curran thank your honour's and please support we're asking the court to reverse the decision below in this case because the veterans court interpreted section one hundred one of the better of the veteran's benefits of two thousand and three in a manner that contradicts both the statutes plain language and the clear legislative intent as overwhelmingly expressed in the legislat read straightforwardly the statute clearly contemplate that individuals in mrs frederic's position will be required to submit an application within one year after the law's  in order to reinstate their benefits for dependency and indemnity compensation there are a variety of aspects of the statute that the veterans court below ignored and that  frederic's and a veterans court reputation as advocated on appeal in this case work extremely hard to either ignore or read out of the statute mr sharon hart's going to tell us in the minute that congress didn't use very clear window language like during or with then he had that instead just had this not later then reference which he will interpret as an end date statute rather than a window of opportunity when you address that choice of language yes the i think we'll get to maybe broader aspects of the statute for their own in than to define a forward looking requirement with a yes a close period be even leaving aside the question of a close period of a power looking requirement for something to do something a new application week additional material trying to suggest that by using that forward looking verb tense submit congress was potentially intending to actually include the passive with the supreme court in car called an on the temporal construction even though the ordinary meaning of submit both in ordinary grammar and in ordinary statutory construction is for looking fluting under the dictionary act itself congress potentially could have meant when it use the word submit actually have to have submitted or had submitted and for that argument is it your understanding that your emissaries position is that because there was an application as we all know submitted a long time ago when she first qualified for the i c based on the veterans now she doesn't need to file another application then sure chica just call up and say by the way i here's a copy of my marriage certificate i got married i was under fifty seven when i got married i'm still my that's certainly the implication of of my understanding of what the veterans court explicitly said and my understanding of that was without actual application of the form when that letter came in the v a would have no way of knowing whether she had actually been married after the death of the veteran to somebody else and didn't get divorced and then married again v a i mean my point point is that the application requires you to list all you are and why they were terminated and it's not i mean i'm not suggesting you suggest the human being here a question would be dishonest or something else with people points we made in our brief here is that mrs frederick the national education that she's relying on is one thousand seven hundred thirty three years before the law passed when actually just kind of did not exist in this form for people who have been remarried she dropped off a role in for submitted and wrapped up and then i'll go to the to the notice minute again we have these legislative materials that mrs frederick did seeking suggests maybe congress congress men have to when you use perspective language but there are three reasons that i absolutely refuse the first is that these materials and use argument are precisely the arguments and material that the supreme court declined to adopt under arguably more compelling circumstances and cars are involved  happened here because from the statute it's clearly not what happened truly if your honour's look at section seven or one of the act and this is just an example i can i can list other provisions are similar throughout th our congress used passive tense verb when it was appropriate to use past tense section seven one one one visa good example where it says this person had to have received did or did not do this or had not done this and not only that but that same provision section seven zero one be also contains a one year filing requirement which uses the same submit language the same not later than language not later then and then the subject and safety if you don't submit the document during the period described of up and those are those are just examples of other examples of either the passive language in the statute  that involved a technical correction that fixed an internal inconsistency in a previous statute that accomplishes a similar purpose and the key point there is that it was the technical correction to a statute that did not permit a person in this frederick's position with respect to that statute to rely on a previous application in order to obtain the bat so that not only does it not support the veterans court's ron argued in our brief the statute contains very broad language it explicitly states that this is the first cause of a statute that it applies in the case of an individual who but for having remarried would be eligible literally or effectively exclusively apply to that hypothetical population of people who may have been eligible at some point never applied lofted as a result of remarriage but then is a result of this statute would be applying for the first time a application within the period response later on or i disagree with your characterization it nowhere actually uses the word with him no it says no later than that it sa if you submit an application no later than a state that's correct or not later than the language not later than doesn't fact provide a deadline by which any applications that are going to be considered to operate to restore  est that's not the preferred way to in fact draft a statute especially where as here the context of the statute and in fact each of the supreme court decisions cited by the secretary suggests that we look to the context of the statute the context of the here that is not helpful to my client i recognize that but where is here the an ambiguous language of the statute operates in favor of my client we should not in fact be looking to the will of legislative history that's been made clear by the supreme court that's been recognized to me clear by this court here we only need to look at the language to see that an application needs to be submitted prior to not later than the specific deadline there is no window make us to me you're asking us to go beyond the plain meaning to get where we need to go and you're using drafting manual concepts in a setting in which the at least the legislative history of not telling me what the statute means the legislative history of telling me this is an unusual situation and that's what i meant by referring to this in the congress shall budget estimate was they're saying it's not unusual situation here we're looking at this defined group or whether or not we're talking about when the application has to be i think and i have a couple questions draft up and i'll try to address each first out to the congressional budget office estimates this quarter in sharpeners as united states has indicated the congressional budget office estimates are not controlling portions of legislative history they may at times have some persuasive militarism and other cases we've looked in the matter cases yes your honor you have but the congressional budget office estimates standing alone should not in any way from a language here justice rader asked the question about six minutes i would suggest that submits is not ambiguous as to its tense when viewed in the context of the statute as required by the legislative dropping manuals as required by the supreme court's decisions in current quietly and wilson each of which is cited by the secretary in each of those cases in which the present tense is of terms was found to in says both parties claim victory on the face of the statute we have no reluctance to examine the legislative history of the ten year requirement in search of the correct answer to the question posed you know i guess you didn't tell me that that was the supreme court law prohibited what we did in the case what was saying it both sides here are claiming victory on the face of the language of the statute are true it would appear so although it's on thursday that the secretary is consistently relying on the you think that doesn't entitle us to look at the lady who has your honor i cannot presume to suggest whether you're entitled to look a lot of slip history but i would suggest a simple disagreement between parties as to whether language is clear and unambig necessarily means that the language is in fact ambiguous requiring and render inappropriate reference to logically reason i raced down there was a congressional budget office type case and we said in that case we were worried because we were concerned that repeated references in the secretary's briefs as to the potential outlay of a decision here could mean for the government although i suggest that in doing so the secretary's actually conflating two things one eligibility for benefits and the other an award of benefits veterans benefits act of two thousand and three simply address the issue of eligibility contrary to the secretary's characterization of mrs frederic's argument has frederick does not suggest that all benefits must necessarily have been restored immediately upon a napkin to the parents but that's after two thousand and three that's the statute restaurant and here mrs frederick is not requesting kind if it's prior to the date of an accident of the statute in fact she hasn't even gone so far as to request benefits prior to the date on which she called up as your honor put it during the secretary's argument called up the v a and a couple other things very briefly the secretary pointed to several other sub sections of the veteran's benefits act of two thousand and three during the opening portion of argument today i didn't manage to scribble all those down fast enough but at least the first one that was  heard was subsection seven a one d for this is in the context of the issue of the not later than usage i would point out that here although not later than language is used in the context of the subsection not later than it provides a deadline just as it does in section in subsection one hundred one ina other language provides a window specifically seven the one before use the word during the very type of word that is missing from subsection a one in that would provide context to suggest a limited one year window with when within which application should be submitted one additional point that ought to be clarified to the best of my knowledge there is no such thing as an application for reinstatement reinstatement of dependency indemnity compensation benefits is consistently granted upon informal request of surviving spouses either in circumstances in which  circumstances change either the death or divorce of a subsequent spouse or for example a change in the law as here informal requests for reinstatement are not the same as applications and indeed in the secretar regulations dealing with informal claims you'll notice the thirty eight c f r three dot one five five area deals with informal claims for benefits generally where the informal claim is clearly intended to apply for benefits whereas three point one five five c the subsection that would be a issue in a reinstatement circumstance rip simply reflects a request for real reinstated one title of it all your honor i think that we're smushing two issues together she was indeed eligible for and did receive the i c benefits based on original application in till they were terminated based upon her remarriage at the age of fifty seven yes that isn't running remarried at the age of fifty seven at that time she was not entitled with the care for the benefit she was no longer told of the benefits at that time based on her remarriage that's correct so the so the purpose here was to remove the of the ones that were in it was for those benefits so there is no ok sorry restores the eligibility for those benefits and if an applicant if a are surviving spouse words are actually spouse remarried you are correct that any gauge benefits would be terminated that does not mean that the surviving spouse is completely out of the purview of the v a if that subsequent marriage were to be terminated by death or divorce act into the veteran's benefits act of two thousand and three and there may be a good and sound reason for that for instance you don't want people in mrs frederic's position to divorce their spouses which would restore their entitlement to the i c u only to remarry them which would again would maintain their entitlement under the veterans benefits after two thousand and three that would be nonsensical there's good reason to offer these benefits right now i believe i was out of time to judge i appreciate your restoring some but if there are no further questions from the records i'll try to go through them quickly since i know we're running short on time first of all this change much mistaken if one is seeking to reapply for benefits is really lot of a divorce or moment section five one one zero  weren't wearing a special doesn't say that i mean we're there's a great difference between those two classes of individuals this is the statute requires an application for benefits of any time i believe the five one one zero  because in this case congress in section one hundred one a provider of a specific requirement that said and this gets the context point is not just about submit the statute said in context someone who is seeking and to have benefits by reason of the amendment that we're making in this law if you want to have your benefits reinstated because of this new law you can only do so if you submit an application not later than one year after the an act of this law i'm sorry not even not one year later not not not later than the end of the one year period beginning on the date of an act of the soul and so going back to the context of the statute the context is we're talking about someone who is seeking to reinstate the benefit having to submit its application all of these aspects the puck the four looking verb tense the not later than which frequently equates to forward looking the fact that it says one year period with the beginning and again the overall context of this and i have one question sure this one year period has now expired what is the size of the class that ms frederick would represent how many people are there that would be in her situation having remarried before fifty seven in seeking reinstate i don't really i does not have the information on that i can point to the cvo estimate which states that the requirement i fel thank you missed from what all