Providing for Consideration of H.R. 339, Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act

Floor Speech

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 552 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 552

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. 339) to prevent frivolous lawsuits against the manufacturers, distributors, or sellers of food or non-alcoholic beverage products that comply with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. 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. All points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII and except pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Each amendment so printed may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee and shall be considered as read. 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.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purposes of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us is a fair and open rule that allowed every single Member of this body to offer any amendment that they wished to debate after simply having it preprinted in the Congressional Record. On March 4, the Committee on Rules publicly notified Members of the possibility that it may report a rule to give every Member of Congress an opportunity to have their amendment heard on the House Floor, giving Members ample time to draft and submit their amendments for consideration.

The rule also provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and allows the amendment in the nature of a substitute to be considered an original bill for the purpose of amendment, and that it shall be considered as read.

The rule waives all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute and provides that only the authoring Member or a designee may offer a preprinted amendment. Finally, the rule provides the minority with one motion to recommit either with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the rule for H.R. 339, the Personal Responsibility and Food Consumption Act. This bill is common sense legislation that requires courts to dismiss frivolous lawsuits seeking damages for injuries resulting from obesity and its attendant health problems that are filed against the manufacturers, distributors, sellers, marketers, and advertisers of any food product by a claimant or their spouse, parent, or child. That is, simply put, what this bill does, and I would like to congratulate our chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the bill's sponsor, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) for their hard work in bringing this legislation to the floor for its consideration today.

Despite its opponents' claims to the contrary, what this bill does not do is to relieve manufacturers of their existing Federal and State responsibilities for manufacturing, marketing, distributing, advertising, labeling, or selling their products, nor does it affect existing State laws against deceptive trade practices or lawsuits filed for the relief of claimants who become sick from tainted food products. This bill is a carefully crafted bill to address a specific problem: to put an end to frivolous lawsuits that have been filed against the lawful and productive food services industry, an industry that provides 12 million Americans with jobs and is the Nation's largest private sector employer. And, it accomplishes this while protecting all of the other rights currently given to consumers.

This bill simply codifies the current tort law of every State in America that already has preventive injury claims based on obesity and makes permanent what a recent Gallup poll has shown that 89 percent of Americans already knew: that lawsuits against the food industry are an attempt by the trial bar to make an end-run around our Nation's established democratic process through litigation. H.R. 339 creates a narrow, national solution to the problem of these costly and wasteful lawsuits, and establishes in Federal law the simple concept that consumers, not the plaintiffs' bar or a government agency, shall have the right to choose what they eat.

Every Member of this Chamber understands that obesity and the greater health problems that it causes, such as heart disease and diabetes, is a dangerous and growing problem to America. Over the last 20 years, obesity rates have increased by more than 60 percent among adults, and the rate of increase in obesity among young people has risen even more rapidly. To address this problem, President Bush has demonstrated his leadership by providing funds in his budget for general health promotion activities, including efforts to educate the public on preventing diabetes and obesity. President Bush has also outlined a fitness challenge to all Americans by asking adults all across America to get at least 30 minutes of physical activity each day, for children and teenagers to get at least 60 minutes of physical activity each day, and for parents to commit to family activities that revolve around physical activity.

But the American people understand that fitness, health, and well-being is not something that can be legislated, nor something that lawyers can sue for. A commitment to a healthy lifestyle is something that everyone must make for themselves, and it is a matter of personal responsibility. People all across this country understand that since 2002, trial lawyers have been sizing up the deep pockets of the food industry and are ready to pounce upon them when they see a golden opportunity to reap billions of dollars for themselves by filing these lawsuits against the productive food industry.

John Bahnzaf, one of the lead litigators of these frivolous suits, has publicly announced that his goal is to "open the floodgates" of the litigation against the food industry because, he says, "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 up the floodgates." All it will take to do irreparable harm to consumers, the economy, and millions of jobs is just one judge making a nonsense opinion by falling victim to what the trial lawyers wish to do. I believe it is Congress's obligation to allow commerce to proceed by preventing these suits from wasting the time of our courts and the resources of a lawful industry.

By passing this legislation today, the House will tell consumers, investors, and countless employees of local Mom and Pop burger joints all across America that we care about them and their jobs, and that we will make sure that we will protect them. We will be telling Americans we think that they are smart enough to decide what they choose to put in their own mouth, and we will be helping those everyday working Americans who rely on fast, affordable nutrition in their hectic lives, not by allowing the courts to increase the price of food that they freely choose to eat.

If the House fails to pass this legislation, where will the madness end? Will sit-down restaurants, which some studies have shown often, serve food with a nutritional and caloric content similar to fast food? Will they be next on the trial lawyers' hit list? Will trial lawyers target chicken producers who supply countless moms across America with the raw materials for homemade fried chicken, or the beef producers who conspire to provide them with raw ingredients for fattening homemade meatloaf? Or will they simply wait for the next fad diet trend to come along and go after whoever is producing the unfashionable food of the moment?

Mr. Speaker, there is a cure to the obesity problem in America. By taking the road to reducing the medical costs associated with obesity is the right way to do it, not in the courtroom. It begins when Americans decide to leave a little bit on their dinner plate and to run that extra mile. It begins when a parent decides to take an active role in their child's life and coaches their son or their daughter's Little League team. It begins the next time you or I step up to the counter and order the salad, not the extra cheese pizza. But that should be our choice as Americans, because we know best that we make better decisions than the government or than trial lawyers can make for us. These are decisions that Americans can and should make for themselves. Unlike the opponents of this bill, I trust the American people and believe that Americans are smart enough to make these decisions for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule, and I support the well-crafted underlying bill of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the chairman of the Committee on House Administration.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Orlando, Florida (Mr. Keller), the original sponsor of the bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to notify my colleague that we do not have any further speakers at this time, and I would entertain him to please feel free to run down that time and then I will choose to close.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I believe we had an open rule last week.

Mr. McGOVERN. We have had one open rule out of, I think, nine, but I mean, it seems that now we are being required to preprint all our amendments in advance, which by my colleagues' own definition is a restrictive rule. Is that the wave of the future?

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman for allowing me to respond. The Committee on Rules, when we file the rule and when we prepare these documents ahead of time, we notify every Member of Congress of our intent to have a meeting at the Committee on Rules to consider a subject. We ask them to please preprint those things that would be necessary. We ask every Member to please work with legislative staff who would help in preparing those documents to make sure that they are in order, would be made in order under the rule, under the rules of this House, and we believe we are trying to do things to move legislation forward, allow time just as we have done here, notify people ahead of time.

One of the things about this process is that for years and years the House has worked off Jeffersonian rules. We have a Speaker who is up here. We have a parliamentarian. We have people who make decisions about what is right and what is wrong and what is fair and what is not, and we believe what we have done here today from March 4 was said here on the floor of the House, all Members of Congress----

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the answer. I guess the question that I asked to the chairman of the Committee on Rules, and I will ask the gentleman from Texas, if a Member of either party is watching this debate and would like to offer an amendment based on something that they have heard here today, do they have the right to come to the floor and offer an amendment at this particular point?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, the answer is no.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. SESSIONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, this House has, in the 8 years I have served in it had debate after debate, hours on the floor, to make sure that we discuss the issues that are of relevance and important to the American public, but these same things also take place, the debates, in our committee system, and committees hold hearings. Committees go around the country to hear testimony from people about issues like obesity, like prescription drugs, like health care, that are important to the American public and to our health and to our safety.

Mr. Speaker, these issues about obesity and about what the answer would be, we hear from the trial lawyers that they want to open up the floodgates, and we hear from people who are engaged from the nutritional side talking about how better labeling would be good or how food that is served to our children should be leaner and have less fat. We have heard from people like Dr. Kenneth Cooper from Dallas, Texas, talk about how our children need more physical fitness and to be more active. All of these things have contributed to a part of what this bill is about.

Mr. Speaker, I will include in the RECORD at this point the testimony of Dr. Gerard Musante, who is the founder of the Structure House, before the Senate Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts on October 16.

Testimony of Dr. Gerard Musante

Good afternoon, Chairman Sessions and Honorable members of the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts. I am Dr. Gerard J. Musante and I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. I have been called here to share my expertise and educated opinion on the importance of personal responsibility in food consumption in the United States. This lesson is one I have been learning about and teaching for more than 30 years to those who battle moderate to morbid obesity--a lesson that emphasizes the criticality of taking responsibility for one's own food choices. I am testifying before you today because I am concerned about the direction in which today's obesity discourse is headed. We cannot continue to blame any one industry or any one restaurant for the nation's obesity epidemic. Instead, we must work together as a nation to address this complex issue, and the first step is to put the responsibility back into the hands of individuals.

As a clinical psychologist with training at Duke University Medical Center and The University of Tennessee, I have worked for more than 30 years with thousands of obese patients. I have dedicated my career to helping Americans fight obesity. My personal road, which included the loss and maintenance of 50 of my own pounds, began when I undertook the study of obesity as a faculty member in the Department of Psychiatry at Duke University Medical Center. There, I began developing an evidenced-based, cognitive-behavioral approach to weight loss and lifestyle change. I continue to serve Duke University Medical Center as a Consulting Professor in the Department of Psychiatry. Since the early 1970's, I have published research studies on obesity and have made presentations at conferences regarding obesity and the psychological aspects of weight management. Today, I continue my work at Structure House--a residential weight loss facility in Durham, North Carolina--where participants come from around the country and the wo
rld to learn about managing their relationship with food. Participants lose significant amounts of weight while both improving various medical parameters and learning how to control and take responsibility for their own food choices. Our significant experience at Structure House has provided us with a unique understanding of the national obesity epidemic.

Some of the lessons I teach my patients are examples of how we can encourage Americans to take personal responsibility for health and weight maintenance. As I tell my participants, managing a healthy lifestyle and a healthy weight certainly are not easy to do. Controlling an obesity or weight problem takes steadfast dedication, training and self-awareness. Therefore, I give my patients the tools they need to eventually make healthy food choices as we best know it. Nutrition classes, psychological understanding of their relationship with food, physical fitness training and education are tools that Structure House participants learn, enabling them to make sensible food choices. As you know, the obesity rates in this country are alarming. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recognized obesity and general lack of physical fitness as the nation's fastest-growing health threat. Approximately 127 million adults in the United States are overweight, 60 million are obese and 9 million are severely obese
. The country's childhood obesity rates are on a similar course to its adult rates, as well as increases in type II diabetes. Fortunately Americans are finally recognizing the problem. Unfortunately, many are taking the wrong approaches to combating this issue.

Lawsuits are pointing fingers at the food industry in an attempt to curb the nation's obesity epidemic. These lawsuits do nothing but enable consumers to feel powerless in a battle for maintaining one's own personal health. The truth is, we as consumers have control over the food choices we make, and we must issue our better judgment when making these decisions. Negative lifestyle choices cause obesity, not a trip to a fast food restaurant or a cookie high in trans fat. Certainly we live in a litigious society. Our understanding of psychological issues tells us that when people feel frustrated and powerless, they lash out and seek reasons for their perceived failure. They feel the victim and look for the deep pockets to pay. Unfortunately, this has become part of our culture, but the issue is far too comprehensive to lay blame on any single food marketer or manufacturer. These industries should not be demonized for providing goods and services demanded by our society.

Rather than assigning blame, we need to work together toward dealing effectively with obesity on a national level. Furthermore, if we were to start with one industry, where would we stop? For example, a recent article in the Harvard Law Review suggests that there is a link between obesity and "preference manipulation," which means advertising. Should we consider suing the field of advertising next? Should we do away with all advertising and all food commercials at half time? We need to understand that this is a multi-faceted problem and there are many influences that play a part. While our parents, our environment, social and psychological factors all impact our food choices, can we blame them for our own poor decisions as it relates to our personal health and weight? For example, a recent study presented at the American Psychological Association conference showed that when parents change how the whole family eats and offer children wholesome rewards for not being couch potatoes, obese children shed pounds qu
ickly. Should we bring lawsuits against parents that don't provide this proper direction? Similarly, Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston recently reported in "Pediatrics" that children who diet may actually gain weight in the long run, perhaps because of metabolic changes, but also likely because they resort to binge eating as a result of the dieting. Do we sue the parent for permitting their children to diet?

From an environmental standpoint, there are still more outside influences that could be erroneously blamed for the nation's obesity epidemic. The Center for Disease Control has found that there is a direct correlation between television watching and obesity among children. The more TV watched, the more likely the children would be overweight. Should we sue the television industry, the networks, cable, the television manufacturers or the parents that permit this? And now we have internet surfing and computer games. Where does it stop? School systems are eliminating required physical education--are we to also sue the school systems that do not require these courses?

Throw social influences into the mix and we have a whole new set of causes for obesity. Another recent study in "Appetite" indicated that social norms can affect quantitative ratings of internal states such as hunger. This means that other people's hunger levels around us can affect our own eating habits. Are we to blame the individuals who are eating in our presence for our own weight problems? As evidenced in these studies, we cannot blame any one influencing factor for the obesity epidemic that plagues our nation. Through working with obese patients, I have learned that the worst thing one can do is to blame an outside force to get themselves "off the hook," to say it's not their fault, and that they are a victim. To do this can bring about feelings of helplessness and then resignation. Directing blame or causality outside of oneself allows the individual not to accept responsibility and perhaps even to feel helpless and hopeless. "The dog ate my homework" and "the devil made me do it" allows the individua
l not to take serious steps toward correction because they believe these steps are not within their power. We must take personal responsibility for our choices.

What does it mean to take personal responsibility for food consumption? it means making food choices that are not detrimental to your health, and not blaming others for the choices we make. Ultimately, Americans generally become obese by taking in more calories than they expend. But certainly there are an increasing number of reasons why Americans are doing so producing rising obesity rates. Some individuals lack self-awareness and overindulge in food ever more so because of psychological reasons. Others do not devote enough time to physical activity, which becomes increasingly difficult to do in our society. Others lack education or awareness as it relates to nutrition and/or physical activity particularly in view of lessened exposure to this information. And still others may have a more efficient metabolism or hormonal deficiencies. In short, honorable members of the Subcommittee, there is yet much to learn about this problem.

Congress has rightly recognized the danger of allowing Americans to continue blaming others for the obesity epidemic. It is imperative that we prevent lawsuits from being filed against any industry for answering consumer demands. The fact that we are addressing the issue here today is a step in the right direction. No industry is to blame and should not be charged with solving America's obesity problem.

Rather than pointing fingers, we should be working together on a national level to address the importance of personal responsibility in food consumption. The people who come to Structure House have a unique opportunity to learn these lessons, but they are only a select few. These lessons need to be encouraged on a national level, from an early age--in schools, homes and through national legislation that prevents passing this responsibility onto the food or other related industries. In closing, I'd like to highlight the fact that personal responsibility is one of the key components that I teach my patients in their battle against obesity. This approach has allowed me to empower more than 10,000 Americans to embrace improved health. I urge you to consider how this type of approach could affect the obesity epidemic on a national level. By encouraging Americans to take personal responsibility for their health by limiting frivolous lawsuits against the food industry, we can put the power back into the hands of the
consumers. This is a critical first step on the road toward addressing our nation's complex obesity epidemic.

For years, I have seen presidents call for "economic summits." I urge that we consider an "obesity summit." Let me suggest instead of demonizing industries that we bring everyone to the table--representatives in the health care industry, advertising, restaurants, Hollywood, school systems, parent groups, the soft drink industry, and the bottling industry. Instead of squandering resources in defending needless lawsuits by pointing fingers, let's make everyone part of the solution. Let us encourage a national obesity summit where all the players are asked to come to the table and pledge their considerable resources toward creating a national mind set toward solving this problem.

That would be in the interest of the American people.

I feel privileged to be a part of the Subcommittee's efforts. I want to thank you for allowing me to testify here before you today and I will now be glad to answer any questions.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues what he said. He is a gentleman who has worked for 30 years on obesity in this country, and he said, "Through working with obese patients, I have learned that the worst thing one can do is to blame an outside force to get themselves "off the hook,' to say it's not their fault, and that they are a victim. Congress has rightly recognized the danger of allowing Americans to continue blaming others for the obesity epidemic. It is imperative that we prevent lawsuits from being filed against any industry for answering consumer demands. The fact that we are addressing the issue here today is a step in the right direction."

Mr. Speaker, I will tell my colleagues that the Republican House and the Republican Senate are addressing the issues. We are doing those things that not only Members find of interest to people back home, but also in the interest of what is the right thing for America to do.

I feel like what we are doing today is right in line with what all 50 States have and that is a law that says we will not take these fast food restaurants to task, to go and have a lawsuit against them, and the Federal Government, we, as members of Congress, are going to affirm that, to avoid a problem before it becomes one. We have been warned about the problems. We are trying to do aggressive things and the right thing for it.

I support this rule. I support this underlying legislation, and I think that it will win overwhelmingly because this is the best answer.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

END

Source