nocent bystander displaced by a Federal and federally assisted project by the enactment of S. 1681, the Uniform Relocation Act of 1965. That completes our statement and we have two technical amendments to present to the subcommittee with respect to S. 1681.

PERFECTING AMENDMENTS

In S. 1681, page 10, insert on line 5 new subsection (C):

"(C) additional payments on behalf of any displaced family, displaced elderly individual, or displaced handicapped individual in the same amounts and under the same terms and conditions as are required to be made by a Federal agency by subsection 3 (e)."

Redesignate (C) as (D) and amend to read as follows:

"(D) relocation assistance programs offering the services described in section 4(b) to the persons described in section 4(a) of this Act, and" Redesignate (D) as (E).

Senator MUSKIE. I might add to the concluding paragraph of your prepared statement that the inadequacy of relocation provisions generates a great deal of opposition to the urban renewal program, especially in the smaller communities where you are dealing with small businesses, inadequate housing, and so on.

Mr. COLMAN. That is perfectly correct.

Senator MUSKIE. I know that this has been one of the difficulties. In my State, which has been somewhat behind other States in making use of the urban renewal program, it is difficult to avoid the dislocations which are so important to small business. And small business is much more important in the small communities and towns than it is in the bigger cities.

As I understand your position relative to S. 1201 and S. 1681, you support the relocation provisions of S. 1681. Second, you take no position with respect to other provisions of S. 1201 which deal with property acquisition, relating to eminent domain procedures, determination of value of property to be acquired and the payment of litigation expenses. Finally, there are two other provisions of S. 1201 which you support-one of which is already enacted into law as

S. 974?

Mr. COLMAN. Correct. Mr. Chairman, the Commission takes no position with respect to the level of payment that is prescribed in S. 1681 or S. 1201 as to whether this should be high or low in dollar terms. Our position was and is that these things should be made uniform, but whether you are liberal or austere in setting the level of the payment is a matter that the Commission took no position on.

Senator MUSKIE. Except that you mention the figure of $25,000. Mr. COLMAN. That is correct. That, of course, relates to the sharing, that is, to the intergovernmental sharing of costs and not to what kind of minimums or maximums are prescribed with respect to individuals or businesses.

Senator MUSKIE. Incidentally, I want to compliment you upon your statement and your findings. I think it identifies the problem and defines it. And it does it in a very useful way.

My impression is that the highway program is the most inadequate of the various Federal and federally assisted programs with respect to relocation provisions.

Mr. COLMAN. That is correct, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. And this is largely due to the failure of many States to do anything about it?

Mr. COLMAN. That is correct.

Senator MUSKIE. Do we have a list of the 22 States which have done something?

Mr. COLMAN. Yes; we have that list. It is contained in our relocation report.

Senator MUSKIE. That will be included in the record at this point. What page is that?

Mr. BECKMAN. It is on pages 69 and 70 of the Commission's report. (The pages of the report referred to follow :)

Since the Federal law merely authorizes Federal sharing in payment of relocation expenses by the States, actual payment depends on State legal authorization. Eight States already had authorization for some kind of payment when the Federal relocation provision was passed: Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. Many of these laws were very limited in their application and were not as broad as the Federal highway provision. In Connecticut and Rhode Island, for instance, payments were required to residential tenants but not owners; authorized payments for business moving expenses varied from nothing in Connecticut and Rhode Island to actual cost in Nebraska.1

Currently, there are 22 States with statutory authorization for payment of moving costs. In addition, some States pay moving costs, pursuant not to a specific statutory authorization, but to a decision of the State court or its attorney general.'

Of the 22 State laws, 12 are substantially in accordance with the reimbursement provisions of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1962: Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. Payments are authorized for "reasonable and necessary moving expenses" (except for Nevada where actual costs are specified); maximum payments are not to exceed $200 for residential occupants (except for New York where $300 is allowed) and $3,000 for business concerns; and, with the exception of Oregon, payment of a fixed amount in lieu of payment for actual expenses is authorized for industries and families, although several of these (Vermont, Virginia, and New Jersey) have not implemented such authorization. In all these States, payments are authorized for displaced occupants without reference to their interest in the real estate (i.e., both owners and tenants, with and without leases, are eligible for payments).3

The 10 States with legislative authorization to pay moving costs that depart from the Federal formula to a substantial degree are Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. South Dakota enacted a statute authorizing payment of moving costs in 1963, but the State Highway Department, in exercising its discretion also conferred by statutes, has chosen not to implement it.*

The Pennsylvania law, passed in June 1964 by the legislature, authorizes payments of highway relocation moving costs as part of the State's first comprehensive eminent domain act applicable to all property takings by State and local agencies. It provides that "just compensation" shall consist of the fair market value of the real property taken, plus such other damages as provided in the law. The latter include the following and are payable to both owners and tenants of real property:

(1) Reasonable expenses of removal, transportation, and installation of machinery, equipment, or fixtures, not to exceed $25,000 and in no case to exceed the market value.

1U.S. House of Representatives, Federal Highway Act of 1962, hearings before the Subcommittee on Roads, Committee on Public Works, 87th Cong., 2d sess., 1962, p. 53. 2 U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Public Roads, relocation assistance program, memorandum, Sept. 20, 1963, p. 1.

3 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Public Works, Select Subcommittee on Real Property Acquisition, staff analysis of laws of 22 States having compensation for highway relocation (typed) (no date).

4 Ibid.

5 Laws of Pennsylvania, Act No. 6, June 22, 1964.

(2) Business dislocation damages, where it is shown that the business cannot be relocated without substantial loss of patronage. Compensation for these damages is the monthly rental for the business premises multiplied by the number of months remaining in the lease, not to exceed 24 months. Payments may be no more than $5,000 and no less than $250.

(3) Moving expenses for personal property other than machinery, equipment, or fixtures, not to exceed $500 for residential and $25,000 for business moves, and in no case to exceed the market value of the personal property.

TWENTY-TWO STATES AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF RELOCATION COSTS UNDER FEDERAL AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM, DECEMBER 1964

Estimated future annual Federal cost of relocation payments under S. 1201 and

1 Excluding effect of "additional payments" for displaced families and individuals under sec. 3(e) of S. 1681 and the present Federal urban renewal program (sec. 114(c) (2) of Housing Act of 1949 as amended).

2 Data in col. (b) are not historical figures provided by the departments and agencies but are instead extrapolated from data in the report cited in the source note.

Source: Prepared by staff, Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, from data in "Study of Compensation and Assistance for Persons Affected by Real Property Acqusition in Federal and Feder ally Assisted Programs," printed for use of the House Committee on Public Works, 88th Cong., 2d sess.

1964.

Senator MUSKIE. On the question of the $25,000 figure I think it would also be useful to include in the record at this point the elements of costs which are covered under the current policy. Could you provide that, also?

Mr. COLMAN. Yes, sir. That information is contained in table 1, attached to my letter dated June 29, 1965.5a

Senator MUSKIE. I am trying to include at the beginning of this record all the background data that anyone needs to evaluate the hearings as we progress.

Since the Commission's recommendations are also concerned with the Small Business Administration's activities, do you, in favoring S. 1681, recommend the inclusion of the first part of title III of S. 1201 as a part of S. 1681?

5a See pp. 69 and 70.

Mr. COLMAN. It is our understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the Small Business Administration matter is covered in S. 915 and that S. 915 would do the things that are provided for in the section of S. 1201 that you just referred to.

Additionally, the Commission has recommended to Senator Sparkman for consideration an amendment to S. 915 which would make this apply to State and local programs as well as Federal programs, that is, the disaster loan to private small businesses. I think, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that it is a choice of the legislative vehicle that the subcommittee here and the committee makes as to whether you accomplish this through S. 915, or whether you accomplish it by putting a provision into S. 1681.

Senator MUSKIE. I think that I will direct the staff to explore the prospects of S. 915. We do not want to step on anyone else's legislative toes here in determining whether or not we ought to include that in this bill.

Directing your attention to section 2(e) of S. 1681, is that intended only to cover the displaced persons who are eligible, but unable to secure public housing units or other categories of displaced families as well? This is on page 5, line 5, of the bill.

Mr. COLMAN. Line what?

Senator MUSKIE. Line 5.

Mr. COLMAN. Section 2(e)-I would refer that to Mr. Richter. Senator MUSKIE. The question is whether the section is intended to cover only those displaced families which are eligible but unable to secure public housing. Do they have to be eligible for public housing as well as being unable to secure it?

Mr. RICHTER. That is right, yes sir.

Senator MUSKIE. But we do not know what relationship there may be between that and the rent supplement provisions of the pending housing bill.

Mr. COLMAN. There is a very definite relationship, Mr. Chairman, between the rent supplement provisions now under debate in the Congress on the part of the administration's housing bill, and the rent supplements provided for in S. 1681. I think it is fair to say, or correct to say, that if the rent supplement provision of the administration's housing bill survives and becomes law, the section of S. 1681 providing for rent supplements and the corresponding section of S. 1201 would no longer be necessary. And the section of S. 1681 that provides for that is section 3 (e).

Senator MUSKIE. That is the one we are discussing.

Mr. COLMAN. Yes.

Senator MUSKIE. So that whatever form the rent supplement provision of the Housing Act takes, this would be true?

Mr. COLMAN. I had better qualify what I said a moment ago, Mr. Chairman. The present language in the House bill, and in the administration's original version of the housing bill, includes displacees, regardless of income level, and that language is, I believe, in the housing bill that is before the House, so that to take care of the problem and to eliminate the needs of this section in S. 1681, this provision for displacees would have to remain in the administration's bill. If that

As of date of printing, no action had been taken or scheduled on S. 915.

should get taken out, the means test would not cover the displacee problem, and section 3 (e) of S. 1681 would still be desirable.

Senator MUSKIE. That is under debate in the House and the Senate Banking and Currency Committee, as to what agencies ought to be included. The Senate version now is confined to those who are eligible for public housing. And the House will get to that today or tomorrow. Mr. COLMAN. But does not the Senate version, Mr. Chairman, in addition to saying that those eligible for public housing are covereddoes it not also provide that displacees of the type described in S. 1681 are also covered?

Senator MUSKIE. That is the point that we will have to check out. I believe this is the case, but I will ask the staff to check it out. In other words, your focus is not so much on the income level as it is on the displacees?

Mr. COLMAN. That is correct. In fact, the Commission, in its recommendations on this entire matter, drew no lines at all with regard to income levels of people displaced. A millionaire who is displaced and has to move his home, or to move his business, would be entitled to the same protection under S. 1681 as would a person who is on relief. Senator MUSKIE. Not as to rent supplement.

Mr. COLMAN. Not as to rent supplement, but in terms of these other provisions-moving expenses, dislocation allowances, settlement costs in acquiring a new home, in the case of an individual family-and there is no means at all provided for those people.

Senator MUSKIE. Well now, in answering my earlier question you said as to public housing there would have to be eligibility for public housing. I am not sure that we have straightened out what we thought was an ambiguity here. At the top of page 5 it says:

Provided, That such payments shall be made only to an individual family who is unable to secure a dwelling unit in a low-rent housing project assisted under the United States Housing Act of 1937

and so forth.

Your earlier response indicated that this language might well read: "that such payments shall be made only to an individual family who is eligible and unable to secure a dwelling unit in a low-rent housing project assisted under the U.S. Housing Act of 1937." In other words, that these payments are limited to those who are eligible under the current housing law for public housing. Would the same conditions apply to those who might be eligible for rent supplement? This is the question.

Mr. COLMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am subject to some supplementation by my associates here.

The proviso on page 5, lines 4 through 10, is designed to cover people unable to secure a dwelling unit in a public housing project for any reason-unavailability of space or disqualification for any reason. So a person who was above the income level for public housing, I believe the intent of the section here is that, if they meet the other qualifications laid down in the bill, they would be entitled to recover.

Mr. BECKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I might try to further elaborate on that. As I understand section 3(e), there would be three groups of displaced people who would be eligible for these rental adjustment payments, and these would be displaced families, the elderly, and the handicapped persons. And the low income provision is determined