C61 



legislation other than in this zone we are talking about, and that is 

 ^xhy the bill is very necessary at this time. 



Mr. BELL:\roN. )sh: President, will the Senator from Utah yield the 

 floor at this time? 



ISiv. Moss. Well, the Senator from South Carolina yielded to me. 

 Perhaps he should yield it directly. 



Mr. HoLLixGS. Mr. President let me yield the floor, so that the 

 Senator from Alaska may speak. 



Mr. Ste-s-ens. o^Ir. President, first let me inquire, what is the time 

 situation? 



The PnESiDixG Officer. The Senator from Alaska has 41 minutes 

 remaining, and the Senator from South Carolina has 42 minutes. 



Mr. Stevexs. I am happy to yield to either of my colleagues, the 

 Senator from Oklahoma or the Senator from Delaware. 



First let me state just briefly, that I hope the Senate will listen to 

 the chairman of our cojnmittee. We have a jurisdiction problem, par- 

 ticularly when we get to the Ilouse of Representatives and are subject 

 to the tenns of their jurisdiction. We are going to be dealing with the 

 House Fisheries and Merchant Marine Committee, not the committee 

 that deals with power siting, or the people who generally deal with 

 public works concepts. 



If the bill which the Senator from Utah has been discussing needs 

 to be introduced, I would be happy to support it, but we could not get 

 it through the House committee in conference, and that is the simple 

 fact of the matter. We could g(>t this through : it is limited. It does not 

 refer to OCS revenue funds; it deals only with financing that comes 

 through the Appropriations Committee on the basis of the eligibility 

 guaranteed under the provisions of the bill. 



I am happy to yield to the Senator from Oklahoma. 



Mr. Bellmox. Mr. President, I vv'ish to ask the Senator from Alaska 

 a question. 



I would like for the Senator from Alaska to explain to me if, under 

 the terms of this bill, an oil company chose to build a refinery at Baton 

 Rouge, in a coastal State, or if, on the contrary, it chose to build a 

 refinery at Little Rock, in a landlocked State, or at Tulsa, in what is 

 also a landlocked State, the State of Louisiana could receive a grant 

 under this bill, but the landlocked States could not; is that correct? 



Mr. Stevex^s. That is true. It is also true under existing law. There 

 is an existing grant authorization for the coastal zone area, which vre 

 justified here 3 years ago on the basis that in the area within 50 miles 

 from our coastline. I believe — the Senator from South Carolina has 

 the exact figures — over 50 percent of our population lives within that 

 50 miles of the coastline, and they have a more serious problem when 

 additional facilities are introduced than do the interior States. I would 

 also say there are provisions for grants and loans under HUD to deal 

 with these same concepts as they affect the interior States. 



Mr. Bellmox'. Those grant provisions apply to coastal States as 

 well as to landlocked States, Why do we need a bill that gives the 

 coastal zone States a favored position? 



Mr. Stevexs. We are continuing tlie favoi-ed position of the coastal 

 States because of their peculiar problems with relation to population 

 density, in some instances, and the entire lack of population in other 

 instances. In ours it is the latter type of case. We always are plagued 



