mr. speaker , reclaiming my time , i thank again the gentleman for his thoughtful remarks . 
we see it differently , mr. leader . 
what we have created is the ability of both sides to stop investigations in their tracks . 
both sides . 
our side , if we block up , and our five say you are not going to investigate steny hoyer , they can do it . 
formerly they could not do that . 
and i believe your analogy is not apt , and i want to tell you why i think so , mr. leader . 
the investigation is the gathering of facts , not the charging , not the finding of involvement . 
we do not use the term `` guilt , '' but the finding of involvement . 
it is an investigation to gather the facts from which the decision-makers , whether it be a grand jury or a petit jury , whether it be a judge or whether it be a prosecutor who determines whether to bring an indictment . 
once those decision-makers have the facts , they can then make a rational decision , we hope . 
what we have done , however , in changing the rules , which were adopted in a bipartisan fashion , is to allow either side to preclude the investigator from gathering the facts . 
that is as if we could preclude the police or the fbi or others from gathering facts that they would then , in turn , submit to a decision-maker , whether a grand jury to bring an indictment , a prosecutor to bring a charge , a petit jury to bring a conviction . 
i think that is inaccurate 