the Senator from California makes a serious argument: we should not split the circuits because we will waste the $140 million investment in a courthouse in San Francisco, except that we can split the circuits if this so-called study commission says we should do so, and she would then have no objection. Well, either the courthouse is an important consideration, or it is not an important consideration. Obviously, Mr. President, it is not an important consideration. I presume--I hope--that the Senator from California is not arguing that, even if there is a split, all of the staff and all of the people who are now in that courthouse in San Francisco would still be there and everything has to be added onto that. That is often a way in which the Federal bureaucracy operates. But there is no reason in the world for us to allow it to operate in that fashion under this set of circumstances. This can be done efficiently and effectively. But that is the fundamental argument against this amendment and in favor of the bill as it stands.
Editor's note · Context
Debating the implications of splitting judicial circuits and the investment in a San Francisco courthouse.
Share
More from T. Gorton
in fiscal year 1990, the Forest Service sold 11 billion board feet of timber for harvest and for productive use. For the last 2 years, we have authorized through our appropriations 3.6 billion board feet of harvest. The administration…
The Committee would be concerned should the language of the final management plan diminish the ability of the State of Utah to manage wildlife damage prevention within the Monument. If this is the case, I would hope BLM would consult with…
That was the intent of the Committee. This research is very promising and I thank you for bringing this point to our attention.
In effect, this bill would outlaw a number of engine lines and car models, including most full-size sedans and station wagons. It would restrict the industry to producing subcompact sized cars, or even smaller ones. That was a statement by…





