be asked to devote millions of totally federal dollars to similar but unproven programs.

The REAP program is important to the Second District of Alabama, which I represent, and I would be remiss as the Representative from that District if I did not support the REAP program. However, more than that, I would be remiss as a representative of the American taxpayers who are trying to survive in a polluted world if I did not support REAP. I hope you will do the same. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER FLOWERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Mr. Chairman, I wish at this time to add my voice with those of my colleagues in favor of continuing the funding of the Rural Environmental Assistance Program (REAP). As we all know REAP is a program in which the federal government shares with farmers and rural citizens of our nation the cost of carrying out needed conservation and environmental protection measures. Under this program, the emphasis has been on those practices which help to provide longrange preservation of the environment and return great benefits to the public as a whole.

We in Alabama have averaged receiving over $4 million in federal funds annually in recent years under REAP. This money has been matched on a dollarfor-dollar basis by Alabama farmers-just as it is throughout the nation.

I think the termination of REAP by the Administration is totally uncalled for. The cutting off of these funds to assist rural areas in conservation measures is a disservice to Alabama and the entire nation. It is amazing to me that the Administration would find it necessary to cut off funds to a program such as REAP which eventually benefits all of our country's citizens, while at the same time, it continues to fund fully some of the domestic programs which have proven to be unworkable and costly.

The last December 22nd-without warning or advance notice-the Department of Agriculture terminated the entire program at the end of that day's business. This action was taken without consulting Congress which had approved the program through June of this year and which appropriated $225.5 million for this year's program.

For these reasons, I ask this committee to promptly report this bill to the House floor.

STATEMENT OF HON. L. H. FOUNTAIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. Chairman: I am thankful for this opportunity today to appear before the distinguished Committee on Agriculture on a matter of such pressing importance to us all. The recent announcements of the Department of Agriculture regarding across-the-board cuts in essential farm programs have hit us all very hard. I cannot remember the last time we witnessed such a strong bipartisan reaction to a farm problem. Letters from my constituents, who are at the same time angry, hurt and confused, have been pouring into my office daily, and I know this to be the case in every office on Capitol Hill.

Over the years farmers have had every right in the world to be angry and to wonder about who was champion for their causes. Heavens knows they have drawn the short stick time and time again. What other industry has increased its productivity so much and kept the prices of its products so low? What other single industry employs so many men and women? What other industry provides such vital functions as feeding and clothing human beings? And what other industry has had its magnificent accomplishments taken so much for granted? The farmer's struggle to make ends meet has too often met with a lack of understanding. Programs upon which many farmers depend for their very survival have been citicized as excessive subsidies. Every rise in the retail cost of food products has been blamed on the farmer.

Mr. Chairman, those of us who come from farming and rural communities know the tremendous contribution of our farm sector to the strength of this great nation's economy. We know well the hard work and the endless effort that is a part of farming. We knew the adversity which has haunted so many farmers and has driven so many from the lives which they knew and loved.

It is these people who know rising production costs, sky-rocketing land prices and unchecked tax rises who feel the Department's action most deeply. It is these people who cringe to watch an administration move from a posture of simple indifference to something far worse.

The programs which the Department of Agriculture has so coldly dismissed must be reinstated. They have advanced the state of American agriculture beyond comprehension. They have enabled farmers to make American Agriculture the most efficient industry in the country. Rural electric and telephone loans, now severely affected by administration cuts, have introduced the 20th Century to millions of our farms. Today, over 21 million farm and rural people in 2,700 counties in 46 states across our nation have the conveniences of modern electric machinery and appliances.

Farmers Home Administration grants for rural water and waste disposal systems, recently eliminated by the Department, have helped in the planning and construction of thousands of rural systems and have been essential elements in the orderly growth and development of rural communities.

Mr. Chairman, I am profoundly concerned about the consequences of cuts in the Farmers Home Administration disaster assistance program. In North Carolina we have had two years of harsh weather. Many of our crops have been ruined and many of our farmers have had their backs pushed flat against the wall. In several counties of the Second Congressional District we have been awaiting word from the Administration for quite a long time, as to whether or not we would be extended the financial assistance we need so desperately. Not long ago we received our answer in a curt news release the same news that hundreds of thousands of other farmers across the country have received-the Department of Agriculture will not help us. It now falls on our shoulders to rebuild our crops, our land, our farms and our lives. Many farm leaders fear that the ultimate result of this denial of help will be that many rural families will be driven onto the welfare rolls.

Curtailment of the emergency loan program leaves many farmers across the country with urgent credit needs resulting from their losses. These losses seriously jeopardize their ability to qualify for credit from customary commercial sources and for the regular FHA operating loans.

I am the co-sponsor of legislation to require the reinstatement of the Rural Environmental Assistance Program. I feel that REAP is one of the most important Federal conservation programs we have ever had. Under REAP annual payments have helped land owners install approved conservation and pollution abatement practices which benefit all people. The program is cost-sharing and not an income supplement as some of its critics would have us believe.

Such investments in the future of America are not subsidies solely for the benefit of landowners. I think the program has been quite effective in its intended purpose. This Federal program of cost-sharing should be continued for these soil and water conservation practices and structures which contribute to the attainment of pollution prevention, enduring conservation and environmental enhancement.

Farmers are ready and willing to bear their fair share of the necessary cuts in Federal expenditures, but they cannot be asked at this time to bear an inequitable burden. I do not feel that this is the time to shift the burden of the soil conservation and the rural anti-pollution battle onto the backs of our farmers. The legislation which I have co-sponsored will change the existing law to require the Secretary of Agriculture to reestablish REAP. In light of the Secretary's recent display of disregard for the problems and needs of our farmers, I do not think it is wise to leave their fate in his hands any longer. I think we must make the REAP a mandatory program. I hope that this bill or one like it will receive immediate attention so that we can give back to our farmers the help which should never have been taken from them in the first place.

I come from a rural district composed of people who have helped to build and preserve this good land, people who are interested in conserving and handling down to generations yet unborn a land with an abundance of good, fertile topsoil, of clean water and un-polluted air.

We should not let them down.

Thank you and the other members of your Committee for holding these hearings and giving me an opportunity to testify.

STATEMENT OF HON. DON FUQUA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Let me commend you and the members of the committee for holding these hearings on this legislation which I, and so many of our colleagues, have presented. We feel strongly that the REAP program should have a high priority of concern because of its importance to our nation in many areas.

The question before us is whether the Executive or the Congress will make that determination of priorities. This program was authorized by the Congress and funds appropriated. It was signed into law by the President.

Now we have a situation confronting us where the Executive summarily cancels the entire program. It presents a clear question of which branch of the government shall set those priorities, and quite frankly, such action makes the Congress less than an equal branch, as was intended.

I think we can make a case for the REAP program. It gets to the small farmer and is designed to protect and preserve our precious natural water and soil resources. I don't think that a program that has worked, such as this one, should receive such a low national priority.

I think it deserves a very high priority.

It seems to me that it represents a lack of understanding of the impact of this program on the part of those officials who had it under consideration. This is probably true because of the small number of Americans who are actively engaged in farming, but who produce bounty for this land.

I would urge the Congress to make this program mandatory and require the expenditure of all appropriated funds.

Our nation will be richer for such action.

STATEMENT OF HON. RONALD "Bo" GINN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Mr. Chairman, I would like to go on record in strong support of your efforts and the efforts of the Committee to save the Rural Environmental Assistance Program from burial in the bureaucratic graveyard of the federal government.

In the name of economy, we have seen REAP summarily executed at the whim of the Office of Management and Budget. This action raises the serious constitutional question of the right of the President to kill a program created by the Congress. And it raises an important question about the willingness of our government to give its farmers a fair deal.

I know the Committee is well aware of the many benefits of REAP, and so I will not attempt to list them here. Suffice it to say that REAP has done a tremendous job for our nation, and much more work is yet to be done. It is not a perfect program because it was designed by human beings. But its shortcomings can be prepared through proper management.

I have heard the administration that the number of farmers participating in REAP is small, and so it should be eliminated. To those who would kill REAP under that logic, I would like to say that in my own First Congressional District, 2.108 farmers were provided $489,323 in assistance during 1971, the latest year for which statistics are available. More would have participated had more money been available.

Finally, I have heard the administration say that REAP is a low priority item and so should be killed in this time when spending must be brought under control. I would like to know what changed in REAP since September 29, 1972. when the Department of Agriculture issued an official press release on REAP for 1973.

At that time, the Department saw REAP as a project that "will strengthen conservation and diminish air and water pollution . . . Practices emphasized are those which will help to provide long-range preservation of the environment and return greater benefits to the public."

On December 26, three months later, the Department issued a press release announcing the termination of REAP and the Water Bank program. That press release defined REAP and the Water Bank as "income supplements for farmers" and are "no longer needed."

This bureaucratic double-talk would be funny if it were not at the heart of a "termination" that is a serious blow to the people of Georgia and the nation.

It brings to my mind a speech made by Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz on Nov. 22, 1972, to the North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, Mr. Butz told the farm group, "You and your leaders recognize the risks of becoming dependent on an increasingly urban Congress which, in a whim of legislative arbitrariness, could pull the rug out from under you.”

I have the greatest personal respect for Mr. Butz. He is a friend of the farmer, but he must also serve as the loyal spokesman for the policies of the administration.

I believe the time has come to ask him who has pulled the rug out from under REAP and the farmer. I believe that is a question that demands an answer. All of the citizens of the First District of Georgia, in my opinion, are ready to join with the rest of the nation in tightening our belts during this time of high inflation and government spending gone wild.

But I believe that all Georgians and all Americans want government to examine its priorities. I am confident that REAP will rank high on the list of those programs that should be saved.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT BY HON. JOHN PAUL HAMMERSCHMIDT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

Mr. Chairman, during my tenure in Congress I have seen much progress made throughout rural America in soil conservation. At a time in our history when the federal government is joining with urban and industrial America to wage battle against the advancing realities of environmental pollution, one of the best cost-sharing programs in the history of our Republic is being terminated. Those who have devoted their lives' work to agriculture are, by nature, close to the earth. It is directly from our environment-the soil, air and waterthat the farmer earns his livelihood. If our natural resources are not pure, are not properly cared for, or are not tenderly preserved, the tools of a farmer's trade cease to work. In order to receive a yield from nature, he must work hand and hand with it.

Protection of our Earth's endowments is a value that has always been in the hearts of rural America. Because of this unique relationship with nature, our agricultural communities throughout the nation-for close to two centurieshave quietly abided by a deep respect for conserving our once abundant resources. In this decade, all of America has been awakened to the ominous dangers of continued discharge of industrial pollutants, hazards to national health by inadequate waste disposal methods, dangerous realities of seeing the air we breath, and the effects of jet-age noise in all communities. We have committed ourselves to a high-priority confrontation to ebb this tide which seeks to destroy our values of life across our vast country. States will work along with the federal government in cost-sharing programs designed to return our pure lakes, clean air and all resources which have absorbed the poisons of our technological advancement.

It is inconceivable to me, in this perspective, to justify the termination of the Rural Environmental Assistance Program. Since the 1930's, this pioneer pollution control program has applied federal funds, matched dollar for dollar by farmers, to those very goals which we are finally striving for today throughout our society.

America's farmland is some of the most beautiful in the world. REAP has been a major factor in erosion control, siltation prevention, wildlife and woodland conservation, drainage system development and bodies of water free from pollutants. The farmer began years back "re-cycling" his environment. With the help of REAP funds and ASCS guidance, land that was once useless has now been turned into good pasture land that can be used for generations to come.

In our search to stave off inflation and reduce the federal budget, do we want to turn our backs on a program which is in line with current national priorities, and even more important-a program that has worked and yielded tangible results for forty years?

REAP is not only highly effective with a history of demonstrative results, but it is economical to operate. The total Congressional authorization for 1973 totaled $225.5 million. The announced budget amount for release in 1973 was

$140 million. This is a comparatively small sum to be filtered down through 3000 farmer-elected County Committees and, from there, to the individual farmer who must contribute 50% of the money.

I am in full accord with the Administration's efforts to hold federal spending within a $250 billion ceiling. I am concerned over deficit spending and programs enacted into law with no method to provide financing. I am cosponsoring the "Fiscal Responsibility Bill" which seeks to institute a workable and responsible fiscal process into the framework of the Legislative Branch of the government.

We now have numerous federal programs "on the books" for which the need is recognized but for which the success in meeting those needs is questionable. In my judgment, we are taking contradictory action in terminating a low-cost, time-proven program for pollution abatement in a period of high commitment to environmental protection.

Our agricultural communities have sustained severe blows in the wake of government cost-cutting. The Water Bank Program was terminated along with REAP, Rural Electrification 2% direct loans have been ceased. Farmers Home Administration subsidized housing assistance has been halted and quotas on agricultural imports have been liberalized in an effort to hold down food costs. It is difficult economy in this decade for the small farmer. Increased costs of mechanization, labor and the effects of inflation have not made life easy. Yet throughout our rural communities-we still find that the individual farmer is the backbone of our principles of self-determination, economy and conservation of our environment.

I urge the Committee on Agriculture to give favorable consideration to legislation which would restore the Rural Environmental Assistance Program. It is critical for the best interests of the nation that the farmer be included with the rest of his countrymen in continuing efforts against all forms of pollution.

STATEMENT OF HON. ORVAL HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members of the Committee. I appreciate this opportunity of presenting this statement in support of legislation which I cosponsored which would make the REAP program mandatory and require an expenditure of funds which Congress has appropriated. I am especially grateful to you for scheduling these hearings so early in the 93rd Congress. The importance of this agricultural program is obvious, and I believe that the recent Executive Order which terminates it deserves a careful re-examination by the Congress. Our concern for the future of REAP must extend also to other agricultural programs whose curtailment has likewise been announced by the Executive Branch. I suppose everyone can understand that the Federal Government needs to apply greater fiscal discipline. The President's effort in this area is to avoid future tax increases and inflation. I feel, however, that spending priorities should be rearranged and the programs for rural areas that have been drastically cut should be re-examined and re-tailored to continue what is more in the nature of a national investment than a subsidy. I have written a letter to President Nixon urging him to do this.

As concerns the REAP program in particular, thousands of farmers in Idaho have benefited from the cost-sharing provisions which provide the incentive for farmers to establish extensive soil and water conservation practices. The goal of preserving our natural resources is one of the nation's highest priorities and the benefits of the program have extended to all Americans. If those who have benefited from the program are suddenly deprived of all economic assistance from the Federal Government, their own costs will naturally rise. As a basic tenet of economics, we realize that these increased costs will eventually be passed along to the consumer who is already concerned over the retail price of food. This is why I say that we all have an interest in the REAP program.

Again, I emphasize that the REAP program can certainly be improved upon. However, such improvement and restructuring of the program will not be possible if the arbitrary order terminating it is allowed to stand.

I am, therefore, hopeful that the Committee will carefully study the evidence which will be presented in the next two days and will come forward with a legislative recommendation which will be in the best interest of the American people.