<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <title>Open Congress : Comments on H.R.5656 To repeal a requirement with respect to the procurement and acquisition of alternative fuels.</title>
  <link href="http://www.opencongress.org/comments/atom/bill/49793" rel="self"/>
  <updated>2008-06-26T09:59:44Z</updated>
  <author>
    <name>opencongress.org</name>
  </author>
  <id>tag:opencongress.org,2007:/bill/comments/49793</id>
  <entry>
    <title>New comment by ChiefRoss</title>
    <link href="/comments/atom/bill/49793" rel="alternate"/>
    <updated>2008-06-26T09:59:44Z</updated>
    <id>tag:opencongress.org,2008-06-26:/comment/29059</id>
    <author>
      <name>ChiefRoss</name>
    </author>
    <content type="html">
"Amends" "to repeal" "prohibiting" "from entering"  "for procurement"....   WHAT is ALL that Garbarge??  

I apologize English Scholars for this entry, but I don't get it.  To me that is like saying, "..we are, aren't , are, aren't, can't, might..."    I WANT to understand, but I am afraid if I pick one way or the other I will pick wrong.     Are a lot of these bills written to purposely be confusing and thus interpreted however the richest prosecutor who hires the best lawyer says they are worded?
     </content>
  </entry>
</feed>
