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 