(p. 12) Like private litigation, then, state enforcement may be driven by a desire to compensate victims, and legislators and lobbyists sometimes invoke that goal as a reason for empowering both states and private parties.65 More frequently, state enforcement is justified as a means of ensuring compliance with federal law through a “multilayered approach to enforcement”66 that “bring more allies into the fight.”[153 Cong. Rec. H16,882 (daily ed. Dec. 19, 2007) (statement of Rep. DeLaurio) (regarding state enforcement under CPSIA); see also 149 Cong. Rec. 25,526 (2003) (statement of Sen. Wyden) (“What is going to be important is for those who are charged with enforcement . . . to bring a handful of actions very quickly to establish that for the first time there is a real deterrent . . . . When the bill takes effect, for the first time those violators are going to risk criminal prosecution, Federal Trade Commission enforcement, and million-dollar lawsuits by the State attorneys general and Internet service providers.”); id. at 25,548 (statement of Sen. Cantwell) (“By allowing enforcement by State attorneys general and by Internet service providers, we have increased the odds of successful enforcement against the worst spammers.”); 137 Cong. Rec. 30,822 (1991) (statement of Sen. Hollings) (regarding common carrier regulation, describing state enforcement as a response to questions about “the will of the FCC to enforce the bill rigorously”); 153 Cong. Rec. S15,990 (daily ed. Dec. 19, 2007) (statement of Sen. Pryor) (arguing that CPSIA “ensures that [state attorneys general] can act as real cops on the beat, looking out for consumers and restoring confidence in the marketplace”); Consumer Product Safety Commission Reauthorization Hearing Before the Subcomm. On Commerce, Consumer Protection, and Competitiveness of the H. Comm. On Energy and Commerce, 101st Cong. 65 (1989) (statement of Dr. Widome, Professor of Pediatrics) (regarding Flammable Fabrics Act, arguing that state enforcement “would build a needed redundancy and failsafe provision into the [Consumer Products Safety] Commission and help assure that some of these products get off the market”); Consumer Product Safety Commission Reauthorization (Part 2): Hearing on H.R. 3343 and H.R. 3443 Before the Subcomm. On Commerce, Consumer Protection, and Competitiveness of the H. Comm. On Energy and Commerce, 100th Cong. 236 (1987) (statement of PIRG) (regarding CPSIA, arguing that state enforcement “would multiply by fifty the number of officials available to help ensure the safety of products that are distributed throughout the country”).]