grams. It should also include consideration of the benefits which these programs may provide for persons and businesses in affected areas.

The study should be made in the broad spirit of the just compensation provision of the 5th amendment and the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments. It should not be limited to a determination of the legal bounds of those provisions or of any particular statute.

The remainder of my remarks supporting S. 671 may be found on page 1382 of the Congressional Record of January 30, 1961.

Following my introduction of S. 2802 and S. 671, favorable reports were received on both of these measures from several agencies and departments in the executive branch of the Federal Government that are involved, either directly or indirectly, with the taking of real property. I might add that the Bureau of the Budget endorsed the purpose and objectives of S. 671; however, that Bureau suggested that such a study be undertaken by the legislative branch of the Government rather than a commission in the executive branch.

Perhaps because of the Bureau's suggestion and because of the general interest generated in this subject in the House of Representatives, the Committee on Public Works of the House, during the 87th Congress, established a Select Subcommittee on Real Property Acquisition, under the able chairmanship of Representative Clifford Davis, of Tennessee, to study this matter. This select subcommittee was continued in the 88th Congress. I took note of the establishment of this subcommittee, and on April 24, 1962, I said on the Senate floor:

The able membership of the Select Subcommittee on Real Property Acquisition, the high caliber of its staff, and the significant objectives of its operations suggest to me that there is no further need for action by the Senate on S. 671 at this time. I can assure the House select subcommittee that I, as well as my other colleagues in the Senate, will follow their progress with keen interest. I should like to take the liberty of sending to the select subcommittee any cases that may come to my attention highlighting problems involved in acquiring property for Federal or federally aided programs. I feel certain that all Senators will be glad to furnish whatever assistance may be helpful.

In addition, earlier in 1962 I wrote to the chairman of the House select subcommittee as follows:

Hon. CLIFFORD DAVIS,

Chairman, Select Subcommittee on Real Property Acquisition, Committee on Public Works, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I have been informed of the appointment of the Select Subcommittee on Real Property Acquisition and of its plans to undertake a study of real property acquistion by Federal, State, and local governments for Federal and federally assisted programs.

I have been interested in this subject for some time. During the last Congress I introduced a bill, S. 2802, which would have established a commission to make a study of this subject. On January 30, of this year, I introduced a revised bill, S. 671, for the same purpose. For your information I enclose a copy of the statement I made at the time I introduced S. 671, together with a copy of that bill. I also enclose a copy of a letter I wrote to Senator McClellan on June 5, 1961, commenting on various suggestions made by agencies with respect to the bill and also pointing out references to the problems involved in the bill which arose in connection with the hearings on the housing legislation of 1961, together with a copy of these hearings.

As I understand it, it is the intention of the select subcommittee to make the same study in as comprehensive and impartial a fashion as I had in mind for the Commission proposed in S. 671. If this is the case, it would seem to me unnecessary to take any further action with respect to S. 671.

I was interested to note that the committee has named Mr. Henry H. Krevor as the chief counsel for the select subcommittee. Mr. Krevor is, I know, an acknowledged authority in this field, and, I am glad to say, was of substantial

assistance to my staff in reviewing and revising S. 2802 of the 86th Congress for introduction this year as S. 671.

I should appreciate being advised of your plans with respect to this study in order to determine whether any further action is necessary with respect to my bill, S. 671.

Sincerely,

JOHN SPARKMAN.

After a 3-year study, the Select Subcommittee on Real Property Acquisition of the House of Representatives submitted its report on its "Study of Compensation and Assistance for Persons Affected by Real Property Acquisition in Federal and Federally Assisted Programs," in Committee Print No. 31, 2d session of the 88th Congress. The select subcommittee's report is a most valuable study and deserves the careful attention of this subcommittee. My bill S. 1201 is one which proposes to implement the recommendations of that study. We have arrived at a point where there must be some standardization for the compensation and other assistance given to those-private persons and businesses who are affected in one manner or another by the taking of real property under Federal and federally aided programs. The laws, rules, and regulations as they exist today and as they relate to Federal and federally aided programs allowing the taking of land resemble, at best, a patchwork quilt and result in inequities between those whose property is taken for a Federal or federally aided project under one statute and those whose land is taken for a Federal or federally aided project under another statute.

Let me make it clear that I do not question the right of eminent domain nor does the study undertaken by the House select subcommittee. At the same time I am critical, and the report of the House subcommittee is critical, of whether all our people whose land is being taken are receiving just compensation in the broad spirit of the 5th amendment and the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments. Let me carefully explain that I do not take position that any particular judicial awards have been too high or too low, and I do not wish to take the position that any condemnation statutes now on the books need to be amended. I do say, however, that the term "just compensation" needs to be defined with a view to the spirit of the amendment rather than to the letter of the law so that persons and businesses who are affected by the taking of land for military purposes, for highways, for uses such as post offices, Federal buildings, and the like, for urban renewal, reservoirs, airports, and all the other myriad programs that require land acquisition be uniform.

Also, I feel that something must be done, as S. 1201 and S. 1681 seek to do, to clear up the hodgepodge of laws, rules, and regulations relating to relocation assistance to those private citizens, businesses, and farmowners that are displaced because of Federal or federally aided programs.

In the last several years the Congress and the Federal Government have established programs under which millions of acres of land and innumerable buildings have been acquired from private owners, individuals, and businesses and farms. While much of this property has been acquired by purchase, a great deal has been acquired through condemnation proceedings, and, in those cases where voluntary sales were effected, the threat of condemnation proceeding was in the back

ground. In addition, these takings have caused numerous persons, businesses, and farmowners to be displaced.

Data received by the select subcommittee of the House making the study which I referred to above, indicates that we can expect 1.7 million acres of land to be acquired per year in the future. In fact, the data collected by the select subcommittee perhaps understates the magnitude of future acquisition since they do not account for emergency programs necessitating such acquisitions and for which reasonable estimates for future acquisitions cannot now be made. For example, the select subcommittee's study does not contain data on acquisitions that will occur under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 or under the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965.

In addition, the study contains data which indicates that almost 18,000 businesses and nonprofit organizations will be displaced each year in the future, and the report further shows that we can anticipate that some 260,000 tenants and owners will be affected each year by Federal or federally aided programs that call for displacement of the private individual.

There have been few, if any, major changes in the laws relating to condemnation over the years. Perhaps this is as it should be.

But, to say that compensation to private individuals, businesses, and farmowners whose property is acquired under Federal or federally aided programs is grossly inequitable at the present time is an understatement. For example, the select subcommittee's report shows that in certain takings of property; namely, by the Army and Air Force, the property owner almost invariably is offered less than the agency's own appraised value of the land. Yet the Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of the Interior, and the Tennessee Valley Authority, always offer full appraised value.

Please note that these acquisitions are those in which direct Federal taking occurs and do not relate to all those condemnation cases which come about because of federally aided programs such as the highway program, urban renewal, and so on.

State court dockets are now filled with condemnation cases, and in many instances these cases have been pending for months. I do not criticize the courts for these delays. But while the owner is waiting to be compensated for his property, what can he look to for value from his property? In many instances, once it is learned the property will be condemned, tenants and lessees move out, and the landlord gets no return for his property between the time the taking is announced and an award is finally made. In addition, vandalism occurs, and it becomes increasingly difficult for the community to provide sufficient protection to the property. Businesses in the area, in some instances, are brought to the brink of bankruptcy because their customers have long left the area, and what farmer wants to plant a crop, knowing he will never be able to harvest it?

Let me turn now to relocation assistance provided to those who are displaced by Federal or federally aided programs.

We on the Senate Banking and Currency Committee are called upon to consider the relocation payments to be paid to individuals, families, and businesses displaced because of urban renewal undertakings almost every year. In fact, the housing bill, S. 2213, recently reported by the Banking and Currency Committee, again deals with an increase in relocation payments to small businesses.

I do not, of course, criticize the Banking and Currency Committee for the solutions it has adopted in dealing with this problem. However, I must state frankly that, at best, we have not clarified the issue when other congressional committees having jurisdiction over other Federal or federally aided programs have not found the same solutions for those being displaced as we have, or when we have not been guided by the solutions other committees have found.

To show the great disparity in relocation in Federal or federally aided programs, let me cite these examples:

Take citizen No. 1, a tenant who lives in a block which is being taken for a federally aided urban renewal project. Citizen No. 1, displaced by urban renewal, can be paid up to $200 for moving and other incidental expenses, and, in addition, if he is a low- or moderate-income person, or if he is an elderly person, and he cannot obtain occupancy in public housing, citizen No. 1 can be given a rent subsidy for up to 12 months to help readjust to the high cost of housing. Now take citizen No. 2, a tenant who lives just across the street from citizen No. 1, but who is being displaced by a federally aided highway project. Citizen No. 2, displaced by a highway project can be paid $200 for moving expenses only if State legislation authorizes such payments. Twenty-eight of the fifty States lack such legislation. Finally, take the example of citizen No. 3, a tenant who lives in an adjacent block from his neighbors, citizens Nos. 1 and 2, who is displaced because the property is taken for the construction of a Federal building, or post office, or the like. Citizen No. 3 gets nothing by way of relocation expense; he gets nothing for moving and other incidental expenses.

I also cite the landowner who has part of his property taken for an airport, a reservoir, or a highway, thus rendering the remaining portion useless and sharply reduced in value. He receives no compensation for this loss of value.

All of these problems must be dealt with. S. 1201 and S. 1681 propose solutions to many of the problems in landtaking with which we are presently confronted.

These bills direct themselves to all these problems and many others. They seek to make uniform the land acquisition policies, practices, and procedures of all Federal and federally aided programs. I do not say that these particular measures are the final answer or that I agree with all of their provisions. But they do need to be considered quite carefully, and a measure needs to be prepared so that the Congress can consider these matters, and I hope, you will consider all these matters most carefully and I hope that the Congress will pass legislation during this session eliminating the great disparity we now find in compensation and other assistance available to those who are affected by Federal and federally aided programs which permit the taking of real property.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT F. KENNEDY, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Senator KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman and fellow subcommittee members, I appreciate the opportunity to offer my support for S. 1681, Uniform Relocation Act of 1965, which would establish a uniform Federal policy of assistance for those displaced by Federal and fed

51-895-65- 5

erally aided programs. This legislation is essential to remedy a situation which has too long existed in the unequal treatment accorded people and businesses which have to relocate because of federally sponsored programs which displace them.

Here we have the paradox in these programs. Through highway, urban renewal, public housing, and post office projects, a community is offered an opportunity to grow and develop with Federal assistance. Yet many of the individuals and businesses who should share in this generally improved situation suffer hardships rather than enjoy benefits.

And those groups hardest hit by relocation, particularly in housing programs, are those who can least afford the expenses of moving and finding adequate housing. These are low income groups-nonwhites, large families, and the elderly. It was found, for instance, that 56 percent of nonwhites displaced by these programs were eligible for low rent public housing, compared to 38 percent of the whites. But often public housing is just not available. Even those nonwhites who can afford better housing are hampered in finding new homes because of discriminatory practices which limit the number of areas open to them. The result is often the creation of another slum when displaced nonwhites are forced into already crowded and inadequate neighborhoods. We want our blighted areas cleaned up but just as important, we want the people who lived in them to look foward to better housing. Government action in such programs as urban renewal and highway construction is quite substantial and continues to increase to meet the critical needs of our urban areas. As cities grow older and urban populations increase, the Federal Government will be called upon more and more to assist communities to hold back deterioration and decay and to build for the future. This will mean increasing numbers of relocations necessitated by expanded programs to improve our cities and villages.

Not only must we insure individuals, families, and businesses of uniform provisions for relocation payments but we must prepare these same people for their moves and offer them a hopeful future. This need is met under S. 1681 by the provision for advisory assistance programs, by the insistence that adequate housing be available for those displaced and by the additional grant of up to $1,000 for lowincome groups for whom public housing units are not available.

The variety of approches to this problem by Federal agencies attests to the difficulty of assuring those relocated of fair and adequate treatment in regard to moving expenses and damages. The Urban Renewal Administration has been paying for relocation costs since 1956. The General Services Administration and the Post Office Department have no program in this field, and highway relocation allowances are left up to the States' discretion with only 22 States now with statutes authorizing relocation payments reimbursed by the Federal Government.

Often a highway project is intimately related to an urban renewal program in a city. One family displaced by the highway program may not receive any funds for moving expenses if they live in a State which has not authorized participation in the Federal relocation program. Their neighbors displaced by the urban renewal project can receive up to $200 for the same moving expenses. A businessman