Adam Schiff

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. My colleagues have already had 15 minutes.

Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank my colleague from Texas for reading a letter from constituents out in the State of Texas. But I wonder how that family in Texas would feel if that family were asked: Do you think that we should continue to allow oil companies to earn the greatest profits in the history of any industry, in the history of the world? Or, do you think we ought to take some of those oil revenues and devote them to putting more cops on the street? I think that family would say, ``You know, I would be willing to pay a little less at the pump or have the oil company earn a little less at the pump if it meant pumping a little more of that money into the FBI to keep me safe, or if it meant another bulletproof vest for a police officer.'' I think that family would say the record profits of that industry, that we had a chance to actually take some of those resources and plow it into this country, invest in this country, I think that family in Texas would say, ``That means more to me than making sure that these companies enjoy corporate welfare and astounding profits.'' Now, my friend says this is only a $31 million cut. How much difference could that really make? But my friend isn't willing to say where he would cut the money. He wants to spread it around. But he used the example of the FBI. Let's say we devoted this entire cut to the FBI, and it simply means that you would have one FBI agent working a few less hours. Instead of working maybe an 8-hour day, 5 8-hour days, they would work 4 8-hour days and a 7-hour day. Well, I don't know how much they are paying FBI agents in my friend's part of the State; I am from a different part of California. I don't think they pay them all that much. I think if you cut $31 million out of the FBI, you are cutting a lot of positions out of the FBI.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. A couple quick points. Of course we hear the mantra from my friends on the other side of this bill's representing a tax increase when there is no tax increase in this bill. We have now heard the same statement applied to the farm bill. There is no tax increase in the farm bill. My friends seem to think that the corporate welfare that we provide, if you cut corporate welfare, that somehow we are increasing taxes on average Americans; if we do away with offshore tax savings, that we are somehow doing away with the income of ordinary Americans. But I think ordinary Americans would rather have the investment in our law enforcement. They would rather have safe streets than safe shelters overseas. And one point I wanted to make with respect to a comment that my friend from Georgia made. He said the departments here aren't even asking for the resources we are providing them. None of the agencies want the resources that they would be provided in this bill. Maybe my friend represents a very different district than my own, but I have never had police officers from my cities of Burbank, Glendale, or Pasadena come to me and say, Congressman, we have too much money for cops. We have too many cops on the street. We don't want any of your help. Thank you, but no thank you. Now, maybe things are quite a bit better in Georgia. Maybe there is no crime in Georgia, and maybe your police departments are saying, we don't need vests, we don't need cops, we are doing great, thank you, but no thank you. That is not what I am hearing. What I am hearing is they have got greater responsibilities in the war on terror. They have got higher gang violence. They need the resources. They need the people on patrol. That is what I am hearing. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 30 seconds to my colleague from Ohio.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to make just two quick points in response to my friend's argument that these are not real cuts, these are somehow imaginary cuts, and the illustration he gave of the allowance he gives his child. Two things, one factual and one philosophical. On the factual side, my friend's across-the-board cuts will mean very real, very direct, very incontrovertible cuts, less money now than the year before in many vital programs; not every program, but many vital programs including some I will point out in my friend's home State of Georgia, things that law enforcement in Georgia and around the country care a great deal about. Real cuts. We will talk about some of them. We can't hide behind an across-the-board amendment and say, we are not really cutting anything, because you are. Basically what you are telling your child in the allowance hypothetical is we are going to cut how much we are going to spend on your education, a real cut. We are going to cut how much we are going to spend on your health care, a real cut. Let's hope you don't get sick. One of my friends in the opposition, in support of this same amendment, last week said, American families are just going to have to make the decision, we can't afford to have each of our kids go to college. Maybe we will have to choose one child who won't go to college. Well, philosophically the bipartisan majority of this House doesn't accept that for America. We believe every child who is bright enough to go to college ought to go to college. The fact that his parents may be rich or poor shouldn't matter. And we are willing to make the investments in our colleges to make sure that no parent has to say this child can go to college and this one can't because we are not willing to make the investment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the chairman, and I'll be brief at the outset and intend to reserve our time for the conclusion of the debate. But we're here again to really talk about what the priorities of the Nation are and the competing philosophies of the bipartisan majority and the small minority that has taken to the floor here today. The value of the bipartisan majority is to invest in this country, to make sure that what we have been able to enjoy, the struggle and the sacrifice that our parents and their parents made, is a tradition that we continue in the sense that we want to leave an America that is stronger and that is safer than the one we inherited. And efforts like this, to cut our investment in law enforcement, to cut our investment in trying to keep our communities safe, our police officers safe, are very shortsighted. Now, we all believe that the budget has to be wrestled to the ground in the sense that over the last 6 years my friends in the Republican majority borrowed and spent into oblivion. We now have a massive national debt. As a result of that fiscal responsibility, we've got a problem on our hands that we need to wrestle to the ground, and we are. In the majority we have instituted pay-as-you-go rules, something that the prior majority, my friends in the GOP, were unwilling to do. That has been along the philosophy of when you're in a hole, stop digging. So we've stopped the digging. At the same time, we can't stop investing in our country, we can't stop investing in our future, we can't stop investing in the security of our neighborhoods; and that's what this bill is about. The cuts that my friends in the opposition are proposing here today have only one merit, and that is they're indiscriminate. They cut the top priorities along with the lower priorities, all at the same time. My friends in the, not the minority party, because frankly, we have a great many Republicans who have joined us. All the Republicans on the Appropriations Committee support the work product. But the minority that's speaking here on the floor today isn't willing to do the hard work and to say this is a high priority; we can't afford to cut it. This is a lower priority; maybe we can trim this here. No, they're not willing to do that. They're willing to say let's cut everything equally, the essentials with the non-essentials. And let's not raise the revenue we need to support our law enforcement by ending corporate welfare. They've been unwilling to do that. These are some of the philosophical differences we'll hear during the debate on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to reserve the balance of my time and look forward to an opportunity to address the House in a few minutes.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I think the better analogy would be, the police officer goes to my friend and says, Congressman, there was money in the budget for my bulletproof vest. What happened to it? I don't have my vest. And the gentleman said, well, we didn't cut the money for your vest; you're wearing it. But the officer says, I've got no vest on. And the Congressman says, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. It may be a good story, but it doesn't protect him from bullets.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I enjoyed the Hawkins story, but I think if we were going to apply that analogy here, it would be this. A police officer goes to you in your district office and says, Congressman, there was money in the budget for my bulletproof vest. Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for pointing out the cuts to the FBI and other law enforcement that would be occasioned by this amendment and others that my friends are offering. The cuts go deeper. They cross the board in terms of everything that the Justice Department does. My friend's amendment would cut funding for victims of child abuse. My friend's amendment would cut funding for the COPS program. It would cut funding for violence against women, victims of violence against women. But let's hone in on a very specific, because my friend says, well, these aren't really cuts. Let me talk about one program specifically that my friend's amendment makes a very real cut to, not artificial, not Orwellian, not imaginary, and that's bulletproof vests. Back in 2003, the Attorney General announced the Body Armor Safety Initiative in response to the failure of bullet-resistant vests. One in particular worn by a police officer in Pennsylvania was discovered that the xylan vests, when they were old and used, weren't stopping bullets the way they were supposed to, and so the Justice Department started a program to replace these vests. The COPS program funds an effort to provide vests for local police departments. That program has been very successful. In my friend's home State of Georgia, for example, he can pick any city, Alpharetta City, the program bought 40 new bulletproof vests for the police officers in Alpharetta City. Across Georgia, there were 1,100 of these xylan vests replaced that needed to be replaced. In the new COPS program that we're funding here, Alpharetta City got 25 new bulletproof vests. Cherokee County got 293 bulletproof vests. Cobb County got 566 bulletproof vests. DeKalb County got another 240. Georgia, in total, just in this particular year, I think 2005, got 4,789 new bulletproof vests. My friend's amendment makes a real cut to the number of bulletproof vests we can provide cops, not a decrease in the rate of increase, but makes a real cut. Under my friend's amendment, the cops in Georgia are going to get fewer bulletproof vests than they would get without it and than they got last year. Now, I can't go home to my district and tell the cops of Burbank, Pasadena and Glendale that I cut their funding for their bulletproof vests, but the indiscriminate nature of this amendment means that is exactly what it would do in my district, in my friend's district in Georgia. My friend from Colorado, who has an amendment, I'm sure, for another across-the-board cut, Fort Collins, Colorado, they got five vests. Greeley City got 53 bulletproof vests. Longmont City got 28 bulletproof vests. Colorado, in this particular year, got 3,900 new vests. These across-the-board cuts mean fewer bulletproof vests for cops in Colorado. My friend's amendment from Ohio, with even bigger across-the-board cuts, would be devastating in Ohio. Ohio, in this program, got 5,200 new vests. So what is that going to mean? A 6 percent cut. That means, what, several hundred fewer bulletproof vests? Well, that may not mean much to us here, but if you're one of those cops that can't get their vest replaced and that vest isn't going to work so well against one of those assault rifles or one of those other heavy-caliber munitions they're facing out there on the street, it means a heck of a lot. And I don't know about my friend from Georgia, but I don't have the cops from my district coming to me and saying, we've got more money than we need. We don't need bulletproof vests. We don't need interoperable communications equipment. A lot of the cops out in the County of Los Angeles can't talk to each other because their communications equipment won't talk to each other. We fund that here. My friend's amendment cuts that here. How can my friends, not on the bipartisan majority, but in the minority that has expressed themselves here today, say they're for law and order, say they're standing behind the men and women in uniform, and then make real cuts to what we provide? Or, as my chairman points out, if you don't just look at last year, compared to last year where we didn't do very well by them either, but if you look at where we were in 2001, we're going backwards, not forwards. We're not even at where we were 5 years ago. This amendment is a mistake, and I urge my colleagues to reject it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for pointing out that corporations don't pay taxes. I don't think that's quite true, but that certainly is the aim of my friend from Georgia, and my friends in the majority have been working hard for that object for some time. I am happy to yield 30 seconds to my colleague from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank Mr. Mack for his strong work on this issue and his protection of civil liberties in this regard and many others. Most disturbingly, from my view, from the Inspector General's report was the fact that the FBI issued at least 739 exigent letters to obtain telephone toll records in violation of internal Justice Department guidelines. These exigent letters are used in emergency situations when an attack can be imminent and information is required immediately. They said things like this: ``Due to exigent circumstances, it is requested the records for the attached list of phone numbers be provided. Subpoenas requesting this information have been submitted to the U.S. Attorney's Office, who will process and serve them as expeditiously as possible.'' The problem with these letters, in at least 739 cases there was no grand jury meeting. There were no subpoenas requested, and none would ever be delivered. And so here you have the prospect of the FBI going out to a phone company or other provider and saying, this is an emergency, we need this information, subpoenas to be forthcoming, and none were. Now, as a telephone company, you get the FBI knocking on your door asking for records, saying, this is an emergency, someone's life may be at risk, we may be at risk of an attack, you're going to want to comply. And then after the fact, after the FBI discovered that it had issued all these letters erroneously, unlawfully, it then issues an NSL, National Security Letter, asking for the information that was provided for in these exigent letters, basically to cover up, to try to give a patina of legality over an illegal practice. This is deeply disturbing, and my friend's amendment, that I was pleased to join him in cosponsoring, would prohibit the expenditure of funds on these exigent letters when the claim is made that a grand jury subpoena is forthcoming when there's no grand jury even impaneled on the issue. We need to put a stop to this practice. I very much appreciate my colleague raising this issue. I'm proud to support it.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the chairman of the committee for his superb work on the bill and the chairman of the full committee, as well as the subcommittee. I'm going to reserve the balance of my time, but I do want to acknowledge what the gentlelady has said before reserving the balance of our time, and that is, there is a deep philosophical difference between the Members of the minority party who are here today and those of us speaking in opposition to the amendment. And of course there's a philosophical difference between the Members that are here on the floor today and their fellow Republicans in committee who unanimously supported this bill, those Republicans on the committee and in the House as a whole who have made every effort to work with Democrats and find common ground in dealing with the fiscal challenges that we face, but also recognizing the need to invest in America as our parents' generation did and as their parents did. Yes, there's a philosophical difference. We're facing a constrained fiscal environment. We've got to get our budget in balance. Some here on the floor tonight we'll hear say, well, we can afford to balance that budget by taking it out of funds for the elderly or taking it out of funds for the homeless, taking it out of funds that help serve Native Americans, taking it out of funds that would make our aircraft more safe. That's a philosophical difference, I think, with a bipartisan majority of this House that thinks that those aren't the right places to find savings, that we ought to look elsewhere. We ought to look, for example, at the generous corporate welfare payments that we make at a time when the oil industry, for example, has not only had record profits of the year or record profits of the decade, but record profits in the entire history of the oil industry. And not just the history of the oil industry, but record profits of any corporation at any time in the history of the world. Now, that corporate welfare, my friends on the philosophical other side of this issue don't want to touch. That's sacrosanct. They won't cut those historic profits by 6 percent, or by 1 percent or even by a half of one percent because that's contrary to the philosophy. But they're more than willing to cut those who are desperately in need. And that's where we do have the divide. It's what I will be addressing when I conclude the remarks on our side of the aisle. But at this point, I will reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. SCHIFF. Yes, I do.

Mr. SCHIFF. Well, I yielded the time to the gentlewoman, but she did not answer the question. Evidently she wasn't willing to tell the Native American population in her home State she is proposing an amendment to cut their housing tonight. She is willing to hide behind an across-the-board amendment, but is not willing to tell them directly what the effect of that amendment is. The gentlelady's amendment would also cut, in very real terms, homeless assistance grants. Now, let's get back to that philosophical difference between the bipartisan majority and the minority here tonight. One of my colleagues, my colleague from New Jersey, said, well, the American family has to make tough choices. And maybe they need to make the choice that not all of their kids can go to college. Well, that's the philosophical view of the minority opinion we hear tonight. Maybe the American family needs to make the choice that not all of their kids can go to college. Well, the philosophical view of the bipartisan majority is that every child in America that wants to go to college should have the ability to go to college, notwithstanding whether they are rich or poor. That's our philosophy. And that's why we increased support in the Labor-HHS bill which, again, the gentlewoman wanted to cut, to help more kids go to college. That's our philosophy, that if we're going to look after the future of this country, we're going to have to invest in the future. That means investing in our kids. And that means not putting American parents in a position where they have to say this child goes to college, this child does not. That is not our philosophy. It may be the philosophy of the gentleman from New Jersey; it may be the philosophy of the minority on the floor here tonight. It is not the philosophy of the bipartisan majority of this House, nor the American people. Now, some of my friends in the minority here tonight say, okay, 6 years of GOP rule; we ran the country into the ground financially, we admit it. But we weren't responsible, we few here on the floor tonight, because we were standing up at the time. Well, I have to say that when we could have used your voices, we didn't hear them. When we could have used your voices, for example, earlier this year to try to achieve savings in the expenditures on oil and gas, when people go to the pump and they're paying record amounts, when we wanted to try to take that and invest it in the country's future instead of investing it in oil company profits, the friends in the minority here tonight had nothing to say. None of them were on their feet saying, yes, this is the time where we must cut corporate welfare because we can't afford it. Let's cut it 1 percent across the board. When our seniors are trying to buy medicine and can't afford it and we take action here to bring down the cost of that medicine and save the government money because we're living in a finite world, did our friends stand up and say, yes, we have to be fiscally responsible? We have to try to help those families who are working, both heads of household, and can't afford medicine, or those seniors who can't afford medicine, so we're going to stand up for them; we're going to cut those corporate subsidies and corporate welfare? No. They were silent. It's only when it comes to cutting homeless assistance, cutting assistance for the elderly, and even cutting support for additional safety inspections for aircraft that our friends in the minority here tonight are willing to stand up. So, yes, there is great philosophical difference here tonight between the bipartisan majority that believes we have to invest in the future of this country, between the bipartisan majority that doesn't think a parent should have to decide which child can go to college and which child can't, not based on the merit of that child, not based on the academic ability of that child or the gifts of those children, but because they can't afford to send both children to college. There is a philosophical difference between the bipartisan majority that says that is unacceptable in America, that is not the America we want to see in our future, and the philosophical views of the minority here tonight that say that's fine with us. We won't look elsewhere. We are willing to balance the budget on the backs of our kids and their kids, the homeless, the elderly and the others. Just stay away from corporate welfare because that is untouchable. That is not the philosophy of the majority of this House. It will not carry the day when this amendment comes to a vote. I urge my colleagues to join with the bipartisan majority and defeat these cuts to these vital services, and also to step up to the plate when we have the opportunities to reduce corporate welfare so that we can finance these essential services to let their voices be heard. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SCHIFF. Again, I thank the gentlewoman for offering the amendment to this bill, as she did to one of the prior bills, because it really does highlight the philosophical difference between the bipartisan majority of the House and the self-described ``fringe'' represented by the views we've heard tonight. What is that philosophical division between the bipartisan majority and the Members that we have heard from this evening? Well, the bipartisan majority of this House believes that if we're going to ensure a stronger America, then we have to make an investment in that America. But we have to make the same kind of investment that our parents made and their parents so that we can enjoy the prosperity that we enjoy now; that we can't simply say, well, we're going to let our children and our grandchildren fend for themselves. The bipartisan majority believes that that requires a responsible investment in our roads and our highways; a responsible investment in our aviation system; a responsible investment in our aviation security; a responsible investment in housing for the elderly, for the disabled, for those who are in need. That is a priority of the bipartisan majority. This is our philosophy. Now, my friends expressing the minority view say, well, let's look at what the American family would do when the American family is facing budgetary pressures. So let's look at what the American family would do. My friends expressing the minority opinion tonight say they would set their priorities. Well, that's absolutely right, they would set their priorities, which means they wouldn't cut everything identically in their lives, which is just what the gentlewoman's amendment would do. It would cut everything across the board. The American family, when they're facing a fiscal constraint, doesn't say, we're going to cut our medicine equally, we're going to cut our food equally, we're going to cut our essentials equally with how we cut cable TV, was one illustration given by my friends in the minority. No. They don't say we're going to cut the necessities the same amount we're going to cut the luxuries. They prioritize. But my friends in the minority, with their across-the-board cuts, don't prioritize. And so they do make cuts, real cuts, not like my friend from Arizona claimed, which is, unfortunately, not correct. My friend from Arizona just claimed that nothing is really cut in the across-the-board amendment. But the reality is there are a great many things that are cut, real cuts, that don't have an increase in the bill sufficient to offset what the gentlewoman's amendment would cut. So what are some of the real cuts the gentlewoman is proposing tonight? She is proposing real cuts to the number of critical safety staff in aviation, safety staff that deals with the Office of Flight Standard and Aircraft Certification. They would be real cuts. Not cuts in growth, but real cuts, fewer people doing the safety inspections for our aircraft. Is that what the American family would choose to do when they're faced with a fiscal constraint? Would they choose to cut things that have the effect of making their families less safe? I don't think that's where they would look for the cuts. What other real cuts has the gentlewoman been advocating? She's advocating real cuts in emergency response training for hazardous material transportation. That's a real cut the gentlewoman is advocating. She is also advocating cuts in Native American housing grants. Is the gentlewoman prepared to tell the Native Americans back in her State that she favors real cuts to their housing assistance? I will be willing to yield on that question if the gentlewoman is ready to say, not hide behind an across-the-board amendment, but is ready to say to the Native Americans in her State, I support real cuts to your housing. I will yield if the gentlewoman would like to respond to that question. Is the gentlewoman prepared to say, yes, I'm advocating tonight real cuts to the American housing in my State? I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHIFF

Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for his comments, but it is hard to avoid the irony of my colleague's objection that the bill is going too fast. For weeks now, we have been hearing the objection that the ethics reform measures in the House have been moving too slow; that we passed the lobbying reform bill in the House, that it hasn't gone through the Senate, we haven't gone through the conference committee. We are not progressing with the process of trying to clean up the institution. It's going too slow. Well, today we're hearing the problem with this bill is it's going too fast. It seems like we can't get the speed exactly quite right. It's either too slow or too fast. The reason that we're here today and moving quickly on this bill is that the bill was the subject of an amendment by my colleague in a separate bill introduced by a Republican Member, an amendment introduced by myself, a Democratic member on the Rules Committee. The bill itself was introduced by Members on both sides of the aisle. The subject matter is very straightforward. Should we pay spouses out of campaign funds, or should we not pay spouses out of campaign funds? Should we disclose whether family members are getting paid, or should we not disclose whether family members are getting paid out of campaign funds? There is, I think, a fairly broad, almost unanimous agreement on the merits of the bill. Even my friend that just stood up to object to the bill says he agrees with the substance and the intent of the legislation. So it's a consensus work product, a bipartisan work product, and given the criticism that we haven't moved fast enough, we're trying to move fast. This is an effort to move fast, but also to move thoughtfully, and that's why we're here today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding the time. At this point, I am happy to yield to my colleague, Mr. Castle, the cosponsor of this legislation, for 3 minutes.

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2630, the Campaign Expenditure Transparency Act. This is legislation that I introduced to my colleague, Representative Castle, in early June in order to ensure that Federal officer holders and candidates are not personally enriched from expenditure of campaign funds. I want to thank Mr. Castle, the majority leader, the chairman of this Committee on House Administration for working to bring this bill to the floor today. Numerous Members of Congress employ their spouses and family members for campaign activity, and the vast majority of them do this work appropriately and ethically. Unfortunately, others have not, and this practice has shown the potential to foster corruption and invite abuse. I joined my colleague, Mr. Castle, in introducing this legislation because I believe it will help preserve the integrity of the institution and end the perception that office holders and candidates can benefit themselves financially from their campaigns or service. The Campaign Expenditure Transparency Act would end the practice where Federal office holders and candidates employ their spouses in their campaigns and financially benefit from contributions to the campaign. The bill also requires a separate disclosure to the FEC of all of the payments, including direct and indirect compensation which are made to immediate family members. Specifically, H.R. 2630, as amended, would prohibit any Federal office holder or candidate from directly or indirectly compensating his or her spouse from any political committee he or she controls for services to the committee. This language was used to ensure that someone could not get around this prohibition by acting as a subcontractor or vendor to another individual or company receiving payments from the political committee. Additionally, this would ensure that the legislation does not prevent a spouse from being employed by a company that provides a service to a political committee, unless the spouse's compensation is increased as a result of that business. For example, a spouse could be employed by a phone company that the campaign contracts with so long as the spouse's compensation is not increased based on that contract. Similarly, a spouse that is a shareholder of a publicly traded company could receive dividends from that company notwithstanding the fact that a committee purchased services from that company. The legislation also does not prohibit committees from paying for legitimate travel and campaign expenses that are incurred by a spouse, as long as the FEC has determined the expenses to be appropriate campaign expenditures. The bill recognizes that spouses are often properly involved in campaign activity and that committee funds can be used to reimburse appropriate expenses. The Campaign Expenditure Transparency Act, as amended, stipulates that the penalty for violation of the provisions of the bill, if the candidate knew of the violation, would be imposed on the candidate and not on the committee. The amended version of the bill also clarifies the penalty is not a reimbursable expense by the committee. The legislation has the strong support of a number of reform-oriented organizations, including Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center, League of Women Voters, Common Cause, Public Citizen, and U.S. PIRG. I would also like to stress that many of our colleagues again have employed their spouses or immediate family members in their campaigns and have done so lawfully and ethically. Our family members are frequently our most trusted advisers and are willing to put in long hours for little compensation. However, we are aware of cases in which this practice has been abused, and it is for this reason that this legislation is regrettably necessary. Given the low public confidence in all public institutions at this point, this legislation is one important way to begin restoring the public's faith that elected officials are working in the public's interest and not in their own. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. I want to take just a minute to address some of the comments that my friend from Texas has made. First, of course, there is nothing in this legislation that would break up a good team. There is nothing in this legislation that prohibits spouses from working. And where, like most families these days, both members of the household need to work to support that family, there is nothing in this bill that would stop it. It does provide that a spouse that has CPA skills or other skills employ those skills on someone else's behalf for compensation. They are more than welcome to provide those skills, as many of our spouses do, I think almost all of our spouses do, on a volunteer basis to help our campaigns. But the appearance of propriety, and in some cases the actual impropriety, of having spouses working on commissions where a percentage of everything the campaign raises effectively goes into the household of the office holder is one of the driving forces behind this legislation. I should mention that in my colleague's own home State of Texas, the State legislature and the Governor have passed and signed legislation prohibiting this practice in Texas. So if you were running for the State legislature in Texas or you were an office holder in the State legislature in Texas, you would not be able to employ your spouse and pay your spouse out of campaign funds. That is a misdemeanor in Texas. So there are States that are really leading the way in terms of making sure that we avoid any appearance of impropriety. And I think that Congress, given the problems have been manifest in this institution as well, needs to follow the example of some of those forward-thinking States.