WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)
today said that H.R. 3210, the Terrorism Risk Protection Act, is
another special interest giveaway that harms the public
interest. Schakowsky opposed the legislation, which was passed
by the House, and instead supported a substitute that was a
responsible response to the tragedies of September
11.
Below is Schakowsky’s Congressional Record statement during
the debate:
“Once again, the House is being asked to consider
legislation that purports to address a legitimate public need but
which is cloaked in special interest giveaways that do harm to the
public interest. That is why I rise today in strong
opposition to H.R. 3210, the Terrorism Risk Protection Act, and in
support of the LaFalce substitute to that
bill.
“First, we acted to provide a $15 billion airline bailout
that did nothing to help laid-off airline workers, improve safety or
even guarantee that funds would be reinvested in improving American
airlines. Airline workers are still waiting for unemployment
insurance compensation and health care benefits. The need to
help airlines and their employees after the tragedies of September
11 was legitimate, but the legislation we passed was a special
interest giveaway that failed to meet that
need.
“Second, we passed a so-called economic stimulus bill that
will do little to stimulate the economy but instead includes tax
breaks for the wealthy and for giant corporations, including refunds
for taxes paid back to 1986 and incentives to invest overseas.
And, again, the needs of laid-off workers and their families are
ignored. We need to enact economic recovery measures, but the
House-passed bill is largely a package of long-demanded tax breaks
that will bring little, if any, benefit to the vast majority of
American families and small
businesses.
“Today, we are being asked to pass the legislation that not
only provides an unwarranted bailout to the insurance industry but
actually takes away consumer protections by making it extremely
difficult for those injured to seek full compensation. Again,
there is a legitimate concern. Although no one denies that the
insurance industry has sufficient revenues to meet its current
obligations, there is a need to address the decision of reinsurance
companies to stop providing terrorism risk coverage in the
future. This problem would seem to demand a narrow,
well-considered approach. But this vehicle has served as a
magnet for companies that are trying to avoid responsibility by
limiting their payout liabilities and by preventing injured
consumers from getting their fair day in
court.
“As The Washington Post reported today, “The
insurance industry’s lobbying campaign for federal help covering
future terrorism claims was in full swing last month when a group
representing Lloyd’s of London investors published a newsletter
highlighting the ‘historic opportunity’ for insurers to make money
after the Sept. 11 attacks.” This is not the history that we
want to write here today.
“In the event of future terrorist attacks, H.R. 3210
requires that U.S. taxpayers pay for 90 percent of all claims,
including first dollar losses. It is simply outrageous that,
as unemployed workers and their families are waiting for federal
assistance, our first priority should be to bail out an insurance
industry that is sitting on major reserves. The LaFalce
substitute, unlike the underlying bill, would require that the
industry pay a deductible of at least $5 billion to $10 billion
annually. The LaFalce substitute not only protects U.S.
taxpayers, it ensures that insurance companies will still have
incentives to press their policyholders to act to improve safety and
security. That is why groups like Consumer Federation of
America, the National Taxpayers Union, and Consumers Union oppose
H.R. 3210 and support the LaFalce
substitute.
“Even more disturbing to me than the size of the potential
bailout in H.R. 3210 is the assault on the rights of victims.
There is no justification for taking away the rights of injured
consumers or their families to seek redress through our civil
justice system. There is no justification for immunizing
companies from dangerous behavior. Yet, H.R. 3210 would do
just that.
“H.R. 3210 would prevent future juries from awarding
punitive damages. These damages are extremely rare and used
only where injuries are caused by recklessly dangerous and
irresponsible conduct. Under H.R. 3210, a security firm that
hires felons, a building owner who refuses to put in fire escapes, a
construction firm that doesn’t meet building codes, or a company
that fails to provide escape procedures for persons with
disabilities would be immunized from punitive
damages. “H.R. 3210
also limits a jury’s or judge’s discretion to award non-economic
damages. If we agree to this provision, we are saying that the
loss of a child or husband and the inability to walk or have
children are injuries that are not worthy of full
compensation.
“Finally, H.R. 3210 provides a one-sided and unfair
limitation on victims by limiting attorney’s fees. Defendants
would, of course, be free to pay their attorneys whatever they
wish. But plaintiffs, who usually rely on a contingency
fee system because they lack the funds to pay upfront lawyers’ fees,
are hampered. As a result, victims may find it difficult to
find qualified attorneys to take what may be complicated and costly
cases to
prepare.
“Unlike H.R. 3210, the LaFalce substitute leaves our civil
justice system intact. It does not assault the rights of
victims. And it leaves in place the potential for damages that
will encourage firms to be as careful as possible in improving
security and contingency
plans.
“We pray that we will not suffer from future terrorist
attacks. But, as we mourn the victims of September 11, we must
not take away the rights of any future victims or their
families. Nor should we reduce the incentives on the insurance
industry and other companies to do everything possible to prevent
terrorist attacks or prepare safety measures in case they occur. By
limiting insurance industry liability, shielding wrongdoers from
liability, and reducing the ability of victims to recover for their
losses, H.R. 3210 would do far more harm than good. It should
be defeated.
” |