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 .  