Lamar Smith

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and former attorney general of California.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, opponents of reform claim that the current crisis is driven by a small number of so-called bad doctors. But as Yale Medicine Professor Dr. Robert Auerbach has explained, ``The American Trial Lawyers Association has perpetrated myths on the American public, including the myth that a very small proportion of all physicians are responsible for the majority of claims. This is a sort of statistical magic, because, unfortunately, a small proportion of the physicians in high-risk specialties, such as obstetrics and gynecology and neurosurgery, are responsible for a disproportionate number of the claims.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), former chairman of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I have spoken about this before. I happen to think that the problem lies with current law and not with this particular piece of legislation. But in any case, I share the gentleman's concerns and will work with him to address those concerns as this bill progresses to conference committee.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and a former member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds. Mr. Speaker, regarding Vioxx, some have alleged the company knowingly misrepresented or withheld information from the FDA. If so, they would be denied the protections in the bill because the bill specifically in section 7 says and excludes any instances in which a person, before or after premarket approval, clearance, or licensure of such medical product, knowingly misrepresented to or withheld from the FDA information that is required to be submitted. If we look at the language of the bill, we can see that what the gentleman said is not relevant. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I thought my colleagues might be interested in some quotes. One quote is from a former Democratic Senator, and the other quote is from a liberal Washington Post columnist. I would like to read those now. Former Democratic Senator George McGovern has written that ``legal fear drives doctors to prescribe medicines and order tests, even invasive procedures that they feel are necessary. Reputable studies estimate that this defensive medicine squanders $50 billion a year, enough to provide medical care to millions of uninsured Americans.'' Mr. Speaker, this is from a prominent liberal commentator, Michael Kinsley. He wrote in the Washington Post, ``Limits on malpractice lawsuits are a good idea that Democrats are wrong and possibly foolish to oppose. Republicans are right about malpractice reform.'' Mr. Speaker, also we have a number of polls showing that the American people support the HEALTH Act. Between two-thirds and three-quarters of the American people support exactly what we are trying to do. Just this week a poll conducted by Harris Interactive showed that 74 percent of those surveyed support reasonable limits on the award of noneconomic damages and limiting payments to personal injury attorneys. A poll by the Harvard School of Public Health found the following: ``More than 6 in 10, 63 percent, say they would favor legislation that would limit the amount of money that can be awarded as damages for pain and suffering to someone suing a doctor for malpractice.'' The same poll found that 69 percent of the people surveyed say a law limiting pain and suffering awards would help either a lot or some in reducing the overall cost of health care. Finally, the results of a recent Gallup poll show that the American public strongly supports the HEALTH Act. The survey asked whether those surveyed would favor or oppose a limit on the amount patients can be awarded for their emotional pain and suffering. Mr. Speaker, 72 percent were in favor. That means three-quarters of the American people favor this HEALTH Act. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, as we are prepared to close on this side.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 385 and as the designee of the majority leader, I call up the bill (H.R. 5) to improve patient access to health care services and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the health care delivery system, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Committee on Science, for yielding me this time. But I would also like to thank him for his initiative, for his leadership, and for his enthusiasm whenever it comes to space issues. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the NASA authorization bill, as do most Americans. A recent Gallup survey shows that almost 80 percent of the American people support space exploration. As the country gathers to witness NASA's return to flight in the launch of the Space Shuttle Discovery, a new generation of young people will be inspired and older generations will honor the pioneers of the Apollo program. The launch of the Space Shuttle Discovery is historic. It represents the first step towards our bold new vision for space exploration, a vision that takes us and our international partners back to the International Space Station, returns our Nation to the surface of the Moon, and directs our gaze towards Mars and beyond. The exploration of space is about hope, imagination, and new technology. The Space Shuttle and research programs on the International Space Station will help us maintain our Nation's leadership role in a globally competitive economy. Americans of all ages and backgrounds support our human spaceflight program because they have a clear understanding that it has changed our lives and is critical to our Nation's future. The launch of the Discovery and continued research on the International Space Station are part of the vision that will carry us to new frontiers in both space and technology. Mr. Chairman, I hope our colleagues will support this legislation. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from New York for his leadership on this subject.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the USA PATRIOT Act of 2005. The continued threat of a terrorist attack in the United States and this month's terrorist attacks in London remind us of the need to prevent, investigate, and prosecute all terrorist acts. The PATRIOT Act was a long-overdue measure that enhanced our ability to collect crucial intelligence information on the global terrorist network. It passed by a margin of 98-1 in the Senate and by a margin of 357-66 in the House. Even the American Civil Liberties Union last April said, ``Most of the voluminous PATRIOT Act is actually unobjectionable from a civil liberties point of view. The law makes important changes that give law enforcement agents the tools they need to protect against terrorist attacks.'' Many of the tools of the act provided to law enforcement officials have been used for decades to fight organized crime and drug dealers. They have been reviewed and approved by the courts and found constitutional. For instance, prior to the PATRIOT Act, the FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the Mafia, but they could not get one to investigate terrorists. Well, what is good for the Mob should be good for terrorists. America is a safer country today than before September 11 because of the PATRIOT Act. Giving the Department of Justice, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the FBI information-sharing powers enabled law enforcement officials to disrupt terrorist cells in New York, Oregon, Florida, and Virginia. Since September 11, 2001, over 200 people charged with crimes stemming from international terrorist investigations have been convicted or have pled guilty. The PATRIOT Act helped also investigate and apprehend an individual who in Texas threatened to attack a mosque. Mr. Chairman, our success in preventing another attack on the American homeland would have been much less likely without the PATRIOT Act. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies must continue to have the powers they need to protect all Americans.

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we should oppose this amendment. First, we are revisiting an issue that we just covered in the Flake/ Delahunt/Otter/Nadler amendment--protections for recipients of a National Security Letter, which is an administrative subpoena used in terrorism investigations or in covert Intelligence activities. They are a necessary and critical tool in our fight against terrorism. Current laws prohibit the recipient of a National Security Letter from disclosing the fact that they received it. This amendment creates a safe haven for individuals who tell others that they received a National Security Letter, by prohibiting them from being punished for violating the order not to tell. Non-disclosure orders prevent others being investigated for involvement in terrorist activities from being alerted to that investigation. If a person knows he is being investigated, he may destroy evidence, tell others with whom he is working about the investigation, and flee the country. While I understand the motive behind not punishing mentally incompetent individuals or those under duress, the law already allows for that through the use of an affirmative defense. Any amendment that makes it easier to tip off terrorists to the fact that they are being investigated is irresponsible and should not be supported. The Waters amendment should be opposed. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, many great Americans have served in this House; men and women of conviction who represented their constituents with integrity, energy and devotion to assuring the American dream becomes a reality for all. Few Members of Congress have served with such unbridled enthusiasm, such untiring good humor and such true pleasure in the task as did my late colleague from Texas, Jake Pickle. Jake's passing last month at the age of 91 was, in many ways, the end of an era in Texas history. A longtime confidant of President Lyndon Johnson, Jake represented the 10th District of Texas for 31 years. During that long tenure, he set an enviable record for constituent service and responsiveness. No constituent concern or problem was too small for Jake's attention. Jake loved this House and took seriously his responsibility to uphold the integrity of the institution and the responsibilities of representative government. Sometimes his enthusiasm was expressed in his tireless work for legislation. At other times, it was expressed in his support for his beloved University of Texas Longhorns. And at other times, it was expressed in a quiet talk with a troubled constituent he encountered on Congress Avenue in downtown Austin. It is most fitting that Jake's funeral service was conducted in his church that stands in the shadow of the dome of the Texas State Capitol. And it is fitting that he rests now in the Texas State Cemetery with other leaders of the Lone Star State. It was both a tremendous honor and a great learning experience to have served in this House with Jake Pickle.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to congratulate the Nation's 2005 College World Series champions, the University of Texas Longhorns. This is an amazing sixth national title for the Longhorns. It also represents a record 32nd trip to the College World Series. The Longhorns' win caps off another impressive season of University of Texas baseball. The team had a combined 51-16 record in the regular season and the playoffs, setting up another opportunity to compete for the national championship. Under the guidance of Coach Augie Garrido, the Longhorns went undefeated in their five games of the series, pulling off a 6-2 victory over the Florida Gators in the final match-up on Sunday. Credit for this outstanding victory is due to the entire Longhorns' baseball team, coaching staff, and the athletic department at the University of Texas. Special recognition for the win is also owed to the most outstanding player of the series, third baseman David Maroul. His six hits and six runs were a major factor in the Longhorns' championship win. Mr. Speaker, congratulations go to Coach Garrido and all the Longhorn players on their great victory.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is with great enthusiasm that I rise today to recognize our 2005 National Basketball Association champions, the San Antonio Spurs. After going head to head for 6 games, the Spurs and the Detroit Pistons met for their final showdown in San Antonio Thursday night. In front of their hometown crowd, the Spurs demonstrated once again why they are the best team in the Nation. Following a tight and evenly matched first half, the Spurs pulled away from the Pistons in the final quarter to win 81-74 over Detroit, closing out an incredibly hard fought championship series four games to three. Congratulations are also due to the Detroit Pistons and their coach, Larry Brown, for putting up a battle worthy of a championship series. With the NBA's number one and number two defensive teams battling against one another for the title, this was an exciting game not only for the Alamo City, but for fans around the Nation and in more than 200 nations around the world where sports fans watched and cheered. Under the guidance of Coach Gregg Popovich, the Spurs' Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker, Robert Horry, Bruce Bowen, Nazr Mohammed, Brent Barry, Beno Udrih, Rasho Nesterovic, Glenn Robinson, Devin Brown, and Tony Massenburg played valiantly to bring the NBA trophy back home to San Antonio. My congratulations go as well to the Spurs' owners, Peter and Julianna Holt, as well as the many other people in the Spurs organization. Much credit is due to Tim Duncan, who with 25 points and 11 rebounds, was appropriately named the Most Valuable Player of the Finals series. This marks the third time he has won the award for his outstanding athletic skills, leadership and performance on the court. This is the Spurs' third championship victory in franchise history. They won their first in 1999, followed by their second in 2003. Three titles in 7 years isn't just a magnificent accomplishment--it's a basketball dynasty. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate and thank Coach Popovich and all the Spurs players for an unforgettable season.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California, the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding For First Responders Act of 2005. In its report, the 9/11 Commission stated, ``Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risk and vulnerabilities.'' This bill overhauls the current system for first responder grants and follows the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission to allow for greater allocation on the basis of a State's or region's vulnerability to terrorist attack. The current broken formula has adversely affected my State. In Federal funding per capita for first responders, Texas ranks 50th of the 50 States, despite the fact that Houston, Dallas and San Antonio are three of the Nation's ten largest cities. Texas also has a 1,200 mile porous border with Mexico, 14 maritime ports and an airport, Dallas-Fort Worth, that is bigger than New York City's Manhattan Island. Clearly, Texas faces a more grave threat than some other parts of the country. The bill we are considering today provides assistance to first responders serving where the risk is greatest, determines the essential capabilities of communities and encourages regional cooperation and mutual aid agreements through regional grant applications. Mr. Chairman, these changes to the current grant allocation procedure are essential if we are to be ready for another attack. We hope all this preparation is for nothing, but we must be prepared. H.R. 1544 ensures that we are as prepared as possible.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, since 2003 Senate Democrats have filibustered or threatened to filibuster ten of the President's circuit court nominees. This is unprecedented. Some believe that applying the filibuster to judicial nominations is a long and revered Senate tradition. Not so. Never before has a judicial nominee with clear majority support been denied an up or down vote on the Senate floor. Not until Miguel Estrada's nomination in 2003 has a judicial nominee with clear majority support been blocked by a filibuster. Fairness in the justice system begins with the confirmation of capable judges. Each time a nominee is denied a vote, the American people are denied justice. The American people deserve better. It is time for every judicial nominee to receive an up or down vote. Remember, never before has a judicial nominee with clear majority support been denied an up or down vote on the Senate floor.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. This bill creates criminal offenses that are long overdue at the Federal level and are needed to prevent the disregard of a parent's right to know when their child is seeking a major medical procedure--an abortion. The legislation makes it a Federal crime to transport a minor, for the purpose of obtaining an abortion, from a State that requires parental notification, across State lines to a State that does not require parental notification. Almost half of the States, including my home State of Texas, currently require parental notification before a minor can obtain an abortion. However these laws are being circumvented by individuals who want to undermine the rights of parents. Such individuals can include abusive boyfriends who pressure their young girlfriends into having an abortion, older men who rape young females and want to hide their crime, and minor females who may not know all of the emotional and physical repercussions of having an abortion. The bill also makes it a Federal crime for an abortion provider not to give the parent or legal guardian of a minor seeking an abortion 24 hours' notice in advance of the procedure, if the minor crosses State lines to have the abortion. The 24-hour notice period will allow parents the time necessary to discuss the ramifications of an abortion, and possible options such as adoption, with their daughters. The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act protects a minor's ability to have an abortion in cases of parental sexual abuse as long as the abortion provider informs the appropriate State authorities of the abuse. The ability to have an abortion is also protected in cases in which the minor's life is threatened if the abortion is not performed immediately. There is a great deal of support and precedent for a law like this. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the constitutionality of State parental notification laws. According to a March 2005 Quinniac University poll, 75 percent of those polled agree that parental notification should be required before a minor can obtain an abortion. We in the House of Representatives have shown our support for such laws by passing legislation similar to the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act three previous times--in 1998, 1999, and 2002. Now it is time for this legislation to pass again and be signed into law by the President.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for yielding me time. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler), my friend, for his generous comments and especially for taking the initiative on this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I am an original cosponsor of this resolution which supports World Intellectual Property Day and applauds the work of the World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO. WIPO is the leading intellectual property organization that works globally to promote intellectual property. Its mission is to promote the use and protection of works of the human spirit. The organization administers 23 intellectual property treaties and works to educate member countries about the importance of intellectual property. In the United States, the intellectual property industries drive our economy. Whether it is the creative industries that produce music and movies or high-tech companies that produce software and research, nanotechnology, innovation keeps America competitive. The United States is a member of WIPO. In order to safeguard our inventors and innovators, we must not only enact strong intellectual property laws in the U.S. but also must make sure our products are protected abroad. WIPO works to do just that. April 26 was established by WIPO 5 years ago as World Intellectual Property Day. H. Res. 210 applauds WIPO for its work and commemorates April 26, 2005, as World Intellectual Property Day. This resolution is an appropriate way to call attention to such a worthy organization, and I encourage my colleagues to support it. Once again, I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler) for his sponsoring of this resolution.

Mr. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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. SMITH of Texas

Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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.