Mike Levin: “So, Mr. President, what we have here is not uniformity. We have a one-way preemption in this bill that allows the State…”

“So, Mr. President, what we have here is not uniformity. We have a one-way preemption in this bill that allows the State in section after section after section to be more restrictive of the rights of injured parties. All that they are preempted and prevented from doing at the State level is being less restrictive on the rights of injured parties. That is not fair. That is not uniform. It is one of the reasons I will vote against this conference report, because even though you can make out an argument for uniformity, I think there is a good intellectual argument that can be made for uniformity, if it is true uniformity, if it applies both ways, to both plaintiffs and defendants, if it is not just a one-way street that allows States to be more restrictive but not less restrictive. That is intellectually defensible. Whether you agree with it or not, at least it is consistent, at least there is a coherent logic to it. But to provide, as this bill does, that State laws which are more restrictive are preempted but not the ones less restrictive, it is unfair, unbalanced, and it is one of the reasons I will vote against this bill.”