Statement of-Continued Page Mathis, Hon. Dawson, a Representative in Congress from the State of 41 McConnell, Chester, wildlife biologist, Tennessee Game and Fish 90 McCormack, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington___ McSpadden, Hon. Clem Rogers, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma.. Mizell, Hon. Wilmer D., a Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina_ National Council of Farmer Cooperatives_ Nichols, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oakley, Warren, vice president, Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation, Pickle, Hon. J. J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Price, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Railsback, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of Roy, Hon. William R., a Representative in Congress from the State of 62 Scherle, Hon. William G., a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa.. Scott, John W., master, National Grange. 169 Sebelius, Hon. Keith G., a Representative in Congress from the State of Kansas Shriver, Hon. Garner E., a Representative in Congress from the State of Kansas Sikes, Hon. Robert L. F., a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida.. Steiger, Hon. William A., a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin. Stubblefield, Hon. Frank A., a Representative in Congress from the 38 Taylor, Hon. Gene, a Representative in Congress from the State of 70 Taylor, Hon. Roy A., a Representative in Congress from the State of 70 Thomson, Hon. Vernon W., a Representative in Congress from the 71 Thone, Hon. Charles, a Representative in Congress from the State of 32 Waggonner, Hon. Joe D., a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana_ 72 Young, Hon. Ed, a Representative in Congress from the State of South 45 Zimmerman, Gordon K., executive secretary, National Association of 87 Correspondence submitted to the committee: Carlson, Dorothy, Ellensburg, Wash., letter of January 11, 1973, to 60 Davis, Ben J., Ephrata, Wash., letter of January 5, 1973, to Hon. Mike 60 Dechant, Tony T., President, National Farmers Union, letter of 174 Gerhart, H. L., Jr., president, Independent Bankers Association of Letter of January 13, 1973 176 Letter of February 1, 1973.. 175 Gregory, Glenn, vice chairman, Kittitas County ASC Committee, 61 Correspondence submitted to the committee-Continued Harris, Herbert, Whitman County Conservation Districts Council, Koch, Robert M., president, National Limestone Institute, Inc., Lallier, Leon, chairman, Wyandotte County Conservation District Manly, Lyle, president, Inland Empire Unit, Washington State Partridge, Robert D., executive vice president, National Rural Person, Elvin J., Acting Administrator, Agricultural Stabilization Staley, Oren Lee, president, National Farmers Organization: Additional information submitted to the committee: Impact on Forest Resources Resulting From Elimination of Rural Lincoln Conservationists Write Secretary Butz, from the Marshall RURAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM MONDAY, JANUARY 29, 1973 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 1301 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. W. R. Poage (chairman) presiding. Present: Representatives Poage, Stubblefield, Vigorito, Jones of North Carolina, Sisk, Alexander, Rarick, Jones of Tennessee, Mathis, Bergland, Denholm, Bowen, Litton, Gunter, Teague, Goodling, Mathias, Mayne, Zwach, Price, Mizell, Findley, Baker, Thone, Symms, and Johnson. Also present: Christine S. Gallagher, chief clerk; Hyde H. Murray, associate counsel; and Fowler C. West, staff consultant. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. This morning we begin hearings on a number of bills, including one I introduced, that would reinstate the rural environmental assistance program. (H.R. 2107, which follows, was introduced by Mr. Poage and is similar or identical to 30 other House and Senate bills, sponsored by over 90 Members of Congress.) [H.R. 2107, 93d Cong., first sess.] A BILL To require the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out a rural environmental assistance program Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the first sentence of section 8(b) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590th (b)) is amended by striking out the words "shall have power to" and inserting in lieu thereof the word "shall" and by striking out the phrase "in amounts determined by the Secretary to be fair and reasonable in connection with the effectuation of such purposes", and inserting in lieu thereof the phrase "in an aggregate amount equal to the sums appropriated therefor,". The CHAIRMAN. This program has been in existence for a long time and it is one of the first of all the programs we have designed to protect our environment. Formerly known as the agricultural conservation program, REAP has provided thousands of farmers and ranchers with assistance in putting soil and water conservation measures on their land. These have benefited all American citizens. Every time a farmer constructs a terrace on his land, or sods a gully to prevent water erosion, or chisels his land to prevent wind erosion, he helps all of us. Every time a farmer plants a pine tree in his woodlot, he assists in solving our housing problems. This REAP program has accounted for more rural recreation, more than a million ponds. I see that Mr. Whitten said it was over 2 million. I do not have the exact figures. But anyway, it has accounted for more ponds than any other program. This program has probably stopped more silt and other pollutants than any program. This program has materially helped in flood control. This program has put grass on more acres of wasteland than any program. This program has eliminated more noxious brush and weeds than any program. This program has provided almost the only incentive for reforestation on privately owned lands. This program has added tremendously to the carrying capacity of our pasture lands and thus is providing some of the red meat we need. This type of program, it appears to me, should be encouraged by the administration, but the sad truth of the matter is the present administration has embarked on a course to completely eliminate REAP. What makes this situation even more tragic is the fact that, prior to the election, the President requested $140 million to carry out REAP. Then, only a few weeks after he was reelected, an announcement was made that the REAP program would be no more. It appears to me that the issue is clear. First, Congress authorized an appropriation of $500 million per year for the program. Second, the President requested the money to operate REAP at a level of $140 million. Third, Congress provided $225 million or, I should say, appropriated $225 million to operate this program for the coming year. Fourth. the President signed this particular appropriation bill into law and issued instructions to the local offices to base their initial payments on a $140 million program. Fifth, the President now says that, even though the Congress has provided both the authority and the money, and he approved-and though the time for a veto is long since pasthe is now completely canceling the program. Of course, many of us who feel that REAP is a good program, want to restore it, but these hearings go beyond that question. We have before us a constitutional question. The authority of the Congress as a separate branch of Government has been harshly challenged. I don't feel that we should sit still and let the Executive, whoever he may be, determine the priorities of spending. That authority belongs to the legislative branch. The pending bills are all intended to restore that legislative authority. The specific bill, H.R. 2107, I and others have introduced, does absolutely nothing except take away the discretion we have heretofore given the Executive. The bill says "shall" rather than "shall have power to." The opinion of the General Counsel of the Department indicates that their only authority for this action depends on the use of the words, "shall have power to" in the present law. We have always felt that it was good to give the administration officials some opportunity to exercise a degree of judgment. but when that discretion is abused, we can only withdraw it. That is all this bill does. Now, we are pleased to have several Members of Congress with us this morning to testify or submit statements in regard to this legislation. Our first witness is our friend and colleague, the Honorable William G. Scherle, of Iowa. Mr. Scherle has been quite active in seeking to provide conservation practices for our rural people, and we are delighted to have you with us. Mr. Scherle. We will be glad to hear from you at this time. |