The CHAIRMAN. I want to congratulate you on your testimony, Mr. Maund. I know what a fine job your planning and development commission in Augusta, Ga., is doing and I think on the whole our other area planning commissions in the State have done likewise a good job. Most of the specific items to which you referred in my own State I have specific knowledge and information as to the accuracy of your testimony. I don't know what we can do about this matter. The President himself requested certain specific authorizations which this Congress approved and certain specific appropriations which the Congress approved. Now, after having requested that and having approved that, he says he is not going to spend the money. I don't know whether we are passing a law twice if he regards it as more sacroscanct than passing it once, or if we pass it three times I don't know whether there will be any more sacrosanct than passing it twice.

I am extremely disappointed-the President praised our Rural Development Act and signed it into law-that he is cutting that very very seriously.

At this point I would like to insert a statement in the record pointing out in specific detail how that has been limited and dismantled and without objection, it will be inserted in the record at this point. (The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF SENATOR HERMAN E. TALMADGE, FEBRUARY 5, 1973

This Committee has been extremely concerned about the failure of the Administration to implement the Rural Development Act. However, the President's Budget Message does indicate that he intends to utilize some of the authorities provided by the Rural Development Act. Unfortunately, he is cutting out and cutting down on tried and proven rural development programs while he is making available under the Rural Development Act only a token amount of new money, supplemental by rather sizeable outlays from private funds in guaranteed and insured loans at higher rates of interest than required by direct loan programs that are terminated.

I have asked the staff to look at the President's Budget for fiscal year 1974 and to compare it with the amount of money appropriated by the Congress for fiscal year 1973. The results are shocking.

Congress authorized the expenditure and loan outlays of $6,926,071,000 for fiscal year 1973. For these same programs for fiscal year 1974, the President is requesting only $3,845,526,000.

Therefore, the total expenditure for rural development will be cut almost in half-if we approve the President's Budget rural areas will have $3,081,545,000 less than Congress appropriated for them in fiscal year 1973. This is a combination of loan levels and grant funds. If we were to separate the grant funds, the picture would be even worse. For example, appropriations of $375 million in the 1973 Act for Rural Environmental Protection and rural water and sewer capital grants is replaced in the President's 1974 Budget by a new proposal for only $20 million in grants for these and other purposes.

CHANGES IN MAJOR NONFARM RURAL DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS, 1973 TO 1974
[Bureau of Indian Affairs and National Parks omitted]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your testimony, we appreciate it, and keep up the good work you have been doing. Mr. MAUND. Thank you, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Max H. Harral, executive director of the Slash Pine Area Planning and Development Commission, Waycross, Ga. We are delighted to have you with us. Welcome to the committee. Mr. HARRAL. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Good to see you, sir. We will insert your statement in full in the record and you may summarize it. And Mr. Miles Greene, of Douglas, Ga., I believe, is with Mr. Harral. What is your capacity? Mr. GREENE. Í am a tree farmer.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

STATEMENT OF MAX W. HARRAL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SLASH PINE AREA PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, WAYCROSS, GA.

Mr. HARRAL. Senator and committee members, the objectives of our commission are very simple. They are to assist our people to obtain a pleasant environment and to be economically productive. Some of

the more important items needed to accomplish these objectives are as follows: Adequate public facilities, particularly water and sewers, and solid waste collection and disposal system, adequate public services such as police protection, and professional tax administration and so on; good housing for all income levels, and sufficient employment opportunities to suit the capabilities of all area residents.

We feel that we have already made good progress toward obtaining the preceding items. They are absolutely essential if we are to be successful in our quest for balanced urban-rural population growth. During the 4 years, 1969-72, a total of 4,646 manufacturing jobs were created, made possible by additional plant investment of $18,016,100. Total manufacturing employment in the eight-county area in 1972 was 11,620. So I think that points out the progress that has been made. Assistance has been given seven cities in obtaining Federal grants totaling $3,226,000 for water and sewer improvements, with work now underway or completed. Grant applications for water and sewer improvements have resulted in Federal commitments totaling $1,462,000; and the commission has recently been assisting nine other communities with regard to planning and financing these facilities. The Slash Pine Area Planning and Development Commission has used Federal programs extensively to provide funding for its staff and has assisted local governments to obtain many grants for the improvement of public facilities and services. Thus, I suppose that it is natural that I should be both shocked and apprehensive at the wholesale termination and suspension of Federal programs that has occurred is the last 30 days or so. Evidently, this action is based upon philosophical theories which are not related to the realities of community decisionmaking and governmental functioning.

For a locality to be progressive requires many years of background work on the part of professionals and lay leaders. It takes time to train citizens so that they can assess needs, can place priorities, and can start mapping strategy which will deal with the problems and distinguish between causes and effects. Meeting public facility and service requirements has relied heavily upon Federal aid programs, as have other incentives to economic development; and it was with much effort that rural communities were taught to effectively utilize the many diverse aid programs. To suddenly turn off so many sources of Federal aid will surely be extremely demoralizing, especially to the progressive communities which have known the jov of accomplishment and have carefully planned their future activities. Even if all the programs being halted should, under the Federal reorganization, find their way into different administrative channels, which, I understand, is not likely, it would take several months for the Federal bureaucracy to gear up to administer the new programs-at least, it always has. In the meantime, the localities have no alternative funding sources, except revenue sharing; and the local share looks pretty small when contrasted with existing categorical grants. Even if communities had sufficient funds from new revenue sharing or other sources-assuming, for example, a greatly expanded aid-handling role for the States-it would be many months before States and local governments could successfully plan, setup, and utilize a structure for fund distribution based upon new and complicated Federal concepts.

Multicounty agencies are almost a necessity now in order for localities to cope with economic and environmental needs. They have been actively involved in the grantsmanship capacity, but they have done much more. They are familiar with the complicated mechanism of government, dealing frequently with many State and Federal agencies. The interaction between these is complex and will remain so, even though Federal reorganization may clarify relationships to a degree. Should State and local governments attempt to provide funding and administrative structures for some of the programs for which Federal aid has been withdrawn, there will definitely be a need for much technical assistance to enable local units to perform in service areas to which they are not accustomed. If States try to administer housing and other programs in such a way that they have an effective local outreach, there must be those on the local scene who can relate to the State and yet who are ultimately responsible to local units. Our area planning and development commissions in Georgia are ideally suited to this task; and, of course, the same would be true of similar organizations throughout the country.

The proposed termination of the Economic Development Administration particularly concerns our commission. It will have a serious effect upon our program in econmoic development, which has been quite successful. We have two full-time professionals and a secretary who work in that program, which receives a 75-percent EDA grant by virtue of the Commission's designation as an economic development district. There is presently no other program known to me that would be available to a multicounty rural area for continuing functionally oriented services in the field of economic development.

The termination of the Coastal Plains Regional Commission is also a matter of concern to us. Some supplementary grants from this organization have been received by Slash Pine localities, and others are committed. These include a vocational high school and a sewer system. An agricultural project (blueberry culture) has also been funded, as well as several technical assistance projects which serve the entire coastal plains area in Georgia.

The regional commission is certainly worthy of continued existence in our view.

We have in our jurisdiction the city of Alma and Bacon County. The entire county was designated as eligible for model cities aid, and the program is now into its third year. Some of you on the Senate committee visited our model city-county several months ago. We think this is a good example of the effective use of a number of Federal programs, nearly all of which are now threatened with extinction or suspension. A beautiful new human resources center is now in operation featuring physical consolidation of the social services, with an "umbrella" staff which aids clients in finding the right agency to solve their problems. The staff, for which funding was to expire January 31, has received an 11-hour reprieve in the form of a 60-day

extension.

Our Commission is extremely enthusiastic about the potential for rural revitalization contained in the Rural Development Act of 1972. We feel that the act will, if properly funded, do much to help the Nation achieve a balanced growth. The aids which it would provide are well conceived; and of course, we view its encouragement of

multicounty agency involvement as wise. It is my understanding that the administration proposes not to fund a number of essential portions of the act and that other portions will be greatly underfunded. If drastic realinement of Federal-State-local relationships is really desirable, then those changes should be well planned, clearly understood throughout the hierarchy of Government, and applied in a systematic way which recognizes the need for leadtime in setting up administrative procedures and in phasing out ongoing programs.

Included with this testimony is a certified copy of a resolution recently adopted by the Slash Pine Area Planning & Development Commission concerning Presidential freezes on appropriated funds. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that will be inserted in the record at this point.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Harral, together with the resolution, is as follows:)

Mr. Chairman, my name is Max W. Harral. I am executive director of the Slash Pine Area Planning & Development Commission (APDC) in Waycross, Ga. Our commission is an agency created by local governments under State enabling legislation and provides technical assistance in the subject areas of economic development, physical planning, and governmental services planning to eight member counties and the localities within them. Our area is rural, covering some 4,500 square miles and containing about 98,000 people. The commission has been staffed for about 812 years, and I have been executive director during that time. We have produced many local comprehensive plans, economic research projects, and informational materials; and we believe we have ample proof of our effectiveness on short-range projects. In addition, there are a number of important long-range goals (such as our proposed Kansas City, Mo., to Brunswick, Ga. limited access highway) which are moving steadily and at a good pace toward realization.

The objectives of our commission are to assist our people to obtain a pleasant environment and to be economically productive. Some of the more important items needed to accomplish these objectives are as follows:

(1) adequate public facilities, particularly water and sewer systems and solid waste collection and disposal systems,

(2) adequate public services, such as police protection, professional tax administration, et cetera.,

(3) good housing for all income levels, and

(4) sufficient employment opportunities to suit the capabilities of all area residents.

We feel that we have already made good progress toward obtaining the preceding items. They are absolutely essential if we are to be successful in our quest for balanced urban-rural population growth. During the 4 years, 1969-72, a total of 4,646 manufacturing jobs were created, made possible by additional plant investment of $18,016,100.1 Total manufacturing employment in the eight-county area in 1972 was 11,620.1 Assistance has been given seven cities in obtaining Federal grants totaling $3,226,000 for water and sewer improvements, with work now underway or completed. Grant applications for water and

1 See tables I and II, attached, part of this testimony.