Bill Delahunt: “the provision that was added by the Committee on Rules last night which would limit relief for the victims of terrorist…”

“the provision that was added by the Committee on Rules last night which would limit relief for the victims of terrorist attacks by immunizing wrongdoers in advance from the consequences of their own negligence and reckless conduct, has nothing whatsoever to do with stabilizing the insurance market, nothing to do with ensuring that people would be able to secure insurance against future acts of terrorism. It does not belong in the bill. The motion to recommit, as the ranking member alluded to, would delete it; and it would leave us basically with the bill reported out with strong bipartisan support from the Committee on Financial Services. If we are genuinely concerned about preventing an insurance crisis, we should agree to this motion and pass a clean bill. Let us not try to rewrite the fundamental rules of the civil justice system late at night without thoughtful and considerate debate. Note that the Committee on Rules' provision would prohibit the courts from awarding punitive damages in cases arising out of terrorist incidents no matter how outrageous the underlying conduct. For example, even for private airport security contractors who wantonly, recklessly, maliciously hired convicted felons, failed to perform background checks, there would be no punitive damages. Even for landlords who deliberately ignore safety codes and fail to install escape routes in their buildings, there would be no punitive damages.”