Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 554) to prevent legislative and regulatory functions from being usurped by civil liability actions brought or continued against food manufacturers, marketers, distributors, advertisers, sellers, and trade associations for claims of injury relating to a person's weight gain, obesity, or any health condition associated with weight gain or obesity.

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

The gentleman makes a valid point that we have a lot of obese children. I think it is actually more like 40 percent in some recent studies I have seen. This is a terrible problem, but I urge the Members to defeat this amendment. It was defeated by voice vote last year, and it should be defeated again this year.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) also talks about the accountability of the food industry; but this amendment tells parents that if they are not responsible for their children's eating, they can become millionaires. This amendment manages to exploit children and discourages parents from exercising parental responsibility all at the same time. It literally would hold food companies liable when parents buy their kids a six-pack of kid meals every day for 8 years. Adopting this amendment would turn the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act into the Parent Irresponsibility Act.

Even the ultra-liberal Los Angeles Times has stated this is wrong, saying in an editorial: ``If kids are chowing down to excess on junk food, aren't their parents responsible for cracking down? And if parents and other grown-ups overindulge, isn't it their problem, not that of the purveyors of fast food? Why boost their food bills because of illegal jousting? People shouldn't get stuffed, but this line of litigation should.''

Even our best obesity doctors realize that this amendment is another sad assault on the concept of parental responsibility. As Dr. Jana Klauer, a fellow at the New York City Obesity Research Center of St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital has said, ``I just wonder where were the parents when kids were having these McDonald's breakfasts every morning. Were they incapable of pouring a bowl of cereal and some milk?''

Let us do what we did last year and defeat this parental irresponsibility amendment by voice vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. There is a problem in America. There is no question but that there is a problem. We do not solve that problem by shifting responsibility to corporations. It would be good if corporations did perfect things, but we live in an imperfect world where parents have the ability to turn off the television, parents have the ability to teach their children what to eat and how to eat well. And, interestingly, food that is better for you actually costs less.

Parents have the ability to deal with these issues in ways that this Congress and industry cannot do. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

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

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

This gutting amendment was defeated on the House floor last year by a vote of 241 to 177, and it should be defeated again this year.

Lawsuits relating to obesity and weight gain are wrong no matter who brings them. If private claims are frivolous and should be blocked, then we should not encourage States to bring them either. This bill only applies to lawsuits arising out of or related to obesity and weight gain.

State consumer protection statutes are not intended to cover these kinds of claims. In fact, not a single State consumer protection law allows a State agency to sue for damages because someone got fat from eating too much. However, because the amendment implies State consumer protection laws do allow lawsuits in which the claim is obesity or weight gain, courts may well read it to grant all State agencies new powers to use their State consumer protection laws to seek damages against the food industry for obesity-related claims. That is directly contrary to the purpose of this bill. It would not be right to allow States to use their consumer protection laws in ways they cannot use them now, namely, to sue the food industry for obesity-related claims. Consequently, this amendment should be defeated.

In any case, section 4(5)(b) of H.R. 544 makes it clear that obesity- related lawsuits can be brought by anyone who can prove he suffered harm as a result of a violation of State or Federal law, including laws that prohibit deceptive or misleading advertising, by showing he individually and justifiably relied on such deceptive or misleading advertising and that such reliance was the proximate cause of the injury.

So the bill itself already allows lawsuits against bad actors while preserving the concept of personal responsibility. The amendment does not do that, it should be defeated, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me just say that we have consumer protection laws. This bill is not intended to expand those laws. It is not intended to put restaurants out of business. It is not intended to shift responsibility from individuals and from parents. It is about personal responsibility, and I urge opposition to this amendment.

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

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

The gentleman is talking about various kinds of supplements. He mentioned ephedra and other supplements to help people lose weight. That is a substantial distinction here. If a person buys a supplement and there has been misleading advertising or the manufacturer knows of adverse effects and does not communicate those, and if that constitutes a violation of law, a lawsuit is not prohibited by this legislation. This legislation is going the other way and saying you cannot sue people if you get fat because you make wrong choices, as opposed to you have had some kind of injury or illness because of a misadvertised or otherwise inappropriate utilization of a supplement.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, we are not trying to change the whole world of consumer law here, we are only trying to change one aspect of it. If the gentleman is concerned about, and I know the gentleman has great concern about the effect of supplements like Ephedra which have largely been abandoned by the industry, that is something we ought to be considering, but not in the context of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 494 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 494 is a structured rule. It provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary and now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. This resolution makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution, and it provides that the amendments printed in the report may be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or the Committee of the Whole. It waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report, and it provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of House Resolution 494 and the underlying bill, H.R. 554, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act. First, I want to take this opportunity to thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and additionally I want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, for authoring the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider H.R. 554, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act, a common sense piece of legislation that passed this House in the last Congress by a substantial bipartisan vote of 276 to 139. I might further add that 55 Democrats joined with 221 Republicans supporting this bill in an effort to help rein in this mentality of jackpot justice that has plagued our judicial system and cluttered the dockets to a virtual standstill. This legislation would require courts to dismiss any lawsuits that seek damages for injury resulting from weight gain, obesity, or any health condition associated with obesity filed against manufacturers, distributors, sellers, marketers, or advertisers of any food product, in addition to trade associations that represent them.

Of course, support of this bill is not limited to Capitol Hill, Mr. Speaker. A recent Gallup poll found that approximately 9 in 10 Americans, a number of whom are themselves in the ranks of overweight or even obese, opposed holding the fast food industry legally responsible for diet-related health problems of people who eat that kind of food on a regular basis.

Without question, Mr. Speaker, obesity is a problem in our society. Having practiced medicine for nearly 30 years, I am well aware of the habit and complications that obesity can wreak on a person's health, especially over a long term. Like most other Americans, I am also well aware that obesity is on the rise in our country, and particularly among our children. However, the root of the problem is not the existence of fast food or the presence of a local fast food restaurant, but rather the root of the problem lies in the choices of consumers. I have never heard of anyone pulling up to the drive-through window with a hamburglar sitting in the passenger seat forcing someone to buy just one more Big Mac.

Mr. Speaker, allowing an individual to sue a restaurant because the consumer chose to eat there often or chose to eat too much is simply ridiculous and, frankly, it is a dangerous waste of the court's time. For every frivolous case that takes up a spot on the docket, a legitimate case where an individual is truly harmed and truly needs expeditious judicial review gets pushed farther and farther down the line. And as we all know, justice delayed is justice denied.

The title of this bill emphasizes the type of solution needed to address the underlying problem. It is called personal responsibility. It is not just a catch phrase. Individuals have to take control of their own lives. They have to make wise decisions, especially when it comes to their health. And when an individual does make a poor decision, he or she should not be able to abuse the courts so as to shift responsibility to someone else in order to cash in.

Mr. Speaker, while H.R. 544 prohibits certain types of lawsuits, it does make various reasonable exceptions to ensure the protection of a consumer's legitimate claim for legitimate harm. An individual, for example, can still sue in those instances where a contract or a warranty is breached, as long as the basis for the lawsuit is not related to weight gain, obesity or a health condition associated with either. Additionally, a manufacturer or seller is still liable if they knowingly violate a Federal or State statute concerning the marketing, the advertising, or the labeling of a product.

Mr. Speaker, this bill would still allow individuals to bring obesity or weight gain related matters before the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission, or the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, for consideration and appropriate action. Obviously, individuals can still sue in accordance with applicable State laws protecting against deceptive trade practices and if a person becomes sick from a tainted food product.

In closing, I just want to emphasize that this legislation is common sense and it includes exemptions to ensure legitimate claims still make it to court while abusive lawsuits are stopped at the courthouse door.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the consideration of this rule, and I ask my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, following which I will yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act, H.R. 554, is all about, again, personal responsibility and to point out how ludicrous it would be if we allowed personal injury lawsuits against the food industry or any other company that makes a legitimate product.

We just talked earlier in the afternoon, Mr. Speaker, in regard to gun manufacturers.

Mr. Speaker, let me just give an example, if I might. This is a belt, an alligator belt. In fact, it is my belt. Size 36. I have a size 36 waist. This belt, I am proud to say, is hand-finished, American alligator, produced right here in the good old U.S.A. This alligator skin was obtained from a Louisiana hunt, it says on this belt, 1993, manufactured by the Trafalgar Limited Belt Company, a good company. And the belt has served me very well. Size 36 fits me well.

Mr. Speaker, let us suppose now that I decided, it is unlikely that I would do this, but let us suppose I decided I wanted to wear a size 42 and I punched a few extra holes in this belt, which is a size 36, so I could wear it and buckle it with a size 42 pair of trousers. These trousers fell right to my knees in a public place. I do not think I should have the right to sue the belt company because I used its product in a manner that it was not designed to use. I could go out and buy myself a size 42 belt.

Let me give another example, and this is more likely. Let us suppose I really felt like my waist was a size 34, and so I cinched this belt up really good so I could proudly say I am not a 36, I have a 34 inch waist at my age. I would feel pretty good about myself.

But, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there is a nerve at my waist called the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve. If someone puts too much pressure around their waist by wearing a belt inappropriately, by cinching it up too tightly, they put compression on that nerve, that lateral femoral cutaneous nerve, and I speak from knowledge on this from 30 years as a practicing physician. That condition, my colleagues can look it up, but I will share it with them, it is called meralgia paresthetica. If Members do not believe me, look it up. It creates tremendous numbness and loss of feeling in the anterior part of the thigh.

Let us suppose someone misused this belt and wore it as a size 34 and decided for that reason to sue this Trafalgar Company, this good, solid American company that makes this belt, for damages. That is totally ridiculous and ludicrous, and that is why this bill is so important. That is why it is called personal responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by thanking my colleagues for a productive discussion on the rule and the underlying bill. Today, this House has an

opportunity to again pass meaningful reform to not only promote personal accountability but also to strengthen the opportunities for legitimate claims to be heard and adjudicated. Let us take one more step to turn back the tide of so-called ``jackpot justice.''

While runaway juries and frivolous lawsuits might make a few individuals and certain ambulance-chasing lawyers rich, the American people ultimately pay the price both economically and socially.

Mr. Speaker, discouraging individuals from taking personal responsibility does not help anyone. In fact, it will only make matters worse. Encouraging healthy lifestyles and wise dietary choices should always trump rewarding poor decisions by shifting the blame to innocent bystanders.

The Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act of 2005 is a good bill, and I look forward to further discussing its merits on the House floor today.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, a strong bipartisan majority passed this bill in the last Congress; and I have no reason to doubt that we should be able to pass it again by a similar, maybe even a stronger, margin; and I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

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

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation. And as I said the last time we debated it, I do not rise because I am a supporter of frivolous lawsuits or lawsuits even that some of the people have used the legal system to pursue. I rise in opposition to the bill because I think it is an overreaction; and, indeed, I think it is perhaps an ultimate attestation to the fact that many of my colleagues have lost confidence and faith in the legal system on the one hand or that, regardless of what the legal system does, if it does not yield for them the result that they are seeking, they are willing to compromise any principle that they have professed to stand for to achieve the result that they wish to achieve.

H.R. 554 goes much further than its stated purpose of banning the small handful of private suits brought against the food industry. It also bans suits for harm caused by dietary supplements and mislabeling, which have nothing to do with excess food consumption; and it would prevent State law enforcement officials from bringing legal claims to enforce their own consumer protection laws.

Simply look at the provisions of the bill. Section 4(5) would prevent any legal action related to any ``health condition that is associated with a person's weight gain or obesity.''

As a result, the bill would prevent persons who develop heart disease and diabetes from dietary supplements such as Ephedra and Phen-fen from being able to obtain redress if they gained weight. Even worse, the bill bans these lawsuits in a retroactive way. So it would throw out dozens of Ephedra and Phen-fen cases currently pending before courts. This is a far cry from the concerns that led to this legislation originally, some of which I have the same concerns about.

H.R. 554 would also prevent State law enforcement officials from enforcing their own laws. Under section 4(3), the bill applies to legal actions brought by any ``person,'' and the term ``person'' is defined to include any ``governmental entity.'' That means States attorneys general will be prevented from pursuing actions for deceptive practices and false advertising and other practices that are illegal against the food industry.

Again, this is a vast departure from most of the so-called tort reform bills considered by the Congress, which are drafted to apply to private lawsuits, and is a vast departure from the original purpose of this bill and the problems it was designed to deal with.

Since the predecessor to H.R. 554 was first introduced last term, 18 State legislatures have enacted so-called cheeseburger laws to prohibit certain claims from their courts. While most of those enacted apply retroactively, others, that is, Kansas, Arizona, Colorado, do not. Some provide for a stay of discovery; others do not. Some establish affirmative defenses; others do not. That is our State law taking effect.

In short, in the considered judgment of each of these 18 State legislatures, laws have been enacted that best serve their States. The bill completely preempts those laws and brings to a screeching halt the work of 26 other States that have been working on pending legislation. It also disrupts the process in some States that have combined obesity bills with menu labeling requirements as part of their overall health enhancing legislative scheme.

What is the price that we are willing to pay to get the result that we are seeking? Have we lost confidence in our State and Federal court systems that have systematically thrown out most of the lawsuits that have been filed against the food industry using this ``fat theory,'' as it is commonly referred to? Have we lost confidence in our whole federalist form of government in which tort law has been particularly the province of the States? Have we lost confidence in our State legislatures that are in the middle of responding in their particular States to any problems that may be on the horizon in this area?

We have instead cast ourselves as the imperial Congress because the same people who came to this Congress, saying that they believe in States rights, have now shown they do not care about States rights. What they want is a result that they can control and they can dictate.

That is really what this bill is about, and it is unfortunately not only this bill. There is another bill right behind this one that will be up today or tomorrow that does the same thing in the gun context.

So I do not think we are going to hear a lot of people out here talking about this bill today. I do not see many people on the floor. It will be like a tree falling in the forest. We do not know whether it is having any impact out there or not. We will pass it out of here. It will become a political vehicle to cozy up to the food industry, but at what price? At what price?

I would just say the people who maintain that H.R. 554 is necessary to make people responsible for their own choices and to thwart the unwarranted imposition of legal costs and fees on the food industry are just not being upfront with us about this one.

This bill insulates an entire industry from liability; and more importantly,

it undermines our State judicial and legislative systems that should be and are in the process of dealing with this to the extent that they have identified it as a problem.

In that sense, the bill represents yet another arrogant attempt by this Congress to impose its will on the States, and I urge my colleagues to get a grip and understand what we are about to do here. There are some things that are more important, and our judicial system is working its way through these cases, is dismissing them where they need to be dismissed; and where that is not happening, our State legislatures are taking care of this problem. This is not a Federal issue, nor should it be.

I urge opposition to the bill.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).

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

This is where I think we are. Some of us are frustrated by some of the litigation that has taken place in this area. I said it when we debated this bill the last time on the floor. I am not a fan of fat litigation either, but sometimes we have to be patient enough in a legislative body to let the institutions that are supposed to work, work. They are working. Most of the lawsuits that have been filed in this area have been dismissed. Most of them have been dismissed. That is what the courts are for. We do not always get the result we want, but the courts are there to make a determination of what results are appropriate and not under the laws that exist.

The State legislatures are responding. Mr. Chairman, there are 26 pending laws out there in the States. A number of them have different components, different nuances. Some of them are retroactive, some of them are not. Whatever happened to our belief that the State legislatures, the States are a laboratory of good legislation? I thought that is what my colleagues who are supporting this bill believed in more heartily than anything else they came to Congress to talk about. When it is convenient for them, when it is convenient for them, there is no more important mantra to them than the mantra of States rights. What are we doing to States rights here, in an area that throughout history has been the province of the States?

I do not understand. We cannot be so intent on getting a particular result, so results-oriented that we disregard everything that we have set up in place to deal with problems of this kind: Our judiciary, our State legislatures, our common sense.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, normally when we see a manager's amendment come to the floor, it is an improving amendment. Unfortunately this one makes a bad bill actually worse than it was originally drawn, and it does so in this way. There are already pleading requirements in every State, and basically what this amendment does is make those pleading requirements higher for the food industry than for anybody else in America. And, in essence, where you end up is that lawyers who represent people who are claiming to have a cause of action are not only now, under this language, called upon to represent their clients and make a reasonable effort to determine whether there is a basis for their claim, they have to be the jury also. They have to go out and decide, are there enough facts here on each and every cause of action against each and every defendant to win this case and win it profoundly. They have to allege specific facts.

I mean, that is the kind of stuff that normally gets done at a trial if a case even gets that far. Most of these cases are being dismissed really. So most of them are not going to get that far anyway.

But I am not sure what role discovery or any other aspect of our legal process is playing anymore if we pass this manager's amendment. This is much, much more than a technical amendment. This is a very substantive amendment. And, unfortunately, I think it makes a bill that is already a very, very bad bill, it makes it a very, very, very bad bill. I oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me thank my distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) both for his kindliness and his astuteness.

Let me thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Michigan

(Mr. Conyers), which gives me a chance to catch my breath.

We were in a Homeland Security hearing which is going on, as many of my colleagues know, assessing the circumstances with Hurricane Rita and Hurricane Katrina.

I know the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) is well aware of great intention in our committee to always work together, and so I offer this amendment recognizing that my colleagues will consider this as an opportunity to work together.

One could argue that in the backdrop of Hurricane Wilma now reaching a Category 5, that this Congress should be addressing many, many other issues, particularly enhanced funding for homeland security, and, of course, how we can do things better.

This legislation that is before us needs to be improved. My amendment would prohibit the food industry, which enjoys broad immunity under this bill, from initiating lawsuits against any person for damages or other relief due to injury or potential injury based on a person's consumption of a qualified product, and weight gain, obesity, or any health condition that is associated with a person's weight gain or obesity.

In essence, this is an amendment to protect against consumer retaliation. My colleagues realize that this particular bill, whether or not it rises to the level of a national crisis or even needs fixing, really immunes, if you will, the vast fast food industry.

Now, those of us who have raised children during this timeframe will never know until the final tests are in, studies are done 10 and 20 years from now, as to whether or not the eating of fast food that many of us took our young children to for play and excitement, is going to be long-lasting in its damage.

But yet we believe that this industry now needs a blanket protection from those who may be negatively impacted, obesity, weight gain or any other health problems. Yet there is no similar protection against consumers who may desire to petition these grievances.

It allows the industry to willy-nilly and randomly sue consumers. This amendment is necessary to ensure that the public debate on the health and nutritious effects of mass-marketed food and products is not completely quelched by this bill.

In 1996, Oprah Winfrey was sued under my home State's food disparagement laws by the beef industry for comments she made following the first mad cow scare this country witnessed, albeit she was denied her first amendment rights.

After years of litigation in my State, transfer of her television show to Texas and expenditure of over $1 million, Ms. Winfrey prevailed at trial and on appeal. Proponents of this bill assert that the food industry will incur significant costs defending frivolous lawsuits.

They took Ms. Winfrey to court, the trial lawyers, but neglect the straggering costs that may be borne by private citizens should they dare question the health effects of any qualified food product under this bill. Where are the first amendment rights and consumer rights? My amendment ensures that what is good for the geese is good for the gander. Those advancing healthy diets by discouraging the consumption of certain foods, their right, their constitutional right, even though I come from a beef State, because of their adverse effects perceived on a person's health and weight gain, should not be subjected to litigation from the food industry while it stands immunized from any accountability under this bill.

Again, I wish we were on the floor talking about restoring the drastic cuts in the budget reconciliation bill that deal with health care and deal with housing and deal with the various issues of education and special grants to help the least of those, but we are on the floor talking about McDonald's and Burger King, certainly friends of young parents who, through their professions and other responsibilities did a lot of eating at Burger King and McDonald's, but it does not in any way give them the privilege of denying consumer rights and the rights of consumers not to be retaliated against because they have expressed their viewpoint and the rights of the first amendment.

I do not recall any hue and cry in this body during or in the aftermath against Ms. Winfrey to ban food liability suits. The system worked. But if we are to end the public's right to a jury trial on issues of food safety, we cannot end the public's right to freedom of speech by leaving food critics, who play an important role in educating the public, as I close, stimulating positive change on good sound eating habits.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit the food industry--which enjoys broad immunity under this bill--from initiating lawsuits against any person for damages or other relief due to injury or potential injury based on a person's consumption of a qualified product and weight gain, obesity, or any health condition that is associated with a person's weight gain or obesity.

This amendment is necessary to insure that the public debate on the health and nutritious effects of mass marketed food products is not completely squelched by this bill.

In 1996, Oprah Winfrey was sued under my home State's ``food disparagement'' laws by the beef industry for comments she made following the first ``Mad cow'' scare this country witnessed. After years of litigation, transfer of her television show to Texas, and an expenditure of over one million dollars, Ms. Winfrey prevailed at trial and on appeal.

Proponents of this bill assert that the food industry will incur significant cost defending ``frivolous'' lawsuits by the trial lawyers, but neglect the staggering costs that may be borne by private citizens should they dare question the health effects of any ``qualified food product'' under this bill.

My amendment insures that what's good for the geese is good for the gander. Those advancing healthy diets by discouraging the consumption of certain foods because of their adverse effects on a person's health and weight gain should not be subject to litigation from the food industry while it stands immunized from any accountability under this bill.

I don't recall any hue and cry in this body during or in the aftermath of the lawsuit against Ms. Winfrey to ban food libel laws. The system worked. But if we are to end the public's right to a jury trial on issues of food safety, we cannot end the public's right to freedom of speech by leaving food critic who play an important role in educating the public, stimulating positive change, and promoting sound eating habits open to lawsuits from an immunized industry.

This amendment addresses this concern and insures that every American can engage in or has access to an open and honest debate on matters of public health.

Once again, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I simply ask the question, in this bill consumers are left vulnerable, and I would ask the gentleman would he not work with me in this amendment to ensure that they are not left vulnerable as we are protecting our fast-food industry?

I yield to the gentleman from Utah.

I thank the gentleman. I just want to acknowledge that the bill does not protect consumers, and I ask Members to support my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 554, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act of 2005.

The food service industry employs some 12 million people, making it the Nation's largest private sector employer. This vital sector of our economy has recently come under attack by lawsuits alleging it should pay monetary damages based upon legal theories holding it liable for the overconsumption of its products.

H.R. 554, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act, would correct this disturbing trend. Introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), this legislation would generally prohibit frivolous obesity- or weight gain-related claims against the food industry. It would, however, allow obesity-related claims to go forward in several circumstances, including cases in which a State or Federal law was broken and as a result a person suffered harm. Under H.R. 554, cases could go forward in which a company violates an expressed contract or warranty.

Also, because H.R. 554 applies only to claims based on weight gain or obesity, lawsuits could still proceed if, for example, someone gets sick from consuming tainted food.

This legislation passed the House of Representatives during the 108th Congress in the form of H.R. 339 with a large bipartisan vote of 276 to 139.

According to a recent Gallup Poll, ``Nearly nine in 10 Americans oppose holding the fast-food industry legally responsible for diet- related health problems of people who eat that kind of food on a regular basis . . . those who

describe themselves as overweight are no more likely than others to blame the fast-food industry for obesity-related health problems or to favor lawsuits against the industry.''

As one judge put it: ``If a person knows or should know that eating copious orders of supersized McDonald's products is unhealthy and may result in weight gain, it is not the place of the law to protect them from their own excesses.''

Even the Los Angeles Times has editorialized against such lawsuits, stating: ``If kids are chowing down to excess on junk food, aren't their parents responsible for cracking down? And if parents or other grown-ups overindulge, isn't it their fault, not that of the purveyors of fast food? . . . Why boost their food bills just because of legal jousting? People shouldn't get stuffed, but this line of litigation should.''

The threat posed to our national economy is clear. Personal injury attorney and obesity lawsuit litigator John Banzhaf said recently, ``You may not like it . . . but we'll find a judge. And then we'll find a jury'' that will find restaurants liable for their customers' overeating. According to news reports of a recent legal conference, a panel of four lawyers argued that the overweight lawsuit movement ``would need to extend beyond the obvious targets like restaurants, fast-food chains, and food manufacturers to bring about substantial policy changes . . . ''

Dr. Gerald Musante, a clinical psychologist who trained at Duke University Medical Center, has worked for more than 30 years with thousands of obese patients. He is the founder of the Structure House, a residential weight loss facility in Durham, North Carolina. Dr. Musante said the following at a hearing in the other body on this legislation: ``Through working with obese patients, I have learned that the worst thing one can do is to blame an outside force to get themselves `off the hook,' to say it's not their fault and that they are a victim . . . Congress has rightly recognized the danger of allowing Americans to continue blaming others for the obesity epidemic. It is imperative that we prevent lawsuits from being filed against any industry for answering consumer demands.''

Even the chairman of the American Council for Fitness and Nutrition, Susan Finn, has written that ``if you're obese, you don't need a lawyer; you need to see your doctor, a nutritionist, and a physical trainer. Playing the courtroom blame game won't make anyone thinner or healthier . . . ''

Besides threatening to erode values of personal responsibility, the lawsuit campaign against the food industry threatens the separation of powers. Nationally coordinated lawsuits seek to accomplish through litigation what has not been achieved by legislation and the democratic process. As one mastermind behind the lawsuits against the food industry has stated, ``If the legislatures won't legislate, then the trial lawyers will litigate.''

Madam Chairman, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act will help preserve the separation of powers, support the principle of personal responsibility, and help protect the largest private sector employer in the United States. I urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this manager's amendment makes technical changes to the section of the bill that sets forth the information plaintiffs must provide in order for a judge to determine whether the lawsuit is banned by the bill or allowed to go forward under one of the bill's exceptions.

These minor changes are meant to provide a judge with a clear understanding of the type of information the judge is to consider in deciding a motion to dismiss under H.R. 554.

The pleading provision in H.R. 554 is meant to apply to any action claiming obesity-related damages, and this amendment makes clear that the pleading requirements will apply to all cases seeking obesity- related damages.

Also adding the phrase ``for each defendant and cause of action'' clarifies that a judge must apply H.R. 554's pleading requirements to each specific claim. This prevents a plaintiff from improperly using a claim that is not barred by H.R. 554 as a means of pursuing obesity- related claims that are barred by the bill against the same or other defendants. This change would prevent entire industries from being ensnared in lawsuits where the relevant facts relate to only one company.

Finally, other technical changes would simply ensure consistency by using the same terms in the pleading sections as are used elsewhere in the bill.

I would ask all of my colleagues to support these common sense, technical amendments.

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