Mr. Chair, I just want to note that, as you have said in the past, one committee doesn't provide a precedent for another committee. Mr. Oliphant has cited actions he may or may not have taken as chair in a different committee. Those do not provide precedent for the actions of this committee.
I also just note that the amendment removes the language “after the completion of the committee's studies on” and replaces it with the language “the committee makes a decision on the studies before it on”. Discussion around whether the completion of studies related to Ukraine, vaccine equity and Taiwan, as opposed to just decisions being made about those studies and therefore the importance of the matters raised in those studies on Ukraine, vaccine equity and Taiwan are certainly relevant. In fact, they're not only relevant, they're central to the very question of whether the study should be completed first or whether simply a decision should be made about those studies.
Finally, I'll just again mention that the precedent at this committee from the House—the long practice of all committees of this House—is that members are able to speak to the issue at hand while providing context and arguments around it. It is very unusual for people to be interrupted every couple of minutes saying that this sentence and that sentence don't apply. I just make note of those precedents as well.