Chris Cannon

Mr. CANNON

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

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise today in support of H.R. 3147. It is my pleasure to sponsor a bill that would designate the Federal building located at 324 25th Street in Ogden, Utah, as the James V Hansen Federal Building. Almost all Members of this body will fondly remember our colleague Jim Hansen. I had the privilege of working with Jim during the first 6 years of my service in Utah's Third Congressional District, and during that time I looked to Jim for advice, guidance and leadership on countless occasions, and he never let me down. Jim Hansen will be remembered for many things during his 22 years in Congress. He was a champion for multiple use and access to public lands. He fought numerous battles to protect the rights and interests of rural Utahns, and he never tired of fighting to preserve Hill Air Force Base. When Jim was the dean of the Utah delegation, he dedicated his career to protecting the interests of his constituents. Not only did he represent Utahns and their values in Congress, he has impressed his colleagues by living those values. During his tenure as chairman of the Committee on Resources, Jim went to great efforts to bring together both sides of the aisle on contentious and complex resource issues. It was truly my pleasure to serve with him during that time on that committee. Jim Hansen never lost an election. I credit that to his ability to listen and understand the people he represented. Jim never forgot the concerns of his constituents. I have learned from his example, and I appreciate the service he has given on behalf of Utah. Above and beyond all his personal accomplishments, the most important thing I can say about Jim Hansen is that he made a difference. He made a difference in our national policies. He showed us that by acting honorably and with mutual respect we can get things done here in Congress. Over the course of his 42 years of public service, Jim Hansen has shown what it means to be a true statesman and a man of the people. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to sponsor this bill, but more importantly it is my pleasure to call Jim Hansen my friend; and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3147. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we had many people who wanted to come speak today, but I think the calendar has precluded them from coming. So I would like to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill that honors our colleague, who I want to assure everyone is in vital health and still alive, despite all of the honors he has received recently. Mr. Speaker, Jim Hansen was a man of great good humor, great political insight, great integrity, and a man of principle. I am honored to sponsor this bill on his behalf.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in opposition to this amendment. Recently, the food industry has been targeted by a variety of legal claims which allege businesses should pay monetary damages and be subject to equitable remedies based on legal theories of liability for the overconsumption of its legal products. In our subcommittee hearings last year, we explored the threat the food industry faces from frivolous litigation, the threat to personal responsibility posed by the proliferation of such litigation, and the need for H.R. 339, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act. H.R. 339 currently has 119 cosponsors. A similar bill was signed into law by Louisiana Governor Mike Foster on June 2, 2003, with huge bipartisan support. Every Republican in both legislative Chambers voted for the measure, as did 93 percent of Democrats in the Louisiana House and 83 percent of Democrats in the Louisiana Senate. Recent history shows why similar legislation is necessary at the Federal level. We have seen industries brought to the verge of bankruptcy by frivolous lawsuits seeking billions of dollars. Today we have Ralph Nader comparing fast food companies to terrorists by telling The New York Times that the double cheeseburger is ``a weapon of mass destruction.'' In a hearing before our subcommittee last year, a law professor who helped spearhead lawsuits against the tobacco companies has said of fast food litigation, ``If the legislatures won't legislate, then the trial lawyers will litigate.'' It is clear that obesity is a problem in America. Equally clear, however, is the simple availability of high-fat food is not a singular or even a primary cause. For example, recent findings drawing on government databases and presented at a scientific conference of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology biological showed that over the past 20 years, teenagers have, on average, increased their caloric intake by 1 percent. During that same time period, the percentage of teenagers who said they engaged in some sort of physical activity for 30 minutes a day dropped by 13 percent. Not surprisingly, teenage obesity over that same 20-year period increased by 10 percent, indicating it is not junk food that is making teenagers overweight, but rather a lack of activity. In short, it is unlikely that lawsuits against food establishments over their menu offerings will do much, if anything, to make us healthier. On the other hand, such lawsuits will threaten thousands of jobs that are today available to teenagers and other entry-level workers who need those jobs. Further, such lawsuits send the wrong message regarding personal choices and responsibility. Do we want our kids growing up believing it is a restaurant's fault that they are eating too many cheeseburgers? Besides threatening to erode values of personal responsibility, the legal campaign against the food industry threatens our notion of government. Nationally coordinated lawsuits seek to accomplish through litigation what has not been, and will likely not be, achieved through legislation. Last year, the House passed H.R. 1036, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act by a large, bipartisan vote. That bill bars frivolous lawsuits against the firearms industry for the misuse of legal products by others. H.R. 339 similarly seeks to bar frivolous lawsuits against the food industry for overconsumption of its legal products by others. It is appropriate for Congress to respond to this growing legal assault on the concept of personal responsibility. Mr. Chairman, it is not only important, but also fundamental that Americans have access to courts to redress legitimate wrongs and the harms they cause. The trial bar serves an invaluable purpose in helping average Americans gain rightful and proportionate compensation when harm is done. However, frivolous lawsuits such as the ones this legislation seeks to prevent serve only to undermine our legal system and those who truly need its protections. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the underlying bill, H.R. 339.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding of this bill that the court can impose a structured pay-out. And that is $10,000, and he can pay $10,000, then he is relieved under the bill.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I believe I understand the gentleman's question, and the point is that the person can get discharged in the course of bankruptcy including a payment, but that payment is not related to what his grocery bill is. It is related to what he can earn and presumably based upon the judgment and discretion of the court what should be paid in addition to a general discharge.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, will they be able to pay off the $10,000?

Mr. CANNON. If they can pay off $10,000? In other words, is it possible that someone who owes millions and millions of dollars in debt may be held responsible for $10,000? We would certainly hope so.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to associate myself with the comments of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) on these two points that he has just made and then point out in response to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) this bill is about getting money from people who have it. It is not about oppressing the poor. And I think the structure of the bill, if you look at it fairly, will show that I rise in support of Senate 1920. The amendment in the nature of a substitute of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) merely makes technical corrections to H.R. 975, which was passed by the House early last year. Given the uncontroversial nature of these revisions, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Last March the House passed H.R. 975 by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 315 to 113. The administration has endorsed this legislation. The House has voted affirmatively on five separate occasions to pass this bill. Today we are reconsidering this bill in an attempt to reignite a stalled process. We must take action. America's bankruptcy system is, in fact, broken. It gets worse every day with more filings that break record after record, putting an enormous strain on the judiciary's resources. I have seen numbers that indicate the exponential growth to the number of bankruptcy filings. I believe the increase in consumer bankruptcy filings will have adverse financial consequences for the American economy. In 1997 alone, more than $40 billion was discharged as a result of bankruptcy cases. This loss translates into a $400 annual tax on every household in our Nation in the form of higher prices and higher interest rates. I urge my colleagues to support the enactment of the amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 1920.

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

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what I would like to point out is if you look at the structure of the bill, this is not intended to keep people in slavery or economic servitude. It is intended to take money from those people who are gaming the system who have a large ability to earn income.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important here to agree where things are agreeable and to be clear about what the disagreements are. I think it is very clear that we have had a number of extensions to the farm bill. I think it is clear that those extensions have all been retroactive. I think it is clear that every Member of this body wants to make sure that this noncontroversial provision continues in place. I think everyone should agree here that it is important that farmers are able to get credit, and balancing the issues before us are important so that that credit system stays in place and so that we also enhance, by the way, the rest of our economy. The fact is the bill before us is a bipartisan bill. We have heard special interests uttered numerous times here, and perhaps we ought to have the same kind of response to that that we have in the Bible because it is so misleading. The fact is this is not a special interest bill. This is a bill that passed 315 to 115. This is a bipartisan bill that solves problems that we need to resolve in our economy. On the other hand, those people who are passionate about prosecuting possible acts of people who are against abortion, that represents I believe a special interest that should not be one that sets aside this bill and allows it to go forward. Another thing that we apparently disagree on is that this bill can be passed or not. The fact is this is a passable bill. It can be passed very quickly. It can solve the problems of our family farmers. It can reinstate chapter 12, which we all agree is very, very important, and it can move through a conference with the Senate and to the President for signature very quickly. We have done a number of things in this bill to make it helpful for Americans and for American consumers, and I would urge opposition to the amendment and support for the underlying bill.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 708, sponsored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), would require the conveyance of certain National Forest System lands in the Mendocino National Forest, California, to provide for the use of the proceeds from such conveyance for National Forest purposes, and for other purposes. This legislation would resolve a long-standing problem regarding the property boundary between the Mendocino National Forest and the Faraway Ranch in rural northern California. I urge support of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 708) to require the conveyance of certain National Forest Systems lands in Mendocino National Forest, California, to provide for the use of the proceeds from such conveyance for National Forest purposes, and for other purposes.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 408) to provide for expansion of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, as amended.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 408 introduced by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) of Michigan and amended by the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands, would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to expand the boundaries of the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore by acquiring from a willing seller approximately 104.5 acres of land adjacent to the Lakeshore along the Crystal River. H.R. 408, as amended, is supported by the majority and minority of the subcommittee. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the sponsor of this legislation. (Mr. CAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bills H.R. 408, H.R. 3062, and H.R. 708.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3062) to amend the Mineral Leasing Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue separately, for the same area, a lease for tar sand and a lease for oil and gas, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on November 16, 1981, Congress passed the Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act. This act was in direct response to the energy crisis of the late 1970s and a policy of the Carter administration to promote alternative energy sources. This law has not only failed to accomplish its primary objective, which was to stimulate the development of tar sands as an alternative fuel to imported oil, it has restricted conventional oil and gas development in over a million acres of land that is highly productive. The vast majority of this land is located in the Uinta Basin in my State of Utah. The reality is that extraction and processing of tar sands is an uneconomic venture in the United States. Even if these designated tar sands were designated for lease, the industry would be reluctant to acquire the leases since recovery and processing of the tar sands is so costly. Only one lease sale has occurred on the tar sands since 1981, totaling 1.34 percent of the lands. This fact clearly illustrates the shortcomings of the act. The potential reserves of conventional natural gas and oil under the tar sands areas is huge. This is a tremendous resource that is not currently available to the citizens of Utah or to the citizens of the United States who, in the recent past have and in the near future, will suffer from extremely high natural gas prices to heat their homes during the coming winter months. In addition to the valuable oil and gas resources that are being lost, the Federal Government and the citizens of Utah are losing hundreds of millions of dollars in potential royalty and tax revenues from producers who are willing to process the oil and gas deposits in the tar sands areas. The Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management would still administer these lands. Producers attempting to lease these lands will be subject to every existing environmental stipulation as well as any new regulation that may be placed on these lands. Protections are already in place to prevent any degradation of existing wilderness areas and wilderness study areas. The goal of my bill is to not circumvent or change any environmental regulations, but simply to make available for lease over 1 million acres of land that contain tremendous potential for natural gas and oil development by allowing the Secretary of the Interior to issue separately for the same area, a lease for tar sand and a lease for oil and gas development. Action is in the public interest and would help increase the Nation's energy independence. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.