On the last amendment, or maybe it was the second-last amendment, the argument was that we couldn't do that because it had to be at 100% to have adherence. Yet, now you seem to be arguing that “prescribed” is too broad and ministerial authority has to be maintained so that they can change definitions by regulation. Your argument that we couldn't do the one amendment seems to be at cross purposes with the argument on this amendment. I'm a little bit lost.
On October 4th, 2016. See this statement in context.