166
Opinion of the Court
Petitioners also point out, again correctly, that during debate on the 1984 amendments a Senator made a passing reference to the Redick case and suggested that the House and Senate conferees disagreed with the Board's decision in that case. 130 Cong. Rec. 26300 (1984) (statement of Sen. Hatch). Because that was a hearing loss case, they infer that the retiree provisions of the amendment should be construed to apply to such cases. In addition to the fact that the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise, we reject the argument for two reasons, each of which is sufficient. First, when carefully read, we find the text of the statute unambiguous on the point at issue; accordingly, we give no weight to a single reference by a single Senator during floor debate in the Senate. Second, as part of the 1984 amendments, Congress amended § 8(c)(13) to preserve the timeliness of hearing loss claims filed more than a year after the employee's last exposure.15 It accomplished that purpose not by postponing the time of injury until the date of awareness, but, on the contrary, by providing that the "time for filing a . . . claim for compensation . . . shall not begin to run in connection with any claim for loss of hearing under this section . . . until the employee has received an audiogram . . . ." 33 U. S. C. § 908(c)(13)(D). Thus, Congress responded to its concern about latent diseases that are not scheduled and cause no loss of earnings by enacting the interrelated provisions constituting the "third" compensation system, whereas it responded to a concern about hearing loss claims by amending § 8(c)(13).
IV
For the reasons given, we hold, as did the court below, that claims for hearing loss, whether filed by current workers or retirees, are claims for a scheduled injury and must be
15 See n. 10, supra.
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007