executive agencies may be paid only the fair market value of the property acquired.

Under existing law we are not authorized to compensate owners and tenants for expenses, losses, and damages incurred by them in moving themselves, their families, and their possessions as a result of being displaced by our land acquisition program.

Reports issued by the Select Subcommittee on Real Property Acquisition of the House Committee on Public Works and the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations clearly indicate that the Federal, State, and local governments are falling far short of doing equity in their treatment of those persons who are displaced in their land acquisition programs.

GSA has long advocated the enactment of legislation which would minimize inequities existing under the present state of the law when property is acquired for use in Federal programs, and we have submitted to prior Congresses, as part of our legislative program, draft legislation to authorize reimbursement to owners and tenants of lands or interests herein acquired by the United States for moving expenses, losses, and damages. Our legislative proposal would have authorized GSA, and other executive agencies not presently so authorized, to reimburse displaced owners and tenants for moving expenses, losses, and damages incurred by them in the process of moving themselves, their families, and their possessions from property acquired by these agencies. In the 88th Congress this proposed legislation was introduced in the Senate as S. 1509 and as H.R. 6043 in the House of Representatives. S. 1509 passed the Senate and was referred to the House Committee on Public Works, but no action was taken by that committee on either S. 1509 or H.R. 6043.

Although the legislation proposed by GSA was patterned after authority now vested by existing law in the agencies named above and, therefore, differed in some respects from the provisions of part A of S. 1681, we believe that enactment of part A of S. 1681 would accomplish the purposes we have been seeking and would establish for the Government a workable, uniform system for fair and equitable treatment of persons displaced by Federal acquisition of real property. In the interest of clarifying some of the relocation payments provisions of the bill, we offer the following comments and recommended amendments for consideration by your subcommittee: We recommend that the $300 payment provided for in section 3 (c) (3) be deleted from the bill, in the interest of uniformity of treatment of displaced persons. Under the provision a displaced owner would receive the $300 payment, but à displaced tenant would not, even though he purchased a new home. If the provision is retained in the bill, we recommend that availability of the payment be limited to those displaced persons who actually acquire the fee title or life estate in real property at the replacement location.

To so limit the payment would, it seems to us, be more consistent with the basic objectives of S. 1681.

We also recommend that provision for extension of relocation assistance to persons occupying property adjacent to that taken for Federal purposes should be deleted from the bill. We think it would be impractical, if not impossible, to factually ascribe claimed losses to the Federal acquisition. Also, aid in this respect is available from

other Federal sources. Accordingly, we recommend that the last sentence of section 4, beginning with the word "If" on line 20, page 5, and ending with the word "program" on line 25, page 5, be deleted. As a matter of statutory construction, the specificities of section 6(a) (2) also concerns us. The provisions of this section might later be construed as limiting or circumscribing the President's authority to prescribe regulations assuring fair and reasonable relocation payments as clearly intended by the provisions of section 3 and section 6(a)(1). Therefore, we recommend that the section be revised to make it clear that the expenses which the regulations may authorize to be paid or reimbursed are not necessarily limited to those specified in section 6(a) (2) (A) and section 6(a) (2) (B).

With respect to section 6(a) (2) (A), which limits entitlement to actual and reasonable expenses of searching for replacement locations to farm operations, we suggest that the committee, in furtherance of the stated purpose of uniformity of treatment of all persons displaced by Federal acquisitions, consider whether entitlement to such expenses should also be extended to dwellings and business, taking into account, also, the administrative burden incident to determining the nature and reasonableness of such items of expense which should be reimbursed. We suggest that the committee also consider whether the payment provided for in section 6 (a) (2) (B) authorizing the payment of an expense not actually incurred by persons displaced by Federal acquisitions is inconsistent with the general purposes of section 3(a) of the bill, and if the provision is retained in the bill, also consider, again in the interest of uniformity of treatment, whether such provision should be broadened to authorize payments to displaced persons who move from a dwelling.

Subject to the foregoing comments, the General Services Administration favors the enactment of S. 1681.

We turn now, Mr. Chairman, to S. 1201, a bill to provide for equitable acquisition practices, fair compensation, and effective relocation assistance in real property acquisitions for Federal and federally assisted programs, and for other purposes.

Our primary interest in this bill relates to title I, part A. The other provisions of the proposed legislation pertain to programs not affecting the responsibilities and functions of the General Services Administration. The purposes of title I, part A, are to encourage the acquisition by Federal agencies of real property through amicable agreements with owners, to establish a uniform policy for such acquisitions, to promote public confidence in Federal land acquisition functions, and to provide for fair and equitable relocation payments. to displaced persons.

Our preliminary study of the bill indicates that, if it is enacted, it would bring about major changes in land acquisition laws, policies, practices, and procedures.

Except with respect to the provisions of sections 107, 108, 109, and 110 of title I, part A, relating to relocation payments, concerning which our views are hereinafter stated, we have not had adequate opportunity to evaluate its effect upon the program responsibilities of GSA or to formulate an agency position on the bill. Such limited consideration as we have thus far been able to devote to the proposed legislation suggests that certain of its provisions, such as paragraph

(3) of section 101(a), which would provide that the head of an acquiring agency should establish a fair and reasonable price for the property not less than the appraised fair value and make a prompt offer to the owner in the full amount so established, would require a major change in GSA's current acquisition policies and practices.

It seems to us this provision could do away with the time-honored Government practice of negotiated purchase of real property through exchange of offers with the owner bargaining toward a mutually satisfactory price. This provision raises a question as to whether an agency would be justified, administratively, in agreeing to pay more than the predetermined fair and reasonable price, a result which would undoubtedly increase the number of condemnation actions, a result clearly not intended by the bill.

Under current practices, GSA pays the appraised market value or better for the great majority of all the land it buys. The principal source, in our experience, of public discontent with existing procedures stems from those instances where cooperative landowners in a project site agree to a negotiated sale of their property but some of their neighbors, who hold out and would not agree to sell at a price the Government was willing to pay, later received higher awards in condemnation actions. We have not yet been able to fathom how section 101 (a) (3) of the bill would ameliorate this situation.

The foregoing illustrates why we believe more extensive study and consideration of S. 1201 is warranted before we would be able to formulate our views on the bill. Accordingly, GSA recommends that further consideration of S. 1201 by your subcommittee be deferred to afford time for such study.

The provisions of sections 107, 108, 109, and 110 of S. 1201 are similar to the provisions of sections 3 through 7, part A, of S. 1681, and, as previously stated, GSA believes that enactment of these provisions of S. 1681 is highly desirable and would correct inequities existing under the present state of the law.

This concludes our prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. However, if you or your staff have any questions, we shall be pleased to answer them at this time or furnish the desired information for the record.

Senator METCALF. You agree with the Bureau of the Budget that this provision for the $300 payment be deleted. Or you suggest that, if it were paid, it only be paid for actual closing costs incurred. You heard Mr. Krevor testify; he suggested that there should be a certain time. It would seem that the time limit should be 2 or 3 years or something of that sort. Do you have any ideas on that? A person should not just have to move out and then buy.

Mr. MOODY. I think they should have a reasonable time and not be required to buy within an unmeasurable timespan. I am sure that regulations could be worked out that would provide a satisfactory period of time.

Senator METCALF. You think it would be better to work it out with regulations rather than a time written into the statute.

Mr. MOODY. I am not sure, Mr. Chairman. I think it could be handled satisfactorily either way, and, if the committee would make that decision, it would certainly ease the problem for the executive branch.

Senator METCALF. I have some questions that the staff has prepared. We understand that currently General Services Administration,

Post Office, and the Agriculture Department do not have provisions for relocation payments or assistance.

Mr. MOODY. That is correct.

Senator METCALF. Do you feel that General Services Administration and these departments could do this with the cooperation of State and local agencies as provided in section 6(c) of S. 1681, or would you favor a separate Federal relocation agency?

Mr. MOODY. Mr. Chairman, I believe that question relates primarily to the Federal assistance side of the program.

Senator METCALF. That is correct.

Mr. MOODY. And we are not involved in such programs. I can only say we definitely favor the enactment of a law authorizing relocation payments in connection with direct Federal procurement of land.

Senator METCALF. Do you say that the direct payments would take care of it without the establishment of a Federal relocation agency? Mr. MOODY. I do not think I am prepared to respond to that question. I would think this would be more properly answerable by the agencies that are concerned with grant programs.

Senator METCALF. Do you have any way to estimate the prospective costs of relocation payments and assistance under S. 1201 and S. 1681 for GSA activities?

Mr. MOODY. I am sure you appreciate that this would be directly related to the volume of our public buildings program, and I can tell you that at the time we testified on S. 1509 before this subcommittee in 1964, I believe it was-we estimated that our first-year costs would be about $2,300,000 under similar provisions.

Senator METCALF. Additional costs?

Mr. MOODY. Additional costs that we are not now incurring. I believe our current Federal construction program is of approximately the same magnitude.

The cost also would be affected by the nature of our programwhether we have a few large buildings in downtown metropolitan locations or a large number of small buildings in smaller towns.

But generally our program has pretty much of a cross section of both types. So assuming it is about the same size as it was in 1964, which I think is a fair assumption, I would estimate about $2,250,000 a year.

Senator METCALF. Do you have such information for projects for other departments for which General Services Administration may act in the acquisition or construction of new properties?

Mr. MOODY. No, sir; I do not have.

Senator METCALF. You would not have any.

Mr. MOODY. We have not accumulated that kind of an estimate. Senator METCALF. I am going to ask you to submit-because we are running out of time-answers to these questions which I will submit to you. I will ask you to submit some written responses for the record. Mr. MOODY. We will be very happy to do that, sir.

(The information requested follows:)

Question. Section 7 of S. 1681 authorizes use of funds which are already appropriated for acquisition to implement the new relocation provisions. Would these funds be adequate?

Answer. Since GSA does not presently have authority to make relocation payments, our site acquisition funds heretofore appropriated do not include this increased cost. We would have to secure additional funds to implement S. 1681.

Question. How many acquisitions per year by your agency require the exercise of the power of eminent domain?

Answer. During fiscal year 1964, 233 ownerships were acquired by the exercise of the power of eminent domain.

Question. What percentage of the total land purchased and total payments made is involved in eminent-domain proceedings?

Answer. On this basis, 45 percent of the total ownerships are acquired through condemnation, representing 37 percent of the total payments made. We anticipate these figures will be less for the current fiscal year. These percentages include many ownerships where agreements on price are worked out but condemnation is necessary to perfect title. If these cases are eliminated, the number of ownerships and percentages would be reduced substantially.

Question. How much notice is normally given an owner or tenant before any property to be purchased must be vacated? What is the minimum amount of such notice?

Answer. As soon as a site for a public building has been selected, the owners are notified of the Government's need for their property. Owners and tenants are informed that they will not be required to surrender possession of the property until it is actually needed for construction. This intervening period varies from a maximum of 3 years to a minimum of 6 months.

Question. Your statement recommended broadening section 6(a) (2) (B) of S. 1681 (p. 7, lines 19 to 23) to include displaced persons who move from a dwelling. Can you indicate situations when this provision would apply, or was this a general point?

Answer. The suggestion was a general point to insure uniformity and not place an owner of a business or farm in a preferential position over the occupant of a dwelling.

Question. Please explain the differences between your current practices and regulations on property acquisition and those prescribed by sections 101 through 106 of S. 1201.

Answer. As we pointed out in our statement, a more extensive study and consideration of sections 101 through 106 of S. 1201 will be necessary to determine the extent to which it would require changes in our existing procedure. One such change relating to subsections (a) (3) was mentioned in our statement. We believe that our current practices and regulations are substantially in accord with section 101, except as to subsections (a) (3), (4), and (6).

As to subsection (a) (4), we consider the details of our appraisal as confidential and they are not disclosed to the property owner in specific detail, although the negotiator may point out generally any benefits accruing to the remainder of the severed property. Efforts are made to satisfy the owner that all elements of compensable damages have been considered in arriving at the value of the property.

Subsection (3) (6) provides a minimum time limitation of 180 days after receipt of written notice prior to date of vacation. GSA endeavors to give the maximum notice possible under the circumstances to property owners. Generally this exceeds the minimum proposed by this subsection, but it may be less.

Section 105 would require payment of costs of transfer, prepayments, and taxes to be made by the Government. Under our existing procedures these costs are paid by the vendor.

Similarly under existing law we do not reimburse the property owner for his litigation costs, as provided for in section 106.

Question. In the process of appraising properties before your agency begins negotiating a purchase, does the owner or his representative have an opportunity to accompany the appraiser on his inspection of the property?

Answer. Ordinarily the appraiser is not required to invite the property owner to accompany him during his inspection of the property. However, the property owner is free to accompany the appraiser if he wishes, and to point out any features which he considers pertinent to the valuation of the property.

Question. Would giving the owner this opportunity interfere with or assist the appraisal process?

Answer. Since we have not followed the practice we do not know.

Question. When only a part of a piece of property is required, does your agency offer, in additon to the value of the property to be purchased, an amount to compensate for any damages to the remainder of the property?