Concurring.
I concur in the majority opinion and write only to discuss further the legislative intent behind Idaho Code § 31-1401. When that statute was originally enacted in 1943, it provided, “The protection of property against fire is hereby declared to be a public benefit, use and purpose.” Ch. 161, § 1, 1943 Idaho Sess. Laws 324. In 1974, the legislature amended the statute to add the words “and the preservation of life,” so that it read, “The protection of property against fire and the preservation of life are hereby declared to be a public benefit, use and purpose.” Ch. 77, § 1, 1974 Idaho Sess. Laws 1164, 1165. The wording of the statute does not link “preservation of life” to fires. It does not limit the purpose of a fire protection district to the preservation of life against fire, as it does to the protection of property. Even assuming there is some ambiguity in this regard, the title to the enactment stated that the statute was being amended “by adding the preservation of life as one of the purposes of the law.” Id. at 1164. Again, there is nothing linking the preservation of life to fire. The legislature granted fire protection districts the power to conduct activities relating to the preservation of life, and the operation of an ambulance service comes within that power.
The dissent argues that statements made during committee hearings by proponents of the 1974 amendment should restrict the scope of the language of the statute. Statements made by persons supporting legislation cannot modify the plain language of the legislation. Their expressed reasons for supporting the legislation are irrelevant when interpreting the wording used in the legisla*438tion. The proponents who attended the committee hearings were not the only ones entitled to vote on the bill. Their comments cannot limit the reasons why either they or others voted in favor of the amendment, particularly those who were not present at the committee meetings. In addition, it is not unusual for the language of a statute to be broader than is necessary to address the primary issue that motivated a proponent of the legislation. If comments by legislators can modify the language of the statute, is it comments by proponents or opponents that can do so? The proponents of legislation sometimes minimize the scope of its impact, while the opponents sometimes exaggerate it. If the legislature had intended to restrict the 1974 amendment to rendering “first aid at the scene” or emergency medical care, it certainly could have chosen that wording. If the language chosen by the legislature is too broad, it has the power and authority to narrow the scope of the statute.