669 



other night. But I voted against that amendment. It was finally de- 

 feated on a tie vote. I voted against it because I did not think that was 

 the proper place to bring it up. 



The outer Continental Shelf drilling bill which we were consider- 

 ing, which has been ordered reported out and will soon be on the calen- 

 dar here, was designed, one, to make certain that the Secretary leased 

 that land with the utmost concern for the impact it would have onshore. 

 Second, it provides for funds for that impact — be it social, economic, or 

 environmental — just as the bill docs. My point is simply that we are 

 going too far with this bill. 



I support this bill. The concept is good. I have no quarrel with it, ex- 

 cept that I simply cannot see a coastal State, which has had an ac- 

 cepted and approved coastal-zone management plan, receiving impact 

 aid — and, I might add here, it is not necessary that any facility in that 

 State be in the coastal zone. It only need be in that State. If a plusible 

 argument can be made to the Secretary that a coal-fired generating 

 plant, anywhere in the State of South Carolina or any other coastal 

 State, will have any kind of impact on the coastal zone, they are eligible 

 to apply for and the Secretary is entitled to give them aid. 



I am saying simply that as a matter of equity and fairness, I would 

 like to see a land use management bill pass the Senate and the House. 

 It is unfortunate that last year — and there was good bipartisan sup- 

 port for land use management. They Senate passed it ; the House did 

 not. This year, the President sent over word that he will veto a land 

 use management bill. I think that is terribly unfortunate. 



Mr. Hathaway. Will the Senator yield ? 



Mr. Bumpers. Yes, I yield. 



]Mr. Hathaway. Does the Senator's amendment apply to both the 

 impact money and the planning money? 



Mr. Bumpers. No; it does not. It only amends section 308. 



Mr. Hatha w^AY. 308(a) covers both. 308 (a) is planning. 



Mr. Bumpers. All it does is eliminate aid for planning or impact 

 aid for other than impact due to offshore development. In other words, 

 I am trying to eliminate all of the other things that will come under 

 that umbrella so that all States can be 



JNIr. PIathaway. I think that tlie Senator has a good point with 

 respect to the impact money, but I think that with respect to planning 

 money, the coastal States, with their peculiar problems, should have 

 it for all facilities and not have it restricted just to planning for fa- 

 cilities as a result of offshore drilling. 



With the planning money. I think the coastal States need that for 

 all energy facilities and activities. 



_ ]Mr. Bumpers. Let me say to the Senator fi'om Maine that I appre- 

 ciate very much his comments. Let me meditate on it a little bit. 



I point out a classic case of what I am talking about here. Congress 

 passed what I thought was a fine bill in the 1960's which provided aid 

 to the Appalachian region of the United States — 13 States. Later on, 

 because of other States who were not in Appalachia, and because of 

 any outcry from Senators on this floor who represented those states 

 not in Appalachia. Congress began to set up tlie title V coimnissions. 

 I think Senator Muskie was instrumental in that. Now we have, I do 

 not know how many, but I think most States are covered in what we 

 call the title V commissions. I happened, while I was Governor of my 



