Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf
Page Number: 40

Cite as:  562 U. S. ____ (2011) 

11 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

for  the  compensation.”    1987  Report  690.    In  1987,  Con-
gress  passed  legislation  to  fund  the  compensation  pro-
gram.  The  House  Energy  and  Commerce  Committee 
Report9  accompanying  that  legislation  specifically  stated 
that “the codification of Comment (k) of The Restatement 
(Second) of Torts was not intended to decide as a matter of 
law  the  circumstances  in  which  a  vaccine  should  be 
deemed unavoidably unsafe.”  Id., at 691.  The Committee 
noted that “[a]n amendment to establish . . . that a manu-
facturer’s  failure  to  develop  [a]  safer  vaccine  was  not 
grounds for liability was rejected by the Committee during 
its original consideration of the Act.”  Ibid.  In light of that
rejection, the Committee emphasized that “there should be
no misunderstanding that the Act undertook to decide as a
matter  of  law  whether  vaccines  were  unavoidably  unsafe 
or  not,”  and  that  “[t]his  question  is  left  to  the  courts  to 
determine in accordance with applicable law.”  Ibid. 

To be sure, postenactment legislative history created by
a  subsequent  Congress  is  ordinarily  a  hazardous  basis
from  which  to  infer  the  intent  of  the  enacting  Congress. 
See Sullivan v. Finkelstein, 496 U. S. 617, 631–632 (1990) 
(SCALIA,  J.,  concurring  in  part).    But  unlike  ordinary
postenactment  legislative  history,  which  is  justifiably
given  little  or  no  weight,  the  1987  Report  reflects  the 
intent of the Congress that enacted the funding legislation 
necessary  to  give  operative  effect  to  the  principal  provi-
sions of the Vaccine Act, including §22(b)(1).10  Congress in 
—————— 

9 The  Third  Circuit’s  opinion  below  expressed  uncertainty  as  to 
whether the 1987  Report was authored by the House Budget Commit-
tee or the House Energy and Commerce Committee.  See 561 F. 3d 233, 
250  (2009).    As  petitioners  explain,  although  the  Budget  Committee
compiled and issued the Report, the Energy and Commerce Committee
wrote  and  approved  the  relevant  language.  Title  IV  of  the  Report,
entitled  “Committee  on  Energy  and  Commerce,”  comprises  “two  Com-
mittee Prints approved by the Committee on Energy and Commerce for
inclusion in the forthcoming reconciliation bill.”  1987 Report 377, 380. 
10 The  majority  suggests  that  the  1987  legislation  creating  the  fund-