rate of parity is lower now than in previous years, so how can farmers afford to carry out these practices now anymore than they could before. They can't! The elimination of REAP was decided by OMB after the appropriation of funds by Congress. I don't understand, because I thought we were living in a democracy. What kind of a society are we living in when elected officials like yourself vote to fund a program you think is worthwhile only to have one or two appointed persons decide it is not needed and that it is in a low priority category. How do they know? I think it is about time that the Congress took a stand on their responsibilities and let those people in OMB know who has the authority to decide what programs are needed for the people back home. Thank you.

Sincerely,

CLAIR E. TAYLOR.

SEARSPORT, MAINE,

January 16, 1973.

President RICHARD M. NIXON,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: In view of events of the past few weeks, I feel compelled to speak out on behalf of the farmers of this state.

Cutting out the REAP program for farmers is without doubt one of the most irresponsible acts in some time. This program is one of the few set up for encouragement of grassroots participation in the control of pollution and sincere interest in conservation for the benefit of many with the farmer paying 30%-80% of the total cost and using his own labor as far as possible. What other program gives so much benefit to the community as a whole at a cost of so little from the taxpayer?

As the old saying goes "the best defense is a good offense", it appears that this ruse has been used to death in this case. Of course, everyone wants lower taxes and a balanced budget but the people of this nation are not entirely stupid. We see every day the glaring instances of waste-not in the programs themselves but in the way they are administered and even more-the studies conducted over tried and true practices (to provide a retired officer a fat salary), the fancy offices for atmosphere, overstaffed and underrun. In every federal agency this is a fact of life and tolerated with a 'boys will be boys' attitude. How much of the various budgets filters down to the program itself?

The farmer is getting tired of being considered a second-class citizen, overalled with calloused hands. We work hard mainly because we believe in what we do and have pride in our green fields, healthy animals and the knowledge that our work is important to everyone. Every year, enormous sums of money is spent in various methods to prevent pollution of the streams, controlling erosion etc. This work and expended funds brings in nothing to us but the satisfaction of caring for what we love most-fresh air, clean water and lush fields. However, we cannot continue alone as our profits do not begin to keep up with ever rising costs. I simply cannot understand the attitudes of sup posedly intelligent men. Perhaps our efforts do not amount to much but every little bit is a step in the right direction.

Sincerely yours,

KENNETH HOWARD.

STATE OF MAINE,

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION,
Augusta, Maine, January 22, 1973.

Subject: Termination of Farmers Home Administration's Water and Sewer
Grant Programs.

Hon. Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE,

Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: This Department was recently informed in regard to the termination of Farmers Home Administration's water and sewer grant programs. We are very concerned relative to this cutback of funding of water and sewer works programs as it is certainly going to have a drastic impact upon a state such as the State of Maine where a large portion of the State is in a rural category. Over the years this Department, which is responsible for administering the Environmental Protection Agency's pollution abatement construction program as well as the State's pollution abatement programs, has

worked very closely with Farmers Home Administration in coordinating our sewer grant programs with theirs so as to bring about the greatest number of successful projects. Many of these projects have been able to go forward only as a result of receiving Farmers Home Administration construction grants on their lateral systems in order to bring the user cost to the individual property owner to a level within their economic means. At the time this information reached this Department, there were to the best of our knowledge twenty projects under consideration in the State of Maine involving FHA sewer grants. At least seventeen out of the twenty were companioned to projects being considered for EPA and State grants in relation to the State's pollution abatement program. Some of these projects in all likelihood will not be able to proceed without assistance on their lateral systems.

The rationalization for terminationg the FHA water and sewer grant programs we understand was that now with revenue sharing funds available to states and communities and with the expanded eligibility under the EPA construction grant programs, there is no more need for the FHA sewer and water grant programs. We very strongly disagree with this rationalization for the following

reasons.

In the first instance, there are so many demands upon the revenue sharing monies to support a multitude of various needs within the State and communities that it is just about a certainty that none of these funds would ever support sewer construction.

In the second instance, although there are expanded eligibilities under the EPA grant programs, it has been indicated in EPA strategy papers and guidelines and it is the feeling of this agency that the expanded eligibilities should be given a very low priority. The first priority and the one that should be funded is to construct as many treatment plants and interceptor systems as possible to abate existing raw discharges. This would result in a direct attack on the major water pollution problems; however, it is being to leave many significant water pollution problems incapable of being dealt with.

In the smaller communities, many of the problems are resulting from numerous point discharges which are not now collected with the lateral system. In order to cut off these individual discharges, a lateral system is a necessary component of a pollution abatement project. It would be logical in this instance to use EPA program funds for this type of abatement project, if sufficient funds were available.

We are sure the Delegation is fully cognizant of the fact that EPA programs were only 40% funded for Fiscal Year 73 and 50% funded for Fiscal Year 74. On top of this situation is the fact that EPA's construction grant percentages have been increased from 50%-55% to 75% and that each project must be fully funded. This means in effect that any amount of Federal dollars will build much less construction than it could have under previous grant percentage formulas.

The total effect as far as the State of Maine is concerned is that it will do less construction even after doubling of the national budget for water pollution control in Fiscal Year 1973 than it did in Fiscal Year 1971. This was as a result of pre-funding by the State of Maine of Federal shares in anticipation of the future reimbursement. It also means that the State of Maine probably will be able to do no more work in Fiscal Year 1973 with the increased national appropriations than it did in Fiscal Year 1972 at the 55% level. If you were to add additional eligible items included in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, such as collector systems, storm water systems, combined sewer systems, separation projects, etc., it could result in a reduction of the construction of treatment plants and interceptors to one-half of the amount of work now anticipated.

This explanation, we hope, points out the importance of the FHA program to carry some of the cost burden for the lateral systems in our rural communities. The same rationalization would apply to other programs aiding sewage works such as HUD's water and sewer grant programs and some EDA programs in designated areas.

Based upon the above reasoning, we are hereby protesting the termination of the FHA sewer grants programs and also other Federal programs designed to aid in the overall pollution abatement efforts of the State and country.

We are also by way of this letter soliciting your help in seeing that this protest is directed to the proper authorities so that the feelings of this State's water pollution control agency wil be a matter of record.

Respectfully yours,

WILLIAM R. ADAMS, JR., Commissioner.

Senator CHILES. I would like to ask you several questions. One, your advice in regard to a matter about the impoundment of the funds under the Clean Water Act that I have run into with some of my constituents.

The mayor from the city of Jacksonville, which is now one of our largest cities, recently came to Washington in the last 2 weeks and had an appointment with the Office of Management and Budget and and asked me if I would go with him to that appointment, which I did. I was not able to go upstairs immediately because of their special police my name was not included on the appointment register and even though I was identified as a Senator, until permission was granted from the upper floors I was not allowed to attend. But after permission was granted, then I was able to attend the meeting with him.

Their problem is that the city of Jacksonville has been cited by the State of Florida through its Air and Water Pollution Control Commission because it dumps raw sewage into the Saint Johns River. I believe they have been given until January, 1974, to clean this up and they have entered into a massive program, which among other things they have bonded, entered into a bond program which the people have approved. They voted a 30-year obligation upon the people and in addition to that they pledged some 412 mills of their real property tax as a means of paying interest and working on the payment of the bonds under the act. They were going to be able to put together the necessary funds with the local funds that they would have to start their program. Because of their initiative they have already spent some millions of dollars in getting the engineering done because they wanted to be ready to start.

Now with the holdback in funds they are not receiving the funds that they need from the Federal Government which must be approved, then, by the State of Florida, by the office of the governor, to designate funds. They have $8 million, which is now in the bank, that we have bonded. They received part of these bond proceeds. They are ready to actually start in their project.

But the language of their Clean Water Act now says until they receive the approval from EPA and unless they receive approval, and if they put any local funds they will not be entitled to matching Federal money or reimbursement for any funds that they put into the project. The mayor is in the dilemma now that if he commits these local funds that he now has and is ready to commit under the very act this Congress has passed, he will not be able to get a reimbursement and because of the delay of funds EPA is not going to approve it and under their regulations they will not approve it until all the money is in sight and all the money is accumulated as to where it is coming from. Here is a city facing a 1974 deadline, but being stopped because there are no Federal funds.

He asked me what kind of advice I would give him. So I would like to ask you that question.

Senator MUSKIE. Mayor Tanzler came to see me. He is an old friend. I discussed the dilemma with him and it is as you have described it, Mr. Chairman. His dilemma is matched by that of other communities, my State and your State and across the country and imposes-you know, this whole question of how far the President can go to frustrate the will of the people of this country is reflected in legislation.

90-538 O - 73 - 12

Let me talk just a moment or two to describe the process that we undertook with respect to that bill last year, we realized with specific reason, as a result of 10 years of experience, that moving this massive economy in the direction of a cleaner environment, involving as it does so many tens of thousands of decisions, not only in the public sector, but the private sector, is a job requiring planning, lead time and commitment of all those involved and all those that are in a position of making contributions. Once you have momentum built up behind this process you can't turn it on and off as you would a water tap. You simply cannot.

In response to the President's clarion call for a cleaner environment 2 years or more ago, we assumed in the Air and Water Pollution Subcommittee that we now had the signal of executive commitment to a policy that will get us moving, build up momentum and provide the lead time, make possible the planning to come to grips with the problem. The legislation that we enacted last year, therefore, was the product of extensive study and hearings, consideration from almost the day that the President proclaimed that crusade to clean up our waters and air. It wasn't simply a congressional process. It was an executive process as well, as the letter written by Mr. Ruckelshaus to the President prior to his veto on the Water Bill made clear. The amounts provided in this legislation, the deadlines for performance laid down in the legislation, the regulatory powers created by the legislation, all of this was produced as a result of the closest kind of work between the Congress and the executive, States, municipalities, polluters and environmentalists.

So it finally came to the Congress, and the deadlines laid down or mandated by the bill were tightly connected to the money that the bill provided, because you cannot expect people, as Mayor Tanzler's story tells us, to meet deadlines mandated by the Congress if the Federal share of the burden of meeting those deadlines is withdrawn.

So now that the law was enacted over the President's veto what we face, not just Mayor Tanzler, but all over the country, is congressionally mandated deadlines for performance while the Federal Government withdraws from its responsibility to help meet.

Now this ought to be taken into the courts. I think that the cities which are put in that impossible situation can perhaps make the best case. This is what I told Mayor Tanzler and I think the League of Cities and other organizations speaking for the cities, ought to initiate legal action.

As I have said in my statement, I have asked Senator Randolph as chairman of the Public Works Committee to consider it as well.

Senator CHILES. The members present representing OMB were specifically asked if the cities might obtain some relief from this fund holdback, if they might look forward to receiving some relief in the future. The answer they received is this issue is now in the courts, and we think it is going to take a number of years before this issue is settled in the courts, and we don't think there will be any change in this policy until the issue is settled by the courts.

Senator MUSKIE. We can, of course, consider supplemental legislation, but let me make this point, Mr. Chairman: In order for this system of Government, with the division of powers between three coequal departments to operate, there has got to be restraint practiced by all

three branches with reference to its relationship to the other two. If the President decides that he will not execute a law which the Congress has used its constitutional powers to enact, and especially if he refuses to execute this after the Congress has reenacted it over his veto, what are the tools left for the Congress? They are crude at best. The power of the purse which the President frustrates by his impoundment policies and refusal to spend money appropriately. There is the power of impeachment, which is a crude kind of blunt instrument that the Congress surely would hesitate to use to assert its prerogative.

But the President, by pushing back the boundaries of restraint, leaves us with the alternative of either using crude instruments or acceding to his act and taking constitutional powers to himself.

My answer to Mayor Tanzler is that either we mount the political pressures on the President effectively to deter him from this cause or we use whatever weapons we can devise, and they are not easy to devise, as the testimony in this hearing suggests. But the alternative is to supinely yield, and I am not ready to do that.

Now, with respect to the specific problem, the allotment of funds, he was directed to allot these funds by January 1 of this year. He failed to do so. In my judgment that authority has now been lost. When he allotted only $5 billion of $11 billion directed by the Congress, either $6 billion has been lost and cannot be revitalized even if the President should seek now to do so. I don't think the President himself now can allot those funds. So in effect he has rewritten a law that he couldn't stop by the veto power.

Now the Congress could of course reenact that $6 billion and try to put in even more mandatory or directed language. But if the President is determined to have his way and to work his will and not to execute laws properly enacted by the Congress, then where are we? We are at a constitutional crisis and that I think is the whole thrust of this hearing. I don't think we have yet found the perfect answer. We can go through the courts and sure, we can try more direct language and should. We can try to mount public pressuress by such open hearings as this that point out the consequences of this attempt to sieze congressional power by the President. I put letters into the record today to indicate the people are already alert to it.

Let me make the point, Mr. Chairman, Mr. President-I keep promoting you-it is a Freudian slip

Senator CHILES. That really concerns me.

Senator MUSKIE. I am frustrated by all of this as you are, as every Member of the Congress is, and I really think that the language the President understands best is the language of the people.

Here is the point I wanted to make. The President in his whole PR approach to this issue of impoundment and budget cutting has been that he is going to reduce the costs of government. The fact is, of course, that he is not. When he cuts Federal funds to clean up our waters he is not reducing the cost of government, he is merely shifting that cost to another level of government as the Jacksonville illustration points out.

Senator CHILES. That is going to be real property increase.