IN 2005 Congress considered an emergency spending bill that designated $81 billion for military spending and Asian tsunami relief. It passed easily. A politician would have to be mighty confident to vote against humanitarian aid and supporting the troops. But complaints have steadily grown about a law that came with the spending bill. The Real ID Act of 2005 established national standards for driving licences. By 2008, it said, every state would have to make sure its licences included "physical security features" and "a common machine readable technology". A state would be responsible for verifying that anyone applying for licences is in America legally. Only licences that met the new standards would be accepted by the federal government. An American who wanted to fly commercially, or do anything else for which he needed to identify himself, would end up in a queue at the Department of Motor Vehicles. The idea was to make life harder for would-be terrorists. But the scheme will certainly make life harder for the states. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reckons that implementing the changes will cost states up to $14.6 billion, with individuals on the line for an additional $8.@5 billion. And the federal government plans to meet only a fraction of the cost. Critics also argue that the new licences will amount to national identification cards and will contain ton much information about the bearer. Immigration advocates say that the Real ID Act unfairly targets illegal immigrants. And from a security standpoint the act raises as many fears as it allays. Licences that meet the revised standards would be rich of sensitive data. They might prove irresistibly tempting to identity thieves and marketing firms. On January 25th Maine became the first state to oppose the Act. Its legislature passed a resolution refusing to implement the Real ID Act with nearly unanimous support. On March 8th, Idaho approved a similar bill. Two dozen other states have measures pending that question the act or oppose it outright. On March 1st the DHS issued guidelines for implementing the Real ID Act that manage to ignore most of these objections. The guidelines allow states a bit more time to implement the act. But they give no quarter on the expensive physical security features and suggest that states deal with privacy concerns on their own. And as the National Governors Association promptly noted, they "do nothing" to address the cost to states.
单选题
Which of the following consequence might be caused by the 2005 emergency spending bill?
【正确答案】
B
【答案解析】解析：为细节理解题。2005年的紧急支出法案是针对印度洋海啸和军事行动支持的，因此排除A和D项。而文章中所讨论的真实身份法案也是这项法案的后果之一，并且在各个州引发了关于实施该法案的诸多争议，因此B属于后果之一。而C中的情况不符合文章描述，文章中提到"An American who wanted to fly commercially, or do anything else for which he needed to identify himself, would end up in a queue at the Department of Motor Vehicles".是该法案中关于安全问题的规定，要求美国公民登记相应身份信息，而不是禁止美国公民进行商务飞行。
单选题
According to the text, the driving licenses required in the Real ID Act should ______
【正确答案】
D
【答案解析】解析：为细节理解题。文章中提到了新的驾驶执照所具有的两个特点，"physical security features"和"a common machine readable technology"，选项A虽然提到了信息问题，但是令各个州感到麻烦的并不是信息本身，而是进行信息登记所需要的高昂支出和繁琐程序。从文章中可以看出联邦政府所承担的成本只是很少一部分，因此B不正确。该法案是为了预防非法移民盗用他人身份，从而避免潜在的恐怖分子而制订的，但是这份法案本身并不会让非法移民成为恐怖分子，所以C不正确。选项D中的内容符合新驾照的第二个特点，因此选D。
单选题
What conflicts with the possible results of the implementation of the Act?