S. 1201, as noted earlier, has much broader scope than relocation policy. It was included as a draft bill in the staff report of the House Select Subcommittee on Real Property Acquisition, and thus covers many subjects, other than relocation, bearing on property acquisition, such as eminent domain procedures (sec. 101), determination of fair value of property to be acquired (sec. 102), and payment of litigation expenses (sec. 106). These subjects were not considered in the Commission's relocation study.

On the other hand, S. 1201 contains two provisions on Federal programs affecting displaced persons which the Commission supports, and which are not included in S. 1681. These are subsection 301 (a), making small business disaster loans available to businesses suffering substantial economic injury as the result of a federally aided project, though not actually displaced; and subsection 302(b), amending the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962 to make those losing their livelihood or employment by forced displacement due to Federal or federally assisted action eligible for training allowances, regardless of their head of household status. These two provisions were embodied in separate bills introduced earlier-S. 915 on small business disaster loans and S. 974 on manpower development. The latter was enacted and signed by the President as Public Law 89-15 on April 26, 1965.

In submitting his 1962 transportation message to Congress, the late President Kennedy proposed that relocation payments and advisory assistance be authorized under the Federal highway program in order "to move toward equity among the various federally assisted programs causing displacement."

President Johnson demonstrated his serious concern about the problems of relocation in his 1964 housing message to the Congress. The President urged additional assistance to displaced families and businesses, and called attention to the fact that: "Despite existing programs assisting families and persons displaced by urban renewal projects, the human cost of relocation remains a serious problem.'

This concern and the desire for reasonable consistency among Federal programs having an impact on the displaced individual underlie the Advisory Commission's recommendations in its relocation report and our position with respect to the effect of these two bills on the relocation problem. In brief, the Commission recommends both S. 1201 and S. 1681 as measures which would bring about needed consistency and equity in the relocation policies affecting Federal and federally aided projects. However, the Commission prefers S. 1681 because it also (a) requires assurance of availability of standard housing as a condition of approval of all federally aided projects, and (b) establishes a formula for Federal reimbursement of relocation payments under federally aided programs which combines equitable cost-sharing among the several levels of government with fair compensation for the displaced, according to provisions closely paralleling those of the existing urban renewal program.

Sincerely yours,

Enclosures.

WM. G. COLMAN,
Executive Director.

TABLE 1.- Comparison of present relocation provisions in Federal and federally aided programs causing displacement

TABLE 1.-Comparison of present relocation provisions in Federal and federally aided programs causing displacement-Continued

Agriculture Department;
GSA; Post Office De-
partment.

TABLE 2.-Comparison of relocation provisions in S. 1201 and S. 1681

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM G. COLMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS, ACCOMPANIED BY NORMAN BECKMAN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR; AND ALBERT J. RICHTER, SENIOR ANALYST, ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

Mr. COLMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Accompanying me this morning are Mr. Norman Beckman, one of the Assistant Directors of the Advisory Commission under whose general direction the Commision's report on relocation was prepared, and Mr. Albert J. Richter, Senior Analyst on the staff of the Commission who, in most respects, is the real author of the report.

We are appearing on behalf of the Chairman, Mr. Frank Bane, and the members of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations to present the Commission's views on S. 1201, "Fair Compensation Act of 1965," and S. 1681, "Uniform Relocation Act of 1965."

As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, S. 1201 deals with many aspects of the Federal Government's policies and practices in acquiring real property, among them the important problem of relocating displaced persons and businesses. S. 1681 deals exclusively with the relocation problem. Since the Commission has taken positions only with respect to the relocation aspects of real property acquisition by the Federal Government, our comments on the relative merits of these two bills are confined to their relocation implications.

The Commission considered the issue of Federal relocation policy in a report which it approved in January 1965 on "Relocation: Unequal Treatment of People and Businesses Displaced by Governments." Its basic recommendation to the Federal Government was that the Congress establish a uniform Federal policy of assistance for those displaced by Federal and federally aided programs. Both of the cited bills now before your subcommittee would accomplish this objective. The Commission believes, however, that S. 1681 establishes requirements for stronger protection of the interests of the displaced with particular reference to housing accommodations, and provides a more equitable and workable Federal-State-local formula for sharing the costs of relocation payments. Therefore, while the Commission believes that passage of either bill would be a long step toward achieving a uniform Federal relocation policy, we believe that passage of S. 1681 would go further in assuring fair and equitable treatment of those displaced by Federal and federally assisted programs.

In 1963 the Commission decided to study the question of relocation when it became concerned over the reported lack of uniformity in relocation policies among and within the three levels of government and the resultant inequitable and inconsistent treatment of those displaced. It felt that the problem had clear intergovernmental implications, particularly because the federally assisted urban renewal and highway programs cause most of the displacement nationwide, and the displacement occurs mainly in urban areas where intergovernmental relations are most complex.

The heart of the Commission's relocation report is an analysis of current governmental policies and practices in relocation at all three levels. A fundamental source of information was a questionnaire sur