James Oberstar: “this is a very specious argument that we have before us. The rental company has insurance, so that makes everything…”

“this is a very specious argument that we have before us. The rental company has insurance, so that makes everything fine, except that the amendment relieves the rental company of the liability on their insurance, except in the case of negligence. That does not make any sense whatever. If I have a vehicle and allow someone else to use that vehicle and that person has an accident, I am the one that is liable. Why should a car rental company be any different than the individual? The answer is they have got a good lobby and they are lobbying for this amendment. They are lobbying to free themselves of responsibility and liability. That is not right. States have different rules. What is wrong with respecting State rules? States have adopted a policy that has concluded that without the kind of protection the gentleman would like to remove, harm to innocent children, harm to bystanders, would go totally uncompensated, even if the rental car company leased the vehicle to an obvious drug abuser or to someone who has a history of a very bad driving record. That is wrong. We should not be in the business of wholesale removal of liability for responsibility.”