It does seem to me curious that the two opponents of the amendment made dramatically opposite statements in opposing this amendment. The Senator from North Dakota said in spite of the clear language of the amendment, that instead of a ceiling of so many thousands of dollars an hour, depending on when the litigation began that is the thrust of my amendment, that, in fact, it will be considered a floor. One can take that position only by not reading the amendment and all the considerations that are included in it, but he was afraid that it would mean in many cases we would be paying too much. The Senator from Illinois felt it was terrible to limit lawyers even to $4,000 an hour, because many of them had made agreements under which they would get more.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing opposing views on an amendment related to attorney fees during Senate debate.
Share
More from T. Gorton
Initially--that amount was subject to a 0.48 percent across-the-board reduction; consequently, the House-passed funding level is $24.282 million, or $377,000 more than what the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported.
That was the intent of the Committee. This research is very promising and I thank you for bringing this point to our attention.
I wish to say to my good friend from Utah that I agree that draining Lake Powell is not a reasonable proposal, and I support his effort to put the issue to rest with this amendment. However, I would like to ask my colleague from Utah if he…
The rural counties should also seek the expertise of Utah State University and the State of Utah and rely on their personnel to complete this mapping project.





