CPSC Reform Act

Floor Speech

CPSC REFORM ACT -- (Senate - March 05, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

AMENDMENT NOS. 4094 AND 4097

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I rise to oppose amendments offered to the Consumer Product Safety Commission bill by Senators Cornyn and Vitter. Before speaking about these amendments, I first commend Senator Pryor for his important work on this bill. I know he has been working on this a long time and we are, as former State attorneys general, particularly pleased to see language in this bill granting State attorneys general the authority to obtain injunctive relief against entities that violate consumer protection laws. I know Senator Pryor and other former attorneys general in this body understand that this authority is an efficient and effective way to enforce consumer protection laws. Unfortunately, the amendments offered by Senators Cornyn and Vitter would needlessly undercut these important protections.

The Cornyn amendment adds the following language to the bill. It says:

An Attorney General of a State may not enter into a contingency fee arrangement for legal or expert witness services related to a civil action under this section.

I oppose inclusion of this language in the bill. As an attorney general, I was involved in Rhode Island in a very significant piece of litigation which is now successful. We have won the jury case. It was filed on behalf of tens of thousands of Rhode Island children who either had been poisoned by lead in paint or were going to be poisoned by lead in paint if nothing was done. Without the ability to bring in a significant law firm to support my office's efforts, we would have been simply blown out of the litigation by the blizzard of dilatory tactics, by the paper blizzard that defense attorneys can specialize in. I can recall being forced to chase down a witness list of 100 witnesses to take depositions, not one of whom was called as an actual witness. I believe it was an effort to create a wild goose chase, to stretch our resources, to try to make these kinds of cases painful to attorneys general who might dare bring them. The ability of a State to authorize its attorney general or recognize the inherent authority of the attorney general to enter into these contingency fee agreements is an important part of that State's own law. Simply put, Congress has no business telling elected State attorneys general what kind of contracts they can or cannot enter into which would be perfectly legal under State law.

I am especially surprised to see what appears to be significant Republican support for this amendment since it contradicts a very basic principle--federalism. Congress ought to let the States, whenever possible, govern themselves. As a former State attorney general who has had this experience of taking on powerful corporations with essentially unlimited resources, I believe strongly that State attorneys general should not have their hands tied by Congress so that they cannot aggressively pursue and punish corporate wrongdoing on a level playing field. That is all they ask for.

I will oppose the Vitter amendment for similar reasons. This amendment requires State taxpayers to pay the legal fees and costs if a manufacturer prevails in a consumer protection suit brought by a State attorney general. This appears to be an effort to weaken this important bipartisan legislation. First, it would obviously discourage State AGs from bringing consumer protection cases in the first place. If it looks as though something went wrong with the case, you would have to find a way to fund your opponent's legal fees. Second, it places an unreasonable burden on State taxpayers. Why, for instance, should the taxpayers of Rhode Island have to cover the legal fees for an out-of-State, possibly even an out-of-the-United States foreign company that has been charged with violating our consumer protection laws?

As a former State attorney general, I well understand that these amendments will have a significant effect, diminishing the ability of State attorneys general to enforce consumer protection laws. If these are good consumer protection laws, we want to see them enforced. We don't want to discourage those officials charged with their enforcement.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendments of my friends Senators Cornyn and Vitter.

I yield the floor.

Source