If purpose matters, where do you find it? One place is the record of how the statute was made. Its use is among the most debated questions in statutory interpretation.
Key idea
Legislative history includes committee reports, floor statements, hearings and earlier drafts of a bill. Its supporters say it shows what Congress meant and what problem it addressed; its critics say only the enacted text was voted on and history can be selective.
| Kind of history | Weight courts that use it usually give |
|---|---|
| Conference and committee reports | the most: they explain a bill to the whole chamber before the vote |
| Statements by a bill's sponsor or floor manager | some |
| Changes between drafts (words added or dropped) | often telling |
| A single member's floor remark | little |
| Statements made after the law was passed | very little |
Why it works
The case for legislative history: Congress works through committees, and members rely on committee reports to know what a bill does. Reading them helps a court see the problem and the meaning of technical terms, the way you would read the notes of a meeting to understand its decision. Justice Stephen Breyer defended this use in a 1992 article. The case against: under Article I, only the text passed both houses and was presented to the President; reports are written by staff and committee members and are never voted on; and a long record contains statements on every side, so a judge can pick the ones that support the result he wants. Justice Antonin Scalia made these arguments for decades. Courts today vary: some consult history only if the text is unclear; others use it more freely; textualists rarely rely on it.
Worked example: Weigh the evidence
A statute's meaning is unclear. The Senate committee report says the word "facility" covers mobile units. One senator said on the floor that it does not. A House member said so in a press interview a year after enactment. Which evidence would a court that uses history weigh most?
- The committee report explains the bill to the Senate before the vote: heavy weight.
- One senator's floor remark: some, but less.
- A statement after enactment did not inform anyone's vote: little or none.
Answer: The committee report.
Worked example: A dropped word
A draft of a bill covered "employees and contractors." Before passage, "and contractors" was struck. The enacted law covers "employees." Does the change help someone arguing the law does not cover contractors?
- Courts often treat deliberate changes between drafts as meaningful.
- Striking "contractors" suggests Congress chose not to cover them.
- A textualist might reach the same answer from the word "employees" alone.
Answer: Yes, it supports that reading.
Common mistake
Treating any statement in the record as Congress's intent. Courts that use history give committee reports more weight than a single member's floor remark, and almost none to statements after enactment. Check: who said it, when, and did the members voting on the bill have it before them?
This is an educational course, not legal advice.