AMENDMENT NO. 1 OFFERED BY MR. ACKERMAN

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

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Ackerman:

Section 4(2), insert after the period at the end the following: ``However, such term shall not include any slaughtering, packing, meat canning, rendering, or similar establishment that manufactures or distributes for human consumption any cattle, sheep, swine, goats, or horses, mules, or other equines, that, at the point of examination and inspection as required by section 3(a) of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 USC 603(a)), are unable to stand or walk unassisted at such establishment.''.

Section 4(6), insert after the period at the end the following: ``However, such term shall not include any slaughtering, packing, meat canning, rendering, or similar establishment that distributes for human consumption any cattle, sheep, swine, goats, or horses, or mules, or other equines, that, at the point of examination and inspection as required by section 3(a) of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 USC 603(a)), are unable to stand or walk unassisted at such establishment.''.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has nothing to do with trial lawyers or any other issue that has been basically discussed here today, but it is merely to correct what I think is an inadvertent omission in the bill.

My amendment would expand the definitions in the act to exclude any establishment that manufactures or sells meat from downed animals for human consumption from the protections of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, nearly 3 months have passed since the first mad cow was discovered in the United States and the very first food-related bill has reached the House floor. It is not a bill to protect the American people from mad cow disease and to safeguard the food chain, but it is instead a bill to protect lawsuits against food manufacturers for injuries related to weight gain.

[Time: 14:45]
With America's food and meat supply at risk, it is embarrassing that this special interest legislation is our first response to reforming food safety in the United States.

The USDA banned downers from the food supply noting that a non-ambulatory animal was 49 times more likely to have mad cow disease, and they issued a regulation banning it. Those who oppose this amendment will tell us that the amendment is not necessary because the bill before us already says companies that knowingly violate Federal or State law get no protection in the bill and that the USDA banned downers, but the USDA is not the Congress and a USDA ban on downers is not the law. It is merely a regulation.

So this amendment is needed to make it a law, as was, I believe, intended. Otherwise, slaughterers who knowingly violate the regulation, not a law, get protection from legal action for selling diseased meat from mad cows to someone whose brain may rot some 8 years from now.

In the aftermath of our first discovery of mad cow disease, Americans deserve more from Congress than just a bill preventing frivolous lawsuits which have already been successfully defeated in U.S. courts. Instead, we should be working to assure our constituents that the meat they are eating and feeding to their children is safe and free of mad cow disease.

Personal responsibility, yes, add me to the long line of people who have already said that they believe in it, but people should take personal responsibility from acts that they knowingly take and knowingly violate and voluntarily take.

A person cannot know that they are eating the meat of a sick animal because it is not labeled, and that is another issue. What about personal responsibilities of companies that knowingly sell meat from downers, from diseased animals, too sick to walk to the slaughter? We could take personal responsibility if the corporations took personal responsibility and put labels that said the meat we are eating is from a diseased downed cow or that the meat we are about to eat had a 99 percent chance of never being inspected.

According to a Consumers Union poll, seven in 10 Americans who eat meat say they would pay more for beef to support increased testing in the cattle, and in a Zogby poll, three out of four Americans find it unacceptable to have downed animals in our food system. In fact, the USDA tells us that it was a downed animal from Washington State that proved positive for mad cow disease this past December, and early last year in Canada, the infected mad cow was also a downed animal. That is not a coincidence.

The USDA ban on slaughtering downed animals for human consumption is based on sound science and is nearly identical to the Ackerman-LaTourette amendment that failed just three votes short of passage in this House in the past summer, and that was before the discovery of mad cow disease in the United States. Surely there are three more people in this House who now better understand this issue.

Mr. Chairman, we should not be passing bills to protect the irresponsible establishments that may knowingly sell meat from sick and fallen animals. This amendment would ensure that manufacturers and sellers who ignore the proven health risks from downed animals who ignore the USDA ban, not a law, and sell tainted meat from downed animals to the American public, are not protected from lawsuits under this Act. I do not believe that was the intention.

Mr. Chairman, the time is long overdue for this issue. This issue is so ripe it is beginning to get rotten. The American people deserve better than that, Mr. Chairman, and this Congress has the opportunity to act right now to do the right and proper thing to protect all of our constituents from an inadvertency that occurs within this bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this bill provides for a specific exemption for adulterated food, and anybody who eats meat which may have been infected with mad cow disease and comes down with the human variant of mad cow disease under this bill will have a cause of action against those who are responsible.

Secondly, if a person eats an adulterated hamburger and becomes seriously ill or perhaps dies of salmonella infection, this bill does not apply. The survivors will have a cause of action against those who provided the adulterated meat in the food chain.

What this bill does apply to is lawsuits that currently can be filed as a result of people eating too much, becoming obese and coming down with the diseases that are associated with obesity. That has nothing to do with downer cattle. It has nothing to do with mad cow disease. It merely means that people who have eaten too much cannot go back at those who have sold or provided a legal product in legal commerce.

Now, I wish that this debate would concentrate on the issues that are posed in this bill. The issue that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) has brought up is a very serious issue, but that issue is not presented in this bill, and if the gentleman from New York would look at page 6, lines 9 through 12 inclusive of the bill as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary, he would see that exemption there plain as day.

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

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

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and then again, the distinguished Chairman of the committee, although very knowledgeable, may very well be wrong.

I am holding the page with the very lines that he asked me to refer to, and what it basically does is it refers to

[Page: H965] GPO's PDF
government action, government action against those companies, not individual actions of those people. The government is not getting sick or certainly not getting sicker from eating the meat of diseased animals, but human beings are denied under this, not the government. Human beings who have eaten diseased meat from downed animals have no recourse under the law the way this is written.
Yes, if a person gains weight, and some of us have done that, from eating wrong and indulging a little bit too much, sometimes that evidence is all too evident, but when a person eats the meat of a diseased animal, they have already eaten the evidence, and the case is difficult enough to prove.

People have no protection, no ability to sue, and the gentleman, what he sought to do, if he rereads what he has asked me to do, he will see very, very clearly that they are not exempted from government action, but they are still protected from private citizens bringing private courses of action.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time just for a second, because when we are in the middle of a debate and we are trying to figure out the impact of amendments and coordinate them, it becomes a little unclear what is happening.

The original bill did say that an action regarding the sale of a qualified product which is adulterated, as described in section 402 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act was one of the things that was not covered under the base bill. The manager's amendment, however, struck that language and inserted instead, such terms shall not be construed to include an action brought under the Federal Trade Commission Act. It makes no reference to adulterated, I believe. Maybe I am misreading this, but this is one of those things where I think we should take absolutely no chance.

Even if it is redundant in some way, it clearly was not intended and I would hope that my colleagues would just accept the amendment. If it turns out to be redundant, then there are a whole bunch of things in the law that are redundant. That has never been something that we have shied away from. If we want to make something patently clear, we quite often make it redundant. We might say it three, four or five times in the same statute, and this is a point that I think needs to be made patently clear.

I yield back to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished chairman assured us at the outset of his remarks that private citizens would not be precluded from bringing private actions. It is very clear, to at least some of us who read the language of what is in the actual bill, that that is what happens, but given the chairman's genuine assurance that citizens would not be precluded, I fail to see what harm would be done if we specifically say that people have a right to bring action against those companies that knowingly and willfully sell meat from diseased fallen animals to the consuming public.

Mr. WATT. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman seems to be shaking his head yes. Maybe that means he is going to accede to the argument. If he is, I am happy to yield to him for that purpose.

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, it is not worth yielding then. I am not going to accede to this.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask that my colleagues vote ``no'' on the Ackerman amendment on three separate grounds.

First, the concept of adulterated food claims are specifically allowed, both under the base bill, where it specifically says adulterated in section 402 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and under the manager's amendment, which specifically says that the term ``qualified civil liability action'' does not include an action brought under the Federal Trade Commission Act or the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, it specifically defines adulterated food in section 342. A food shall not be deemed to be adulterated if it is considered in whole or part of any filthy, putrid or decomposed substance, which, clearly, mad cow disease or e-coli or anything else would be considered.

The second reason to reject this that it does not apply is the language of this particular bill expressly says that we are talking about claims relating to weight gain, obesity or any health condition that is associated with weight gain or obesity: diabetes, high cholesterol, heart disease. It does not have anything to do with mad cow disease. If a person eats a mad cow burger, their claim goes forward. If a person eats an e-coli burger, their claim goes forward.

[Time: 15:00]
A final reason. The gentleman says, well, if that is the case, why does the gentleman care about my amendment? Well, let me address that as well.

This amendment would exclude from the protections of the bill any company that uses particular methods to slaughter perfectly healthy animals. For example, if a company during the slaughtering process places cattle in positions, like in a coral, in which they cannot walk unassisted, then these perfectly law-abiding companies that make meat from perfectly healthy animals would be unfairly excluded from the bill. That is wrong.

Perfectly healthy animals may be unable to stand or walk unassisted during the production process, so this amendment unfairly excludes many law-abiding sellers or perfectly healthy meat from perfectly healthy animals.

For the aforementioned reasons, that it is not needed; and even if it was, it is inappropriate.

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

Mr. KELLER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I am just wondering whether we have the right manager's amendment, because I do not for the life of me see any of what the gentleman just described as being in the manager's amendment, or in the amendment that I have. Perhaps I have the wrong one.

The manager's amendment I have substitute language that says nothing about adulteration.

Mr. KELLER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. The manager's amendment specifically says, ``Such terms shall not be construed to exclude an action brought under the Federal Trade Commission Act or the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.'' I read the gentleman a section under the Federal, Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act dealing with adulterated products.

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. KELLER. Reclaiming my time once again, Mr. Chairman, I still, on the other grounds I mentioned earlier, it is still not needed because we are not talking about a claim based on weight gain or obesity.

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

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

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman is overlooking something. The government brings lawsuits for violation of the FDA act. Individuals cannot bring actions under the FDA act. Individuals bring civil cases under the tort laws, and that is what we are talking here.

This bill allows the government to bring a lawsuit. I want Mrs. Jones to be able to bring a lawsuit because her 8-year-old son was just made brain damaged and is going to die in 3 months because he ate a hamburger that somebody knowingly sold him that came from a downed animal that had mad cow disease. They cannot do that under this act because they are not the government.

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, and I respect the gentleman's enthusiasm, but his claim that that would be barred is patently

[Page: H966] GPO's PDF
untrue. Brain damage or death as a result of eating meat from an animal with mad cow disease is not a claim for weight gain or obesity. It is just totally not. It has nothing to do with this.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would then ask, Why is the gentleman protecting companies that allow that?

Mr. KELLER. Why do people allow mad cow burgers to be sold? I do not know that any company does knowingly allow mad cow burgers to be served.

Mr. ACKERMAN. We do not prevent it.

Mr. KELLER. Well, that is for another day and another forum. It has nothing to do with this particular bill.

Mr. ACKERMAN. It certainly does. That is exactly the point of this amendment the gentleman is speaking on.

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

I want to begin by acknowledging the tenacity of my friend from New York in continuing to attempt to pass what is basically an animal rights question. We have had this discussion many times. It is interesting listening to the debate on this, because as a cosponsor of this base legislation today, I am opposed to frivolous lawsuits. But we make a mistake when we leave the impression with our colleagues that there is a connection between a downed animal and a diseased animal. That in itself is grounds for a frivolous lawsuit, because a downed animal is not necessarily a sick animal. And a downed animal is not necessarily a BSE animal. That is what, if this amendment shall pass, is intended to do, is to make a tie between the two.

Now, I am sure the gentleman knows that a lot has transpired since we had this discussion on the floor last summer. USDA has already banned all downer cattle from the human food supply, period. His amendment, though, includes all livestock; and this would provide the grounds for a lawsuit under the general argument I have heard from too many of my colleagues over here today, that any firm that could be accused of slaughtering a hog that could not walk, and if you have ever raised hogs you know that many times something happens to their body physique that will cause them to just drop and you cannot get them up for any other reason other than just pick them up and carry them. Now, what that would have to do with adulterated food, I do not know; but if this legislation should pass with this amendment in it, that would be grounds for a lawsuit.

It is not fair or just to exclude some manufacturers from these legal protections who are processing food legally and in accordance with USDA regulations simply because some folks have an unrelated animal welfare concern about downer animals. That needs to be thoroughly understood by my colleagues on the floor. There is no connection whatsoever between a downed animal and a food safety concern, it is only after examination of a downed animal that shows that it is, in fact, a sick animal and should and must be excluded.

And as I said this last summer, any firm that puts a diseased animal knowingly into our food chain should be hung to the nearest tree. That, as the chairman has explained, is what this legislation is all about. It does not take away the right to sue for those things that are so clear.

I conclude by again saying, please, please do not continue to attempt on this bill or any other bill to associate downed animals with diseased animals with BSE. That is not a fair comparison. It is not. There is plenty of attention being given to the issue of animal health and welfare in other arenas. The House Committee on Agriculture has held one hearing on BSE, a field hearing on animal identification was held last Friday in Houston; and we will be holding more hearings on these issues in the months ahead.

No one is more interested in seeing that our food supply remain as safe as it is today. We are making progress. We will continue to make progress. But it is not in the best interest of anyone to continue to make the tie between downers and food safety.

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

Mr. Chairman, I stand here on the floor of this Congress, and I sometimes think I have passed through the looking glass. I wonder what our Founding Fathers would think if 200-some years later we would be standing here with a piece of legislation on the floor debating about someone ordering a super-sized order of french fries and not being able to push themselves away from the table soon enough so that that personal responsibility, so ingrained in the American character, is being pushed off across the entire American society. We might have to add on to every order of french fries if we are not able to protect these food suppliers.

I declined to sign onto this bill, although I support it, for that reason, that if we have to go down the path of protecting individuals and individual professions, we will never get done. I would like to see some blanket reform. But I stand in opposition to the Ackerman amendment.

A couple of points I would make. The Department of Agriculture, on balance, even though they have been more aggressive on downer livestock than I would have cared for, has done an excellent job in response to the BSE. The beef supply in the United States of America is the safest in the world, and the credibility that is there with our producers and the quality of that beef has been established by the confidence, as has been demonstrated by our consumers. That is what has held this market up.

The system we have in place does not need to be shaken up, nor does it need to have the safety of our food supply challenged on the floor of Congress when it has got such an outstanding record. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Ackerman amendment. The purpose of H.R. 339 is to protect the food industry from having to defend themselves from frivolous lawsuits. Baseless lawsuits drain away our economic productivity and interfere with economic growth.

It is important to point out that this bill does not change the fact that anyone legitimately injured by substandard food can sue. However, the Ackerman amendment would open the door for countless groundless suits that could potentially bankrupt our agra businesses and our farmers.

I believe this amendment is a schematic way to gut the purpose of the entire bill, allowing Americans to continue to avoid taking responsibility for food choices.

With that said, I am opposed to the amendment that defines a downer animal. I am from western Iowa. In my State, we raise about 25 percent of the pork. This amendment would put market hogs in the same category as older cows that are to be tested for BSE; but as clearly stated by the gentleman from Texas, there is no linkage there between a downer animal and a diseased animal.

Market hogs can suffer unintended injuries on the way to market that cause walking problems and thus subject them to this amendment. But these injuries have nothing to do with the safety and quality of the meat we eat. It is also important to note that hogs are not subject to neurological diseases like BSE. So I urge the body to oppose the Ackerman amendment.

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

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

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to one thing that the gentleman just said who just debated. I, obviously, did not know any of our Founding Fathers personally, so it is hard for me to imagine what would make them turn over in their grave or whatever, as he indicated. But I think they would be a lot more distressed that we were here in this body today saying that State legislators are incompetent to handle these issues in our Federalist form of government than they would likely be incensed with us dealing with this mundane issue having to do with french fries and hamburgers. I think that is what would distress our Founding Fathers. And I regret that the gentleman missed that part of the debate earlier here. I think that is the distressing thing about this debate.

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would agree with my friend from North Carolina. I think the

[Page: H967] GPO's PDF
Founding Fathers would be appalled that we were invading the 10th amendment purview of the States to determine these questions and imposing this standard for reasons that are lost on me.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding to me.

The gentleman from Iowa took it upon himself to speak for the Founding Fathers, which gives me the initiative to speak for the founding mothers. I think they would be aghast to see that this Congress is looking to protect rather prurient corporate interests at the expense of the health and safety of the American people.

It is not about protecting pigs, my colleague. It is about protecting people. And I say to the gentleman from Iowa, as well as the gentleman from Texas, my good friend, who has had many discussions with me on this issue, that the Ackerman amendment does not take away anybody's right to sue. It does not give anybody, as the gentleman asserted, the right to sue. People have a right to sue now. That is the status quo under the American system of jurisprudence. You can bring a lawsuit.

What the Ackerman amendment attempts to do is to prevent what the opposition is trying to do, and that is to provide an escape clause for those corporations who say it is a regulation, not a law; and, therefore, we are exempt from lawsuits.

The bill before us protects those people who knowingly and willfully sell bad meat to good people and says the public cannot sue them. The government can bring action for violating the FDA law, but people cannot sue under this provision.

It is appalling to think of who we are protecting here. I would have thought that those who represent the States that have cattle and pigs, and so many people make an important living from livestock, would understand the magnitude of the damage that they are doing to their own industry and their own constituencies. The world does not believe what they are saying, that the American food is the safest food in the world. You have lost billions of dollars.

The Japanese will not eat American hamburgers, and they are the ones who have been buying it all over the world. Europeans test every cow before they put it on the market. America, with all our wealth, cannot do that to protect our own people, and my colleagues' constituents are paying the price. Billions of dollars you have cost them. Wake up.

The American people do not want to eat this meat. And it is not because they are just a bunch of animal lovers. They will eat meat if they know that it is safe. And it is your job to protect that industry as well as the public. And the way to do that is to keep the deck honest; to allow people to bring a lawsuit if they think harm was done to them and do not exclude the industry and those who knowingly and willfully sell products that are tainted to the public.

How can one exercise personal responsibility if you do not know the facts? There is no label on your hamburger that says that this hamburger came from a diseased or downed cow. People would not eat it, and you know that. It is a charade that we are playing here. This has nothing to do with trial lawyers. This is a simple amendment that closes an escape clause that I believe, with all due respect, was inadvertently created by an oversight, regardless of your feeling on trial lawyers or anything else.

And I should make it clear, talking about pigs, that my amendment does apply to all livestock, not just cattle.

[Time: 15:15]
The gentleman from Texas is right because all livestock, cattle, sheep and pigs can bear the animal form of mad cow that can be passed on.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The time of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) has expired.

(On request of Mr. Watt, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Andrews was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)

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

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

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, the USDA, which is selectively cited by the gentleman from Texas giving it such great authority, happens to be the authority that says that downed animals are 49 times more likely to have mad cow disease than ambulatory animals. There is the connection. It is not that there is no connection, it is not just that a cow fell and cannot get up and does not have a button to press.

If it is a downed animal, regardless of why it is a downed animal, it is 49 percent more likely to have mad cow disease. Do Members want to play that game of Russian roulette with their children? I do not. I think others really do not, either. If Members want to protect the American people, guarantee that we are playing straight with the American people. It is their interest that we are trying to protect. For the sake of trying to make a few more pennies on the pound, you are jeopardizing the entire industry, as well as the safety of the American public.

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

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, the gentleman from New York keeps talking about BSE and mad cows and downers in the same breath. We are not arguing that today. With all due respect, the argument that the gentleman has just made, we have stock shows going on all over the country. A young boy or girl has raised this calf. They have shown it. Unfortunately, it breaks its leg. Under the gentleman's thinking, that calf immediately goes to the dump. It is unfit for human consumption no matter what because it is a downer and it cannot walk.

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

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

Mr. ACKERMAN. Under this gentleman's thinking, that beloved animal of that little boy who has shown him all around, if he falls and breaks his leg, that animal should be treated humanely and humanely slaughtered which would prevent it from being sold to the public.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) has expired.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 additional minutes.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey?

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard from the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. HAYES).

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This bill is a good bill and 89 percent of the American people support the concept that somebody should not be able to go to a restaurant, to a food processor or food distributor and be able to sue them because they became obese because of their bad eating habits. Let us get back to the subject at hand.

What is wrong with this amendment is that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) would completely gut the purpose of the bill. He keeps talking about deliberately and willfully putting into the meat supply diseased animals. We have laws against doing that now. But the gentleman's amendment does not say what he talks about.

The amendment says manufactured or distributed for human consumption. It does not say anything about willfully. It says manufactures or distributes. That means the processing plant, it means the distribution company, it means somebody who imports from another country where we have no control over what their laws are on downed animals. It means the restaurant or cafeteria that distributes the food. It means the grocery store that distributes the food. It does not address the specific concern of one particular instance.

This bill completely covers somebody who may be specifically suing because they ate tainted meat. But all the gentleman from New York is saying is if we have one instance from here on out where meat was sold that came from any downed animal, then that company loses the protection for all time under

[Page: H968] GPO's PDF
this bill. That is outrageous. It obviously completely guts the purpose of this legislation.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the gentleman would have it both ways. First the claim is that my amendment is redundant, the bill already does what it does. Now the gentleman is saying that it guts the bill. How can it be redundant and gut the bill?

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I never once said that this is redundant. What I said was there is language in the bill that protects an individual from being sued, a business from being sued by an individual, if they ate tainted meat. But the gentleman's amendment would prohibit a company from having the protection of this bill if at any time they ever sold one single downed animal or bought from a company that had processed one downed animal. That covers every single circumstance of every single company that is engaged in food processing in the country.

So obviously the gentleman's amendment, no matter what his underlying intent is, and his underlying intent has nothing to do with obesity, whatever the gentleman's underlying intent is, the effect of his amendment is to kill this bill because it would remove protection that is desired by 89 percent of the American people that we are coming forward with to do today from every single company in the food process because it does not require a willful and malicious intent; it just says all you had to do was distribute it once in the entire history of your company from this day forward, and you lose that protection under the law.

This is a foolish, ridiculous amendment, and I urge my colleagues to reject it. The purpose of the legislation before us is to protect the food industry from having to defend themselves from frivolous obesity-related lawsuits. No one has ever argued that downed animals caused obesity differently than non-downed animals.

This bill does not in any way relate to the issues of food safety, animal health or animal welfare. Products that do not meet the standards of our laws relating to food safety, animal health or animal welfare will not be protected by this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today is a very carefully thought out effort to address the growing problem of frivolous and costly lawsuits that do nothing but harm American consumers. These lawsuits have the consequence of adding unnecessary cost to the food industry and consumers to the sole benefit of trial lawyers.

The Ackerman amendment has nothing to do with this issue. It simply creates confusion about who should be afforded protection from obesity-related lawsuits. Because it is so loosely drafted, so carelessly drafted, not addressing anything to do with malicious or willful action, but anybody who manufactures or distributes, any restaurant, any grocery store, any wholesale business, any processor who has had any downed animal at any time, that business would, for all time, be denied the protection of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to oppose this outrageous amendment.

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

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

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am trying not to be insulted by being accused of having a foolish and ridiculous amendment. I am sure the gentleman is insulting the amendment.

Mr. GOODLATTE. I am referring to a very foolish amendment, the gentleman is correct.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Let me suggest to your very sanctimonious self that it was the chairman of this very committee that said my amendment was redundant. The author of the bill, rather, who said that the amendment was redundant, that what I am trying to do is already in the bill.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) has expired.

The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).

The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) will be postponed.

The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

SEQUENTIAL VOTES POSTPONED IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order: Amendment No. 6 offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott); amendment No. 7 offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt); amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews); and amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).

The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.

AMENDMENT NO. 6 OFFERED BY MR. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.

The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.

The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

RECORDED VOTE

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.

A recorded vote was ordered.