The intent of the conference committee drafters was to see to it that subsection (i) and subsection (ii) read the same way, because we had already described them as having the same meaning in the original Senate bill. There was an inconsistency. There they were described in the Senate bill, conference report, as having exactly the same meaning. So there is a change only to the extent that something was already gone with respect to tissue, organs, and blood.
T. Gorton: “The intent of the conference committee drafters was to see to it that subsection (i) and subsection (ii) read the same…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the intent behind the conference committee's drafting of a bill.
Share
More from T. Gorton
In response to my colleague, the senior Senator from Nevada, let me say that your understanding of the issues affecting Lake Tahoe is correct. Your concerns seem reasonable, as does your interpretation of the language in question.
Washington state's rural communities have also benefited by the National Rural Development Partnership, particularly those regions that have been forced from their natural resource-based economies. For the sake of those who have come to…
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.
The Senator is correct. Section 156 states, ``nothing in this section shall be construed to expand the existing statutory authority of the Secretary.'' The interpretation suggested by our House colleagues would require additional statutory…





