I think it's really important to point out that the testimony being referenced speaks to the interest of having an example provided in the definition.
I want to make it clear that what we're reacting to in front of us with the amendment does not provide examples. It doesn't say “may include”, for example. It says “includes”. That's entirely different from offering a context-dependent definition followed by some indicative examples. In that way, it's completely different from what we're contemplating here.