I want to address the comments which have just been made. It is correct that this amendment would be better than nothing, but it is much worse than the current statute we are considering. The reason is, as was said by the gentleman from Texas, there is no mandate in this amendment that the least oppressive or least intrusive alternative be selected. There are times when the agency is actually bound by statutory provisions that this Congress passes that require the agency to run roughshod over private property rights. In those cases, after there has been a congressional action or after there has been a full agency review, when it is decided private property rights must be diminished for some social purpose, there should be compensation, and this amendment does not allow for that compensation.
On the recordMarch 2, 1995
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Debating an amendment related to property rights and agency regulations.
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…
Oct 30, 2025
I agree with my colleagues that tariffs should be more targeted to avoid harm to Americans.
Jul 16, 2026
The recovery of the grizzly bear in the West is a conservation success story made possible by decades of work from state, tribal, federal and local conservation partners.
May 27, 2026
Codifying the Department of Labor’s recent updates to the AEWR would help clarify and stabilize wages in the H-2A agricultural labor program.





