682 



]Mr. Bumpers. I yield to the Seiicator from New York. 



Mr. Buckley. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by 

 the Senator from Arkansas. 



I come from a coastal State, but what I am concerned about in this 

 bill is that it will create an incentive to move new energy oriented 

 facilities to the coastal zone; and I believe that this is precisely the 

 kind of area we want to protect environmentally. Because I think this 

 goes against the grain of environmental measures, I support the meas- 

 ure limiting the effect of this on offshore drilling. 



]Mr. Bumpers. I thank the Senator. 



Mr. HoLLiNGS. Mr. President, when the Senator from Arkansas has 

 completed his remarks, I am going to move to table. Before that, I 

 have a comment. 



Mr. President, we have thoroughlj^ debated tliis matter. To respond 

 to the concern expressed by the Senator from New York, I point out 

 that the testimony, over the 3-year hearing period, demonstrated that 

 there would be some 60 to 80 nuclear powerplants off the coast of 

 the United States. We had special hearings about the proposed New 

 eTersey offshore floating nuclear powerplants, which were to be out- 

 side the 3-mile limit at that time. The Senator from New Jersey can 

 correct me if I am wrong. That would be in addition to the other 

 impacts caused not just from offshore drilling but also from population 

 growth, economic development, requirements for industry, residential 

 development, recreation, and everything else. 



So, when the Senator from Arkansas says, "I am for coastal zone 

 management but I am just against coastal zone management," what 

 is he saying, in essence? He is saying, "I have problems in Arkansas 

 and you have i:)roblems in the coastal regions ; but unless we can solve 

 all the problems, let us not solve any." 



Congress saw it differently. Congress said, "Let us have a coastal 

 zone region marked out and approved by the Governors of the coastal 

 States, the Association of Counties, the municipal associations, and so 

 forth." 



They said we should single out the areas that would submit to what ? 

 To an overall plan. 



Does the entire State of New York want to agree to land use? 

 Absolutely not. I do not believe the Senator from New York is going 

 to vote for land use. Does the entire State of Arkansas or the entire 

 State of South Carolina submit to land use ? No, But until they do, we 

 cannot have a Federal program to allocate impact funds in accord- 

 ance with an overall plan. That is the fallacy of this particular 

 argimient. 



If the Senator gets land use up and passes it through the Senate — 

 which has been done on several occasions, but it has been bogged down 

 in the House — his plan can be taken care of. But if I had made the 

 argument when Arkansas was getting a $1.2 billion hydroelectric Fed- 

 eral power project — and they have been digging around — and said, 

 "Treat us all fairly," I do not know where my $1 billion to $2 billion 

 hydroelectric navigation project would be, which was put through by 

 the senior Senator from Arkansas. They already have $164 million, 

 while the State of Alaska will have to wait 10 3^ears to get that kind 

 of monev. 



