John Cornyn: “first we are told that the reason why State attorneys general need to be explicitly authorized under this statute to…”

“first we are told that the reason why State attorneys general need to be explicitly authorized under this statute to pursue these consumer complaints is so there is no risk of runaway lawsuits, because they will be confined to seeking an injunction in Federal court. I actually support that provision of the bill. Then we are told there is an objection to my amendment, which would prohibit State attorneys general from entering into contingency fee arrangements in order to pursue authorized activities under this bill, that there is no reason for the amendment. Next thing I know, there is a document circulated by the American Trial Lawyers Association arguing the only way consumers can get access to the court is by allowing the outsourcing of the responsibility of the State attorneys general under a contingency fee arrangement which makes me mighty suspicious whether this is, in fact, a Trojan horse to allow trial lawyers basically to do the work elected State attorneys general should be doing and that currently the Department of Justice is doing. All my amendment is designed to do is to make sure the purpose for which the State attorneys general are authorized--that is, to seek an injunction only-- is maintained and that it not be allowed to serve as a Trojan horse to outsource these responsibilities. There are some very important public policy reasons for that. No. 1, trial lawyers hired by State attorneys general are not accountable to the public.…”