[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 187 (Monday, November 27, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S17520]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       PROTECTING PROPERTY RIGHTS

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as my colleagues are aware, I have 
introduced legislation to reform the way property owners are treated by 
the Government. My legislation would encourage, support, and promote 
the private ownership of property by clarifying existing laws and 
creating a more uniform and efficient process by which these rights are 
protected. In short, it seeks to protect the rights of citizens as 
envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution.
  Recently, however, critics have misinterpreted some of the bill's 
provisions. For example, some have stated that this bill would cost the 
taxpayers billions of dollars to implement or that it would force the 
Government to pay polluters to clean up their act. These fears are not 
warranted.
  I was encouraged by an editorial in Salt Lake City's Deseret News 
headlined ``Enough with half-truths about property rights bill.'' This 
editorial dispels the myths and misconceptions about property rights 
legislation. I commend it to my colleagues. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the text be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the editorial was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

         [From the Salt Lake City Deseret News, Nov. 20, 1995]

           Enough With Half-Truths About Property Rights Bill

       Politicians and activists must think they are terribly 
     clever when they toss around inaccuracies and inflated half-
     truths in order to win public sentiment.
       Take, for instance, the attacks on Sen. Orrin Hatch's 
     omnibus Property Rights Act, which is set to break out of the 
     Judiciary Committee before Thanksgiving. In recent days, 
     critics, including President Clinton, have ranted about the 
     Utah's senator's attempts, through the bill, to force the 
     government to ``pay polluters'' to clean up their operations. 
     They have carried on about the bill's enormous costs to 
     government (some have placed the figure in the tens of 
     billions of dollars).
       These are arguments certain to strike fear in the heart of 
     every sober-minded American concerned with the environment 
     and taxes--just in time for Halloween. Trouble is, they are 
     as hollow as jack-o'-lanterns.
       Critics are conveniently overlooking this sentence in the 
     bill: ``The government is not required to pay compensation in 
     cases when the property is a nuisance.'' Whoops.
       Polluters, by anyone's definition, are nuisances. If the 
     government can prove the item in question--say, a belching 
     smoke stack or a toxic waste dump--is a nuisance, it won't 
     have to pay compensation. No one will be paying polluters, 
     after all.
       Critics also are overlooking, or perhaps ignoring, a study 
     recently released by the Congressional Budget Office showing 
     the bill would cost only up to $40 million annually, and then 
     only for the first few years. After that, costs would drop 
     because agencies would avoid actions that could lead to 
     protests by property owners. Whoops, again.
       The bill is a reasonable attempt to clarify and solve a 
     conundrum as old as the republic. While the Fifth Amendment 
     prevents the taking of private property for public use 
     without compensation, government must retain the right to 
     pass regulations for the greater good of society.
       Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes set the current standard for 
     this balancing act in a 1922 Supreme Court ruling when he 
     said, ``. . . if regulation goes too far, it will be 
     recognized as a taking.''
       Hatch's bill merely attempts to define ``too far,'' and it 
     would make the burden of protesting such takings less onerous 
     for the average citizen.
       Horror stories abound of small-property owners who find 
     they can't build on their land because of wetlands or 
     endangered species regulations. Critics have tried to 
     diminish the impact of these stories, but they can't explain 
     away the witnesses who have testified of them at 
     congressional hearings. Environmental laws are indeed 
     important and necessary, but so are property rights.
       So far, 18 states have passed similar compensation laws. 
     The House recently passed a bill that in some ways goes 
     farther than Hatch's version. It would compensate anyone 
     whose property was diminished in value by 20 percent, while 
     the Hatch version requires owners to prove a 33 percent loss.
       No doubt, Congress eventually will pass a compromise 
     version of the two bills. When it does, the planet will not 
     spin off its axis.
       The Hatch bill is not above reproach. For example, it would 
     prohibit agencies from entering private property without the 
     consent of the owner--a prohibition that could keep the 
     government from ever gathering facts about a nuisance.
       Critics of the Property Rights Act should read it sometime, 
     rather than amusing themselves with strange fictions.

                          ____________________