Opinion ID: 2966691
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Reliance on Legislative History

Text: The Government next argues that the legislative history of the 1981 Amendment demonstrates that Congress meant to repeal the effective date of the 1976 Amendment. The Government does not explain why we should resort to the legislative history, considering our view that if the statutory language is plain and admits of no more than one meaning, the duty of interpretation does not arise, and . . . the sole function of the courts is to enforce [the statute] according to its terms. United States v. Murphy, 35 F.3d 143, 145 (4th Cir. 1994) (quotations omitted). We do not even look at legislative history unless there is an ambiguity on the face of the statute. Moreover, because implied repeal is at issue, the requisite ambiguity does not arise unless the provisions are in irreconcilable conflict or one provision covers the whole subject matter of the other. Accordingly, even if the legislative history supported the Government's argument, we would decline the Government's invitation to rely on the legislative history.5 _________________________________________________________________ 5 In any event, the legislative history provides little guidance. The Government points only to general statements that Congress's intent was to 11