On the recordJanuary 25, 1995
this amendment may seem like a technical amendment, but it has substantive ramifications to it. There are eight places in the bill where the term ``direct costs'' is used, and that is a very critical term in the bill. But in five of those eight instances, there are some adjectives which are used which confuse the bill. For instance, sometimes it is referred to as ``estimated direct costs,'' even though the word ``estimate'' is already in the definition of direct costs in the definition section. Once it is referred to as ``expected direct costs.'' Another time it is referred to as ``full direct costs,'' which raises an implication about, well, on those other occasions when you refer to direct costs, are they something other than full direct costs. So in order to clear up these ambiguities and potential problems with those times direct costs is referred to in the bill, this amendment strikes the adjectives which I have indicated which are in the amendment and just simply leaves the words ``direct costs.'' That would then be as defined in the definition section of the bill. I understand that the floor managers will accept this amendment. It is, frankly, a good reason why it is important that we take some time to make sure this bill is as clear as can possibly be achieved, and while there has been some suggestion by some that there has been an effort to delay this bill, there is no effort that I know of to delay this bill.
Source
govinfo.gov




