AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM

Now, on this other pollution business you recommend the elimination of the agricultural conservation program. Congress has had to restore this program about 15 times since I have been subcommittee chairman. Perhaps somebody in the Bureau of the Budget does not understand the need for this program. Here is a program on which we have the help of more than 1,100.000 Americans across the country. They put up about two-thirds of the total cost. Yet you are talking about doing something new about pollution and you eliminate this program which has and is doing so much at an average cost of $250 to the Government per land owner. The records show that despite present efforts about 40 acres of land flows down the Mississippi River on an average every day in the year. Despite our interest and present efforts we are losing 400,000 acres of land a year due to erosion, pollution, if you will. Yet you would recommend that we eliminate the program which is doing most to save our lands for present and future generations.

Annually urban and industrial uses are taking more and more land leaving less and less. This whole money business that we are talking about is very important, and I believe in a balanced budget so that business can have stability. But money is made out of paper and future generations could set up their own financial system but if we let this land go, you could leave all the money in the world to our children and they would have nothing.

I think that I would like to read into the record what we had in our report this year, I believe.

For example, in 3500 B.C. the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers supported a large and prosperous civilization. By the vear 2000 B.C., great irrigation developments had turned this part of the Middle East into the granary of the great Babylonian Empire. Today, however, less than 20 percent of this area is cultivated because, as they became urbanized, the people of that civilization failed to continue to preserve the productive capacity of the land, according to LaMont C. Cole of Cornell University:

"The landscape is dotted with mounds, the remains of forgotten towns: the ancient irrigation works are filled with silt, the end product of soil erosion: and the ancient seaport of Ur is now 150 miles from the sea, its buildings buried under as much as 35 feet of silt."

I could go on and on. The point of it is that, goodness knows, I don't know how you have done as good a job as you have, but when we have another volume to go with this one as to what we are doing now toward controlling pollution, the real job is to see that what we are doing now does not end in favor of more glamorous but less effective methods. Incidentally, since the public has become more and more conscious of our environment, seven departments and agencies have their plans for each to have a research laboratory so that they can get into the act. Yet we are doing away with something we need. In the process we shouldn't eliminate something which has proven good. I think the record should show this.

Mr. MAYO. May I respond?

Mr. WHITTEN. Certainly.

Mr. MAYO. I don't want to get into great detail here because I know that your time is short, but I might just mention this. On the agri

cultural conservation program, our feeling has nothing to do with the erosion per se. We recognize the good that is being done by these farmers in arresting erosion, but we feel erosion could be taken care of by the farmers themselves with their own resources and does not need this input of Federal money to make it succeed.

Mr. WHITTEN. The question is-I caught your word very easily. You said "could." History shows that they did not. The history of this country shows that we wasted half of our natural resources when we left it up to the man on the soil. Perhaps as you say we shouldn't have to do any of these things. But the record of this country shows if the Federal Government does not evidence interest in protecting the soil, with limited income those on the soil simply don't do the job. If you can, by the payment of one-third of the cost, lead him to save the land for future generations, I say it is the best deal for the country I know of.

RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM

One of the greatest programs for present and future control or preventing pollution is rural water and sewage program. There we would be able to help prevent what now we are trying to cure. In this budget $18 million appropriated by the Congress for grants is being withheld. Loan funds have been drastically reduced. Thousands of rural families are being denied the benefit of these programs which the whole Nation needs.

Mr. MAYO. Yes, we are, because we have four different agencies doing essentially the same thing. We are trying to assign priorities in the interests of doing the right thing in Government economy.

Mr. WHITTEN. You think it is sound to cut rural sewage and the water program back?

Mr. MAYO. Yes, sir. Because it can be handled through other Federal programs.

Mr. WHITTEN. Would you mind detailing how that will help this drive on antipollution?

Mr. MAYO. It is a consolidation of Federal efforts that already exist.

Mr. WHITTEN. Consolidation with whom and what and where? Mr. MAYO. The Federal Government.

Mr. WHITTEN. What part of the Federal Government?

Mr. MAYO. I will be glad to submit something for the record on that. This was a very

Mr. WHITTEN. You are going to find it awfully hard.

Mr. MAYO. Should we abolish the program in HUD or the program in another agency?

Mr. WHITTEN. No. The point I am arguing is that let's be sure that the programs we have gotten initiated don't get eliminated while we go off after these new programs. The programs I refer to come under the Farmers Home Administration.

Mr. MAYO. I subscribe completely to what you say.

Mr. WHITTEN. I want to compliment you and the Secretary and Dr. McCracken, too; for you have a real job and I merely try to point out areas for further consideration.

I think the record should show that we had better take inventory and be sure we don't work against our objectives.

Mr. MAYO. That is what we are doing. We feel very strongly.
Mr. WHITTEN. Take it in that light.

Mr. MAHON. Expand on that for the record.

(The information follows:)

In 1971, the budget request for the rural water and waste disposal grant program administered by the Department of Agriculture is being reduced, in part because of the large expansion being proposed for grants for municipal waste treatment facilities, and in part because the fund level requested should be sufficient to take care of urgent pollution problems.

Mr. MAHON. The committee will resume at 2 o'clock. Thank you very much.

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. MAHON. We will resume the hearing. Mr. Whitten has an additional word.

Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Chairman, in connection with the earlier matter that I discussed, the elimination of the ACP program would have the effect of reducing about 870 Soil Conservation Service technicians. As it stands now, it would also eliminate personnel to run the farm program offices.

There is certain other information that I would like to have permission to put in the record. I think earlier the Director of the Bureau of the Budget was advised to enlarge his remarks.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

TRUST FUND SURPLUS FOR FISCAL 1971

Mr. MAHON. This morning we discussed the dramatic increase in the surplus in the trust fund accounts-social security, highways, and so forth. It was pointed out that we are currently collecting far more money in trust finds than we are currently expending. I have here a table I do not know how accurate it is that I would like for you to check, Mr. Mayo. This table shows that the trust funds are estimated to produce an excess of $8.667 million in fiscal 1971 which will not be needed for trust fund expenditures in 1971. In other words, that would be a surplus for a time.

Mr. MAYO. Yes, that is a correct figure, sir.

This is again the process of building up on actuarially correct grounds insofar as it is possible the surplus of the trust funds to meet benefit payments coming down the road.

TRUST FUND SURPLUSES AND DEFICITS, 1961-71

Mr. MAHON. I wish you would show the trend of trust funds, say, in the last 10 years.

Mr. MAYO. I would be glad to.

Mr. MAHON. As I understand it prior to about 3 years ago the income into the trust funds and the outgo from the trust funds was much closer to being even; that is, there was not such a dramatic surplus as is now projected.

Beginning in recent years, these trust funds tended to skyrocket beyond immediate requirements. I wish you would tell us when the trust funds did show the dramatic surpluses. I would like an explanation of why this happened. I would also like to have a discussion of how long this situation may continue.

(The information follows:)

1,089

1,498

1,937

2,071

2, 163

2,613

2,994

3,397

64

3, 411

5,332

6, 598

7,538

8,774

1,826

2,827

3,226

7,020

7,076

6, 601

7,352

6,741

8,448

7, 201

5,722

3,406

4,355

4,854

The preceding table shows major trust fund surpluses or deficits from 1961 through 1971.

As the table shows, the old age, survivors, and disability funds (OASDI) account for the largest portion of the surpluses-48 percent for the entire period and over half of the surpluses from 1966 to 1971. The Federal employees' retirement funds (mainly civil service) are the next largest group. Together these groups of funds account for 83 percent of the total for the entire period. These funds are established under law with long-term financing designed to make them actuarially sound. The method of calculating-and enabling legislation based on these calculations-calls for significant surpluses for the indefinite future. The unemployment trust fund (included in "Other trust funds") also generally has a surplus. The bulk of receipts is State taxes collected to finance benefit payments; the tax rates vary, but for the entire fund they have been sufficient to accumulate surpluses in most years.

The hospital insurance and supplementary medical insurance funds (included in "Other trust funds") have accumulated some surpluses over the period since their founding, but these funds are not anticipated to be major sources of surplus revenues. The rates are designed to cover costs of operation and maintain a reserve for contingencies but not to accumulate large balances.

The other major trust fund that accumulated large balances during this period is the highway trust fund. Its receipts are fixed by law, but because of the downward pressure on Federal outlays in the construction area for anti-inflation reasons, outlays in recent years have been below the level that the fund could finance. Over the long run, however, this fund is also not likely to be a source of surpluses.

The other trust funds vary somewhat from year to year but over time the receipts and outlays are not likely to be far apart; in the 10-year period under study, for example, they had a cumulative surplus of $84 million.

SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUNDS

Mr. MAHON. In talking this morning with Mr. Robert Ball, of the Social Security Administration, we discussed generally what this excess of income to the trust funds would perhaps be in the future.

Will you give us a projection for 3 to 5 years forward as best you can under the circumstances.

Mr. MAYO. Yes. I might also mention that the trust funds had a big growth in their earlier years, too, and the leveling off was something of a temporary phenomenon.

Mr. MAHON. If you will make that clear and understandable, we would appreciate it.

(The requested data on Social Security Administration trust funds follow :)

1 Under present law which includes the 15-percent benefit increase.

2 Includes receipts which are also outlays of Federal funds (e.g., interest or trust fund-held securities).