[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18342-18345]
[From the U.S. 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.
       (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

[[Page 18343]]

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. 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

[[Page 18344]]

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 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

[[Page 18345]]

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.

                          ____________________