No, I understand.
I want you to understand that although your amendment changed the name, the end of the motion still reads, “to explain the consequences of the witnesses' failure to appear before the Committee”. The argument should not be anything to do with policy of the government, etc., but should be with regard to why your proposed witness would be able to do what has been asked for by the motion.
I suggest to you, sir, that to go outside of the expertise to explain to this committee the legal ramifications would not be in order. It would not be relevant to the debate on the amendment to the motion as presented. Okay?
It's just to caution you that you're straying beyond the scope of the motion.