Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act of 2005 (2)
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we have apparently decided to try these kinds of cases on the floor of the House where politics and popularity will be considered, even financial contributions will be allowed, rather than have those cases and special interests relegated to the judicial branch where they will be facing unbiased judges and juries and relegated to the same laws that apply to everybody else. But if we are going to try the cases, we ought to at least limit the impact of the bill to the fast food rhetoric that we have heard.
This bill, unfortunately, covers not only fast food lawsuits but also litigation involving consumer protection when obesity or weight gain may be one of the elements of the case.
Now, every single State has laws on the books to protect its consumers. Every State has laws to protect consumers from misleading practices and each attorney general has the power to enforce these laws. But unfortunately as written, the bill will prevent State attorneys general from enforcing those laws. It will not just stop the individual fast food lawsuits that my colleagues have been discussing, but because a person who may be a plaintiff is defined in the bill to include governmental agencies, it will prevent States from getting injunctions, cease and desist orders, or imposing fines against those who endanger consumers.
It is important to note that not only money damages are precluded by the bill. Rather, the bill refers to damages, penalties, injunctive or declaratory relief, restitution or other relief, all are prohibited forms of relief that will no longer be available to State attorneys general if this bill passes without my amendment.
The exception for a ``knowing'' violation is not enough. State deceptive practices are just like the Federal Trade Commission Act. They allow civil enforcement actions whether or not the defendant willfully or knowingly violated the law. In fact, food labeling and deceptive practices have often exacted strict liability, that is, if the government can get an injunction whether the person was intentionally or knowingly in violation.
Mr. Chairman, my State of Virginia has the Consumer Protection Act. It prohibits misrepresenting that goods or services have certain qualities, characteristics, ingredients, uses or benefits that they do not have, and any other conduct which similarly creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding. A court may order an injunction or restitution to injured parties even if the violation was unintentional.
In fact, Virginia is not alone. At least 12 other States have specifically adopted the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, section 3, which says that intentional deceptive action is not necessary to get injunctive relief.
At least 23 other States have similar standards.
So, Mr. Chairman, my amendment that I present today will address that problem in the bill. It will ensure that attorneys general and State agencies can put an end to mislabeling, to deceptive practices, to false advertising, and other consumer fraud within the borders of the State. Whatever we think of the individual fast food lawsuits, we should not prohibit State attorneys general from enforcing States laws and protecting their citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, in closing let me just say that, as the gentleman from Arkansas, who is a physician, indicated, weight gain can be caused by contamination or other problems, even if that contamination was unknowing. Under this bill, the attorney general would not be able to get an injunction. We should trust our States attorneys general and consumer protection agencies to do the right thing and not prohibit them from protecting our citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope the amendment would be adopted.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source