CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
October 27, 1969
Page 31533
UNIFORM RELOCATION ASSISTANCE AND LAND ACQUISITION POLICIES ACT OF 1969
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 1) to provide for uniform and equitable treatment of persons displaced from their homes, businesses, or farms by Federal and federally assisted programs and to establish uniform and equitable land acquisition policies for Federal and federally assisted programs.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Land Acquisition Policies Act of 1969 will establish a uniform policy with respect to relocation assistance and land acquisition involving Federal and federally assisted programs. S. 1 came to the floor of the Senate with the sponsorship of 42 Senators, the endorsement of many public officials throughout the country and the strong support of citizen groups devoted to the public interest. Hearings were held on February 19, 20, 25, 26, and 27, and the bill was approved by the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations on April 16, 1969. Favorable action was taken by the Committee on Government Operations on September 23, 1969.
This is as high priority a measure as stands before the Senate. There are more than 50 Federal programs which result in the condemning of land and quite literally, the bulldozing of hundreds of thousands of people from their homes and businesses annually. Many of these people are low-income families. Many are the elderly. They are small farmers and small businessmen. In most cases, their entire lives and economic and social well-being have centered around the property or neighborhoods which are being uprooted.
This is what we have been doing to them. The question that must be answered is: What are we to do for them?
Here, the record is clear. Nearly all federally assisted programs have differing, if not conflicting, provisions for helping those displaced. They range from no assistance in some cases to liberal benefits and protection in others. This lack of uniformity only provides irritation and confusion, as well as an unfortunate image of the Federal Government at the State and local level. It has served to undermine confidence in and support for many Federal programs.
The problem has been explored thoroughly by the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations over the past 4 years. Building on the recommendation of the Select Subcommittee on Real Property Acquisition of the House Public Works Committee as well as a special report on the problem developed by ACIR, and on other basic studies in the field, legislation was developed and passed unanimously by the Senate during the 89th Congress. Again, during the 90th Congress, the legislation, as part of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968, was improved and strengthened and passed by the Senate. At the same time, the Congress included in its Highway Act of 1968, a substantial part of the relocation provision developed through earlier efforts, and expanded HUD's relocation authorizations under the Housing Act of 1949.
Although the House passed the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, it had not completed its consideration of the issue of relocation and land acquisition. Conferees on the bill were, however, in agreement regarding desirability of congressional action on the matter and recommended that it be taken up as soon as possible.
I understand that the House Public Works Committee plans hearings and active consideration of this legislation this session.
The primary objective of S. 1 is to establish a uniform policy among Federal agencies, and State and local recipients of Federal funds in their dealing with property owners and others displaced by Federal or federally aided land acquisitions.
Specifically, S. 1, does this in two ways: First, it provides for relocation payments, advisory assistance, assurance of available relocation housing, and economic adjustments and other assistance to owners, tenants and others displaced; and second, it establishes policies to guide all Federal and federally assisted agencies in negotiations with owners for the acquisition of real property for public use.
With regard to relocation assistance, the displaced person is entitled to payments including a moving expense and a dislocation allowance. The individual's need for readjustment allowance is
covered by the bill's provision that he receive an amount equal to the average annual net earnings of his business or farm, or $5,000, whichever is less, if the enterprise had net earnings of less than $10,000. For the small farm operator with earnings of less than $1,000 annually, the bill provides payment of $1,000.
For the large number of individuals displaced from their homes, and not eligible for assistance as owners, the bill provides payment up to $1,500. For the owner-occupier, the bill provides for an amount, which when added to the acquisition payment, equals the price required for a decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling.
The bill further provides that the Federal Government will provide the first $25,000 of the cost of providing such payments and assistance to any person displaced prior to July 1, 1972.
Relocation policies of the past have failed to account for the need of advisory assistance for those being displaced by acquisitions for public improvements. The bill would require that steps be taken to assure that the displaced persons receive the maximum help necessary to make the move. These would include the following:
First, determination of the needs of the displaced families, individuals, business concerns, and farm operators for such assistance.
Second, assurance that there will be adequate services in the areas to which the affected persons will move, including utilities, commercial facilities, and housing, as well as accessibility to their places of employment.
Third, assistance to businesses and farm operators in obtaining and becoming established in suitable location.
Fourth, supplying of information concerning FHA home acquisition program benefits, and the small business disaster loan program and other such programs offering assistance to displaced persons.
Fifth, assistance in minimizing hardships incurred as a result of adjusting to dislocation.
Sixth, assurance that the coordination of relocation activities with other governmental actions undertaken in the community or nearby areas will be done.
With regard to uniform land acquisition policies and procedures, the bill sets forth a congressional mandate of 12 provisions which must be followed in the taking of property for Federal purposes. They are as follows:
First. Transactions must be carried out in a manner that will assure that the person whose property is taken is no worse off economically than before the property was taken.
Second. Every reasonable effort must be made to acquire the property at a negotiated price.
Third. Real property must be appraised before the negotiations begin, and the owner is given the opportunity to accompany the appraiser during his inspection of the property.
Fourth. Before negotiations begin, the Federal agency head involved will establish an amount he believes to be just compensation, but the amount cannot be less than the approved appraised value of the property. This provision is intended to assure that the Government will reimburse an owner in an amount which is fair and reasonable, and that its offer will not be less than the appraised value. It is not intended to preclude effective negotiation nor establish a one-price policy.
Fifth. No owner is required to surrender possession of real property before the agency concerned pays the agreed purchase price.
Sixth. Construction will be scheduled to provide the owner/occupant with at least 90 days' notice to move.
Seventh. If the structure is not required, he shall offer to permit its owner to remove it.
Eighth. Those who are permitted to occupy the property on a rental basis for a short term, are to be charged a fair rental value figure.
Ninth. Condemnation time cannot be advanced nor deferred. Every effort must be made to assure that the owner is given reasonable time to negotiate with the agency.
Tenth. No Federal agency shall intentionally make it necessary for an owner to institute legal proceedings to prove the fact of the taking of his property.
Eleventh. If only a portion is to be acquired, leaving the unacquired portion without economic use, the Federal agency concerned shall offer to acquire the whole property.
Twelfth. In determining the boundaries of a proposed public improvement, the Federal agency is required to take into account human considerations including the economic and social effects on the owners and tenants of the property in the area.
The testimony of witnesses was overwhelmingly in support of the objectives of the legislation.
The problems created by the impact of such acquisitions have long been one of the Nation's top domestic burdens. Various estimates place the displacement figure, over the next 10 years, in excess of one million people, 180,000 businesses and 40,000 farms. Much of this problem will be covered by the present relocation and acquisition programs of HUD and the new programs authorized under the Highway Act of 1968. Yet, many other agencies and programs still lack consistency as well as identity with requirements of these programs.
The results of these inconsistencies have caused confusion and hardshipoften of a very serious nature. They will continue to do so unless there is coordination of all operations.
The uprooting of an individual, his family, his business or farm, and the taking of his land is a very personal matter. We cannot make the process painless, but we can insure fair and evenhanded administration -- consistent with protection of individual rights and community needs.
To do less is to continue to exact a high price from people who are least able to absorb the burden of these Federal programs.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments be agreed to en bloc.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague, the senior Senator from Maine, in support of passage of S. 1. This legislation would provide fair and just treatment for those whose home and businesses are taken for projects of the Federal Government or by State and local government with Federal financial assistance.
This bill has one basic purpose and that is to make these people so displaced "economically whole." Our Constitution provides that when property is taken for a public purpose that the owner will receive just compensation. However, when the fair price is paid for the property it does not provide for expenses that are incurred by the owner for being disrupted and in seeking a new location for his home or business. This bill would seek to compensate for these expenses and would seek to establish uniform land acquisition policies in the hope that the Government as buyer and the landowner as seller can arrive at a just price without going into condemnation court.
The effort to provide additional compensation was recognized by Congress when it approved the urban renewal legislation and more recently in the Highway Act of 1968. Our bill seeks to carry the benefit of these two statutes to all Federal and federally assisted land acquisition to provide uniformity of policy so badly needed in this area.
The Senate approved the essential language of S. 1 in both the 89th and 90th Congresses in recognition of this need and I hope it will see fit to do so again today.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, it is a fact, is it not, that this legislation is really a landmark measure, and I ask that with real deference to the Senator from Maine, because so many of us have joined with him so often in legislative matters.
Mr. MUSKIE. It is a landmark measure. And I welcome the opportunity to express my appreciation to the distinguished Senator from New York and all the other cosponsors who have taken a real and active interest in the legislation.
The fact that the measure passed so easily is a reflection of the fact that over the past 3 years a great deal of time and effort has been devoted to it and many committee hearings have been held in which the Senator was involved. .
I hope that this year the Senate action will be matched on the House side.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr, President, this matter has been and is of profound importance. It is so difficult for people to understand the structure of the inequities involved here in respect to housing and road construction when we are dealing with the homes of individuals. Under the leadership of the distinguished Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE), this measure has been brought to passage. It is a matter that has been long overdue.
Mr. President, we all owe a debt of gratitude to the distinguished Senator from South Dakota (Mr. MUNDT), the ranking member of the committee.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from South Dakota (Mr. MUNDT) has taken affirmative, positive, and a cooperative attitude toward the bill during the 3 or 4 years we have studied the measure and has made invaluable contributions to its structure. He has been of great assistance. I have welcomed his help and support over the years.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I think it is fair for us to express a deep feeling of grievance over the inequities which the bill seeks to cure. I hope very much for that reason that it will find a response in the other body.
The Senator from Maine, the Senator from South Dakota, and I and others will do our utmost in this endeavor.
Mr. President, relating to the so-called outdoor advertising industry amendment, this measure also dealt with moving expenses for billboards. I want to confirm that by collaboration between the majority and minority, the expenses of moving the billboards were limited to what they are really entitled to under the present Federal law, and that there is no expansion of anything but the concepts established by virtue of codification which is the inheritance from the old bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct. I know that he has taken a special interest in this problem and with his help, the outdoor advertising business is helped to the extent of making it eligible for actual moving costs and no more. This is the sort of assistance which is available to many displaced businesses.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Maine. It has been a longstanding fight. I think that really out of deference to him we ought to move heaven and earth to get this matter enacted into law.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator from New York.
THE MOM AND POP AMENDMENT
Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of S. 1, the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Land Acquisition Policies Act of 1969, I am pleased that the Senate will shortly enact the bill and want to congratulate the junior Senator from Maine for his fine effort on the Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee in preparing this legislation.
Providing for uniform and equitable treatment of persons displaced from their homes, businesses, or farms by Federal or federally assisted projects is only fair.
The disruptive impact on people as they are displaced is now all too familiar. Hearings held by the subcommittee have illustrated the damaging effects on individuals resulting from displacement. They brought out the confusion and unfairness caused by the basic inadequacy and inconsistency of the measures available to the public agencies to relieve the consequent hardship.
This bill will go a long way toward removing this inconsistency and inadequacy.
Mr. President, of special interest to me is the effect of land acquisition, clearance, and relocation of small businesses, particularly those owned by the elderlysuch as the "mom and pop" grocery or candy store. The price of progress here in urban renewal is very high. It often means destruction of the livelihood of the small neighborhood storekeeper.
I know of a corner candy store owner in Baltimore who lived in the same location for 40 years. His store was a hub of neighborhood activity, part and parcel of the community. I lived nearby when I was a student at the University of Maryland and often stopped off at the store to chat and buy a newspaper or last-minute groceries.
An urban renewal project was begun in the neighborhood a number of years later, land was acquired and the store owner reimbursed for his property. But the amount was insufficient. The owner was too old to start again. His clientele was gone, his goodwill a thing of the past. He was set adrift at age 65 with little or no future.
I felt that such an individual deserved additional assistance.
I, therefore, offered an amendment which provided a lump-sum payment, in lieu of relocation and moving expenses, equal to three times the average annual net earnings of the business for the last 3 years to be made to a store owner over 50 years of age. This was known as the "mom and pop amendment" and provided for the small business proprietor who could not start over again.
The subcommittee accepted my amendment but changed the payment to twice the annual net earnings, limited the payments to not more than $5,000, and raised the age requirement to 62. I felt that, while a step in the right direction, this still fell short of what was really needed.
I thus urged the subcommittee at its hearings on February 20 of this year to increase the amount of the possible payment and, at the minimum, to lower the age limitation to 58 years. This would not substantially increase the cost of the program, but would soften significantly the impact of dislocation on our older, small businessmen.
The subcommittee agreed to increase the upper limitation of the payment to not more than $6,000, an increase of $1,000; to allow the payment to be equal to three times the average annual net earnings, as originally provided, rather than twice; and to lower the age requirements from 62 to 60. The amendment, the last sentence in section 211 (c) (1) of the bill, now reads:
Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, in the case of a displaced person who is sixty years of age or over, this payment shall be in an amount equal to three times the average annual net earnings of the business or $6,000, whichever is less.
The subcommittee deserves high marks for this action which demonstrates their continued concern for the Nation's older, small businessman. I am delighted that it has, to a very large extent, accepted my "mom and pop amendment" and want to call this amendment to the attention of my colleagues.
The "mom and pop amendment" will cushion the impact of federally necessitated relocation programs on many of our older citizens and ease the often difficult adjustment period that results. It is completely within the tradition of a government "for the people."
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, last year when the Senate Committee on Public Works, on which I serve as the ranking minority member, extended the biennial highway authorizations and enacted one of the most constructive measures to be recommended to the Senate during my service on the committee, it included in the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 a title II providing relocation assistance to families, farms and businesses displaced by road construction. The committee, under the leadership of our chairman, the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH), and largely on the initiative of the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE), devoted a great deal of attention and the most careful consideration to the provisions of title II, which added a new chapter 5 to title 23 of the United States Code.
I think it fair to say that we considered at that time that this legislation could provide a model for relocation assistance in the programs of other Federal agencies which acquire property in carrying out Federal construction and Federal grant programs. In fact, in my statement of views, which were made a part of the committee report on the Highway Act of 1968, I called attention to the significance of this legislation in these words:
Of great importance, title II will establish a comprehensive program of relocation assistance designed to assure fair treatment and reasonable help to those individuals. families, farms, and businesses displaced by highway construction projects. I consider these provisions fair, proper, and a great advance in compensating those who are uprooted and dislocated by Federal projects. The Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations has given leadership in this field, and I hope very much that the relocation assistance provided by this bill for the highway programs will be extended to the construction projects of the Corps of Engineers, and to the other Federal agencies.
I also spoke in the Senate in support of this wonderful new program -- because I have been interested for many years in securing fair and better treatment for those who are displaced by great dam, highway or other projects, and I have had a good deal of experience with those problems as they have arisen in connection with projects in my own State of Kentucky. The Senators from Maine and from West Virginia will recall that I suggested at that time that these provisions ought to be extended to Corps of Engineers' projects, which are also under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Public Works.
As I understand, the bill now before the Senate, S. 1, which has come to us from the Committee on Government Operations, would extend to all Federal agencies and programs the land acquisition policy and relocation assistance program first applied to road construction by the 1968 Highway Act-and its purpose is to do so on a uniform basis. While S. 1 technically would repeal title II of the 1968 act, those provisions would be incorporated in this act, and applied to other programs as well as to the Federal-aid highway program.
The States are now implementing the provisions of the 1968 Highway Act, and as its provisions, or the provisions of S. 1 if adopted by the House of Representatives, are put into effect, no doubt some problems may arise, as is usually the case with any new program of such scope. But I hope very much that the experience under the Highway Act will prove helpful. If difficulties arise in applying these principles to highway or civil works projects, I am sure that our committee will want to be helpful.
Providing just compensation, and equitable assistance to those who are displaced, so that their lives are not unduly disrupted by public projects and they are kept "whole" as we say, is not simple or easy. But it is right and necessary, and I have been glad to support this measure. I commend the Senator from Maine, and his colleagues from South Dakota (Mr. MUNDT) and New York (Mr. JAVITs) for what I know was long and careful work in bringing this bill before the Senate for its approval.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill is open to further amendment; if there be no further amendment to be proposed, the question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion was agreed to.