Subject: Re: The Owl of Minerva: Committee Reports, Statutory Interpretation, and the VRA
From: Rick Hasen
Date: 7/20/2006, 3:44 PM
To: Rick Pildes
CC: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu, legislation@majordomo.lls.edu

A similar issue related to post-passage floor statements (as opposed to post-passage committee reports) arose in Hamdan v Rumsfeld.  In Hamdan (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf), the majority makes much of the fact that defenders of the law relied upon floor statements inserted in the record after the Senate had voted on the relevant legislation (footnote 10 of majority opn):

While statements attributed to the final bill’s two other sponsors,Senators Graham and Kyl, arguably contradict Senator Levin’s contention that the final version of the Act preserved jurisdiction over pendinghabeas cases, see 151 Cong. Rec. S14263–S14264 (Dec. 21, 2005), thosestatements appear to have been inserted into the Congressional Record after the Senate debate. See Reply Brief for Petitioner 5, n. 6; see also151 Cong. Rec. S14260 (statement of Sen. Kyl) (“I would like to say a few words about the now-completed National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006” (emphasis added)). All statements made during the debate itself support Senator Levin’s understanding that the final text of the DTA would not render subsection (e)(1) applicable to pending cases.

To which Justice Scalia replied in dissent:

The Court urges that some “statements made by Senators preceding passage of the Act lend further support to” the Court’s interpretation, citing excerpts from the floor debate that support its view, ante, 15–16, n. 10. The Court immediately goes on to discount numerous floor statements by the DTA’s sponsors that flatly contradict its view, because “those statements appear to have been inserted into the Congressional Record after the Senate  debate.” Ibid. Of course this observation, even if true, makes no difference unless one indulges the fantasy that Senate floor speeches are attended (like the Philippics of Demosthenes) by throngs of eager listeners, instead of being delivered (like Demosthenes’ practice sessions onthe beach) alone into a vast emptiness. Whether the floor statements are spoken where no Senator hears, or written where no Senator reads, they represent at most the viewsof a single Senator.

***
Committee reports do not similarly represent the views of just a single Senator, but it will be interesting to see what happens if any party relies in court upon a Senate report issued after passage of H.R. 9.

Rick Hasen

Rick Pildes wrote:
For now, one legislative process point about VRA renewal that will of interest to academics and lawyers focused on the role of legislative history in statutory interpretation:  As I understand it, although the Senate has now passed the VRA, the Senate Judiciary Committee has not yet written or filed the Committee Report on the legislation.  That is, the Senate approved the bill without any Commitee Report to purport, even, to consider.  The Report will be written and filed sometime later.  Personally, I had not been aware that there was even a practice of filing Committee Reports after a bill had already been approved.  I assume the Senate Rules must permit this.  I also would be curious how often this practice occurs.  I also wonder how often lawyers or judges are aware that a Report has been filed after a chamber has voted (if the House permits a similar practice).  If one were aware of the possibility of this practice, you might check dates on the Reports a
nd the approved bill, assuming the Senate does not also backdate its Reports.  But I follow these issues relatively closely and I was not aware until recently that this was even a possibility.

Of most significance, the existence of this practice surely has relevance to the heated debates over the role of legislative history, particularly Committee Reports, in judicial decisions interpreting statutes.  Should courts ignore Committee Reports filed after a chamber has already voted on a bill?  Does that mean Committee Reports should be given weight for some statutes and not others?  More broadly, if Congress itself -- or, in this case, the Senate at least -- treats its own Committee Reports as irrelevant to actual legislating, should the courts invoke that as a reason not to give these Reports the weight they have traditionally been given in interpretation?  I had thought courts were right to consider these Reports, albeit cautiously, but this example has to give anyone pause about the specific and the general questions raised by this recent example.  I should note that my understanding that the Committee Report would be filed after the vote is based on my knowledge 
as of yesterday; it is possible, perhaps, that the Committee Report was actually filed today before the vote, but that seems unlikely.

Best,
Rick

Richard H. Pildes
Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
Co-Director, NYU Center on Law and Security
NYU School of Law
phone:  212 998-6377
fax:  212  995-3662




  

-- 
Rick Hasen 
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School 
919 Albany Street 
Los Angeles, CA  90015-1211 
(213)736-1466 - voice 
(213)380-3769 - fax 
rick.hasen@lls.edu 
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html 
http://electionlawblog.org