You're correct. We had a discussion about this in the House when I was giving my speeches. I'm just really reiterating the comments that I've heard from stakeholders and families of prisoners of conscience. What they don't want to have happen is for it to be overly prescriptive in nature. They prefer a broader term.
I'm well aware, and it's been quite pointed out, that the term “prisoners of conscience” is not a term of art, as it were, and I'm not married to those exact words, so if there are amendments, I'm open to them, but I would not want to see any weakening of this wording, by which I mean a narrowing of the definition. I would rather see too many names published as opposed to too few.
I've heard from families over and over again that they are not concerned that the name may put their loved ones in jeopardy. In fact, it's just the opposite: They're tired of their loved ones being an afterthought in geopolitical politics. These are real human beings and this is where we can make a real difference. It would be a shame to leave people out as a result of a definitional issue when we could otherwise help them.