case to be argued is angie versus united states customs it was it was changed manifests airplanes to what what's the underlying reason for the distinction from your point of view rightly or wrongly why has why well there's a lot of counterfeiting other issues so let's make that information publicly available there was a ballooning of with the the development of the air traffic air cargo and i think late seventy's eight idea somewhere over the horizon and and that stopped but so there is a history that that at least the the the executive branch of the customs department thought it would be a good idea to do this and for whatever reason i don't know they just now i understand but in order to to come to some understand i'm speculating some of what there's an absence there's an absence of data and if there does it clearly was a mistake  somewhere along the way somewhere along the way and one might speculate that this was an th hour thing that a lobbyist slipped into the technical corrections act in the response brief in excellent briefing i will say  they they make it sound like section three of a sub three was the entire reason for the technical corrections that when reality is a forty five page bill with tiny little print about nine five and fifty nine sections that addresses hundreds and hundreds if not thousands of sections that it amends one i have conjectured with my clients that it's possible obvious slipped into us in the th hour didn't go through any committees lobbyist for whom who would have that interest and just i don't mean lobbyist for whom i mean what industry would have their interest do that tonight i don't know and the idea again i'm speculating  s rough so they remain respondents discount that as a nurse or plus and we can overlook it there's nothing going on here move along thank you very much but it does remain and it goes and also it's important it's  relevant it's a small detail that i was reviewing last night and i noticed that the title of section three of the tcas states is the title itself says yes title of section three technical and other conforming amendments that's not a title that suggests substantive changes of the type that the respondents are arguing here it's bookkeeping is clarifying moving commas around it's  this is what respondents averred urging here is not a technical or conforming to meant there's nothing to conform to the law before the c c a section three a three was an act it was to allow aircraft manifest data to be publicly available and the titles suggest i mean and under chevron we look at the text and the context and the title is part of the context suggests that substantive amendments in that section were not contemplated by congress you save some time from a said the old the whole world between aircraft and sea going vessels for these purposes when in fact there is and we pointed out in our brief on page twenty three dollars if you look at congressional nachman since that time and particularly after two thousand and one september th there are a series of legislation that specifically deals separately with security requirements for aircraft manifests with security requirements for water borne vessels both are sensitive to be sure but it's a matter of common sense that congress really understands that putting out there what kind of reason is that the security requirements are different these are or four planes forces ships certainly so we know for instance that li batteries due to the news are specifically sensitive to to blow up an air war to tampering i think it's common sense that to have publicly available which airline which cargo ship in and contains specific examples of sensitive items is something that congress would say you know we don't want versus because i think if anyone who would want to tamper with a certain shipment knowing that for instance this particular flight carries lithium ion batteries they know that they can target that flight you know much more easily in a way than you know not knowing that persists of a piece of information page sixteen  security concerns that animated these i mean i can see enough for certain your honor to the extent that we are in the land of speculation as organ was there's no possible reason under the sun why congress of want to treat these absolutely now going back to what legislative history and steps to reconstruction tools we have the senate report and it is typical of congress his actions with this act quite picky but it says the provision amends for th a clear and unambiguous terms the end result they wanted was this provision can only apply to vessel manifests not other types of manifests so again this is not a model of legislative drafting clarity to be sure which is why we analysis which is fairly thorough about legislative history and you're asking about and other considerations certainly congress be made aware just as congress the reverse i would think certainly but the in terms of how that works congress has been aware of the status quo since one thousand nine hundred and six we have to presume including in one thousand and nine when in amendments proposed to change back this very provision to include aircraft the house actually passed that amendment but the senate voted out now why would congress be contemplating an so you ones instinct is that strike one of the vessels and then when you look at the plain wording including the other subs divisions which refer to aircraft airports airport it is there is no ambiguity when contained in such vessel or aircraft manifest so he may develop the october statute directed that such manifest should be stricken and replaced with the vessel manifest but the problem is of course such manifest doesn't appear in sequence anymore in the statute was it was a nonsensical amendment in that sense so what do we do with that right so therefore there's an inherent unclear meaning to the statutory command of congress and you're going to statute therefore we have to look at the legislative history and the canons of test reconstruction that we have available to us let's get out of speculation and let's let's use the tools the courts have which is ok congress gave this command it's it's literally nonsensical even  says don't interpret it so that they're surplusage and we're going to have lots of surpluses if we interpret it the way that the government does it just more respectfully on the surplusage can be tolerated in this case for a number for a couple reasons st there's no hard line rule that says all manner of surplus clearly there was an error and then a court has interpreted the case like that i think those cases are early jr on or some of the cases that we cite but the point is in a case like that what a court can nonsense nonsense well but in the legislative history frankly is not clear either so we love to do i would say your honor that that line from the senate report which comes from the very week that it was and acted as is clear this has this congress did twenty three years ago i mean what i would say about that is what about the argument that clinton administration target in this way that that's a stretch bringing means they point to two references in the federal register as counsel described it a to do list of to do things potentially and argument is that that is hardly the same as for instance in one thousand nine hundred and eighty when the st requirement for years ships was passed the department of treasury issued regulations within the year so the fact that that you know to do list remain on the federal register does not equate to some notion that the clinton administration had that position and then sort of inexplicably gave it up if anything the status quo has been it the way that you want to read but the last thing i would say is this this particular technical act is not just common periods if you look at it there are it's several dozens pages and includes substantive changes to things that can be duty to substan changes to rights that are that are created by shippers this is now we're standing it's titled a highly substance of statute thank you for the rebuttal thank you in response to the question about who might have boils down to a situation of manufactured confusion as the statutory text is clear there's they're trying to to muddy the water by inverting the proper role of proper process of analysis by they go to legislative speculation about there might be some security or hazard issues behind this is completely unsupported certainly within the text of the statutes but also there's nothing in any legislative history for either for the c p a or the  as far as the redundancy of the anakin to the tcas it is it's a it's a probably our hardest issue to get around my response is that the retroactive date for section bringing goods into america that required that their manifest information be publicly available were sea going vessels so for this amendment to be made retroactive to december of one thousand nine hundred and three was also completely redundant so perhaps we just take the position that the redundancy is counsel each other out and of course we go back to the clear text the statute which says aircraft manifest information should be publicly available and that's the beginning middle and end of our case  is agency never got never got around to promulgating the regulations that congress mandated our ship manifests made public there's a process that customs and border  i think it takes all my studies it takes a while but there's a regular it's an ongoing process and the people who take the information such as our clients regularly avail themselves to this process so it's sort of like a