[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 109 (Tuesday, September 14, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H7092-H7095]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
VOLUNTEER PILOT ORGANIZATION PROTECTION ACT OF 2004
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 1084) to provide liability protection to nonprofit
volunteer pilot organizations flying for public benefit and to the
pilots and staff of such organizations, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 1084
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Volunteer Pilot Organization
Protection Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Scores of public benefit nonprofit volunteer pilot
organizations provide valuable services to communities and
individuals.
[[Page H7093]]
(2) In calendar year 2001, nonprofit volunteer pilot
organizations provided long-distance, no-cost transportation
for over 30,000 people in times of special need.
(3) Such organizations are no longer able to reasonably
purchase non-owned aircraft liability insurance to provide
liability protection, and thus face a highly detrimental
liability risk.
(4) Such organizations have supported the interests of
homeland security by providing volunteer pilot services at
times of national emergency.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to promote the
activities of nonprofit volunteer pilot organizations flying
for public benefit and to sustain the availability of the
services that such organizations provide, including
transportation at no cost to financially needy medical
patients for medical treatment, evaluation, and diagnosis, as
well as other flights of compassion and flights for
humanitarian and charitable purposes.
SEC. 3. LIABILITY PROTECTION FOR NONPROFIT VOLUNTEER PILOT
ORGANIZATIONS FLYING FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT AND TO
PILOTS AND STAFF OF SUCH ORGANIZATIONS.
Section 4 of the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 (42
U.S.C. 14503) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(4)--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as (i) and
(ii), respectively;
(B) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(4)'';
(C) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
or'' and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) the harm was caused by a volunteer of a nonprofit
volunteer pilot organization that flies for public benefit,
while the volunteer was flying in furtherance of the purpose
of the organization and was operating an aircraft for which
the volunteer was properly licensed and insured.''; and
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``Nothing''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a nonprofit volunteer
pilot organization that flies for public benefit, and the
staff, mission coordinators, officers, and directors (whether
volunteer or otherwise) of such organization or a referring
agency of such organization, shall not be liable with respect
to harm caused to any person by a volunteer of such
organization, while the volunteer is flying in furtherance of
the purpose of the organization and is operating an aircraft
for which the volunteer is properly licensed and has
certified to such organization that such volunteer has in
force insurance for operating such aircraft.''.
SEC. 4. REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.
(a) Study Required.--The Attorney General shall carry out a
study on the availability of insurance to nonprofit volunteer
pilot organizations that fly for public benefit. In carrying
out the study, the Attorney General shall make findings with
respect to--
(1) whether nonprofit volunteer pilot organizations are
able to obtain insurance;
(2) if no, then why;
(3) if yes, then on what terms such insurance is offered;
and
(4) if the inability of nonprofit volunteer pilot
organizations to obtain insurance has any impact on the
associations' ability to operate.
(b) Report.--After completing the study, the Attorney
General shall submit to Congress a report on the results of
the study. The report shall include the findings of the study
and any conclusions and recommendations that the Attorney
General considers appropriate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
General Leave
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1084, the bill
currently under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1084,
the Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act of 2004. I would like
to thank the bill's sponsors, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Schrock), and also the other gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), for
their work in bringing this legislation before us.
The bill provides limited liability relief for volunteer pilot and
volunteer pilot organizations that do some of the most invaluable and
unappreciated volunteer work in the Nation. The legislation is intended
to promote the publicly beneficial activities of volunteer pilot
organizations and their employees and members by exempting them from
liability when flying volunteer missions in furtherance of the purpose
of such organizations.
Volunteer pilot organizations and the pilots who fly for them are
involved in a range of activities constituting what generally may be
called public benefit aviation. The activities of public benefit
aviation include environmental observation, wilderness rescue, delivery
of medical supplies and organs, and transporting medical patients. In
the area of medical patient transport alone, volunteer pilot
organizations provided long-distance transportation for free to over
40,000 patients and their escorts in 2003.
Since the activities of volunteer pilot organizations are not
protected from liability by the Volunteer Protection Act, they are
exposed to significant liability risks leading many insurers to drop
coverage for those pilots and organizations. In addition, hospitals and
other medical establishments are leery of referring patients to
volunteer pilot medical transport services because of their own fear of
liability exposure based upon the simple act of recommendation.
The legislation limits liability exposure for volunteer pilots and
organizations by bringing them within the scope of coverage of the
Volunteer Protection Act. This legislation will not confer blanket
immunity. Liability will still attach for gross negligence or reckless
misconduct. The bill would also have an added benefit of allowing
hospitals, clinics, and other organizations to refer needy patients for
no-cost medical transport with less fear of their own liability
exposure.
The bill is supported by a wide array of charitable organizations,
including the National Association of Hospital Hospitality Houses, the
Children's Organ Transplant Association, the Health and Medical
Research Charities of America, the National Organization For Rare
Disorders, the National Foundations For Transplant, the Independent
Charities of America, the Air Care Alliance, and others.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1084 will end the cycle of litigation that has
stifled the efforts of the brave and public-minded volunteer pilots who
risk their own lives by flying patients so the patients they serve
might have a chance to live. I urge support of the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1145
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, unlike many of the others, this bill is narrowly drawn,
and it is my understanding, and my colleague from Virginia, I think,
can correct me if I am wrong, but the usual problem we have in this
case is you have an injured party without any recourse at all.
This bill requires insurance on the part of the pilot. And so if
there is negligence, the injured party does have recourse. He has
recourse against the insurance policy, but he does not have recourse,
in the bill, to the organization, the volunteer organization that just
matched the pilot and the injured party together, so that the party,
injured through ordinary negligence, would have recourse against the
insurance policy covering the airplane and the pilot.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Forbes), one of the authors of the bill.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, several days before Christmas, the phone
rang at Angel Flight, and the voice on the other end of the line said
she only had 4 weeks to live. Her only hope was receiving an
experimental drug treatment in San Antonio, but with a mountain of
medical bills, she could not afford the flight.
A few minutes later, an urgent e-mail would go out. Responses would
come back in, and within a few hours, a pilot would be located. The
patient would be flown to San Antonio for treatment. And upon arrival,
a car would be waiting to drive her to the hospital. She would never
see a bill for any of her transportation.
Angel Flight is a nonprofit organization that offers free, long-
distance transportation for medical care and removes the financial
burden from patients. Its volunteer pilots are stockbrokers, realtors,
private businessmen, retired Air Force pilots, commercial pilots,
lawyers and doctors and others.
[[Page H7094]]
Every year, on their free time, these pilots fly over 10,000 patients
nationwide. Some pilots fly one or two mercy flights a year. Others may
fly as many as 50 flights. All are flown at the pilot's expense.
Angel Flight is just one organization involved in nonprofit public-
benefit flying. Last year, volunteer pilot organizations provided long-
distance, no-cost transportation for over 40,000 patients and their
escorts in times of special need. Other organizations flew missions
ranging from environmental observation to organ transportation.
Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, significant quantities
of blood and blood products were transported by volunteer pilots.
In the last several years, however, in part due to the fear of
litigation, yearly insurance once available for $1,000 has skyrocketed
to more than $25,000 a year even though there was no evidence presented
to the Judiciary Committee of any negligence committed by any of these
pilots or their organizations. Not only are talented volunteers afraid
of flying mercy flights for fear of being sued, most of the
organization's nonflying staff cannot afford liability protection.
Mr. Speaker, today, we consider legislation to address this serious
problem sponsored by my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Schrock). H.R.
1084 will create specific liability protection for nonprofit volunteer
pilot organizations flying for the public's benefit. It will ensure
that, when these pilots take to the skies, the only thing on their mind
is getting that patient to the treatment they need. And ultimately, it
will encourage others to join them in this network of charity.
Without H.R. 1084, the Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act,
we risk that these charitable organizations will no longer be able to
provide their important services, and tens of thousands of people who
benefit from their work will be unable to obtain the medical care they
desperately need.
Equally important, without this and other vital legislation aimed at
curbing lawsuit abuse, we risk the possibility that America's abundant
tradition of generosity and charity will be undermined by a few who use
the judicial system for the wrong purposes. I urge my colleagues to
vote in favor of H.R. 1084 to keep these committed volunteers in our
skies and keep America's spirit of generosity flying high.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to add my support to
this legislation.
I had concerns about it, because I am always concerned when we have a
dilemma between helping and providing good things and good activities
juxtaposed, if you will, or conflicted with the idea of closing out
rights of the injured.
But in any event, I believe that the ultimate goal of this
legislation is to enhance the needed services to communities in need,
and therefore, I think it is important to promote the activities of our
nonprofit pilot organizations as we should protect all of our nonprofit
organizations as we can in balance with the need to be able to address
our grievances.
I think it is important to make note of a valuable point made by the
distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime, and that is
that this legislation does have and provide for coverage and insurance
by these pilots. In Texas, for example, the Angel Flight South Central
was established in 1991 as Angel Flight of Texas, a nonprofit
corporation. Its pilots use their flying skills to provide
transportation to medical treatment for seriously ill or injured people
who are geographically isolated or are in financial need.
This organization serves institutions such as the M.D. Anderson
Cancer Center located in Houston, Texas, and the University of Texas
Health Medical Branch of Galveston in Galveston, Texas, among many
others. Therefore, I would want to make all efforts to support
organizations such as Angel Flight. However, we must carefully weigh
the benefits of selfless acts of others with the need to craft narrowly
tailored legislation that protects all parties equally.
H.R. 1084 as drafted requires serious analysis and amendment by this
committee. Section 3 as drafted departs from the 1997 Volunteer
Protection Act by shielding not only the volunteer pilot from liability
but also the staff, mission coordinator, officer or director of the
nonprofit organization.
This expansion of protection, as I indicated in my earlier remarks,
seems a little bit too broad. An injured party has a right to bring a
claim for recovery of damages against some principal of the nonprofit
organization or responsible party. And the courts, I believe, should
retain discretion as to whether it will hear the matter. I would hope,
as this legislation moves through the Congress, through the Senate and
ultimately, finally passed, that we will have the opportunity to look
at this again.
Congress should legislate when necessary, especially in areas of the
law that affect an individual's right to sue for damages. To date,
there has been no reported civil liability case filed against a
volunteer pilot or against a volunteer pilot organization. Furthermore,
43 States, which include Texas, have passed legislation that deals with
volunteer liability. Therefore, this committee and this body, as this
legislation moves, should again make sure that all of these matters are
taken care of.
I would hope that, also, the issues dealing with the liability would
be considered. I had concerns and had amendments in committee that
would have narrowed the scope of the liability protection given to
volunteers of nonprofit pilot organizations to cover persons within the
aircraft only. The rights of the bystander who is not inside the
aircraft and who might be injured through the negligence of the pilot
should be preserved given that no compelling justification has been
given to include those outside the aircraft. I hope, maybe, in the
final writing of this bill that that matter were handled and, if not,
that it will be taken care of as it moves, as I said, through the
Congress.
Mr. Speaker, in addition, the appropriate scope of this legislation
should be the volunteer injured person, for policy reasons. One of the
purported purposes of this legislation was to encourage continued
service to individuals in rural areas who do not have the financial
means to receive this service otherwise. The proposed language that I
spoke about earlier of the concept of bystander would still again
provide more clarified aspects to this legislation.
It is important as well to make sure that we cover issues dealing
with terrorism and misuse of airplanes. Again, I hope that these issues
may be ironed out because they are important points that were raised.
Overall, however, as I started, knowing that Angel Flight of Texas,
Incorporated, as one of many nonprofit volunteer pilots organizations
around the Nation, needs our concern about them being able to provide
life and safety to those who are seeking medical care and other needs,
I think this legislation on its face is important and deserves our
support.
Mr. Speaker, I add my support to this legislation and would hope
that, as it makes its way to its final signing, that it will have all
these issues that we have spoken of and raised concerns about taken
care of so that the legislation can serve our communities and our
Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill before the House, H.R.
1084, the Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act, although I had
reservations about certain of its provisions during Committee
consideration. It is important that we promote the activities of our
nonprofit pilot organizations--as we should protect all of our
nonprofit organizations as a whole, especially when they provide a
service that facilitates the protection of our homeland at a time like
now when our vulnerabilities are at a high level.
In Texas, Angel Flight South Central was established in 1991 as Angel
Flight of Texas, Inc., a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation. Its pilots
use their flying skills to provide transportation to medical treatment
for seriously ill or injured people who are geographically isolated or
are in financial need. This organization serves institutions such as
the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, located in Houston, Texas and the
University of Texas Health Medical Branch of Galveston in Galveston,
Texas, among many others. Therefore, I would want to make all efforts
to support organizations such as Angel Flight.
However, we must carefully weigh the benefits of selfless acts of
others with the need to craft narrowly tailored legislation that
protects
[[Page H7095]]
all parties equally. H.R. 1084, as drafted, requires serious analysis
and amendment by this committee.
Section 3, as drafted, departs from the 1997 Volunteer Protection Act
by shielding not only the volunteer pilot from liability but also the
staff, mission coordinator, officer, or director of the nonprofit
organization. This expansion of protection is far too broad to justify
the proposed benefits it intends to confer. An injured party has a
right to bring a claim for recovery of damages against some principal
of the nonprofit organization or responsible party, and the Courts
should retain discretion as to whether it will hear the matter.
Congress should legislate when necessary, especially in areas of the
law that affect individuals' right to sue for damages. To date, there
has been no reported civil liability case filed against a volunteer
pilot or against a volunteer pilot organization. Furthermore, 43
states, which include Texas, have passed legislation that deals with
volunteer liability. Therefore, this Committee has no immediate need to
consider this legislation and can better spend its time working on
legislation to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission or
other similar legislative agendas.
Therefore, I would have offered two amendments. I would have offered
an amendment that would have narrowed the scope of the liability
protection given to volunteers of nonprofit pilot organizations to
cover persons within the aircraft only. The rights of the bystander who
is not inside the aircraft and who might be injured through the
negligence of the pilot should be preserved given that no compelling
justification has been given to include those outside the aircraft,
from relief.
In addition, the appropriate scope of this legislation should be the
volunteer-injured person for policy reasons. One of the purported
purposes of this legislation is to encourage continued service to
individuals in rural areas or who do not have the financial means to
receive this service otherwise.
The proposed language of my ``bystander'' amendment would have
clarified and narrowed the scope of this legislation.
I also planned to offer an amendment that would prevent perpetrators
of hate crimes in the last 5 years (as defined in the Hate Crime
Statistics Act) from receiving the benefits of this legislation. This
Act defines ``hate crimes'' as those which ``manifest prejudice based
on race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or ethnicity.''
In 1991, the FBI documented a total of 4,558 hate crimes, reported
from nearly 2,800 police departments in 32 states. The FBI's most
recent HCSA report, for 1996, documented 8,759 hate crimes reported to
the FBI by 11,355 agencies across the country.
Because the incidence of hate crimes is so large and an aircraft has
been demonstrated to be a highly effective instrumentality of terrorist
offenses, no one convicted of a hate crime should be allowed to benefit
under this legislation or a pilot.
While I have reservations about certain provisions of this proposal,
I recognize the benefits that it can bring to injured parties.
Therefore, I ask that my colleagues support this legislation.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This bill is narrowly drawn and is different from the other bills
because victims of negligence will have recourse. It is similar to Good
Samaritan State laws that immunize volunteers but fails to immunize
them from automobile accidents because there is an expectation that the
automobile will have insurance. So victims of the negligence will have
recourse.
This bill requires insurance so victims, either on the plane or on
the ground, will have recourse against the insurance policy but not
against the volunteer organization. That is an appropriate balance, and
I support the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should make it very clear that this bill is
narrowly drawn. There is liability to the volunteer pilot for willful
or criminal misconduct, gross negligence, reckless misconduct or
conscious flagrant indifference to the rights and safety of the
individual that is harmed by the volunteer. Anything that rises above
ordinary negligence, there is no immunity involved.
I guess I would be remiss if I did not express my concern that there
have been allegations that passing this bill will increase the risk of
terrorism. The volunteer pilots who fly these important missions are
carefully screened professionals. They undergo background checks that
are above and beyond those that are required for licensure as a pilot,
and many of the pilots who do volunteer their services are commercial
pilots when they are being paid. I think that the checks that a
terrorist could slip through are so severe that the chances of that
happening really do not exist at all.
I take great umbrage at the notion that the passage of this bill,
which provides a limited immunity from liability, opens the door, even
a crack, to increased risk of terrorism in the airways. I would hope
that the House would reject this notion by passing this bill
overwhelmingly.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support H.R. 1084, the ``Volunteer
Pilot Organization Protection Act'' for the following reasons: First,
it undoes the balance achieved in the Volunteer Protection Act by
specifically exempting pilots and aircraft carriers from liability;
second, it not only applies to pilots, but also to staff, mission
coordinators, officers and directors of volunteer pilot organizations,
and referring agencies, whether for profit or not-for-profit; third, it
would leave innocent victims without recourse in some situations by
reducing the standard of care applicable to pilots; fourth, it does
nothing to tackle the real problem, which is the insurance industry's
failure to offer insurance to the volunteer pilot organizations;
finally, it is poorly drafted and includes loopholes that would
insulate international terrorist organizations from liability and
subjects innocent bystanders to harm without any recourse.
H.R. 1084 flies in the face of the Volunteer Protection Act, a bill
Congress passed into law after 8 years of debate extending over 5
Congresses. The Volunteer Protection Act was carefully deliberated and
negotiated, but this bill wipes the slate clean by giving volunteer
pilots protection from liability despite the fact that the Volunteer
Protection Act specifically excluded that category of volunteers from
protection.
Under the Volunteer Protection Act, pilots and those operating
aircraft were specifically left out of the liability exemption because
of the highly dangerous nature of the activity and the fact that
States require these pilots to have insurance. This bill undoes that
and exempts pilots from liability.
Moreover, it goes further than the Volunteer Protection Act was
willing to go by giving this exemption to not only the pilots, but also
to staff, mission coordinators, officers and directors of volunteer
pilot organizations, and referring agencies, whether for profit or not-
for-profit. In the Volunteer Protection Act, Congress made sure that it
was only the volunteers being protected.
Finally, H.R. 1084 does nothing to tackle the real problem, which is
the insurance industry's failure to offer insurance to the volunteer
pilot organizations. In testimony we heard on this bill, it was
suggested that these nonprofit volunteer pilot organizations need
liability protection because they can't get insurance. If this is the
case, why not have a bill that requires insurance agencies to offer
insurance to these organizations? Why not that instead of exempting
everyone under the sun from liability?
This bill establishes national policy specifically allowing certain
pilots to operate their aircraft negligently and still escape
liability. And by immunizing both the negligent pilot and the
organization that arranges and provides the transportation, this bill
will in many cases leave the victims of an air tragedy--and their
surviving families--with no means of seeking compensation for their
loss. Congress should not turn its back on the victims of air
tragedies.
For these reasons, I cannot support passage of this bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1084, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________