[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 115 (Wednesday, September 14, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H7883-H7887]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
KATRINA VOLUNTEER PROTECTION ACT OF 2005
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 3736) to protect volunteers assisting the victims of
Hurricane Katrina.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3736
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 ``Katrina Volunteer Protection
Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF VOLUNTEERS.
(a) Qualified Immunity From Suit.--Any person or entity
(including any Indian Tribe) that, in response to harm caused
by Hurricane Katrina of 2005, voluntarily, in good faith, and
without a preexisting duty or expectation of compensation,
renders aid (including medical treatment and rescue
assistance) to any individual, shall not be liable for any
injury (including personal injury, property damage or loss,
and death) arising out of or resulting from that aid that was
not caused by--
(1) willful, wanton, reckless or criminal conduct of that
person or entity; or
(2) conduct of that person or entity that constitutes a
violation of a Federal or State civil rights law.
(b) Preemption.--This Act preempts the laws of a State to
the the extent such laws are inconsistent with this Act,
except that this Act shall not preempt any State law that
provides additional protection from liability relating to
volunteers.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) 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. 3736 currently
under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
{time} 1130
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, thousands of America's volunteers have already answered
the call to help those suffering in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. But,
unfortunately, many are hindered in their efforts or held back from
joining the relief effort in the first place by the threat of legal
liability.
[[Page H7884]]
In too many parts of the country, including Louisiana and the other
areas affected by Hurricane Katrina, it is not only unclear what
defines the legal protections for Good Samaritans, but it is also
unclear which of those legal protections would govern where citizens of
multiple States converge on another State to give aid and comfort to
their fellow citizens in need.
At the Federal level, the Volunteer Protection Act does not provide
any protection to volunteers who are not working under the auspices of
an official nonprofit organization, namely, a 501(c)(3) organization;
and it provides no protection at all to the nonprofit organizations
themselves.
Consequently, under Federal law there are absolutely no legal
protections for the average person who wants to volunteer on their own,
and there are also absolutely no legal protections for America's
wonderful nonprofit organizations themselves, such as the Red Cross;
but only an extremely small percentage of the some 1.4 million
nonprofit organizations in the United States actually purchase
liability insurance due to excessive costs.
The bill before us today closes the gaps in existing law for those
individuals and organizations wanting to give of themselves to aid
those suffering the worst effects of one of the most tragic weather
disasters in American history. This bill makes crystal clear that
everyone who helps those who have suffered harm in the wake of
Hurricane Katrina will be covered by some basic legal protections.
If a volunteer's own State law provides greater protections for them,
all the better; and this legislation would allow those stronger
protections to govern in their situation. But this bill provides a
uniform Federal floor on which all volunteers can confidently stand
when helping those in need in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
Such a uniform Federal law is clearly needed. As the Los Angeles
Times recently reported, ``the lack of liability protection is one of
several concerns delaying some 900 churches from joining the evacuation
network.'' According to recent press accounts, the Red Cross feels
constrained in giving out the names of refugees to those who want to
offer their homes to them for shelter because they have concern about
liability. The Red Cross has cited liability issues as a reason for
people not to volunteer to take refugees into their homes and complain
generally that ``there is so much liability involved.''
The Minnesota Department of Public Safety spokesman has said of
volunteer efforts, if things go south, there are liability problems. In
Grandville, Michigan, a local school district wants to let evacuees use
a vacant school for shelter, but the school's superintendent is
concerned about liability issues. The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports
that a specially trained group of 50 international physicians and
psychologists who have extensive experience treating children in Third
World countries could face liability issues here if they venture into
States where they are not licensed.
Anytime lawsuits or threats of lawsuits limit private persons and
entities, State and local governments from acting to help those in
need, the response costs of the Federal Government only increase.
H.R. 3736 simply ensures that if one is a volunteer who acts in good
faith to assist the victims of Hurricane Katrina without compensation,
then they do not have to worry about lawsuits unless they either act in
a willful, wanton, reckless, or criminal matter or violate a Federal or
State civil rights law. All volunteers under this bill will have to
worry about is saving those in need, and they will not have to worry
about hiring an attorney to defend themselves from a frivolous lawsuit.
The bill does not apply to those with preexisting duties to aid. That
is, it does not apply to those with the statutory duty to aid the
victims or those with prior contractual obligations to do so. The bill
does apply to all volunteers who in good faith and without expectation
of compensation render aid, medical treatment, or rescue assistance to
any person in response to harm caused by Hurricane Katrina.
The Congress voted overwhelmingly to give far greater legal
protections to selected entities following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
At the very least, this Congress should pass some legal protection for
volunteers working in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
While we all keep the victims of Katrina in our prayers, let us keep
all the individual volunteers and organizations that support them in
our hearts and free them to act on their compassion without the
distracting fear of unnecessary lawsuits.
This bill should be passed. I urge the Members to vote in favor of
it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is with reluctance that I rise in opposition to this legislation.
I cannot support it, and I am reluctant about that because it has been
my intention to work with everyone on the committee to eliminate the
problems of this bill, the excesses and flaws that are in it now; and
my suggestions have not been received, and the bill has been put
together in an extremely hasty manner that I believe will insulate
negligent and dangerous behavior that we would otherwise have no
inclination to do.
I begin by pointing out that we already have a Volunteer Protection
Act in the law, passed in the year 1997, which protects volunteers.
This bill had hearings. It was carefully crafted and bipartisan in
nature. It protects volunteers from their good deeds, but not from
their misconduct.
This bill, unfortunately, goes much further. And the problems that I
have referred to and will continue to refer to are the result of the
fact that this bill has never had a hearing: in no subcommittee, not in
the full Committee on the Judiciary. There have never been witnesses to
testify for or against it. There has never been a markup. Nothing. We
come today with a measure that has been pulled out of the air. We have
not heard from a single interested party as to why the bill is
necessary. We have not received so much as a shred of evidence that
there is any shortage of volunteers to assist in Hurricane Katrina as a
result of our civil justice system.
So I point out to the Members that in the first instance the bill is
not limited to protection of volunteers. It would protect many
organizations, public and private, that might be involved in Hurricane
Katrina, which could be government organizations. It could even protect
the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It could protect cities and
counties and States. It could protect business entities.
This bill is off the charts. And in the past, when we were more
carefully considering the matter, we decided not to cover these
entities because we did not want to protect firms that retain people
who were criminals. We did not want to give comfort to drug addicts who
may be working there or even sex offenders from liability that they
might be involved with. This bill creates a green light for all kinds
of behavior, that it will now receive a protection. For the life of me,
I cannot suggest one reason why we ought to pass this measure. I am not
aware of any business or even a nonprofit entity that has asked this
committee for relief from liability in order to help out in Katrina.
Nobody knows about it. This is a phantom measure that has come out of
nowhere, and if it is just to pass the time of day and keep us busy, it
is probably doing a great harm to our civil justice system.
The bill goes beyond the Volunteer Protection Act to, if the Members
can grasp this, immunize gross negligence and intentional conduct. We
would immunize negligent and purposeful misconduct. Never in the
history of Congress have we ever considered immunizing such actions.
Why should we do it today? There is no reason to protect such blatant
wrongdoing from such important responsibility.
The drafting that I have talked about is so broad, it would protect
unlicensed volunteers who are attempting to operate as professionals.
This would include individuals who provide medical treatment without
training if something like that were to come along. It could protect
people flying airplanes without licenses. Under this measure, an
individual could travel to Louisiana without a license to conduct
surgery and claim in a civil action that he has a liability waiver
coming from this bill.
This measure would even go further. It would insulate simple traffic
accidents from liability. A person working
[[Page H7885]]
around the Katrina disaster could negligently have an accident and
injure a child on the way to New Orleans, and the family would be left
with no recourse whatsoever. I can imagine that this bill will be
brought up in civil cases in ways that we have never had an opportunity
to contemplate.
So I make a simple proposition. Why do we not just move this bill off
the floor, set up the subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary
that is anxiously waiting to schedule witnesses for the bill, and have
them do their work and bring it to the full committee where it may
receive even further amendments and inquiry?
It makes no sense to exempt irresponsible people from their own
negligence. It would even insulate nursing homes, hello, from civil
liability who use volunteers and their failure to evacuate resulted in
death. One could lose their loved one as a result of negligence by a
nursing home; and if they raise these protections that are involved in
this legislation, the person bringing the action could be left without
compensation.
We are setting up, whether we admit it or not, a two-tier system of
civil justice. One for the people that were able and could afford to
escape Katrina who will have their full right in the civil justice
system, just as all people always have, but a lesser system for
indigent individuals, many of whom, if not most, are, in fact,
minorities, who may have, and I hope this is very few, but some who may
have suffered abuse as a result of additional negligence and
misconduct.
{time} 1145
So what we have here is a horrible attempt to insulate volunteer
liability, but it has been put together in such a way that we have a
piece of legislation that I do not think can withstand the reasonable
scrutiny of the Members of this body. If we adopt this unthinking bill
without bothering to figure out what we are doing and who we are
further exposing to harm, we may, in all likelihood, be compounding the
tragedy that exists to which we are trying to bring some closure to.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise and applaud the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for this reasonable
approach to volunteers who are trying to help people.
This is an amazing debate that is taking place today because, last
week, we were concerned about people dying, getting help to them,
providing all the assets we could provide to save lives.
Now, think about the people in the construction industry who want to
do good. The people after 9/11, some of them were sued because they
volunteered to go help prior to contracts being let. There were no
government contracts being let. They wanted to volunteer. They might
have provided an excavator, a grader, a backhoe, a dump truck.
Let us say someone in New Orleans happened to own a boat, and he
wanted to go help people. He went to pull somebody into his boat to
save them, and they slipped, broke an arm, a total accident. Some trial
lawyer says, hey, we can make you rich. Let us sue the guy who brought
the boat.
Somebody is out there trying to help people. There is a dirt road
that needs grading, and the guy volunteers to go out there with his
blade, regrade the road, somebody walks across it afterwards, slips,
and some trial lawyer says, hey, we can make you a fortune. You just
slipped on something somebody did, and we will hold the contractor
liable because they volunteered to do good.
We have construction expertise in this country that is sorely needed
during times of disaster. We cannot continue to allow a message to be
sent to those volunteers.
I became a general contractor in my early 20s. I have been in the
business for over 35 years. There are many good people out there who
work very hard, earn a good living, and they want to give a little back
to their country and to the people who they have benefited from through
volunteering in a time of disaster when they know they can do good,
they can make things better, and they can save lives. The argument I
heard today was quite the opposite.
Last week, we had a hearing in Financial Services talking about all
the people who are living in football stadiums and warehouses. We have
to get those people out of there, get them to some home to live in,
some safe environment.
Now, a person goes out there who owns a motor home, decides to haul a
bunch of people from a stadium, somebody trips getting in their motor
home and gets sued. Is that reasonable or fair? No.
If there is negligence on the part of the individual who volunteered,
hold them accountable. But the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman
Sensenbrenner) is not for holding anybody unaccountable for gross
negligence or violating the law. But if you volunteer to help in a case
like this where people are dying, all of a sudden trial lawyers are
more important than the people we are trying to save during a disaster.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a response to my
friend, the previous speaker, to let him know that the examples that he
made are quite logical and quite rational. We think that they should be
given protection. But we do not want what is in this bill that goes way
beyond that kind of protection, because we would give protection for
gross negligence, and it is in that respect that I am opposed to the
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, let me, first of all, suggest that we owe a debt of
gratitude to all of the volunteers across the country that have come in
to places like Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and my own State of
Texas. So this is not an expression of concern with disregard for the
charity that has been shown by the throngs of volunteers. And, might I
suggest, like the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), that
volunteers have come from everywhere without the question of whether or
not they are immune or protected.
I refer my colleagues to the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 which
really crafts, I think, the latitude and the range of protection that
makes sense. It provides immunity for volunteers serving nonprofit
organizations and government entities, which include the likes of FEMA
and the Red Cross and also the folks that come under that umbrella and
the many nonprofits that exist.
The idea that this legislation might, in fact, protect those who are
grossly negligent seems flawed in several aspects. Even though the
Attorney General of the State of Louisiana has now moved against this
tragic circumstance with the loss of lives of a number of individuals
in a particular nursing home, we do realize that this is now at a level
of criminal charges, but suppose it was not. Certainly the American
people and Louisianans and others would want that particular entity to
be held liable for gross negligence, if you will, and they happen not
to be, I assume, a nonprofit, so that they might be covered by this
legislation for their gross negligence.
What about the hospital? The facts will come out. Obviously, one
cannot suggest guilt where one does not know all of the facts, but the
facts will come out. But now it has been discovered, a number of bodies
in a hospital in Louisiana, and that, too, may warrant consideration
that this bill does not address.
I would hope that in the rush to deal with the plaintiffs' bar, trial
lawyers who have, in many instances, found justice where others could
not on environmental issues, on medical malpractice issues, on issues
dealing with occupational disasters that have caused injury to workers,
that we would not be focused on that ``perceived problem'' versus the
needs of people who are being served.
We want the volunteers to be there. We want them to be protected, and
we believe that we do have the protection.
As I speak about this bill, might I also bring attention to a bill
that I missed, Mr. Speaker, and I simply want
[[Page H7886]]
to add my support to the 50th recognition of the Rosa Parks legislation
that acknowledges her quest for justice by sitting down. I weave this
into this debate because I think that it is relevant when we begin to
talk about how Congress fixes problems. Rosa Parks certainly spread
across the land a new idea of justice and the refusal, if you will, to
be subjected to unfair and unjust laws. I pay tribute to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and all of those who have spoken in support
of what she did to change America, and I add my voice to the
commemoration that was on the floor just previously.
As I infuse back into the Katrina Volunteer Protection Act and
mention the volunteers, one has to accept the time that they have to
speak to important issues at hand.
Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), I
offer today an important issue that speaks to the question of justice
and, I assume as well, the thoughts of this body, and that is the
unfair position that Frances Newton finds herself in, an African
American woman, but a woman that is now on death row today, September
14, in Texas whose execution date is 6 p.m. central standard time.
This Congress may have some cause, but this is now in the hands of
the administration, the Solicitor General, the Supreme Court, and the
governor of the State of Texas. If we do not act today, a woman who did
not have effective counsel, whose counsel did not question one witness,
whose counsel did not present one iota of evidence, who now has found
that there were multiple weapons, who has a flawed DNA background in
terms of this case and, likewise, who has protested and petitioned over
and over again that she did not kill her children, will now go to her
death.
Whether or not this Congress has the power to instruct the Supreme
Court of the United States, as we now hear the proceedings of Judge
Roberts, we know that this body should be a body concerned about
justice. I would wholly hope that those who can hear my voice will
petition by way of their own way, their representatives, to ask the
Solicitor General to petition on the side of the Innocence Project to
allow the case to be reheard, a new trial to secure this evidence, to
secure the ability to give Frances Newton a new trial of which she
deserves.
We cannot stand on the floor of the House today and talk about
protecting volunteers, albeit I have the concerns as enunciated, and
not suggest that we cannot protect the justice system. Frances Newton
has protested and petitioned her innocence. She is a mother who says
that she did not kill her children. The governor of the State of Texas
has the power to give her a 30-day extension, and I would hope that our
voices will be heard.
I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for their willingness to sign on
to a letter asking for that petition to be heard, and I would ask other
Members of Congress to do likewise.
Mr. Speaker, I have expressed my views on the Katrina Volunteer
Protection Act and I hope, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers)
said, that we could work on this together.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, one of the great success stories in this tragedy is the
fact that thousands of volunteers from across the country responded to
the needs of the victims. Physicians and nurses and other medical
volunteers, health care professionals, volunteered their specialized
skills to come to the aid of the victims of Katrina. Their efforts have
ensured that these victims receive much-needed care and assistance, but
many more have been hesitant to take part because they were threatened
by the specter of lawsuits.
I know this to be a fact. I was on the ground there in Louisiana. I
helped to organize much of the medical relief effort, and this is a
fact, that many were hesitant to come to the aid.
Rules protecting good Samaritans vary greatly between States, and it
is often unclear what legal protections volunteers have when performing
charitable acts, and this was particularly so with such a tragedy of
this magnitude.
H.R. 3736 will clarify the rules for everyone involved and ensure
that uniform standards are applied to relief efforts from Louisiana to
Mississippi to Alabama. This bill will protect volunteers acting in
good faith to assist Katrina victims, while still protecting the rights
of victims who allege injuries as a result of willful, wanton,
reckless, or criminal conduct on the part of a volunteer. Questions of
liability should not and should never prevent individuals and
organizations from offering their services in such a tragedy.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the Katrina Volunteer Protection
Act. This is important legislation, and I urge its rapid and steady
approval.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), our subcommittee
ranking member.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this did not go through
committee, so I just had a question for the chairman of the committee,
if the chairman would respond.
My question is what impact this will have on someone minding their
own business, sitting at a stoplight, that gets rear-ended by someone
headed to New Orleans in an automobile accident, simple negligence,
with insurance. Does the innocent party now have to pay their own
medical bills, or is there some provision in the bill that allows the
insurance to still be available to pay the medical bills?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the bill says that if the driver of
the car is operating as a volunteer without compensation and acting in
good faith, the provisions of the bill apply.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, in this case,
if the volunteer is hit and has an automobile accident, fully insured,
you lose the insurance, the innocent victim is now subject to pay his
own medical bills. Where, ordinarily, there would be compensation for
the automobile accident, that is lost. These are people who could be in
States not even affected, just sitting at a stoplight.
Usually, when we have these immunity bills, we provide that the
insurance in an automobile accident, the insurance would apply. This
would exempt the insurance. I think it is one of the problems of
bringing bills like this to the floor without going through committee.
I think we could have fixed that.
{time} 1200
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Virginia's
example tells us the whole thing. This is over the edge. It is not that
we do not want to give protection, but this goes way, way too far.
Now, I remind my colleagues that the problem that we have here is
that there have never been any hearings. There have never been any
markups. There have never been any witnesses. There has never been a
full committee hearing. Nobody has ever seen this measure before today
when it is now on the floor.
It sounds great, volunteer liability legislation. But that is what we
did with the Volunteer Protection Act in 1997. That was carefully
crafted, bipartisan in nature, and covers all of this activity.
We go way beyond volunteer protection to immunize what could be
misconduct of a deliberate and blatant nature, that can immunize
negligence of the grossest sort, and never in the history have we ever
imagined, thought of immunizing such actions. So there is no reason to
protect such blatant wrongdoing from responsibility.
And it is a fatal flaw of this legislation. I urge that it be sent
back to the Judiciary Committee for appropriate action.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, after listening to the gentleman from Michigan, I am a
little bit confused. Because last week, the Congress appropriated
almost $52 billion without a hearing. Right before Labor Day, the
Congress appropriated $10 billion without a hearing.
[[Page H7887]]
Today, I had scheduled three Katrina-related bills for markup in the
Judiciary Committee. They were not ready by our 24-hour deadline, and
the gentleman from Michigan objected to that, so I called off that
markup, and we are going to have to do that next week. Otherwise we
would have it on the floor much more promptly.
The fact of the matter remains that these people need to have the
immunity for liability in order that they can volunteer and effectively
deliver their volunteer services. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) and the other opponents of this bill have come up with a
litany of horrors that this bill would allow criminal conduct to be
immunized, and that is not the case.
This bill specifically does not apply in any way to protect those
whose willful, wanton, reckless or criminal conduct causes injury; nor
does it apply to those who violate the Federal or State civil rights
laws when injury occurs.
Now, today we have a chance to cast a vote in favor of our
volunteers, our volunteer individuals and those nonprofit organizations
who have stepped up to the plate to provide essential relief services
to the people who have been affected by Hurricane Katrina; or we can
send it back to committee and have more hearings.
Well, by the time those hearings are over with, I am sure the first
series of frivolous lawsuits will be filed; and believe me, the next
time there is a disaster, hopefully not of the magnitude of Hurricane
Katrina, there will be a lot of organizations and a lot of individuals
who will be afraid to volunteer to do what they want to do and do what
they can do best, because they do not want to spend the rest of their
lives in court.
Pass this bill.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3736,
Katrina Volunteer Protection Act. This legislation will provide much
needed legal protection for those charitable Americans volunteering in
the Hurricane Katrina rescue and recovery effort.
It is imperative that when thousands of selfless volunteers respond
to those who have incurred the wrath of a natural disaster that legal
liability need not be hanging over their heads.
Currently, there is vast uncertainty from state to state about what
defines legal protections for volunteers, especially when volunteers
from one state travel to another to help out their fellow citizens.
Under current law volunteers who are not working with an official
nonprofit organization are not covered by the Volunteer Protection Act.
Therefore, there are absolutely no legal protections for the average
American who wishes to volunteer.
This legislation will correct that gap in the law while at the same
time continue upholding the penalties against those who act in a
willful, reckless or criminal manner or who violate a State or Federal
civil rights law.
Further if a volunteer's home State has a law on its books that
provide greater liability protection, then this legislation would defer
to those stronger protections.
This legislation will clear the way for all those Good Samaritans,
who live in our great Nation, not to have to worry about lawsuits when
they volunteer.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this legislation.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). 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. 3736.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________