In addition to extending the program, the proposed legislation seeks to simplify certain complex requirements which were included in the Housing Act of 1954, while at the same time adhering to the general philosophy then established by the Congress.

Under the present law, new public housing contracts can be entered into only in communities which have adopted a workable program for the elimination of their slums. This requirement is continued in the proposed legislation, but in addition, any community which had undertaken a title I slum clearance project prior to the adoption of the Housing Act of 1954 could also qualify for low-rent housing. This parallels a similar provision applicable to FHA mortgage insurance under section 221.

The Housing Act of 1954, in addition to requiring a workable program, went further and provided that a community to be eligible for public housing must also be receiving aid from the Federal Government for a title I slum clearance or urban renewal project. Since there are many other ways in which a local government can eliminate slums pursuant to its workable program, it seems unfair to deny public housing to a local authority which proceeds on its own steam without asking for Federal assistance under the title I program. Moreover, the requirement that a title I project be started in a locality before a contract can be made for low-rent housing is on its face inconsistent. No matter how fast a public housing project were speeded up, it could hardly be planned, constructed, and ready for occupancy by the time the title I project was ready to clear its slum area and displace families. For these reasons, the proposed legislation omits the requirement that the carrying out of a title I project be a condition precedent to any new annual contributions contract for low-rent housing. This change will put public housing on the same basis in this respect as FHA mortgage insurance under section 221.

The present act also contains a requirement that before a new annual contributions contract can be entered into, the local governing body must certify that public housing is needed for families displayed by a title I slum clearance or urban renewal project. Since it is proposed that the carrying out of such a title I project be no longer a prerequisite to the provision of public housing, the present bill removes this provision and instead requires that the local governing body adopt a resolution approving the number of units to be provided under the new contract. This requirement will give the assurance, desired by the Congress, that the provision of additional public housing is in accordance with the wishes of the respective communities. Under the pending bill, the Housing and Home Finance Administrator will be required to find that the number of new public housing units to be provided does not exceed the number of families of low income, eligible for admission to low-rent housing, which he estimates will be displaced within the metropolitan or housing market area of the locality as a result of public slum clearance, urban renewal, or other governmental action. The present law requires that the Administrator determine that the number of new units will not exceed the number of units to be needed for such displaced families. The proposed change will make it clear that the Administrator, in making his determination, is not required to take account of units which may become available from time to time in existing low-rent housing proj

ects. This will permit new housing to be provided for displaced families without affecting occupancy in existing projects, which could then continue to serve other eligible low-income families. Such families include those (1) who leave the slums on their own initiative without being forced out as a result of governmental action, (2) who are displaced by private enterprise which is clearing a slum site on its own initiative, or (3) who are displaced as a result of fire or other catastrophe.

The changes in requirements which I have just outlined seem to me to be essential. They will maintain the basic purpose of meeting the relocation needs of families of low income displaced by the clearing or elimination of slums, but will permit a flexibility which is necessary to meet the many various conditions which arise in different communities. With these changes we are confident that the extended program proposed in this bill can be administered with maximum

success.

Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you, Mr. Slusser. You believe that these changes which you propose will give you a workable law, is that correct?

Mr. SLUSSER. Yes; we do. I believe these will aid us greatly in carrying out what the Congress intended by the allocation of a certain number of units.

Senator LEHMAN. I happened to be out of the room when you read most of this statement. I have great interest in your reference to public housing and the 35,000 units. Of course, I was not in the Senate at the time, but as I recall when that housing program was first initiated under President Truman it called for 140,000 units for a period of 4 years.

Senator SPARKMAN. 135,000 in 6 years.

Senator LEHMAN. The idea was to make it a continuing program, which would have accomplished just what you have set forth here. And later when President Eisenhower came in, as I recall it, he also recommended a substantial number of houses in public housing for a period of 4 years, a total of 140,000, and that also contemplated a continuing program. Now we have reached the point where we have just this 1-year program on a very, very inadequate scale, I believe, circumscribed by this condition of a limited period. You favor a continuing program. Even if it might be an inadequate or small program, you nonetheless feel there should not be a cutoff in 1 year or 2 years, but that it should be a continuing program for a period of years. Am I correct in that?

Mr. SLUSSER. Actually, Senator, what we are asking for is a biennium rather than a yearly date, because it is impossible for us to get all of the necessary things together, for a number of authorities to acquire sites and to get the contract signed within a year's period. Thirty-five thousand units is a modest program, but that becomes quite a big task when you try to do it within a year and go through all the mechanics required to do that. We suggest a biennium or 2-year period of time under each allocation that is granted. That will give us time to get them under contract, and we can get them under construction at a later date when we are not pressured and pushed and hurried into a position.

Senator LEHMAN. I think a 2-year program would be better than a 1-year program, but I think a 6-year program or at least a 4-year program would be very considerably better.

Mr. SLUSSER. The program as we have proposed here, if the Congress grants the rest of the program which the President has requested, will go over the next number of years, but what we are saying in effect is that if the allocation is 35,000 units for this year, then give us at least 2 years to get them under contract.

Senator LEHMAN. May I make an observation?

Senator SPARKMAN. Yes.

Senator LEHMAN. I very much hope this committee will recommend and Congress adopt a program providing for a very substantial and greater number of public housing units than the 35,000 units now authorized, and that that program will cover a substantially longer period.

Senator SPARKMAN. Let me see if I am correct in my understanding. The net result of the present recommendation would be to provide for the completion of the present 35,000, plus a biennium of 35,000 each.

year.

Mr. SLUSSER. That is right.

Senator SPARKMAN. And your thought is that in the biennium at least you have the assurance that you have 2 years in which to work this out?

Mr. SLUSSER. That is right, sir.

Senator SPARKMAN. That does not necessarily mean that is the end of the program, but it is the present authorization. Congress can a year from now or 2 years from now project it forward again if it seesfit to do so.

Mr. SLUSSER. That is right.

Senator CAPEHART. What you want to do is have the Congress keep you 2 years ahead.

Mr. SLUSSER. That is right, sir. You see, as it is now, with this rush coming in, everyone trying to get in under a deadline date, we cannot do our best at site selection and other conditions that should make a better program if we had more time to work it out.

Senator LEHMAN. Would you not be better off if you had more time even than 2 years to work it out? That is a pretty short period, because by the end of the first year you will already be contemplating cutting off.

Mr. SLUSSER. We believe that in 2 years that the local authorities: should be prepared with their sites and have a knowledge of what their program is going to be enough that they can get in their preliminary planning, so that we can review that, and then get to the final planning so that we can give them the contract. After it is undercontract, then it is a matter of timing to go into the construction phase and he construction contract. But I am talking about the contract between the PHA and the local authority.

Senator PAYNE. Do I understand, Mr. Slusser, that you have only about 240 units presently approved?

Mr. SLUSSER. At the present time?

Senator PAYNE. Yes.

Mr. SLUSSER. We have 142 under contract.

Senator PAYNE. One hundred forty-two?

Mr. SLUSSER. Under contract, but we have also allocated to the various communities about 26,000 units.

Senator PAYNE. And I think I understood you to say that approximately 15,000 or some such number probably would be allocated before it expires?

Mr. SLUSSER. That we will be able to get under contract before the deadline of June 30 unless the Congress extends that 35,000 units into the next year. Then that will give us time to work out the rest of the program.

Senator PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I have just one other question. Are you going to comment with reference to the bill that Senator Sparkman has introduced here with regard to homes for the aged?

Mr. COLE. Senator, before Mr. Slusser came in Senator Sparkman called that to our attention, and we will take it up at the pleasure, of course, of the committee. We expect to comment on it, yes.

Senator SPARKMAN. I was going to suggest that, since we are scheduled to have the same group before us tomorrow, and Mr. Cole has informed me that he can be here until 11 o'clock or so in the morning, that that would be a good time to take it up. This might be a good place to cut off now.

Senator LEHMAN. May I just ask one more question?
Senator SPARKMAN. Surely.

Senator LEHMAN. I am very much interested in the statement with regard to public housing. I think Mr. Cole knows how I feel about it, and I think everyone knows how I feel about it. The facts that you have given this morning, if I understood you correctly, mean that you may be able to contract before June 30 15,000 or 20,000, and of course there is only about 7 weeks to go. But assuming that your figures are right, with the inadequate number of 35,000 that were authorized, 15,000 or 20,000 will never be built unless you get an extension. That would be true under any legislation as long as there is this time limit.

Mr. SLUSSER. You understand that under the 1949 act we had some 36.000 units under annual contributions contracts. Now, we will build this year out of that old program some 15,000 or 18,000 units, leaving some 18,000 units for future construction. Plus what we are getting under contract now, that will run us to thirty or thirty-five thousand units that we will actually get under construction next year.

Senator LEHMAN. That is true, but I remember when this question came up on the floor of the Senate for debate that Senator Sparkman and I think some others pointed out the inadequacy of this authorization, and we were told there is this large carryover from last year, plus the 35,000 that would be authorized. Well, now, of course, it has not worked out that way, because while the original carryover may be used, we are certainly not going to use this 35,000. That was given Justification for limiting the number to 35,000. I recall that very clearly.

Senator SPARKMAN. I would just like to throw out this thought. Of course, the great trouble last year, as I see it, was that we tied the program too closely with other parts. In other words, there were certain conditions and restrictions put on there that they could not operate under. I still am somewhat concerned about tieing it in with slum clearance and urban renewal. However, in our dis

cussions in the conference the other day, as I understand it-and I want to see if I am correct on this the real requirement is that the city or town, or I suppose it could be some other governmental unit, going in and contracting with the Government for public housing units, would have to show that it had a plan for improvement. That might be slum clearance. It might be urban renewal, or it might be one of several different things. But the objective is to have a plan for the improvement of living conditions there in which this would fit.

Mr. COLE. That is the basic philosophy of the Housing Act of 1954; yes, sir. That is true.

Senator SPARKMAN. The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

Whereupon, at 12: 12 p. m., the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a. m., Wednesday, May 11, 1955.)