It is an imperative point for this committee to realize that, if that is true, and I am talking about 3712 percent. If that is correct, that is what Senator Long said. I gathered you agreed with it.

Senator LONG. Let's just understand one another about that matter. Governor McKEITHEN. That has been recognized as fair here before. Senator LONG. Let's just understand one another about that matter. There are a lot of facts that you can't get into the record because it is inadmissible evidence, and that is something we lawyers quarrel about, and it upsets nonlawyers to no end to think that here is a fact, here is something that is true, but they are not permitted to know it, because the court rules that it is not admissible as evidence, and any time you want to even produce evidence in a courtroom of a proposed compromise, Governor McKeithen, you know as well as I do.

Governor MCKEITHEN. No one has objected to it here, though, and we are moving right along on it. I think anything is admissible as long as it is not objected to. I believe I am correct in that feeling.

The CHAIRMAN. We don't follow judicial rules in this committee. Governor McKEITHEN. Senator Jackson, I do think it is important, and I feel that firmly, that it is important to this committee, and perhaps to the entire Congress. If it is correct, that at one time, in the administration here, represented by Cabinet members, recommended the very thing we are asking today, for the State of Louisiana, and for the other coastal States, in addition to the right to tax. Am I right, Senator Long!

Senator LONG. I think the record should reflect it.

Senator ANDERSON. I think you are wrong. I say that the proposal made by Senator Long and others was a better deal for Texas and Louisiana than the deal they finally got. It wasn't the full thing as I remember it. I think we agreed to offer five-eighths, five-eighths out to the edge of the territorial waters, that is, five-eighths within State boundaries. It would have been a sharing of revenues from the coast all the way out.

We offered five-eighths inside the 3-mile limit, and one-eighth thereafter all the way out. Other alternatives were proposed, but the States would have been much better off, then and now, if that offer I have referred to had been accepted. I am quoting the figures from memory, but that is as I recall them.

Senator LONG. Well, Senator Anderson, might I just suggest that I would like to urge this committee that you invite former Secretary Oscar Chapman, who was a part of this coastal submerged land struggle from the very beginning, and who has served this Nation very well as Under Secretary of Interior, and as Secretary of Interior, to give you his views about this 3712-percent matter, and also about the others.

Now, he might differ with me with regard to what should be done on the remainder, and that, of course, I think would be interesting to the committee, but I would urge you that he be invited to testify and give you his views about the whole thing, because he has served this country very well, in an important responsibility.

Now, may I say, Mr. Chairman, that the resources of the sea are going to be so much more than anyone ever estimated that people are going to find it unbelievable.

When I was on this committee, discussing the Outer Continental Shelf bill, a witness came before us and testified the fantastic foodproducing potential that there could be in the sea, if you just developed it right.

He explained it this way: He said if you go out in the woods looking for nuts, and you simply pick up the nuts that you find on the ground, you are not going to get enough nuts to even provide 1 day's meal for one person.

But if you go out there and clear that forest and plant the best kind of pecan trees, let us say, and you fertilize those trees, spray them to fight off the insects, and harvest that crop at the right time, you will get a thousandfold as much in the way of nut meat as you would get if you simply went out in the woods.

Now, the same thing is to a large extent true of the sea. For example, we have 4 million acres of marsh land that adjoins the Gulf of Mexico. Louisiana Land and Exploration owns considerable land there. Their experiments right now are showing that they can produce 200 pounds of shrimp per acre in this land covered by, subjected to the ebb and flow of the tide somewhat, but that is sometimes wet, sometimes dry, ordinarily.

When they dam it, cover it with a few inches of water, and plant that land with shrimp, to separate them from predators that would eat or destroy those shrimp and the larvae otherwise, so they produced 200 pounds of shrimp per acre in marshland with weeds growing on it that otherwise would be useless for any practical purpose.

Now, they say that more intensive efforts in India have produced 1,000 pounds of shrimp per acre. One thousand pounds per acre, by the same measure, of taking virtually unproductive land and producing shrimp on that land.

Now, the same thing can be done in the sea. When you start planting the type fish and marine life that you want, and destroying and killing off all predators, for example a, garfish eats as much fish, I am told, eats his entire weight in good sports fish every day. You kill the garfish, and feed that meat to the shrimp, grind it up and feed him to the shrimp, rather than other way around, and you have a lot more of them out there. I have seen sometimes the way that bonito go at a school of shrimp.

You will have a school of shrimp as big as all Capitol Hill, covering maybe 4 square miles of these small shrimp, watch those bonito go at them, and maybe there will be 100,000 in a school of bonito, just feeding, thrashing the water until it is just being churned like water in washing machine, eating those shrimp, and if you will catch a bonito and cut him open, you will see he is filled up to the gills with those tiny little shrimp, each about the size of a pencil point.

a

So there is a single bonito eating a million shrimp a day, while they are in the small larvae stage.

Now, if you pull big nets through, kill off those bonitos, and those little shrimp eat practically anything, chop those bonitos up and feed them to the shrimp, rather than the bonito feeding on the shrimp, and, help to provide food for them, the catch can be multiplied fantastically, and the same is true of other fish in the sea.

Now, all this can be done, and the production of the sea can be multiplied tenfold or hundredfold, if we do it right.

Now, that is not going to do your State of Washington any good, Senator Jackson, if we are not able to provide some quotas or do something to protect the American fishing fleet, but that is an entirely different problem that we will work on, to try to see to it that our fishermen are treated right, and get their share of the income derived from the sea.

Now, to develop it and make those resources what they should be, the yield can be fabulous. But there is not going to be much yield if you let the sea get so polluted that it doesn't produce fish, and doesn't produce shrimp or other valuable marine life, or that such as it does produce is not worthy of human consumption. This is a job that will require tens of millions of dollars, which we should be at, and it is another item that requires very serious consideration. And money should be made available to it.

It would seem to me that this source, the oil produced in the sea, is a good place to derive revenue to develop the resources of the sea, and to fight pollution in the sea. The industry should at least put up the money to eliminate the pollution that the industry itself creates. The oil industry is one of the principal pollutants of the sea right now, either by production of the oil, or by the various chemical processes that are used in connection with it.

So we would submit that while we favor what the bills would seek to achieve in providing for the development of resources, and better use of them, we do think that the coastal States are entitled to better consideration. We would like to support legislation to provide better consideration for the upland States with regard to revenues produced in those States, and in addition to that, we do feel that there are some very, very high priority uses that should be studied before the 6212 percent is otherwised disposed of.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Long. We appreciate having your statement.

Senator ANDERSON. May I ask, Mr. Chairman, to file a statement for the record. I do want now to say that the Senators from Louisiana were statesmen about this matter. We had a situation in Texas that was not solvable, apparently, and the compromise couldn't be reached. But I will say that the Senators from Louisiana were willing to try to work out an equitable compromise. The State of Louisiana would have been much better off if their judgment had prevailed.

We had long sessions on it. Louisiana has done a fine job, and so have you two Senators that have been here today on this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you want the statement included in the record at this point?

Senator ANDERSON. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, without objection, Senator Anderson's statement will be included in full at this point.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Mr. Chairman, I would like to go on record as being opposed to S. 1826, introduced by my distinguished colleague, Senator Russell Long of Louisiana. In particular, I am opposed to that section of the bill which provides that 37% percentum of the revenues obtained through the leasing of segments of the Outer Continental Shelf shall be paid to the States adjacent to the lands on account of which these revenues are received.

This legislation is a direct contradiction to the spirit and intended effect of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act which was enacted into law in 1953. This Act states on one hand in Section 4, Paragraph 3, 43 U.S.C. 1331, that:

"The provisions of this section for adoption of State law as the law of the United States shall never be interpreted as a basis for claiming any interest in or jurisdiction on behalf of any State for any purpose over the seabed and subsoil of the outer Continental Shelf, or the property and natural resources thereof or the revenues therefrom."

S. 1826, on the other hand, proposed to pay to Continental Shelf adjacent states 371⁄2 percent of all outer Continental Shelf leasing revenues. The contradiction in this proposed legislation is obvious. If S. 1826 becomes law, it will, in effect, recognize states' interests in the seabed and subsoil of this area. Interests in the Outer Continental Shelf's mineral resources by an adjacent State have never been legally recognized. Revenue derived from these areas belong to all of the people of our Nation.

The hundreds of millions of dollars involved in this legislation are totally disproportionate to the related services provided by various states. For instance, let us consider applying the bill's formula to the billion dollars presently held in escrow from mineral leasing operations off the coast of Louisiana. The State of Louisiana would receive close to $386 million under this bill's formula. New Mexico-with its small population-would receive just over $3 million. In short, the benefits to Outer Continental Shelf adjacent States such as Louisiana under S. 1826 would accrue at the expense of the rest of our Nation.

Inland States having small populations such as New Mexico would not be the only States to suffer from this legislation. Other low-population States adjacent to the Continental Shelf but not adjacent to revenue-producing areas would also suffer. They would receive no portion of the Outer Continental Shelf revenues under the State-adjacent section of the bill and would receive relatively little of the remaining 621⁄2 percent of revenues under the population formula section. In summation, Mr. Chairman, I must oppose this bill in the name of all those people of our Nation who do not by chance reside in one of the few States adjacent to revenue-producing areas of the Outer Continental Shelf.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Kuchel?

Senator KUCHEL. Mr. Chairman, I want first of all to join you in extending a welcome to the distinguished Governor of Louisiana, whom we were most pleased to listen to, along with our two friends, the distinguished Senators from that fine State.

I do want to ask some questions, Governor. The purpose of the hearings which are being held today is to inquire into the validity of two pieces of legislation. One, S. 531, which I introduced in January of last year, dealing with the land and water conservation fund, and providing for an augmentation of its revenues, and two, S. 1401, introduced in April of last year by the distinguished chairman of this committee.

I was glad to join him as a coauthor. It generally covers the same subject as the earlier bill, although there are, I am quite frank to say, refinements and improvements, in my judgment, in his bill.

Governor, are you acquainted with the provisions of S. 531 and S. 1401?

Governor McKEITHEN. I would like for you, if you would, briefly, to tell me what they do, and see if I understand them as you do, Senator.

Senator KUCHEL. You are acquainted with the fact that we have a land and water conservation fund. The purpose of the two bills before this committee is to augment the land and water conservation fund by additional revenues, and in each instances, the augmentation comes from the revenues received under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953. I was going to ask you, Governor, if you were acquainted with the provisions of the two bills.

Governor McKEITHEN. The general purpose I am; yes, sir. I am not familiar with the details of your bill.

Senator KUCHEL. And would you favor the purpose of the two bills? Governor McKEITHEN. Your idea of getting additional money for the purposes which I understand your bills tend to accomplish we think is completely worthy. Our objection is to the way you are going at it. By going there and picking out a specific fund to which we feel that we have certain equitable rights, we feel that you will open the gate, Senator. We feel that if you open the gate for this worthy project, that right behind you, the gate will be opened again.

There will be nothing left for us. We don't dispute the worthiness of your intentions whatsoever, Senator, but we suggest that you do it by an appropriation rather than having it allocated from this fund. And our State, I am quite sure, will support you in that effort.

Senator KUCHEL. Now, Governor

The CHAIRMAN. I just want to interject that the money would have to be appropriated annually, Governor. The money from the Outer Continental Shelf would not be made available automatically, but would go through the appropriation process as do other fund moneys. Governor MCKEITHEN. Well, I think then that you should say so without designating that it should come from this fund.

The CHAIRMAN. Your point is that revenues for the fund ought to come out of the general appropriations.

Governor MCKEITHEN. Yes; that is the point I am trying to make,

sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I did want to make it clear that the two bills Governor MCKEITHEN. We support you and the purpose of your bill, but we disagree with you in the source of the revenues for your bill. The CHAIRMAN. But it would require an annual appropriation. Governor McKEITHEN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. No question.

Senator KUCHEL. There is a third bill pending before this committee which I rather apprehend is relevant to this hearing, and that is S. 1826, which was introduced by the distinguished junior Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Long, last May. Are you acquainted with its provisions?

Governor MCKEITHEN. Is that your bill, Senator, the 3711⁄2 percent? Generally, I am. I am generally familiar with it, but not all the details, Senator. I know what it proposes to do generally.

Senator KUCHEL. Do you favor the formula involved in S. 1826? Governor McKEITHEN. We think it is a fair formula, if it is Senator Long's bill we are talking about. We are not saying that under no circumstances would we completely refuse to revise it in certain ways that perhaps the majority of Congress feel it should be revised.

We are not just standing fast. We don't want to make the same mistake, Senator Anderson, that others have made here before us, coming here and taking this position: Look, we won't yield 1 inch.

Let me say, there is a new day dawning in Louisiana. We have yielded a lot more than an inch during the past 4 years. We have gone the whole mile with a lot of people. As I say, we are not the unyielding