Mr. Chair, I think the committee should be advised on what the previous vote was, because you changed the meaning of it afterwards. This is such an incredible abuse of privilege and process from a chair who is not being reasonable or fair.
Members need to know the meaning of a vote, and when the vote is that the ruling of the chair be sustained and when the previous ruling of the chair was very clearly that I should be next on the speaking list, and then you say, after all of the members vote to sustain the ruling of the chair and you reinterpret that to sustain your new ruling, which was different from your previous ruling, that's clearly pretty outrageous.