John Kerry: “I think to answer your question and to sort of continue the colloquy, if we can, the answer is that there is an…”

“I think to answer your question and to sort of continue the colloquy, if we can, the answer is that there is an uncertainty as to that, because what is contained in the definitional portion of the statute is never a sufficient clarification for what is contained in a particular section where the substance is interpreted by the court. The court may find that the definition intended one thing, but in the substance of the section, the court will find there is a conflict with the definition, and they are going to go with the substance. So what the Senator from Michigan is saying and what I think a number of us are saying is, let us not allow for that ambiguity. In our legislative role, we have identified this ambiguity, we are troubled by the potential impact of this ambiguity, and we are suggesting a remedy that is precisely in keeping with the stated intent of the Senator from Louisiana. So the question comes back that I know the Senator from Michigan has asked previously: Why would we not therefore legislate to a greater capacity of perfection the intent that the Senator says is contained in the language? It does no other change to the bill.”