>> the dr -- i don't recall the timing of the drb. but we did not launch the drb to the best of my recollection congressman, at the time that these legal issues rose to my attention. i would have to look at the timing. but we were not ready for the decision review board at that time. whether we had published the concept of it by that time, i just don't -- i don't rulecall. i will say this, that the resolution of those three issues was reached in adherence to the law. the issue of at risk and the correct reading of in the matter of assuming was decided correctly. >> so you're inferring that the staff did not correctly interpret the law, but once your engagement came in then there was a direct interpretation of the law. >> i think that our collaborative review of these issues led to the correct result in these cases. because i did not decide them alone. >> so does the law need to be clarify clarified? it sounds like the law must be pretty subjective then? >> i think that at that time, the agency and as i referenced in my opening stateme