When aid to construction of the meaning of words, as used in the statute, is available, there certainly can be no "rule of law" which forbids its use, however clear the words may appear on "superficial examination."

E] ven when the plain meaning did not produce absurd results but merely an unreasonable one `plainly at variance with the policy of the legislation as a whole'this Court has followed that purpose, rather than the literal words

`There is, of course, no more persuasive evidence of the purpose of a statute than the words by which the legislature undertook to give expression to its wishes.

"In the interpretation of statutes, the function of the courts is easily stated. It is to construe the language so as to give effect to the intent of Congress."

Often these words [of the statute] are sufficient in and of themselves to determine the purpose of the legislation. In such cases we have followed their plain meaning. When that meaning has led to absurd or futile results, however, this Court has looked beyond the words to the purpose of the act.*** A fews words of general connotation appearing in the text of statutes …

When that meaning has led to absurd or futile results, however, this Court has looked beyond the words to the purpose of the act.

The principal objective in interpreting any statute is to determine what Congress meant by the use of the statutory language being construed.

However, as to such rulings, the Supreme Court has said: "In any case such interpretations are entitled to great weight. This is peculiarly true here where the interpretations involved `contemporaneous construction of a statute by the men charged with the responsibility of setting its machinery in motion; of making the parts work efficiently and smoothly while they are yet …

The fact that the Legislature struck from the Act the provision referred to above should be considered in determining the intention of the Legislature. "When aid to construction of the meaning of words, as used in the statute, is available, there certainly can be no `rule of law'which forbids its use, however clear the words may appear on `superficial examination.'The …