Chris Cannon

Mr. CANNON

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

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the passage of H.R. 4295. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4295) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 12760 South Park Avenue in Riverton, Utah, as the ``Mont and Mark Stephensen Veterans Memorial Post Office Building''.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I introduced H.R. 4295 to honor two individuals for their patriotic service and ultimate sacrifice for their country. All members of the Utah congressional delegation have cosponsored this legislation to pay homage to these brave and capable soldiers. Mont and Mark Stevenson were brothers who shared many things. Both were born in Riverton, Utah; both attended Brigham Young University; and most importantly, both answered their country's call to war. Mont joined the Army Air Corps and served during World War II, while Mark joined the Air Force and served during Vietnam. Mont achieved the rank of captain, while his brother achieved the rank of lieutenant colonel. Sadly, both of these brave men were killed serving their country. In a bombing mission over Germany on December 23, 1944, Mont's plane was shot down, and he was reported as being killed in action. He was initially buried in Luxemburg, but was moved and buried in Riverton with full honors after the war's end. During Vietnam, Mark was shot down on his 94th combat mission, a recon flight over Hanoi. He went down with the plane and was reported missing in action or killed in action on April 29, 1967. Mark was declared dead by the government in 1978, and in 1988 his remains were discovered. Mark was also buried in Riverton with full military honors. This legislation is not the first honor that these heroes have received. In 1982, Hill Air Force Base renamed their base theater in honor of these two men. Passage of this legislation will allow two brothers that lost their lives while defending our great Nation to receive the honor of having their names placed on their hometown's post office building. I want to thank Chairman Davis for his support and work on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4107, legislation authored by the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings). The bill would designate this post office in Baltimore, Maryland, as the Lena K. Lee Post Office Building. All Members of the Maryland delegation have cosponsored this legislation. A woman with undying ambition and an unstoppable desire to help others, the Honorable Lena K. Lee, was often referred to as a master teacher, union leader, lawyer, and legislator. Her leadership example through the years has provided countless opportunities for young and determined African Americans in Maryland. Delegate Lee received her bachelor's degree from Morgan State University in 1939 and her master's from New York University in 1947. Before her days in politics, Delegate Lee was a teacher and eventually a principal in the Baltimore City public school system. In 1952, she became the third woman to receive her law degree from the University of Maryland School of Law. In 1967, she began a 16-year term as the first African American female lawyer to serve in the House of Delegates. During her tenure, she fought to eradicate social inequality and advocated tirelessly for women's rights. In addition, Delegate Lee was instrumental in helping Morgan State College achieve university status and in saving the Orchard Street Church, a site of the Underground Railroad, from destruction. She has also served as an advocate for the health of Maryland prisoners as well as a supporter in the reconstruction of the new Provident Hospital. She served as a member of numerous organizations, such as the NAACP, the Urban League, the League of Women Voters. Most notably, she was the first African American woman to serve as the vice-chair of the Baltimore City delegation to the general assembly, and one of the founders of the Women Legislators of Maryland and the Maryland Legislative Black Caucus. She has been the recipient of numerous awards, honors, and citations, including the Presidential Citation from the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education and membership into the Maryland Women's Hall of Fame. I encourage all Members to come together to pass H.R. 4107 to honor Delegate Lena K. Lee for her constant perseverance and courage in her quest for equality. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support passage of H.R. 4107, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 574) congratulating the Los Angeles Galaxy on their victory in the 2005 Major League Soccer championship.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise with some jealousy in support of House Resolution 574, introduced by the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra). This resolution would congratulate the Los Angeles Galaxy on their victory in the 2005 Major League Soccer championship. It is my hope that the Salt Lake Real may someday emulate the Galaxy. The second MLS title for the club, the 1-0 win over the New England Revolution in extra time, marked the dominance of one of the most experienced and talented teams in Major League Soccer. Although a veteran squad, the beginning of the season was plagued with inconsistent play in which the team fought to recover. The ups and downs of the season, however, did not stop the Galaxy from concentrating on reaching the title contest. After a loss in the regular season finale, the Galaxy made one of the most impressive runs in playoff history. They knocked off the number one seed in the West in the first round and then took the road to beat Colorado. Finally, when reaching the championship, they took out the number one seeded team in the East with a thrilling goal from Guillermo Ramirez in the first overtime period. Now qualified for two international tournaments next season, the Galaxy has a chance to repeat as MLS champions, as well as a chance to give their fans and supporters an even more exciting and satisfying season. I urge all Members to join me in congratulating the Los Angeles Galaxy in their successful and momentous season by adopting House Resolution 574. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) for having introduced this bill, and I urge Members to support adoption of House Resolution 574. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 218) recognizing the centennial of sustained immigration from the Philippines to the United States and acknowledging the contributions of our Filipino-American community to our country over the last century.

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 resolution under consideration.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 218 introduced by the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Case). This resolution would recognize the centennial of sustained immigration from the Philippines to the United States and acknowledge the contributions of our Filipino- American community to our country over the last century. According to the 2000 census, there are 2.4 million Filipino- Americans currently residing in the United States. Two of the most concentrated States being California with 1.1 million Filipino- Americans and the State of Hawaii with over 250,000. The United States and the Philippines have built a lasting relationship starting with the period of United States governance between 1898 and 1946. After its independence in 1946, the Philippines have proven to be one of this country's most local international allies. The contributions to the United States of Filipino-Americans are seen in all facets of our society. They have served in the armed forces, in World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and the current fight against terrorism in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Their rich culture and ideals have also surfaced in our society by their contributions to the arts, politics, medicine and many other areas. In December 2005, the Filipino Centennial Celebration Commission in Hawaii will begin a year-long observance of the 100th anniversary of the first Filipino arrivals in the State. The first 15 Filipino immigrants arrived in Honolulu on December 6, 1906, and presently, the Filipino and part-Filipino component of the State population is now roughly 23 percent. More and more, Filipinos and Americans of Filipino ancestry are assuming positions of power and responsibility in the State and in the private sector. Filipinos have made their mark on United States soil since they started arriving 100 years ago, and the momentum continues to make that mark even greater and will continue to do so in the years to come. I urge all Members to join me in recognizing the numerous contributions that the Filipino-American population has made in the United States and celebrate the centennial of sustained immigration from the Philippines to the United States. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of S. 52, the Senate companion bill to an identical bill I introduced earlier this year. This legislation is important to my constituents, it would allow Beaver County, Utah to obtain and maintain the former Minersville State Park without restrictions. This legislation would permit county officials to sell a small portion of this land to offset funding needed to operate and maintain the park. In 1963, the BLM first granted a patent to Beaver County, Utah for the lands that are now part of Minersville State Park, and in 1964, title was transferred to the State of Utah Division of Parks and Recreation. However, under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, Utah did not have authority to transfer title. Over the years, the State of Utah has made significant improvements to the Park, including building restrooms, campgrounds, a boat launch ramp, an entrance station, a pavilion and a maintenance building. Under S. 52, Beaver County would be authorized to sell, at fair market value, portions of the property solely for maintenance and development of the recreational site. Allowing the county this authority is vital to provide for adequate park maintenance. Currently, the park estimates that it is losing approximately $90,000 annually. This legislation gives Beaver County the necessary flexibility to generate revenue for continued use, without which Utah will be forced to close the park. Minersville State Park is a beautiful recreational site and extremely important to the residents, my constituents, in the surrounding area. Passage of this bill will prevent the park from closing by enabling the county to maintain and operate the park. S. 52 is important legislation to both Beaver County and to my state of Utah. This legislation passed the Senate unanimously both in the 108th Congress and in late July of this year. I urge passage of this legislation, it will benefit Utahns and all those who wish to visit this park.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for his leadership on this issue. I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 268, which seeks to remind the world of the obvious: The Internet has revolutionized the way business is done here and throughout the world. It has created new industries, revitalized struggling industries and has helped to open new markets for American goods. It allows a small business in Utah to compete on a global scale by marketing, selling and delivering products anywhere in the world. It has done so with minimal government intrusion. From my home State of Utah, international trade is our fastest- growing sector, and one of the greatest facilitators of this is the Internet. Nearly three in four of Utah households own a computer, a higher percentage than in any other State, and 63 percent are online. That is about the fifth highest rate of Internet usage in the country. The Internet has become the greatest ally of our small entrepreneurs. Companies like 1-800-Contacts and Overstock.Com make their home in Utah and are able to sell anywhere in the country and in the world. This empowerment is not just felt in Utah. After $1 trillion of private investment in the Internet, it is no longer just a toy; it is the backbone of the American economy. Today, nearly half a billion dollars in commerce happens every day on the Internet. It is critical infrastructure, and we must do everything in our power to ensure its stability and security. This resolution has become even more important as the United Nations is considering proposals to radically change the way the Internet is managed. A group of nations, including China, North Korea and Iran, are pushing for a U.N. Security Council-like organization to govern the Internet. This new bureaucratic nightmare would replace the private- public partnership that so successfully manages the Internet infrastructure today through a nonprofit corporation called Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Number, ICANN. I am pleased that, last night, delegates at the U.S. summit ignored those calls to turn ICANN over to less-developed nations and ensured for the present, at least, that the United States will control the global Internet. This is just the first battle. The battle and security of our electronic economy can never be left to a tie-breaking vote by Kim Jong-Il. I urge my colleagues to vote for H. Con. Res. 268. The resolution of the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) sends a strong message to the rest of the world about the importance of free and unfettered Internet to our Nation's businesses and to the proliferation of freedom and to self-determination around the world. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter I wrote in October to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urging her to resist this internationalization of the Internet. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, October 20, 2005. Hon. Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC. Dear Madam Secretary: The final report of the United Nations Working Group on Internet Government reveals perfectly why its recommendations should be and will be rejected. The report demonstrates beyond contradiction that the Working Group and the United Nations itself is dangerously disconnected from reality. You are certainly aware, Madam Secretary, of the on-going investigations of mismanagement by the United Nations and rampant corruption in the Oil for Food program. You are further aware of the fecklessness of United Nations operations in the last few years. The organization's chaos and budgetary uncertainties revealed by audit after audit are a matter of public record. In contrast, the Internet has flourished in an incredibly short time into a powerful engine for human growth. Its potential contributions to economic growth in less developed countries dwarfs anything the United Nations could conceivably provide, and even the direct foreign aid that the United States and other advanced countries can marshal. In fact, the Internet's proliferation is the direct result of the hands-off management applied by the United States. There is no other country on the face of the earth whose government would have had the restraint to permit the freedom of thought and action that has produced the present benefits and future promise of the Internet. Under the circumstances, it is nothing short of preposterous to suggest that any aspect of management of this amazing engine of knowledge and development be turned over to bureaucrats under the sway and direction of some of the most brutal and controlling tyrants in the world whose antipathy to the free flow of information is pathological. That a United Nations entity could make such a proposal and expect it to be taken seriously is all the evidence one needs that the United Nations is not fit to undertake the task. I have no doubt that my appraisal of the situation coincides with yours, and I urge you to express our feelings as strongly as possible. In any event, you may count on my opposition to any implementation of the Working Group's report. Sincerely, Chris Cannon.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4128, legislation that would prohibit State and local governments that exercise eminent domain for economic development purposes from receiving federal funds. John Adams once said ``Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist.'' I join my colleagues in taking action to secure private property rights. The recent Supreme Court decision Kelo v City of New London eviscerated one of our most fundamental constitutional rights. This case dealt a serious blow to property rights and it is incumbent upon Congress, a co-equal branch of government, to remedy this erroneous decision. Eminent domain, or the ``despotic power,'' as Justice William Patterson called it in 1795, is the power to force citizens from their homes and small businesses. The Members of the Constitutional Convention were cognizant to the possibility of abuse and that's why the Fifth Amendment provides the simple restriction and remedy: ``nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.'' The expansion of eminent domain began with the urban renewal movement in the 1950's and it continues today. A recent study by the Institute for Justice found nearly 10,000 cases from 1998 to 2002 of local governments in over 40 States using or threatening to use eminent domain to transfer home and properties from one private owner to another. Simply put, this abuse has to stop! Three months prior to the Kelo decision, lawmakers in my home state of Utah passed Senate Bill 184, preventing the exercise of eminent domain authority by redevelopment agencies, which otherwise has the power to transfer land from one private entity to another. This legislation effectively took the matter out of the courts by placing a higher value on the private property rights of individuals than a city's desire to increase tax revenues. Just as this legislation served as a wake-up call to redevelopment agencies throughout Utah, I believe the Kelo decision woke America up to the fact that over time, our property rights have quietly been eroded like a stream of water slowly erodes its bank. Fortunately, this erosion has not gone unnoticed by westerners or those they've sent to Washington to represent them. Private property rights have long been held close to the heart by families and landowners in the Western United States and for good reason. Their farms and ranches have been their livelihood and part of our national heritage since the frontier was closed and the West was settled. Today many westerners not only have to fight for their economic survival but also have to worry whether their property will be around for them to pass on to future generations. The Federal Government owns more than 50 percent of all land in the West and the population continues to grow. I am Chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus, and one of our core principles is ``the necessity to protect private property.'' It is the Caucus' position that property rights are the foundation of a free society; that landowners should be compensated when their land is taken or when regulations deprive them of the use of their property. In H.R. 4128, Chairman Sensenbrenner and the Committee have produced a bill that represents an important step towards revitalizing basic property rights in this country. I also believe there is more that can be done to help stem the long- term trend away from property right protections. I, along with my western colleagues, plan to introduce a broad, comprehensive piece of property rights legislation in the near future that will restore much of what has been lost. We believe this bill, in addition to H.R. 4128, will help breathe life into the property rights movement. The property rights issue is not a class issue. It's not a partisan issue. It's an issue that concerns every property owner in the United States. As Justice Sandra Day O'Conner said in her dissent, ``The specter of condemnation hangs over all property, nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.'' I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting H.R. 4128 to prevent further abuse of government power.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 1606, legislation that will exempt blogs, e-mail and other online speech from campaign finance laws. When Congress passed campaign finance reform in 2002, the legislation did not identify political speech over the Internet as a target of the new regulations. The proponents of the law argued its intent was to restrict money not speech. But in April a federal judge sided with campaign finance reform zealots and ruled the FEC cannot completely exempt online speech from the requirements of the Campaign Finance Reform law. I'm not here to revisit arguments for or against campaign finance reform. I'm here today to call for Congress to recognize the Internet as a safe harbor for political speech. Everyday thousands of bloggers register displeasure or support with Congress, the Supreme Court, the President, even their local elected officials. But now, we are on the cusp of a new FEC regulation that could stifle free expression. Without Congressional action today, arbitrary restrictions would be imposed on blogs and other web content deterring participation from the very segment of our population that we want to encourage to be politically active. Thomas Jefferson was right when he said: ``The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right.'' Mr. Speaker, this legislation will protect, in its infancy, what could be a powerful medium (or media) for the opinion of the people to be heard. The way our Nation communicates today is almost unrecognizable for those of us that were in Washington, DC during the 1970s. We have seen the innovation and democratization of the Internet in just the last decade. This legislation will promote democracy and shutter those who intend to manage through regulation this amazing engine of communication and knowledge. The Internet, through such safe havens of individual expression and opinion like blogs, has put the power in the hands of the people, where it truly belongs, precisely where Thomas Jefferson wanted it. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) for introducing this important bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 420, the Lawsuit Abuse and Reduction Act, LARA, and I oppose the substitute amendment. This bill, the underlying bill, continues the commitment of the House Republicans to grow our economy, help small businesses, and put a stop to abusive lawsuits. This bill does that and will help millions of small businesses combat some of the worst abuses by frivolous lawsuits. In particular, LARA would make mandatory the sanctions and monetary penalties under Federal Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for filing frivolous lawsuits and abusing the litigation process. Or it would also abolish the free pass provisions that allow parties and their attorneys to avoid sanctions by withdrawing a suit within 21 days after a motion for sanctions has been filed. It would also permit monetary sanctions including reimbursement of reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs in connection with frivolous lawsuits. It would extends Rule 11's provisions to include State cases in which the State judge finds the case substantially affects interstate commerce. Frivolous lawsuits have discouraged and stifled American businesses long enough. The more we control lawsuit abuse, the stronger our businesses will be, and the more jobs will be created. This legislation protects the integrity of the judicial system by penalizing the bad actors in litigation, both plaintiffs and defendants, I might say. Civil litigation was once a last-resort remedy to settle limited disputes and quarrels, but recent years have brought a litigation explosion. The number of civil lawsuits has tripled since the 1960s and has gripped the American citizens and small businesses with a fear of costly and unwarranted lawsuits. The threat of abusive litigation forces businesses to settle frivolous claims, rather than to go through the expensive and time- consuming process of defending lawsuits from the discovery process all the way to trial. This is, in essence, legal blackmail and needs to be ended. While it costs the plaintiff only a little more than a small filing fee to begin a lawsuit, it costs much more for a small business to defend against it, jeopardizing its ability to survive. LARA tells those attorneys who are intent on filing a lawsuit to take the responsibility to review the case and make sure it is legitimate before filing, or be ready for sanctions. I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, for having prepared this legislation and moved it forward as he has. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and oppose the substitute amendment.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is substantially the same as the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), which was defeated on the House floor last year by a vote of 166 to 250, and it should be defeated again this year. This amendment must be defeated because it would gut the bill. This amendment, if adopted, would allow anyone to eat as many health bars and drink as many diet shakes as they wanted and then sue the makers of the health bars and the diet shakes for millions of dollars for making them fat when the health bar and diet shake manufacturers had done absolutely nothing wrong. The term ``dietary supplement,'' as defined in 21 U.S.C. can include just about any food imaginable. It is defined in 21 U.S.C. 321(ff) as ``a product intended to supplement the diet that bears or contains one or more of the following ingredients,'' including ``a vitamin or mineral.'' Do we really want to encourage lawsuits by people who get fat because they choose to eat too much food that happens to meet this definition? Of course not. And that is why this amendment must be defeated. The same concept of personal responsibility should apply to anyone who chooses to eat too many health bars or diet shakes, or other similar products, just as it should be applied to anyone else. If you want to destroy every company that sells products that help keep our waistlines trim by allowing them to be sued out of existence, then vote for this amendment. But if you want to help combat the obesity problem in America, vote down this gutting amendment and preserve the concept of personal responsibility. Allowing the types of lawsuits this amendment would allow flatly contradicts the advice of our Nation's leading nutritionists. Listen to the insightful words of Dr. Gerard Musante, a clinical psychologist with training at Duke University Medical Center, who has worked for more than 30 years with thousands of obese people. He is the founder of Structure House, a residential weight-loss facility in Durham, North Carolina. He said the following at a Senate hearing on this legislation: ``Lawsuits are pointing fingers at the food industry in an attempt to curb the Nation's obesity epidemic. These lawsuits do nothing but enable consumers to feel powerless in a battle for maintaining one's own personal health. The truth is, we as consumers have control over the food choices we make, and we must issue our better judgment when making these decisions. Negative life-style choices cause obesity, not a trip to the fast food restaurant or a cookie high in trans fat. ``Through working with obese patients, I have learned that the worst thing one can do is blame an outside force to get themselves `off the hook,' to say it is 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. The fact that we are addressing the issue here today is a step in the right direction.'' Even the chairman of the American Council For Fitness and Nutrition, Susan Finn, has written that ``Although obesity is a serious health threat to millions of Americans, lawsuits and fingerpointing are not realistic solutions. If you are 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.'' Section 4(5)(b) of H.R. 554 makes it clear that obesity-related lawsuits can be brought by anyone who can prove he has suffered harm as a result of a violation of State or Federal law, including laws that prohibit deceptive or misleading advertising, by showing they individually and justifiably relied on such deceptive or misleading advertising and such reliance was the proximate cause of their injury. So if a manufacturer of a health bar or a diet shake lies concerning the calorie content of the food, and someone relies on that false statement and suffers injury, the person can sue the manufacturer under this legislation. But let us not encourage people to sue makers of health bars and diet shakes because they choose to eat too many of them and get fat. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CANNON

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

Mr. CANNON. I am not sure when we would work together on the amendment. I suppose perhaps in conference we could work on the issue, but I am loath to commit the chairman to that process.

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

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for the time. Unfortunately, the food industry has been targeted by a variety of unfounded legal claims which allege businesses should pay monetary damages and be subject to equitable remedies based on novel legal theories of liability for the overconsumption of its legal products. Obesity is a problem in America, but it is not evident that the availability of high-fat food or restaurants are the sole cause. A number of studies have shown that a lack of physical activity, that is, not exercising, has contributed to the rise of obesity and not solely one's caloric intake. In the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, which I chaired last Congress, we explored the threat the food industry and its workers face from frivolous litigation, the threat to personal responsibility posed by the proliferation of such litigation, and the need for passage of the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act. Since the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller) introduced a similar bill last year, 21 States have passed laws banning these so-called obesity lawsuits. The opponents of this bill will claim that this shows that Congress should not intervene. In reality, it means we must. Without a complete ban on these frivolous lawsuits, rogue trial lawyers, and I have many trial lawyers who are friends and who work very hard to get the appropriate kind of compensation for people who are injured, but many of these rogue trial lawyers will forum shop until they find a State and a district that gets them the exorbitant payday that they seek. I would remind my colleagues that John Banzhaf, an attorney who testified last year against this bill, stated in 2003, ``Somewhere, there is going to be a judge and a jury that will buy this, and once we get the first verdict, as we did with tobacco, it will open the floodgates.'' It is unlikely that lawsuits against food establishments over their menus will make us healthier. Such lawsuits will threaten thousands of jobs and, more importantly, such lawsuits send the wrong message regarding personal choices and personal responsibility. Do we want our kids growing up believing it is always someone else's fault? Mr. Chairman, it is not only important, but also fundamental that Americans have access to courts to address their legitimate wrongs and the harms that 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 and the moral fiber of Americans who should be self-reliant and responsible for their choices. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill, H.R. 554.