Thank you.
I am actually extremely to the point, Mr. Kelly. If you had been paying attention, you would know that.
I'm explaining why this amendment that you've put forward is problematic, in the sense that you ruled against the chair when he offered to you to use an opportunity to accept his ruling and bring forward another motion that covered this. You challenged him, you won the challenge, and now you're coming back and bringing forward the exact same amendment. That points to nothing more than political motive in challenging the chair. The chair is there to exercise the procedure, to make sure procedure is followed in a committee and to use their best judgment in an impartial way. Mr. Julian said in his comments earlier that this chair does a really good job of that.
You didn't like the ruling, and you challenged it. You don't challenge the chair because you don't like the ruling; you challenge the chair because you think that they've done something procedurally incorrect. It is something, Mr. Kelly, that you and the rest of the opposition are not grasping—