Ric Keller

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2004. The overriding central purpose of this legislation is to prevent frivolous lawsuits from being filed in the first place. To achieve this, we provide for tough, mandatory sanctions, including a three strikes and you are out penalty, which I authored. Now should Members vote for this legislation? To determine that answer, may I suggest that Members consider three questions: First, do Members believe frivolous lawsuits waste good people's time and money? Second, should lawyers who bring frivolous lawsuits face tough mandatory sanctions? Third, when a court has determined that an attorney has brought at least three frivolous lawsuits under Rule 11, should there be a three strikes and you are out penalty? If the answers to those questions are yes, Members should vote in favor of this legislation. In fact, I will take it a step further and tell Members flat out that the answers to those questions are yes, at least according to Senator John Edwards, a Democrat from North Carolina, who was a plaintiff's personal injury attorney. On December 15, 2003, Newsweek magazine published an article written by Senator John Edwards where he said, ``Frivolous lawsuits waste good people's time and hurt the real victims. Lawyers who bringing frivolous cases should face tough, mandatory sanctions, with a `three strikes' penalty.'' Mr. Speaker, I agree, and that is precisely what this legislation does. Congress should act today in a bipartisan manner to prevent and punish frivolous lawsuits. We should care about each more and sue each other less. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2004.

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from Florida where I took a helicopter tour of the greater Orlando area and saw firsthand the extensive damage which has literally turned upside down the lives of several hundred Central Floridians. I have empathy for those who have suffered such severe damage because my own mom, Laura Keller, completely lost her home in Hurricane Charley. Despite these temporary heartaches, I am optimistic about central Florida's future. Last Tuesday, we passed legislation in Congress to immediately provide $2 billion to FEMA to help our citizens in Florida recover from Hurricanes Charley and Frances. The very next day, President Bush signed this legislation into law. Together we acted with near-lightning speed to provide immediate relief. This $2 billion will be able to help Central Florida families with things like temporary lodging, food, water supplies, medical care, and will allow roofs to be repaired. I know that I speak for all central Floridians when I say to my congressional colleagues all across the country, thank you for being there and voting for this important relief package. But after taking this helicopter tour, I can tell Members this $2 billion we have already provided is only a down payment, and I say that regretfully because I know how tight money is around here these days. Fortunately, President Bush agrees more money is needed. Earlier today the White House requested that Congress provide an additional $2.5 billion in hurricane relief for Florida. I will strongly support this much-needed appropriation. Mr. Speaker, our citizens have suffered enormous out-of-pocket costs which should be taken into account by FEMA. For example, imagine that a person has a $300,000 home and he has suffered $30,000 in property damage as a result of these two hurricanes. Now some people outside of Florida may mistakenly think no problem, you have insurance, insurance will pay for it. Actually, it is a big problem and here is why. Since many of these Florida insurance policies have 5 percent deductibles and these two hurricanes are viewed by insurance companies as two separate and distinct events, it is entirely possible that the individual will have to pay the entire $30,000 bill himself, 100 percent out of pocket. I believe in this type of circumstance, if the person is not eligible for a FEMA grant, he should at least get a zero percent loan from FEMA to cover the out-of-pocket cost. It is patently unreasonable for us to assume that the average citizen has $30,000 lying around in his checking account just in case he unexpectedly gets blind-sided by two hurricanes. Mr. Speaker, these people need help, and it is up to those of us in Congress to try to help them. Rest assured that Congress, especially those from Florida, will continue to work very closely with President Bush and Governor Jeb Bush over the next few weeks to help rebuild Florida as quickly as possible and in a way that makes Florida stronger than ever before. I urge all of my colleagues in Congress to support this $2.5 billion hurricane relief package. It is the right thing to do and now is the right time to do it.

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this emergency supplemental appropriations bill to provide $2 billion to FEMA to help the citizens of Florida recover from Hurricanes Charley and Frances. I am sensitive to the fact that these two hurricanes have had a devastating impact on the lives of several hundred thousand Central Floridians. My own mom, Lora Keller, completely lost her home in Hurricane Charley. Despite these temporary heartaches, I am optimistic about Florida's future. Congress, especially those of us from Florida, will work very closely with President Bush and Governor Bush over the next few days to help rebuild Florida quickly, and even stronger than before. This $2 billion will be able to help Central Florida families with things like temporary lodging, food and water supplies, medical care and will allow roofs to be repaired. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important legislation.

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to support the amendment and in opposition to the 2005 Foreign Operations appropriations bill. At a time when our country is facing record budget deficits, I cannot justify voting for the largest foreign aid bill in history. We should not give away billions of dollars in foreign aid in the name of friendship when everybody knows that friendship cannot be bought. Over the past four sessions of the U.N. General Assembly, 86 percent of the U.S. foreign aid recipients voted against the United States a majority of the time. Now, let me give my colleagues five specific examples. Egypt is slated to get $1.836 billion in foreign aid in this bill, even though they voted against us at the U.N. 86 percent of the time. Indonesia will get $151 million in foreign aid. They voted against us 83 percent of the time. Nigeria will get $68 million in foreign aid. They voted against us at the U.N. 76 percent of the time. Kenya will get $67 million. They voted against us at the U.N. 81 percent of the time. Bangladesh will get $63 million in foreign aid. They voted against us 82 percent of the time. Not one of these five countries contributed any money or troops to the war effort or reconstruction of Iraq. Now, some might say, but what about the money we are giving Israel? Well, I fully and completely support 100 percent of the $2.58 billion in aid to Israel. They are, by far, our best ally in the Middle East. They are the only democracy in the Middle East, and they face increasing terrorist threats. But I cannot in good conscience vote for a $19.4 billion foreign aid bill when only a tiny portion of it goes to support our valuable ally Israel. I cannot go home to Orlando, Florida, and look waitresses and secretaries in the eye and tell them that we took taxpayer dollars from their paychecks and gave it in foreign aid to countries that do not even support the United States. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and vote ``no'' on the bill.

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Weiner amendment to restore funding for the COPS program to last year's level. Here is the bottom line. At a time when our homeland security threat levels are up, does it make sense that our funding for COPS should go down? Of course not. Yet this bill cuts the COPS grant programs by nearly half. Common sense suggests that cities all across America would be expanding, not decreasing, their police forces in the face of growing homeland security demands. Now, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has consistently said that homeland security starts in our hometowns. I can tell you firsthand that when it comes to making our hometowns safer, there is no Federal program more popular with the sheriffs and police chiefs in Orlando, Florida, than the COPS program. The COPS program has helped local communities in central Florida and all across the Nation by hiring an additional 118,000 additional police officers. A study by the University of Nebraska found that the COPS program is directly linked to the dramatic drop in crime since 1995. Literally every single congressional district has received funding and has benefited in some way from the COPS program. The COPS program is popular because it works and because it allows local law enforcement agencies to apply directly to the Department of Justice for the money by filling out a simple one-page grant form. Now, I have listened to the opponents of the Weiner amendment. They are all reasonable, well-intentioned people. And this is essentially what they have to say: They say the bill is fine the way it is because the $3 billion it provides for State and local law enforcement is over the President's budget request, and that the offset of $106 million from the Census Bureau programs is too much of a cut from the Census budget. On the surface, that argument sounds pretty good, but it is a bit misleading in three areas: The amount of the funding, the type of the funding, and the supposed cuts from the Census Bureau. In the interest of straight talk, I will squarely address each of these three issues. First, I will address the amount of funding. The total amount appropriated in this bill for local and State law enforcement represents a cut of $103 million from last year's level. The threat levels are up, yet the law enforcement funding level goes down? No, sir, that dog will not hunt. Second, I will address the type of funding. While the COPS hiring grants have been cut, other types of funding to State and local police agencies are inadequate replacements because these other types of funding do not go directly to the law enforcement agencies, but rather are sent to the States where much of the money is eaten up in administrative costs; and there is a long delay in getting the money sent to law enforcement agencies. Moreover, even when the local law enforcement agencies finally do get the money, it is usually not used to hire new police officers because they are based on a 1-year grant. In stark contrast, money out of the COPS program goes directly to the local law enforcement agencies, using a one-page form, and can be used right then to hire new police officers for 3 years without bureaucratic delay, red tape and any unnecessary expense. The third and final flaw deals with the supposed cuts from the Census Bureau. Here is the deal with that: The Census Bureau programs received an increase in funding levels by 32.4 percent this year. By cutting this dramatic increase down to the more reasonable amount of an 8 percent increase, it will allow us to still increase the Census budget and yet restore the COPS funding levels to last year's appropriated level. Do our COPS, who are on the front lines of homeland security, not need the money more than the bureaucrats at the Census Bureau? I urge my colleagues to restore funding to the COPS program and vote ``yes'' on the Weiner amendment.

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 2507, the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004. I support this legislation not only because it strengthens the current school lunch program, but more specifically, it will reduce the stigma among children receiving free and reduced-priced lunches by helping schools make technological improvements, such as automated ``meal card'' systems, that keep students' financial status confidential so that children aren't embarrassed or singled out in the lunch line in front of their peers as participants in the free or reduced lunch program. I am pleased that yesterday the Senate passed this legislation, and followed the House in incorporating my ``Pride in the Lunch Line Act'' legislation to allow schools access to existing Federal funds to purchase technology that will allow low-income children to go through the lunch line without the stigma or embarrassment of being identified as recipients of the free or reduced lunch program. I modeled my legislation after a program in one of my local school districts, Lake County, Florida, that uses technology to enable every child to go through the school lunch line without being identified as a free or reduced lunch program recipient. Regardless of family income, every child has the same debit card which either their parents deposit money into or is funded by the program. This legislation will expand existing Federal funds to allow more schools across the Nation to implement similar technology programs as Lake County did, reduce the stigma for students, and reduce the paperwork for schools. I encourage my colleagues to vote for the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004. Let's help children eat their lunch with pride.

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act is a commonsense piece of legislation that will make our communities safer by allowing qualified law enforcement officers to carry their concealed firearms across State lines. Criminals do not recognize jurisdictional boundaries, particularly when it comes to seeking revenge against the police officers who arrested them. If a doctor were traveling on vacation and he came across a child in a traffic accident who needed CPR to save his life, our society would expect the doctor to be a good Samaritan and save the child's life, regardless of State boundaries. Similarly, law enforcement officers are, in effect, always on duty; and we are right to expect a police officer to come to the aid of a crime victim, and we are right to give that police officer the ability to provide that help by passing this important law. If our airline pilots have the ability to carry firearms across jurisdictional boundaries, surely our police officers should have that same right. Without this law, a police officer from Orlando, Florida, who wanted to take his family on a vacation to D.C. to see the monuments would have to travel through six separate States where he would face an instant patchwork of concealed weapons laws which would make it legal for him to have a gun in some jurisdictions and illegal in others. This law solves that problem and enhances the ability of that officer to defend his family and our communities. For these reasons, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation and was a vocal advocate in passing the bill through the Committee on the Judiciary in a clean form. It is a very popular bill. It has 296 cosponsors in the House. It passed the Senate by a vote of 90 to 8 as an amendment to another piece of gun legislation. It is supported by police officers and other organizations across the U.S. In summary, Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 218.

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Isakson amendment. It is going to benefit all States, donor States and donee states; but I am going to limit my remarks right now to the donor States. Who are the donor States? The 25 donor States are shown here in blue, the largest of which happen to be Florida, Texas, and California. If you are from any one of these 25 donor States, you would be smart to vote for the Isakson amendment. It would be absolutely crazy for you to vote ``no'' on this amendment. I will tell you why. If you vote for this amendment, your State will do just as good as it did under the old transportation bill. If you vote ``no'' on this amendment, your State, on average, will get 10 cents on the dollar less. For example, Florida goes from 86 cents down to 76 cents. Some of you have said to me, I am going to make up the difference by getting one of these projects of national significance. Here is the flaw. The Transportation Committee does not even have a complete list of the projects of national significance. They do not know what they are. Miss Cleo does not know what they are. Nostradamus does not know what they are. You do not know what they are. You might get one. Well, I might win an Academy Award. I might win a gold medal. I might actually keep my New Year's resolution and lose 30 pounds. It might happen. It probably will not happen. The one thing I know for sure is if you vote for Isakson, your State is going to get more. You came here to represent your people. You came here to fight for your State. Do the right thing and vote ``yes'' on Isakson.

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize the National Franchisee Association (NFA), the association of Burger King franchisees. The NFA will be in Orlando May 3-6, 2004 for its 12th Annual Convention and Tradeshow. I am delighted the NFA has chosen once again to return to Orlando. In fact, this will be the third time the NFA has visited Orlando with nearly 3,500 Burger King franchisees, vendors, and other participants. With its theme parks and attractions, Orlando is one of our Nation's premier vacation and convention destinations--it's clear to see why groups like NFA want to return to Orlando over and over again. The theme of this year's NFA convention, ``The Magic of the Fire,'' is quite apropos as it combines the ``Magic'' of Orlando and the entrepreneurial ``Fire'' of the Burger King franchisees. Two Burger King franchisees, in particular, have been instrumental in bringing the Burger King family to Orlando. They are Julian Josephson and Dominick Vespoli. Julian Josephson, the Chairman of the NFA, has a story very similar to many of our immigrant ancestors who brought their entrepreneurial spirit to this country seeking a brighter future. Julian moved to the United States from Johannesburg, South Africa in 1978. Since then, he and his business partner Stanley Smiedt, have built a successful business that includes nearly 40 Burger King Restaurants in Southern California, Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado. Julian has not only provided exceptional leadership to the NFA as chairman and vice president, he has served his community through numerous initiatives. Julian has been a dedicated husband and father to his wife Jenny and their children Heidi and Anthony. Julian and Jenny are the proud grandparents of Maya Silberstein. Dominick Vespoli is the Convention Chairman. Dominick grew up in Jersey City, New Jersey and began working in Burger King restaurants in 1974. He worked in a variety of jobs learning the skills needed to run successful restaurants. In 1990, Dominick became a Burger King franchisee. He, and his business partner Nathan Blau, now own and operate 10 successful Burger King restaurants in New Jersey. Dominick has been a dedicated husband and father to his wife Celenia and their two sons, Jason and James. The restaurant industry as a whole employs 12 million men and women, a significant driving force for our economy. I commend Julian and Dominick, and their fellow franchise owners, for their contributions to job creation and economic growth. These entrepreneurs are the backbone of our economy. I wish to thank them for their outstanding service to the NFA and their commitment to their communities. I look forward to seeing them both and the other Burger King franchisees when they visit Orlando in May.

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 3873, the Child Nutrition Improvement and Integrity Act. I support this legislation not only because it strengthens the current school lunch program, but more specifically, it included language in the bill that I introduced called the Pride in the Lunch Line Act, H.R. 3869. The Pride in the Lunch Line Act amends the National School Lunch Act to allow schools access to existing Federal funds to purchase technology. This technology would allow low-income children to go through the lunch line without being identified as recipients of the free or reduced-price lunch program. I support this legislation because it addresses an issue many low- income children face every day as they go through the lunch line, and that is embarrassment, embarrassed that their parents cannot afford to pay for daily meals so they are singled out in the lunch line in front of their peers as participants in the free or reduced lunch program. I have modeled my legislation after a program in one of my local school districts, Lake County, Florida, that uses technology to enable every child to go through the school lunch line without being identified as a free or reduced lunch recipient. Regardless of family income, every child has the exact same debit card which either their parents deposit money into or is funded by the program. This legislation will expand existing Federal funds to allow more schools across the Nation to implement similar technology programs. It will reduce the stigma for students and reduce the paperwork for schools. For these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Child Nutrition Improvement and Integrity Act.

Mr. KELLER

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

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I will ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Jackson- Lee amendment dealing with diet pills on a couple of grounds: First, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act applies to weight gain, obesity, or any health condition that is associated with a person's weight gain, such as diabetes, high cholesterol, cardiovascular disease. It has nothing to do with weight loss and nothing to do with diet pills, and this amendment confusingly implies weight loss can be weight gain, which does not make sense. The second part of the amendment, which is somewhat odd, is the amendment would bizarrely require Members to vote for a provision that states that being fat is ``generally associated'' with brain dysfunction and neurological disorders. Specifically, it says, ``neurological damage or any other complication which may be generally associated with a person's weight gain or obesity.'' Not all people who might be overweight are suffering from neurological problems. I can tell you that it is possible to be both fat and happy. So I do not understand the reason for this amendment.

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Jackson-Lee amendment. The Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act, the base bill, pertains to lawsuits people bring because they gained weight and are suing the company that served them the food, claiming it is their fault. This amendment would prevent manufacturers or sellers of food from suing individuals because, and I am not making this up, the company literally got fat. I would like to ask, how is it possible to determine what the body mass index of General Motors is? Did it gain weight over the holidays? This amendment should be defeated solely because it erroneously assumes companies can literally get fat. The author of the amendment mentioned a little insight into where she was going when she talked about she does not want individuals like Oprah Winfrey getting sued. Well, if my colleagues recall, that did not have anything to do with this. Oprah Winfrey got sued by the Beef Cattlemen's Association because they claimed she allegedly defamed them. They did not, the Beef Cattlemen's Association, that because of her comments, this association got fat. So this is an erroneously drafted bill, has no application here, however it is intended, and I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote no on the Lampson amendment for at least three reasons. First, one of the cases involving McDonalds was brought by a 400-pound child. And every single meal, breakfast, lunch and dinner, that parent would take the kid to McDonalds and then shockingly one day wakes up and says, oh, the kid is 400 pounds. I never encouraged him to get any exercise. I never encouraged him to step away from the video games. I never encouraged him to not watch TV all day. I never encouraged him to eat healthy food. I never encouraged him to exercise. Now I want a million dollars. That is insane. This amendment tells parents that they are not responsible. And if they are not responsible, they can even profit by becoming millionaires and sue for it. Now, it was brought up that these companies market to kids as well as adults. I have two kids, 8 years old and younger. I can tell you who else markets to kids. Barney, Bear in the Big Blue House, Dora the Explorer, Blue's Clues, Nickelodeon, the Disney Channel. In fact, one could argue if you take this argument, that, in fact, those programs are so enticing and so addicting and so enjoyable to kids but they have no choice but to sit there and watch them every day, and as a result, they lead a stagnant life-style, so why not sue them for obesity since they are marketing to them? It puts the incentives in the wrong place totally. Third, I want to briefly point out that childhood obesity is certainly a serious problem. The childhood obesity rates have doubled in the last 30 years. I do not stand before you today and hold myself out as the world's leading expert on physical fitness, but I can tell you the world leading expert on physical fitness, Dr. Kenneth Cooper, the founder of the aerobics movement, testified before my Committee on Education and the Workforce on February 14 of this year and said to us that these lawsuits against the food industry are putting, or putting a tax on Twinkies is not going to make a single person any skinnier. He said, 30 years ago did kids come home from school and eat potato chips and cupcakes and cookies? Absolutely, they did. The difference is then they went out and rode their bike and played. Now, they spend 1,023 hours a year in front of a TV screen watching TV or playing video games versus only 900 at school. Where are the parents? If you are talking about a kid eating fast food 21 times a week, where are the parents? This amendment says the parents have no responsibility whatsoever. It defies common sense however well meaning the author may be. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. KELLER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I believe he is.

Mr. KELLER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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

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

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I am not going to support this amendment, and I would ask all of my colleagues to vote no on this amendment on two grounds. The first ground is that the bill only precludes lawsuits in which the injury claimed is obesity and weight gain. State consumer protection statutes are not lawsuits in which the injury claimed is obesity or weight gain. Rather, in the State consumer protection cases, the injuries claimed are unfair and deceptive trade practices or misleading labeling. However, because the amendment implies that the State consumer protection laws somehow do allow lawsuits in which the injury claim is obesity or weight gain, Courts may well read it to grant all State agencies new power to use their State consumer protection laws to seek damages against the food industry for obesity-related claims. In other words, this would essentially gut the bill by allowing State Attorneys General to bring the very same claims that we are trying to get rid of. I cannot think of a single State consumer protection law right now that allows a State agency to sue because someone got fat from eating too much. The second ground I object to this amendment on is the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) said he does not like the fact we have the knowing and willful standard. The knowing and willful standard is exactly the same standard used in H.R. 1036, the Protection of Lawful Commerce and Arms Act that overwhelmingly passed this House in a bipartisan fashion. It got 285 votes, and so anyone who voted for H.R. 1036 and who votes for this amendment will literally be voting for stronger protection for gun manufacturers than for the food industry, which is the largest private sector employer, providing jobs to some 12 million Americans. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.

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

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the enthusiasm of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), and as the author of the bill that was described that way, I can assure you that I take no offense. Sometimes in the heat of passion things come out, so there is no need to apologize to me. Let me just say this with respect to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), he is at least consistent. He offered this same amendment in committee, made the same arguments, it was rejected in committee. I urge my colleagues to reject it once again here on the House floor and for the very same reason. This amendment would essentially gut the bill and encourage venue shopping among very creative trial lawyers. Let me just give you one example. The Louisiana legislature, which, by the way, is a Democrat legislature, both the House and the Senate, passed a very similar bill to mine after I filed mine with 94 percent of the legislators voting ``yes,'' broad bipartisan support. So, yes, you cannot bring an obesity lawsuit in Louisiana. So if you are an ambitious trial lawyer, what about Mississippi? Well, they do not have such a law, and that is exactly where the suit would be filed, or some other State that is a nice haven for tourists. We do not have to guess about this, because we had a hearing on this matter; and the Democrats could have chosen anyone to appear, and they chose a man named Mr. Banzhaf, who says it is his goal to open the flood gates of litigation against our major employers such as McDonald's. This is what he said. Keep in mind the potential Mississippi lawsuit: ``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 flood gates.'' We do not have to guess what their theories are; they have already told us. So Congress, of course, can exercise its authority under the Commerce Clause to prevent a few States from bankrupting the food industry, which is the largest nongovernmental employer in the United States. Congress, of course, has the authority under the Commerce Clause. That is not just the opinion of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) or myself. The U.S. Supreme Court in Healy v. Beer Institute said, ``Generally speaking, the Commerce Clause protects against inconsistent laws arising from the projection of one State regulatory regime into the jurisdiction of another State.'' I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Watt amendment.

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, at the committee there was an attempt to strike the knowing and willful standard from the bill. That was unsuccessful. I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment as well, which is kind of a new twist there, keeping the knowing and willful, but then they also add ``negligently,'' which in effect does the same thing, strike it. So all you have to do is prove negligence. This bill already allows a case to go forward any time a Federal or State statute has been knowingly and willfully violated and that violation is a proximate cause of the injury. Let me tell you why it is important to have this knowing, willful standard and what the precedent is. The knowing and willful standard is the exact same standard used in H.R. 1036, the Protection of Law Commerce and Arms Act that overwhelmingly passed this House in a bipartisan fashion. In fact, it received 285 votes. Therefore, anyone who voted for H.R. 1036 and who votes for this amendment will be voting for stronger protections for firearms manufacturers than for the food industry, which is the largest private sector employer in the country providing 12 million jobs. The claim that it is too burdensome to require a person to knowingly violate a law before they can be said to meet the exceptions to this bill, fails to understand the flexible nature of the requirements. Let me give you an example. A typical jury instruction regarding what the so-called mens rea requirement for knowing means states as follows: ``Knowledge may be proved by all the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. You, the jury, may infer knowledge from a combination of suspicion and indifference to the truth. If you find a person had a strong suspicion that things were not what they seemed or that someone had withheld important facts yet shut his eyes for fear of what he may learn, you may conclude that he acted knowingly.'' Therefore, the knowing standard is certainly flexible enough to produce justice in our courts in all circumstances. There is precedent for it, and it should be used here as well. I also would point out that under the bill, claims can go forward for breach of contract, or breach of warranty as well. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, that scenario you just posed about someone taking some kind of improperly labeled diet drug has nothing to do with this legislation. That claim would still go forward and be unimpacted. This legislation specifically is narrowly targeted to claims based on weight-gain or obesity.

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I support the rule, and I support the bill as well. I wanted to briefly just touch on three issues. First, a little bit about the bill's substance; second, I want to talk about the process which led up to this fair rule; and, third, just to touch on the childhood obesity issue which recently has been raised by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. First, in terms of the bill's substance, the gist of this legislation is that there should be common sense in the food court, not blaming other people in the legal court. We need to get back to the old- fashioned principles of common sense and personal responsibility and get away from this new culture where everybody plays the victim and tries to blame others for their problems. Now, I have heard from some of the other speakers that this is a frolic; this is just a waste of time. We should be talking about jobs. Well, it is interesting to me because we are talking about protecting the single largest private sector employer in the United States that provides 12 million jobs. Why do these people pretend to love jobs yet hate the employers who create these jobs? It defies common sense as much as their opposition to this bill. Now, let us talk about the process a little bit. I support this rule, an open modified rule; and let me tell you a little bit about the background here. It is true based on an independent Gallup poll that nearly nine in 10 Americans oppose holding the fast-food industry legally responsible for the diet-related health problems of people who eat that kind of food on a regular basis. Interestingly, overweight people oppose this just like skinny people do; Republicans just like Democrats do. The country overwhelmingly, 89 percent, opposes these types of lawsuits. Yet, nevertheless, every step of the way we have given this small percent of the people and their representatives who think it is a good idea the opportunity to have their fair say. We had a hearing on this bill and allowed the minority to call witnesses that they wanted. What witness did they call? What guy did they think most helped them? They called a man named John Banzhaf who said, ``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 up the flood gates.'' That is who they called. So when we talk about opening up the flood gates, that this is a problem, and then they come today and say, it is not a problem, what are we doing here? There is no problem. Yet their own witnesses tell us they want to open up the flood gates. But they had their hearing. We then had a mark-up. We let them offer any amendments they wanted to. The amendments were shot down. After the mark-up, we then moved it to the floor. I appeared before the Committee on Rules. I did not say I wanted a closed ruled or anything. I said, I trust the Committee on Rules to fashion the appropriate rule, and they gave them this open rule that any Member of 435 can offer something provided it is preprinted in the Record. So we have been pretty fair about the process here, especially given the fact that their opposition has so little support among the American people. Third, let me address the issue of childhood obesity. Childhood obesity is a very serious problem in this country. In the past 30 years the childhood obesity rates have doubled. Why is that? Well, I do not stand before you in the well of Congress and hold myself out as the world's leading expert in fitness and health. But I did have the happy privilege of questioning Dr. Kenneth Cooper on February 12 of this year, who appeared before the Committee on Education and the Workforce who is the father of the aerobics movement, and nobody is more well respected. This is what he said: ``Thirty years ago did kids come home from school and eat potato chips and cup cakes and cookies? They absolutely did, just like they do today. The difference is they then went out and rode their bikes and played with their friends and did all other sorts of things.'' Nowadays, he said, those same kids come home from school and sit on the couch and play video games and watch TV. He told us the average child spends only 900 hours a year in school and 1,023 hours in front of that TV set playing video games or watching TV. Meanwhile, we now have only one State in the country, Illinois, that mandates physical education programs. I asked Dr. Kenneth Cooper, Do you think these lawsuits against the fast-food companies are going to make anyone skinnier? He said, absolutely not. Is it going to help to put a tax on Twinkies? Is that going to make people skinnier? Absolutely not. What is the answer? He told us the answer is personal responsibility and getting young people involved in daily physical activity. That is the kind of commonsense approach that most people in this country can relate to. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and support the bill. They are both very fair.