B-129759, NOVEMBER 28, 1956, 36 COMP. GEN. 434

B-129759: Nov 28, 1956

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

WHICH REQUIRES THE DISCONTINUANCE OF LOW-RENT HOUSING PROJECTS ONLY IF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY NEGOTIATES WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR DISCONTINUANCE AND WHICH IS IN CONFLICT WITH SIMILAR PROVISOS IN THE 1952 AND 1953 APPROPRIATIONS. WHICH NOT ONLY PRECLUDED PROCEEDING WITH SUCH PROJECTS IF THEY WERE REJECTED EITHER BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING BODY OR BY POPULAR VOTE BUT REQUIRED SUBSEQUENT LOCAL APPROVAL TO BE IN THE SAME FORM AS THE REJECTION. REPEALS BY IMPLICATION THE 1952 AND 1953 PROVISOS SO THAT A PROJECT WHICH WAS REJECTED BY POPULAR VOTE MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE ON SUBSEQUENT NEGOTIATION BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 1956: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 9.

B-129759, NOVEMBER 28, 1956, 36 COMP. GEN. 434

HOUSING - FEDERAL LOW-RENT PROJECTS - ELIGIBILITY OF LOCAL REJECTED PROJECTS FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE THE PROVISO IN THE FIRST INDEPENDENT OFFICES APPROPRIATION ACT 1954, WHICH REQUIRES THE DISCONTINUANCE OF LOW-RENT HOUSING PROJECTS ONLY IF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY NEGOTIATES WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR DISCONTINUANCE AND WHICH IS IN CONFLICT WITH SIMILAR PROVISOS IN THE 1952 AND 1953 APPROPRIATIONS, WHICH NOT ONLY PRECLUDED PROCEEDING WITH SUCH PROJECTS IF THEY WERE REJECTED EITHER BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING BODY OR BY POPULAR VOTE BUT REQUIRED SUBSEQUENT LOCAL APPROVAL TO BE IN THE SAME FORM AS THE REJECTION, REPEALS BY IMPLICATION THE 1952 AND 1953 PROVISOS SO THAT A PROJECT WHICH WAS REJECTED BY POPULAR VOTE MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE ON SUBSEQUENT NEGOTIATION BY THE LOCAL AUTHORITY WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

TO THE ADMINISTRATOR, HOUSING AND HOME FINANCE AGENCY, NOVEMBER 28, 1956:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 9, 1956, PRESENTING FOR DECISION A QUESTION INVOLVING A PROVISO IN THE INDEPENDENT OFFICES APPROPRIATION ACT, 1952, 65 STAT. 268, 277, 42 U.S.C. 1411A, UNDER THE HEADING " HOUSING AND HOME FINANCE AGENCY" SUBHEADING " PUBLIC HOUSING ADMINISTRATION, ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS.' THE SAME PROVISO WAS REPEATED IN THE INDEPENDENT OFFICES APPROPRIATION ACT, 1953, 66 STAT. 393, 403, 42 U.S.C. 1411A, AND READS, AS FOLLOWS:

* * * PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT THE PUBLIC HOUSING ADMINISTRATION SHALL NOT, AFTER THE DATE OF APPROVAL OF THIS ACT, AUTHORIZE THE CONSTRUCTION OF ANY PROJECTS INITIATED BEFORE OR AFTER MARCH 1, 1949, IN ANY LOCALITY IN WHICH SUCH PROJECTS HAVE BEEN OR MAY HEREAFTER BE REJECTED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE LOCALITY OR BY PUBLIC VOTE, UNLESS SUCH PROJECTS HAVE BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED BY THE SAME PROCEDURE THROUGH WHICH SUCH REJECTION WAS EXPRESSED: * * *

YOUR LETTER EXPLAINS THE PROBLEM PRESENTED FOR DECISION, AS FOLLOWS:

IN 1950 THE LOCAL HOUSING AUTHORITY IN LA CROSSE, WISCONSIN, SOUGHT TO OBTAIN ASSISTANCE FROM THE PUBLIC HOUSING ADMINISTRATION UNDER THE UNITED STATES HOUSING ACT OF 1937, AS AMENDED (42 U.S.C. 1401 ET SEQ.) FOR 200 UNITS OF LOW-RENT PUBLIC HOUSING. IN THE COURSE OF THE LOCAL HOUSING AUTHORITY'S NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CITY OF LA CROSSE FOR A "COOPERATION" AGREEMENT, WHICH IS REQUIRED BY SECTION 15 (7) (B) (1) OF THE ACT AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO FEDERAL ASSISTANCE, THE CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER IT SHOULD APPROVE SUCH AN AGREEMENT IN THE FORM OF A REFERENDUM QUESTION PLACED ON THE BALLOT IN A REGULARLY CALLED ELECTION. * * * THE VOTE WAS IN THE NEGATIVE AND THE COUNCIL ACTED ACCORDINGLY AND DID NOT APPROVE THE COOPERATION AGREEMENT. THE LOCAL HOUSING AUTHORITY THEREUPON ABANDONED ITS EFFORT TO OBTAIN FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

RECENTLY, LOCAL INTEREST IN LOW-RENT PUBLIC HOUSING HAS REVIVED. THE LOCAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, WITH THE APPROVAL OF AND APPARENTLY AT THE REQUEST OF THE CITY, HAS AGAIN APPLIED TO THE PHA FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE, THIS TIME FOR 75 UNITS. ON SEPTEMBER 18, 1956, THE CITY COUNCIL, AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 15 (7) (A) (I) OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSING ACT, APPROVED THE LOCAL HOUSING AUTHORITY'S APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY LOAN. ON THE SAME DATE, THE COUNCIL ALSO APPROVED THE COOPERATION AGREEMENT REQUIRED BY THE ACT BY A VOTE OF 20 TO 10 WITH ONE COUNCILMAN ABSENT.

THE QUESTION PRESENTED FOR YOUR DECISION IS WHETHER THE PUBLIC HOUSING ADMINISTRATION MAY ENTER INTO ANY LOAN OR ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS CONTRACT UNDER THE ACT (WHICH WILL, OF COURSE, CONTEMPLATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT) IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE-QUOTED PROVISO.

THE VIEW IS EXPRESSED IN YOUR LETTER THAT AN AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION CAN BE BASED ON TWO SEPARATE PREMISES:(1) THAT THE PROVISO IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT; OR (2) EVEN IF IT IS IN EFFECT, IT HAS BEEN SATISFIED BY THE RECENT FAVORABLE VOTE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF LA CROSSE. YOUR FIRST PREMISE IS BASED ON TWO ALTERNATIVES, NAMELY, (1) THAT THE 1952 PROVISO WAS TEMPORARY AS DISTINGUISHED FROM PERMANENT LEGISLATION AS SHOWN BY THE FACT THAT CONGRESS REPEATED THE PROVISO IN 1953, OR IF NOT (2) THAT THE 1953 PROVISO WAS SUPERSEDED BY A 1954 PROVISO ON THE SAME SUBJECT. THE 1954 PROVISO, WHICH IS CONTAINED IN THE FIRST INDEPENDENT OFFICES APPROPRIATION ACT, 1954, 67 STAT. 298, 306, 42 U.S.C. 1411A, READS, AS FOLLOWS:

PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT UNLESS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE LOCALITY AGREES TO ITS COMPLETION, NO HOUSING SHALL BE AUTHORIZED BY THE PUBLIC HOUSING ADMINISTRATION, OR, IF UNDER CONSTRUCTION CONTINUE TO BE CONSTRUCTED, IN ANY COMMUNITY WHERE THE PEOPLE OF THAT COMMUNITY, BY THEIR DULY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, OR BY REFERENDUM, HAVE INDICATED THEY DO NOT WANT IT, AND SUCH COMMUNITY SHALL NEGOTIATE WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR THE COMPLETION OF SUCH HOUSING, OR ITS ABANDONMENT, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, AND SHALL AGREE TO REPAY TO THE GOVERNMENT THE MONEYS EXPENDED PRIOR TO THE VOTE OR OTHER FORMAL ACTION WHEREBY THE COMMUNITY REJECTED SUCH HOUSING PROJECT FOR ANY SUCH PROJECTS NOT TO BE COMPLETED PLUS SUCH AMOUNT AS MAY BE REQUIRED TO PAY ALL COSTS AND LIQUIDATE ALL OBLIGATIONS LAWFULLY INCURRED BY THE LOCAL HOUSING AUTHORITY PRIOR TO SUCH REJECTION IN CONNECTION WITH ANY PROJECT NOT TO BE COMPLETED: * * *

A PROVISION IN AN ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ACT MAY NOT BE CONSTRUED TO BE PERMANENT LEGISLATION UNLESS THE LANGUAGE USED OR THE NATURE OF THE PROVISION RENDERS IT CLEAR THAT SUCH WAS THE INTENTION OF THE CONGRESS. USUALLY, WHEN THE WORD "HEREAFTER" OR OTHER WORDS INDICATING FUTURITY ARE USED, OR WHEN THE PROVISION IS OF A GENERAL NATURE BEARING NO RELATION TO THE OBJECT OF THE APPROPRIATION, THE PROVISION MAY BE CONSTRUED TO BE PERMANENT LEGISLATION. SEE 5 COMP. GEN. 810; 10 ID. 120; 20 ID. 322; 24 ID.436 AND 32 ID.11. THE USE OF THE LANGUAGE "AFTER THE DATE OF APPROVAL OF THIS ACT," AND "IN WHICH SUCH PROJECTS HAVE BEEN OR MAY HEREAFTER BE REJECTED" IN THE 1952 AND 1953 APPROPRIATIONS INDICATES FUTURITY. THERE APPEARS TO BE NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN MEANING BETWEEN THE USE OF THE WORD "HEREAFTER" AND "AFTER DATE OF APPROVAL OF THIS ACT.' MOREOVER, THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISO IS NOT, IN ITS PHRASEOLOGY, A RESTRICTION ON THE USE OF THE APPROPRIATION BUT A SUBSTANTIVE PROVISION PROHIBITING THE PUBLIC HOUSING ADMINISTRATION FROM AUTHORIZING,"AFTER THE DATE OF APPROVAL" OF THE ACT, THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSING PROJECTS IN CERTAIN INSTANCES. ITS LANGUAGE, STANDING ALONE, APPEARS PERMANENT IN NATURE. ALSO, WHILE NOT CONTROLLING, IT IS NOTED THAT THE CODIFIERS HAVE INCLUDED THE PROVISO AS PERMANENT LAW IN THE U.S.C. (42 U.S.C. 1411A, 1946 EDITION). WHILE THE REPETITION OF THE PROVISO IN THE INDEPENDENT OFFICES APPROPRIATION ACT, 1953, MIGHT INDICATE THAT THE 1952 PROVISO WAS NOT CONSIDERED NOR INTENDED BY THE CONGRESS TO BE PERMANENT, THE REPETITION IS CONSISTENT WITH AN EXCESS OF CAUTION AND A PRACTICE WHICH SOMETIMES IS UNDERSTOOD TO BE FOLLOWED OF MERELY COPYING INTO LATER APPROPRIATION ACTS, AND REENACTING, IN THE ABSENCE OF OBJECTION THERETO, NONCONTROVERSIAL LANGUAGE IN THE PRIOR YEAR'S APPROPRIATION. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE 1952 PROVISO WAS PERMANENT LEGISLATION.

AS TO WHETHER THE 1952 (AND 1953) PROVISO HAS BEEN SUPERSEDED BY THE 1954 PROVISO, IT IS A RULE OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION THAT REPEALS BY IMPLICATION ARE NOT FAVORED. HOWEVER, IT IS EQUALLY WELL-SETTLED THAT IF TWO STATUTES ARE REPUGNANT, THE LATTER STATUTE, WITHOUT A REPEALER CLAUSE, OPERATES AS A REPEAL OF THE EARLIER STATUTE TO THE EXTENT OF THE REPUGNANCY. EVEN WHERE THE TWO STATUTES ARE NOT REPUGNANT IN EVERY RESPECT, IF THE LATTER STATUTE COVERS THE WHOLE FIELD OF THE FIRST AND EMBRACES NEW PROVISIONS, PLAINLY SHOWING THAT IT WAS INTENDED TO SUBSTITUTE FOR THE FIRST STATUTE, IT WILL OPERATE AS A REPEAL OF THE EARLIER STATUTE. UNITED STATES V. TYNEN, 78 U.S. 88; KING V. CORNELL, 106 ID. 395; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HUTTON, 143 ID. 18; AND 28 COMP. GEN. 7.

SUBSEQUENT TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE 1952 PROVISO, THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA IN HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, 243 P.2D 515 ( CERTIORARI DENIED OCTOBER 13, 1952, BY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT), HELD WITH RESPECT TO SUCH PROVISO, THAT IT HAD NO APPLICATION WHERE THE CITY HAD ALREADY APPROVED THE PROJECT AND CONSTRUCTION HAD ALREADY BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE PUBLIC HOUSING ADMINISTRATION. APPARENTLY, THE CONGRESS WAS UNAWARE OF THE EFFECT OF THE CALIFORNIA COURT DECISION IN TIME TO REVISE THE 1952 PROVISO IN THE INDEPENDENT OFFICES APPROPRIATION ACT, 1953. HOWEVER, IN ORDER TO OVERCOME THE EFFECT OF THE DECISION OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, IT ENACTED AS PART OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION ACT, 1953, 66 STAT. 637, 644 (CONTAINING FUNDS FOR THE DEFENSE HOUSING FUNCTIONS OF THE PUBLIC HOUSING ADMINISTRATION), THE SO-CALLED " MCDONOUGH AMENDMENT" WHICH READS, AS FOLLOWS:

PROVIDED FURTHER, * * *. NO PART OF THIS APPROPRIATION MAY BE USED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OR TO PAY SALARIES TO ANY EMPLOYEE WITHIN THE PUBLIC HOUSING ADMINISTRATION OR FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE SO LONG AS THAT AGENCY PROCEEDS WITH ANY PUBLIC/HOUSING PROJECT AFTER SUCH PROJECT HAS BEEN REJECTED OR PREVIOUS APPROVAL THEREOF CANCELED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE LOCALITY BY RESOLUTION OR OTHERWISE OR BY PUBLIC VOTE AND THE GOVERNING BODY HAS TENDERED THE UNITED STATES FULL REIMBURSEMENT OF FEDERAL FUNDS ADVANCED ON SUCH PROJECT PRIOR TO SUCH PROJECT. ( ITALICS ADDED.) THE MCDONOUGH AMENDMENT, AS IS CLEAR FROM THE LANGUAGE USED THEREIN, EXPIRED WITH THE CLOSE OF FISCAL YEAR 1953, I.E., JUNE 30, 1953. HOWEVER, IN DECISION OF DECEMBER 12, 1952 (B 113039), WE HELD THAT THE WORDS "TENDERED THE UNITED STATES FULL REIMBURSEMENT" AS USED IN THAT AMENDMENT WOULD REQUIRE THE GOVERNING BODY INVOLVED TO PRODUCE AND OFFER TO THE GOVERNMENT THE FULL AMOUNT OF FEDERAL FUNDS ADVANCED ON SUCH PROJECT PRIOR TO CANCELLATION AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE MERE NEGOTIATION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE GOVERNING BODY CONCERNED TO TENDER OR DELIVER SUCH AMOUNT. THE 1954 PROVISO WAS ENACTED HAVING IN MIND THE HOLDING OF THE CALIFORNIA COURT AND OF OUR OFFICE AS TO THE MEANING OF THE PREVIOUS ENACTMENTS ON THE SUBJECT.

IT IS APPARENT THAT THE 1954 PROVISO, IN PART, CONFLICTS WITH, OR IS REPUGNANT TO, THE 1952 AND 1953 PROVISOS. UNDER THE 1952 AND 1953 PROVISOS, IT APPEARS THAT THE PUBLIC HOUSING ADMINISTRATION WOULD BE REQUIRED TO REFRAIN FROM PROCEEDING WITH ITS CONTRACT IF A PROJECT ALREADY COMMENCED WAS REJECTED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE LOCALITY OR BY PUBLIC VOTE EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE NO OFFER TO NEGOTIATE A SETTLEMENT. THE 1954 PROVISO REQUIRES DISCONTINUANCE OF THE PROJECT ONLY IF THE COMMUNITY NEGOTIATES WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR ITS DISCONTINUANCE AND AGREES TO REPAY THE GOVERNMENT'S EXPENDITURES PRIOR TO THE REJECTION OF THE PROJECT IN SUCH A CASE. FURTHER, UNDER THE 1952 (OR 1953) PROVISO, IF THE REJECTION WERE BY PUBLIC VOTE AND THE LOCAL GOVERNING BODY SUBSEQUENTLY AGREED TO COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT, THE PUBLIC HOUSING ADMINISTRATION COULD NOT GO FORWARD WITH ITS CONTRACT BECAUSE THE 1952 PROVISO REQUIRES THAT THE REJECTION BE CURED BY THE SAME PROCEDURE AS THAT IN WHICH THE REJECTION WAS EXPRESSED. THE 1954 PROVISO CONTAINS NO SUCH REQUIREMENT. ALSO, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE LANGUAGE USED IN THE 1954 PROVISO THAT THE PROVISO WAS INTENDED TO COVER THE WHOLE FIELD OF THE EARLIER PROVISOS, I.E., THE 1952 AND 1953 PROVISOS AND THE MCDONOUGH AMENDMENT, AND TO EMBRACE NEW MATERIAL AS WELL. FURTHER, IT APPEARS FROM THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THAT THE CONGRESS INTENDED BY THE 1954 PROVISO TO, IN EFFECT, OVERCOME THE HOLDING OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT IN CONNECTION WITH THE 1952 PROVISO AND THE DECISION OF THIS OFFICE INTERPRETING THE "TENDER" REQUIREMENT OF THE MCDONOUGH AMENDMENT. 99 CONG. REC. 3587, 3595. THAT THE CONGRESS INTENDED THE 1954 PROVISO TO SUPERSEDE THE EARLIER PROVISOS AND RECOGNIZED THAT THE 1954 PROVISO COVERED THE WHOLE FIELD OF THE EARLIER PROVISOS IS INDICATED BY THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS MADE IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE DURING FLOOR DEBATE ON THE 1954 PROVISO OR PARTS THEREOF AS SET FORTH IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOLUME 99, PAGES 3504, 3586, AND 5223, RESPECTIVELY:

MR. PHILLIPS. FOR THE INFORMATION OF ALL CONCERNED, AS WELL AS THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA ( MR. MCDONOUGH) THERE WILL BE A COMMITTEE AMENDMENT OFFERED TOMORROW WHICH WILL ADD TO THIS SECTION THE FACT THAT IN ANY NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE REPAYMENT OF ANY MONEY ADVANCED UNDER SUCH COMMUNITY PROJECTS, THE NEGOTIATIONS SHALL NOT COVER MONEY ADVANCED AFTER THE TIME THAT THE PEOPLE EXPRESS THEMSELVES BY ANY LEGAL METHOD AS OPPOSED TO THE PROJECT.

IN ANSWER TO THE GENTLEMAN, WE BELIEVE IT MEANS EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID. THE ONLY REASON I EXPRESS ANY HESITATION AT ALL IS BECAUSE WE HAVE SAID IT TWICE BEFORE. * * * " ( ITALICS SUPPLIED.) (99 CONG. REC. 3504)

MR. PHILLIPS. MR. CHAIRMAN, WE ARE RETURNING TO THE BILL WORDING WHICH HAD BEEN IN PREVIOUS BILLS AND WHICH WE THOUGHT BY IMPLICATION WERE HERE. THE COMMITTEE DESIRES TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT WHERE A COMMUNITY WITHDRAWS FROM A PROJECT WHICH HAD PREVIOUSLY CONTRACTED WITH THE GOVERNMENT FOR PUBLIC HOUSING, IT SHALL BE OBLIGATED FOR THE GOVERNMENT ADVANCES. I DO NOT WISH THAT THERE BE ANY MISAPPREHENSION, BECAUSE WE HAVE CHANGED THE WORDING A LITTLE FROM THE YEAR BEFORE. HAVE MADE IT CLEAR, I HOPE, THAT WHERE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTINUED TO ADVANCE MONEY AGAINST THE DESIRES OF THE COMMUNITY, AFTER DECISIVE FORMAL ACTION ON THE PART OF THE COMMUNITY, THAT THAT MONEY SUBSEQUENTLY ADVANCED --- AND I THINK IMPROPERLY ADVANCED--- SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN THE NEGOTIATIONS. * * * OTHER THAN THAT, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE AMENDMENT THAT WE HAVE NOT VOTED UPON FAVORABLY IN PREVIOUS YEARS. ( ITALICS SUPPLIED.) (99 CONG. REC. 3586) * * * * * **

MR. SPARKMAN. * * * I REFER PARTICULARLY TO THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENT WHICH SEEKS TO DEAL WITH THE SITUATION WHICH WE CONSIDERED ON THE SENATE FLOOR 2 OR 3 TIMES IN THE PAST. I HAD HOPED THAT LAST YEAR WE HAD ARRIVED AT A SATISFACTORY SOLUTION, BUT, APPARENTLY, IT WAS NOT SATISFACTORY. * * * (ITALICS SUPPLIED.)

* * * ** * MR. KNOWLAND. * * * OF COURSE, MR. PRESIDENT, THE MATTER WILL BE IN CONFERENCE, BUT WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO REACH WAS THE SITUATION WHICH WAS DISCUSSED ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE AND OF THE SENATE THIS YEAR AND LAST YEAR, THAT WHERE A LOCAL COMMUNITY, BY THE VOTES OF THE PEOPLE AND BY THE VOTES OF THEIR OWN REPRESENTATIVES, HAD DETERMINED THAT THEY DID NOT WANT TO PROCEED WITH A PUBLIC/HOUSING PROJECT, UNDER OUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS, LOCAL HOME RULE, AND STATES' RIGHTS, THEY WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY SO TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES AND COULD DISCONTINUE, PROVIDING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD RETURNED TO IT THE COSTS SO THERE WOULD BE NO BURDEN UPON THE GOVERNMENT. ( ITALICS SUPPLIED.) WHILE THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISO WAS AMENDED SUBSEQUENT TO THE ABOVE-QUOTED DISCUSSIONS, IT WAS NOT CHANGED TO A DEGREE WHICH WOULD MAKE THE QUOTED STATEMENTS INAPPLICABLE.

FROM THE FOREGOING, IT MUST BE CONCLUDED THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION PERTAINING TO REPEAL BY IMPLICATION REFERRED TO ABOVE IS FOR APPLICATION IN THE INSTANT CASE. THAT IS TO SAY, IT MUST BE HELD THAT THE 1954 PROVISO REPEALS, BY IMPLICATION, THE 1952 (AND 1953) PROVISO. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONCLUDE THAT NEITHER THE 1952 OR 1953 PROVISOS ARE FOR APPLICATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED CONTRACT WITH THE LA CROSSE HOUSING AUTHORITY AND THAT SUCH PROVISOS DO NOT PRECLUDE THE PUBLIC HOUSING ADMINISTRATION FROM ENTERING INTO A LOAN OR ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS CONTRACT WITH THAT AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, THE SPECIFIC QUESTION RAISED IN YOUR LETTER AND QUOTED ABOVE IS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. IN VIEW THEREOF, IT DOES NOT APPEAR NECESSARY TO DISCUSS THE SECOND PREMISE RAISED IN YOUR LETTER CONCERNING THE EFFECT OF THE RECENT FAVORABLE APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT IN QUESTION BY THE LA CROSSE CITY COUNCIL.