Senator DOUGLAS. If it is not a substitute, why not go through on the 1949 program? Mr. COLE. It is not a substitute for it. What is more, we say it is an experimental program, but if it works successfully, sir, it is my judgment that it will relieve the pressure on some of the needs of public housing. How much, I don't know. There isn't any way for me to tell you until we have it under operation for a while, to determine. It is the only thing which we are presenting here, however, to assist people in low incomes to secure housing. We think that part of the problem is merely the business of getting housing to people-people in this Nation who need housing, who are above-a little bit above the low-income class, the lower middle-income class. We think that there are provisions and tools in this bill which will assist those people to obtain housing and thus supply greater housing for the needs of the people. We think the rehabilitation program will assist in providing housing. None of these, Senator, will answer the entire problem, but that is one basis upon which we have made the decision. May I also say that while this is not the primary, or the basic reason, the 35,000 unit was one which had been accepted prior to the time that we came into office. It was one which I believe the Public Housing Administration can live with. By that, I mean in their organization they have the staff to handle it. The 35,000 figure is one which quite frankly and truthfully that I think is about the high figure that would be accepted. It is an effort to take public housing out of the political football field and try to say, "We recognize this problem. We are not walking away from it. We are attempting to do a job within the ability which we have, within the limitations which we see in the future, to do the best we can to accomplish it." That may be complex and involved, but it does show the Senator that it was not any single one of these things which was controlling in making this decision-it was a combination of many things; trying to reconcile various differences of opinion and trying to present to the people a program which would be generally acceptable, which we could all get behind and say, "This doesn't answer the problem, but this is a step. This is a trial. This is an effort." and I am sure the Senator agrees with me that today the issue, the controversies, the great controversies of the past have settled down somewhat. Senator DOUGLAS. They have settled down, because those who objected to the program have won the battle. Naturally, if you win the battle and swallow the baby, you don't question Mr. COLE. I am sorry, I don't agree with that, if I may respectfully disagree. I think it settled down because people for some public housing are now beginning to realize there is a need in this field and it is recognized and we want to move forward as fast as we can to accomplish the objective. I see it because I have talked to thousands of people in the last year all over this country of ours, and I see a great desire on the part of the people to really accomplish this goal, and I think we have made a step. I think we have made a long step. Senator DOUGLAS. Mr. Cole, why wouldn't it be a good idea if we had more flexibility to this provision? The original bill provided that within a total of 810,000, an average of 135,000 units a year, you could go up to 185,000 in years of business contraction or rolling readjustment or down to 85,000 in years of high prosperity. Mr. COLE. That has been Senator DOUGLAS. Why not, instead of having a flat 35,000, why not have a provision that you could go up to 100,000, or down to 20,000, upon the decision of the President? Mr. COLE. I think it is a very interesting proposal, sir, and it has been in the thinking of many people. Let me put it this way: We are trying to get housing to people who need it by reason of their lack of housing and on the basis of need, and really that is a primary reason for public housing. I have resisted somewhat the idea of placing public housing on the basis of a countercyclical program. Fundamentally it seems to me we should put it on the basis of need and what we can accomplish. Senator DOUGLAS. If you are only meeting a small amount of the need with the flat appropriation, why not have it flexible so you could possibly kill 2 birds with 1 stone? Certainly you would alleviate real needs and second, counter some countercyclical performance. Mr. COLE. We might obtain considerable support for that position. Senator DOUGLAS. I hope so. I hope we may have your support. I think it would strengthen us very much if we did. Mr. COLE. You are very kind to say so. I am not sure it would help. Senator BRICKER. Have you a breakdown as to where these publichousing units have been built? Mr. COLE. All of them, sir? Senator BRICKER. Yes. Mr. COLE. Yes. Senator BRICKER. Will you put that in the record? Mr. COLE. Yes. We will be glad to. (The information requested follows:) LOW-RENT PUBLIC HOUSING UNDER PROGRAMS OF THE PUBLIC HOUSING ADMINISTRATION AS OF FEBRUARY 28, 1954 The following listing contains the locations of all low-rent public-housing projects built or being built under programs administered by the Public Housing Administration, as of February 28, 1954. This includes units under the original United States Housing Act of 1937 and units under the Housing Act of 1949. The number of units given for each location includes all units allocated to be started during fiscal 1954, as well as those in operation or under construction on February 28, 1954. Number of low-rent public housing dwelling units completed or under Number of low-rent public housing dwelling units completed or under |