[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Page 11693]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              COMMONSENSE CONSUMPTION ACT OF 2005, S. 908

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would note that regrettably, we have on 
the Senate's calendar legislation designed to limit the rights of 
consumers, the so-called Commonsense Consumption Act of 2005, as bad 
public policy.
  It defies common sense to give entire industries blanket immunity 
from potential harm they impose on Americans. The incentives involved 
in litigation are one of the few remaining measures leading to real 
corporate responsibility, not to mention accountability. The handful of 
lawsuits that would have been barred by this legislation actually 
resulted in settlements providing for more nutritious food in our 
schools, more accurate labeling for consumers, and the removal of 
harmful trans fats from some of the foods we eat. A blanket ban on such 
measures will lead to more serious problems such as increases in heart 
disease and diabetes and other chronic conditions that are taxing this 
Nation's health system.
  There are many problems with the sweeping language of this 
legislation. It would dismiss existing State and Federal cases, as well 
as preempt future cases. Sponsors of the bill claim that it would not 
prevent false advertising claims but the language in the bill does not 
guarantee this result. It prevents suits against manufacturers, 
marketers, distributors, advertisers or sellers of specific products 
but the exception for false advertising only applies to manufacturers 
and sellers. Why should advertisers and sellers be excluded from this 
exception? They are just as likely to deceive consumers as 
manufacturers and sellers. Also, the legal standard will be heightened 
so that consumers would be required to prove intentional violation of 
Federal or State statutes, rather than simply having to prove 
violations of government regulations on advertising and food safety. 
Why would we want to give immunity to companies that violate safety 
regulations? And why should the injured consumer be required to prove a 
corporation's intent if it can be proved that the corporation violated 
the law? We all know how impossible it is to prove ``corporate intent'' 
without the extraordinary help of a whistleblower. And we all know that 
were it not for citizens' lawsuits, we may never have learned of the 
harm that big tobacco companies knowingly caused to so many, for so 
long, while denying so much of what they knew. Time and again, the 
legal system has been more effective than government watchdog agencies 
in prying loose consumer information like that, which we otherwise 
might never see.
  This legislation does not create any alternative method for keeping a 
check on corporate misconduct that has a detrimental effect on the 
health of all Americans. If this bill passes, American consumers will 
only be left with the thin hope that suddenly the Bush-Cheney 
administration will begin true regulation of corporations on behalf of 
American consumers.
  If we are serious about trying to address the national health 
epidemic that is related to obesity, then we should be considering 
legislation to clarify food labeling so consumers can make informed 
choices. How about legislation requiring nutritious food in our 
schools? How about listening to the scientific and health community 
about the needless dangers of trans fats in our food? How about ending 
cuts in education that lead to the cancellation of physical education 
and health courses?
  Consideration of this corporate immunity legislation would be 
especially ill-timed in light of the numerous pressing issues that face 
this Nation today. The Senate's time would be better spent debating 
stem cell research, or the life saving technologies that would make 
Americans' lives better. We should also be moving forward with 
comprehensive immigration reform, reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act, 
and addressing the horrific genocide in Darfur. This bill also yet to 
be subject to committee consideration. If the Judiciary Committee had 
considered this legislation, I am confident we would have amended the 
sweeping language of this blanket immunity bill.
  This legislation favors the interests of corporations over the health 
of our children and the health of their parents. This is not the fix 
that is needed. Let us direct our energies towards making American 
health care better by finding cures to diseases, making it easier for 
consumers to make informed choices, getting more Americans insured and 
investing in health care prevention.

                          ____________________