this amendment originally required that anybody who held more than 2,000 AUM's would have to pay whatever the State charged for lands in that State on any AUM's in excess of 2,000. I have the very distinct impression it would not make any difference, as the Senator from Montana just confirmed, how high the limit went. I think he would find it difficult, if not impossible--I detect impossible--to support the amendment. Nevertheless, I will give everybody a chance because they say 2,000 AUM's is only 166 head. So we will get it up to 400 with 5,000 AUM's. That is what my modification does. I yield the floor.
Dale Bumpers: “this amendment originally required that anybody who held more than 2,000 AUM's would have to pay whatever the State…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing an amendment related to AUM (Animal Unit Month) limits and state land charges.
Share
More from Dale Bumpers
This says exactly what I have been saying, and that is, the President ought to veto the Interior Appropriations bill if my amendment is defeated. And I personally think he will. With all these disasters which I have addressed, all we have…
Bill Clinton, my friend from my home State of Arkansas, has been taking a lot of trashing lately, a lot of it richly deserved. I am not here to defend the President. But I will tell you one thing. You can say a lot of things about him but…
here is what the new regulations contain: Regulations to minimize adverse environmental impacts, if economically and technically feasible--that is a pretty big loophole; that is what these new regulations provide--reclaim the land to its…
I want to suggest to each Senator that they meditate on this proposition. The doorbell rings and the Senator's wife answers the door. There is a nicely dressed person, in a suit and tie, standing at the door. He hands her a paper, and she…





