as wetlands. However, this property is now being developed into an $800,000 campground which will accommodate over 60 recreational vehicles per night and has excellent potential for profit. I did not want to sell my land and have been denied the opportunity of developing it myself. My biggest fear, however, is that if these agencies are allowed to take this valuable recreation property at these low-ball prices, they will come back and take the rest of my property. I have always worked very hard to be independent, and this land was supposed to support me and my husband in our retirement years. We did not have the benefit of working for a company which would provide us with retirement programs. Our land was our security, and that security is now being taken from me when I need it the very most. The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you. That is a very, very touching and interesting story. How many acres were involved? Ms. EDWARDS. Thirty-five and one-half acres. The CHAIRMAN. Thirty-five and one-half, and how much did you get per acre? Ms. EDWARDS. Six-hundred dollars. The CHAIRMAN. And this was when? What year was it? Ms. EDWARDS. Just recently. The CHAIRMAN. In the last few years? Ms. EDWARDS. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. But in 1973, on other acreage that they took, they paid you $7,500 an acre? Ms. EDWARDS. Right, and you can step from the piece that we sold in 1973 to the piece that they have taken off me today; they are connected. The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any estimate of what that land really would have been worth had it not been declared a wetland? Ms. EDWARDS. I am scared. The CHAIRMAN. I understand. I don't blame you. Ms. EDWARDS. We have sold ground down there. My ground surrounds the park, the Utah State Park. I am all around them, and we sold ground in 1981 for $12,000 an acre. Today, my ground is selling for $18,000 to $20,000 an acre within a 12 miles of this ground. The CHAIRMAN. One of the things I find most disturbing about uncompensated takings like yours is the appalling number of people who, like you, have purchased land so that they could support themselves when they decide to retire, and then all of a sudden turn around and have their life savings just stolen away from them. Ms. EDWARDS. Right. The CHAIRMAN. For years, people in America have always said you can't go wrong with real estate, but now it seems you can. Given everything that has happened to you and your family, what advice would you give to somebody who is planning for their retirement by acquiring real estate and holding on to it? Ms. EDWARDS. Oh, my gosh, Senator Hatch, I think I would say get you a really, really good lawyer, one that is really honest. [Laughter.] The CHAIRMAN. I think what you said in your opening statement really told the story of why we need this bill far more eloquently than I can, so let me just ask you one more question. Some people have suggested that requiring government to properly compensate owners when taking their rights will somehow hurt property owners. So, as a property owner, do you think you would be better off if the government had to fairly compensate you for taking your property or better off just keeping your property? Ms. EDWARDS. Is this your bill you are passing? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Ms. EDWARDS. That is what I want, that is what I want. [Laughter.] The CHAIRMAN. I don't think I could have a better endorsement of the bill than that. [Laughter.] One last question. There must have been a lot of water on this property, I guess, for them to declare it a wetland. Ms. EDWARDS. No, no, absolutely not. It is dry. They are putting a campground on it. The CHAIRMAN. You mean this is dry property, 35.5 acres, that they declared a wetland, so you had to sell it for $600 an acre so they could build a campground on it? Ms. EDWARDS. Right. The CHAIRMAN. And the campground is worth what? Ms. EDWARDS. I guess, $800,000. The CHAIRMAN. Something you could have done, if you had wanted to, on your own? Ms. EDWARDS. Yes, absolutely. The CHAIRMAN. Well, it makes me feel badly that that happened in my own home State, but your situation is not too dissimilar from a lot of other people who have had drylands declared wetlands under the same and similar circumstances. I think it is a flagrant example of how far some of our laws have gone. I want to compliment you on being here today. Senator Thurmond? Senator THURMOND. I just want to congratulate you for coming here and exposing this situation. This is land you owned yourself. The government has taken it. They did not pay you adequately. In South Carolina, we have wetlands, so I know exactly what you are talking about and I think you are exactly right. Ms. EDWARDS. May I thank you. I am so grateful that you are listening to me. The CHAIRMAN. Well, we are, and I don't know what we can do, but we are going to look further into your case and see what can be done. Neither the Federal Government nor the States should be doing things like what happened to you. So we appreciate your taking time to be here and we thank you for your testimony. Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. The privilege is mine. Senator KYL. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Excuse me. I didn't notice you, Senator Kyl. Senator KYL. I just wanted to also compliment Ms. Edwards. My home State of Arizona is much like your State. There is not a lot wet to it, and yet we have been declared wetlands in some areas, too. You may have been nervous coming here today, but, believe me, you give us a lot of spirit to fight this battle, and we will use your case as an example. So it may have been detrimental to you, but it will help in our fight. Ms. EDWARDS. Good. Senator KYL. You should know that when you leave the witness table there, you will see behind you this entire room is full of people who are concerned about this issue. We have the key people in the Senate who have sponsored this legislation, this Hatch bill, some of whom are about to testify here. So there is a lot of strength behind your idea and behind the chairman's idea, and I am confident that we will be able to rectify this situation for people to come. Thank you for being here. Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. We appreciate you being here, and thank you for taking the time to come, and your family as well. Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. We now have the privilege of having one of our fine colleagues, who, of course, is one of the great leaders in the U.S. Senate and in this country. We are happy to take your testimony, Senator Phil Gramm from Texas. STATEMENT OF HON. PHIL GRAMM, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Senator GRAMM. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you I am very happy that I was able to hear Nellie Edwards because what we heard here was the voice of America. What we heard here was the outrage that exists in America when we have a situation that the Founding Fathers could have never in their wildest dreams imagined. In America in 1995, it seems that two consenting adults can engage in any kind of consensual behavior with total constitutional protection-except owning private property and engaging in commerce and business. The reason that you are here today, the reason that we have all joined together-many of us who wrote our own bills to put together one bill, is that we want to protect property rights in America. The Constitution of the United States says very clearly that no private property shall be taken for public purpose without just compensation. Yet, as we just heard from Nellie Edwards-and as we all know from our own States-over and over again, everyday all over America, people are having their private property taken. They are not compensated. It occurs whether a Red Cockaded Woodpecker flies into your pine trees in Texas, or whether a farmer bush-hogging in California runs over a rat that turns out to be an endangered species. People are having their property values reduced and effectively having their land taken to promote an objective which society says is good, but which society refuses to pay for. I think it is vitally important that we change that. I think it is important that we guarantee that every American who has their property taken or where a government regulation or Federal action lowers the value of their property substantially, the Federal Government ought to have to pay them for it. That will accomplish two things. Number one, it will preserve the constitutional rights of our people, and it is about time. Secondly, it will force government to make rational decisions. Because if we want to protect the Red Cockaded Woodpecker, or endangered rats in California, part of the cost of that protection will be paying private land owners who have the value of their land in use or exchange reduced. I think it is important. Finally, Mr. Chairman, in addition to congratulating you and this committee for your leadership, I want to make one comment about statements that the Vice President has already made and statements that I understand will be made today by a member of the Justice Department concerning a veto. The President is clearly threatening that if we adopt this bill, he will veto it. The President opposes compensation when people have their land taken or have its value substantially reduced. It seems to me important that the American people must understand the difference between our view and the President's view. The President's quarrel is not with us. The President's quarrel is not with our legislation. The President's quarrel is with the fifth amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The fifth amendment says if you take somebody's property, you have to pay them for it. For 40 years our Government has been taking property without paying for it. We are trying to bring back protection of constitutional rights. The President is threatening to use veto power to stop us from doing that. His quarrel is not with Senator Hatch, or Senator Thurmond, or Senator Kyl. His quarrel is with the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and I think it is very important that people know that. I think, except for the balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution, that this bill is the most important thing that we are going to vote on this year, and I congratulate you for your leadership and I thank you for giving me a chance to simply come here and be a cheerleader today. The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you, Senator Gramm. We appreciate your testimony. It is persuasive and powerful, as always. I have to say that I hope the President won't veto this because it is long overdue. What government has done-and in this case we had both the Federal Government and the State government combine and really robbing this widow of her property, and that is repeated many times all over this country. All we are saying is if the government wants to take property, it should have a justifiable reason for doing so, and it really ought to pay just compensation like the fifth amendment says, and that is what you have said here today. I want to personally thank you for taking time out of what I know is a tremendously busy schedule to be here. Senator Thurmond? Senator THURMOND. Senator, I want to congratulate you on that excellent statement. I wish every American could have heard what you had to say on this subject. This is a matter of vital importance to the people of this country. The constitutional provision is clear and protects the people, but that has not been the case with the government; they have gone on anyway. I am very pleased that you have come here and testified. Senator GRAMM. Thank you, Senator Thurmond. Senator KYL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Gramm, I have one question, but first let me say that your appearance here today confirms what I already know, and that is that you are one of the foremost champions of private property in this country. You understand its role to our future and I appreciate that very much. We just passed unfunded mandate legislation which says that if the Federal Government imposes requirements on States and local governments, we ought to pay for it. Now, the States and local governments don't have a constitutional right like private property owners do, but what is the difference between the Federal Government imposing a requirement or regulation on the States and having to pay for it and doing the same thing on a private property owner? Senator GRAMM. Well, I think that the question you pose is a very good question, and I think that if the President vetoes this bill or if those who oppose it are able to use the filibuster to stop it, what they would seem to be saying is that the will of the Federal Government is more important than the constitutional rights of our people. I don't think that there is a right in America that is more fundamental than the right to own property and to have security in that property. I just go back to a point I made earlier and amplify it. The Founding Fathers understood that security in property was essential to freedom. They understood that freedom of speech and assembly was of no real value if you weren't secure in your property. If government could threaten your property, these other freedoms didn't matter very much. The Founders had a very clear focus on property and its protection as being fundamental to freedom. It is an incredible quirk of history that as we have worked to try to protect rights under the Constitution, the fundamental right of private property is not one of those rights that has been championed in the courts or in the press. If someone stood up and said that people did not have the right to go on the street corner and shout their opinion, there would rightly be an outcry from both political parties, from Congress and the White House, from an editorial board at every paper in America. Yet we hear that people have their property effectively stolen by government, in clear violation of the Constitution and where is the outcry? Where is the righteous indignation? The point is that the right to own property is what gives the right to freedom of speech any real meaning, and that is why I take this issue so seriously. I know it is why you take it so seriously. Senator KYL. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Feinstein, do you have any questions? Senator FEINSTEIN. Good morning, Senator. I have no questions of this Senator. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Senator Gramm. We appreciate your taking time to be here. |