after enactment of the Public Law. The statutes at large are legal evidence of the laws. See U.S. Nat’l Bank of Or. v. Indep. Ins. Agents of Am., Inc., 508 U.S. 439, 448, 113 S.Ct. 2173, 124 L.Ed.2d 402 (1993). Thus, Pub.L. No. 108-183 is controlling law. 2 . Mrs. Frederick also focuses on the Secretary's regulation, 38 C.F.R. § 3.55(a)(10)(ii) (2010), which essentially parrots the statute, and notes that whereas the Public Law requires “an application” to be submitted, the regulation states “the application” must be submitted. Because the Secretary eschewed any intent to change the substance of the statute by using "the” instead of "an,” we do not further address this part of Mrs. Frederick's argument. See Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 257, 126 S.Ct. 904, 163 L.Ed.2d 748 (2006) (<HOLDING>); Haas v. Peake, 525 F.3d 1168 (Fed.Cir.2008);
holding interpretation may not be inconsistent with regulation holding that deference to an agency interpretation is not appropriate where a statute is administered by more than one agency holding that if an agency regulation parrots the law the question presented is one of statutory interpretation holding that where a regulation could not fairly be read to have spoken at all on an issue an agencys proposed interpretation of the regulation as it pertained to that issue was not a reasonable interpretation of the regulation holding that the interpretation of an unambiguous contract is a question of law