Mr. FOLEY. I think, Congressman, we should not cease studying every possible alternative method. I also think we should not stop and wait until we have developed one.

(The material referred to above is as follows:)

1 The figures used in this column are actual average figures for local housing authority fiscal years ending in the calendar year 1947.

2 50-year amortization at interest rate of 21 percent per annum.

3 Actual total average development cost per unit of projects developed under the United States Housing Act of 1937. Actual average of payment in lieu of taxes.

Service cost on mortgage based on one-half of 1 percent of average balance.

Mr. FLETCHER. I also wanted to know whether you are aware of the danger that a certain number of people who are going to get houses under this plan, and properly so, if they are the most needy and cannot pay the going economic rent-where are we going to draw the line? Does that not mean that the person in the next bracket just above that person who gets a house is going to be the next person to demand a house, and if the Federal Government provides it for this person, it must provide it for the next and the next? Where do you envision the end of this? Does it mean we are going to socialize all the housing of the country before we get through?

Mr. FOLEY. No; I envision the end of it, Congressman-and I have very strong conviction and enthusiasm on this point-in our really being able to accomplish, through private enterprise, what needs to be accomplished with the tools we have which are imperfect, it is true, and by other tools which we will develop as we go on. I am unable to make myself believe that in a nation that has been able to do so much industrially, and in the application of democratic principles in the use of our resources to meet our other needs, that we are not going to be able to develop a system of building houses and of renting or selling them, whereby the great mass of the people of this country will be able to proceed through private channels.

I think our major effort must be in that direction. It is true, as you state, that wherever you draw a dividing line, as you must-especially where a program is partial-there will be those on the other side of the line who think they ought to be in it. That experience we have had, of course, in everything else we have attempted to do in the way of

governmental aid in other fields, and we do have to draw a dividing line.

Mr. BUCHANAN. One further final question, Mr. Foley. Could you give us an estimate of the total authorization for the over-all program? Mr. FOLEY. An estimate of the total authorization?

Mr. BUCHANAN. Yes.

Mr. FOLEY. We have a table on that. I will not try to give it to you from memory.

Mr. BUCHANAN. It seems to me the figure amounts to $6,500,000,000. I am just wondering whether that is correct.

Mr. FOLEY. This table, which I will be glad to furnish for the record, by the way, analyzes and merely sets out in tabular form the various authorizations contained in the bill.

Mr. GAMBLE. Which title, Mr. Foley?

Mr. FOLEY. For instance, the Federal Housing Administration title VI extension authorizes up to $1,600,000,000 additional authorization. The Federal Housing Administration title I program authorizes 10,000,000 dollars additional contingent risk to be taken-that is 10,000,000 dollars of insurance authorization to support it.

The Federal Housing Administration yield insurance program, capital subscriptions, would be 10,000,000 dollars. The authorization for risk would be 1,000,000,000 dollars.

The secondary market program, as set up in the bill, involves a 5-million-dollar capitalization, 250,000,000 dollars direct authority to buy loans, and 250 million dollars in the present, for a total of a half billion dollars plus the amount required to pay for loans taken over from the Federal National Mortgage Association.

Slum clearance and urban redevelopment, as I outlined before, $1,010,000,000—that is on loans and 500,000,000 dollars maximum on capital grants.

The low rent housing part of the program, on an ascending schedule, up to 160,000,000 dollars per year of assistance through subsidies, which would be reached at the end of 5 percent, and which could continue for the remainder of 40 years.

I will be glad to furnish this table for the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Will that give us the total amount of obligations provided for in the bill?

Mr. FOLEY. That is true, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GAMBLE. What is the total?

Mr. FOLEY. I do not have them totaled up here.

Mr. BUCHANAN. $6,400,000,000, I believe.

Mr. MONRONEY. A lot of that is just contingent.

Mr. FOLEY. That is right. You see there is a variety of situations. Some are contingent risk and insurance, others are capital grants. Mr. MONRONEY. I think you should separate that in your totals because Federal Housing Administration up to now is showing a profit and we certainly do not want to show it as a $6,400,000,000 expense. Mr. FOLEY. They are set up in this table on that basis.

The CHAIRMAN. That table may be inserted in the record at this point.

hanged. The method of applying it, as I have een changed.

you explain what is meant by that language f low income' means families who are in the nd who cannot afford to pay enough to cause heir locality or metropolitan area to build an lecent, safe, and sanitary dwellings for their what does that mean?

Congressman, the meaning is reasonably clear f, as a basic definition. The problem always round applying it to local conditions. That is presents its difficulties. Actually in applying it, ind is not only to determine whether or not, the s are able to pay, can result in the building new ply, but whether, in new or old, there is decent, housing available for their use. That gives a

not think that touches my question. sorry, Congressman.

s this mean that the housing starts with the people west income, and goes on up to cover the program, art and where does it end?

starts, Congressman, as to income limits with the income who are applicants in the community, and ised, to start with, and it ends, under the present settermined locally, which is at least 20 percent below ups are being served locally with an adequate supply

-nder the United States Housing Authority Act, were e families provided with homes?

am not sure I understand your question, Congressman, er it as I understand it.

Did the United States Housing Authority Act actually for the lowest income group?

Yes, on the basis that I have just outlined to you, and d of selection. The admissions are all on that basis, What has happened, as I outlined earlier, is that durperiod families that were admitted under that test her incomes and because of the conditions could not be

. They have to pay a certain rent. Is it your contention y poorest people in the country are able to pay the rent ed to be paid under the United States Housing Authority

. Without knowing, Congressman, just how poor the very ple in the country are, it would be difficult to answer the am quite sure that under the limitations of the act itself, re certain levels of rent to be set because of limitations upon y that can be made, there probably are-in fact, I am are-persons who are not able to pay even that rent. Such ite frequently, are the ones we find as welfare cases.

TH. You would certainly have statistics covering that point, not?

(The table referred to is as follows:)

Financing under S. 866, as passed by Senate (not including amounts for housing for paraplegics under title VII1)

1 The additional $1,000,000,000 to be available only with approval of the President. 2 Authorization is with respect to amount that may be outstanding.

3 The second $250,000,000 to be available only with approval of the President.

4 The authorization is with respect to outstanding amount and consists of an initial authorization of $10,000,000 in fiscal 1949, increasing by $200,000,000 in fiscal 1950, and by a like amount in fiscal 1951, 1952, 1953, and 1954, respectively. Funds not to be disbursable, however, for use in purchase of land before fiscal 1950.

5 The subsidy commitment is in form of nonrecurring capital grant. Funds under fiscal 1949 commitments not to be disbursable, however, for use in purchase of land until fiscal 1950.

6 The subsidy commitment is in form of annual contributions limited to periods not exceeding 40 years. 7 The authorization consists of $25,000,000 initial authorization in fiscal 1949, with additional authorizations of $50,000,000, $75,000,000, and $100,000,000, for fiscal 1950, 1951, and 1952, respectively.

The columns under this heading indicate year in which contract to make subsidy may be made; payment of subsidy may actually not be made until later fiscal year.

The subsidy commitment is in form of annual contributions limited to periods not exceeding 10 years.

The CHAIRMAN. If you care to make a statement, I think it would be helpful to the committee, in compliance with the suggestion which has been made, to break that down into contingent and actual liability. Mr. FOLEY. I will be glad to do that, Congressman.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. Is the term "families of low income" defined anywhere under title VI of the pending bill, S. 866?

Mr. FOLEY. The definition, Congressman, is in the United States Housing Act, which is amended by S. 866. That act says:

The term "families of low income" means families who are in the lowest income group and who cannot afford to pay enough to cause private enterprise in their locality or metropolitan area to build an adequate supply of decent, safe and sanitary dwellings for their use.

That is the definition previously adopted by Congress.

Mr. SMITH. Is that definition changed in the pending bill?