Protecting Speech From Government Interference Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, accountability matters. Our Nation deserves nothing less than full transparency from Federal officials working in the name of the American people.

When government officials abuse their office to infringe on Americans' right to free speech, it is a very grave offense. Government officials who abuse official taxpayer-funded resources to censor Americans need to be out of government service for a long time.

My amendment allows the Office of Special Counsel, which adjudicates the Hatch Act, and would adjudicate the newly added provisions of this bill, to punish those employees with a longer span of debarment.

This amendment revises the disciplinary action under the bill to allow for debarment from Federal employment for up to 10 years rather than 5. This better reflects the gravity of their offense. People who abuse their official office to violate Americans' constitutional rights shouldn't be able to return to government employment after a brief stint in the private sector.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment at the desk.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, this bill simply empowers the Office of Special Counsel to do better and adjudicate their job.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Chair, 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, again, accountability matters. If you are paid from an appropriation for the White House office or appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, you need to be held to a standard of utmost impartiality.

These folks are paid generous salaries and have large platforms as Cabinet Secretaries or senior White House aides. The monetary penalty should reflect their increased responsibility compared to rank-and-file employees.

The American people have had enough of the swamp, and its efforts to infuse authoritarianism into the fabric of American society.

This amendment, which raises the penalty from $10,000 to $50,000 for senior officials who abuse their office to violate Americans' constitutional rights deserve a costly penalty.

I urge adoption of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment at the desk.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to create greater accountability, responsibility, thoughtfulness in these Cabinet secretaries and senior officials so that it is not partisan politics that rules the day, but, rather, the American people--or the interests of the American people.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source