657 



suffer this type of impact ouii^lit not mean that we should hold it 

 up because there are other places that are going to have the same ex- 

 perience later. I happen to agree with the Senator from Utah. The 

 Senator from Washington and I held some hearings in Hanford. They 

 said this 3 years ago to us, that we have to find a way to deal with these 

 impacts that the local communities cannot face. We have found a mech- 

 anism, to guarantee the bonds and to later provide some incorne wdien 

 you produce something that is salable. That is all we are saying. We 

 will be happy to work with the Senator from Utah and the Senator 

 from Oklahoma in that regard. 



But I would point out this, and I think in fairness it must be ad- 

 mitted, that a nuclear powerplant that may be located within a State 

 is subject to taxation by some local community, some local entity, some 

 county, city or State because it is located within their taxing jurisdic- 

 tion. We are also talking about facilities that are outside the State, 

 where the bulk of the impact takes place in the State from the points 

 of view of schools, roads, docks, communications, all of the facilities 

 that are not there. The entities that could be taxed, the platforms, the 

 oil reserves, are outside the State. 



Mr. Moss. I agree. 



Mr. Stevens. I am perfectly willing to work with the Senator from 

 Utah and the problem facing these cities and States to meet the prob- 

 lems that will come from the energy siting, the nuclear powerplants, 

 and the hydroelectric plants. Today if w^e went through a Grand 

 Coulee Dam project as compared to the time we went through it before, 

 it would be seen as having a severe impact on the State of Washington. 



Mr. Moss. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Alaska. 

 I am not disposed to delay this matter at all. As a matter of fact, I 

 am drafting a bill that I hope to introduce immediately following our 

 August recess, that will have this effect on the States that have energy 

 projects within their boundaries. 



I yield to the Senator from Arkansas. 



Mr. Bumpers. Mr. President, I would like to say to the Senator from 

 Utah that I could not agree with him more on a part of his statement, 

 but I honestly think all of us landlocked States are rather foolish to 

 give up whatever leverage we might have by supporting this bill in its 

 present form, because to hope that States such as Utah. Montana, and 

 Arkansas will get equal treatment, I think, may be overly optimistic. 



I ask the supporters of this measure whether they would support an 

 amendment to eliminate the word "coastal" and then give all 50 States 

 the same treatment. If we are going to give coastal States this special 

 treatment, why not broaden it to include every State in the Nation, 

 and then we will know everyone will be treated fairly ? 



Mr. Moss. Mr. President, it is a matter of time. I do not have any- 

 thing drafted at this point. I have a seminar coming up with some ex- 

 perts, during the recess, in my home State, and we are going to finally 

 put thew hole thing together what we think we ought to have. 



I am not willing to stand in the way of going ahead with the coastal 

 States, because I accept the assurances of Senators who have spoken 

 that they will support the same thing for the land-locked States with 

 internal energy problems. 



Mr. JoiTNSTON. Mr. President, will t he Senator yield ? 



jNIr. Moss. I yield. 



