Return of Burke Airport Property

these parcels have removed the improvements. The former owners of 15 parcels have not removed their improvements as agreed. Improvements on 21 parcels of land were acquired with the land, and 20 of the parcels have been leased by the Department of Commerce. In addition, the land underlying 10 sets of improvements reserved by former owners has been leased to the former owners or their assignees.

On January 15, 1958, the President approved a plan for the acquisition of a site at Chantilly, Va., for the construction of the public airport authorized by the act cited above and for which funds were provided in the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1958 (Public Law 85-170) approved August 28, 1957. On January 28, 1958, the 1,031.3 acres of Government-owned lands which are the subject of H. R. 10045 were reported to GSA by the Department of Commerce as excess property. On February 5, 1958, other Federal agencies were notified of the availability of the excess property for further Federal utilization and asked to advise us by April 7 of any requirement therefor. If the property cannot be appropriately used to fulfill the requirements of Federal agencies for real property in this area, it will be surplus to the needs of the Federal Government and it is our plan to dispose of it as surplus property in accordance with the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949.

GSA is opposed in principle to the enactment of legislation which would preclude the opportunity for further Federal utilization of excess property. If enacted without amendment prior to the determination that the property at Burke is surplus to the needs of the Federal Government, H. R. 10045 would effectively preclude the use of the property for the needs of other Federal agencies.

Section 203 (k) (1) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 authorizes the Administrator of General Services, in his discretion, to assign to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, for disposal such surplus real property, including buildings, fixtures, and equipment situated thereon, as is recommended by the Secretary as being needed for school, classroom, or other educational use, or for use in the protection of public health, including research. It also authorizes the Secretary to sell or lease such real property for educational purposes to States and their political subdivisions, or municipalities, and tax- supported educational institutions and to other nonprofit educational institutions which have been held exempt from taxation under section 101 (6) of the Internal Revenue Code and, in fixing the sale or lease value of the property, to take into consideration any benefit which has accrued or may accrue to the United States from the use of such property by any such State, political subdivision, municipality, or institution. It appears that the objectives of section 1 (b) of H. R. 10045 relating to the conveyance of a site to the State of Virginia for use as a site for the extension of the University of Virginia in northern Virginia can be accomplished under this provision of existing law.

Subsection 23 (d) of the Surplus Property Act of 1944 provided for the negotiated sale of certain classes of surplus real property to former owners under a price preference formula similar in some respects to the pricing formula set forth in section 1 (c) of H. R. 10045. This act was repealed by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, but all priorities and preferences provided for in the act with respect to the disposal of surplus real property under the act were continued in effect until December 31, 1949. The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, does not afford former owners either a priority or a price preference in reacquiring surplus real properties, and GSA has consistently opposed legislation which has for its purpose the restoration of priorities and price preferences of the 1944 act or the institution of similar priorities and preferences in connection with the disposal of surplus real property. We believe that surplus real property available for sale to the public should be sold at not less than its current appraised fair market value. Experience gained by GSA in the sale of surplus real property at public auction has demonstrated that such sales provide a suitable method of assuring all persons interested in purchasing the property, including former owners, an opportunity to bid for it in open competition and, at the same time, secures for the Government the benefit which normally flow from competitive bidding for property.

Negotiated sales of surplus property may be made pursuant to section 203 (e) of the 1949 act as extended by Public Law 971, 84th Congress, until July 31, 1958. However, the essential purpose of this legislation is to permit negotiated sales at current fair market value in circumstances which would make it in

equitable or contrary to the public interest if prospective bidders were required to bid competitively for surplus property. Negotiated sales under this authority are made principally to public bodies, many of which are not empowered to bid competitively for surplus property. However, in furtherance of this principle, we believe that we would be warranted in negotiating the sale of land at Burke underlying improvements reserved by former owners which have not been removed. In that event, the sales price will be arrived at by an appraisal of the curent fair market value of the land to which would be added an amount equal to that portion of the purchase price paid by the United States for the property attributable to the value of improvements now located thereon minus the price paid by the Government's grantors for the right to retain and remove these improvements from the premises.

For the reasons outlined above, GSA is opposed to the enactment of H. R. 10045.

The fiscal effect of the enactment of H. R. 10045 cannot be readily ascertained. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report to your committee.

Sincerely yours,

FRANKLIN FLOETE, Administrator.

Mr. ROBERTS. Subsequent to the date of introduction of H. R. 10045, the Secretary of Commerce transferred the property in question to the General Services Administration, so it will be necessary for the committee to amend the legislation.

Mr. Broyhill, we are glad to have you with us, and we will be glad to hear from you on your bill.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL T. BROYHILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman, my name is Joel T. Broyhill, a Member of the House of Representatives from the Tenth District of Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the committee for your courtesy in arranging a hearing on this legislation in what I know is an extremely busy schedule of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee. Before making a brief explanation of the purposes of the legislation, I would like to briefly go over the background of this problem which necessitated the introduction of the legislation. As you know, the 81st Congress by Public Law 762, 2d session, authorized the construction of a second National Washington Airport here in Washington, and authorized the expenditure of $14 million.

In 1951, I believe, the following year, the Congress appropriated $1 million in pursuance of that act. That million dollars, or almost all the million dollars, was used for the purchase of 1,031 acres of the land when it was estimated that at least 4,500 acres would be necessary. That was purchased at the total cost including interest of $907,000.

I said a moment ago it was estimated that it would require a minimum of 4,500 acres, so in acquiring this first 1,031 acres, it was acquired in 63 separate parcels scattered all over the hillside in that area. have a map here which more clearly illustrate the hodgepodge manner in which that property was acquired. In red are the 63 parcels that were acquired. Again that totals 1,031 acres at a total purchase price of $907,000, including interest.

Mr. MACDONALD. What do the red parts indicate?

Mr. BROYHILL. The red shaded areas indicate the property which has been acquired for the construction of that proposed airport. Mr. FRIEDEL. The white part had not been bought yet?

27086-58-2

Mr. BROYHILL. That is right. The whole area had to be acquired to amount to a minimum of 4,500 acres. They went about it in piecemeal fashion. Of course, they only had a million dollars appropriated at the beginning.

Mr. ROBERTS. Was that all direct purchase in the red?

Mr. BROYHILL. Either that or condemnation. It has all been acquired and the Federal Government holds title to it.

Mr. FRIEDEL. Do they have title to just the parts that are in red? Mr. BROYHILL. Just the part that is in red; 1,031 acres is what the Government owns.

Mr. ROBERTS. Have the condemnation proceedings been concluded and the money paid into court?

Mr. BROYHILL. The money has been paid to the people. The Government holds title to it and the people have received the purchase price. There are quite a number of people who have leased back the land and are still living on the property.

Mr. ROGERS. What percentage was by condemnation?

Mr. HOWARD K. HOWELL (Fairfax County, Va.). One hundred percent; 63 parcels were by condemnation. There was no negotiation. The only negotiation that took place was after the condemnation proceedings. The individuals were allowed to take 90 percent of the appraised value and then argue with the court as to the value of their land in which case the Department of Justice upped some of the original appropriations by a certain amount and ultimately came to an agreement.

Mr. BROYHILL. This is Mr. Howard K. Howell, a resident of the Burke area.

Mr. ROGERS. Let me ask one more question about the condemnation. Do I understand that these matters were processed through judgment or were condemnation proceedings instituted and settled subsequent to the institution of the condemnation proceedings?

Mr. HOWELL. The original action was a declaration of taking of the 4,500 acres. Then the property was checked for title, was appraised and at the point where the Federal Government deposited with the court $818,050, at that point the title passed to the Government on the 63 parcels. At that point those people who lost their land were privileged to go in and either take the whole appraised amount or were allowed to take 90 percent in cash and fight about the value. Some 45, I believe, settled at the appraised price, and the balance of the 63 parcels, some 19 parcels, were under argument for a long, long time. I believe in the final analysis the court had to appoint a board of commissioners to settle the last 7 or 8 cases.

Mr. ROGERS. Sort of voluntary settlements with a shotgun at their heads.

Mr. HOWELL. They had no other alternative. It was just a question of whether you wanted to fight with the Government for an unlimited number of years or whether you were willing to take what they asked.

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, sir; that is all.

Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman, last year Congress directed the President to review this site, which had been selected by the CAA, and directed him after his review to proceed with the construction of the airport. As a result of that review, which was performed by his

special assistant or adviser on aeronautics, General Quesada, the proposed site for the airport was moved from this Burke area out to Chantilly, which is the western portion of Fairfax County, resulting in this site being abandoned as a site for the second national airport, and no longer needed by the Department of Commerce for the purpose for which it was originally intended. That prompted me to introduce H. R. 10045, directing the Secretary of Commerce to convey this property back to the original owners, giving the original owners first preference, at the price they were originally paid for it.

As I pointed out a moment ago, quite a large number of these people still live on that property under lease or special arrangement with the Government. The ironical part of this, Mr. Chairman, there is one original landowner in the Burke area, after the land was condemned, who moved out to the Chantilly area, and now finds her land being condemned again for the same type of project.

I think it is in a sense of fairness that we do give some special consideration to those original owners who had their homesites condemned for an airport which the Government did not use.

The chairman pointed out the necessity for amendments to this bill. I agree with the chairman on that, because when the bill was originally introduced, it directed the Secretary of Commerce to do this negotiating. Subsequent to the introduction of this bill, the land has been declared surplus to the needs of the Secretary of Commerce, transferred to the General Services Administration, and at the present time they are advertising the property all through the Federal agencies, and on April 7, the time limit will expire for all Federal agencies to express their interest in the land.

I do not anticipate that any claim will be placed on the land because, as Senator Holland said, when you look at that land, it looks like an apple that a dog with missing teeth bit into. I do not think you will find much need for that property by other Federal agencies.

The next course of action under the existing legislation would be for the General Services Administration to negotiate with the general public, giving local communities and State governments an opportunity to come in and negotiate for the property for educational and recreational needs. I therefore ask the Legislative Counsel to prepare an amendment which would amend the existing act, and would not prevent the Federal Government from exercising their priority in acquiring the land, because I don't feel that will be necessary, because I do not think they will want it, and will not prevent the local governments or communities from exercising their prerogative. On the contrary, we give them specifically 90 days to exercise their prerogative in acquiring the land if they want to acquire it for recreational or educational purposes. Under the existing law there is an indefinite time for that. I understand that provision within itself sometimes causes a great deal of confusion and extra work on the part of the Government in getting these communities to come in and say whether or not they actually want the property. So this amendment to the existing law that I propose as an amendment to H. R. 10045 would give the communities 90 days to exercise their prerogative and then the original owners 90 days following to get their property back at the price that the Government originally paid for it.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Rogers.