absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective.’ ” (citation omitted)). Under Education’s interpretation, § 1095a operates to improve the efficiency with which defaulted student loans are collected, while the CCPA protects debtors from the hardships resulting from the potential limitless multiple garnishments. See id. Because § 1095a and the CCPA are capable of co-existence and are not in conflict, we conclude that the district court’s finding that § 1095a specifically limited the garnishment of student loans to 10% and superceded the CCPA’s existing general limitation on multiple garnishments of consumer debtors was incorrect. See Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co., 426 U.S. 148, 153-54, 96 S.Ct. 1989, 1992-93, 48 L.Ed.2d 540 (1976) (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION The plain language of 20 U.S.C. §
holding that when two statutes are in conflict the more recent and specific statute should prevail so as to repeal the earlier general statute recognizing the principle that gives precedence to the terms of the more specific statute where a general statute and a specific statute speak to the same concern holding that a general statute is superseded by a more recent specific statute only if the two statutes are in conflict holding that where there is a conflict between statutes the more recent statute is controlling and a specific provision prevails over a general provision relating to the same subject matter holding that specific statutes create exceptions to general statutes therefore if a provision of a specific statute is inconsistent with one in a general statute on the same subject the specific statute controls