Statements in committee reports have been held to carry greater weight than statements of legislators in the course of debates. If the bill or a portion of it remains unchanged, it is reasonably assumed that the legislature adopted the view of the draftsman. Similarly, if the legislature adopts an amendment urged by a witness, it may be assumed that the intent voiced was adopted by the legislature. Generally statements made by others at the committee hearings concerning the nature and effect of a bill are not accorded any weight. It is worth noting that not all jurists and legal scholars feel that it is appropriate to use extrinsic aids such as a legislative history in order to construe the meaning of a statute.
Legislative history helps a court understand the context and purpose of a statute.
It records the manner in which Congress enacts its legislation, and it represents the way Congress communicates with the country at large. Against the Use of Legislative Histories Committee reports, floor speeches, and even colloquies between Congressmen are frail substitutes for bicameral vote upon the text of a law and its presentment to the President. My view that the objective indication of the words, rather than the intent of the legislature, is what constitutes the law leads me, of course, to the conclusion that legislative history should not be used as an authoritative indication of a statute's meaning.