My understanding was that it was the meaning as is stated in the conference committee report of the original bill that they were excluded unless the State had defined them as a product and had subjected them to strict liability. That was the meaning of the original bill and the meaning of this bill.
Discussing the interpretation of a bill regarding product liability.
Share
More from T. Gorton
I thank my friend, and emphasize that we did not act again this year just to ratify the actions of the Department of Interior. The Committee to reemphasize its original intent: That Interior study the NRC report carefully, and that any…
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…
I expect that the $2.5 million grant program administered by NFWF will leverage at least $2.5 million overall in additional, nonfederal funds.
I would agree that maintaining dual suppliers of high performance, environmentally acceptable fire retardants is critical to the mission of the Service.
Other voices in this conversation
