Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
has “expressly retained” submerged lands. Reinforcing this reading of the Act is the fact that the Act’s terms reach lands governed by the equal footing doctrine as well as lands beneath the territorial sea. Under the terms of the statute, equal footing lands, like those beneath the territorial sea, pass to a State unless the United States “expressly retained” them. In passing the Act, Congress would have legislated against the backdrop of our early equal footing cases. See Montana, 450 U. S., at 552, n. 2. There is no indication that, in formulating the “expressly retained” standard, Congress intended to upset settled doctrine and to impose on the Federal Government a more or less demanding standard than the one reflected in those cases, see, e. g., Holt State Bank, supra, at 55 , and carried forward in Montana and Utah Div.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where congressional intent is clear a court must give effect to such intent
B. holding that courts must generally give effect to the plain meaning of a statute because that is the best evidence of the legislatures intent
C. holding that intent of parties to choice of law must be given effect
D. holding that the title of legislation is relevant to legislative intent
E. holding that intent to defeat state title to submerged lands must be definitely declared or otherwise made very plain
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.