Lloyd Bentsen: “Regrettably I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3210, the Terrorism Risk Protection Act. I am very concerned about tort…”

“Regrettably I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3210, the Terrorism Risk Protection Act. I am very concerned about tort provisions that were added to the bill by the House Rules Committee. As an original cosponsor of H.R. 3210, I am disappointed that the House Rules Committee acted to rewrite this bill. I strongly believe that we must act to ensure that terrorism insurance is available for our nation's property owners. Without such coverage, we endanger our nation's economy. With the current recession which we are experiencing, I do not believe that we should jeopardize our economy. Today, many property owners are receiving property insurance renewal notices which specifically exclude terrorism coverage. For many property owners, failure to purchase terrorism insurance may jeopardize their credit and result in devastating actions by their creditors. I am disappointed that the underlying bill includes tort reform provisions which are fatally flawed. As a sponsor of an amendment to the liability provisions in this bill, I am concerned that the new liability provisions will hurt victims of terrorism and are not necessary for this bill. The underlying bill was introduced at the last minute with many onerous provisions which are not reasonable and fair. First, the liability section will preclude spouses of victims from seeking non-economic damages when a spouse is lost to a terrorism attack.”