 521 does what needs to be done: It draws up a sound development program for the oil and gas reserves of the Outer Continental Shelf. S. 521 is good for Maine, it is good for all coastal States, and by directing the wise management of our offshore energy resources it is good for the Nation.