Mel Watt

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. WATT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. The chairman of our committee may be correct about that part of the bill, but only if the manager's amendment passes, I think would he be correct in what he has said, and at this point, while all of us are in support of the manager's amendment, I guess until this bill passes, I mean, we are still here.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am going to join my colleague from Michigan in supporting the amendment. I am not sure whether it was tongue-in-cheek that he was supporting the whole concept, but I cannot join him in supporting the bill if he is supporting the bill. I doubt that that is what he is doing. I think that was kind of tongue-in-cheek that he was proceeding, but I certainly support this amendment. It makes a terrible bill less terrible. We could not make it any worse, I do not think, and more importantly, from the sponsor's perspective, it keeps the bill from having to go to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. Scott) amendment. It seems to me to be absolutely consistent with the manager's amendment which said that this legislation was not going to be construed to include an action brought under the Federal Trade Commission Act. State consumer protection laws are characteristically State counterparts to the Federal Trade Commission Act. They are States' efforts to protect the same kind of things at the State level that the Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction over at the Federal level. Now, this kind of takes me back to the argument before, I had the notion that the reason that they really were striking the Federal Trade Commission Act from the applicability of this proposed law was because they really did not want this legislation to have to go to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, so it was more about them not wanting to delay today's proceedings and not wanting them to let the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for which there has been a long-standing tension on many issues between the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Energy and Commerce, they did not want them to have any jurisdiction over this. But if we are going to exclude actions brought under the Federal Trade Commission Act at the Federal level, in fairness, unless we are saying to the States that somehow or other they are less attentive to these issues or less intelligent or have less of an interest in protecting your citizens than your big brother Federal Government has, then it seems to me that we ought to be following the same process at the State level, and it is the State consumer protection laws that are the equivalent of the Federal Trade Commission Act on the Federal basis. So if we are going to be parallel or consistent in our evaluation of these things, it seems to me that the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) makes patently good sense. And of course I am not sure that any of this is designed to make patently good sense, but I think it is our obligation in this body to at least try to bring some consistency to it. Now I am assuming that under the Federal Trade Commission Act, if there are any individual causes of action, those things would be protected also. I do not know that. We have not had any hearings on this to make that kind of determination, but certainly the word ``person,'' as it is defined, would exclude State consumer protection laws that are typically administered by the attorney general for the protection of the citizens in that particular State, and perhaps that is the reason that the State attorneys general are so vigorously opposed to this legislation. They do not view us or the Federal Trade Commission as being their big brothers, and more brilliant, sometimes more arrogant, they would tell you. They think that they serve a pretty valuable role in this Federal system that we have. Again, we are dishonoring that role. I urge support for the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, is it not true that only the government could bring an action there? It would not be an individual action. And would that not be the exact point that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) is making?

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

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

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that is being offered simply strikes two words from the bill. Those words are ``or State.'' This is an opportunity for those of us who really believe in the Federalist system in which we operate. Those of us who believe truly in the rights of States to control what happens in their States and in their communities, those who believe truly in States' rights to get it right, I am giving you the opportunity. If there is a rationale for our involvement in this and if there is something that we should be exercising jurisdiction over, it is what comes into the Federal courts, and not what goes into the State courts. So the effect of this amendment is simply to take out the State court component of this. I want to confess up front that I think this is a bad idea, whether it is in the Federal court or the State court; so I am going to vote against the bill even if this amendment passes. But for those who believe that this is a good bill, that this is a worthy cause, if you have any belief in the Federalist form of government in which we operate, that States and State judiciaries and legislators have certain powers, then you should be supporting this amendment. State courts and legislatures are perfectly capable of determining which lawsuits are appropriate and which lawsuits constitute an undesired drain on their resources. Right now, 11 State legislatures, including California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, Washington and Wisconsin, the chairman's own State, have introduced or passed legislation to ban some form of obesity-related lawsuits. Some of those States have banned a broader range of cases than this proposed legislation would ban. H.R. 339, this legislation that we are considering, would displace and disrespect the actions of those State legislatures that have acted and impose a ban on those States that have not perceived a need to enact legislation banning obesity suits. The bill arrogantly presumes that State court judges are incapable; and I am going to keep saying that over, and over and over again. I have said it a million times; I may say it a million more times before this debate is over. It is arrogant for us to assume that State court judges are incapable of carrying out their judicial responsibilities. Should State court judges determine that any lawsuit lacks merit or appropriate proof, they can dismiss it. If they determine that a case is frivolous, they can dismiss it and sanction the attorneys involved. The proponents of this bill seek to prevent cases that have already gone through the system and have been dismissed. This bill is a solution in search of a problem, believe me. If there is a rationale for this bill, and I do not believe there is, we at least ought to respect the Federalist form in which we are operating and limit the application of the bill to cases filed in the Federal court. We are not Big Brother here in this body, and my colleagues have reminded us of that many, many times rhetorically. They say they believe in States' rights. If they do, if you do, my colleagues, please support the Watt amendment.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman giving me that enlightenment because I had been trying to stretch my imagination to figure out how this debate was about jobs, and I think the gentleman has put his finger on it. I do not necessarily agree with him, but at least that gives the argument some plausibility if one is trying to argue that the processing of hamburgers is manufacturing jobs and it is a manufacturing process and that we have got to protect manufacturing jobs in this country, then we want to do everything we can, but I think it is a stretch. As I said before the gentleman arrived on the floor, I have heard some pretty interesting explanations for job loss in this country, but this would be way, way, way down the list, like 999,000 on my list of the problems that is creating job loss in this country. I am surprised that the sponsors of this bill have couched it in terms of job creation, but the gentleman has certainly, with the years of experience he has been here, given me some framework within which to evaluate that. I am most appreciative to him. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. WATT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. WATT. But this is such a critical piece of legislation that it must be considered on the floor today and anything that would delay the consideration of it on the floor today, even if it went to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which has jurisdiction over most food issues and matters of commerce of this kind, would surely be counterproductive.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to substitute myself for the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and control the time in opposition to the bill.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute simply to respond to the prior speaker. Here we go, exactly what I said was about to happen is happening. 89 percent of the public support does not support these kinds of lawsuits, but that does not mean that we need a Federal statute to deal with this issue. In fact, it probably means exactly the opposite of that. Second, there have been a number of suits filed and every single one of them has been dismissed up to this point. So the process is working. And you are already beginning to see that this is really about having this opportunity in an official context to beat up on trial lawyers. We ought to be trying to do some serious legislating rather than just politicking with this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to start by putting a couple of things in perspective. First of all, I agree with a lot of what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) has said about personal responsibility, so I want to go on record as saying that. I personally like fast food on some occasions, but I also take personal responsibility for my own fitness. So I am not here about personal responsibility. People do have personal responsibility. Let me put that on record. I am here as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, a subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary and, for that reason, I have the responsibility to control the disposition of time on this bill. And because I am standing in the middle of it, I suspect there will be a number of things said that I need to clarify in advance to position myself. First of all, I suspect that my colleagues are going to hear that I am somehow a defender of fat, irresponsible people today. I suspect that at some time during the course of this debate, I am going to be characterized as the defender of irresponsible litigation. I suspect at some point during the course of this debate today I am going to be characterized as the defender of trial lawyers, the hated trial lawyers that many of my Republican colleagues just despise so much. Let me make it clear at the outset of this debate that I am not here as any of those things. I personally do not think much of these kinds of lawsuits, and I want to go on record as saying that. But that is not the criteria in which I can evaluate this proposed legislation. As a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I have some other responsibilities. I have a responsibility to defend the federalist system that has been set up under which we operate and which is a constitutional framework over which States and local governments have certain responsibilities and over which the Federal Government has certain responsibilities. And too often, what we hear in this body is lip service to that federalist system and lip service to the proposition that people support States' rights and, yet, when the rubber meets the road, they walk away from any commitment to it. I think that is what is happening with this legislation that we are debating today, because this has been an area that has been uniquely within the province of States and State judiciaries and State legislatures. I also want to warn us against this notion that somehow or another, our court system is run amok and that we should take responsibility as Members of Congress in trying to correct every aspect of our court system. Now, I want to tell my colleagues, I suspect that if there was anybody here who ought to be suspicious and concerned about State courts and State courts running amok, it would be me. I grew up in the era of the civil rights movement, and many of the State court judges during that era were not especially sensitive to people who looked like me and had the racial characteristics that I do. But one of the things that I learned during that process is that I do not always like the result that a court comes out with, but the system of justice and judicial responsibility and the division of responsibilities between the legislative branch and the judicial branch, between the Federal, State, and local governments is a pristine, wonderful system that we should honor, and sometimes we have to be patient and let this work itself out in a way over time, and that is exactly what has happened in this case. From the dropping of this bill to the time that we have come to the floor to debate it today, every single lawsuit that has been filed dealing with this issue, every single lawsuit has been dismissed by the courts. So when I say this is a solution in search of a problem, understand that there is no problem out there. The court system has already addressed this perceived problem that we have. This, I say to my colleagues, is an effort to take this politicized notion of personal responsibility and try to rub people's faces in it without regard to the federalist system in which we are operating. This bill would insulate an entire industry from liability and would undermine and insult, insult our State judiciaries in the various States around the country, and the State legislatures and the whole concept of Federalism. The growing trend in this body to attempt to preempt by legislation litigation that is deemed ``undesirable'' or ``frivolous'' is very troublesome. It gets us to a legislation by anecdote, a legislation by result, rather than any kind of honoring of the process that we should be working within. I believe it is arrogant and disrespectful of our system of government. This bill and others like it presume that State courts, State legislatures, and the citizens of the States themselves are woefully incompetent to address burdens on their systems of government and that, somehow, we, as Members of Congress, have some great intellectual capacity and responsibility up here to control everything that exists in our country. It is a wrong-headed approach that we have set upon. There is absolutely no evidence in support of the proposition that our States cannot handle these matters. The details of this bill drafted in haste will be aptly debated throughout the amendment process. But my major concern, and one that I will reflect in the amendments to the bill that I offer, is what we should be doing as national policymakers. I do not believe that overreacting to every headline constitutes responsible legislating. I hope that this body will get back to the business of evaluating the serious problems confronting the American people and developing some solutions to those problems: employment, the economy, deficits, war. And this bill does not do that. Simply put, as I indicated before, this is a solution in search of a problem, and it would not even be on the floor, I think, today if we were dealing with some of the problems that we really ought to be confronting. Mr. Chairman, with that, having set the framework, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT. The gentleman is not there yet. In that case, I hope he will get there, because if there is any ambiguity in this, we need to make sure that it is cleared up, and I think it is very ambiguous at this point. I would rather have a redundant provision in the bill than to have an ambiguous or no provision in the bill.

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

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

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman puts it a lot milder than I do. I am not surprised, but I am extremely insulted, that this piece of crap, this bill, would be put on the same level that our civil rights laws in this country have been put on. Now, I am not surprised. I knew that was coming, because we have had this discussion with my chairman on several occasions on this floor. But I want you to know that the notion that there are basic constitutional rights that the civil rights laws had to enact to enforce was based on rights that were articulated in the Constitution. The right to vote, and it is a shame that we had to have legislation at the Federal level to make it clear that the right to vote applied to all of our citizens in this country, there is no comparison between this bill and that. The right to travel on a bus and sit where you want, it is a shame that we had to have Federal legislation to tell the States that they had to enforce that basic human constitutional right. I am insulted that this piece of legislation, and if I went too far in calling it a piece of crap, I apologize to the Chair. I knew he shuddered when I said that, so maybe that is going too far. But it is an abomination for us to be trying to compare this statute to the civil rights laws. I am really disappointed that this kind of expansive, unprecedented interpretation of the Commerce Clause would be articulated by the chairman of our committee on the floor of the House of Representatives. Under the theory that has just been advanced, to tie it back to the Commerce Clause, to tie this legislation back to the Commerce Clause, anything could be taken over by the Federal Government. There would not be any State legislatures or State courts. Anything in commerce of any kind could be taken over. That is not what the Commerce Clause says. And with all due respect, I went to law school too. I took my constitutional law under a guy named Robert Bork. I do not think he would say that is what the Commerce Clause says. I am flabbergasted that we would be told on this floor that this proposed legislation is sanctioned by the Commerce Clause and that it is anywhere in the ball park close to what the civil rights laws were designed to do. We ought be ashamed of ourselves. And we ought be ashamed of ourselves for destroying the Federal concept that our Founding Fathers made for us. It would be something else if we were doing it about something that is real. There is not a single pending lawsuit now involved that has not already been dismissed. The States are already acting on this. It is not as if they are ignoring it. If you were in the State legislature, if you want to go vote on stuff like this, go to the State legislature. Many of us came out of the State legislatures. There are people there that are just as smart, just as intelligent as we are here in this body. For us to insult our State legislators and our State judiciary for some political purpose is unforgivable, in my opinion. announcement by the chairman pro tempore

Mr. WATT

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. WATT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. WATT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me also just make a couple of responses to the statement of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). Number one, it is interesting that the chairman thinks that the abortion issue should not be part of the bankruptcy bill. Seemingly, everybody who abuses the bankruptcy process other than people who have had judgments against them for destroying or damaging bankruptcy clinics would be an appropriate subject for this. I thought this whole thing was to try to get to people who are abusing the system. If that is not an abuse, then I am not sure I understand what it is. Second, in response to the gentleman's comments about this bill preserving criminal discharges, this is not about criminal discharges, this is about people who have gotten judgments against abortion clinic bombers or damagers, civil judgments, and had those defendants thumb their noses at those judgments by saying ``I am just going to declare bankruptcy so I do not have to pay this judgment.'' So if that is not an abuse, then I do not understand what an abuse is. If this bill is about dealing with abuse, then it seems to me people who fall into the category of abortion clinic abusers of the process should be equally accountable. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) the ranking member of Committee on the Judiciary.