International Tel. Tel. Corp. v. U.S.

1 Citing case

  1. Hart v. United States

    585 F.2d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1978)   Cited 24 times
    Noting inconsistencies between legislative history and language of statutes at issue

    We cannot conclude, in the words we have previously used, that even the authors of the committee report believed they were fairly construing the statutes as enacted. Their words are equally or more consistent with the belief by the authors that it is possible to legislate by committee report instead of by statute, or with the occurrence of a plain and simple inadvertent error. We note for whatever it is worth that the judiciary is traditionally unwilling to find that an earlier statute has been repealed by implication in later legislation, unless that is clearly and manifestly the intent of Congress. See, e. g., Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, supra, 437 U.S. at 153, 98 S.Ct. 2279; Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 549, 94 S.Ct. 2474, 41 L.Ed.2d 290 (1974); International Telephone Telegraph Corp. v. United States, 536 F.2d 1361, 1371, 210 Ct.Cl. 410, 428 (1976); Abell v. United States, 518 F.2d 1369, 1377-78, 207 Ct.Cl. 207, 222-24 (1975), cert. denied 429 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 59, 50 L.Ed.2d 76 (1976). In this instance the rule would apply even more rigorously, as the "repeal" at best is manifested not in text but in legislative history.