On a point of order, Chair, in history, when the committee goes through clause-by-clause study, when they come to a clause they don't like or want to amend, questions are presented to the witnesses. In both cases questions have not been presented to the witnesses. They've made more of an attempt to give their points of view, or in some cases lobby or stall. I would instruct the chair, at his will and under his guidance, that maybe we should get back to what is convention and go through the process of clause-by-clause consideration. If they do have questions for the witnesses, I would entertain those questions. If they're just taking the floor to speak, then I think they're wasting the committee's time.
On September 20th, 2018. See this statement in context.