This was an attempt by Mr. Muys to amend my motion. I want to make sure from Ms. Read, who raised the issue of the nature of the original motion, that this language would, in fact, satisfy the concern or allow for more flexibility.
We took it straight from a previous subamendment that was moved today. It was indicated that it was the language needed to allow for a more robust or flexible development of regulations.
I'm not sure if Ms. Read or the officials there have seen it, but I would like some comment as to whether or not this does address the concern about flexibility and allowing for a more robust regulatory process.