it becomes a matter of judgment. We are talking now about contracts which will be presented to the Administration, the Urban Renewal Administration, for approval.

The cities have done a tremendous job, in my opinion, and I think the Federal Government has done a tremendous job in placing under contract some $865 million of slum clearance and redevelopment projects. This is a big program and it is an effective one, and it is an important one. We think that the money which we have recommended will continue the program, will continue it effectively.

Now, it is true that other people disagree with us on both sides of it. Some people think that it is too much of a program.

Senator CLARK. Have you found any mayor that thinks it is too much of a program?

Mr. COLE. Yes, I think I know some mayors probably that think it is too much of a program.

Senator CLARK. Would you be willing to tell us who they are? Mr. COLE. I guess I will have to answer that I do not remember who they were.

Senator CLARK. At least they do not have much influence in the conference of mayors or the American Municipal Association.

Mr. COLE. I don't know, Senator. I talked to a mayor not too long ago, and he said that he had had a wire from the Conference of Mayors asking if he would join in signing his name he is the mayor of an important city-and he said to me "I suppose I ought to send a wire to them and join in. After all, I belong to the conference."

Senator CLARK. Are you suggesting the mayors' testimony was not sincere?

Mr. COLE. No, of course not.

Senator CLARK. Would you take it at its face value?

Mr. COLE. Surely I do. They are a conscientious group. But you asked me a question and I answered it.

Senator CLARK. They should know something about their problems; should they not?

Mr. COLE. They do.

Senator CLARK. But you think $175 million is enough.

Mr. COLE. I think $175 million-and I think you will understand my answer will give us, in this Nation, a progressive and expanded program, and a good program.

Now, I think I should answer your question further. Do I think $175 million is enough? The answer is "no." I don't think $250 million is enough. I don't think $1 billion is enough. I don't think $5 billion is enough.

This problem is one of the greatest problems which we have in America today, one of the most difficult we have in America today. And I think the approach to it is important.

But let me say this to you.

Senator CLARK. Excuse me, Mr. Cole. Let me ask you whether you would agree it is a critical and present problem.

Mr. COLE. Definitely. But I have seen programs ruined by irresponsible ideas advanced that we can just spend billions and billions of dollars every year, and not relating the plans to reality.

Senator CLARK. Well, now, you did not object when you got an authorization of $1 billion a few years ago; did you?

Mr. COLE. No.

Senator CLARK. Why would you object to getting an authorization of half that amount now, or half-a-billion dollars for the period immediately ahead?

Mr. COLE. Well, Senator, we believe that we have a program which is moving ahead as rapidly as can be properly programed and carried out. There comes a time when one must examine the program to determine its progress, to determine the ability of the cities and planners and the officials of the communities to carry out their programs.

These programs are so complex, the problems involved, the redevelopment of huge, downtown areas of major cities, and smaller cities. These problems are terribly complex. And to bring together, to pull together, all of the complexities, all of the differences of opinion within the locality, all of the interests of the commercial, residential, official positions, to determine how they should be developed, these problems cannot be decided overnight.

Senator CLARK. Mr. Cole, when did you take office?

Mr. COLE. 1953.

Senator CLARKE. At that point, was the billion-dollar authorization available to you?

Mr. COLE. My guess is it came in the 1949 act, before I came into office. It was made available, however, in annual increments over a considerable period of years.

Senator CLARK. But in any event, you have committed or agreed to the commitment of a large part of that billion dollars.

Mr. COLE. That is right.

Senator CLARK. Of course, you have been making a continuous study, as you go along in this program.

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.

Senator CLARK. Now, as I understand it, you want to pause and refresh yourself before you continue, and take another look at it; is that right?

Mr. COLE. No: I would not quite use those words.

Senator CLARK. Then let me ask you why you are opposed to an additional authorization of $500 million at this time.

Mr. COLE. Well, No. 1, in the present economic situation we believe that the amount is too high. No. 2

Senator CLARK. Why?

Mr. COLE. Because it is a new obligational authority which, if used in 1958, would bind the Federal Government to contracts which would be entered into in 1959, 1960, 1961, and 1962. Now, we don't think there is any magic in $500 million, Senator. We don't think there is any magic in $175 million. We think again it becomes a matter of judgment, how much the cities can properly use, based upon the plans which they now have, the personnel which they have to accomplish it, and the money which they themselves have.

Senator CLARK. Mr. Cole, is it not clear that you want to slow down the program? I am not saying you are wrong.

Mr. COLE. No.

Senator CLARK. You do not think $175 million will slow it down? Mr. COLE. We do not think so.

Senator CLARK. You do not think letter 91 is slowing it down right now?

Mr. COLE. This is a different problem. Letter 91 is a different problem, Senator. Letter 91 is to be effective only during the remainder of this fiscal year. Letter 91 will terminate at the end of this fiscal year.

Senator CLARK. In the meanwhile it is slowing the program down for the rest of the fiscal year.

Mr. COLE. In the meanwhile, letter 91 does prevent additional new contracts to be presented and signed; yes.

Senator CLARK. Why do you want to slow it down for the balance of this fiscal year?

Mr. COLE. Because we feel that in this present economic situation, that we must take a look at the budget, and the amount of money which the Government is spending.

Senator CLARK. Let's face it, Mr. Cole. Your recommendation is based on budgetary considerations, and your feeling that this program if continued at its present rate would be inflationary; is it not?

Mr. COLE. No.

Senator CLARK. You think within the agency itself, in order to get urban renewal moving ahead as fast as it can in a situation which you admit is critical, it is nonetheless desirable to cut back the authorization.

Mr. COLE. Yes; we think it is necessary to cut back the authorization which we first recommended.

Senator CLARK. What I cannot understand for the life of me is why. Just put it as briefly as you can, and then I will go to some other subject.

Mr. COLE. Well, I tried once before. I will try this time. No. 1, we think that in the present economic circumstances that new obligational authority can be reexamined properly, because this has to do with contracts which will be executed but will not be carried into effect during 1958 and will not be carried into effect and the money spent until some years later.

No. 2, we think that the present program of $865 million is one which does provide the communities with practically all-practically allof the work which they can assimilate and carry out. Our judgment is that we can reexamine it to determine the ability of the communities and the Federal Government to carry out their responsibilities. Senator CLARK. Do you think Philadelphia has gone as far as it can go in this program?

Mr. COLE. No. But Philadelphia has been doing very well, indeed. Philadelphia has eight programs underway, and none of them are very far from completed. Philadelphia has a lot of opportunity, Senator, to carry out those programs which they now have planned and contracted for. This will keep all of the people in Philadelphia busy all of the time to get them done.

Senator CLARK. I'm afraid you would not persuade Mayor Dilworth about that.

Mr. COLE. I have talked to the mayor about it.

Senator CLARK. Yes; I know you have. He talked to me after he talked to you.

Mr. COLE. We had a very good conversation about it. We want to help Philadelphia. But may I say this. There is Philadelphia and Chicago and New York and Detroit and a few other great cities in

America that have great widespread slums. But there are also many, many hundreds of other smaller towns in America that are entitled to an opportunity to take a crack at this thing.

Senator CLARK. My suggestion is that you are making it impossible for anybody to do anything.

Mr. COLE. No. We think this move will give the rather slower cities that do not have quite the organization available, that have not been quite as fast to get in under the contracts; we think it may help some of them to catch up with Philadelphia.

Senator CLARK. I suggest to enable them to catch up quicker than anything else would be to remove the workable program requirements as far as public housing is concerned. But I understand you are opposed to that.

Mr. COLE. I think the Senator understood my statement which I made a moment ago. And I do hope you will examine our statement that the workable program has been flexible and has not been harmful and has been helpful. I hope you will examine that.

Senator CLARK. I certainly will, Mr. Cole. But wouldn't you agree with me that there are a good many cities-and Mr. Slusser, toomany of them smaller cities, where public housing is clearly needed but where no workable program has been forthcoming for a number of reasons, some of which could well be valid. How about that, Mr. Slusser?

Mr. SLUSSER. No; I could not agree with you on that, Senator; strange as it may seem, we have had no trouble with the workable program, with this exception. In one or two rural communities we deal with the county government, and I think that you and I both know that there is a natural resistance there to zoning and planning in some of these county governments. But outside of that, we very frankly have had no problem in any of our communities with the workable program.

Senator CLARK. Could I ask you again at your convenience to read the testimony of the mayors, which is diametrically opposed to what you have just said. They indicate that there is city after city where public housing is badly needed and where there has been no opportunity to obtain a workable program. I am wondering why you feel so strongly, Mr. Slusser, that the workable program should be tied to public housing. I can well understand why it should be tied to urban renewal. But why must it be tied to public housing?

Mr. SLUSSER. Well, I would say under the same principle that for a guidance program and proper planning in the community. I think that if you were to review some of the sites that have been used over the past number of years, it would indicate that much better planning in the community would have placed those properties at some other location.

Senator CLARK. Is it not perhaps because of the philosophy of your organization that public housing should be confined to those who are relocated as a result of urban renewal?

Mr. SLUSSER. No, sir. We build public housing in many places where there are no urban renewal programs.

Senator CLARK. But you are not doing it any more, are you?
Mr. SLUSSER. Oh, yes, sir.

Senator CLARK. So that your testimony is that there is no necessary connection between public housing and urban renewal.

Mr. SLUSSER. Well, I wouldn't say that there is no necessary connection. I think in some communities that there is a needed connection between the two.

Senator CLARK. But in others there is not?

Mr. SLUSSER. There are many localities building public housing where there is not an urban renewal program.

Senator CLARK. Why should you not continue to do that?

Mr. SLUSSER. Well, there is no reason. We are continuing it. Senator CLARK. Then why do you have to have a workable program as a condition precedent to any public housing?

Mr. SLUSSER. Well, as I said before, I think it is a part of the planning of that community, the growth of the community.

Senator CLARK. Could I now shift to another subject, Mr. Slusser. It is my understanding that under the Taft-Ellender-Wagner Act of 1949, 810,000 units of public housing were authorized to be built over a period of years. Can you tell us how many of those have actually been built.

Mr. SLUSSER. 299,663 have been committed for construction.

Senator CLARK. So that there are roughly 510,000 units of that 1949 program still unbuilt.

Mr. SLUSSER. That is correct, yes.

Senator CLARK. Is not the need just as great now as it was in 1949? Mr. SLUSSER. The need?

Senator CLARK. Yes.

Mr. SLUSSER. Yes, there is no question in my mind about that.

Senator CLARK. Then why do you oppose the provision of my bill which would authorize 200,000 units to be built within the next 2 fiscal years?

Mr. SLUSSER. There is not the demand upon the agency. The applications are just not coming in for that amount of housing. Senator CLARK. But the need is there.

Mr. SLUSSER. There is no question in my mind about the need. Going back to the same reference you made, the Taft survey, that indicated there was some 8 million substandard houses in the United States.

Senator CLARK. Why, in your judgment, are the applications not coming in?

Mr. SLUSSER. Well, I think that the sites problem holds up some. I think the slowing down of the program along about 1953, and getting restarted again, has slowed it down some. I think that urban renewal programs in the community, until they can get caught up, have slowed it down some.

Senator CLARK. Would you not say part of it, Mr. Slusser was due to the extremely small authorizations on a 1- or at the most a 2-year basis, which the Congress has authorized in the last few years, so that it is almost impossible for a city to plan sufficiently far ahead with its public housing because they do not know what they are going to be able to get?

Mr. SLUSSER. There may be some, but I would say that would be very slight.

Senator CLARK. I would ask you to comment on the statement which has been repeatedly made that Philadelphia is one city that is in need of 70,000 units of public housing right now and can take them