Roy Blunt

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank Chairman King also for his hard work on this legislation and for the tremendous efforts of his committee, a committee that this Congress didn't have as a standing committee until a year and a few months ago when he put together, and his colleagues, the first effort congressionally from a permanent committee to look at these important issues. Our immigration system, Mr. Speaker, is fundamentally flawed. There are millions of workers in the United States who entered the country illegally. Most of those individuals mean no harm to anyone. But any government that cannot account for all those entering and leaving the country, either legally or illegally, must deal seriously and quickly with that problem, especially if the government is at war with an enemy that has publicly stated its efforts to exploit every weakness we have. As one border sheriff said, standing by me at a news conference earlier this year--a border sheriff, by the way, from the other party, a border sheriff who understood this problem intimately every day. He said, ``If you can come across the border for the perfectly understandable reason of a better job, you can come across the border in a way that does much more harm to people than anyone can now anticipate.'' As I have been discussing with many of my colleagues in recent days, the House has already had success in securing resources, such as additional Border Patrol agents and vehicles, for immediate border security needs in this year's current budget, in the supplemental budget, in the budget that we will vote on for next year later this month. I draw my colleagues' attention to these pictures, pictures of the kind of work that has been going on along the border for months now: Seventy-five miles of fence already completed, 42 miles of fence nearing completion, more Border Control officers, more detention facilities, the return of people who have illegally entered this country to their country for the first time in decades, the assistance of the National Guard. All have led to a more secure border. Today we continue our efforts to undertake emergency measures to ensure that the operational control of the border will continue to improve. Again, I commend Chairman King for his leadership. This act, the Secure Fence Act of 2006, will provide over 700 miles of two-layered, reinforced fencing along the border. It will mandate that the Department of Homeland Security maintain operational control over the entire border through a ``virtual fence'' comprised of electronic surveillance and equipment. I urge my colleagues to take another step today for greater border security by voting for this act.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Chairman Davis, thank you for yielding, and thank you for your great work on this bill. Mr. Speaker, this week we are having a discussion in the House about earmarks and earmark reform. Yet there is another process in the Federal Government that, despite spending $300 billion a year, has almost no access as we stand here today. Each year the Federal Government gives out thousands of grants to various organizations and entities. All told, some 30,000 organizations a year receive grants. Yet there is no central system available to the public or even to the Congress to determine who is receiving these taxpayer funds and how they are being spent. That is why Chairman Davis and I introduced, and in June the House passed, H.R. 5060 with the support of Mr. Waxman and Mr. Davis of Illinois. This was a bill to require a publicly searchable database of all Federal grants. Our colleagues in the other body, led by Senator Coburn and Senator Obama, passed a slightly different bill that established a similar but different database for grants and Federal contracts. Last week we were able to collectively announce a final agreement representing the best element of both bills. Our agreement requires the Office of Management and Budget to establish a searchable Web site listing all recipients of Federal financial assistance such as loans and grants, as well as a separate database covering all contracts over the $25,000 reporting threshold. This site will provide an invaluable tool enabling the Congress, the public, and the media to easily determine who is receiving taxpayer funds and doing business with the government. This information will be critical in uncovering wasteful spending and ensuring compliance with existing Federal laws. There are numerous examples of wasteful government grants, such as millions of dollars spent with the National Institute of Mental Health to study what makes a meaningful day for college students, or to study how college students decorate their dorm rooms. There was even one example of a grant for $700,000 at the EPA where the grant was given without any knowledge, apparently, of what work was to be performed as a result of the grant. The bill we are passing today will empower everyone with access to the Internet to begin reviewing the Federal grants and other forms of taxpayer assistance to look for waste, fraud, abuse or just to simply know who, in their community, or in other communities they are aware of, are receiving these grants. This legislation will also help to ensure that Federal laws are adhered to by those receiving taxpayer funds. Frequently, Federal law imposes various restrictions or requirements on Federal grantees. For example, the Congress has entities or has required that entities receiving funds under our Global AIDS Program have a firm policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking. Yet last year, the Government Reform Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources uncovered that a USAID grantee was subcontracting taxpayer funds to, in fact, a pro-prostitution organization. Our bill required grantees to also disclose their subgrantees, thus making it easier to ensure compliance with important Federal policies, like those applicable to the Global AIDS Program. This legislation will also ensure compliance with existing lobbying restrictions. The 1995 Lobbying Disclosure Act prohibits 501(c)4 organizations from receiving Federal grants and lobbying, even with their own funds. The restriction has been difficult to enforce. The Inspector General for the EPA determined in 2004, for example, that for 5 years the Consumer Federation of America had spent some of the $5 million it received in Federal grants to lobby the government. A central database of entities receiving Federal grants would provide an important tool to ensure compliance with existing law. It is my belief that this bill will provide important information to all Americans and serve as a powerful tool to improve how government spends precious taxpayer funds. I want to thank Chairman Davis and Ranking Member Waxman for their assistance in moving this legislation forward, and in particular I want to thank the staff of the Government Reform Committee, particularly Ellen Brown, John Brosnan and Ed Puccarella, for their efforts. I urge passage of this important legislation.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, today we live in a country of great opportunity, we live in a country of great freedom, but we live in a dangerous world. We came face to face with that danger 5 years ago, we came face to face with the evil in the world 5 years ago, and today we commemorate what we have done in the last minutes and hours and what we have done in the last years to try to prevent that evil from replicating itself again. For years before 9/11, we pretended that evil somehow didn't exist; or if it did exist, it couldn't touch us. A series of events that government after government after government in our country chose to minimize or ignore led to 9/11. The bombing of the barracks at Beirut, the bombing of the barracks at Khobar Towers, the attack on the USS Cole, the attack on two of our embassies, the first attack on the World Trade Center were all part of a concentrated effort of a narrow sliver of totalitarian activists that don't like the way we live and don't like who we are, who have vowed to destroy our very way of life. Now, it is nice, whether it is at work or whether it is at home or in your neighborhood, to pretend you don't have enemies in the world. But we do have enemies in the world. As the Prime Minister of Iraq said when he spoke to this body just weeks ago: this is not Islam, it is a perverted view, I think he said specifically as was translated, a false view or a fake view of Islam. But there are people who believe it. There are people who believe that we, because of who we are, are their sworn enemies. And this resolution today just commemorates the great work of those individuals that we recognize, those individuals that we recognize who defend our country, who defend our freedom, who defend our flag; those individuals we recognize who take chances every day to find out the information that we need to find out on a human level, from those people every day who analyze the things that need to be analyzed and those resources we have given them to be able to make those choices, whether it was the PATRIOT Act or the other things that we have done since 9/11 that bring terrorism to the level of other crimes, even though the danger of terrorism may be much more dangerous than those crimes that various investigative arms of our government and the tools that they had available to them were given after 9/11. We need to continue to move forward and we need to continue to be committed somewhat, and many people have said that someone had to be the first person that said we have to be right every single time, the terrorists only have to be right once. Nobody will stand here today in good conscience and say a terrorist attack can't happen again. But we can say in good conscience that we will do everything we possibly can to prevent that attack from happening again. We will do everything we can possibly do, from naively looking at the present and assuming that we won't have enemies in the future. We need to address our enemies; we need to address the world the way we find it. Thank goodness for the many American men and women and our allies overseas who joined us in trying to prevent the cowardly terrorist attacks that happened in this country 5 years ago and other countries since then

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize EaglePicher, an advanced technology company that was founded in 1843. Today, EaglePicher provides innovative products for a wide range of industries and employs approximately 3,900 people worldwide. I would like to congratulate EaglePicher on the achievement of their nickel hydrogen batteries that reached one billion cell hours of successful flight time in space on September 9, 2006. EaglePicher Technologies, which makes these batteries is headquartered in Joplin, Missouri and has a long history of being one of Joplin's leading employers. I am honored to congratulate the current President of EaglePicher Corporation, David Treadwell and the President of EaglePicher Technologies, Steve Westfall and all of the employees of EaglePicher on this special occasion.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 175th anniversary of the City of Sarcoxie, located in Jasper County, Missouri. The region where Sarcoxie is located was acquired by the United States as part of the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. One of the first known inhabitants of the area was Chief Sarcoxie, head of the Turtle Band of the Delaware Tribe of Indians. Thackery Vivion became the first permanent settler to Jasper County when he built a log cabin and began farming near Sarcoxie Spring in 1831, and Sarcoxie soon became the first town in Jasper County. Gene Taylor, who served in the United States House of Representatives from 1973 until 1989, was born near Sarcoxie, and the Gene Taylor Library and Museum is located on the town square. I am proud to congratulate the City of Sarcoxie and its citizens on the 175th anniversary of this historic city.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Barton for yielding and for bringing this bill to the floor. The chairman and members of our committee, particularly Mrs. Johnson from Connecticut on the Ways and Means Committee, have been so instrumental in getting this bill to the floor today. This is a critically important start. As I sat here and listened to the debate, it is clearly like we are debating two different bills: one that wants to change the entire world in one bill and one that wants to step forward. On the privacy issue, this does not do anything to change current privacy standards, but what it does is allow the information that people have about their health to be shared in a way that helps them. And in terms of the cost, taxpayers pay an awful lot of the health care cost in the country today. And as my good friend Mr. Pickering pointed out, this is a way to minimize cost and maximize benefits to patients at the same time. That does not happen very often. Mr. Chairman, we have a little town in my district, Branson, Missouri, and it has lots of tourists. Seven or eight million people come there ever year. Last year, last August, I was sitting at lunch beside the hospital administrator, and he shared with me that particularly in about the fall, most of the tourists that come are retired. Many of them come as part of a package travel situation. And he said, If you are retired and you paid for a package travel, if you feel like getting on the bus, getting on the airplane, you more often than not make an effort to make that trip, and more times than you would expect, the first stop on that trip is the hospital. For somebody who is on that motor coach who should not have probably gotten on but they get to Branson, Missouri, not feeling all that well, with the right kind of ability to get their health information shared, a 3-day visit to the hospital could be a 3-hour visit to the hospital. We need to start this process. Chairman Barton understands that. Mrs. Johnson understands that. Our committee understands that. This is the way to do it today. I am pleased to see this bill on the floor. It is an important first step. You can never get there if you do not take the first step. This is a great first step. And, Chairman Barton, I applaud your efforts to get this bill on the floor.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time and for the great work he has done on this bill, the work that his committee has done, particularly the work that Chairman Pryce and her subcommittee has done not only to look at this bill carefully in hearings but have significant input and then crafting what a bill would look like that protects our country in a post-9/11 world but still also protects our economy and American companies and American pension plans and others that invest in those companies. The tremendous efforts that Mrs. Maloney has made and is making again today on the floor, as well as the efforts of Mr. Crowley, have all been significant in trying to take a problem and create the right solution. Chairman Barton, Chairman King, Chairman Hoekstra, all original cosponsors of the bill and who have all helped this bill as it worked its way through the process. Chairman Hyde and Chairman Hunter had significant input. Certainly the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Frank, had input and was very helpful in what I think is a product that we can be pleased with here, as was Mr. Smith from Texas. A few months ago, the country and, frankly, many Members, virtually everybody in the legislature, and even more frankly almost everybody in the administration, was surprised when the announcement was made that this particular decision had been made regarding one of our ports. That called attention to the fact that the CFIUS process was a process that might have worked well in a previous time, but the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States was not designed to meet our time. The attacks on September 11 changed that. That world needs to be balanced with a global economy, where even if you don't know that you own stock in an American company that may be the subject of purchase, your pension plan may be very dependent on the value of that company. So what this bill does, Mr. Speaker, is I think arrive at the right balance that, first and foremost, does protect our security but does that in a way that doesn't needlessly impact the value of American companies and American assets in the marketplace. The points that have been made by the previous speakers are certainly the points that need to be made. Congress reaffirmed the intent of the Congress to look more carefully at companies that are owned by foreign governments in light of particularly some of the examples that have been given. The example that was just given by Mrs. Maloney would be an example. We have increased the accountability of CFIUS by establishing the process more fully in statute, by adding the Department of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Commerce as vice chairmen. We have also added the Department of Energy to the committee and formalized the importance of each of the agencies in reaching a conclusion. We have increased congressional oversight and done the right things here. I think the key to this legislation as it hopefully moves forward today is the tremendous bipartisan effort that has been made. If our colleagues approve this bill today, I know we all look forward to working with Senators Shelby and Sarbanes in conference and getting this problem solved in this Congress. We have a tough bill on the floor today. We improve our security in the right way. And, again, before, as I close, I would like to thank the staff that has worked so hard: Joe Pinder, Bob Foster, Jackie Moran, Sam Geduldig on my staff, and many other staffers on all of these committees whose chairmen have been mentioned who have worked this bill in a way that solves a complicated problem in the right way.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for recognition. And I am grateful to Chairman Hyde and Mr. Lantos for the hard and thoughtful work they have done on this resolution, for the comments that they have already made, and many of those comments are not going to be better made this evening. Clearly, we stand here understanding that no country in the world knows more about the importance of a safe society than Israel, knows more the need to protect its borders and citizens than Israel. The conflict being waged is not one that Israel asked for. It is being fought out of necessity and out of self-defense. No country would tolerate the type of armed aggression that Israelis have witnessed in recent weeks. These deadly rocket attacks have been launched against civilians in Israel by Hamas and Hezbollah with the direct backing, as Mr. Lantos has said, of Syria and Iran. In fact, just last night word came out of the region that the Israelis had found and destroyed a truck convoy carrying new deadly rockets across the Syrian border into Lebanon. Those weapons, which reportedly were produced in Iran and transported through Syria under the knowing eye of that country's government, are the instruments being used by Syria and Iran to wage a proxy war against Israel. All responsible members of the international community must demand that Syria and Iran immediately cease their financial and military support for these terrorist organizations or face the kind of global isolation and action by the Security Council that they deserve. Innocent citizens of Lebanon have also been the victims. The Lebanese Government has not been able to gain control over its own security and disarm Hezbollah, as demanded by the United Nations. I believe the Cedar Revolution was real, but democracy is still weak, and the Lebanese Government must resist terrorism or it does not govern. As Israel engages in a two-front conflict to defend its borders, I am confident that its government is doing all it can to minimize the loss of civilian life. Unfortunately, Lebanese and Palestinian civilians are being caught in the middle. I talked today to friends of mine in Nazareth who were witnesses to the attacks on Nazareth today where innocent Arabs living in Israel have been killed by these terrorist factions. We must put a stop to this. We must stand strong. This is exactly the kind of Islamic totalitarian view of the world that we resist today in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes just to say that this debate clearly, once again, emphasizes the responsibility of the Congress to decide the jurisdiction of the courts. It does not decide who has to say the Pledge of Allegiance. It does not decide separate but equal. In fact, separate but equal was decided by the Supreme Court just like the Dred Scott case was decided by the Supreme Court, which is why Abraham Lincoln, in his inaugural address, specifically talked about the danger of the Congress and the country letting the Court be the sole decision of these kinds of issues. This is an issue that clearly resonates to the heart of what we are about as a country. It is the heart of what we are about as a people. All of our documents, our coins, our institutions, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, all have recognized a being superior to ourselves. We think that protection for that phrase and other phrases in the Pledge is appropriate. Certainly we have not anticipated that State courts, who, by the way, were also recognized by the early Congress as appropriate determiners of some Federal laws, and early congressional determination in an early Supreme Court decision was that Federal laws that have been upheld by the State courts would not be subject to Federal review. This is in line with our responsibilities. It would be a responsibility some would like to suggest is different than it is, but it is our responsibility. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUNT. If my friend is yielding to me, the principal sponsor of the bill, Mr. Akin, has said he would like to respond to that. If that is appropriate, I would like for that to be our response.

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my neighbor from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the principal sponsor of the bill, my colleague from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Rules Committee. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, yielding myself 15 seconds, I would like to point out that clearly this is in absolute agreement with Marbury v. Madison. Even in that case, the Chief Justice dismissed cases later when the Federal courts had not been granted jurisdiction. Granting jurisdiction is the constitutional job of this body. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As we approach this bill today, Mr. Chairman, I want to make the point that clearly the Pledge of Allegiance is well understood by this body and the Members of this body. It is repeated here every day. The words of the Pledge are words that we have learned since our childhood: ``I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'' When Congress passed the bill adding the words ``under God,'' Congress stated its belief that those words in no way run contrary to the first amendment, but recognize ``only the guidance of God in our national affairs.'' Two words, ``under God,'' in the Pledge helped define our national heritage as the beneficiaries of a Constitution sent to the States for ratification ``in the year of our Lord,'' as the ratification statement said, 1787, by a founding generation that saw itself as guided by a providential God. These two words were added to the Pledge in the 1950s, and at that time President Eisenhower made the point that in those days of Cold War, those days after World War II, that it was important that we realize that there was something bigger than ourselves and that our country was guided by that. For decades children have been reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in classrooms across America. The Pledge of Allegiance is an important civic ritual. It binds us together as Americans. But last year that daily ritual was halted in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court actually told teachers and children in Alaska and Arizona, in California and Hawaii, in Idaho and Montana, in Nevada, Oregon, and Washington that they could not recite the Pledge of Allegiance as they had for decades in their classrooms. The Court's reasoning? The words ``under God'' constituted a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment. According to the court, it was unconstitutional to lead students, even voluntarily, in the Pledge of Allegiance because it included the phrase ``under God.'' Any of the phrases in the Pledge do not need to be subject to this kind of court interpretation. The Pledge of Allegiance, an act of Congress, modified by the Congress in 1950s, still continues to be the Pledge of Allegiance said by school students and Members of this body and others all over the country today. Judges should not be able to rewrite the Pledge. Passing this bill will protect the Pledge from Federal judges and will strike an important blow for self-government. This legislation, Mr. Chairman, is in the spirit of the first judiciary act, the Judiciary Act of 1789, drafted by individuals who had drafted the Constitution, voted on by Members who had been at the drafting of the Constitution, all willing to define the role of the Federal courts and to narrow the role of the Federal courts, as this bill proposes to do. I look forward to the debate. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2389.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and Mr. Abercrombie for their work on this bill, which will produce a bipartisan vote today. I join my friend, Mr. Rahall, in his interest and support in the continued expansion of the use of coal and ethanol. I just do not think this bill prevents that from happening. This bill allows us, during a transitional generation, to help meet the needs of that transition. This bill allows us to look at domestic resources, at resources close to our shore that replace those things we are now importing. The U.S. Minerals Management Service estimates that in these deep sea areas there are 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, almost 20 times the annual U.S. consumption of natural gas, 86 billion barrels of oil. Twenty years of imported oil would be 86 billion barrels of oil, or almost 20 years of imported oil. This bill is balanced, a common-sense approach that gives the coastal States unprecedented power to prevent production within 100 miles of their coastline, while enabling the United States to produce energy in the deep waters beyond. This bill is at no cost to the Federal Government. The scoring in the bill that the sponsors have worked on comes back at no cost in 1 year, no cost in 2 years, no cost in 10 years. In fact, the Federal Government brings in additional revenues under this formula, even though it is beginning to share new revenues with the States. The U.S. is facing high energy prices. The U.S. is in a crisis of too much imported oil and natural gas. Too many jobs and gross sales have gone to other countries as the natural gas prices have made us less competitive in fertilizer and other industries than we used to be. This is a great piece of legislation. It is a great effort to bring so many elements together. I want to again thank the chairman for his leadership on this legislation and others, along with Mr. Abercrombie, who have worked so hard to bring it to floor today.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to be on the floor in support of this important piece of legislation. I am also grateful to the chairman not only for this piece of legislation but for the significant legislation he has brought to the floor year after year that really has resulted in an economy that is growing, an economy that creates opportunity, an economy with the lowest unemployment rate, an unemployment rate below the average of the 1970s, the 1980s, or the 1990s. As I listen to this debate, what we are really talking about today is do we want to let this inheritance tax go back to the level that it was in 2001, where every family farm, every small business that had accumulated value and assets of $600,000 would see 65 percent of the excess of that go to the Federal Government. Now, I will say first of all that I never thought a trip to the undertaker should also necessitate a trip to visit the IRS by somebody in your family. And while I would like to see the total elimination of the death tax, I think that the bill that the chairman has brought to the floor today solves the problem for millions of American families who have businesses and farms that are worth more than that old exemption; that this suddenly lets them put money that has been going into tax avoidance into continuing to grow their business, continuing to create jobs, continuing to create opportunity, and continuing to expand and build. Many of the family farmers and small business folks that I work with have built their business with their mom and dad right there at their side. And, frankly, at the time mom and dad passes away, it is really hard for them to know in their mind who helped create the wealth of this business, who helped grow this farm that they grew up on and who didn't. But they have to suddenly decide, as Ms. Hart pointed out, what do I sell, which piece of equipment do I sell, what part of the farm do I sell, do I have to sell the corner grocery store and service station just to pay the inheritance tax? This creates an opportunity for families working together to continue to grow their businesses, to invest their money in the future of their businesses, in the jobs of the people that they will hire, in the communities that they are a part of, and to give a greater level of assurance that their children can continue to do the same kind of job, in the same kind of place, with the same kind of opportunity that they had. There is nothing you have when you die that you haven't paid taxes on two and three and four times. This bill, for a significant number of Americans, says you don't have to pay taxes that last time after you die. It is the right step to take today. I am interested in taking more steps in the future to continue to work to eliminate this tax, but this is a critically important step for us to take as we approach 2010 and to let money that has been going into tax avoidance go into growing this economy.

Mr. BLUNT

Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, today I come to the floor in support of this bill, the Line Item Veto Act, and I applaud Congressman Paul Ryan for his hard work on this legislation. The Line Item Veto Act will work to eliminate wasteful spending, safeguard against questionable appropriation decisions, and further protect taxpayers' dollars from waste, fraud and abuse. It becomes another important tool that helps us restrain spending and meets the constitutional test that the line item veto given to the President during the Clinton administration but reversed by the Supreme Court could not meet. It may not be everything that line item veto was, but I think Mr. Ryan has worked hard to make it everything it could be and meet that constitutional standard. At the same time, it increases transparency in the process, it protects legitimate spending requests that direct funds to carry out important projects that benefit Americans, and it also gives Congress the final word in that important constitutional responsibility that the previous speaker mentioned was uniquely given to us. We bring someone else into this process in a way that helps. It will make a difference. I think it is more than barely a dent, but even a dent becomes another tool, makes a difference. I think it makes a significant difference. Mr. Ryan has worked hard. He was given six challenges to the original proposal that he brought to this Congress. He made six significant changes. I urge my colleagues to join him in passing this bill and giving the President and this Congress the assistance that this and future Congresses need to help us restrain spending in Washington.