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
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…
let me make a fundamental point in all of this, and that is the fact that even though Washington occasionally promises us that they are going to get waivers, they wait. This is an indication that right now there are 28 welfare waivers…
I think anything but the contrary. The public, which should be involved in this decision, has already been involved in the decision. It is the residents of the State of Wisconsin who had 30 hearings and town meetings, 120 hours of debate…
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…





