Thank you.
Someone said earlier that we should avoid having several definitions of the same term in different statutes. Here, however, we are referring directly to a definition that already exists and represents a consensus. The subamendment that my colleague is considering would be tantamount to allowing public servants, themselves, to define, by regulation, what constitutes an abuse of power, even if the definition already exists. I don't want to insult anyone, but I am trying to make sense of this.