Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the food industry is the largest private sector employer in the United States, providing jobs for 12 million American citizens. The consequences of these obesity…
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, the food industry is the largest private sector employer in the United States, providing jobs for 12 million American citizens. The consequences of these obesity lawsuits against the food industry is that consumers will pay a higher price for food in restaurants. Mom and pop restaurants would face unaffordable insurance rate hikes, and jobs could be cut as a result.
This legislation, in essence, provides that a seller or maker of a lawful food product shall not be subject to civil liability where the claim is premised upon an individual's weight gain relating to the consumption of that food. This is a narrowly-drawn, measured piece of legislation. It does not immunize the food industry. This legislation does not preclude suits from false advertising, mislabeling of food, adulterated foods, or injuries from eating tainted food. The gist of this legislation is that there should be common sense in the food court, not blaming other people in the legal court.
Most people have enough common sense to realize that if they eat an unlimited amount of french fries, milk shakes, and cheeseburgers without exercising, it can possibly lead to obesity. But in a country like the United States where freedom of choice is cherished, nobody is forced to supersize their fast food meals or to choose less healthy options on the menu. Similarly, no one is forced to sit in front of their TV all day and play video games, instead of walking or bike riding.
Richard Simmons, the famous exercise guru, recently said that people who bring these lawsuits against the food industry do not need a lawyer, they need a psychiatrist, and the American public seems to agree. In a recent objective Gallup poll, nearly nine out of 10 Americans, 89 percent, oppose holding the fast food industry legally responsible for the diet-related health problems of people who eat that kind of food. Interestingly, overweight people agreed with skinny people that the fast food industry should not be held responsible for these types of claims.
Which brings me to the subject of lawyers. And, while we are here, some of the same lawyers who went after the tobacco industry now have a goal of suing the food industry for $117 billion, which is the amount the Surgeon General estimates as the public health costs attributable to being overweight.
Now, based on a standard contingency fee of 40 percent, that means these selfless lawyers interested in public good would be recovering $47 billion for themselves in attorneys' fees, and that is, ultimately, what this is about. In fact, in June of 2003, lawyers from all across the United States gathered in Boston for what they called the first annual conference on legal approaches to the obesity epidemic. To attend each work shop, the people had to sign an affidavit to attend the legal work shop in which it said, ``This is intended to encourage and support litigation against the food industry.''
One of the ringleaders of this litigation conference is a lawyer named John Banzhaf. Mr. Banzhaf freely admits that his goal is to open the floodgates of litigation against our Nation's largest private sector employer: the food industry.
Specifically, Mr. Banzhaf said this: ``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 the flood gates.''
Now, the Democrats could have called anybody they wanted to. We had a hearing on this. But they chose to call this man who says it will open the flood gates. He wants to open the flood gates. That is what they said then. Then they come here today and it is, What do you mean? There is no intent to sue the food industry. Well, indeed, lawsuits have been filed against McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, KFC, Kraft/Nabisco with new suits now threatened by Mr. Banzhaf and others against the makers of ice cream.
The New York suits included one with a man named Caesar Barber, who went on ``60 Minutes'' and told them, ``I want compensation for pain and suffering.'' ``60 Minutes'' said, ``How much money do you want?'' Caesar Barber: ``Maybe $1 million. That is not a lot of money right now.''
We must think of what this is about. The litigation against the food industry is not going to make a single person any skinnier; it is only going to serve to make the trial attorneys' bank accounts a lot fatter.
In summary, we need to make it tougher for lawyers to file frivolous lawsuits. We need to care about each other more and sue each other less. We need to get back to the old-fashioned principles of common sense, of personal responsibility and get away from this new culture where everybody plays the victim and sues others for their problem.
This legislation is a step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 339.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I am not going to support this amendment, and I would ask all of my colleagues to vote no on this amendment on two grounds.
The first ground is that the bill only precludes lawsuits in which the injury claimed is obesity and weight gain. State consumer protection statutes are not lawsuits in which the injury claimed is obesity or weight gain. Rather, in the State consumer protection cases, the injuries claimed are unfair and deceptive trade practices or misleading labeling.
However, because the amendment implies that the State consumer protection laws somehow do allow lawsuits in which the injury claim is obesity or weight gain, Courts may well read it to grant all State agencies new power to use their State consumer protection laws to seek damages against the food industry for obesity-related claims. In other words, this would essentially gut the bill by allowing State Attorneys General to bring the very same claims that we are trying to get rid of.
I cannot think of a single State consumer protection law right now that allows a State agency to sue because someone got fat from eating too much.
The second ground I object to this amendment on is the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) said he does not like the fact we have the knowing and willful standard. The knowing and willful standard is exactly the same standard used in H.R. 1036, the Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act that overwhelmingly passed this House in a bipartisan fashion. It got 285 votes, and so anyone who voted for H.R. 1036 and who votes for this amendment will literally be voting for stronger protection for gun manufacturers than for the food industry, which is the largest private sector employer, providing jobs to some 12 million Americans.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the enthusiasm of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), and as the author of the bill that was described that way, I can assure you that I take no offense. Sometimes in the heat of passion things come out, so there is no need to apologize to me.
Let me just say this with respect to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), he is at least consistent. He offered this same amendment in committee, made the same arguments, it was rejected in committee. I urge my colleagues to reject it once again here on the House floor and for the very same reason.
This amendment would essentially gut the bill and encourage venue shopping among very creative trial lawyers. Let me just give you one example.
The Louisiana legislature, which, by the way, is a Democrat legislature, both the House and the Senate, passed a very similar bill to mine after I filed mine with 94 percent of the legislators voting ``yes,'' broad bipartisan support.
So, yes, you cannot bring an obesity lawsuit in Louisiana.
So if you are an ambitious trial lawyer, what about Mississippi? Well, they do not have such a law, and that is exactly where the suit would be filed, or some other State that is a nice haven for tourists.
We do not have to guess about this, because we had a hearing on this matter; and the Democrats could have chosen anyone to appear, and they chose a man named Mr. Banzhaf, who says it is his goal to open the flood gates of litigation against our major employers such as McDonald's.
This is what he said. Keep in mind the potential Mississippi lawsuit: ``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 the flood gates.'' We do not have to guess what their theories are; they have already told us.
So Congress, of course, can exercise its authority under the Commerce Clause to prevent a few States from bankrupting the food industry, which is the largest nongovernmental employer in the United States. Congress, of course, has the authority under the Commerce Clause. That is not just the opinion of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) or myself. The U.S. Supreme Court in Healy v. Beer Institute said, ``Generally speaking, the Commerce Clause protects against inconsistent laws arising from the projection of one State regulatory regime into the jurisdiction of another State.''
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Watt amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Andrews amendment on several grounds. This amendment opposes additional regulations on the food industry, increasing their cost of doing business and threatening additional jobs in the food industry, our Nation's largest private sector employer. But more problematic, the amendment contains no definitions of what would constitute a proper label and, therefore, it would expose even those companies who could afford to comply with the new regulations to lawsuits that would cost yet more jobs.
This amendment is an attempt to regulate an entire industry with one clause, and that is a recipe for confusion and disaster. Even companies who labeled, in an attempt to gain the benefits of the bill, might not get such protections because some judge somewhere will deem their attempt to label inadequate, and the amendment provides no standards to guide either the private sector or judges. Additionally, there is no definition in the amendment of genetically engineered, so people will not even know if their products have to comply with these additional regulations.
Essentially where the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) should have his day is trying to amend the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and make his changes there, but not here where it is so vague that it does not have those definitions that would be needed.
Also I would point out that if there is some State statute dealing with genetically-altered foods and it requires certain labeling and so on and so forth or advertisement requirements, and if that State statute is violated, under the provisions of this bill, the claims could go forward.
So I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Andrews amendment for the reasons suggested earlier.
Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Chairman, that scenario you just posed about someone taking some kind of improperly labeled diet drug has nothing to do with this legislation. That claim would still go forward and be unimpacted.
This legislation specifically is narrowly targeted to claims based on weight-gain or obesity.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, at the committee there was an attempt to strike the knowing and willful standard from the bill. That was unsuccessful. I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment as well, which is kind of a new twist there, keeping the knowing and willful, but then they also add ``negligently,'' which in effect does the same thing, strike it. So all you have to do is prove negligence.
This bill already allows a case to go forward any time a Federal or State statute has been knowingly and willfully violated and that violation is a proximate cause of the injury.
Let me tell you why it is important to have this knowing, willful standard and what the precedent is.
The knowing and willful standard is the exact same standard used in H.R. 1036, the Protection of Law Commerce and Arms Act that overwhelmingly passed this House in a bipartisan fashion. In fact, it received 285 votes. Therefore, anyone who voted for H.R. 1036 and who votes for this amendment will be voting for stronger protections for firearms manufacturers than for the food industry, which is the largest private sector employer in the country providing 12 million jobs.
The claim that it is too burdensome to require a person to knowingly violate a law before they can be said to meet the exceptions to this bill, fails to understand the flexible nature of the requirements. Let me give you an example. A typical jury instruction regarding what the so-called mens rea requirement for knowing means states as follows: ``Knowledge may be proved by all the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. You, the jury, may infer knowledge from a combination of suspicion and indifference to the truth. If you find a person had a strong suspicion that things were not what they seemed or that someone had withheld important facts yet shut his eyes for fear of what he may learn, you may conclude that he acted knowingly.''
Therefore, the knowing standard is certainly flexible enough to produce justice in our courts in all circumstances. There is precedent for it, and it should be used here as well. I also would point out that under the bill, claims can go forward for breach of contract, or breach of warranty as well.
I ask my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. Chairman, to go back to the gentleman from Washington's (Mr. Inslee) question about the diet drug, I have explained it does not apply. It talks about ``a person's consumption of a qualified product.'' What is that? That is food under the definition. Food means articles used for food or drink, chewing gum and articles used or components of such article.
The second part of it is of a weight gain, obesity or any health condition that is associated with a person's weight gain. What are the health conditions associated with a person's weight gain? High cholesterol, for example, diabetes, for example, cardiovascular disease. This has nothing to do with diet drugs or labeling of diet drugs or mislabeling. Whatever that person's claim under State law for negligence can go forward and is completely and totally unrelated to this bill.
Mr. Chairman, it is not worth yielding then. I am not going to accede to this.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask that my colleagues vote ``no'' on the Ackerman amendment on three separate grounds.
First, the concept of adulterated food claims are specifically allowed, both under the base bill, where it specifically says adulterated in section 402 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and under the manager's amendment, which specifically says that the term ``qualified civil liability action'' does not include an action brought under the Federal Trade Commission Act or the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, it specifically defines adulterated food in section 342. A food shall not be deemed to be adulterated if it is considered in whole or part of any filthy, putrid or decomposed substance, which, clearly, mad cow disease or e- coli or anything else would be considered.
The second reason to reject this that it does not apply is the language of this particular bill expressly says that we are talking about claims relating to weight gain, obesity or any health condition that is associated with weight gain or obesity: diabetes, high cholesterol, heart disease. It does not have anything to do with mad cow disease. If a person eats a mad cow burger, their claim goes forward. If a person eats an e-coli burger, their claim goes forward.
A final reason. The gentleman says, well, if that is the case, why does the gentleman care about my amendment? Well, let me address that as well.
This amendment would exclude from the protections of the bill any company that uses particular methods to slaughter perfectly healthy animals. For example, if a company during the slaughtering process places cattle in positions, like in a coral, in which they cannot walk unassisted, then these perfectly law-abiding companies that make meat from perfectly healthy animals would be unfairly excluded from the bill. That is wrong.
Perfectly healthy animals may be unable to stand or walk unassisted during the production process, so this amendment unfairly excludes many law-abiding sellers or perfectly healthy meat from perfectly healthy animals.
For the aforementioned reasons, that it is not needed; and even if it was, it is inappropriate.
I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. The manager's amendment specifically says, ``Such terms shall not be construed to exclude an action brought under the Federal Trade Commission Act or the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.'' I read the gentleman a section under the Federal, Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act dealing with adulterated products.
Reclaiming my time once again, Mr. Chairman, I still, on the other grounds I mentioned earlier, it is still not needed because we are not talking about a claim based on weight gain or obesity.
I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, and I respect the gentleman's enthusiasm, but his claim that that would be barred is patently
untrue. Brain damage or death as a result of eating meat from an animal with mad cow disease is not a claim for weight gain or obesity. It is just totally not. It has nothing to do with this.
Why do people allow mad cow burgers to be sold? I do not know that any company does knowingly allow mad cow burgers to be served.
Well, that is for another day and another forum. It has nothing to do with this particular bill.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote no on the Lampson amendment for at least three reasons. First, one of the cases involving McDonalds was brought by a 400-pound child. And every single meal, breakfast, lunch and dinner, that parent would take the kid to McDonalds and then shockingly one day wakes up and says, oh, the kid is 400 pounds. I never encouraged him to get any exercise. I never encouraged him to step away from the video games. I never encouraged him to not watch TV all day. I never encouraged him to eat healthy food. I never encouraged him to exercise. Now I want a million dollars.
That is insane.
This amendment tells parents that they are not responsible. And if they are not responsible, they can even profit by becoming millionaires and sue for it.
Now, it was brought up that these companies market to kids as well as adults. I have two kids, 8 years old and younger. I can tell you who else markets to kids. Barney, Bear in the Big Blue House, Dora the Explorer, Blue's Clues, Nickelodeon, the Disney Channel. In fact, one could argue if you take this argument, that, in fact, those programs are so enticing and so addicting and so enjoyable to kids but they have no choice but to sit there and watch them every day, and as a result, they lead a stagnant life-style, so why not sue them for obesity since they are marketing to them?
It puts the incentives in the wrong place totally.
Third, I want to briefly point out that childhood obesity is certainly a serious problem. The childhood obesity rates have doubled in the last 30 years. I do not stand before you today and hold myself out as the world's leading expert on physical fitness, but I can tell you the world leading expert on physical fitness, Dr. Kenneth Cooper, the founder of the aerobics movement, testified before my Committee on Education and the Workforce on February 14 of this year and said to us that these lawsuits against the food industry are putting, or putting a tax on Twinkies is not going to make a single person any skinnier.
He said, 30 years ago did kids come home from school and eat potato chips and cupcakes and cookies? Absolutely, they did. The difference is then they went out and rode their bike and played.
Now, they spend 1,023 hours a year in front of a TV screen watching TV or playing video games versus only 900 at school. Where are the parents? If you are talking about a kid eating fast food 21 times a week, where are the parents?
This amendment says the parents have no responsibility whatsoever. It defies common sense however well meaning the author may be. I urge my colleagues to vote no.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Jackson-Lee amendment. The Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act, the base bill, pertains to lawsuits people bring because they gained weight and are suing the company that served them the food, claiming it is their fault. This amendment would prevent manufacturers or sellers of food from suing individuals because, and I am not making this up, the company literally got fat. I would like to ask, how is it possible to determine what the body mass index of General Motors is? Did it gain weight over the holidays? This amendment should be defeated solely because it erroneously assumes companies can literally get fat.
The author of the amendment mentioned a little insight into where she was going when she talked about she does not want individuals like Oprah Winfrey getting sued. Well, if my colleagues recall, that did not have anything to do with this. Oprah Winfrey got sued by the Beef Cattlemen's Association because they claimed she allegedly defamed them. They did not, the Beef Cattlemen's Association, that because of her comments, this association got fat.
So this is an erroneously drafted bill, has no application here, however it is intended, and I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I will ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Jackson- Lee amendment dealing with diet pills on a couple of grounds:
First, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act applies to weight gain, obesity, or any health condition that is associated with a person's weight gain, such as diabetes, high cholesterol, cardiovascular disease. It has nothing to do with weight loss and nothing to do with diet pills, and this amendment confusingly implies weight loss can be weight gain, which does not make sense.
The second part of the amendment, which is somewhat odd, is the amendment would bizarrely require Members to vote for a provision that states that being fat is ``generally associated'' with brain dysfunction and neurological disorders. Specifically, it says, ``neurological damage or any other complication which may be generally associated with a person's weight gain or obesity.''
Not all people who might be overweight are suffering from neurological problems. I can tell you that it is possible to be both fat and happy. So I do not understand the reason for this amendment.
I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I believe he is.
Objection.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I am asking my colleagues to vote no on the Watt amendment dealing with the pending lawsuits.
This amendment was raised at the Committee on the Judiciary. The gentleman made similar, consistent arguments, and it was shot down at the time.
I would like to give three reasons why my colleagues should vote no. First of all, there is a good policy reason to vote no. Second, the Supreme Court will uphold this; and third, we have done similar language before in other bipartisan bills.
First, with respect to the reason of policy, if such an amendment were passed, all that would happen is we would have hundreds if not more cases filed before the date of enactment, and we know that after this bill passes today, it has to pass the other body where we have Senator McConnell as the chief sponsor, so there would be a time frame where there would be an incentive to find the right jury and the right judge.
We have an idea that is sort of their game plan because the one witness the Democrats called at the Committee on the Judiciary hearing was 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 the floodgates.'' So it does away with that incentive that clearly they want.
Second, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can impose rules retroactively if it does so pursuant to an economic policy. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. R.A. Gray is one example. Clearly a bill that aims to save the food industry from potentially bankrupting litigation like that of the tobacco industry is pursuant to a national economic policy, especially since it is the largest private sector employer in the country.
Third, this exact same language appeared in H.R. 1036, the Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act, which enjoyed wide bipartisan support in this House and received 285 votes. I know the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) is going to say yes, but that bill was defeated in the Senate. Fair enough, it was defeated in the Senate, but it was because gun control measures were added to it. There were no changes to this particular provision. It has enjoyed broad bipartisan support in the past. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Watt amendment.