[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 762-766]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           CHALLENGES TO OUR FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS HERE AT HOME

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mike Rogers of Alabama). Under the 
Speaker's announced policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of 
the majority leader.
  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.

                              {time}  2045

  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

[[Page 763]]

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

[[Page 764]]

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).
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss an issue of great importance 
to the citizens of the Fifth District of North Carolina. We are deeply 
concerned about the skyrocketing costs of medical malpractice insurance 
because it is limiting access to quality and affordable health care all 
over western North Carolina, but particularly in the rural portions. 
The escalating cost of health care is a major concern in the fifth 
district.

                              {time}  2100

  Just 2 weeks ago, I held meetings with community leaders in all 12 
counties in my district. The issue of the rising cost of medical 
insurance was raised at each and every meeting. After all, the American 
Medical Association has determined that North Carolina is one of 19 
States in the country that is currently identified as a ``crisis'' 
State.
  Due to an onslaught of frivolous lawsuits, our physicians are being 
forced to pay exorbitant premiums on their liability insurance. The 
rates have risen so high that many family practitioners and OB-GYNs are 
being forced to retire early or simply go out of business. Doctors are 
refusing to deliver babies or perform surgery because they are afraid 
of being sued. That is especially a problem in our rural communities, 
where many doctors are sole practitioners.
  Just as alarming, our medical school enrollments are on the decline, 
which will limit the health care available to our future generations.
  Recently, I spent 2 days with medical professionals in my district. 
According to the experts in the medical community of Forsyth County, 
there was at least a 20 to 40 percent increase last year in medical 
malpractice insurance premiums. The biggest impact, again, was felt in 
the specialty fields like OB-GYN, emergency medicine and surgery.
  What is happening across North Carolina is that doctors are no longer 
going into specialized fields like obstetrics. This is short-changing 
the people of the Fifth District, because it is limiting access to the 
health care specialists they need. We must remember that this is an 
issue that affects everyone, not just doctors.
  In early 2003, with the backing of the Bush administration, the U.S. 
House of Representatives moved quickly to address medical liability 
reform by passing H.R. 5, the HEALTH Act, Help Efficient, Accessible, 
Low-Cost, Timely Health Care. Unfortunately, the U.S. Senate failed to 
pass this meaningful and important legislation. I look forward to the 
debate this year in the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the House and Senate to address 
this health care crisis. We need to enact meaningful medical 
malpractice reform. My priority is that the citizens of Fifth District 
of North Carolina and all across the Nation have continued access to 
quality, affordable health care.
  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

[[Page 765]]

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

[[Page 766]]

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.

                          ____________________