358 (1923) (“Of course a statute purporting to declare the intent of an earlier one might be of great weight in assisting a Court when in doubt, although not entitled to control judicial action.”). To support its argument that the New Law was merely a clarification, the government points to several statements by members of Congress indicating that the law was intended to reverse an erroneous decision of the CAFC. Def.’s Br. 6-7. The government also cites statements by members who explain that the law seeks to “clarify” existing law and that the new law “should not have been necessary.” Id. at 7. Courts, however, have been wary to rely upon limited statements of a few members of Congress. See, e.g., Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303, 329-30, 129 S.Ct. 1558, 173 L.Ed.2d 443 (2009) (<HOLDING>). Such hesitation is particularly warranted in
holding that the release statements of witnesses would necessarily interfere with enforcement proceedings holding that congress necessarily contemplated that the commission would review the work of the courts and revise the guidelines recognizing that conclusory statements do not preserve an issue for appeal recognizing that floor statements by a few members do not necessarily reflect the understanding of the entire congress holding that a letter describing discussions between board members did not support conclusion that the three members whom a jury could find individually acted with racial animus had an understanding among themselves to do so