PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 463.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 27, 2003
Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act - Shields the manufacturer, distributor, or seller of a food or non-alcoholic beverage product intended for human consumption from civil liability, relating to consumption of such products, in Federal or State court, unless the plaintiff proves that the product was not in compliance with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements at the time of sale.
People & committees
Rep. Keller, Ric [R-FL-8] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 463.
Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
Received in the Senate.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 276 - 139 (Roll no. 54).
House roll call 54 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 276 - 139 (Roll no. 54).
House roll call 54 · Individual votesThe House adopted the amendment in the nature of a substitute as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 339.
POSTPONED VOTE - At the conclusion of debate on the Watt amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr Watt demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Watt amendment under the five-minute rule.
POSTPONED VOTE - At the conclusion of debate on the Jackson-Lee amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Ms. Jackson-Lee demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Jackson-Lee amendment under the five-minute rule.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Jackson-Lee amendment under the five-minute rule.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Lampson amendment under the five-minute rule.
POSTPONED VOTE - At the conclusion of debate on the Ackerman amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Ackerman demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Ackerman amendment under the five-minute rule.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Inslee amendment under the five-minute rule.
POSTPONED VOTE - At the conclusion of debate on the Andrews amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Andrews demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Andrews amendment under the five-minute rule.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Watt amendment under the five-minute rule.
POSTPONED VOTE - At the conclusion of debate on the Scott (VA) amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Sensenbrenner demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of adoption of the amendment until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Scott (VA) amendment under the five-minute rule.
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Sensenbrenner amendment under the five-minute rule.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 339.
House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 552 and Rule XVIII.
The Speaker designated the Honorable John Abney Culberson to act as Chairman of the Committee.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 339 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill. Measure will be considered read. Specified amendments are in order.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 552. (consideration: CR H946-982; text of measure as reported in House: CR H953-954)
Rule H. Res. 552 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 552 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 339 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill. Measure will be considered read. Specified amendments are in order.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 248.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 108-432.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 108-432.
Mr. DeLay asked unanimous consent that the Committee on Judiciary have until midnight on March 5 to file a report on H.R. 339. Agreed to without objection.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law for purposes of hearing only (jurisdiction retained at Full Committee).
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.339 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.339 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.339 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.339 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.