addition to slum clearance and redevelopment, of the type for which Federal air may be provided under the bill.

However, city governments are usually vested with adequate police powers and authorized to enact and enforce ordinances, codes, and other regulatory measures relating to housing and similar matters covered by the urban renewal legislation. Hence, the redevelopment agency or housing authority-and the city together may have adequate powers under existing law to carry out urban renewal projects of the type for which Federal aid under the bill may be provided. It should be noted that the definition of "local public agency" on page 87, beginning at line 3, is being amended to provide that two or more governmental entities or public bodies authorized to undertake the project for which assistance is sought may be considered as a "local public agency" for Federal aid purposes.

This amendment is intended to authorize contracts for Federal assistance with, for example, both a redevelopment agency and city for an urban renewal project. Thus, the slum clearance and redevelopment powers of the redevelopment agency may be combined with the police powers and other powers of the city government to consummate an urban renewal project of the type authorized under the bill.

Needless to say, amendments of existing State laws so as to bring them in line with the requirements and provisions of the bill will facilitate the program and it is hoped that States will eventually enact the necessary amendatory legislation.

However, until such time as such additional State legislation is enacted, means can be worked out to carry out urban renewal projects through special arrangements and new procedures, including tripartite agreements or separate agreements-involving three parties, namely, the Federal Government, the city, and the redevelopment agency or housing authority.

While communities legally will have to confine themselves only to such urban renewal activities authorized under State and local laws, generally, activities now authorized under such laws may include slum clearance and urban redevelopment activities-approximately twothirds of the States have enabling legislation therefor-the provision of streets, utilities, and other necessary public improvements, planning activities, police power activities involving the enactment and enforcement of codes and regulatory measures, including the enforcement of certain rehabilitation measures and the abatement of nuisances, the promotion of voluntary rehabilitation, and probably certain other activities for which express or implied authority may exist. Where cities have been vested with rather complete home-rule powers, such as cities in Ohio, the need for supplementary State legislation for urban renewal projects may not be as important. In general, however, it is my judgment that urban renewal projects, as least on a limited basis, can be undertaken and carried out in most States without additional legislation, but the enactment of additional State legislation is necesasry and desirable to facilitate carrying out urban renewal programs of the broad type contemplated under the provisions of the bill.

Timing of urban renewal legislation is appropriate: I believe that the enactment of the bill at this time will coincide with a general national recognition of the need for an effective urban renewal program in our cities to end the extravagance and menace of urban decay.

The climate of opinion appears to be more favorable disposed toward urban renewal than at any other time in our history.

The enactment of legislation for an urban renewal program is in tune with a growing interest and determination among the people throughout the land to take remedial action both with respect to the causes of slums and blight and the effects thereof. This growing interest has in large measure been aroused and fostered by industry groups. Ciciv organizations and many other groups now are in the forefront waging the battle to save our cities by urging broad-scale integrated campaigns for slum and blight elimination and prevention. With the help of these various groups and with such a ground swell of interest and enthusiasm, our local communities are in a stronger position now than they ever have been to carry out successful urban renewal programs with the aid of the Federal Government as provided in the bill.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, this program of slum clearance and urban redevelopment has gained considerable momentum. There are now 211 localities which are participating in it. I will give you, in a few moments, the condition of the funds, the authorization. I want to analyze briefly the participation. All but 1 of the 18 cities above 500,000 population are participating, and more than half of the 108 cities above 100,000 population. But in the 3,865 incorporated places, between 2,500 and 5,000, only 150 are participating.

I think that indicates, sir, that the program as now constituted is not too well geared to the small town, and I would like to say, in my opinion, the new program proposed, which includes rehabilitation as well as slum clearance, will be geared to the small town. I think that is a big advantage of the new bill, sir, if I may say so.

The CHAIRMAN. This idea of rehabilitating these old houses will work, in my opinion, easier-I was going to say "better" but I won't say "better," I will say "easier"-in the small town than in the big town. Mr. FOLLIN. That is right, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. There are a lot of towns I know about from 5,000 and up to 25,000, where you could rehabilitate almost every home in the town.

Mr. FOLLIN. That is right, sir. You will appreciate that clearing 1 or 2 or 3 blocks in a small town is a pretty ambitious undertaking. Whereas, if you could go and take a half dozen blocks, pull our several buildings or pockets that are bad and rehabilitate the rest, you will do a real service.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know of a couple of cities nearby that have this program working where we could take the committee and actually see exactly what has happened?

Mr. FOLLIN. Yes, sir, Baltimore is No. 1. They have a project that has been redeveloped to the point where the new housing has been built on the site and you can see it. In Washington, of course, they are starting to demolish. Philadelphia is another good place. The CHAIRMAN. How about a smaller town.

Mr. FOLLIN. A small town near here-Norfolk, I guess you wouldn't consider a small town-there isn't a small town right close to Washington but we can find you one if you want to go a little farther away. The CHAIRMAN. Will you proceed.

Mr. FOLLIN. Now, on the matter of funds, the title I at present authorizes $500 million in grants, and $1 billion in repayable loans. So

far, the 1952 projects which have been put under loan and grant contract call for about $105 million of the $500 million authorization for grants, and other projects which are in the pipeline and that are getting ready very soon for grants will absorb approximately another $150 million of grants, leaving clear at least a quarter of a billion or $250 million.

On the grant side, so far, only $74 million is actually committed. and much of that, of course, has not been issued in Federal grants because they have taken the pledge of the Federal loan and borrowed the money outside at a lower interest rate, thereby reducing the cost of the project and reducing the Federal grant, incidentally. So there is plenty of grant money left and plenty of loan money, we think for the present, and no additional authorization need be asked for at this time.

Mr. COLE. The President has said if this money is not sufficient he would not hesitate to ask for more, but we think for the present time it is.

The CHAIRMAN. I have noticed they don't hesitate to ask for more. That has been the record for the last 25 years.

Mr. FOLLIN. I think Mr. Cole has made clear, Mr. Chairman, the fact that present projects can be carried under present laws without any change. In other words, the changes in this Federal law will not interfere with any project now underway or any project which is in the pipeline.

Furthermore, we are of the opinion that broadened projects as proposed under the bill can be carried on in most localities without much additional State legislation. Perhaps not every detail of a broad program can be done, but quite generally it can be done. It may be that the redevelopment agency, or the housing agency, or the other local public agency which is handling the project may not, itself, have the authority under the State law, or its particular foundation, to handle all details of the project, but the city, itself, of course, has police powers and other authorities under other laws which we believe will enable them generally to broaden the project, even at the present time. However, it probably will be both desirable and necessary that there be State legislation in some States at least, to be sure that the projects can be carried on, in the broadest possible way.

Just one other thing I would like to add: I think the time of the broadening of this program is most propitious. There is, at this time, a great interest, as you know, in the industry itself in improving housing. The real-estate boards, the home builders, the architects, the material people and others have all at this time gone on record as favoring the rehabilitation of our existing housing inventory, and they have definite promotional programs underway which will do much to spread the gospel to the point where we probably shall have to do over a limited amount under the Urban Renewal Service, which is provided for.

I think there is a real ground swell of interest in national and local communities in this whole proposition, and therefore broadening our program at this time will provide the help that will be needed to make much of that local effort effective. After all, this is a local program with only the Federal Government standing by with funds, if needed, to help those who help themselves.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I think that sums up the statement I have made.

I did have some information here which would supply an answer to the question that Senator Douglas raised the other day as to the amount of public housing which has been built in these redevelopment projects, and also as to the eligibility of the displaced families for public housing. Since the Senator is not here to interrogate me further, I wonder if you would prefer our filing a statement to go in the record at this point.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you could just as well file it and place it in the record.

Mr. FOLLIN. We will prepare that and add it in the record. (See pp. 90-92, 100.)

Mr. COLE. Senator, we are through with that.

The CHAIRMAN. Since I have been away in the last couple days, let me ask if we are about finished with the Government witnesses.

Mr. COLE. The last I have is this assistance for research of planned public works. Mr. John C. Hazeltine, the Commissioner, is here and I want to introduce him.

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to see you, Mr. Hazeltine. Everybody you do business with seems to approve of what you do.

Mr. COLE. The bill would also carry out the President's recommendations contained in his budget message and in his economic report with respect to Federal assistance to States and communities for the advance planning of State and local public works.

The advance planning of such public works has long been recognized as a valuable tool in establishing and maintaining a high level of operation in the construction industry which is an important factor in the maintenance of a healthy national economy. A substantial volume of planned State and local public works could be very useful in helping to stabilize the construction industry, and, in turn, economic activity in general.

It is, in my judgment, a sensible and economical form of insurance which will enable the states and their local public bodies to proceed promptly to expand the volume of the construction of worthwhile public works in the event that economic conditions should, at any time, make such action desirable.

These provisions of the bill are somewhat similar to the former advance planning laws, but, dollarwise, are on a more modest scale, since the funds authorized would be limited to $10 million. In order to achieve the maximum benefit from such funds, we expect to confine, to the greatest extent possible, the use of the Federal advances to the preparation of preliminary plans for specific public works in lieu of fully completed plans.

Obsolescence of plans will be materially reduced by emphasis on preliminary planning and completion of detailed planning at the time of construction. This should be an important factor in recovery of advances. Also, by this procedure, it is estimated that preliminary plans for 2,200 public works projects, with an average estimated construction cost of $300,000 each, can be provided with the $10 million. It is estimated roughly that construction costs of the 2,200 projects should amount to approximately $660 million. The average Federal advance per project would be some $4,500, or about 28 percent of the average cost of obtaining fully completed plans under the second ad

vance planning program undertaken by the Federal Government of 1949.

There are two particular features of these provisions of the bill which I wish to emphasize. The first is that the Federal funds are in no sense outright gifts, as is true in the case of grant-in-aid legislation. These advances become fully repayable when the sponsors of the projects commence the construction of the public works contemplated by such planning.

Accordingly, the program which would be authorized by this bill is in the general nature of a self-liquidating program, with overall benefits of an additional value which naturally accrue to the communities in particular and the nation as a whole from the provision of sound and useful public works. The second is that full control over the selection of each proposed public works project is at the State and local levels, since no advance can be made for any project unless the project conforms to an overall State, local, or regional plan approved by a competent State, local, or regional authority.

The operations of our agency having to do with two earlier advance planning programs authorized by the Congress are carried out under the supervision of Mr. John Hazeltine, my new Commissioner of Community Facilities. He is here with me today and I would like you to meet him and get acquainted with him.

I have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that there is no objection to the presentation of this statement for the consideration of your commitee, and that the enactment of the bill would be in accord with the program of the President.

The CHAIRMAN. We have a bill in regard to community facilities— where is that piece of legislation?

Mr. COLE. You have legislation introduced by Senator Douglas, I believe.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Douglas or Senator Sparkman?

Mr. COLE. Well, it is either Senator Douglas or Senator Sparkman, I am not sure.

The CHAIRMAN. What happened was that, under the law, the RFC was administering it, were they not?

Mr. COLE. Well, under the law, an authorization was enacted providing for loans to municipalities. That does not, however, meet quite the same objective as provided for in the community facilities program under Public Law 139.

The CHAIRMAN. When we passed a law liquidating RFC we directed the President to assign that specific duty to someone else, and I understand he hasn't done it. Is that correct?

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Senator, the authorization to appropriate $25 million was enacted but no funds were appropriated, I assume that probably the reason nobody has been designated is that no money is available for loans at present.

The CHAIRMAN. No money was ever requested. It would be hard to get the Appropriations Committee to appropriate if nobody requests. I think we are interested in seeing that the President appoint some agency to handle this matter, and also that an appropriation is made for this purpose.

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Senator, also there is a very major distinction between that program and the advance planning program author