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 ) xz4004240 both for his kindliness and his astuteness . 
let me thank the chairman of the full committee , the gentleman from wisconsin ( mr. sensenbrenner ) xz4003650 , and the ranking member of the full committee , the gentleman from michigan ( mr. conyers ) xz4000800 , 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 ) xz4003650 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 can not 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 do n'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 can not 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 . 
