F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar) who is always welcome on this side of the aisle. (Mr. SALAZAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the principal author of the bill. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 493, I call up the Senate bill (S. 397) to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, a gun by its very nature must be dangerous. So may an automobile or a knife, or a piece of machinery that does not work properly. There are a lot of dangerous things that we as human beings utilize; and if they work properly, they can be utilized for something that is good and something that is lawful. Tort law, however, rests upon a foundation of individual responsibility, in which the product may not be defined as defective unless there is something wrong with the product, rather than with the product's user. And what this bill attempts to do is to get tort law back to its original moorings where the manufacturer of the product that is not defective in its nature is not legally liable for the criminal misuse of that product by its user. That is what the issue is before the House today in consideration of S. 397. Now, S. 397 while preventing frivolous and abusive lawsuits also ensures that bad actors can continue to be sued. The bill allows the following types of lawsuits to be filed: first, an action against a person who transfers a firearm or ammunition knowing that it will be used to commit a crime of violence or drug- trafficking crime or a comparable or identical State felony law; Second, an action brought against the seller for negligent entrustment or negligence, per se; Third, actions in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product violates a State or Federal statute applicable to the sales or marketing when such violation was the proximate cause of the harm for which the relief is sought. And this exception would specifically allow lawsuits against firearms dealers such as the dealer whose firearm ended up in the hands of the D.C. snipers and those who fail to maintain the required inventory lists necessary to ensure they are alerted to any firearms theft; Fourth, actions for breach of contact or warranty in connection with the purchase of a firearm or ammunition, and actions for damages resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of a firearm or ammunition. This is a carefully crafted bill. It provides immunity for people who have not done anything wrong, even thought their products may be used in a criminal nature; but it does allow lawsuits to proceed against the bad actors. It ought to be passed. I am sure it will be passed, and finally we can lay this issue to rest after 6 years of debate. I urge the Members to support this legislation, to send it to the President for his signature, and then we can move on.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), my Democratic colleague on the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, today I am Introducing the ``Federal Judgeship and Administrative Efficiency Act of 2005.'' I urge the House to pass the legislation expeditiously. The purpose of this bill is to provide the President with the necessary authority to appoint needed circuit and district court judges and to increase the number of authorized bankruptcy judgeships. A further purpose is to make changes in the structure of the court of appeals system, which are required to modernize, streamline, and improve the administration of justice for nearly one in five Americans. Mr. Speaker, the last comprehensive judgeship bill that was passed by Congress was enacted in 1990. Since that time, the volume of cases handled by the judiciary has increased substantially. The Federal Judgeship and Administrative Efficiency Act authorizes the creation of 68 new judgeships--12 at the circuit court level and 56 at the district courts. In addition, the bill contains authority to create 24 new permanent or temporary bankruptcy judgeships. These new judgeships will benefit districts across America. When confirmed, these new judges will be in a position to help address a growing backlog of cases that threatens to clog our courts and imposes substantial human and economic costs on our citizens. A judiciary that fails in its basic obligation to dispense justice in a timely, fair, and dispassionate manner compromises its own credibility. A court that is too far removed from those whose disputes it is responsible for adjudicating impose severe costs on those who must appear before it. The bill before us speaks to these concerns by providing for the realignment of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the establishment of a new Twelfth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth has become so big--in geographic size, in workload, in number of active and senior judges--that it can no longer appropriately discharge its civic functions on behalf of the American people. Consider: The Ninth has 47 judges, a figure that approaches twice the number of total judges of the next largest circuit. The Ninth represents 56 million people, or roughly one-fifth of our Nation's population. This is 25 million more people than the second largest circuit. The Ninth encompasses nearly 40 percent of the geographic area of the United States. The Ninth Circuit also has the most number of appeals filed and the highest percentage increase in appeals filed over the past 4 years. It is the circuit-wide leader in the number of appeals still pending and ranks a close second in the longest median time until disposition. Given these and other problems created by the mammoth breadth and size of the Ninth, I believe the responsible action is to modernize and streamline the structure of the Courts of Appeals. Briefly, H.R. 4093 creates a new Ninth that will feature California, Guam, Hawaii, and the Northern Mariana Islands. The new Twelfth will consist of the States of Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Importantly in this regard, H.R. 4093 authorizes the President to appoint five new judges to permanent Ninth Circuit seats along with two other judges who will fill temporary seats. My bill provides that the official duty station for these newly authorized judges will be in California. These additions are consistent with requests made by the Judicial Conference and will ensure that future caseload demands on the new Ninth will more closely mirror its judgeship resources. California is not being singled out or punished by this legislation. Quite the contrary, the district and circuit courts that affect the rights of the citizens of California are being provided with their proportionate share of resources and being liberated to become more productive. Mr. Speaker, bigger does not always mean better. The constant expansion of the size of a court without also adopting commensurate reforms will, most assuredly, not result in improving the performance of the judiciary. The allocation of judicial resources must be made with an eye toward achieving structural coherence within each circuit. H.R. 4093 accomplishes that purpose and I urge its adoption.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this manager's amendment makes technical changes to the section of the bill that sets forth the information plaintiffs must provide in order for a judge to determine whether the lawsuit is banned by the bill or allowed to go forward under one of the bill's exceptions. These minor changes are meant to provide a judge with a clear understanding of the type of information the judge is to consider in deciding a motion to dismiss under H.R. 554. The pleading provision in H.R. 554 is meant to apply to any action claiming obesity-related damages, and this amendment makes clear that the pleading requirements will apply to all cases seeking obesity- related damages. Also adding the phrase ``for each defendant and cause of action'' clarifies that a judge must apply H.R. 554's pleading requirements to each specific claim. This prevents a plaintiff from improperly using a claim that is not barred by H.R. 554 as a means of pursuing obesity- related claims that are barred by the bill against the same or other defendants. This change would prevent entire industries from being ensnared in lawsuits where the relevant facts relate to only one company. Finally, other technical changes would simply ensure consistency by using the same terms in the pleading sections as are used elsewhere in the bill. I would ask all of my colleagues to support these common sense, technical amendments. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 554, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act of 2005. The food service industry employs some 12 million people, making it the Nation's largest private sector employer. This vital sector of our economy has recently come under attack by lawsuits alleging it should pay monetary damages based upon legal theories holding it liable for the overconsumption of its products. H.R. 554, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act, would correct this disturbing trend. Introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), this legislation would generally prohibit frivolous obesity- or weight gain-related claims against the food industry. It would, however, allow obesity-related claims to go forward in several circumstances, including cases in which a State or Federal law was broken and as a result a person suffered harm. Under H.R. 554, cases could go forward in which a company violates an expressed contract or warranty. Also, because H.R. 554 applies only to claims based on weight gain or obesity, lawsuits could still proceed if, for example, someone gets sick from consuming tainted food. This legislation passed the House of Representatives during the 108th Congress in the form of H.R. 339 with a large bipartisan vote of 276 to 139. According to a recent Gallup Poll, ``Nearly nine in 10 Americans oppose holding the fast-food industry legally responsible for diet- related health problems of people who eat that kind of food on a regular basis . . . those who describe themselves as overweight are no more likely than others to blame the fast-food industry for obesity-related health problems or to favor lawsuits against the industry.'' As one judge put it: ``If a person knows or should know that eating copious orders of supersized McDonald's products is unhealthy and may result in weight gain, it is not the place of the law to protect them from their own excesses.'' Even the Los Angeles Times has editorialized against such lawsuits, stating: ``If kids are chowing down to excess on junk food, aren't their parents responsible for cracking down? And if parents or other grown-ups overindulge, isn't it their fault, not that of the purveyors of fast food? . . . Why boost their food bills just because of legal jousting? People shouldn't get stuffed, but this line of litigation should.'' The threat posed to our national economy is clear. Personal injury attorney and obesity lawsuit litigator John Banzhaf said recently, ``You may not like it . . . but we'll find a judge. And then we'll find a jury'' that will find restaurants liable for their customers' overeating. According to news reports of a recent legal conference, a panel of four lawyers argued that the overweight lawsuit movement ``would need to extend beyond the obvious targets like restaurants, fast-food chains, and food manufacturers to bring about substantial policy changes . . . '' Dr. Gerald Musante, a clinical psychologist who trained at Duke University Medical Center, has worked for more than 30 years with thousands of obese patients. He is the founder of the Structure House, a residential weight loss facility in Durham, North Carolina. Dr. Musante said the following at a hearing in the other body on this legislation: ``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.'' Even the chairman of the American Council for Fitness and Nutrition, Susan Finn, has written that ``if you're obese, you don't need a lawyer; you need to see your doctor, a nutritionist, and a physical trainer. Playing the courtroom blame game won't make anyone thinner or healthier . . . '' Besides threatening to erode values of personal responsibility, the lawsuit campaign against the food industry threatens the separation of powers. Nationally coordinated lawsuits seek to accomplish through litigation what has not been achieved by legislation and the democratic process. As one mastermind behind the lawsuits against the food industry has stated, ``If the legislatures won't legislate, then the trial lawyers will litigate.'' Madam Chairman, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act will help preserve the separation of powers, support the principle of personal responsibility, and help protect the largest private sector employer in the United States. I urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. 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 H.R. 554.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I will support the amendment at this time, but I believe that the language may need to be refined during conference and pledge that I will work with the gentlewoman from New York to refine the language if it is determined to be necessary.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, once again, we see games being played by the minority party. The gentleman from Michigan has stood up and said he is opposed to reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act so he is qualified to introduce this motion to recommit, and the motion to recommit has to do with price gouging. Nobody's for price gouging. There are laws on the books that have the Federal Trade Commission investigate price gouging. Every time there has been a spike in fuel prices, petroleum prices, the FTC has been on the case. They have investigated it according to law, and in most cases, they have found that no price gouging has occurred. There are certain legislative provisions of the Violence Against Women Act that expire on Friday, September 30, 2005, and this amendment, once again, is a poison pill that is introduced at the last minute. We have heard complaints from the other side of the aisle about legislation not receiving a hearing or formal committee consideration. We heard that earlier today, and what happens is there is a motion to recommit, introduced by an opponent of reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, that wants to put something that is completely unrelated into a Department of Justice reauthorization bill. Whatever happened to State prerogatives, to allow State Attorneys General to investigate whether State law is violated? This motion to recommit blows the concept of federalism into little teeny pieces and will tie the hands of your State Attorney General and mine to look into price gouging. It is a poorly drafted amendment. It does not relate to reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. It is something that is put in in an extremely hostile manner to try and get the job done in the Violence Against Women Act. If my colleagues are for the Violence Against Women Act being reauthorized promptly, vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit. Vote ``yes'' on the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would agree and would work with the gentleman from Nevada to address this problem as the bill moves to conference.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. 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 H. Con. Res. 245.