housing, and second that there is in effect in such section or neighborhood a workable program such as is currently a requirement for renewal funds?

Secretary WEAVER. Well, as far as the first is concerned, I think that we are in complete agreement as to the objective. The bill requires that there be an impact on slums and blighted areas, and that there be an impact on low-income families. In order to qualify for this program you would have to deal with areas which have high priorities according to the criteria which you have described. The difficulty here I think is this, if you establish a high-priority system it might require the city to select, as between several areas, that one that had the highest index on these criteria rather than meeting them in general. Mr. ASHLEY. Why don't you want to do that anyway, Doctor? Secretary WEAVER. Well, I think there is a problem here, sir. It may well be that the first area that you select for this program may not be the worst area. It has got to be a bad area. It has got to have all the criteria that you mentioned

Mr. ASHLEY. But you have got a year's planning.

Secretary WEAVER. But my point is this, that it may well be that you not only have a question of tearing that area down where it is bad and rehabilitating it where it is not too bad, but you would also have the possibility of getting your first proposal, your demonstration proposal, a successful one. And it may be that the area that will lend itself to the initial success while you are learning and experimenting may not be the worst area. It has got to be a bad area. And I think you should have that flexibility in order to make the program work.

As to the workable program, the workable program concept is a citywide concept. The elements in the workable program cannot be segmented. But in order for any city to qualify for this it would have to be making use of some of the programs, such as low-rent housing or urban renewal which already require a workable program. So this will be accomplished by the existing situation and while I agree with the purpose of the amendment, it is really not necessary. Mr. BARRETT. Mrs. Dwyer?

Mrs. DWYER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Secretary, both you and the President as well as other top administrative officials concerned with urban affairs have frequently emphasized the essential character of an efficient mass transit system as a part of a healthy metropolitan area. Mr. Secretary, do you expect to retain jurisdiction over your Department's present mass transportation program under the President's proposed Department of Transportation?

Secretary WEAVER. I am afraid I won't make that decision, but I think that decision will be indicated, or at least the line of that decision will be indicated sometime this week when the President's message on transportation comes up to the Congress.

Mrs. DWYER. But could that mean that you lose jurisdiction? Secretary WEAVER. I think you will have to wait until the message

comes up.

Mrs. DWYER. Thank you.

Mr. Secretary, I understand H.R. 12341 carries authorization for two programs over a 6-year period. How much are H.R. 12946 and H.R. 13064 going to cost the Federal taxpayer?

Secretary WEAVER. I cannot give that off the top of my head, but I

will supply it for the record.

Mrs. DWYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(The information referred to follows:)

PROPOSED HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT LEGISLATION FOR 1966

1 AA-Authorization for appropriations; BA-Borrowing authorization. ? These programs would be financed by annual appropriations which are authorized in the proposed legislation without maximum limitation.

Not available. Not specified in legislation, or not estimated beyond indicated program levels. Urban planning assistance grants in support of this program would be provided from the existing statutory authorization.

This program would be funded from the existing statutory authorization for public facility loans. The $95,000,000 authorization proposed, together with the $55,000,000 balance of present authorizations, would permit a program level of $150,000,000 in fiscal 1968. Appropriations would be requested in fiscal year 1967 to become available in fiscal year 1968.

The bill would provide authorization of $5,000,000 for each of the first 2 years of the program, after which no maximum limit is provided.

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Moorhead?

Mr. MOORHEAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, let me say that it gives me great pleasure to address you by that title, sir.

Secretary WEAVER. Thank you.

Mr. MOORHEAD. I would like for you to address your attention to the structure of your Department, particularly as it would apply to my area of Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh is located in a county where we have some 128 separate municipal governments, and the Pittsburgh labor market covers 4 counties. Am I correct, sir, that if they city came to your Department with, let's say, an ordinary urban renewal pro

gram, it would go to the Assistant Secretary for housing and urban assistance, is that correct?

Secretary WEAVER. Well, actually what will happen under the reorganization plan is that we will decentralize to a new degree-and I think somewhat unique degree-the decisionmaking in the Department. And that particular urban renewal project would go to the regional office, where the regional administrator would be authorized under our reorganization plan that was announced last Friday to make a decision as to whether or not this was eligible, and whether or not it would get Federal financing. And unless there were problems of a peculiar nature, and unless there was an interpretation of policy, this decision would be made at the local level, a recommendation from the regional office would be made to Washington, and the announcement of it would be made to Washington. It would not be processed again in the headquarters. This, however, if there were problems which required it being escalated, would come under the Assistant Secretary for Renewal and Housing Assistance.

Mr. MOORHEAD. If our county had a problem that had to be escalated, it would be escalated to the Assistant Secretary for Metropolitan Development, is that correct?

Secretary WEAVER. In most instances, yes. It is awfully hard to make these absolute tight compartments.

Mr. MOORHEAD. But if we came to you with a four-county program, and again it had to be escalated, it would then go to the Assistant Secretary for Demonstrations and Intergovernmental Relations?

Secretary WEAVER. No; it would go to the Assistant Secretary for Metropolitan Development.

Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Secretary, on page 21 of your testimony, in describing private enterprise working with public housing authorities, you say that "This results in costs substantially lower than can be achieved when the authorities plan and construct the housing themselves." Why is this?

Secretary WEAVER. Well, it is because of several circumstances. In the first place, the overhead cost becomes greater in a public undertaking. In the second place, all of the restrictions that are placed upon contract awards, competitive bidding, and all of this other type of thing that are involved in a public agency becoming the contractor, become higher. And many of the fees that are charges become greater where the Federal or a local government is concerned. Also, the Federal Government has a great deal more statutory and regulatory inspection and protective devices which are not necessary in a private approach. If a private building meets the specifications, then this is not a problem. If it does not meet the specifications, you don't buy it. If a private company produces the products and does not meet the specifications, it wastes its money and not that of the Federal Government.

Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Ashley asked you to comment on one of the four amendments proposed. I wonder if you could care to comment on the other three.

Secretary WEAVER. Surely. I think if you will identify them I will take them.

Mr. MOORHEAD. Let's start with No. 4, the program for research, development, and demonstration of new systems of urban transport.

Secretary WEAVER. We have no objection to the objectives of any of these amendments. We do question sometimes whether or not they would be the best method of achieving a result.

One of the things that has struck me in the mass transit field is the fact that the real problem here is not the great, exciting breakthroughs which are going to come or even a new system which is going to revitalize the way everybody moves, as important as they may be over the long run. But the real problem is, as it is in housing construction, and as it is in urban development, and urban renewal, to get these various new technological components, of which we have a large number, into a system so that will work and get some consumer acceptance of them.

Let me illustrate. We have a demonstration project in California which involves a new type of mass transit system with the Bay Area Rapid Transit Authority. And here the problem was not one of getting a better electric motor, a better type of wheel, a better type of suspension, or a system of automation, but of putting all these together. And the first thing we discovered was that lo and behold, what nobody had contemplated, you had to get a different size of track, a wider one or narrower one, I don't know which.

So putting the components together and trying them out and seeing if they can be integrated is where I think the big need is.

Secondly, assuming that you want to do what is proposed here, which is basic research-and I have no objection to it-then I would say that the 2-year limit as I recall that you have on is too tight. It is going to be a much longer term affair. I think the priorities ought to be in putting it together rather than the great breakthroughs, but I am perfectly willing to have both if we can get them.

Mr. MOORHEAD. Do I understand that you would be willing to accept this proposed amendment, is that correct, sir?

Secretary WEAVER. I would say that we don't have any objection to this proposed amendment as to its purpose and use. If there is a question between this amendment and the type of amendment that would do the system approach, we would say the system approach should have higher priority. We would not want this to knock out the other.

Mr. BARRETT. The time of the gentleman has expired.

I think the Secretary can answer the questions on the other two amendments this afternoon, Mr. Moorhead.

Mr. Stephens?

Mr. STEPHENS. Mr. Secretary, we have with us two acts, the Demonstration Cities Act of 1966 and the Urban Development Act of this year. I don't understand why you want two separate acts. It seems to me that when you talk about new cities and urban renewal that the only difference is whether you are going to call it a Latin name or an English name. I would like to have you explain why you feel it is necessary to put these in two different acts.

Secretary WEAVER. If the question involves the combination of the provisions of these two programs in a single act we would have no objection to that. I think this developed out of the exigencies of the situation rather than for any philosohical consideration.

Mr. STEPHENS. I wanted to be sure that I understood that, because I feel like for several years we have rejected the proposals for demon

stration cities in the urban renewal program. Now this would come in as a separate kind of activity from urban renewal. However, I hope that the urban renewal programs that are in my district, that are going on in my district, will truthfully meet a demonstration of the work ability and the feasibility, and the desirability of urban renewal. And I think that the Demonstration Cities Act has that same objective. Secretary WEAVER. I certainly think that it represents an evolutionary step on a higher level of the original concept of the urban renewal approach.

And secondly, of course, the principal ingredient in it as far as the grant-in-aid programs are concerned on which you will compute the supplemental amount is the urban renewal consideration. So it is definitely related. And I would say it is a member of the same family, but a little different type of offspring from the earlier one.

Mr. STEPHENS. I would like to see it put all together in one act, or one amendment to the act. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. St Germain ?

Mr. ST GERMAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, in going over this legislation, the summaries, and the varied opinions and interpretations of the press, I am wondering if perhaps we are not getting into another situation that might be likened to the war on poverty or the OEO, where much confusion abounds, and nobody knows really where they are going or how or why.

With all due respect, in going over the summary of the act itself, I feel that there are so many open ends involved that we may end up just as bad if not worse.

Now, in your testimony, Mr. Secretary, on page 14 you mentioned that:

It is expected that about a dozen metropolitan areas, encompassing several hundred local communities, might become eligible for supplementary grants during the first year. Accordingly, the administration is recommending a firstyear program level of $25 million.

With continued encouragement under this program, about 75 metropolitan areas, having an aggregate population of around 60 million, might qualify for supplemental grants by the end of 5 years.

With such labeling it would occur to me that the office of the HUD has a pretty good idea of what communities are going to be involved; isn't that so?

Secretary WEAVER. No; we do not. We have a pretty good idea, knowing the general situation, of what number would be. But this would be from a universe of maybe eight or nine times the actual number that will come up. If we knew the number that would come out I think we would go about it in a different manner. But I don't think we do.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. And you say you are going to provide the names of the communities that have applied-and there are possibly 60 at this point to the committee? I would appreciate it, Mr. Secretary, when this is done, if you would provide it not just to the committee itself, but to the individual members. I know that it is an unusual request. But we are all keenly interested at this point in these particular questions.

Secretary WEAVER. These 60-some inquiries concerned the demonstration cities grants. The statement on page 14 of the testimony refers to the supplemental incentive grants for metropolitan planning.