Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Congressman Steve King for his excellent speech, included here for the Record, addressing courts' attacks on religion in the United States. Our Constitution never intended for religion to be eliminated from the public square, but that is what judges are forcing upon us. I appreciate Congressman King's eloquent statement on the judicial assault on religion.

[From the desk of Congressman Steve King, Iowa, Fifth District, Mar. 6,

2005]

Modern Day Moses

I turned my eyes away from ``In God We Trust,'' engraved

deeply in the stone above the Speaker's chair, and walked

under the direct stone gaze of Moses, as I left the chambers

of the United States House of Representatives. I walked

through statuary hall in the U.S. Capitol where Thomas

Jefferson and James Madison were among the first presidents

to attend regular church services. The House Chaplain had

given the opening prayer to start the legislative day and our

member's chapel in the capitol was open for morning

meditation as I walked briskly across the capitol grounds to

the Supreme Court. The cases of Van Orden v. Perry and

McCreary County, Kentucky. v. ACLU, were to be heard this

day. I went expecting to hear profound Constitutional

arguments before the only court created by the Constitution,

the Supreme Court.

I walked up the steps of the high courthouse. From the top

of the pediment, looming, larger than life, Moses gazes down,

holding the Ten Commandments. All who pause here and all who

enter here are on notice, this is a nation built upon a moral

foundation, a nation of laws, not of men, a nation

founded upon the belief in ``the laws of Nature and Nature's

God.'' I climbed the long steps, walked past the huge

columns, stepped out of the sunlight and into the presence of

a security guard. I introduced myself to the guard who

replied, ``I'm Moses and I'll escort you to your seat.''

``Moses! Moses?'' I responded. The guard smiled and nodded

his head. ``There couldn't be a better person to lead me to

hear the Ten Commandments cases,'' I said.

Modern day Moses led me to the chambers, through the huge

oak double doors, engraved with the Ten Commandments, and to

my seat in the chambers. The courtroom was soon full when we

all stood to the Supreme Court Marshal's announcement, ``The

Honorable Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the

United States. Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! . . . God save the United

States and this Honorable Court!'' The justices filed in and

were seated. On the frieze above them and to their left,

sculpted in stone, stands Moses with the Ten Commandments.

It is a rare privilege to be in the presence of the most

powerful and unaccountable shapers of American society that

our nation has ever seen. The oral arguments before the

Supreme Court in the two cases before it will likely

determine if there will be changes in whether and under what

circumstances religious displays can be placed on public

property. As I listened to the questions and remarks from the

justices, I considered the implications of what had become of

our Constitutional right to religious freedom and the

Constitution itself. A growing uneasiness slowly turned into

a sinking feeling in my stomach.

Before I get to the cases at hand, I remind you that the

Constitution is written to protect the rights of the minority

against the will of the majority and the rights of the

majority against the whim of the court. Without the

Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the will of the majority

would be imposed on the minority. Put simply, a pure

democracy is two coyotes and a sheep taking a vote on what's

for dinner. The Founders understood this and rejected

democracy in favor of their new invention, a

Constitutional Republic. Our Republic is a unique design

of the carefully balanced executive, legislative, and

judicial branches. The three branches of government were

not designed to be ``separate but equal'' branches but

three carefully balanced branches, the weakest of which is

the judicial branch. They were to function together so

that the will of the majority could not overturn

Constitutional guarantees. The Founders were concerned

about the power of an unchecked court so they put limits

on its power. The Supreme Court's Constitutional charge is

to rule on the letter and the intent of the Constitution,

``with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the

Congress shall make.'' (Article III, Section 2. United

States Constitution)

The question before the court was, ``do the displays of the

Ten Commandments violate the ``establishment clause?'' ``Do

the displays violate the separation of church and state

implied in the Constitution?'' Those of us who came to the

Supreme Court expecting to hear profound Constitutional

arguments were sadly disappointed. To my ear, no justice

referenced the Constitution or quoted from it or asked a

question directed to the text of our foundational document.

The questions were, ``What is the context of the display?''

``Was it a religious display, secular, or historical?''

``What was the intent of those who displayed them? Religious?

Secular? Historical?'' ``How would the display be perceived

by a reasonable person? Religious? Secular? Historical?''

``Is anyone offended by the Ten Commandments?'' All pro-

religious freedom arguments were carefully and narrowly

designed to preserve the two displays in question before the

court. One in Texas and one in Kentucky. There was no effort

made in oral argument that might have expanded religious

freedom by establishing a precedent that would provide for

true Constitutional religious freedom. The entirety of the

oral arguments before the court and the interest of the

justices were focused on issues that cannot be found in the

text of the Constitution.

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United

States states, ``Congress shall make no law respecting an

establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise

thereof; . . .'' There are initially only two qualifying

questions to be asked of a religious display. One, did

Congress. or any of the states (14th amendment), make a law

that established a religion? The obvious answer is no. The

Constitution has not been violated if Congress has made no

law to establish a religion. There is no need to deliberate

further. Case closed. For the sake of argument, the second

question is, did Congress or any of the states prohibit the

free exercise of religion? Again the answer is no. Again the

case is closed because no Congressional or state action

prohibited the free exercise of religion although the court

has done so many times and may well be poised to do so again.

Sadly, these two elemental and operative questions were not

asked or answered, yet they are the qualifiers that must be

met before any religious freedom case can be Constitutionally

argued beyond these two points.

Since 1963, in the case of Murray v. Curlett when the

Supreme Court ordered prayer out of the public schools, there

have been a series of decisions that have diminished

religious liberty, one creative, convoluted, extra-

constitutional case at a time, until the basis of a

``Constitutional'' decision is distorted beyond the

recognition of even those of us who have lived through and

with the changes. Imagine how astonished and irate our

Founding Fathers would be if they were alive to see the

magnitude to which unelected judges have warped our sacred

constitutional covenant with their original intent. James

Madison, the father of our Constitution, attended church

services in the capitol rotunda where regular Sunday church

services were held for 60 years. I can hear Madison now, ``We

gave you an amendment process! Why didn't you use it? Why

would you honor the opinions of appointed judges who dishonor

the Constitution?''

In case after case, the courts have ruled against the

letter and the intent of the Constitution to the effect of

diminishing religious freedom until they have now painted

themselves into a legal corner. If their case precedents are

to be the path, there is no way out of the room to the door

marked ``Constitutional Guarantees'' because of the principle

called stare decisis, Latin for: to stand by things that have

been settled. Because of their activist arrogance, for the

justices, the wet paint of case law precedent never dries,

therefore we can't walk back across the paint through the

doorway to our guaranteed Constitutional freedoms.

Consequently our freedoms are reduced with each stroke of the

activist's pen until they are no longer recognizable and the

Constitution becomes meaningless.

Last fall, in a small and private meeting, I asked Chief

Justice Rehnquist, whom I admire, this question, ``If the

Constitution doesn't mean what it says, and as the courts

move us further and further from original intent (of the

Constitution), what protects the rights of the minority from

the will of the majority and what protects the will of the

people from the whim of the courts? And, considering the

prevalent ``living breathing Constitution'' decisions, hasn't

the Constitution just become a transitional document that has

guided our nation from 1789 into this `enlightened' era where

judges direct our civilization from the bench? Is the

Constitution now an artifact of history?'' The core of Chief

Justice Rehnquist's answer was, ``I acknowledge your point.''

To acknowledge my point concedes that the Constitution has

become meaningless, become an artifact of history, as far as

the courts are concerned. Constitutional law is taught in law

schools across the land without teaching the Constitution

itself. Constitutional law is too often a course study about

how to amend the Constitution through litigation. In fact, we

had a law professor before the House Committee on the

Judiciary who testified, ``You give me a favorable judge and

I will write law for the entire United States of America, in

a single courtroom on a single case.''

Our Nation has suffered through more than forty years of

activist judges wandering in their anti-religion desert, a

desert hostile to Christians and Jews and devoid of

Constitutional boundaries. Let my people go! It will take

another Moses to lead us out of the desert and back to the

Promised Land of our Founding Fathers, a land wisely provided

for and abundantly blessed by God.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation contains four main components: first, the Family Movie Act, which I first introduced in the last Congress, will enable parents to skip over or mute the sex, violence, and profanity in movies they find objectionable for their children.

Second, the Art Act will create new penalties for those who camcord movies in public theaters and who willfully infringe copyright law by distributing copies of prerelease works, movies or otherwise, online.

Third, a reauthorization of the Film Preservation Board will protect older works that would otherwise deteriorate.

Finally, a technical fix to the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act will ensure that libraries and archives have continued access to works during the last 20 years of a copyright term.

As for the Family Movie Act, it lets parents decide for themselves what their children see and hear on television. These days, I do not think anyone would even consider buying a DVD player that does not come with a remote control; yet there are some who would deny parents the right to use the equivalent electronic device that would protect their children from sex, violence, and profanity in movies watched at home.

Raising children may be the toughest job in the world. Parents need all the help they can get, and they should be able to determine what their children see on the screen. Yes, we parents might mute dialogue that others deem crucial, or we might fast forward over scenes that others consider essential, but that is irrelevant. Parents should be able to mute or skip over anything they want if they feel it is in the best interest of their children.

Just as the author of a book should not be able to force someone to read that book in any particular manner or order, a studio or director should not be able to force our children to watch a movie in a particular way. No one can argue with a straight face it should be against the law to skip over a few pages or even entire chapters of a book. So, too, it should not be illegal to skip over a few words or scenes in a movie. The Family Movie Act ensures that parents have such rights.

In fact, the Registrar of Copyrights testified that such actions by parents are not in violation of existing copyright law. But needless litigation continues on this issue. It is time for the rights of parents not to be tied up in the courts any longer.

Turning to other provisions within this bill, millions of pirated movies, music, software, games, and other copyrighted files are now available for a free download by certain peer-to-peer networks. Many of these files are the latest movies, music, software, and games that have yet to be released to the public in legal copies. Title I of the legislation focuses on these prereleased copies of works that are distributed on computer networks before they are available in legal copies to the public.

Such activity is clearly wrong; yet existing law does not create a penalty targeted at this activity. Title I creates a minimum penalty of 3 years in jail for those who undertake such activity. Combined with the camcording provisions in title I, this legislation will impose new and significant penalties on organized groups that camcord movies on the first day of their release and then distribute pirated DVDs the following day on streets worldwide.

Title III of the legislation reauthorizes the Film Preservation Board at the Library of Congress. Title IV corrects a technical error in the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act that had the result of limiting library and archive access to older works.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation represents a combination of important public policy objectives. I encourage my colleagues to support the measure and send it to the President's desk for his signature.

Mr. Speaker, I will not repeat the chairman's description of the bill's contents, but I would note that his bill is identical to the text of the legislation we passed in the last Congress by a vote of 418-0.

H.R. 1038 helps the Multidistrict Litigation Panel discharge its responsibilities by streamlining the adjudication of complex, multidistrict cases in a manner that is fair to all litigants.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, trademark law is relevant to the life of every consumer in America. Trademarks give customers assurance that the goods or services they are buying are what customers think they are. If a customer has purchased items in the past from a particular company that bears a specific mark or logo, the customer has an impression, favorable or not, of that company and the goods or services it produces. So trademark law empowers consumers by giving them information that is often critical to their purchasing decisions.

Dilution alters the public perception of a trademarked product or service by diminishing its uniqueness over time.

The idea of protecting famous trademarks from dilution surfaced in the 1920s. Since then, roughly half of the States have enacted dilution statutes while Congress passed the Federal Trademark Dilution Act nearly a decade ago.

As the gentleman from Wisconsin noted, the Federal dilution statute is being amended for two main reasons. First, a 2003 Supreme Court decision involving Victoria's Secret ruled that the standard of harm in dilution cases is actual harm. Based on testimony taken at our two Intellectual Property Subcommittee hearings, this is contrary to what Congress intended when it passed the dilution statute and is at odds with the concept of dilution. Diluting needs to be stopped at the outset because actual damage can only be proven over time, after which the good will of a mark cannot be restored.

Second, the regional circuits have split as to the meaning of what constitutes a famous mark, distinctiveness, blurring and tarnishment. The bill more distinctly defines these terms. This will clarify rights and eliminate unnecessary litigation, an outcome that especially benefits small businesses that cannot afford to have a misunderstanding of what is permissible under the Federal dilution statute.

Finally, amendments developed at the subcommittee level will more clearly protect traditional first amendment uses, such as parody and criticism. These amendments provide balance to the law by strengthening traditional fair-use defenses.

Mr. Speaker, in sum, H.R. 683 clarifies a muddied legal landscape and enables the Federal Trademark Dilution Act to operate as Congress intended.

Mr. Speaker, it's time for Congress to enact meaningful bankruptcy reform. Unless we take action, people will continue to abuse the system by filing for bankruptcy as an easy out. When people avoid their debts, someone still has to pay. Companies absorb the cost of unpaid debts by passing along these costs to consumers.

Over a million people file for bankruptcy each year. Many of these filings are legitimate attempts by debtors to pay their debts and obtain a fresh start. However, bankruptcy is too often used as a way to avoid responsibilities.

Unnecessary bankruptcy filings continue to increase at dramatic rates. Often, individuals go on spending sprees for luxury goods and services just before filing for bankruptcy, knowing that they can wipe the slate clean and avoid paying for what they bought.

This is bad for consumers and bad for our economy. When individuals avoid their debts when they could be paid off, the costs are passed on to America's businesses and consumers. We must ensure that debtors actually belong in bankruptcy and are not using the system to avoid their obligations.

This bill stops abuse by eliminating incentives in the current bankruptcy system that actually encourage consumer bankruptcy filings and abuse. It requires those who can repay their debts to do so. It also gives courts greater power to dismiss frivolous or abusive bankruptcy filings and punish lawyers who encourage these filings.

This bill also contains provisions I support to address those who abuse state homestead laws and attempt to shelter their wealth in multi-million dollar mansions. It requires a debtor to own their homestead for at least 40 months before he or she can use state exemption law. And, if a debtor has committed an intentional tort, a criminal act, or violated securities laws, their homestead exemption will be capped at $125,000. These provisions will close the loophole that currently allows debtors to abuse the homestead provision.

This legislation will encourage personal responsibility, protect consumers, and ensure that bankruptcy is used only as a last resort and is not abused by those who can afford to repay their debts.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington for yielding this time.

Mr. Speaker, in the last 2 years, the economy has created over 3 million new jobs. The unemployment rate is down. Our Nation's total output, or Gross Domestic Product, is up. Home ownership is at a record high, and personal income has increased.

Our economy is strong. To ensure that we continue to enjoy prosperity, Congress should support a pro-economic growth agenda that creates jobs and helps small businesses grow. This includes reducing taxes.

Our families and our country are better off when they keep more of what they earn. One way to enable them to do that is to pass H.R. 8, which permanently repeals the punitive death tax.

This tax often prevents parents from passing along their life's work and savings to their children. Family farms, ranches and small businesses are forced to be sold to satisfy the death tax rates which can reach 55 percent.

No one should be taxed throughout their lifetime and then have their property retaxed at the time of their death. It is the wrong tax at the wrong time on the wrong people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it shall be in order at any time to consider in the House a resolution honoring the life and achievements of His Holiness Pope John Paul II and expressing profound sorrow on his death; the resolution shall be considered as read; the resolution shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or their designees; and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and the preamble to final adoption without intervening motion.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 867.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. And, Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. Last October, 282 Members of Congress voted for landmark legislation that fulfilled our duty to our constituents to make America an appreciably safer place. H.R. 10 truly reflected the hard-earned lesson of 9/11.

Unfortunately, the other body saw fit to strip from the bill some of its most vital provisions, measures designed to ensure that terrorists would never again be able to carry out their nefarious plots by abusing our immigration system and our identity documents.

Today, leadership is fulfilling a commitment that it made to the American people that these provisions would yet become law. Today's rule makes the text of H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act, a self-executing amendment to the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act.

The gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) introduced, and the House last month passed, the REAL ID Act containing many of the provisions stripped from the intelligence reform bill last year. I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for ensuring that the will of this House will be done, and that this crucial legislation will be enacted into law.

The goal of the REAL ID Act is straightforward. It seeks to prevent another catastrophic terrorist act by deterring terrorist travel. These terrorist methods of operation were mentioned

both in the 9/11 Commission report and the 9/11 staff report on terrorist travel. Page 49 of the terrorist travel report states: ``Abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activities.'' Page 59 states: ``Members of al Qaeda clearly valued freedom of movement as critical to their ability to plan and carry out the attacks prior to September 11.''

The REAL ID Act contains four provisions aimed at disrupting terrorist travel. First, it addresses the use of a driver's license as a form of Federal identification. American citizens have the right to know who is in their country, that people are who they say they are, and that the name on the driver's license is the real holder's name, not some alias.

The REAL ID Act will establish a uniform rule for all States that temporary driver's licenses for foreign visitors expire when their visa terms expire and establish tough rules for confirming identity before driver's licenses are issued.

Second, this legislation will tighten our asylum system. Some judges have made asylum laws vulnerable to fraud and abuse. We will end judge- imposed presumptions that benefit suspected terrorists so that we will stop providing them a safe haven.

The REAL ID Act will reduce the opportunity for immigration fraud so that we can protect honest asylum seekers and stop rewarding the terrorists and criminals who falsely claim persecution.

Third, the REAL ID Act will waive Federal laws to the extent necessary to complete gaps in the San Diego border security fence which is still unfinished 8 years after congressional authorization.

The REAL ID Act contains one final commonsense provision that helps protect Americans from terrorists who have been able to successfully infiltrate the United States: currently, certain terrorism-related grounds of inadmissibility to our country are not also grounds for deportation. The REAL ID Act makes aliens deportable from the U.S. for terrorism-related offenses to the same extent that they would be inadmissible to the United States to begin with.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding me time, and I do support the Graves-Boucher amendment.

This commonsense amendment would prevent car and truck rental companies from being held liable for injury and property damage in situations where they are not at fault. Currently, some States allow vehicle rental companies to be held vicariously liable. This means they are held responsible even when they are not at fault.

When a company rents a car or truck and has no way to foresee or prevent an accident, they should not be held liable simply because they have deep pockets. The Graves-Boucher amendment would create a national standard, providing that vehicle rental companies can only be held liable in situations where they have actually been negligent. This amendment in no way lets companies off the hook when they have been negligent.

Mr. Chairman, I support the Graves-Boucher amendment because it requires the legal system to treat vehicle rental companies fairly.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, all Americans should thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for their leadership on this most important issue.

The Class Action Fairness Act is a bipartisan, sensible bill that clarifies the rights of consumers and restores confidence in America's judicial system. It reforms the class action system and addresses the abuses that harm so many Americans.

We have all heard of the lawsuits in which plaintiffs walk away with pennies, sometimes literally, while the attorneys walk away with millions of dollars in fees. This problem will be addressed by providing greater scrutiny over settlements that involve coupons or very small cash amounts.

This legislation also ensures that deserving plaintiffs are able to make full use of the class action system. It allows easier removal of class action cases to Federal courts. This is important because class actions tend to affect numerous Americans and often involve millions of dollars. Federal court is the right place for such large lawsuits.

Moving more class actions to Federal courts also prevents one of the worst

problems in class actions today, forum shopping.

Mr. Speaker, while many concessions were made on both sides, this is still a very worthwhile bill that contains many good reforms, and I fully support it and look forward to its enactment into law and also encourage my colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. Speaker, frivolous lawsuits bankrupt individuals, ruin reputations, drive up insurance premiums, increase health care costs and put a drag on the economy.

For example, the chief executive officer of San Antonio's Methodist Children's Hospital was sued after he stepped into a patient's room and simply asked how he was doing.

Of course, a jury cleared him of any wrongdoing. Today, almost any party can bring any suit in almost any jurisdiction. But there is a remedy: The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act. It requires judges to issue sanctions, including reimbursement of attorney's

fees when an attorney files a frivolous claim. This will make a lawyer think twice before filing a frivolous lawsuit.

Also this legislation prevents forum shopping. It requires that personal injury claims be filed only where the plaintiff resides, where the injury occurred, or in the State or county where the defendant's principal place of business is located.

The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act is sensible reform that will help restore confidence in America's justice system.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Sessions amendment. This amendment helps ensure that deportable aliens are actually removed from the United States. Incredibly, only 13 percent of the illegal aliens arrested and ordered deported are actually removed from the country. Illegal aliens trying to sneak across the borders realize that, even if they get caught, they likely will never be required to leave. Of course, this only encourages illegal immigration.

The Sessions amendment helps correct this problem by giving the Department of Homeland Security guidance on the use of delivery bonds. Delivery bonds are already authorized under current law. This is nothing new. They require aliens to post a cash deposit and provide a written commitment they will appear in court. If the alien who posts bond violates any conditions of the bond, the bonding agent can take the alien into custody and surrender him to the Department of Homeland Security.

The Sessions amendment improves the use of delivery bonds by setting up 10 turn-in centers around the country to help bonding agents turn over deportable aliens to the Department of Homeland Security. It also sets up a system to encourage bonding agents to

keep looking for deportable aliens and turn them into DHS when they are found.

Illegal aliens, who comprise over 20 percent of all Federal prisoners today, are a serious problem in the United States and pose, obviously, a homeland security threat. We need to make sure that aliens who are deported by a court of law are in fact removed from the country. The Sessions amendment helps make sure that happens.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the Nadler amendment, which would strip the asylum reforms from the ``REAL ID Act.''

The asylum provisions in the REAL ID Act are essential. The 9/11 Commission specifically noted that ``a number of terrorists . . . abused the asylum system.''

Just last year, a Pakistani national who had applied for asylum was caught while planning to blow up a subway station during the Republican Convention in New York City.

Under a 9th Circuit decision, a judge can determine that an asylum applicant is lying and still be required to grant the applicant admission.

The DOJ Inspector General reported that it was common for asylum applicants to make claims that they were falsely accused of being terrorists. In this situation, even if the judge believes that the applicant is lying and is a terrorist, the judge may still be required to approve the application.

The REAL ID Act reverses this 9th Circuit decision and makes it harder for terrorists to exploit our asylum system. It allows immigration judges--like judges in most other courts--to determine whether the asylum seeker is telling the truth.

Judges in ordinary criminal courts of law are routinely allowed to determine whether they believe a defendant is lying. Yet, under current law, immigration judges cannot make this common sense determination.

The REAL ID Act is essential in stopping asylum abuse. This amendment would strike the asylum reform provisions and make it easier for suspected terrorists to receive asylum.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is the first step back on the long road to real homeland security. First, this bill prevents terrorists and others from getting driver's licenses by requiring applicants to prove that they are in the country legally. Driver's licenses can be used to board an aircraft, open a bank account and get a job. To preserve our security, we must deny terrorists the ability to obtain this form of identification.

In addition, this legislation makes it harder for terrorists to exploit our asylum system. It also requires the completion of the 14- mile San Diego border fence, which Congress approved in 1996.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, this legislation strengthens our ability to deport terrorists. Current law makes terrorists inadmissible for certain offenses but not deportable for those same offenses.

Congress can improve homeland security by passing this legislation. But if the administration wants to continue to protect the lives of Americans, it can also take immediate steps to change policies that have encouraged illegal immigration. It should start by requesting funding for all of the border enforcement positions that Congress authorized last year. The President's budget only requests enough funds for 210 new border patrol agents, even though Congress authorized 2,000 new agents.

Further, the administration must start fining employers for hiring illegal immigrants. Last year it did not fine a single employer. The administration also should change its policy of recognizing consular identification cards issued by other countries. These cards are simply not secure or reliable. They give terrorists and illegal aliens another way to remain undetected in the United States.

Mr. Chairman, the REAL ID Act marks the beginning of an effort to make America safer. I hope the administration will fully support us in this effort.

Mr. Speaker, the University of Texas Longhorns, playing in the Rose Bowl for the first time in the team's 110-year history, made the New Year's Day game a memorable one.

Twice the Longhorns came from behind the Michigan Wolverines to win 38-37 as the clock ran out in what many contend was the most exciting Rose Bowl ever. UT Quarterback Vince Young rushed for 192 yards and four touchdowns, a Rose Bowl record. He also threw for 180 yards and a touchdown. This capped a 10-1 regular season record.

The University of Texas has a great football team, coached by Mack Brown. But it has a great academic reputation, too.

Led by President Larry Faulkner, UT recently was ranked as the 15th best university in the world by the Times of London newspaper. Among U.S. public universities, only the University of California at Berkeley was listed ahead of UT.

It's a pleasure to cite the strengths of UT. It's also a pleasure to represent such a premiere University in Congress.