I think simplicity simply says we charge on the Federal lands what we charge on the State lands. We do not have to have a program that is going to put us through all kinds of calculated relationships based on beef prices in the future, beef prices in the past and T bill prices 12 years ago. For simplicity's sake and for administrative costs, I think it is simpler to charge on Federal lands what we charge on the State land, period, and here is the bill.
Scott Klug: “I think simplicity simply says we charge on the Federal lands what we charge on the State lands. We do not have to have…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing an amendment related to charging fees on Federal and State lands.
Share
More from Scott Klug
Since 1991, ARC roads or quarters received over $599 million in funding from ISTEA for demonstration projects alone. That is on top of the funding that is done on this bill. That is money that comes out of the transportation appropriations…
Let me point out that in a 1991 General Accounting Office report done on the subject, quote, and this is talking about the grazing program, ``It does not achieve an objective of recovering reasonable program costs because it does not…
My empathy goes out to the taxpayers of America who continue to fund an organization that I think largely is out of date... it does not call for a continual support of the GPO. It essentially says that GPO has an even tougher job in the…
I would encourage the gentlewoman as a member of the President's party to issue waivers more quickly. However, let me say fundamentally that waivers are not welfare reform, waivers are a lifeline for bureaucracies to rewrite and to change…





