[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 132 (Tuesday, October 18, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H8885-H8888]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 554, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY IN
FOOD CONSUMPTION ACT OF 2005
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 494 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 494
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. 554) to prevent legislative and regulatory
functions from being usurped by civil liability actions
brought or continued against food manufacturers, marketers,
distributors, advertisers, sellers, and trade associations
for claims of injury relating to a person's weight gain,
obesity, or any health condition associated with weight gain
or obesity. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. 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.
Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived. 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.
{time} 1530
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Gingrey) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30
minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), pending which
I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this
resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
[[Page H8886]]
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 494 is a structured rule. It provides 1 hour of
general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It waives
all points of order against consideration of the bill. It provides that
the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on the Judiciary and now printed in the bill shall be
considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. This
resolution makes in order only those amendments printed in the
Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution, and it provides
that the amendments printed in the report may be considered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated
in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the
time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or
the Committee of the Whole. It waives all points of order against the
amendments printed in the report, and it provides one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of House Resolution 494
and the underlying bill, H.R. 554, the Personal Responsibility in Food
Consumption Act. First, I want to take this opportunity to thank the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and the ranking member, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and additionally I want to
commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), a member of the
Committee on the Judiciary, for authoring the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider H.R. 554, the Personal
Responsibility in Food Consumption Act, a common sense piece of
legislation that passed this House in the last Congress by a
substantial bipartisan vote of 276 to 139. I might further add that 55
Democrats joined with 221 Republicans supporting this bill in an effort
to help rein in this mentality of jackpot justice that has plagued our
judicial system and cluttered the dockets to a virtual standstill. This
legislation would require courts to dismiss any lawsuits that seek
damages for injury resulting from weight gain, obesity, or any health
condition associated with obesity filed against manufacturers,
distributors, sellers, marketers, or advertisers of any food product,
in addition to trade associations that represent them.
Of course, support of this bill is not limited to Capitol Hill, Mr.
Speaker. A recent Gallup poll found that approximately 9 in 10
Americans, a number of whom are themselves in the ranks of overweight
or even obese, opposed holding the fast food industry legally
responsible for diet-related health problems of people who eat that
kind of food on a regular basis.
Without question, Mr. Speaker, obesity is a problem in our society.
Having practiced medicine for nearly 30 years, I am well aware of the
habit and complications that obesity can wreak on a person's health,
especially over a long term. Like most other Americans, I am also well
aware that obesity is on the rise in our country, and particularly
among our children. However, the root of the problem is not the
existence of fast food or the presence of a local fast food restaurant,
but rather the root of the problem lies in the choices of consumers. I
have never heard of anyone pulling up to the drive-through window with
a hamburglar sitting in the passenger seat forcing someone to buy just
one more Big Mac.
Mr. Speaker, allowing an individual to sue a restaurant because the
consumer chose to eat there often or chose to eat too much is simply
ridiculous and, frankly, it is a dangerous waste of the court's time.
For every frivolous case that takes up a spot on the docket, a
legitimate case where an individual is truly harmed and truly needs
expeditious judicial review gets pushed farther and farther down the
line. And as we all know, justice delayed is justice denied.
The title of this bill emphasizes the type of solution needed to
address the underlying problem. It is called personal responsibility.
It is not just a catch phrase. Individuals have to take control of
their own lives. They have to make wise decisions, especially when it
comes to their health. And when an individual does make a poor
decision, he or she should not be able to abuse the courts so as to
shift responsibility to someone else in order to cash in.
Mr. Speaker, while H.R. 544 prohibits certain types of lawsuits, it
does make various reasonable exceptions to ensure the protection of a
consumer's legitimate claim for legitimate harm. An individual, for
example, can still sue in those instances where a contract or a
warranty is breached, as long as the basis for the lawsuit is not
related to weight gain, obesity or a health condition associated with
either. Additionally, a manufacturer or seller is still liable if they
knowingly violate a Federal or State statute concerning the marketing,
the advertising, or the labeling of a product.
Mr. Speaker, this bill would still allow individuals to bring obesity
or weight gain related matters before the FTC, the Federal Trade
Commission, or the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, for
consideration and appropriate action. Obviously, individuals can still
sue in accordance with applicable State laws protecting against
deceptive trade practices and if a person becomes sick from a tainted
food product.
In closing, I just want to emphasize that this legislation is common
sense and it includes exemptions to ensure legitimate claims still make
it to court while abusive lawsuits are stopped at the courthouse door.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the consideration of this rule,
and I ask my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, this rule, House Resolution 494, will allow
the House to take up a bill limiting civil liability for the food and
restaurant industry from obesity lawsuits.
We have already debated this legislation once. We now have precious
few legislative days left on the calendar and an ever-expanding list of
legislative priorities, yet the majority leadership has decided to take
up a bill that preempts a handful of obesity lawsuits that are already
being effectively handled in the courts. Given that, is this really the
most pressing issue facing the American people? The courts are working
fine. This bill is simply unnecessary.
Here is just a short list of issues we might be addressing today: The
debt, the trade deficit, Iraq, housing for Katrina victims, the bird
flu, port security, border security, nuclear plant security, and energy
independence. I am sure the American people would appreciate a debate
on any of those issues over what we are doing today.
In touting the merits of H.R. 554, my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle have cited the need for American people to take
responsibility for what they eat and how they live. I very much agree.
However, I would respectfully submit that maybe it is also time that
Congress starts taking some responsibility for the challenges facing
the American people. The disconnect between the content of this
legislation and the concerns of our constituents would be humorous if
it were not so disturbing.
Mr. Speaker, obesity is one of the great health epidemics in the
United States, and as today's debate will show, it continues to go
ignored. If you talk to any health professional in the country, whether
it be the Director of the National Institutes of Health or a nurse at a
local clinic, they will tell you that our health care system is on an
unsustainable path, especially when it comes to obesity.
Obesity is the number one preventable cause of death in America.
According to the RAND Corporation, obesity will account for 20 percent
of all health care costs by 2020 if we do not change course. This
challenge demands responsible, forward-looking leadership.
As Members of Congress, we need to take personal responsibility for
the trajectory of the health care system in the United States. It would
be cheaper to prevent this train wreck now than
[[Page H8887]]
to wait for obesity to overwhelm the capacity of our health care
system. Our citizens are hungry for leadership, and they are not
getting any.
The obesity epidemic in the United States should spur this Congress
into action. Since 1980, childhood obesity rates have more than doubled
among preschoolers and adolescents. Obesity among children ages 6 to 11
has more than tripled. Overweight children have a 70 percent chance of
being overweight as adults, facing higher risks for many diseases, such
as heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes.
I recently visited a dialysis center in my hometown of Sacramento,
California, earlier this year. Many patients there had diabetes. Mr.
Speaker, diabetes is a terrible disease. In its late stages it limits
terribly one's quality of life. We need to be doing more to prevent it.
We just do not need another cheeseburger bill. What we need is a debate
about health care, about prevention, and about our priorities.
Two-thirds of all Americans are obese. According to the Centers for
Disease Control, health care costs related to obesity are costing us
more than $117 billion annually and much more in damage to our
citizens' quality of life. We should not accept this fate for so many
of our Nation's children. Dealing with obesity by talking about tort
reform does just that, it says that Congress is more concerned about
the industry than it is about the long-term health of our Nation and of
our children.
No serious policymaker believes that we can turn this tide with a few
half-hearted calls for Americans to exercise more. This is going to
take real leadership, real investment. It will take a relentless
campaign to educate our citizens, along with public pressure to
recognize the importance of this issue. It will mean taking a hard look
at whether our public schools are up to the test in terms of offering
nutritious meals and physical education classes for everyone. It means
asking whether industry advertisers are targeting children and, if so,
setting strict marketing guidelines.
In the short-term, the easy path is to dodge this whole debate, to
pass this tort reform measure and walk away from the discussion. The
harder path and the more responsible one would be to deal with the
crisis that is here today and the even bigger crisis we all know is
coming. I for one am ready for that discussion. I hope my colleagues
are.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
following which I will yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan.
Mr. Speaker, this bill, the Personal Responsibility in Food
Consumption Act, H.R. 554, is all about, again, personal responsibility
and to point out how ludicrous it would be if we allowed personal
injury lawsuits against the food industry or any other company that
makes a legitimate product.
We just talked earlier in the afternoon, Mr. Speaker, in regard to
gun manufacturers.
{time} 1545
Mr. Speaker, let me just give an example, if I might. This is a belt,
an alligator belt. In fact, it is my belt. Size 36. I have a size 36
waist. This belt, I am proud to say, is hand-finished, American
alligator, produced right here in the good old U.S.A. This alligator
skin was obtained from a Louisiana hunt, it says on this belt, 1993,
manufactured by the Trafalgar Limited Belt Company, a good company. And
the belt has served me very well. Size 36 fits me well.
Mr. Speaker, let us suppose now that I decided, it is unlikely that I
would do this, but let us suppose I decided I wanted to wear a size 42
and I punched a few extra holes in this belt, which is a size 36, so I
could wear it and buckle it with a size 42 pair of trousers. These
trousers fell right to my knees in a public place. I do not think I
should have the right to sue the belt company because I used its
product in a manner that it was not designed to use. I could go out and
buy myself a size 42 belt.
Let me give another example, and this is more likely. Let us suppose
I really felt like my waist was a size 34, and so I cinched this belt
up really good so I could proudly say I am not a 36, I have a 34 inch
waist at my age. I would feel pretty good about myself.
But, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there is a nerve at my waist called
the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve. If someone puts too much pressure
around their waist by wearing a belt inappropriately, by cinching it up
too tightly, they put compression on that nerve, that lateral femoral
cutaneous nerve, and I speak from knowledge on this from 30 years as a
practicing physician. That condition, my colleagues can look it up, but
I will share it with them, it is called meralgia paresthetica. If
Members do not believe me, look it up. It creates tremendous numbness
and loss of feeling in the anterior part of the thigh.
Let us suppose someone misused this belt and wore it as a size 34 and
decided for that reason to sue this Trafalgar Company, this good, solid
American company that makes this belt, for damages. That is totally
ridiculous and ludicrous, and that is why this bill is so important.
That is why it is called personal responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs.
Miller).
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time, and I want to applaud him for maintaining a size
36 over the years; and I will decline to share my dress size with the
Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule and the underlying bill, H.R.
554, also known as the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act,
and sometimes fondly referred to, as the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Matsui) said, the Cheeseburger Bill.
Mr. Speaker, our Nation is a Nation of freedom. Liberty,
individuality, and personal choice are all critical ingredients. A
recipe for self-reliance, individual responsibility, and choice has
been handed down from generation to generation.
That is why it is so distasteful to see a handful of greedy people
trying to strike it rich by attacking the American food industry. The
blame-obsessed legal system has increasingly tried to poison the
restaurant business with frivolous lawsuits.
Our food industry actually employs about 12 million people. It is the
Nation's largest single private sector provider. It provides a legal
product, and it provides it in a legal way. And now, because of the
avarice of a few, it has become a huge target with a huge bull's-eye on
its back.
Mr. Speaker, most restaurants are small businesses that contribute to
their community in literally countless ways. What is more, many of them
are too small to defend themselves against out-of-control, deep-
pocketed trial attorneys who want to file lawsuits against them, who
see them as just another target, perhaps see them as just another ATM
machine.
I am proud to support this rule and proud to support H.R. 554, which
prohibits profiteering from groundless claims about weight gain, to
protect our vital food and restaurant industry, to help defend our
economy and American jobs, and to support the fundamental tenets of our
Nation: personal choice, liberty, and freedom.
Mr. Speaker, I am obviously a pretty good customer of the restaurant
industry, but I also recognize that with democracy comes
responsibility, the responsibility of citizens to make the right
decisions for themselves and the responsibility of a government to stop
those who seek to hurt fine American businesses for a drive-thru, fast
windfall. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying
bill.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that today's legislation is not the answer.
Certainly it is not about addressing the larger issue, obesity, and its
impact on the American health care system.
This legislation demonstrates the blind eye the majority leadership
is turning to the very real challenges Americans are facing today.
Regardless of what happens with this legislation today, America's
health care system will still be in dire need of responsible
leadership. The American people deserve an honest discussion.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by thanking my colleagues for a
productive discussion on the rule and the underlying bill. Today, this
House has an
[[Page H8888]]
opportunity to again pass meaningful reform to not only promote
personal accountability but also to strengthen the opportunities for
legitimate claims to be heard and adjudicated. Let us take one more
step to turn back the tide of so-called ``jackpot justice.''
While runaway juries and frivolous lawsuits might make a few
individuals and certain ambulance-chasing lawyers rich, the American
people ultimately pay the price both economically and socially.
Mr. Speaker, discouraging individuals from taking personal
responsibility does not help anyone. In fact, it will only make matters
worse. Encouraging healthy lifestyles and wise dietary choices should
always trump rewarding poor decisions by shifting the blame to innocent
bystanders.
The Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act of 2005 is a good
bill, and I look forward to further discussing its merits on the House
floor today.
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, a strong bipartisan majority
passed this bill in the last Congress; and I have no reason to doubt
that we should be able to pass it again by a similar, maybe even a
stronger, margin; and I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the
underlying bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join many of my
colleagues in strongly opposing the restrictive rule set forth on H.R.
554, the ``The Personal Responsibility In Food Consumption Act of
2005.'' As you know, in light of the world we live and the importance
of nutrition, this is a very important piece of legislation. Having
such a restrictive rule truly goes too far and limits the protections
of the American people. It goes without saying; this bill is drafted so
broadly, it would immunize defendants for negligent and reckless
behavior, including mislabeling of food products. I also object to the
fact that the legislation applies retroactively, and is written for the
benefit of a single special interest--the fast food industry. Third, I
believe the legislation constitutes an unwarranted and hastily
considered affront on our system of federalism. Finally, I oppose the
bill because there are far preferable ways to respond to this issue
than by rushing to judgment to pass a one-size-fits-all Federal law
preempting all 50 states. Despite my concerns, I am pleased to see that
a few very important amendments were ruled into order. If adopted, I
believe these amendments will make major improvements to the bill.
In closing, let me note that while this issue may be important, there
are far more urgent issues we need to be focusing on at this time. The
aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, where thousands lost their
homes and hundreds lost their lives. Unfortunately, those who were
impacted the most were children. For example, many children lost 1 or
both parents or a guardian as a result of Hurricane Katrina and Rita.
This is where our thoughts and legislative actions need to be. In
addition, the earthquake registering 7.6 in magnitude that struck
Pakistan has caused major devastation in the region. While the numbers
are still coming in, it has been estimated that 23,000 have died and at
least 47,000 have been injured. There have also been a historical
number of children impacted by this massive earthquake. Those impacted
have no access to clean drinking water, making them more vulnerable to
disease and other infections.
Mr. GINGREY. 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 SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will
be postponed.
____________________