But I think Mr. Scalia and the Supreme Court and several others have scant regard for legislative history. I would submit that the plain language of the amendment says very clearly that a new refuge is a refuge created after a given date, and the expansion of a new refuge of any acreage needs congressional authorization. So 'new refuge' is one of any acreage, 200 acres. If you want to expand it later by 20 more, you need congressional authorization. That may not have been the gentleman's intent, but that is what it says. This colloquy, as enlightening as it is, I do not think will be regarded by the courts. I would urge the gentleman, I do not agree with the amendment in any event, but I would urge him, sir, even to effectuate what he wants to do, that he ought to change the wording of the perfecting amendment.
Jerry Nadler: “But I think Mr. Scalia and the Supreme Court and several others have scant regard for legislative history. I would…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of legislative language regarding the creation and expansion of wildlife refuges.
Share
More from Jerry Nadler
Watching the Biden thing really said something about the necessity for generational change in the party, and I think I want to respect that.
On that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 208, nays 196, not voting 28, as follows: [Roll No. 489]…
A non-binding resolution—or any action that doesn't require the release of the Epstein files—is nothing more than a political smokescreen designed to shield Republicans who refuse to demand full transparency and accountability from the…
We in Congress have an important job as a co-equal branch of the government.





