[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.

                          ____________________