[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 23024-23027]
[From the U.S. 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.
  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

[[Page 23025]]

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.
  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 23026]]

 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

[[Page 23027]]

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 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.

                          ____________________