portion of the same law.” Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Serv., Inc., 486 U.S. 825, 837, 108 S.Ct. 2182, 2189, 100 L.Ed.2d 836 (1988) (citing cases). In this case, the only interpretation of Section 402 that does not make clause (b) meaningless is that the CRA is applicable to all cases which are filed after, or which are pending at the time of, its enactment, with the exception of Wards Cove. Moreover, courts have held that where “Congress enacts [a] statute to clarify the Supreme Court’s interpretation of previous legislation thereby returning the law to its previous posture,” the act should be given retroactive effect. Ayers v. Allain, 893 F.2d 732, 754-55 (5th Cir.1990), reh’g granted, en banc 898 F.2d 1014 (1990). Accord Mrs. W. v. Tirozzi, 832 F.2d 748, 755 (2d Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Lussier v. Dugger, 904 F.2d 661, 665-66 (11th
holding that amendments to education of the handicapped act should be applied retroactively since they codified congressional purpose  which congress believes the supreme court had misinterpreted holding that the protect act amendments to the standard of review apply retroactively holding legislature was required to provide a system of free education to the public including programs for the handicapped holding that only the amendments listed in  lb110c may be applied retroactively using a  3582c2 motion holding that the 1986 amendments may not be applied retroactively to cut off a defense which existed under the old law