Opinion ID: 12484
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Legislative History of Section 2024(a)

Text: Sykes concedes that there is no contemporaneous explanation of the effect on pre-employment military service, but argues that statements in the legislative history of the 1961 and 1968 amendments support his position. Sykes observes that, pursuant to the Military Training and Service Act of 1968, the legislative history restated existing law as providing that [o]nly active military service from employment to which restoration is claimed is to be included in computing service time to determine the 4-year limitation. S.Rep. No. 1477, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1968 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3421, 3424 n. 2. Although C&G contends that, because the 1968 amendments were subsequent to the first enacted statute conferring veteran reemployment rights, the 1968 legislative history is of no significance, the statement was included in the section restating existing law and is some indication of congressional understanding of the VRRA. See, e.g., Bobsee Corp. v. United States, 411 F.2d 231, 237 n. 18 (5th Cir.1969) (Although a committee report written with regard to a subsequent enactment is not legislative history with regard to a previously enacted statute, it is entitled to some consideration as a secondarily authoritative expression of expert opinion.). See also United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 178 n. 7 (5th Cir.1989) ([A] later Congress' understanding of the legislative intent of an earlier Congress is entitled to deference.); 2B Norman J. Singer, characterization of White 's hypothesized situation as an alternative holding. 14 Sutherland Statutory Construction § 49.11, p. 84 (Rev. ed.1992) (same). We find the legislative history of the 1961 amendments, however, somewhat less enlightening. The 1961 amendments, which added the August 1, 1961, date restrictions in section 2024(a), were enacted to ensure that veterans of the Korean conflict—some of whom were approaching the four-year service limitation—would be able to serve up to an additional four years. The Senate report addressed the need to extend the post-employment limitation to enable then-current service members to extend their enlistments voluntarily, but did not expressly address the issue here presented. S.Rep. No. 1070, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., reprinted in 1961 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3319, 3320 (noting that [s]ome of the persons who will perform additional active duty ... have ... already served a substantial part of the 4-year period during which they have reemployment protection under existing law).