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.
T. Gorton: “It does seem to me curious that the two opponents of the amendment made dramatically opposite statements in opposing…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing opposing views on an amendment related to attorney fees during Senate debate.
Share
More from T. Gorton
My home state, too, has experienced the disruption that a federal endangered species listing can cause. I therefore appreciate the importance and urgency of the funds sought by the Senator from Maine.
I agree with his statement that the Committee intends for Interior to study the entire NRC report carefully and to adopt a rule that is consistent with the findings and recommendations of that report.
I would agree that the U.S. Forest Service should preserve the option to use such fire retardants in order to minimize the long-term visual impacts of wildfires.
I thank my friend, and emphasize that we did not act again this year just to ratify the actions of the Department of Interior. The Committee to reemphasize its original intent: That Interior study the NRC report carefully, and that any…





