for a program which he himself approved. I don't believe that the Constitution gives the President the power to administer only those programs which he personally approves. I strongly feel that the President's action in killing the REAP program is a dangerous precedent, and the Congress should restore this program and prevent even a further erosion of its power. I strongly support the passage of H.R. 2107, and I am hopeful that after the House and Senate pass this bill that the President will re-assess his position and will examine the real benefits of the REAP program, because I believe if he will, he will certainly take action to immediately restore this program which has so long benefitted all Americans.

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM BEVILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Committee, I appreciate this opportunity you have given me to express my very strong support for legislation which would require the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out the Rural Environmental Assistance Program; to make the program mandatory and require expenditure of all appropriated funds.

Since the announcement that REAP would be discontinued, I have personally talked with and received correspondence from thousands of my constituents from throughout my District and the entire State of Alabama.

They are confused and concerned, as am I, that such a worthwhile program is discontinued while billions are being dribbled away through giveaway programs such as our foreign aid program.

In my judgment, the decision to discontinue this program was a shortsighted, unwise one, and not in the best interest of our Country.

I think REAP was one of the best programs in existence. It helped the small farmer and/or land owner to preserve his land.

It is a common everyday occurrence to hear and see advertisements on radio and television informing the people how badly the erosion problem is on uncultivated farmland, and also the disappearance of our woodland. REAP is the best way I know to help control this situation.

It is my feeling that discontinuing REAP is one of the worst things that could happen to hamper the farmer in his soil conservation efforts.

America needs and America deserves as pollution-free an environment as we can achieve. This goal can only be reached by using all the resources available to the federal government.

In advancing and perfecting our technology we have polluted our waters, eroded our soil, silted our reservoirs, and destroyed our recreation areas. Meanwhile, our nation grows at a tremendous pace. Within the next 30 years our population is expected to increase by one-half while our land area remains the same. If we are to survive as a nation, it is essential that we develop and maintain a program to protect our total environment.

As you know, pollution of our environment is a national problem which reaches all communities and touches each of our lives. The majority of the funds used under REAP represent payment for practices considered to have direct or indirect pollution abatement or control benefits.

Our farmers contribute to the general good of all of our citizens by not only carrying out these basic conservation practices but by putting up from 20 to 70 percent of their own money for completion of the practices.

Mr. Chairman, the REAP program is needed. I favor immediate passage of this important legislation which would require the Secretary of Agriculture to reinstate this vital program, and I plan to do everything within my power to secure its passage in the House.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BREAUX, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Mr. Chairman, the largest rice-producing congressional district in the nation is the Seventh Congressional District of Louisiana which I represent.

In the 1973 production year, farmers in this district will plant about a half million acres of rice, plus additional acreage for soybeans, sugar cane, sweet potatoes, cotton and pasture for dairy and beef cattle.

Our interest in retaining a program such as the Rural Environmental Assistance Program goes very deep.

With funds from REAP, as it was constituted prior to the President's action in late December, producers of agricultural commodities in Southwest Louisiana were able to adequately institute projects of land conservation and environmental protection. These programs benefitted not only the land, but the people as well. In an age when the protection of our environment is of such vital concern, it is the farmer who should be given every consideration in his continuing struggle to conserve the land-a struggle in which he was involved long before environmental protection became a popular issue.

However, further consideration must be given an equally important matter regarding REAP.

In four major actions, the executive branch of our government has, in effect, wiped out four congressionally-approved programs of great benefit to agriculture: (1) increasing the interest rate from two to five per cent on loans to REA cooperatives, (2) the elimination of REAP, (3) the elimination of disaster loans to farmers, and (4) the elimination of the water bank program.

These actions were taken suddenly, swiftly and with no warning or consultation with congressional leaders or with the farmers who are most affected by the results.

Further, the actions were taken against programs approved and funded by Congress; in the case of REAP, the appropriation amounted to $225 million.

Any discretionary powers given the Secretary of Agriculture in the original REAP legislation were far exceeded by the executive action taken by the Office of Management and Budget.

It is necessary that a bill similar to those submitted to reinstate REAP be given a favorable report by this committee and approved by Congress. Such action also will serve to help return to the legislative branch its rightful powers. I urge action by this committee to further that end.

STATEMENT OF HON. GOODLOE E. BYRON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Mr. Chairman, I have co-sponsored H.R. 2107, and I support its passage early in the 93rd Congress. It is a pleasure to be able to submit this statement on behalf of this legislation before your distinguished committee.

The Rural Envinronmental Assistance Program in its present and past forms has played an important role in the Sixth District of Maryland and throughout the rural areas of America. One cannot overemphasize the fact that this is a cost sharing program and that REAP has been an effective cost sharing program. It is estimated that the December cancellation of REAP would cost the farmers and rural residents of Maryland over $800 thousand. Of this total, $237 thousand would have gone to six of the counties in the Sixth Congressional District.

Last year in the 92nd Congress, the Rural Development Act was passed to aid rural communities in developing economically and to assist in keeping young people in rural areas. It provided incentives for rural citizens to remain on their farms and in their homes. Cutbacks in agricultural programs and the cancellation of REAP may be portents of things to come in the area of rural development. I hope not. I urge you and the members of this distinguished committee to give favorable consideration to H.R. 2107 and its companion bills. With the increased interest not only of urban citizens, but of farmers and rural residents in the environment, it seems senseless that a program which requires equal participation from the private sector and which results in a healthier environment and increased land productivity should be cancelled. I thank you for the time you spent in considering my views, and I am grateful for early consideration of this important legislation.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM S. COHEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MAINE

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have this opportunity to submit my views and certain information regarding the Rural Environmental Assistance Program before the House Committee on Agriculture.

As you may know, I am co-sponsoring H.R. 3007 with Congressman Scherle to revive REAP and require Federal funding at the level set by Congress. More specifically, the legislation would require that the Secretary of Agriculture carry out a Rural Environmental Assistance Program and that he shall make payments on grants of other aid to agricultural producers, including tenants, in an aggregate amount not less than sums appropriated by Congress.

In my judgment, REAP has been one of the most successful approaches to rural development. It has served as an invaluable mechanism for conserving soil, land, and forests, preventing land erosion, combating farm-related pollution, and providing habitat for wildlife.

In the State of Maine, REAP, formerly known as the Agricultural Conservation Program, has been operating since 1936. Our total Federal funding, in the form of cost-share assistance to farmers and landowners for carrying out conservation practices, from inception through the 1971 program has amounted to $32,073,219. Participants have more than matched this amount with their own money.

Maine's share of the Federal funds allocated for REAP under the 1972 program was $1,220,000. Our share of the amount released by the Office of Management and Budget for operating the 1973 program was set at $940,000. Termination of the 1973 program will result in the loss of all but a small portion of our 1973 allocation. Approximately 4,000 participating farmers and landowners will be affected.

The following is a summary of some of the conservation work performed in Maine under REAP during the period 1936–1971:

Measure

Permanent Vegetative Cover Established__
Permanent Vegetative Cover Imported__
Trees Planted___

Timber Stands Improved__

Sod Waterways Constructed_

Diversion Ditches Constructed_

Water Impoundment Reservoirs Constructed (1,668)

Extent (acres) 1,262, 148 451, 388 17, 321 48, 409 7,892 6, 106

Our State REAP Development Group had targeted 90 percent of available 1973 funds for five major conservation and pollution problems. I would like to briefly review these problem areas.

First, there is a widespread need for conservation work in forestry management on small woodlots. Resurvey figures released by the U.S. Forest Service indicate that 90 percent of Maine's total land area is now forested, making it the most heavily forested state proportionally in the nation. Over 75 percent of the commercial forest land needs one or more conservation treatments. There is a particular need for timberstand improvement work on the small ownership

tracts.

Second, disposal of farm wastes is a problem in every county in the state. The poultry industry alone is producing over one million tons of manure annually. As farms have grown in size, the volume of animal waste has also increased. One adult cow produces enough waste in a year to fill a space 12' by 15', three feet deep. The importance of REAP funds for the construction of manure storage structures and waste disposal systems cannot be overemphasized.

Third, the erosion of soil and the pollution of water resources by sediment continues to be a major problem in nearly every county in Maine. Some annual soil losses have run as high as 16 tons per acre. It is essential that farmers be assisted in establishing more protective conservation measures such as sod waterways, diversions, filter strips, water impoundment reservoirs, and permanent vegetative cover.

Fourth, nearly all Maine soils are excessively acid. Over 50 percent of the soil sample analysis reports in some counties show a pH of 5.0 or less. Most crops, including conserving cover crops, will not grow efficiently below a pH of 5.0. We must therefore encourage the addition of a soil sweetner.

Finally, one of the most popular misconceptions about the State of Maine is that our land resources are inexhaustible. This is hardly the case. In fact, land areas with soil characteristics that allow a diversity of optional uses are scarce. In recent years, there has been widespread destruction of various areas more suitable for wildlife habitat than other uses. Accordingly, we must place a new priority on the establishment of permanent vegetative cover, in addition to the development and management of shallow water marshes.

Mr. Chairman, these are not imaginary problems. These are real problems which the Rural Environmental Assistance Program has been helping to alleviate. This is why I was so disturbed when REAP was terminated by the Department of Agriculture on December 22, 1972.

One of the reasons given for terminating REAP is that net farm income increased to a record level in 1972. I do not think this is a valid reason. I know from my own campaign walk through 600 miles of the Second Congressional District of Maine that while income of the larger farm interests has certainly risen in recent years, the family farmer is still far behind in obtaining his fair share of income in this country. I stayed with these farmers, enjoyed meals with them, and walked their farms, and I know the hardships that they have endured.

I also feel that terminating REAP for inflationary reasons is unfair and a misdirection of priorities. No office sympathizes more than I with President Nixon's desire to limit Federal spending for fiscal 1973 to $250 billion. I think this is an appropriate figure, but I also feel that there is much fat in the Federal government to be cut before eliminating this particular program, which has been proved to be so successful and for which there is such an obvious need. Mr. Chairman, I think we in the Congress have a responsibility to make the Rural Environmental Assistance Program mandatory and to require the expenditure of all appropriated funds. At a time when our environment is increasingly threatened and when the family farmer is being driven off the land, we can ill-afford to cut back on a workable program that effectively deals with these problems. As President Nixon said in 1971:

"The public lands belong to all Americans. They are part of the heritage and the birthright of every citizen. It is important, therefore, that these lands be managed wisely, that their environmental values be carefully safeguarded, and that we deal with these lands as trustees for the future."

Mr. Chairman, REAP has been protecting these same values for the farm lands in a successful manner since 1936. If we are indeed to serve as trustees for the future, it is our responsibility now to ensure REAP's survival.

STATEMENT OF HON. DAN DANIEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF VIRGINIA

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I wish to thank you for this opportunity of giving my views with respect to H.R. 2107 and other similar bills, which would require the continuation of the Rural Environmental Assistance Program.

First. I want to commend your committee for the positive and forthright approach which you have taken in dealing with this problem which is such great concern to millions of our rural people all across America. The fact that you have scheduled such early action on these bills is indicative that you mean business. You may be assured that I stand behind you in these efforts to preserve REAP and the other programs which have meant so much to rural America. Since the first of the month, like other members of Congress, I have received countless letters, telegrams and telephone calls from people who are genuinely concerned over the ill-advised action which the Administration announced on December 26th, to the effect that it was terminating REAP and recognizing only those commitments made on or before December 22nd. Obviously, this announcement was timed so that it would create the least possible excitement, but the reaction was not long in coming.

Frankly, I consider the Rural Environmental Assistance Program one of the most beneficial programs being conducted by the government towards the conservation of our natural resources. It has functioned efficiently, reaped significant rewards and stood the test of time. Its cost-sharing features are appealing to those who believe in self-sufficiency and its principal focus has been on the "small farmer". The program has been participated in widely and it has won many friends-both from within and outside the farm community.

Under the auspices of REAP, thousands of ponds have been built all over the country and provided recreation for millions. The program has brought about vast improvement in hundreds of streams, stopped the movement of silt in many places and introduced and expanded soil conservation practices on thousands of farms. The list of REAP's achievements is long and impressive and the steadiness with which these objectives have been reached is within itself a source of pride to the millions who have had a part in their making.

Thus, it is all the more unfortunate that a good program be discontinued when so many of much less-proven value are being retained. As I view the actions taken by the Administration in the past month, there seems to be a disproportionate attention to rural programs as sources of budgetary cuts and redirection of financing. REAP has been terminated, rural electrification is being hard hit, the Farmers Home Administration is being cut back in many of its programs and rural-oriented activities are being adversely affected in other ways. At the same time, I see no corresponding attention being given to urban programs as possible targets for economy. On the contrary, some of these programs are acutally being increased to benefit city dwellers.

This is neither fair nor prudent. Budget economies in general certainly have my support and I find no fault with the current attempts to bring Federal expenditures more in line with our income. However, fair is fair and I do not believe that we can expect our rural people to sit idly by and watch their longtime programs of proven worth be dismantled or sharply reduced while welfare spending and social experimentation in the cities goes unchecked.

In addition, we might consider what is being cut out by the termination of REAP. I have always felt that any program designed to conserve our natural resources can be made cost-effective, if it is properly administered. REAP is a splendid example of this, for every Federal dollar that has gone into the program has been matched by a farmer dollar. In many cases, the cost-sharing has brought forth higher farmer participation. These people, who were the first environmentalists of our time, have seen the value of conservation practices and have taken pride in their achievements. Many of these will continue their efforts, whether there is a Federal program or not, but most of them simply cannot do so because they do not have the means. The government has led them along, encouraged them in their endeavors, recognized their limited resources and given them the hope that was needed. Now those hopes are being dashed.

Most of these rural people recognize that Congress has consistently given good support to REAP and they are looking to us again. Let us not disappoint them. Let us show them that we not only support their efforts but see a definite need for a continuation of the conservation practices which they have carried on so effectively. It makes little sense to spend billions in pursuit of new-found ways of improving our environment and at the same time cut out a program which has done the job.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM L. DICKINSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Two of the major issues which face the 93rd Congress and the nation are pollution abatement and fiscal responsibility. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in behalf of a program which incorporates both these principles and urge you, the distinguished members of the Committee on Agriculture, to report out the measure to require the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out the Rural Environmental Assistance Program (REAP).

The objectives of REAP are to:

1. Prevent or abate agriculture-related pollution of water, land, and air for community benefit and the general public good.

2. Reduce significantly the loss of agricultural soil, water, woodland, or wildlife resources and assure their efficient multipurpose use in providing an adequate supply of food, fiber, water, wildlife, open space, and outdoor recreational opportunities for the future and for the general improvement of man's total environment.

3. Encourage enduring conservation practices in sound land use systems to deal with critical conservation problems on farms and ranches, especially on average to small size family farms.

4. Achieve annually established goals, objectives, and priorities in a manner consistent with community and national needs now and for the future-while moving as rapidly as feasible toward effectively meeting conservation, pollution prevention and abatement, and other environmental needs.

5. Limit and direct federal cost-sharing assistance to those situations where a partnership between the public and farmers to benefit both is clearly proper and fitting.

Certainly, the above-named objectives are in keeping with national priorities, and it is inconceivable to me that we should do away with a proven program with which local communities are involved and familiar while we are going to