On the recordMarch 8, 2023
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to appear so tough that 5 years of debarment from Federal employment is not enough, so we are going to make it 10 because 5 just doesn't do it. The difference between 5 and 10 is going to mean that someone, some government official who is trying to censor lawful speech on the internet is going to say, whoa, whoa, 10 years, oh, I am not going to do it now--but 5 years. These amendments are trivial; they are unnecessary; they have no meaning; and yet the meaningful amendments were not allowed to be brought to the floor. Apparently the open rules only apply to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they do not apply to us. That is a shame because there are some very significant amendments that would make this bad, bad bill slightly better. For that reason, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles). The amendment was agreed to. Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Ogles The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in House Report 118-7.





