PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 254.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Oct 19, 2005
Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act of 2005 - Prohibits new and dismisses pending civil actions by any person against a manufacturer, marketer, distributor, advertiser, or seller of food or a trade association for any injury related to a person's accumulated acts of consumption of food and weight gain, obesity, or any associated health condition, excluding actions alleging: (1) a breach of express contract or express warranty provided that the grounds of recovery are unrelated to a person's weight gain, obesity, or related health condition; (2) a knowing violation of a federal or state statute applicable to the marketing, advertisement, or labeling of food with intent for a person to rely on that violation, where such person relied on that violation, and where such reliance was the proximate cause of injury related to that person's weight gain, obesity, or related health condition; or (3) a violation brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) under the Federal Trade Commission Act or by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Requires in any excluded action: (1) a stay of discovery during the pendency of any motion to dismiss, unless necessary to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice; and (2) evidence preservation during the stay. Requires the complaint in such an action to plead with particularity for each defendant and cause of action: (1) each element of the cause of action and the specific facts alleged to satisfy each element of the cause of action; (2) the federal and state statutes that allegedly create the cause of action; and (3) the exception under this Act that is being relied upon and the specific facts that allegedly satisfy the requirements of that exception.
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. 254.
Received in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 306 - 120 (Roll no. 533).
House roll call 533 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 306 - 120 (Roll no. 533).
House roll call 533 · 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. (consideration: CR H8939)
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 554.
UNFINSHED BUSINESS - The Chair announced that the unfinished business was the question of adoption of amendments which had been debated earlier and on which further proceedings had been postponed.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Waxman amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Waxman 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 - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 449, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Waxman amendment.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - 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 - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 449, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Scott (VA) amendment.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Filner amendment, the Chair put the question on adoption of the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Mr. Filner 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 - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 449, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Filner amendment.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - 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 - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 449, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Jackson-Lee amendment.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 494, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Sensenbrenner amendment.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 554.
The Speaker designated the Honorable Candice S. Miller to act as Chairwoman of the Committee.
House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 494 and Rule XVIII.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 554 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Specified amendments are in order.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 494. (consideration: CR H8925-8940; text of measure as reported in House: CR H8930-8931)
Rule H. Res. 494 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 494 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 554 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Specified amendments are in order.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 75.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 109-130.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 109-130.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 16 - 8.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law Discharged.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.
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: Dec 5, 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.554 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.554 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.554 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.554 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.