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 can not 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 . 
