[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 30 (Wednesday, March 10, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H933-H942]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 339, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY IN
FOOD CONSUMPTION ACT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 552 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 552
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 339) to prevent frivolous lawsuits against the
manufacturers, distributors, or sellers of food or non-
alcoholic beverage products that comply with applicable
statutory and regulatory requirements. The first reading of
the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in
the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed
in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for
that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII and except pro forma
amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment so
printed may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be
printed or his designee and shall be considered as read. At
the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
{time} 1100
During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the
purposes of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us is a fair and open rule that
allowed every single Member of this body to offer any amendment that
they wished to debate after simply having it preprinted in the
Congressional Record. On March 4, the Committee on Rules publicly
notified Members of the possibility that it may report a rule to give
every Member of Congress an opportunity to have their amendment heard
on the House Floor, giving Members ample time to draft and submit their
amendments for consideration.
The rule also provides one hour of general debate, equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on
the Judiciary, and allows the amendment in the nature of a substitute
to be considered an original bill for the purpose of amendment, and
that it shall be considered as read.
The rule waives all points of order against the committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute and provides that only the authoring
Member or a designee may offer a preprinted amendment. Finally, the
rule provides the minority with one motion to recommit either with or
without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the rule for H.R. 339, the
Personal Responsibility and Food Consumption Act. This bill is common
sense legislation that requires courts to dismiss frivolous lawsuits
seeking damages for injuries resulting from obesity and its attendant
health problems that are filed against the manufacturers, distributors,
sellers, marketers, and advertisers of any food product by a claimant
or their spouse, parent, or child. That is, simply put, what this bill
does, and I would like to congratulate our chairman of the Committee on
the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the
bill's sponsor, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) for their hard
work in bringing this legislation to the floor for its consideration
today.
Despite its opponents' claims to the contrary, what this bill does
not do is to relieve manufacturers of their existing Federal and State
responsibilities for manufacturing, marketing, distributing,
advertising, labeling, or selling their products, nor does it affect
existing State laws against deceptive trade practices or lawsuits filed
for the relief of claimants who become sick from tainted food products.
This bill is a carefully crafted bill to address a specific problem: to
put an end to frivolous lawsuits that have been filed against the
lawful and productive food services industry, an industry that provides
12 million Americans with jobs and is the Nation's largest private
sector employer. And, it accomplishes this while protecting all of the
other rights currently given to consumers.
This bill simply codifies the current tort law of every State in
America that already has preventive injury claims based on obesity and
makes permanent what a recent Gallup poll has shown that 89 percent of
Americans already knew: that lawsuits against the food industry are an
attempt by the trial bar to make an end-run around our Nation's
established democratic process through litigation. H.R. 339 creates a
narrow, national solution to the problem of these costly and wasteful
lawsuits, and establishes in Federal law
[[Page H934]]
the simple concept that consumers, not the plaintiffs' bar or a
government agency, shall have the right to choose what they eat.
Every Member of this Chamber understands that obesity and the greater
health problems that it causes, such as heart disease and diabetes, is
a dangerous and growing problem to America. Over the last 20 years,
obesity rates have increased by more than 60 percent among adults, and
the rate of increase in obesity among young people has risen even more
rapidly. To address this problem, President Bush has demonstrated his
leadership by providing funds in his budget for general health
promotion activities, including efforts to educate the public on
preventing diabetes and obesity. President Bush has also outlined a
fitness challenge to all Americans by asking adults all across America
to get at least 30 minutes of physical activity each day, for children
and teenagers to get at least 60 minutes of physical activity each day,
and for parents to commit to family activities that revolve around
physical activity.
But the American people understand that fitness, health, and well-
being is not something that can be legislated, nor something that
lawyers can sue for. A commitment to a healthy lifestyle is something
that everyone must make for themselves, and it is a matter of personal
responsibility. People all across this country understand that since
2002, trial lawyers have been sizing up the deep pockets of the food
industry and are ready to pounce upon them when they see a golden
opportunity to reap billions of dollars for themselves by filing these
lawsuits against the productive food industry.
John Bahnzaf, one of the lead litigators of these frivolous suits,
has publicly announced that his goal is to ``open the floodgates'' of
the litigation against the food industry because, he says, ``Somewhere
there is going to be a judge and a jury that will buy this, and once we
get the first verdict, as we did with tobacco, it will open up the
floodgates.'' All it will take to do irreparable harm to consumers, the
economy, and millions of jobs is just one judge making a nonsense
opinion by falling victim to what the trial lawyers wish to do. I
believe it is Congress's obligation to allow commerce to proceed by
preventing these suits from wasting the time of our courts and the
resources of a lawful industry.
By passing this legislation today, the House will tell consumers,
investors, and countless employees of local Mom and Pop burger joints
all across America that we care about them and their jobs, and that we
will make sure that we will protect them. We will be telling Americans
we think that they are smart enough to decide what they choose to put
in their own mouth, and we will be helping those everyday working
Americans who rely on fast, affordable nutrition in their hectic lives,
not by allowing the courts to increase the price of food that they
freely choose to eat.
If the House fails to pass this legislation, where will the madness
end? Will sit-down restaurants, which some studies have shown often,
serve food with a nutritional and caloric content similar to fast food?
Will they be next on the trial lawyers' hit list? Will trial lawyers
target chicken producers who supply countless moms across America with
the raw materials for homemade fried chicken, or the beef producers who
conspire to provide them with raw ingredients for fattening homemade
meatloaf? Or will they simply wait for the next fad diet trend to come
along and go after whoever is producing the unfashionable food of the
moment?
Mr. Speaker, there is a cure to the obesity problem in America. By
taking the road to reducing the medical costs associated with obesity
is the right way to do it, not in the courtroom. It begins when
Americans decide to leave a little bit on their dinner plate and to run
that extra mile. It begins when a parent decides to take an active role
in their child's life and coaches their son or their daughter's Little
League team. It begins the next time you or I step up to the counter
and order the salad, not the extra cheese pizza. But that should be our
choice as Americans, because we know best that we make better decisions
than the government or than trial lawyers can make for us. These are
decisions that Americans can and should make for themselves. Unlike the
opponents of this bill, I trust the American people and believe that
Americans are smart enough to make these decisions for themselves.
Mr. Speaker, I support this rule, and I support the well-crafted
underlying bill of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself
8 minutes.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, despite the rhetoric coming from the other
side, this is not an open rule. This rule requires that any Member who
wants to improve this bill must have already preprinted their amendment
in yesterday's Congressional Record. Now, it is interesting to note
that when they were in the minority, the Republicans condemned
preprinting requirements, but now that they are in power, they find
this and other procedures to close the process completely acceptable.
In fact, even the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) agrees that
preprinting requirements are wrong, or at least he used to.
On July 20, 1993, the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Rules said this about a Democratic rule requiring that all amendments
be preprinted: ``This rule also requires amendments to be printed in
the Congressional Record. Now, that might not sound like much, but it
is another bad policy that belittles the traditions of House debate. If
amendments must be preprinted, then it is impossible to listen to the
debate on the floor, come up with a new idea to improve the bill, and
then offer an amendment to incorporate that idea. Why do we need this
burdensome preprinting process? Shouldn't the committees that report
these bills have a grasp of the issues affecting the legislation under
their jurisdiction? Again, Mr. Speaker, I think we can do better.''
Well, I agree completely with my friend from California. We can do
better. Unfortunately, in this Congress, we are actually doing worse.
This year, of the nine rules this body considered, only one has been a
truly open rule. That is a batting average of 111, which will get you
kicked off of my son's T-ball team. According to the Republicans' own
definition, eight out of nine rules have been restrictive, and that one
open rule brought a bill to the floor that was approved by a voice
vote.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as for the underlying bill, this is an unnecessary
distraction from the real problems facing the American people. In
August 2002, two children brought suit against McDonald's, claiming the
corporation bore legal responsibility for their obesity and health
problems. The case got a great deal of media attention which is, I am
sure, part of why we are doing this thing today. The judge working on
the case quickly recognized that this lawsuit was clearly frivolous and
dismissed the case.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the system worked. But that is not good
enough for the Republicans. Now they want to radically change the
rules, not just so Americans cannot bring forth so-called frivolous
lawsuits, but so that almost any case of negligence against these types
of companies is banned. This bill is retroactive: any case currently
pending before a judge would be subject to the new law. Mr. Speaker,
you do not change the rules during the middle of the game, but that is
just what this bill does.
This bill has many, many, many problems, and my colleagues on the
Committee on the Judiciary will talk more about the merits or lack of
merits of the bill during general debate. But there are bigger issues
here.
Mr. Speaker, obesity is a problem, and this week we learned that
obesity will soon pass smoking as the leading cause of preventable
deaths. Americans, especially children, are gaining weight at alarming
rates. In fact, according to the National Alliance for Nutrition and
Activity, obesity is the Nation's fastest rising public health problem.
According to the Department of Health and Human Services,
[[Page H935]]
unhealthy eating and inactivity cause about 1,200 deaths every day.
That is five times more than the number of people killed by guns, HIV,
and drug use combined.
Now, adding to this is the fact that it just does not affect the
obese person; it puts a burden on the entire system, from hospitals to
the workplace to the home. And, according to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, healthier diets could prevent at least $71 billion per
year in medical costs, lost productivity, and lost lives. The Centers
for Disease Control estimates that if all physically inactive Americans
became active, we would save $77 billion in annual medical costs. And
this does not even begin to discuss the issue of hunger in America.
Unfortunately, there are many people in this country who suffer from
hunger and yet, paradoxically, are obese because the little food they
do get is not nutritious. Low-income families face a real need to
stretch their food dollars to maximize the number of calories they
consume. We are finding that low-income families may eat foods that may
cost less, but that have relatively higher levels of calories per
dollar to stave off hunger when they lack the money or other resources
like food stamps to purchase a healthier balance of more nutritious
foods. Simply put, it becomes a trade-off between food quantity and
food quality.
Now, it is obvious to everyone, everyone but the House Republican
leadership, apparently, that obesity and hunger are serious public
health issues that need to be dealt with in serious ways.
{time} 1115
But instead of bringing legislation before this body that will help
feed the hungry, provide families with information on how to prepare
and eat nutritious meals, encourage the food and restaurant industry to
be more responsible and help raise the standard of living, we are here
today considering a fake bill that pretends to fix a fake problem.
Now, I would like to tell the American public that we are actually
having a real substantive debate about obesity in ways to address this
national problem but we are not. And although today's bill would
undoubtedly restrict lawsuits against restaurants, food manufacturers,
and food distributors, what it really does is highlight the priorities,
actually the lack of priorities, of this Republican-controlled
Congress.
For example, over 760,000 Americans sit at home, jobless and without
any income because the Republicans in Congress will not extend them
unemployment benefits. But the majority party all of a sudden can find
the time to take up this legislation.
While the European Union adds tariffs to American goods because of a
trade dispute, the Republican majority continues to let a bipartisan
compromise sit and gather dust; but the leadership can find the time to
try to ram another partisan corporate tax cut through the House that
will not address any real problem.
And while over 40 million Americans woke up this morning without
health insurance, last week the majority took precious time out of
their limited legislative schedule to set the rules for commercial
space flight, which does not even exist yet.
With all the challenges facing this country, and with the limited
schedule set by the Republicans this year, is this the best bill to
consider? Is this the best use of the House's time? The answer is no.
And, unfortunately, the Republican Party continues to ignore the real
issues facing this country.
And it just goes to show you how misguided and out of touch the
majority party continues to be.
Mr. Speaker, the United States House of Representatives is supposed
to be a serious place. This is where the great issues are supposed to
be debated. But under this Republican leadership, this House has become
a place where trivial issues are debated passionately and serious ones
not at all.
We should have a debate about the problem of obesity. And that debate
should include serious discussions about the ways we can effectively
deal with that issue. But that is not what we are doing here today.
What we are doing here today, quite frankly, is, once again, concocting
a way to avoid doing the people's business.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, a good number of Members of Congress spend
a lot of time trying to promote health and fitness and worthiness, and
one of those Members is with us today. He is the chairman of the
Committee on Rules, from San Dimas, California.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Dreier).
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me just say in responding to my friend
from Massachusetts that this is clearly an open rule in the modern
House that we have today. We are criticized over the fact that we have
not been able move things; and then, Mr. Speaker, when we proceed with
moving legislation forward, we do it under a procedure that does allow
every single Member, every single Member who wants to offer a germane
amendment the right to do that. That is exactly what this rule does.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, no. The gentlemen spoke for a nice long
period of time. When I get done with my statement, I look forward to
engaging with the gentleman. I never hesitate to do that.
Let me say that, Mr. Speaker, I have to ask somewhat rhetorically,
Was there a power surge last night or was it a full Moon? Someone has
awakened the Franken-Food Monster. The amendments that have been filed
last night appear to be nothing more than an all-out embrace of Ralph
Naderism. Who has been in the sauce too much? Or maybe they need a
little Hamburger Helper.
Last night I thought that the minority was very serious when they
said to us that they wanted to have an open amendment process for
unlimited debate on this bill. I thought we were going to have a
serious debate, a debate on how to stop the economically debilitating
effect of frivolous lawsuits concerning obesity. But the amendments
that were filed last night are making a mockery of what is a serious
issue.
Americans, Mr. Speaker, are eating themselves to death and looking
for someone to blame. Obesity and weight control are very serious
subjects, very, very serious subjects. I am reminded regularly by
Arnold Schwarzenegger about that. And, of course, we have the great
model of President Bush, who is probably the fittest President we have
ever had. They talk about the fact that there are many factors to
weight control and food consumption and health. And, obviously, fitness
is numero uno, very, very important.
Suing Burger King is not going to improve anyone's health. Personal
responsibility and accountability are what are most important. We
cannot have a serious debate, Mr. Speaker, on real issues, one about
those who can use the court system for political purposes on whether it
is right or wrong to force concessions or financial gain through legal
harassment. We are clogging the judicial system with frivolous
lawsuits, we are hurting business, we are putting American jobs in
jeopardy, and at the same time we are clogging our arteries without
considering the consequences. These are real issues that affect
Americans' everyday lives.
So I have to ask, Why are these frivolous amendments being filed by
the minority? The majority is trying to govern and get the people's
business done. And I must ask the minority why is there this fraudulent
frolic of frivolous fluff. Is it intended to highlight frivolous
lawsuits, or is it merely intended to change the subject?
Let us get the people's work done, unburden businesses so they can
create more jobs, and stop this bumper-sticker gamesmanship. I believe
that we should withdraw the silliness and we should see those
amendments, if they are offered, resoundly defeated.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thought the gentleman from California
was going to yield to me.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) if he would like to pose a question
to me.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me ask the question to the gentleman from California
(Mr.
[[Page H936]]
Dreier) that I wanted to ask, which was he says this is an open rule,
but if a Member is watching this debate right now, either a Democrat or
Republican, and comes up with a great idea for an amendment, will that
Member be allowed to offer his or her amendment on the floor right now?
It is a simple yes or no answer.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, not at this moment. Let me
say, if the gentleman would continue to yield, let me say that any
Member had the opportunity last night to file an amendment.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time.
I also point out again the gentleman (Mr. Dreier) talks about the
openness of the Committee on Rules, but let me use his definitions, the
definitions of the Republicans when they were in the minority. Under
those definitions, this year of the nine rules we have had, one has
been open, one has been closed, one was procedural, and there were six
restrictive rules. This is hardly any kind of an example.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will not. Mr. Speaker, I control the
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). The gentlemen reclaims his
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will extend the same courtesy to the
gentleman that he extended to me.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who has been a champion on the issue of
nutrition issues.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, only with this Republican leadership would
an effort to promote personal responsibility begin with allowing
companies to be irresponsible without accountability. Unless the public
be confused that the Republicans are actually concerned with doing
something about the obesity epidemic in this country that we have heard
so much about, this legislation has little to do with preventing what
the Centers for Disease Control yesterday said will be this Nation's
leading cause of preventable deaths by next year.
Rather, by shielding manufacturers, distributors, and food sellers
from liability, this bill is the next installment in the majority's
series of tort reform bills in disguise, attempting to give yet another
industry open-ended protection so irresponsible conduct is not punished
or held accountable.
But that should not distract us from discussing the very real problem
of obesity in this country. Obesity affects nearly 65 percent of
adults. The rates are rising. The problem is even more pressing for
teens, teenage obesity rates tripling in the last 20 years. All told,
obesity costs the Nation $117 billion a year in health care and related
costs, the single largest drain or our Nation's health care system.
Obesity leads to diabetes, high blood pressure, coronary heart
disease, stroke and arthritis, conditions the CDC says will kill a half
million people every year by 2005.
No one here is under the illusion that there is a one-step solution
to reducing obesity. With ads encouraging us to eat too much of the
wrong kinds of foods, neighborhoods designed for driving and not
walking, restaurants serving ever-increasing portion sizes, McDonalds'
announcement this week notwithstanding, slowing the obesity epidemic
will take a multifaceted effort.
And Congress has an obligation to engage itself in that effort. There
are countless other steps we could take that would support Americans'
efforts to eat well, maintain a healthy weight, such as getting junk
food out of schools, strengthening the Centers for Disease Control
nutrition and physical activity division, fully funding CDC's VERB
campaign, which promotes physical activity in young people.
With legislation I have introduced, the Meal Education and Labeling
Act, we could strike a real blow at frivolous litigation aimed at
restaurants and at the same time we can actually do something about
obesity. It addresses one of leading causes of the rise in obesity
rates and that is the fact that people are eating out more frequently.
Today, we spend about half of our food dollars at restaurants. In
1970, Americans spent just 26 percent of their food dollars on
restaurant meals. Children eat almost twice as many calories when they
eat at a restaurant as they do when they eat at home.
The Meal Education Labeling Act would extend nutrition labeling
beyond packaged foods that you find at your grocery store to include
foods at fast-food and other chain restaurants. It would do it by
requiring fast-food and chain restaurants, that is, companies with 20
or more restaurants under the same trade name, not mom and pop
restaurants, they would have to list calories, saturated plus trans
fats, and sodium on printed menus and calories on menu boards. But most
importantly, it would give consumers the necessary nutritional
information to make healthy choices for themselves.
You might think that Americans do not want to be bothered with
additional information they supposedly already know, but the evidence
suggests otherwise. Not only do three-quarters of American adults
report using the food labels on a regular basis that they find on
packaged foods in the grocery stores, but 48 percent say the nutrition
information on those labels has caused them to change their minds about
what they buy.
Giving people the information that they need to make informed
decisions about what they eat is the kind of approach that this body
should be taking today in addressing obesity.
We may avoid litigation if we move in this direction. That is a real
step toward helping encourage personal responsibility in food
consumption. It can be done in a way that protects industry, does not
hurt our mom and pop restaurants. Instead, as we have seen countless
times before, this majority has chosen again to use a very important
public health issue to pursue a narrow and a completely unrelated
political agenda.
Mr. Speaker, we should do something about obesity in this country,
but this bill is not the way to go about it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the chairman of the Committee on House
Administration.
Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas (Mr. Sessions),
who has done such a good job on framing the proper type of debate on
this rule today and has done a good job on the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 552
and the underlying bill itself, H.R. 339, the Personal Responsibility
and Food Consumption Act.
As original cosponsor of H.R. 339, I commend the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Keller) for introducing, I think, a very important piece
of legislation and the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for
working towards its passage.
When this situation occurred, I think it was the first time in New
York, and as a parent I can relate to this, it clearly pointed to the
fact that a parent could not control their child, could not control how
many times they went to a restaurant per day or where they went to, no
form of responsibility. So they just ended up going with some
plaintiffs' lawyers and they filed a lawsuit.
Now, there are serious issues that have been discussed by both sides
of the aisle about obesity and what, in fact, should happen, and
exercise. And we can get into those issues. But I believe, Mr. Speaker,
firmly, and I said it at the time the day those lawyers ran around and
started this with the lawsuits, our judicial system that day was
hijacked.
{time} 1130
It has been hijacked by greedy, blood-sucking, immoral plaintiffs'
attorneys. They have made a ridiculous situation, and they have made
the ridiculous the reality. What was once thought of as a hilarity on
late-night comedy shows has been brought into mainstream media by
absurd frivolous lawsuits.
The situation really is not laughable, though it is scary. These
actions are clogging our courts, driving our doctors out of practice,
and are killing business growth in our great Nation, if we want to talk
about jobs today.
What is the purpose, you may ask? Will they promote social justice or
make America safer? The answer is no. These suits are to line the
pockets of America's trial bar. Contingency fees
[[Page H937]]
of 40 percent plus court costs leave lawyers enriched and their clients
baffled. In big-time class actions, lawyers are hauling in fees that
range as high as $30,000 per hour. I guarantee you that their clients
are not receiving awards at that same rate.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the same class-action lawyers that have sued other
industries are turning towards our restaurant industry, pure and
simple. They have held strategy sessions and seminars to hatch their
schemes estimating they could reap hundreds of billions of dollars in
settlements from the so-called obesity lawsuits.
The lawsuits charge that children are overweight because of cheap
fast food and aggressive food marketing by restaurants. But when you
look at the underlying fact, it is clear that the American tort system
is being exploited once again, pure and simple. Statistics from the
National Bureau of Economic Research show that 60 percent of Americans'
weight gain over the past 2 decade is attributable to increases in
sedentary life-styles.
The American Academy of Pediatrics has found that only 20 percent of
children participated in daily physical education programs in 1999,
compared to 80 percent in 1969. Nutritional data shows that teen
obesity rose 10 percent in 1980 and the year 2000. Teens' caloric
intake rose only 1 percent during that time, while their levels of
physical activity dropped by 13 percent.
Mr. Speaker, the judicial system is being used by industrious law
firms and plaintiffs' lawyers who sue without repercussion. Their
strategy is simple: sue until the defendants concede; once the
restaurant company settles, the flood gates will open.
As you can tell, I am not an attorney myself, I am a teacher by
degree, but I have been around long enough to know that opening the
flood gates of litigation is bad news. It is bad news for our courts.
It is bad news for our doctors. It is bad news for business. It is
ultimately bad news for America.
The restaurant industry employs more than 12 million Americans.
Restaurant companies lose just by being forced to defend these types of
crazy lawsuits. They are forced to shift precious resources away from
expanding their business and creating jobs and towards defending
lawsuits solely filed to satisfy the insatiable appetites of the
plaintiffs' bar.
Mr. Speaker, it is the Congress's obligation to give American
businesses the tools necessary to defend themselves from this type of
litigation. There are proper times for lawsuits; I know that. There is
a way to work at this. We have to look at exercise and education and
responsibility within the restaurant industry and within the American
population, period. But these insane and crazy lawsuits are absolutely
not the way. I think the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) has a
responsible approach to this problem.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, all these insane, crazy lawsuits that people are
referring to are getting dismissed and the system seems to be working.
We have a real problem and this bill does not address that problem in
any way, shape, or form. If anything, this bill says to the restaurant
industry and the food industry, you do not have any responsibility, you
do not have any responsibility to our kids and the type of products
that you try to peddle to them. I think that is the wrong message.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article that appeared in
today's Washington Post entitled ``Obesity Passing Smoking As Top
Avoidable Cause of Death.''
[From the Washington Post, Mar. 10, 2004]
Obesity Passing Smoking as Top Avoidable Cause of Death
(By Rob Stein)
America's weight problem is rapidly overtaking cigarette
smoking as the leading cause of preventable deaths, federal
health officials reported yesterday.
Although tobacco is still the top cause of avoidable
deaths, the widespread pattern of physical inactivity
combined with unhealthful diets is poised to become No. 1
because of the resulting epidemic of obesity, officials said.
``Obesity is catching up to tobacco as the leading cause of
death in America. If this trend continues it will soon
overtake tobacco,'' said Julie L. Gerberding, director of the
federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which
conducted the study.
If current trends continue, obesity will become the leading
cause by next year, with the toll surpassing 500,000 deaths
annually, rivaling the number of annual deaths from cancer,
the researchers found.
``This is a tragedy,'' Gerberding said. ``We are looking at
this as a wake-up call.''
Being overweight or obese makes people much more likely to
develop a variety of deadly health problems, including
diabetes, heart disease and cancer.
In response, the Bush administration announced a new public
education program yesterday, including a humorous advertising
campaign that encourages Americans to take small steps to
lose weight. In addition, the National Institutes of Health
proposed an anti-obesity research agenda. Tomorrow, a special
task force will present the Food and Drug Administration with
recommendations on what that agency can do to help reverse
the cresting public health crisis.
``Americans need to understand that overweight and obesity
are literally killing us,'' said Health and Human Services
Secretary Tommy G. Thompson. ``To know that poor eating
habits and inactivity are on the verge of surpassing tobacco
use as the leading cause of preventable death in America
should motivate all Americans to take action to protect their
health.''
Critics, however, immediately denounced the moves as
inadequate, saying the administration should take more
aggressive steps to encourage more healthful diets, and force
the food industry to improve its products and stop
advertising junk food to children.
``The government should have been much more aggressive
about this much earlier,'' said Kelly Brownell, director of
Yale University's Center for Eating and Weight Disorders.
``Even now, the administration defaults to explaining the
problem away by individual responsibility and lack of
physical activity rather than focusing on the toxic food
environment.''
The new estimates of the rising toll of obesity come in the
first update of a landmark paper that ranked the nation's
preventable causes of death in 1990.
Cigarette smoking, which increases the risk of a host of
illnesses including lung cancer, emphysema and heart disease,
topped that list. But antismoking campaigns have led to a
steady decline in the number of Americans who use tobacco,
slowing the rise in the resulting toll of illness and death.
In the new analysis, published in today's Journal of the
American Medical Association, Gerberding and her colleagues
conducted a comprehensive review of the medical literature to
calculate the most precise estimate possible of the risk of
dying from all the leading causes of preventable death,
including being obese or overweight. They then multiplied
that risk by the number of Americans known to be overweight
or obese, based on long-term, ongoing national surveys used
to track the nation's health, which are the most accurate
data available. The result, the researchers said, is the most
reliable such estimate to date.
Tobacco still ranked No. 1, accounting for about 435,000
deaths, or 18.1 percent of the total. But poor diet and
physical inactivity were close behind and rapidly increasing,
causing 400,000 deaths, or 16.6 percent. That represented a
dramatic change from 10 years earlier, when tobacco killed
400,000 Americans (19 percent) and poor diet and physical
inactivity killed 300,000 (14 percent).
``There's been a big narrowing of the gap,'' said Ali H.
Mokdad, who heads the CDC's behavioral research branch. It is
particularly striking because the toll of every other leading
cause of preventable death--including alcohol, infections,
accidents, guns and drugs--steadily decreased over the same
period, Mokdad said.
Despite intense public concern, the number of overweight or
obese Americans has continued to climb to epidemic
proportions. In 1990, about 60 percent of adult Americans
were either overweight or obese, including about 20 percent
who were obese. By 2000, that number had climbed to 64
percent being obese or overweight, including about 30 percent
who were obese.
``Physical inactivity and poor diet is still on the rise.
So the mortality will still go up. That's the alarming part--
the behavior is still going in the wrong direction,'' Mokdad
said.
Experts praised the government for highlighting the
worrisome trend and taking countermeasures. But several said
the severity of the problem warrants a much more intensive,
innovative response.
``If we just count on the American population to change
their eating habits and exercise habits, we're going to
continue to have obesity,'' said Richard L. Atkinson,
president of the American Obesity Association. ``What we're
doing is not working.''
The government should consider more innovative strategies
than simply encouraging people to eat better and exercise,
such as subsidizing the cost of healthful foods such as fresh
fruits and vegetables to make it more affordable to eat well.
``Let's start looking at things that make a difference,''
Atkinson said.
The federal government could take much more dramatic
action, said Yale's Brownell. The Department of Agriculture
``has the power to get rid of soft drinks and snack foods
in the schools, and they're not. The [Federal Trade
Commission] could deal with the tidal wave of unhealthy
food advertising aimed at children. The government could
change agriculture policy to subsidize the industry making
healthy foods instead of unhealthy ones,'' he said.
Officials rejected suggestions that the administration take
more dramatic steps, such
[[Page H938]]
as requiring food labeling at fast-food restaurants or
prohibiting certain sugary, fatty products in schools.
``I don't want to start banning things,'' Thompson said.
``Prohibition has never worked.''
Officials have ``been elated by the response'' of the
private sector to promote more healthful lifestyles, Surgeon
General Richard H. Carmona said. ``Everything we've seen from
the industry has been positive.''
Thompson urged Congress to pass legislation granting tax
credits to people who lose weight, and said he has been
lobbying health insurers to cut rates for those who lose
weight or exercise.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
I have been intimidated to follow the chairman to the well since he
does have impeccable credentials in the area of nutrition. He is the
gentleman responsible for renaming French fries and French toast,
although, of course, that did not do much for the caloric content of
those food items.
But we do have a serious problem in this country; and, unfortunately,
this bill and this debate will not rise to that issue. The statistics
show an alarming increase in obesity among adults and, most alarmingly,
an extraordinary increase in our youth. This can and will lead to real
health problems. Those were talked about previously.
So we have a real problem. This could become a crisis and the
question is, Why are we here today? Is there a crisis in litigation?
Yes, there have been a few flaky lawsuits filed that have been
dismissed, including one being dismissed with prejudice, something
judges do not do routinely.
I think the majority is demeaning the intelligence of our juries, of
the Americans who will sit there and cast judgment on their peers and
say, no, have a little self-control; they did not make you eat that
food. That is what the juries and judges have said so far, and I think
they will continue to say.
But beyond that, they have said fitness and health cannot be
legislated. Well, they might remember a former Republican who had a
little more productive idea about this, Dwight David Eisenhower. He
brought about the Presidential Fitness Program in the 1950s, mandatory
physical education in all the schools in America because of concerns of
so many males failing the physical for the draft in World War II and
Korea. That was mandated when I was a kid growing up, and then sports
were free.
What do we have today? Most States, many States no longer have
mandatory physical education. They say they cannot afford it. In my
State, kids have to pay to play sports. So many of them do not do it.
What we could do a lot more productively here today on the floor
would be to consider legislation to add a little amendment to the so-
called No Child Left Behind bill that would help our States, our local
school districts reinstate or mandate that they reinstate physical
education; but since it will be a Federal mandate, give them some help
with the Federal mandate, something that the majority party has failed
to do with No Child Left Behind and other mandates here in the
Congress.
But let us send down a rule: we will have physical fitness. It will
be mandatory. We will have kids able to play sports without having to
pay and the Federal Government seeing that being in the national
interest to avoid a crisis in health care caused by preventable
illness, caused by obesity, we are going to take those steps. But that
is not an amendment that would be allowed to this bill; that is not the
subject here today. Instead, we will hear little funny speeches on that
side where people will link together alliterations, as did the esteemed
chairman of the committee, not dealing with the real problem.
Here we are. We will be done early today. Do not have a highway bill.
Do not have extended unemployment benefits. We cannot even get labels
on our food that are meaningful for country of origin. Congress is
being defied by the administration. Do we have time for those real
issues? No, but we have time for this little frolic.
This is a pretty sad day in the House of Representatives. Let us deal
with this real problem and deal with it seriously and appropriately.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Orlando, Florida (Mr. Keller), the original sponsor of
the bill.
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
I support the rule, and I support the bill as well. I wanted to
briefly just touch on three issues. First, a little bit about the
bill's substance; second, I want to talk about the process which led up
to this fair rule; and, third, just to touch on the childhood obesity
issue which recently has been raised by my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle.
First, in terms of the bill's substance, the gist of this legislation
is that there should be common sense in the food court, not blaming
other people in the legal court. We need to get back to the old-
fashioned principles of common sense and personal responsibility and
get away from this new culture where everybody plays the victim and
tries to blame others for their problems.
Now, I have heard from some of the other speakers that this is a
frolic; this is just a waste of time. We should be talking about jobs.
Well, it is interesting to me because we are talking about protecting
the single largest private sector employer in the United States that
provides 12 million jobs. Why do these people pretend to love jobs yet
hate the employers who create these jobs? It defies common sense as
much as their opposition to this bill.
Now, let us talk about the process a little bit. I support this rule,
an open modified rule; and let me tell you a little bit about the
background here. It is true based on an independent Gallup poll that
nearly nine in 10 Americans oppose holding the fast-food industry
legally responsible for the diet-related health problems of people who
eat that kind of food on a regular basis. Interestingly, overweight
people oppose this just like skinny people do; Republicans just like
Democrats do. The country overwhelmingly, 89 percent, opposes these
types of lawsuits.
Yet, nevertheless, every step of the way we have given this small
percent of the people and their representatives who think it is a good
idea the opportunity to have their fair say. We had a hearing on this
bill and allowed the minority to call witnesses that they wanted. What
witness did they call? What guy did they think most helped them? They
called a man named John Banzhaf who said, ``Somewhere there is going to
be a judge and a jury that will buy this, and once we get the first
verdict as we did with tobacco, it will open up the flood gates.'' That
is who they called.
So when we talk about opening up the flood gates, that this is a
problem, and then they come today and say, it is not a problem, what
are we doing here? There is no problem. Yet their own witnesses tell us
they want to open up the flood gates. But they had their hearing. We
then had a mark-up. We let them offer any amendments they wanted to.
The amendments were shot down.
After the mark-up, we then moved it to the floor. I appeared before
the Committee on Rules. I did not say I wanted a closed ruled or
anything. I said, I trust the Committee on Rules to fashion the
appropriate rule, and they gave them this open rule that any Member of
435 can offer something provided it is preprinted in the Record. So we
have been pretty fair about the process here, especially given the fact
that their opposition has so little support among the American people.
Third, let me address the issue of childhood obesity. Childhood
obesity is a very serious problem in this country. In the past 30 years
the childhood obesity rates have doubled. Why is that? Well, I do not
stand before you in the well of Congress and hold myself out as the
world's leading expert in fitness and health. But I did have the happy
privilege of questioning Dr. Kenneth Cooper on February 12 of this
year, who appeared before the Committee on Education and the Workforce
who is the father of the aerobics movement, and nobody is more well
respected. This is what he said: ``Thirty years ago did kids come home
from school and eat potato chips and cup cakes and cookies? They
absolutely did, just like they do today. The difference is they then
went out and rode their bikes and played with their friends and did all
other sorts of things.'' Nowadays, he said, those same kids come home
from
[[Page H939]]
school and sit on the couch and play video games and watch TV. He told
us the average child spends only 900 hours a year in school and 1,023
hours in front of that TV set playing video games or watching TV.
Meanwhile, we now have only one State in the country, Illinois, that
mandates physical education programs. I asked Dr. Kenneth Cooper, Do
you think these lawsuits against the fast-food companies are going to
make anyone skinnier? He said, absolutely not. Is it going to help to
put a tax on Twinkies? Is that going to make people skinnier?
Absolutely not. What is the answer? He told us the answer is personal
responsibility and getting young people involved in daily physical
activity. That is the kind of commonsense approach that most people in
this country can relate to.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule and support the bill. They
are both very fair.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, but I would just
say that what his bill does is it protects an industry that does not
need to be protected at this particular point. We are dealing with a
problem that does not exist. The problem that does exist is that we do
have a problem with obesity in this country. This bill does nothing to
deal with that issue. If anything, what it does is it tells the fast-
food industry, you have no responsibility to our kids. You can do
whatever you want to do. And that is the wrong message we want to be
sending at this particular point.
I also want to correct the gentleman on one other thing. He referred
a couple of times to this rule as an open rule. This is not an open
rule. This is not an open rule. And by the definition taken by the
Republicans when they were in the minority, they said any rule that is
not considered under a completely open process is considered
restrictive, and this is not a completely open process. They further
said that these rules are the rules that limit the number of amendments
that can be offered and include the so-called modified open and
modified closed, as well as completely closed, rules.
This is not an open rule. The Republican majority when they came into
power said they were committed to an open process. They have given us
anything but an open process. And the question that I asked the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules still stands. If a
Member is watching this debate and scratching their head, why are we
debating such a trivial matter when we have so many other issues to
deal with that really do impact the American people very directly, and
they wanted to come down here right now and offer an amendment, they
would be unable to under this restrictive process that the Republicans
on the Committee on Rules have given us today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished Member from the
Committee on Rules for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today urging my colleagues to oppose this rule
and reject the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act.
I think this is a trivial bill about obesity lawsuits that have not
resulted in a cent in damages against anyone. So this is not about
fixing something that is broken. This is pursuing something that, most
frankly, does not exist. In something that refers to the food industry,
it is an old quote, an old hamburger ad, ``Where's the beef?''
There are more pressing issues for us to tackle, particularly
regarding food safety.
{time} 1145
I want to direct my comments to this area of food safety, and I want
to talk about lawsuits that have consequences and very serious
consequences.
Meat processors have sued the USDA to block the enforcement of food
safety standards that are designed to protect the public from pathogens
like e-coli and salmonella. The processors have either won or forced
the government to settle these cases, and our food safety system has
been terribly weakened. One of the processors failing to meet basic
standards on three separate occasions was able to continue to sell meat
for use in school lunches.
To fight the impact of these cases, I have introduced a bill called
Kevin's Law, named in memory of a 2\1/2\-year-old boy named Kevin
Kowalcyk who died from e-coli poisoning in 2001.
Kevin's law makes it clear that the USDA can set and enforce food
safety standards for deadly pathogens. This is not radical policy. This
is something that is supported by the National Academy of Sciences, and
this legislation has bipartisan support in both the House and the
Senate.
I thank my colleagues the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English)
and the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) and Senators Harkin
and Specter for cosponsoring and supporting this legislation. It is
something the Congress should be advancing on.
Mr. Speaker, 5,000 Americans die from food-borne illnesses every year
in our country. The lawsuits this bill seeks to stop have not harmed
anyone. In fact, as I said earlier and others have mentioned, this is
about pursuing something that does not even exist. When we juxtapose
what is taking place here on the floor today and what I described that
threatens Americans today where 5,000 Americans die from food-borne
illnesses, this is what we really should be pursuing.
The American people would support that path to eliminate these
pathogens that are actually taking American lives. So if we are talking
about ending destructive lawsuits, the House should be debating Kevin's
Law to put some teeth into our food safety system.
If there is something that the American people I think have taken for
granted are our very, very high standards in terms of food safety, but
they do not necessarily exist any longer. So I urge my colleagues to
defeat this rule and reject the underlying bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to notify my colleague that
we do not have any further speakers at this time, and I would entertain
him to please feel free to run down that time and then I will choose to
close.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will close the debate on our side, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, first, I will enter into the Record a
letter from the Center for Science in the Public Interest opposing H.R.
339.
Center for Science in the
Public Interest,
Washington, DC, June 18, 2003.
Re hearing on H.R. 339.
Hon. Chris Cannon,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law
Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Cannon: On behalf of our 700,000 members in
the United States, I request that you make this letter part
of the record of the June 19, 2003 hearing on H.R. 339, The
Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (``CSPI'')
strongly opposes H.R. 339. Despite its stated purpose of
banning frivolous lawsuits, H.R. 339 bans any lawsuit against
a manufacturer, distributor, or seller of a food or a non-
alcoholic beverage ``unless the plaintiff proves that, at the
time of sale, the product was not in compliance with
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.''
H.R. 339 ignores the fact that both legislatures and
administrative agencies frequently are too busy to enact
specific standards dealing with a particular food safety or
nutrition problem, and so the victims must turn to the courts
for help. Meritorious lawsuits can, of course, spur the food
industry to improve its practices.
Both Congress and state legislatures, recognizing their
inability to deal with the myriad of food safety and
nutrition problems, have delegated regulatory
responsibilities to specific agencies. Congress, for example,
has delegated regulatory responsibility over food to the Food
and Drug Administration (``FDA''), the Department of
Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
However, these agencies, like their state counterparts, do
not have enough resources to promptly address all the new
concerns about food safety and nutrition. For example, in
February 1994 CSPI petitioned the FDA to require the
disclosure of trans fatty acids on packaged foods. More than
five years later, in November 1999, the FDA published a
proposed regulation in response to our petition. The FDA
still has not issued a final rule, although FDA Commissioner
Mark McClellan has said that a final rule, requiring the
disclosure of the amount of trans in packaged foods, will be
announced in the near future.
In conclusion, H.R. 339 should be rejected because lawsuits
can play a valuable role in
[[Page H940]]
protecting consumers by filling the interstices in
legislative and regulatory requirements.
Sincerely,
Michael F. Jacobson, Ph.D.,
Executive Director.
Let me conclude my remarks by again expressing my concern, first of
all, over the rule because this is a restrictive rule, and what I have
been trying to find out from the chairman of the Committee on Rules,
and maybe the gentleman from Texas may be able to enlighten me on this,
is the wave of the future, no more completely open rules? Are we now
going to be forced to deal with restrictive rules on every bill that we
now deal with?
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I believe we had an open rule last week.
Mr. McGOVERN. We have had one open rule out of, I think, nine, but I
mean, it seems that now we are being required to preprint all our
amendments in advance, which by my colleagues' own definition is a
restrictive rule. Is that the wave of the future?
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman for allowing me to respond. The
Committee on Rules, when we file the rule and when we prepare these
documents ahead of time, we notify every Member of Congress of our
intent to have a meeting at the Committee on Rules to consider a
subject. We ask them to please preprint those things that would be
necessary. We ask every Member to please work with legislative staff
who would help in preparing those documents to make sure that they are
in order, would be made in order under the rule, under the rules of
this House, and we believe we are trying to do things to move
legislation forward, allow time just as we have done here, notify
people ahead of time.
One of the things about this process is that for years and years the
House has worked off Jeffersonian rules. We have a Speaker who is up
here. We have a parliamentarian. We have people who make decisions
about what is right and what is wrong and what is fair and what is not,
and we believe what we have done here today from March 4 was said here
on the floor of the House, all Members of Congress----
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
answer. I guess the question that I asked to the chairman of the
Committee on Rules, and I will ask the gentleman from Texas, if a
Member of either party is watching this debate and would like to offer
an amendment based on something that they have heard here today, do
they have the right to come to the floor and offer an amendment at this
particular point?
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, the answer
is no.
Mr. McGOVERN. Okay. So, again, it kind of makes my point of the
restrictive nature of this process, and I raise this issue because I
hope that this is not going to be a trend where Members are going to be
restricted.
Again, it is not just something the Democrats feel passionately
about. Again, I have been reading quotes from Republicans over the
years who feel very passionately about the importance of not having
preprinting requirements because they believe that that constitutes a
restrictive rule. So I think that there is a bipartisan consensus here
that we should move away from restricting debate and restricting what
can be offered and opening up this process on controversial bills and
on noncontroversial bills. That is the only point I would make to the
gentleman.
With regard to the bill that we are talking about here today, I will
again say that I regret that we are dealing with this particular bill
today because it does not address any real problem. This is a bill that
corrects a problem that does not exist. These lawsuits that people are
complaining about with regard to obesity and the fast food industry are
being routinely dismissed. This is not a problem.
The problem is obesity. The problem we should be talking about here
is how to make sure that our kids get more nutritious foods. The issue
that we need to be dealing with here is how to make sure that the
Federal programs that provide breakfasts and lunches to our children in
schools meet proper nutrition guidelines.
The issue we should be talking about is better labeling, informing
the public in a better way about what, in fact, they are eating. We
should be encouraging more corporate responsibility by the fast food
industry, and that is not being debated here. In fact, what we are
trying to do is we are sending the exact opposite signal to the fast
food industry.
We should be encouraging more physical fitness programs in our
schools and so that our young people can take advantage of them, and we
should also be having a discussion on this floor about the issue of
hunger, which is relevant to this issue of obesity.
As I pointed out in my opening statement, people who have precious
little resources tend to buy things that are high in calories, that are
not nutritious, and there is a relationship between hunger and obesity,
and it is something we never even talk about on the floor of this
House.
But then we bring this bill to the floor. We bring this bill to the
floor, and we are telling the people who are watching here today that
we are addressing a huge problem out there, a problem that does not
exist, and we are bringing this bill up today and we are only in for a
couple of days, notwithstanding the fact that we are not dealing with
the issue of extending unemployment benefits to those workers who are
unemployed, which is a national disgrace.
I do not know how people can come here and appear on the House floor
with a straight face having not dealt with that issue. I know the
gentleman from Texas' (Mr. Sessions) district, like my district,
includes a number of people who are out of work, who have run out of
their unemployment benefits, who are desperately trying to figure out
how to make ends meet, put food on their table and pay their bills, and
they are looking to us to help them out, to provide them a bridge until
they can get a job. We are not doing anything here, and we should be
ashamed of that fact.
The gentleman from Oregon mentioned the transportation bill that is
kind of languishing in committee. That will put people to work, but we
are not dealing with that. We are not dealing with the issue of those
who do not have health insurance. We are not dealing with anything that
matters to anybody, and here we are again dealing with an issue that
really is trivial. This place is becoming a Congress where trivial
issues are debated passionately and important ones not at all.
So, for a whole bunch of reasons, I oppose the rule because it is
restrictive, and I oppose this bill because it is silly. We should not
be dealing with this today. We should be dealing with something
important.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. SESSIONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, this House has, in the 8 years I have
served in it had debate after debate, hours on the floor, to make sure
that we discuss the issues that are of relevance and important to the
American public, but these same things also take place, the debates, in
our committee system, and committees hold hearings. Committees go
around the country to hear testimony from people about issues like
obesity, like prescription drugs, like health care, that are important
to the American public and to our health and to our safety.
Mr. Speaker, these issues about obesity and about what the answer
would be, we hear from the trial lawyers that they want to open up the
floodgates, and we hear from people who are engaged from the
nutritional side talking about how better labeling would be good or how
food that is served to our children should be leaner and have less fat.
We have heard from people like Dr. Kenneth Cooper from Dallas, Texas,
talk about how our children need more physical fitness and to be more
active. All of these things have contributed to a part of what this
bill is about.
Mr. Speaker, I will include in the Record at this point the testimony
of Dr. Gerard Musante, who is the founder of the Structure House,
before the Senate Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the
Courts on October 16.
[[Page H941]]
Testimony of Dr. Gerard Musante
Good afternoon, Chairman Sessions and Honorable members of
the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts.
I am Dr. Gerard J. Musante and I appreciate the opportunity
to appear before you today. I have been called here to share
my expertise and educated opinion on the importance of
personal responsibility in food consumption in the United
States. This lesson is one I have been learning about and
teaching for more than 30 years to those who battle moderate
to morbid obesity--a lesson that emphasizes the criticality
of taking responsibility for one's own food choices. I am
testifying before you today because I am concerned about the
direction in which today's obesity discourse is headed. We
cannot continue to blame any one industry or any one
restaurant for the nation's obesity epidemic. Instead, we
must work together as a nation to address this complex issue,
and the first step is to put the responsibility back into the
hands of individuals.
As a clinical psychologist with training at Duke University
Medical Center and The University of Tennessee, I have worked
for more than 30 years with thousands of obese patients. I
have dedicated my career to helping Americans fight obesity.
My personal road, which included the loss and maintenance of
50 of my own pounds, began when I undertook the study of
obesity as a faculty member in the Department of Psychiatry
at Duke University Medical Center. There, I began developing
an evidenced-based, cognitive-behavioral approach to weight
loss and lifestyle change. I continue to serve Duke
University Medical Center as a Consulting Professor in the
Department of Psychiatry. Since the early 1970's, I have
published research studies on obesity and have made
presentations at conferences regarding obesity and the
psychological aspects of weight management. Today, I continue
my work at Structure House--a residential weight loss
facility in Durham, North Carolina--where participants come
from around the country and the world to learn about managing
their relationship with food. Participants lose significant
amounts of weight while both improving various medical
parameters and learning how to control and take
responsibility for their own food choices. Our significant
experience at Structure House has provided us with a unique
understanding of the national obesity epidemic.
Some of the lessons I teach my patients are examples of how
we can encourage Americans to take personal responsibility
for health and weight maintenance. As I tell my participants,
managing a healthy lifestyle and a healthy weight certainly
are not easy to do. Controlling an obesity or weight problem
takes steadfast dedication, training and self-awareness.
Therefore, I give my patients the tools they need to
eventually make healthy food choices as we best know it.
Nutrition classes, psychological understanding of their
relationship with food, physical fitness training and
education are tools that Structure House participants learn,
enabling them to make sensible food choices. As you know, the
obesity rates in this country are alarming. The Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention have recognized obesity and
general lack of physical fitness as the nation's fastest-
growing health threat. Approximately 127 million adults in
the United States are overweight, 60 million are obese and 9
million are severely obese. The country's childhood obesity
rates are on a similar course to its adult rates, as well as
increases in type II diabetes. Fortunately Americans are
finally recognizing the problem. Unfortunately, many are
taking the wrong approaches to combating this issue.
Lawsuits are pointing fingers at the food industry in an
attempt to curb the nation's obesity epidemic. These lawsuits
do nothing but enable consumers to feel powerless in a battle
for maintaining one's own personal health. The truth is, we
as consumers have control over the food choices we make, and
we must issue our better judgment when making these
decisions. Negative lifestyle choices cause obesity, not a
trip to a fast food restaurant or a cookie high in trans fat.
Certainly we live in a litigious society. Our understanding
of psychological issues tells us that when people feel
frustrated and powerless, they lash out and seek reasons for
their perceived failure. They feel the victim and look for
the deep pockets to pay. Unfortunately, this has become part
of our culture, but the issue is far too comprehensive to lay
blame on any single food marketer or manufacturer. These
industries should not be demonized for providing goods and
services demanded by our society.
Rather than assigning blame, we need to work together
toward dealing effectively with obesity on a national level.
Furthermore, if we were to start with one industry, where
would we stop? For example, a recent article in the Harvard
Law Review suggests that there is a link between obesity and
``preference manipulation,'' which means advertising. Should
we consider suing the field of advertising next? Should we do
away with all advertising and all food commercials at half
time? We need to understand that this is a multi-faceted
problem and there are many influences that play a part. While
our parents, our environment, social and psychological
factors all impact our food choices, can we blame them for
our own poor decisions as it relates to our personal health
and weight? For example, a recent study presented at the
American Psychological Association conference showed that
when parents change how the whole family eats and offer
children wholesome rewards for not being couch potatoes,
obese children shed pounds quickly. Should we bring lawsuits
against parents that don't provide this proper direction?
Similarly, Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston recently
reported in ``Pediatrics'' that children who diet may
actually gain weight in the long run, perhaps because of
metabolic changes, but also likely because they resort to
binge eating as a result of the dieting. Do we sue the parent
for permitting their children to diet?
From an environmental standpoint, there are still more
outside influences that could be erroneously blamed for the
nation's obesity epidemic. The Center for Disease Control has
found that there is a direct correlation between television
watching and obesity among children. The more TV watched, the
more likely the children would be overweight. Should we sue
the television industry, the networks, cable, the television
manufacturers or the parents that permit this? And now we
have internet surfing and computer games. Where does it stop?
School systems are eliminating required physical education--
are we to also sue the school systems that do not require
these courses?
Throw social influences into the mix and we have a whole
new set of causes for obesity. Another recent study in
``Appetite'' indicated that social norms can affect
quantitative ratings of internal states such as hunger. This
means that other people's hunger levels around us can affect
our own eating habits. Are we to blame the individuals who
are eating in our presence for our own weight problems? As
evidenced in these studies, we cannot blame any one
influencing factor for the obesity epidemic that plagues our
nation. Through working with obese patients, I have learned
that the worst thing one can do is to blame an outside force
to get themselves ``off the hook,'' to say it's not their
fault, and that they are a victim. To do this can bring about
feelings of helplessness and then resignation. Directing
blame or causality outside of oneself allows the individual
not to accept responsibility and perhaps even to feel
helpless and hopeless. ``The dog ate my homework'' and ``the
devil made me do it'' allows the individual not to take
serious steps toward correction because they believe these
steps are not within their power. We must take personal
responsibility for our choices.
What does it mean to take personal responsibility for food
consumption? it means making food choices that are not
detrimental to your health, and not blaming others for the
choices we make. Ultimately, Americans generally become obese
by taking in more calories than they expend. But certainly
there are an increasing number of reasons why Americans are
doing so producing rising obesity rates. Some individuals
lack self-awareness and overindulge in food ever more so
because of psychological reasons. Others do not devote enough
time to physical activity, which becomes increasingly
difficult to do in our society. Others lack education or
awareness as it relates to nutrition and/or physical activity
particularly in view of lessened exposure to this
information. And still others may have a more efficient
metabolism or hormonal deficiencies. In short, honorable
members of the Subcommittee, there is yet much to learn about
this problem.
Congress has rightly recognized the danger of allowing
Americans to continue blaming others for the obesity
epidemic. It is imperative that we prevent lawsuits from
being filed against any industry for answering consumer
demands. The fact that we are addressing the issue here today
is a step in the right direction. No industry is to blame and
should not be charged with solving America's obesity problem.
Rather than pointing fingers, we should be working together
on a national level to address the importance of personal
responsibility in food consumption. The people who come to
Structure House have a unique opportunity to learn these
lessons, but they are only a select few. These lessons need
to be encouraged on a national level, from an early age--in
schools, homes and through national legislation that prevents
passing this responsibility onto the food or other related
industries. In closing, I'd like to highlight the fact that
personal responsibility is one of the key components that I
teach my patients in their battle against obesity. This
approach has allowed me to empower more than 10,000 Americans
to embrace improved health. I urge you to consider how this
type of approach could affect the obesity epidemic on a
national level. By encouraging Americans to take personal
responsibility for their health by limiting frivolous
lawsuits against the food industry, we can put the power back
into the hands of the consumers. This is a critical first
step on the road toward addressing our nation's complex
obesity epidemic.
For years, I have seen presidents call for ``economic
summits.'' I urge that we consider an ``obesity summit.'' Let
me suggest instead of demonizing industries that we bring
everyone to the table--representatives in the health care
industry, advertising, restaurants, Hollywood, school
systems, parent groups, the soft drink industry, and the
bottling industry. Instead of squandering resources in
defending needless lawsuits by pointing fingers, let's make
everyone part of the solution. Let us encourage a national
obesity summit where all the players are asked to come to the
table and pledge their considerable resources toward creating
a national mind set toward solving this problem.
[[Page H942]]
That would be in the interest of the American people.
I feel privileged to be a part of the Subcommittee's
efforts. I want to thank you for allowing me to testify here
before you today and I will now be glad to answer any
questions.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues what he said. He is a
gentleman who has worked for 30 years on obesity in this country, and
he said, ``Through working with obese patients, I have learned that the
worst thing one can do is to blame an outside force to get themselves
`off the hook,' to say it's not their fault, and that they are a
victim. Congress has rightly recognized the danger of allowing
Americans to continue blaming others for the obesity epidemic. It is
imperative that we prevent lawsuits from being filed against any
industry for answering consumer demands. The fact that we are
addressing the issue here today is a step in the right direction.''
Mr. Speaker, I will tell my colleagues that the Republican House and
the Republican Senate are addressing the issues. We are doing those
things that not only Members find of interest to people back home, but
also in the interest of what is the right thing for America to do.
I feel like what we are doing today is right in line with what all 50
States have and that is a law that says we will not take these fast
food restaurants to task, to go and have a lawsuit against them, and
the Federal Government, we, as members of Congress, are going to affirm
that, to avoid a problem before it becomes one. We have been warned
about the problems. We are trying to do aggressive things and the right
thing for it.
I support this rule. I support this underlying legislation, and I
think that it will win overwhelmingly because this is the best answer.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we are fat. America is the
fattest nation on the planet and getting fatter all the time. It is
estimated that as many as one in five Americans is obese, a condition
defined as being more than 30 percent above the ideal weight based on
height.
Being overweight and obese in the United States occurs at higher
rates in racial and ethnic minority populations, such as African
Americans and Hispanic Americans, compared with White Americans.
Persons of low socioeconomic status within minority populations appear
to be particularly affected by being overweight and obese. Also,
according to the surgeon general, women of lower socioeconomic status
are about 50 percent more likely to be obese than their better-off
counterparts.
Obesity is fast becoming our most serious public health problem.
Indeed, obesity is linked to disease such as type-2 diabetes, heart
disease and certain types of cancer. An estimated 300,000 Americans die
each year from fat-related causes, and we spent $117 billion in
obesity-related economic costs just last year, according to U.S.
Surgeon General David Satcher.
Congress should consider comprehensive legislation aimed at America's
obesity epidemic. Instead, Mr. Speaker, here I stand debating a closed
rule for a bill that pre-determines that in no plausible circumstance
do food companies bear responsibility for their acts.
This bill is so overbroad that it provides immunity even where most
would think liability is appropriate.
For instance, as an observant Hindu, Mr. Sharma considers cows
sacred. Not surprisingly, Brij Sharma did not eat at fast food
restaurants. But in 1990, when McDonald's announced that it was
switching from beef fat to ``100 percent vegetable oil'' to cook its
French fries, Mr. Sharma began going to the fast food chain to eat what
he believed were vegetarian fries.
Imagine Mr. Sharma's terror when he read in a newspaper the following
heading, ``Where's the beef? It's in your french fries.'' He was
outraged to learn that McDonald's french fries are seasoned in the
factory with beef flavoring before they are sent to the restaurants to
be cooked in vegetable oil.
McDonald's has apologized, admitted wrongdoing and agreed to pay more
than $10 million to charities chosen by vegetarian and Hindus
plaintiffs. Is it not preposterous that this bill would bail out the
fast food industry from liability for wrongdoing such as this? Of
course it is.
In addition, this bill is an unnecessary, premature, overly broad
affront to our judicial system and to our system of federalism.
Congress is preemptively taking away the ability of judges and jurors
to consider the particular facts and evidence of cases, and a
plaintiff's ability to have his or her day in court.
Mr. Speaker, regardless of one's position on the merits of lawsuits
against the industry, the line drawn between the responsibility of an
individual end and society's start should be answered by judges and
juries, and not by legislators in the pockets of campaign contributors.
This incredibly large portion of legislative junk food, being served
to feed Republican special interests, is as unhealthy as the industry
it attempts to protect.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this ill-conceived legislation.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________