[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 170 (Monday, December 10, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2245]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     TERRORISM RISK PROTECTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. BETTY McCOLLUM

                              of minnesota

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, November 29, 2001

  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss my views on H.R. 
3210, the Terrorism Risk Protection Act.
  With the unexpected attacks on New York City and Washington, DC on 
September 11th, the United States has fought many battles in the past 
two months. The loss of lives, jobs, homes and businesses have had 
unforeseen effects on our country, and the world.
  Under such circumstances, it is our duty as Americans to rise in 
support of our country. As a Member of Congress, it is my job to look 
out for the best interest of those affected by such tragedies. H.R. 
3210, in its original state, did provide for the interests of 
Americans.
  While I was supportive of the bipartisan bill as approved by the 
Financial Services Committee, I am very disappointed with the 
significant changes made by the majority leadership in the Rules 
Committee. Unnecessary provisions were added in an effort to open this 
legislation up for partisan tort reform.
  The revised legislation limits the rights of a victim to seek legal 
action due to terrorist attacks. In addition, the restrictions include 
a complete ban on punitive damages, as well as non-economic damages. 
Such restrictions on damages will severely limit the possibility of 
victims to receive compensation for negligence.
  The bill will force every legal action involving a terrorist-related 
claim into federal court even though states are the traditional arena 
for deciding such cases. This bill is written so broadly that its 
restrictions would apply to any future legal action involving 
terrorism, even if an insurance company were not a party to the action.
  I supported a compromise in which the insurance industry was to 
assume appropriate financial responsibility. There is simply no need 
for such broad and controversial tort reform provisions to be attached 
to this measure.
  The minority substitute, which I support, strikes the tort 
provisions, requires an industry deductible, and ensures affordable and 
available coverage.
  The underlying goal today is not only about helping the economy, and 
the insurance and reinsurance companies. Victim's rights should not be 
limited. H.R. 3210, without the Democratic substitute amendment, limits 
the rights of victims, and leaves who is left accountable in question.
  It's true; the insurance industry faces a rough road ahead. It's true 
that this industry is essential to America's economy. While I do agree 
with the underlying concept of protecting the insurance industry, I 
could not vote for final passage of this legislation in its current 
form.

                          ____________________