Chris Cannon

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the amendment was defeated last year on the floor by voice vote. It should be defeated again this year. This amendment would add to the list of qualified civil liability actions that cannot be brought under the bill, civil actions brought by a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product or trade association against any person for obesity-related claims. Whatever the rhetorical purpose the sponsor of this amendment seeks to accomplish, it should be defeated because it is badly drafted, and in the context of the bill, its application would be nonsensical. The bill only operates to prohibit lawsuits brought by people because they ate too much and got fat. The amendment would add corporations to the list of those who cannot sue because they got fat. But whatever the intent of the amendment is, the fundamental problem is that corporations cannot gain weight and suffer from obesity, which is the term used in the bill. A corporation, for example, cannot eat too much and a trade association cannot gain weight over the holidays. For all of these reasons this amendment should be defeated. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman makes a valid point that we have a lot of obese children. I think it is actually more like 40 percent in some recent studies I have seen. This is a terrible problem, but I urge the Members to defeat this amendment. It was defeated by voice vote last year, and it should be defeated again this year. The gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) also talks about the accountability of the food industry; but this amendment tells parents that if they are not responsible for their children's eating, they can become millionaires. This amendment manages to exploit children and discourages parents from exercising parental responsibility all at the same time. It literally would hold food companies liable when parents buy their kids a six-pack of kid meals every day for 8 years. Adopting this amendment would turn the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act into the Parent Irresponsibility Act. Even the ultra-liberal Los Angeles Times has stated this is wrong, saying in an editorial: ``If kids are chowing down to excess on junk food, aren't their parents responsible for cracking down? And if parents and other grown-ups overindulge, isn't it their problem, not that of the purveyors of fast food? Why boost their food bills because of illegal jousting? People shouldn't get stuffed, but this line of litigation should.'' Even our best obesity doctors realize that this amendment is another sad assault on the concept of parental responsibility. As Dr. Jana Klauer, a fellow at the New York City Obesity Research Center of St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital has said, ``I just wonder where were the parents when kids were having these McDonald's breakfasts every morning. Were they incapable of pouring a bowl of cereal and some milk?'' Let us do what we did last year and defeat this parental irresponsibility amendment by voice vote. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. There is a problem in America. There is no question but that there is a problem. We do not solve that problem by shifting responsibility to corporations. It would be good if corporations did perfect things, but we live in an imperfect world where parents have the ability to turn off the television, parents have the ability to teach their children what to eat and how to eat well. And, interestingly, food that is better for you actually costs less. Parents have the ability to deal with these issues in ways that this Congress and industry cannot do. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This gutting amendment was defeated on the House floor last year by a vote of 241 to 177, and it should be defeated again this year. Lawsuits relating to obesity and weight gain are wrong no matter who brings them. If private claims are frivolous and should be blocked, then we should not encourage States to bring them either. This bill only applies to lawsuits arising out of or related to obesity and weight gain. State consumer protection statutes are not intended to cover these kinds of claims. In fact, not a single State consumer protection law allows a State agency to sue for damages because someone got fat from eating too much. However, because the amendment implies State consumer protection laws do allow lawsuits in which the claim is obesity or weight gain, courts may well read it to grant all State agencies new powers to use their State consumer protection laws to seek damages against the food industry for obesity-related claims. That is directly contrary to the purpose of this bill. It would not be right to allow States to use their consumer protection laws in ways they cannot use them now, namely, to sue the food industry for obesity-related claims. Consequently, this amendment should be defeated. In any case, section 4(5)(b) of H.R. 544 makes it clear that obesity- related lawsuits can be brought by anyone who can prove he suffered harm as a result of a violation of State or Federal law, including laws that prohibit deceptive or misleading advertising, by showing he individually and justifiably relied on such deceptive or misleading advertising and that such reliance was the proximate cause of the injury. So the bill itself already allows lawsuits against bad actors while preserving the concept of personal responsibility. The amendment does not do that, it should be defeated, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me just say that we have consumer protection laws. This bill is not intended to expand those laws. It is not intended to put restaurants out of business. It is not intended to shift responsibility from individuals and from parents. It is about personal responsibility, and I urge opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman is talking about various kinds of supplements. He mentioned ephedra and other supplements to help people lose weight. That is a substantial distinction here. If a person buys a supplement and there has been misleading advertising or the manufacturer knows of adverse effects and does not communicate those, and if that constitutes a violation of law, a lawsuit is not prohibited by this legislation. This legislation is going the other way and saying you cannot sue people if you get fat because you make wrong choices, as opposed to you have had some kind of injury or illness because of a misadvertised or otherwise inappropriate utilization of a supplement.

Mr. CANNON. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. CANNON. Reclaiming my time, we are not trying to change the whole world of consumer law here, we are only trying to change one aspect of it. If the gentleman is concerned about, and I know the gentleman has great concern about the effect of supplements like Ephedra which have largely been abandoned by the industry, that is something we ought to be considering, but not in the context of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing today legislation to clarify Public Law 104-95, adopted by the Congress in 1995, prohibiting States from taxing the retirement income of nonresidents. Public Law 104-95, enacted in 1996, precludes States, other than the State in which a retiree resides, from taxing certain retirement benefits. The law defines ``retirement income'' as any income from specified types of qualified pension plans or from a nonqualified deferred compensation plan that meets certain payment requirements. Nonqualified deferred compensation plans are defined by reference to section 3121(v)(2)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code (the ``Code''), which relates to employment taxes. Specifically, any income of an individual who is not a resident of the taxing State from any plan, program, or arrangement described in section 3121(v)(2)(C) is exempt from that State's income tax provided the income received from such plan is part of a series of substantially equal periodic payments made (not less frequently than annually) over the life expectancy of the recipient, or for a period of not less than 10 years. Neither the statute nor the related committee reports provide guidance as to what constitutes a substantially equal periodic payment; they merely require that the payments be made for at least 10 years. Unfortunately, at least one State tax revenue department has taken the position that Public Law 104-95 does not preclude state taxation of nonqualified retirement benefits paid by a partnership to its retired nonresident partners. Specifically, the State has construed the reference to section 3121(v)(2)(C) of the Code to limit the exemption to payments made only to retired employees, i.e., those individuals subjected to FICA tax, since the provision is written in the context of employment taxation. Under this view, nonqualified retirement benefits paid by a partnership to its retired partners who are not residents of the State would not be exempt from nonresident State income taxation because there is no specific reference to retired partners in P.L. 104- 95, section 3121(v)(2)(C) of the Code, or subsequently issued Treasury Regulations for that section. In addition, at least one State tax revenue department has taken the position that the periodic benefits provided under the plan fail the ``substantially equal periodic payments'' test if the plan provides for benefit reductions pursuant to a pre-determined formula capping total disbursements. Under a similar analysis, periodic benefits that are subject to adjustment pursuant to a plan provision providing cost-of- living adjustments could also fail to qualify as ``substantially equal periodic payments.'' Because businesses are not permitted to pre-fund nonqualified deferred compensation benefits on a tax-favored basis, some businesses find it prudent to cap total disbursements under a pre- determined plan formula, such as a percentage of the business's overall income. This cap operates to keep retirement costs within a reasonable range sustainable by the business, in effect protecting the business from unusual demands triggered by demographic variations. Similarly, many plans provide for cost-of-living adjustments to retirement benefits. Any such adjustments made as a result of a pre-determined plan formula do not change the nature of the retirement benefit and should not cause the retirement benefits to fail to meet the ``substantially equal periodic payments'' test. The application of the ``substantially equal periodic payments'' test is unclear when retirement benefits include components from both qualified plans (no substantially equal periodic payment requirement) and nonqualified plans. Consider a plan in which total annual payments to a retiree do not change from year to year, but the payments are required to come first from a Keogh (i.e., qualified plan) until depleted and then from the general assets of the business (i.e., nonqualified plan). Under a pre-determined plan formula, the total annual payment remains the same and is part of a series of substantially equal periodic payments. However, the sources underlying the total payment will change as the qualified plan is depleted and nonqualified payments are increased to maintain annual payments at the same level. This legislation would clarify that States may not impose an income tax on retirement income of nonresidents received under certain nonqualified deferred compensation plans, including plans for retired partners (treated as such under applicable tax laws). This would also clarify that retired partner equivalents, that is retired principals, will be treated as retired partners for purposes of this provision. This legislation would also clarify that benefit reductions pursuant to a pre-determined formula capping total disbursements, or benefit adjustments pursuant to a plan provision providing cost-of-living adjustments are permitted, and do not cause the periodic benefits provided under the plan to fail the ``substantially equal periodic payments'' test. It is also my intent to clarify that the ``substantially equal periodic payments'' test is satisfied when payments include components from both qualified and nonqualified plans. Because this legislation merely clarifies Congressional intent with respect to current law, it would apply as of the effective date of P.L. 104-94, that is to amounts received after December 31, 1995. These changes are intended to make it clear that, when Congress originally passed this legislation, it did not want to allow States to tax retirement income, other than the State where the retiree resides, whether the retirement payments are made to a retired employee or a retired partner. The present bill merely confirms Congressional intent to prohibit State taxation of retirement payments made to nonresidents.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo). I rise in opposition to the substitute amendment and in support of the underlying bill. I would like to congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) on many, many years of hard work on this issue. I have to say, I am astonished to be here today. By my count, the number of Democrats who voted for the underlying bill in committee was greater than the number of Democrats who voted against it. The minority leader just told us that reasonable people can agree that the Endangered Species Act can be improved. I think that is the fundamental starting place, and it is nice to be debating the substitute, because we are talking about a fundamentally defective process. On the other hand, the underlying bill is a good bill. The substitute has some great defects. In the first place, it raises the regulatory bar. It makes it more difficult. In the second place, the substitute does nothing to provide straightforward answers to property owners. In other words, the fundamental problems, which have caused such division in America, are not dealt with in the substitute bill. They do not provide compensation to a landowner. If you are a landowner and the town or the State or country builds a highway, the land gets condemned and you get paid for the land. We need to have some kind of a compensatory process, and we do not have that in the substitute bill. The substitute bill replaces the dysfunctional critical habitat concept with something far worse. They talk about lands necessary for recovery. What that is, I do not know that we can figure that out until we have done a lot of litigation and have been through a great deal of pain in America. The substitute removes the incentives and creates a voluntary program. And a landowner, after he volunteers, could get 70 percent of his costs back for participating in the program. It does not give him any grants or any contractual rights. It does not pay him for the cost. I urge support of the underlying bill and opposition to the substitute amendment.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary have permission to file a supplemental report on the bill, H.R. 3132, the Children's Safety Act of 2005.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, as America strives to adapt to a world of rapidly changing international trade, preserving and expanding U.S. manufacturing and production capabilities becomes ever more important. This is particularly true in Utah where current restrictions on exports of the medicines we produce have discouraged industry growth and threatened workers' jobs. The Controlled Substances Export Reform Act currently allows U.S. pharmaceutical companies to export most controlled substances only to the exact country where their product will be used. Shipment of U.S. medicines to central sites for further cross-border distribution, even when conducted under the watchful eyes of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and Department of Justice, is prohibited for U.S. exporters. This contrasts with the freedom of drug manufacturers throughout the rest of the world to readily move their products among and between international drug control treaty countries without limit or restriction. These limitations put U.S. manufacturers at a disadvantage by requiring more frequent and costly shipments to each individual country of use. We are effectively discouraging domestic manufacturing while encouraging U.S. drug exporters to move production overseas. Utah, with a small but growing pharmaceutical manufacturing industry, is committed to maintaining a strong domestic base so that U.S. businesses can compete on a level playing field with our international competitors. But this industry faces an uncertain future unless we do something. S. 1395, the Controlled Substances Export Reform Act of 2005, is the companion legislation to H.R. 184 that Rep. Joe Pitts and I introduced in the House, and that passed the House Judiciary and Energy and Commerce Committees. This legislation advances that goal by permitting the carefully regulated international transshipment of exported U.S. pharmaceuticals. The bill retains full DEA control over all drug exports and establishes strict permitting requirements to ensure drug safety while removing an unnecessary barrier to U.S. production and the growth of well-paid jobs. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the 500 Utah workers whose jobs may be endangered by current law, and on behalf of the many more workers we stand to gain by updating an outdated statute, I am pleased to support S. 1395 and I urge the measure's immediate adoption.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his commitment to helping me solve this problem, and I want to thank Taylorsville Mayor Janice Auger for her tireless effort on this issue.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), my friend, for entering into this colloquy, and also my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), for the work they have done on this bill. This has been extraordinary. Since I have gotten here, I have had hundreds of inquiries about this issue, as has every other Member of Congress, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) has handled them remarkably well. I strongly support H.R. 22. It is long overdue. Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to the attention of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) an important problem in my district. The city of Taylorsville, Utah, has been assigned four different ZIP codes, and its citizens must access services at five different post offices, all outside the city. Mr. Chairman, if we were talking about New York City or Los Angeles, more ZIP codes would be common, but in a city of only 60,000, we should not have four different ZIP codes and be serviced by five different post offices. So it is my sincere hope that the chairman and I can work together to reduce the number of ZIP codes for Taylorsville from four to one, and work towards a fully functioning post office located within the city proper.

Mr. CANNON. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I find myself in the anomalous position of associating myself with the comments of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and I hear some chuckles on the other side, and I think that is appropriate, as to, in particular, the constitutional history cited, the effect on the poor, and the problem with the aesthetics of this resolution, which I strongly support. We have already heard the Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London represents a clear blow to private property rights. The Supreme Court has now established that local governments can seize private land if government and business interests think they have an idea for more profitable use for the property. If commercial development now meets the definition of ``public use,'' no private property is safe from government hands. Worst of all, the groups most affected by the decision are the poorest and least likely to be able to defend themselves. The frightening prospect of the wealthy and connected preying on the poor does not escape the public. The Daily Herald, my local newspaper, stated, ``The true beneficiaries of this deal are the private developers who are getting the land they want without the hassle of protracted real estate negotiations. Rather than trying to find a price at which the residents would sell or finding a willing seller somewhere else, the developers just got the city to do their dirty work. Eminent domain leaves little room for quibbling or sentimentality. One of the residents who challenged New London was an 87-year-old woman who was born in the house she lived in and planned to spend the rest of her life there.'' Historically, the fifth amendment has restrained government's ability to take away people's homes through eminent domain. Despite the holdings of the Court in this decision, State and local governments should not use the New London decision as cover to abuse eminent domain powers and trample cherished individual property rights. But, unfortunately, this process has already begun. This mistaken ruling has already emboldened governments and developers seeking to take property from home and small business owners and local communities in Texas, Missouri, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Tennessee; and other States are likely to follow. I would encourage them to do a better job of protecting their citizens, their residents, and their voters rather than following the license now allowed them by the Supreme Court. I believe it is incumbent upon Congress as a coequal branch of government to protect these local communities as well as countless others around the country. Thankfully, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has prepared a timely piece of legislation that will prevent any State or municipality from using economic development as a justification for exercising its power of eminent domain wherever Federal funds are involved in any way. Mr. Speaker, I encourage the support of this resolution and the bill that will be introduced by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) in the near future.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. For their work on this bill, I would first of all like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), two giants of this institution and people who I am pleased to call friends. Mr. Chairman, our government is being forced to give financial support to corporations we normally would exclude because of our membership in the United Nations and where our dues are spent. When a Federal agency takes an action to exclude a contractor under the nonprocurement or procurement debarment and suspension system, the agency enters the information about the excluded party into the Excluded Parties List System, the EPLS, which is maintained by the General Services Administration. This means that we have a list of individuals and companies with whom our government is forbidden to do business or provide grants or similar assistance. The EPLS identifies those who are deemed corrupt or untrustworthy or even those involved in terrorist activities, like the Islamic jihad and Hezbollah. These contractors are excluded from entering contracts and agencies may not solicit offers from, award contracts to, or consent to subcontracts with these contractors. Contractors are excluded from conducting business with the government as agents or representatives of other contractors. What is more, every U.S. citizens can view the EPLS on line. We know who we do not support and why we do not support them and what their punishment is. However, though our government has a list of parties we refuse to deal with, our dollars might be supporting them through the U.N. I am offering an amendment that will add a paragraph to section 108 of H.R. 2745, the Henry J. Hyde United Nations Reform Act of 2005. This section requires a report to be filed with the Congress of the United States on the status of the U.N.'s reform. My amendment requires a report on the contracts entered into by the U.N. or any of its specialized agencies with parties on the U.S. Government's EPLS. This amendment is endorsed by the Heritage Foundation, as well as Americans For Tax Reform. U.N. officials have time and again demonstrated poor judgment and an inability to appropriately manage the money provided by many countries, including the United States. It is absolutely clear, Mr. Chairman, that something has to be done about the U.N. The release this week of the Oil-for-Food contractor Cotecna, calling into question Kofi Annan's claim that he was unaware of Cotecna's bid for a contract in 1998, is just the latest in a long stream of ethical blunders. As a bipartisan report, featured in yesterday's Wall Street Journal stated, ``Until and unless it changes dramatically, the United Nations will remain an uncertain instrument, both for the governments that comprise it and for those that look to it for salvation.'' It is only logical that the same restrictions we place upon on our Federal agencies be applied to the money we give to the U.N. This extra measure of oversight will help prevent future corruption by the U.N. and create clear guidelines regarding who the U.N. contracts with.

Mr. CANNON. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. CANNON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 1704, a bill originally introduced by Representative Portman of Ohio, for the purposes of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming for yielding me this time. I would also like to begin by thanking the people who have worked so hard on this bill, especially the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), who has been very thoughtful about the Payments in Lieu of Taxes issue and has worked well with us in the past. We are committed to getting full funding for PILT because the counties in rural America and areas where they are dominated by the Federal Government need that kind of support. I have a map beside me here which is similar to the map the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) had just a moment ago, although we did it in red because we want to represent the statement, so we can see the meaning of a statement that was made by President Ronald Reagan in 1988. He said: ``I have a map. I wish everyone could see it. It's a map of the United States. And land owned by the government is in red, and the rest of the map is white. West of the Mississippi River, your first glance at the map, you would think the whole thing is red the government owns so much property.'' The government owns so much property. I do not know any place other than the Soviet Union where the government owns more land than ours does. We have a problem. The Federal Government owns the bulk of the West. Half of California is owned by the Federal Government. Two-thirds of most of the other States in the West are owned by the Federal Government. That means we do not tax those lands, and that means that in the western United States, we pay less per child per education, but we tax our people more per family, because we are supporting the Federal Government in this environment. It is only fair that we pay a reasonable amount in lieu of taxes to cover that shortfall. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to add a modest sum to the PILT, but a sum that is very, very important to the American people, those who live in these public land areas, and those who enjoy them from the rest of the country.