Bobby Jindal

Mr. JINDAL

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

Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to this amendment, and coming from south Louisiana, I would like to provide some guidance and clarify some of the misleading facts that surround this issue. We know the production off the coast of our State is important to meet the Nation's energy needs. Congress did a good thing back in 1995 in passing the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act. That act did a simple thing. It provided automatic royalty relief for new leases for 5 years in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. For those who would argue nothing happened, I would say, Look at the numbers. In 1995, we averaged just over 1,200 leases. After that act, the number of active leases increased up to 3,300 leases. This is not a giveaway. We actually generated more, not less, money for the Federal Government. Our lease bid revenues increased from $800 million in 1995 to over $1.5 billion in 1996, almost $2 billion in 1997. I rise in opposition to this amendment because it would cost the Treasury, and it would decrease the supply of domestic energy which this bill is trying to increase. Third, this is not a giveaway but rather there are price thresholds and safety mechanics. The Secretary of the Interior already has the regulations and the ability to say, as the MMS does today, if the price of oil is over, let us say, $34 per barrel, these royalty relief provisions do not go into effect. The language as written is common-sense language that encourages production and allows large investments. We are talking about investments of hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe a billion. We are talking about drilling in deep water where there is great risk. This relief provision allows these companies to get the access to capital they need to take these risks. I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. The current relief provides jobs in my State and provides energy for our country and lowers the price of energy for our industry. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).

Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I agree with my colleagues and I agree with the President. I agree, with the price of oil above $50 a barrel, we do not need relief. This provision does not do that. Let me be clear. Under the current MMS rules, what this provision would do would simply provide relief for those companies making multiyear in many cases, multi, hundreds of millions of dollars of investments to produce oil for our country's needs. We have a choice. Many of my colleagues do not want us drilling for oil off the coast of Florida and do not want us to drill for oil off the coast of California. I would ask those colleagues to join with me in providing incentives so we can drill for oil in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. The people of Louisiana welcome this production. We know it is good for our State, our country, and for our economy. We have a choice. We have to meet the growing energy needs of our country. What this provision simply does is make it economical for companies to take greater risk than they have ever had to take before to allow them to raise the capital and spend hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe even a billion dollars, on these rigs to produce the energy that our country so desperately needs, that our farmers need, that our petrochemical industry needs. We have a choice. We do stand with the President saying, No, we do not need relief at $50, but we do need relief to make sure that there continues to be production, especially if the price falls below that threshold. But we have a choice: Do we produce our own energy needs, or do we become increasingly dependent on foreign sources? We have a choice. Do we drill in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico where such production is welcomed and invited, or do we look to other areas where that production is not welcomed and not invited? I do stand behind our President, and I invite my colleagues to also stand with our President and support the language as written, support the overall energy bill, and vote for domestic production. Vote to keep manufacturing in our country, vote so we can become more independent of foreign sources of energy. The language as written is good language. It does not provide relief today. It does not provide those incentives today, but it allows companies to raise money to take risks to produce our country's domestic energy needs. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. JINDAL

Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Speaker, we come together in this body to talk about a very important topic, our Nation's Medicare program. Medicare has served our country's seniors well. However, this is a program that is in serious need of strengthening and improvement. I was privileged to serve as the executive director of the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare. We spent an entire year looking at the Nation's Medicare program, and we heard from dozens of witnesses. We had countless hearings. I can summarize the challenges facing the program in three ways. First, we have a Medicare program by any measure that is facing a huge financial challenge, a program that is going to go bankrupt, quite frankly, unless we do something differently. We can measure that as a share of the GDP, we can look at the ratio of workers to retirees, we can look at that as a share of payroll taxes, or we can look at the life of the trust funds. Quite simply, we have got a Medicare program today that goes from about four workers per retiree, it is going to eventually be at about two workers per retiree, a trust fund that will not last even long enough for the baby boomers to not only finish retiring, but to finish utilizing their health care services. So the first challenge facing the Medicare program is increasingly we have got a program that is facing solvency challenges. Secondly, we have got a program that, as it is defined today, does not truly cover adequately the health care needs of our Nation's seniors, our parents, our grandparents. We have got a program that covers about half the health care costs of our parents and grandparents. We have got a program that until next year does not really even begin to cover prescription drugs, does not provide an adequate long-term care benefit; a program that charges over a $800 deductible every episode, every time our parents go to the hospital; a program that until recently did not cover many preventive care benefits and still lags behind the private sector in terms of what is considered first-class medical care; a program that has no real meaningful catastrophic stop loss coverage; in other words, a program that looks largely like the 1960s insurance product it was modeled after. In the private insurance world, we no longer get our physician insurance separate from our hospital coverage. Yet that is exactly what Medicare continues to do today. So the second challenge facing our program is that it is a program that does not adequately cover the health care needs, does not adequately provide a modern benefits package for our Nation's seniors. We can see that by the fact that 89 percent of our Nation's seniors have something other than just plain Medicare fee-for-service alone. Eighty-nine percent have either some kind of wraparound coverage, supplemental coverage, Medicaid, private HMO coverage, have something in addition to just plain old vanilla Medicare fee-for-service coverage. The third challenge facing our program is it is a program that has not been run all that efficiently. You can look at that by comparing Medicare's growth rates to the private insurance world, to the other Federal programs that we run, by looking at the billions of dollars, not millions but billions of dollars, we waste every year. We all have our favorite stories. I know my colleagues have heard from their constituents, and we have heard, about the equipment that Medicare will rent but not purchase even when it would be more cost- effective to buy it. We have heard about the times that Medicare would pay for a patient to go to a physician's office to receive an injectable medication, but would not pay for that same patient to receive those drugs orally. We have heard about Medicare not paying for preventive care, not paying for more cost-effective outpatient-based care. Year after year Congress tries to put a Band-Aid and tries to improve the program and tries to catch up with the latest medical technology, but inevitably we are always a little bit behind what people are getting below the age of 65. So we have got three challenges being faced by our Medicare program: First, a program that, by any account, faces severe financial challenges; secondly, a program that does not adequately cover the benefits that our seniors deserve and need; and then finally, third, a program that is not all that efficient compared to other programs. The good news in all of this is that Medicare has done a remarkably good job taking care of our parents and grandparents. We do not need to throw the Medicare program out. Rather, we need to improve it, strengthen it, and get it ready for this next century, get it ready for the baby boomers that are beginning to enter this program. How do we do that? I would like my colleagues to remember just two numbers that came up during the Commission's deliberations and just two numbers that stand out to me in all the hours of testimony that I listened to. The first number is this: The CEO of the Mayo Clinic testified to our Commission. He said, We count 130,000 pages of rules and regulations. There has been some dispute. Everybody agrees there are tens of thousands of pages of rules and regulations. It does not really matter if you believe it is 130,000, or whether you believe it is 20-, 30-, 40,000. The bottom line is this: Tens of thousands of pages of rules and regulations telling the Mayo Clinic, telling physicians, telling hospitals how they must provide care. I do not know about you, but to me this debate really comes down to who do we want in control of our health care. I would much rather my physician, my health care provider, working with me to make those decisions. No matter how well-intentioned, I do not want a bureaucrat making my health care decisions for me. The American Hospital Association talks about the fact they have documented nurses in many hospital settings spend an hour filling out paperwork for every hour they provide care. At the same time, we have a shortage in this country of about 100,000 nursing vacancies, 100,000 vacancies we cannot fill today, and that number is only going to increase, and we are drowning our health care professionals in paperwork. The second number I ask this body to remember is that we heard from an economist testifying to our Commission basically in the Medicare program that we are trying to set 10,000 prices across 3,000 counties. We call them parishes in my home State of Louisiana. But the bottom line is this: 10,000 prices in 3,000 counties. We do not buy anything else in the Federal Government that way. It makes no sense that that is how we buy medical services. The problem is sometimes we will be too high, and sometimes we will be too low. We heard so many stories about how this distorts the quality of medical care that our parents receive. This distorts their access to services. We have all heard the complaints from physicians about the inequities of the sustainable growth rate reductions they are going to face. We heard about physicians leaving the Medicare practice. We have heard the stories of patients, we heard it in the Medicare Commission, about patients going to the hospital. We had a patient that told us a doctor wanted to perform a procedure on him. He was in the emergency room thinking he was about to die of a heart attack. Once the physician found out he was in Medicare, the physician said, I don't need to do that service anymore. It turns out Medicare would not pay for that procedure. Not only that, Medicare would not let him pay for that procedure or his private insurance pay for that procedure. I think most of us, if we were in the emergency room, would not want a bureaucrat to make that decision. We would want our physician to make that decision. That really is the question facing us when it comes to the future of Medicare: Who do we want making our health care decisions? Do we want our physicians working with us, or do we want bureaucrats? It is as simple as that. The Federal Government runs a different health care program. We run a health care program that has over 300 plans competing to provide coverage. We run a health care program that has had lower inflation rates; a health care program with incredible approval ratings, over 85, 90 percent approval ratings; a health care plan that does provide adequate prescription drugs, is not going insolvent. It is a very simple plan. Members of Congress are allowed to participate. Federal employees, the very employees that design and operate Medicare, are allowed to participate. The simple concept behind the Federal employees' plan is this: We give people choice. The Federal Government pays the majority of the premiums. If somebody wants to buy a little more expensive plan, they pay a little bit more. If they want to buy a more efficient plan, their premiums go down. We tried this in Medicare some years ago, except Congress said private plans were not allowed to reduce their cost below the government plan. That makes no sense. If a private plan is more cost- effective, of course they should be allowed to lower their prices. Why in the world would we not want our parents and our grandparents to be able to lower their premiums? Fortunately we fixed that, but we have got a lot more fixing to do. I was pleased today to learn from CMS, I know many of us were, that our seniors, over 90 percent of Medicare beneficiaries next year may have more choices of how they get their health care, may actually have a choice of how they get their health care plans. For those that want to stay in Medicare, they can continue to do that. Nothing has changed. But the good news is more and more of our parents and grandparents are getting more choices. I know my time is running out, and we are limited in our time tonight, but I think if we remember one thing about the Medicare debate, it is simply this: We must give our parents, we must give our grandparents more choices. We had a bipartisan Medicare Commission that was chaired by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) of this body, cochaired by former Senator Breaux of my home State of Louisiana. We came up with good bipartisan findings contained in the cochairman's report. The bottom line is this: If you remember nothing else but all the numbers and all the facts and all the details, Medicare has done a good job. To make sure it continues to do a good job for our parents and grandparents, let us not be scared of giving them the kind of choices they had before they became the age of 65. If we do that simple thing, not only will it be good for them, it will help us balance our budget, and it will slow down that growth by getting rid of some of those inefficiencies.

Mr. JINDAL

Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), and I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for allowing us to debate this very important bill. I would certainly urge support from all my colleagues to correct an injustice. Certainly there are many families impacted in Louisiana by this new tax ruling from the IRS. I want to focus on two families in particular. To avoid repeating much of what has already been said, I want to focus on two families in particular that will be helped by the passage of H.R. 1134. First, I would turn your attention to the Guidry family. They live in Slidell, Louisiana. They are constituents of mine. They received $125,000 to mitigate flood damage and to protect them against future loss. A good thing, you might say, after their home was damaged in Hurricanes Isadore and Lili. Indeed, it was a good thing that our government stepped in to help them recover not only from this natural disaster but also to prevent future flood damage and to protect this family from future damage and also to protect the Federal Treasury. However, with this new ruling, this novel ruling from last year, this new ruling that their income tax would now have to increase, not only were they raised and put into a higher tax bracket but their son who is paraplegic and who attends college on a need-based Pell grant is now being faced with the prospect of losing his financial aid and having to drop out of school if we do not pass this bill. This same family, the Guidry family, is also facing the prospect of having to sell the home in order to pay the taxes for the grant they received to fix the home that they owned in the first place. Certainly this is not what this body intended when we provided assistance and recovery dollars to those that are impacted by natural disasters. A second example. Mike Perkins, also from Slidell, received a grant back in 2001 to raise his home again to prevent future floods and also to save our Treasury from future damage claims. He finished construction 3 years ago, thought this was a closed issue, has been living in this home for over 3 years since he repaired his home, raised the home, until he got a letter from his local government in January saying that now, after the fact, he would have to pay higher taxes. I am very pleased not only for the support from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) and from the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) but also from the Treasury Department. I am also anticipating a letter from the IRS indicating that they do not intend to go back in time and retroactively apply these higher taxes, these surprise taxes to people who received grants in previous years, adding insult to injury to those who are recovering from natural disasters. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. JINDAL

Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the offered amendment. It seems to me in our country right now we have an all-out assault on faith-based groups. Just this week, a court in my home State of Louisiana ruled that school boards were prohibited from having voluntary school board member-led prayers to begin their meetings. Now, this very Chamber, the Supreme Court, and many government entities begin their proceedings with a prayer; and along that line I see nothing wrong with us inviting faith-based groups to be partners with the government in training tomorrow's workforce. To me, this debate should be about one and only one thing, and that is how do we provide the most effective training for our future workers? Nobody here is arguing that we should have an unlevel playing field. Nobody here is arguing for favoritism for faith-based groups. Rather, we are simply saying, let us level the playing field. Let us invite those who are motivated by faith to help us to train displaced workers, to train tomorrow's workforce. In my home State of Louisiana, faith-based groups have done a wonderful thing. They have provided health care to those who needed it; they have provided education, housing and shelter to those whose needed it the most. What is next? If you extend the logic of this amendment, what might be next might be those Catholic hospitals not being able to accept Medicare patients. What might be next might be the Baptist hospitals not being allowed to participate in our State's Medicaid program. We are not asking for special treatment. All we are saying is let us build on a bipartisan precedent, a precedent set in the Civil Rights Act, a precedent reaffirmed under President Clinton under four different bills. Let us build on that bipartisan precedent of opening the doors and allowing faith-based groups to participate as equal partners. People of faith pay taxes as well in this country. We are not arguing for special treatment; we are just arguing for a level playing field. Four different times this Congress saw fit to open those doors to faith-based groups. Four different times President Clinton signed into law four different measures designed to protect the interests and rights of faith-based groups. Today this bill that we are going to approve later on the floor today simply takes another step forward. It simply says to the faith-based community, we will not discriminate against you. We will not require you to give up your employment rights guaranteed or granted to you by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. To quote Members from the other side, Senator Kerry and Senator Clinton, those that have stood before for freedom and plurality, they themselves say, Senator Clinton in her own words says, ``There is no contradiction between support for faith-based initiatives and upholding our constitutional principles.'' Senator Kerry says, ``I know there are some that say that the first amendment means faith-based organizations can't help government. I've never accepted that. I think they are wrong.'' In this instance, I find myself in agreement with both Senator Kerry and Senator Clinton. The first amendment is not designed to protect government, not designed to protect us from faith; it is rather designed to separate church and State. It is, rather, designed to protect faith from government, not the other way around. So I think we need to stop closing the door to people of faith. We need to stop discriminating against those groups that are motivated by their religious beliefs to help the weakest in society. I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. JINDAL

Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the opportunity to speak on such an important topic. We as Members of the House have several responsibilities. Perhaps one of the most important responsibilities is to be a good steward of the people's money. We have to approve the budget every year, but we need to remember that money comes from the hardworking taxpayers of this great country of ours, and so often I get frustrated when people act as if that money literally grows on trees rather than being paid into our Treasury by people that are struggling to balance their checkbooks, to pay their mortgages, to pay off their debts. We need to be more responsible. The philosophy should not be, if we can get it, then we should spend it. We need to be much more responsible than that. I would like to share with my colleagues here just a few of the most glaring examples of the waste, fraud, and abuse in our Federal Government. Anybody who thinks that we need to raise taxes to get rid of a portion of our debt or deficit has not paid attention to all the waste that is currently happening in our Federal spending. I will give my colleagues a few examples. First comes from the National Park Service, and maybe my colleagues have heard of this one before. They spent up to $800,000, that number is not incorrect, $800,000 on an individual outhouse. The Park Service spent $330,000 in design costs, and then they built this particular outhouse at the Delaware Water Gap National Recreational Area with imported wood and $20,000 cobblestone veneers, and that is despite the fact these toilets do not even work in the winter because the facility only has running water 6 months of this year. This is according to ABC News. Think about that. Hundreds of thousands of dollars for an outhouse that only works 6 months a year. No wonder taxpayers are outraged and they demand we do better. A second example. The Women, Infants and Children program that is designed to serve low-income mothers and their children who are at nutritional risk. Some wonderful successes, and this program achieves some wonderful goals, especially in my home State of Louisiana. However, the $5 billion program annually does no income verification of its participants. If we did one simple thing, if we simply made sure that those who get WIC are actually eligible for WIC, that the number of participants who have incomes exceeding eligibility levels were properly limited the way we do in the school lunch program, as many as 27 percent of the current participants may not be eligible. That is according to the Los Angeles Daily News. Twenty-seven percent of the participants in what is otherwise a good program may not be eligible if we just enforce our existing rules. Another example. This comes from an Inspector General's report. The Department of Justice's Inspector General audits of the COPS grant program, again a program that has had some successes, identified more than $1 million in questioned costs and more than $3 million in funds that could have been put to better use. Also from the same Inspector General at the Department of Justice, in the same year, found nearly $1 million in equipment purchased with grant funds was unavailable for use because the grantees did not properly distribute the equipment. They could not even locate it or had not been trained on how to operate it. That is $1 million of taxpayer dollars spent on equipment that might be needed to enforce laws and bring safety to our communities that is being wasted because they do not know where the equipment is or they have not trained their staff in how to use the equipment. The Forest Service, another example again from the Inspector General. The Forest Service recently said they could not figure out why they spent $215 million out of a $3.4 billion operating budget, nor why the agency double-counted $45 million of income. They double-counted $45 million of income from other agencies. Think about that. If any of us did that in our private lives, in a business or in our checkbooks, we would probably not only be audited but may even be guilty of charges, and yet here we have our own government doing this, double-counting income, not knowing how they spent $215 million of our money. I want to spend some time on Medicaid fraud. In 2002, a Wisconsin transportation company repaid $1.6 million to Medicaid for multiple round-trip billings for dead people and people in the hospital. Think about that. They repaid $1.6 million, had to repay that back because it was found out they were billing the Federal program for providing services to dead people. In my own home State of Louisiana, I had the honor of serving as the Secretary of the Department of Health and Hospitals; and back in 1996 and 1997, we were facing some fairly large budget challenges. As we tried to overcome those challenges, we discovered it was possible to cut hundreds of millions of dollars of spending, even while we improved the quality of health care. Part of the way we did that was to weed out the rampant fraud and abuse, even though the vast majority of providers, those who needed it the most, a small number of people, abused that program, ended up wasting millions, if not billions, of dollars in Federal taxpayer money. For example, we also had some challenges with nonemergency transportation providers. There used to be joke in Louisiana that it was sometimes hard to get a taxi because they would all become nonemergency transportation providers. There were reports of people being taken to shopping and other errands and the State and the Federal Government paying for this as if they were medical visits. We, too, had reports of agencies billing the Federal Government and the State government, providing services to dead patients. We used to have another joke in our State about dead people voting and being accused of that happening in the past; and I used to say, I do not know if they are voting, but they are certainly getting health care services in our State and we are paying for it. We as taxpayers are paying for it. We had instances where we had literally providers sending out vans to pick up children after school, and oftentimes they were reputed to have the parents or offer the children candy bars or cigarettes for the parents or maybe $5 to bring those children to these Medicaid mills where they bill again the State and the Federal Government for services they were not even being provided. They would literally run through dozens and dozens of children, billing thousands and thousands of dollars for services that were never rendered. We had an audiologist that billed the State for services even though he did not own the equipment needed to provide those services. We had one hospital paid even after it had closed its doors, and we could go on and on about these instances of abuse, of waste, of fraud. Perhaps two of the saddest things about that, and I am proud we did eliminate that, we did get rid of those abuses which saved hundreds of millions of dollars for the taxpayers, even as we improved the quality of health care. Immunizations went up. Louisiana rankings went up. People got better quality health care. We gave senior citizens more control over health care choices, even as we controlled spending; but there were two lessons that I learned from that. One, and unfortunately we were reminded of the fact, simply throwing money at the problem is not the solution. Louisiana went from the late 1980s a billion dollar Medicaid program to when we took over almost between a $4.5 billion Medicaid program, spent all of that additional money, almost 70 percent of which came from Federal taxpayers; and yet we still did not improve our health ranking substantially. I think what that proved is simply throwing Federal money at a problem without putting in the right safeguards and accountability, it does not improve the quality of life for the people we were elected to serve, but rather too often wastes taxpayer dollars. So the first thing we must remember in this Chamber as we are responsible for appropriating the people's money, we are responsible for representing those that elected us here is we must keep a vigilant oversight over these Federal agencies, over these dollars being spent out of this Nation's Capitol, because there is too much of an opportunity for fraud, for waste, and for abuse. The second lesson that we learned that we also were reminded of was too often there are those that have the attitude that, well, I am simply spending somebody else's money, why are you worried about this. We confronted a provider who had been guilty of cheating the program, admitted he was cheating the program, and he simply said, everybody else was doing it, I thought I should do it as well. I cannot think of a sadder commentary when you think of the real genuine needs we have in this country, the people that truly need help in their health care, when you think of the needs we have to continue to cut people's taxes. We as an American people pay too much in taxes as it is, and here you have people whose attitude sometimes seems to be, well, that is somebody else's money, as if Federal money grew on trees, as if their taxes were not supporting these Federal programs. So I congratulate and I thank the gentlewoman for giving us this opportunity to come here and shine a spotlight on the abuses rampant in so many of our Federal programs, to give us an opportunity to remind this Chamber, to remind my colleagues of the importance of eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse. When we have serious challenges facing our country, when we have the obligation to provide body armor and supplies to our brave men and women in uniform who are defending our freedoms overseas, we have an obligation to strengthen Social Security so that our parents, our grandparents, and our children will all be able to benefit from this program in their retirement age. When we have got challenges with the number of uninsured in this country, we cannot afford to be wasting billions of dollars of taxpayers' money. It is not right, and it is something that we must put an end to. I want to thank again the gentlewoman for giving me this opportunity to shine the spotlight on what needs to be done.

Mr. JINDAL

Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Speaker, Dalip Saund's story is one of determination and true accomplishment. He personifies the idea that every person can, through hard work and dedication, achieve amazing heights. Through his election to Congress, Dalip Saund brought pride and joy not only to Indian-Americans, but to all Americans. Each of us owes a debt of gratitude to his trailblazing efforts, so that America could continue to be a land of opportunity. The naming of this post office in Mr. Saund's honor does justice not only to the man and his actions, but also to the American spirit and the belief that America is still the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Mr. JINDAL

Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Speaker, this month, this year started off as potentially a great month, a great year for democracy and for freedom. The President gave a soaring speech about spreading freedom and liberty across the world. We have elections coming for the first time to the people of Iraq. Yet even despite this optimism and this hope, there are also serious challenges to our freedoms and our rights right here at home. Tonight I want to speak about both those opportunities and those challenges. We have got opportunity in Iraq with free elections. We have got threats here at home with frivolous lawsuits threatening our freedoms, threatening our way of life. We have got threats here at home with recent IRS rulings and decisions threatening the ability of homeowners to keep their homes, to live in their homes. Finally, we have threats here at home threatening the ability of people across the wonderful State of California from enjoying the great oysters from my home State of Louisiana. Just today, I want to start first with the threat of frivolous lawsuits and the threat that poses to our way of life. In today's news, we find that a Federal appellate court has reinstated a lawsuit against the McDonald's restaurant, against the McDonald's chain. For those of you not familiar with this lawsuit, it was brought in New York by a family claiming that McDonald's restaurant should be responsible for the fact that their children have eaten too much of McDonald's food. I am a parent. I have got two beautiful young children, a 3-year-old girl and a little 9-month-old boy. My little 3-year-old girl enjoys McDonald's. She likes eating out. She likes the playground as much as the food. And it is my job, it is her mother's job, it is both of our jobs to make sure that our daughter eats a balanced meal. We would never in a million years think of blaming another, think of bringing a lawsuit against a restaurant for the fact that our daughter eats too many chicken McNuggets or too many French fries. In my mind this is just one more example of frivolous lawsuits, one more example of how frivolous lawsuits can actually erode our freedoms, our liberties, our economic rights. If this lawsuit in particular and frivolous lawsuits in general are allowed to stand, I fear that we will not have freedoms that we take for granted, the freedoms to go our favorite restaurants, the freedoms to open and operate small businesses, the freedoms to earn a living. In today's newspaper as well, from today's Wall Street Journal, I want to share with this House, all the way from Europe and Ireland they talk about curbing the ``American disease.'' I put that in quotes, ``American disease.'' They are not talking about our agricultural products. They are not talking about some kind of new biological threat. They are talking about personal injury lawsuits. Today in the Wall Street Journal, on the front page of the B section, they talk about the fact that litigation has been booming in Europe. Indeed, the nickname in some circles is the ``American disease.'' They talk about a restaurant owner, Pat McDonagh, who is worried about the fact that American-style lawsuits are coming to Ireland. In his restaurant he actually videotaped an adolescent customer pouring water on the floor in the restroom in one of his restaurants so that he could pretend to fall and sue the restaurant owner. In Ireland they have put in place several reforms. They have put in place a mandatory arbitration panel without involving lawyers, where plaintiffs and defendants can go and argue their case. Both of them still maintain the right to go to court after this arbitration panel. But already despite the fact they have got one of the highest concentrations of attorneys per people, already with some of these reforms, they are beginning to see real results. In Europe, again quoting from the Wall Street Journal, they said the Republic of Ireland was the Texas of Europe in terms of litigation before the new reforms. The Republic of Ireland was the Texas of Europe. I do not think this is an export we want to become known for. I do not think we want to brag about the fact we are exporting our legal system, our lawsuits to other corners of the world. In Ireland the number of personal injury claims dropped 20 percent, 20 percent, this year after they adopted these reforms. Liability insurance rates for both government and private employers also dropped 40 percent last year alone. Auto insurance premiums are back to where they were in 1999. It is not just Ireland. The UK has also introduced reforms to cut down the cost of litigation in civil claims courts. In France they are trying to slow down the runaway costs of medical malpractice insurance. Going back to Mr. McDonagh, going back to Ireland, not only did he see an adolescent stage a fall, he also saw a young pregnant woman with her husband also apparently stage a fall in his restaurant. That adolescent tried to file a 38,000 pound claim. When Mr. McDonagh went public with his evidence, went public with the proof that he had, not only was the adolescent reprimanded but many claims suddenly disappeared. After this video, after these reforms, they have seen the total liability claims, which in Ireland had been climbing at a rate of over 50 percent for the previous 3 years, finally begin to slow down. Insurance rates had tripled in 3 years, and finally they are beginning to see some relief. In Ireland legal fees and related costs account for almost half, 46 percent, of the awards in settlements. So this is money that is not even going to legitimately injured customers. The moral of this story: one, when Ireland adopted commonsense reforms, they saw insurance rates drop. They saw the number of claims being filed drop. They saw legal fees dropping. What we can learn from this case is with commonsense reforms, we can restore Americans' trust in our legal system. We can also make sure that we are not known across the world for exporting our legal system. I am proud of the fact that the administration is introducing three commonsense reforms to reform our legal system, first, in the medical liability area; second, in the class action lawsuit reform area; and, third, in asbestos litigation. First, let us start off talking a little bit about the need for reforms in class action lawsuits. These are an important part of our legal system. However, when they are abused, they truly harm not only the injured parties; they undermine our country's faith in our entire judicial system. When we look at the reforms that are being offered, first we need to understand the problems that we face. Right now the cost of litigation per person in the United States is far higher than in any other major industrialized nation. Let me repeat that. The cost of litigation per person in United States is far higher than any other industrialized nation. That is an important fact. These are countries we have to compete with economically. And as long as the cost of lawsuits and defending those lawsuits are higher here, that is like a hidden tax on every worker, on every consumer right here in America. Lawsuit costs have risen substantially over the past several decades. A large portion of these costs are going to lawyers' fees, transaction costs, never even reaching injured parties. Small businesses spend on average about $150,000 per year on litigation expenses alone. Looking at the medical liability area alone, we could save billions of dollars for American taxpayers. We could lower the cost of health care by billions of dollars just by adopting commonsense reforms. These are the kinds of reforms that were adopted in my home State of Louisiana, adopted in California decades ago through Democratic legislatures, through bipartisan majorities. These are the kinds of reforms that can restore not only some sensibility to our legal system, save our taxpayers, save our health care patients billions of dollars. They can also make sure that injured patients are truly being compensated for their injuries. Frivolous lawsuits, excessive jury awards, are driving many health care providers out of communities, forcing doctors to practice overly defensive medicine. In the neighboring State, in Mississippi, last year alone, they had a health care crisis. Many towns, many communities could not find doctors willing to deliver babies because of the malpractice crisis right next door. They literally had doctors threatening to move across the border into Louisiana, setting up clinics and hospitals across the border to treat patients from Mississippi. Fortunately, they have taken some steps to reform their legal system. We still have a health care system in crisis. We still have many communities that do not have health care providers. Even those communities with health care providers often have to charge higher insurance premiums, higher health care costs thanks to frivolous lawsuits. The President has proposed a very sensible plan. He allows unlimited compensation for true economic losses. He allows recoveries for noneconomic damages up to a reasonable amount. He allows punitive damages for the worst cases. He also makes sure that old cases cannot be brought to court several years after they have actually taken place. And, finally, he makes sure that defendants only pay judgments in proportion to their actual fault. If we listen carefully, patients will be able to collect their noneconomic damages; they would be able to collect reasonable punitive damages in the worst cases. We would make sure that defendants are only liable for what they caused, that we do not go searching for the deep pockets, we do not just go suing the first person we can find. We would make sure that the people that are hurt are truly compensated. At the same time we control the unnecessary costs, the frivolous lawsuits that are plaguing our health care system today. The second reform that has been presented is truly reforming our class action system. We support class action reforms to limit the abuse of large nationwide class action cases to return justice to the truly injured parties. The current system, which is so abused, often does not benefit injured parties. It undermines our American judicial system. Often we have injured parties that receive awards with little or no value. They give us little coupons in the mail, while their attorneys receive large fees. It makes sense to move these cases to the Federal system. And oftentimes we are involving interstate class action lawsuits. We are talking about cases that affect many citizens. We are talking about cases that involve more money, that involve interstate commerce issues. It makes sense that these cases should be heard in a Federal court. This does not alter in one way the right of a plaintiff to bring a legitimate claim to court. So in addition to protecting our physicians, protecting our health care system from frivolous lawsuits, we also need to do more to revamp our current class action system. Finally, the third piece of tort reform, frivolous lawsuit reform, that has been proposed is fixing our asbestos litigation system. We need to help those workers that have truly been injured with a fairer system and a long-term solution. The current system leaves little or no funds to pay current and future asbestos victims. Already we have bankrupted over 74 companies. My concern is those that were truly injured, there will be no funds left for them, and in the meantime we will destroy several companies rather than truly compensating those that have been injured. I think that the frivolous lawsuits and out-of-control legal system can pose a very serious threat to America's freedoms, can pose a very serious threat to the American Dream. We are a country of economic opportunity. We are a country where small business owners can create a better quality of life by serving their customers. We need to preserve the risk-taking, the entrepreneurial spirit that not only makes America great, makes America a beacon of hope and opportunity for people all over the world, but also makes sure that not only we but our children have jobs, make sure that their economic growth continues unabated. These three reforms are necessary, in the medical malpractice, in the class action area, and then finally in the asbestos area, to make sure that we restore some reason to our legal system, to make sure that we truly compensate those that have been injured, those that have been injured through others' neglect, but at the same time we do not punish honest business people, we do not punish physicians trying to provide high-quality medical care, we do not engage in frivolous lawsuits, we do not perpetuate a lottery-style system. A second topic I would like to talk about to the Members of the House today is that, now that we have talked about one of the challenges facing us here at home, I would like to talk about an opportunity abroad. And if the Members will permit me, I would like to quote from our President's inaugural address, just a few lines from that stirring speech where he talked about the hope, the freedom, the principles of democracy being spread across the world. I would like to quote from what our President said on that cold morning: ``We have seen our vulnerability, and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny, prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder, violence will gather and multiply in destructive power and cross the most defended borders and raise a mortal threat. There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment and expose the pretensions of tyrants and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.'' Our President went on to say: ``We are led by events and common sense to one conclusion: the survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is an expansion of freedom in all the world.'' The President then later in his remarks and as he was talking about how our national interests coincide with the basic principles upon which this country was founded, our national interests lie in promoting freedom and democracy to the peoples of the world. But he goes on to caution: ``This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.'' As I think about the President's remarks, I think in particular of the situation in Iraq. And I want to share just one last line from the President before I talk further about what is happening in Iraq. Our President went on to say: ``Some, I know, have questioned the global appeal of liberty, though this time in history, 4 decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen, is an odd time for doubt. Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.'' When I listened to those remarkable words, when I listened to the President's inaugural address, I thought what a wonderful role America has to play. It is not our job to be the policemen of the world. The President was very quick to say this is not primarily a matter of arms, but it is a matter of spreading hope and standing on the side of those fighting for freedom and democracy across the world. Not only is it the right thing to do, and it is, but it also is the best way to secure America's safety. There is a little girl back at home in Louisiana that gets this, and before I share with the Members what she has to say, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to thank my colleague for making the point and reiterating the point how important it is to defend our freedoms at home, even as we are fighting to defend freedoms abroad. As I was saying, the President in his stirring inaugural remarks talked about the importance of spreading freedom across the world; not only that it is consistent with our highest ideals, our goals, our principles, but also as an effective means of defending America's freedoms here at home. I want to share this with you. There is a little girl back in my district that understands it. The story in our local paper opens with a quote that says, ``They fight for us.'' ``Four-year-old Katelyn Swansen is talking about her heroes, the American troops fighting overseas in Iraq. It seems like a big statement coming from a very little girl's mouth, but she says it with pride as she shows off the poster she made to send to the troops.'' I am going to read a little bit from this article. Her pre-K teacher at the local YMCA has taught not only little Katelyn, but also her 12 classmates, to know all about what it means to be an American and about the sacrifices the American troops are making in Iraq. These kids, they may not be able to say ``patriotism,'' they may not even know what it means, but they are practicing being good Americans. The words may seem jumbled, they may not be pronounced correctly, but when they say the Pledge of Allegiance, they say it with pride, they say it from their heart. On a blackboard behind them, the words say, ``The YMCA Supports our Troops USA,'' and there is a flag. And on Ms. Restivo's desk, that is the teacher, there is a small picture of her stepson, who is a private first class. Seth Restivo is a member of the U.S. Army National Guard. He is currently deployed to Iraq. The kids have made a stack of posters to send to his unit and made handprints on the posters. The teachers wrote on these handprints, ``These small hands support our troops in a big way.'' A poster was also made using handprints from Seth's 4-year-old son Triston, who also attends that same YMCA childcare center in Covington. Ms. Restivo says her son signed up to be in the National Guard when he was only 16. He is now 19. He left for boot camp as soon as he graduated from high school in May 2004. He left for Iraq a week before Christmas. He is currently in Baghdad, spending most of his time cleaning weapons. He has been deployed for 10 months. She says it is important for her students, even though they are too young to learn about the soldiers who are fighting for their freedom, she says it is important that they know about America and about the true heroes. It is important for them to learn about what is going on for our country. Those posters will be mailed to her stepson. I think 4-year-old Katelyn and I think her classmates truly understand what it means to be American. I think they truly understand the sacrifices being made by our brave men and women in uniform, being made overseas to defend our way of life and also to help the Iraqi people to find freedom. On January 30th, an historic day is approaching us as, for the first time in decades, after decades of dictatorship and oppression, the Iraqi people will be finally be able in a free election to decide their own freedom. Back in December, the International Republican Institute did a survey that showed over 67 percent of Iraqis supported going forth with the elections as scheduled, over 67 percent. According to their own independent election committee, over 7,000 candidates representing 75 political entities, 27 organizations and 9 coalitions plan to participate in the National Assembly elections, over 7,400 candidates. These elections should reflect the will of the Iraqi people. They should lay the groundwork for the drafting of a constitution that represents the will of the Iraqi people and embraces freedom and democracy, and, finally, to result in a representative government committed to peace, stability and democracy. These are our hopes, these are our goals. Now, can we in America guarantee what happens after these elections? Certainly there is no guarantee. But what we can know, what we can do is this: We can give the Iraqi people the best chance they have got for stability, for peace, for freedom. We can give them the best chance that entire region has by allowing these elections to proceed. It will be up to the Iraqi people after these elections take place to decide for themselves. We are not able to impose order externally. What we are able to do is turn over, with time, turn over as quickly as we can, the responsibility for the safety back to Iraqi forces. Over 120,000 forces of varying kinds have been trained. You have got not only the national elections, but in local elections you have got over 111 political entities that have submitted candidate lists. You have 256 political entities composed of almost 19,000 candidates registered to compete in the 20 different elections. You see just the birth of democracy in that country. Is it perfect? No. Are there challenges? Absolutely. But what we are witnessing is an historic moment, an important moment for the Iraqi people, an important moment for that entire region. Now, again, America cannot force its will on another country. We cannot force the Iraqi people to live in peace, or we cannot force upon them a stable democracy. What we can do by giving them these elections is give them the opportunity to take that responsibility for themselves. What we can do by transferring the responsibility of security back to trained Iraqi forces is to make sure they have the best chance for a peaceful future. That is good for the Iraqi people. That is also good, however, for the entire region and also for the American people. I have talked today about the threats to freedom at home, I have talked about the opportunity to spread freedom across the world. I also want to talk in closing about two additional threats to freedoms right here in America, and in particular threats that impact the people of Louisiana. The first threat I want to talk to you about concerns a bill that I am filing tomorrow. This is a bill about people, the Disaster Prevention Protection Act of 2005. My State and many States have properties that are subject to flooding, and because of this problem, FEMA has got a program, flood mitigation grant program, that has been in place for several years. These grants have been given out in my State in particular for the last 10 years, but there has been a similar program literally in place for decades. These grants are given to people after a disaster hits or to prevent a future disaster from hitting. They are designed to save the Federal Government money. Instead of allowing homes to flood repeatedly, the Federal Government, in partnership with local homeowners, acts to prevent the worst floods, acts to prevents the worst floods damage from happening. The grants are 75 percent from the Federal Government, 25 percent from the private homeowner. The States work with local municipalities, so there is a State component as well. Over the last 3 years, this has benefited literally dozens, hundreds of families, in Louisiana. We are talking about approximately $8 million. This is a program that has worked well, but here is the challenge: Eighteen months ago the IRS changed how these grants were considered. The grant is now going to be considered as income. The result is we are now forcing families in the higher tax brackets. We are talking about families who were never told these grants would be considered taxable income when they got this money in the first place. So now you have the awful situations where people may be forced to sell their homes to pay the taxes on the grants that they received to save their homes in the first place. I think this is a tragedy, and one that would be very simple to fix. That is why tomorrow I am filing my very first piece of legislation to address this problem. This sounds like a theoretical problem. We are talking about 500 homes. But I want to give you three specific examples to show what I am talking. In Slidell, Louisiana, we have a family whose home was damaged again during two hurricanes, Hurricane Isadore and Hurricane Lili. It has been substantially damaged. The challenge the owner of this home has, she is eligible to receive and received one of these Federal grants. However, she has a son who is now injured and is now a paraplegic. He is going to college on a Pell grant. If she has to pay Federal income tax on her grant, not only will her son lose his grant, he may very well have to drop out of college. I will give you a second case. We have a 67-year-old widow living in Slidell, Louisiana, in a home her husband built for her many, many years ago. Her only income is Social Security. Her home is substantially damaged, and she is actually in a rental property right now. She has saved every penny and used all of her savings to participate in the FEMA program, to come up with the matching funds, her 25 percent. Her plans are finally completed, she is ready to go back and construct and repair her home, but now she is afraid. She is afraid to start, because she cannot afford to pay the taxes. Her house has been sitting empty for 2 years in substantially damaged condition. It continues to deteriorate. If she is not allowed to participate in this program, she will have to sell her home to pay the taxes on the grant. She will lose the home that her husband built for her. Finally, a third example. We have a family of five whose home was declared substantially damaged, again after Hurricanes Isadore and Lili. The primary homeowner is now disabled, and they are now also in a rental unit. One of their children is receiving a Pell grant for college. If they are forced to pay Federal taxes on their grant, not only will they lose their Pell grant, they are looking at not only the loss of their home, but they are worried they may have to file for bankruptcy protection. To me, this is the worst kind of tragedy. We are adding insult to injury. We are talking about families that have already been hurt through a natural disaster. We as the Federal Government have tried to help them recover and to avoid future losses. To come in now, after the fact, to try to impose an income tax after the fact I think does serious harm not only to their personal finances, but to their liberties, their ability to live in their own homes, to own their own homes. For their sake and for the sake of many families that may find themselves in a similar situation, I hope this House will pass this legislation. Finally, the final threat to our freedoms at home that I would like to talk about today, we in Louisiana are proud of the fact that we are home to some of the world's finest seafood. I know many people in this House and across the country watching tonight have enjoyed our shrimp, have enjoyed crawfish. You have probably also enjoyed our oysters. This week we are celebrating in Washington Mardi Gras. Many people will be eating Louisiana's fine oysters this week. To this House, I want to make sure that we free the American people, we allow the good people of the Great State of California to enjoy the freedom of also partaking in Louisiana's oysters. I call upon the good Governor of California to lift the ban and allow Louisiana's oysters to be consumed in California so they might not be deprived of this valuable commodity. It has been my privilege, Mr. Speaker, to address this House, to talk about the opportunities to spread democracy and freedom across the world; the excitement of watching the Iraqi people participate in their first free election in decades. A perfect election, no; an historic election, yes; and one filled with great promise and potential for the future. I have also talked today about the threats we face to our future right here at home, through frivolous lawsuits, what we can do to address that. Just today we found out that McDonald's is yet again going to court to defend itself from the claims of a family who ate too much McDonald's food and now wants to blame the restaurant. We also heard from my colleague today from North Carolina, also talking about the threat of frivolous lawsuits and the threat that we may lose doctors in our most underserved communities. We also talked about the threat to that most important property right in America, the right to own one's home, posed by a recent IRS ruling. And finally, not to trivialize it, but finally the threat being faced by those communities who may not have access to Louisiana's fine seafood.

Mr. JINDAL

Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. JINDAL

Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Speaker, I ask to address the House for 5 minutes.

Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor to address this House for the first time in my elected career. It is also with a heavy heart that I address this House. I think that this debate diminishes this House. This was one of the proudest weeks of my life, when my father was able to see his son being sworn into this House, when I was able to bring my daughter to watch her father being sworn into this House. As a son of immigrants, I take very seriously the freedoms and rights granted to us in this country, America, the greatest country in the world. I think we diminish this House by the discussion that we are having. Let us be clear. We are not here at a congressional hearing. We are not hear to talk about improving our election procedures. We are hear to certify the results of this recent election. We are here to certify the fact that President Bush did, indeed, win the votes granted to him in the State of Ohio; did, indeed, win election across this great country. In many ways, I am glad that my daughter and father are no longer here to watch this debate taking place in this House. Even CBS news has recognized the fact that President Bush has won this election. This is probably the only place left that is still disputing this election. What kind of message are we sending out? What kind of message are we sending to the rest of the world where we bring democracy to every corner? Where we are trying to bring democracy, the right to vote to Afghanistan, to Iraq, to the Palestinian people, what message do we send when we stand up and say if you lose an election, if you do not like the results, you can always go to court, you can always hire an attorney? This is the wrong message to be sending. This does not bring honor to this House. This does not bring honor to our democratic tradition. This does not bring honor to the history of a peaceful transition of power. This does not bring honor to those who have gracefully conceded before. Indeed, in my own home State we had a congressional election decided by less than half of a percentage point, less than one vote per precinct. I want to stand up here and congratulate both the Democratic winner of that election, as well as his Republican opponent. Mr. Speaker, I have got several remarks from several different editorial pages from the State of Ohio that say that we should not be having this discussion, that say that the votes were counted in Ohio. There is another place, there is another time to be having this discussion. Today is about certifying, accepting the results. Two things that have been good that have happened today: one, I have heard many of my colleagues from the other side recognize our President as the rightful winner. I thank them for doing that. Secondly, before I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi), I would like to say in Louisiana we make several jokes about the fact that in the past, distant past, people used to vote multiple times. We never, however, in the history of our State have ever had multiple counts of the same vote. I would offer that this is not a good day for our country, not a good day for democracy; and we have stopped the acceptance of the certification of the votes.

Mr. JINDAL. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. (Mr. TIBERI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)