We have to understand, in this debate, the difference between protections under the U.S. Constitution and what this statute seeks to do. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the constitutional protections relate to what amounts to a full taking of the property. And when the Federal agencies do not fully take your property but simply regulate what you can do with your property to a lesser extent than actually taking it from you, the constitutional provisions under the Supreme Court decisions provide no protection. This statute is intended to fill that void and provide compensation when your property is diminished in value but not totally taken.
On the recordMarch 2, 1995
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the differences between constitutional protections and a proposed statute regarding property rights.
Share
More from Mike Crapo
Dec 10, 2025
Tomorrow, this Chamber will have the opportunity to chart a new path forward on healthcare in this country. Senators will be given the choice to extend the Biden COVID bonuses for another 3 years or to support healthcare reforms that will…
May 21, 2026
As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Crapo is in a position to advance the ASAP Act.
May 29, 2026
Renewing the Legacy Restoration Fund will help ensure vital repair work continues in Idaho and across the nation.
Jul 21, 2026
This investment reinforces our nation’s technological leadership while reducing reliance on foreign adversaries for critical energy capabilities.





