SCALIA, J., concurring in part utes unambiguously provided unrestricted lump-sum appropriations. We therefore cannot accept the Government's interpretation of §314. Hence we, like the Federal Circuit, are left with the second interpretation, which we adopt, concluding that Congress intended it in the circumstances. See Zadvydas, supra, at 689; cf. 334 F. 3d, at 1092. So interpreted, the provision does not bar recovery here. For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Federal Circuit; we reverse the judgment of the Tenth Circuit; and we remand the cases for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. THE CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the decision of these cases. JUSTICE SCALIA, concurring in part. I join the Court's opinion except its reliance, ante, at 640, on a Senate Committee Report to establish the meaning of the statute at issue here. That source at most indicates the intent of one Committee of one Chamber of Congress—and realistically, probably not even that, since there is no requirement that Committee members vote on, and small probability that they even read, the entire text of a staffgenerated report. It is a legal fiction to say that this expresses the intent of the United States Congress. And it is in any event not the inadequately expressed intent of the Congress, but the meaning of what it enacted, that we should be looking for. The only virtue of this cited source (and its entire allure) is that it says precisely what the Court wants. REPORTER'S NOTE The next page is purposely numbered 801. The numbers between 647 and 801 were intentionally omitted, in order to make it possible to publish the orders with permanent page numbers, thus making the official citations available upon publication of the preliminary prints of the United States Reports. ORDERS FOR OCTOBER 4, 2004, THROUGH MARCH 1, 2005 OCTOBER 4, 2004 Certiorari Granted-Vacated and Remanded No. 03-1540. LAFONTAINE, AKA FROMME v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U. S. 36 (2004). Reported below: 87 Fed. Appx. 776. No. 03-9851. VARACALLI v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U. S. 36 (2004). Reported below: 85 Fed. Appx. 242. No. 03-10242. WEDGEWORTH v. KANSAS. Ct. App. Kan. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U. S. 36 (2004). Reported below: 32 Kan. App. 2d xliii, 79 P. 3d 795. No. 03-10328. HINES v. JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, ET AL. C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U. S. 637 (2004). Reported below: 83 Fed. Appx. 592. No. 03-10835. SARR v. WYOMING. Sup. Ct. Wyo. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U. S. 36 (2004). Reported below: 85 P. 3d 439. No. 04-5098. CALCANO v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 2d Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for fur |