[House Report 108-679]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



108th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     108-679

======================================================================



 
          VOLUNTEER PILOT ORGANIZATION PROTECTION ACT OF 2004

                                _______
                                

 September 13, 2004.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1084]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred 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, having considered 
the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and 
recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
The Amendment....................................................     2
Purpose and Summary..............................................     3
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     3
Hearings.........................................................     6
Committee Consideration..........................................     7
Vote of the Committee............................................     7
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     7
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     7
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................     7
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     8
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................     8
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.......................     8
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............     9
Markup Transcript................................................    10
Dissenting Views.................................................    35

                             The Amendment

    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

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.

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 1084, the ``Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection 
Act,'' amends the Volunteer Protection Act to include volunteer 
pilots and volunteer pilot organizations within the scope of 
its protections. Under present law, nonprofit volunteer pilot 
organizations and their pilots that provide life-saving medical 
flights without compensation are vulnerable to costly-often 
frivolous-litigation that undermines the ability of these 
organizations to provide critical volunteer flight services in 
a timely manner. In addition, institutions that refer patients 
to volunteer pilot organizations are presently subject to legal 
jeopardy. H.R. 1084 protects and promotes the important work of 
volunteer pilot organizations by creating limited protection 
against liability to volunteer pilot organizations and pilots 
so that they are able to procure necessary insurance and 
continue their important operations.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

             VOLUNTEER ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR LEGAL STATUS

Volunteerism and the Advent of the ``Lawsuit Culture''
    In the United States, a multitude of organizations exist 
solely for the purpose of helping their communities, both 
locally and nationally. These volunteer and nonprofit 
organizations make use of volunteers who selflessly give of 
their time and resources to benefit others. However, America's 
long tradition of volunteerism and generosity has been 
undermined by what has become a new American tradition: the 
lawsuit culture. In recent decades, actual lawsuits and fears 
of liability (both rational and irrational) have increasingly 
become a deterrent to people who might otherwise have given of 
their time or resources to better their community and country.
Congressional Efforts to Assess and Address Legal Attacks on Volunteer 
        Organizations
    The Judiciary Committee and Congress have previously 
recognized that the simple fear of liability, if left 
unchecked, would cause potential volunteers to stay home. The 
Committee has held hearings \1\ in recent years about various 
aspects of this problem and has advanced several pieces of 
legislation \2\ designed to limit liability for volunteers and 
volunteer, non-profit, or charitable organizations. Some of the 
evidence gathered during these hearings bears repeating. 
According to a report by the Independent Sector, a national 
coalition of 800 organizations, the percentage of Americans 
volunteering dropped from 54% in 1989 to 51% in 1991 and 48% in 
1993.\3\ Gallup polls have shown that 1 in 6 potential 
volunteers reported that they withheld their services due to 
fear of exposure to liability lawsuits.\4\ The Committee's 
hearings also brought to light how the general fear of 
liability is borne out by anecdotal examples of the types of 
lawsuits that have been brought. One Little League organization 
chose to settle out of court rather than face possible 
excessive damage awards when it was sued by a woman who was hit 
by a ball her own daughter failed to catch.\5\ When a youth 
suffered a paralyzing injury in a volunteer supervised Boy 
Scout game of touch football, he filed a multimillion dollar 
lawsuit against the adult supervisors and the Boy Scouts.\6\ In 
California, a volunteer Mountain Rescue member helped 
paramedics aid a climber who had fallen and sustained injuries 
to his spine; his reward was a $12 million lawsuit for 
damages.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See, e.g., State and Local Implementation of Existing 
Charitable Choice Programs, 107th Cong. 13 (2001), Volunteer Liability 
Legislation, Hearing on H.R. 911 and H.R. 1167 Before the House 
Committee on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. 6 (1997), Health Care Reform 
Issues: Antitrust, Medical Malpractice Liability, and Volunteer 
Liability, Hearing on H.R. 911, H.R. 2925, H.R. 2938 Before the House 
Committee on the Judiciary, 104th Cong. 66 (1995).
    \2\ See, e.g. H.R. 911, 105th Cong. 6 (1997), H.R. 1167, 105th 
Cong. 6 (1997), H.R. 7, 107th Cong. 13 (2001).
    \3\ H. Rep. No. 105-101, Part 1 (1997).
    \4\ Id.
    \5\ Volunteer Liability Legislation: Hearing on H.R. 911 and H.R. 
1167 Before the House Committee on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. 6, at 21 
(1997).
    \6\ Id. at 26.
    \7\ Id. at 23
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to causing potential volunteers to stay at home 
or refrain from certain needed activities, the Committee's 
hearings showed that the liability threat has had very real 
financial consequences. Many nonprofit organizations have 
encountered dramatically rising costs for liability insurance 
due to fears of litigation. The average reported increase for 
insurance premiums for nonprofits over the period of 1985-1988 
was 155%.\8\ The Executive Director of the Girl Scout Council 
of Washington, D.C. said in a February 1995 letter that 
``locally we must sell 87,000 boxes of . . . Girl Scout cookies 
each year to pay for [our] liability insurance.'' \9\ Dr. 
Thomas Jones, Managing Director of the Washington, D.C. office 
of Habitat for Humanity, testified that ``[t]here are Habitat 
affiliate boards for whom the largest single administrative 
cost is the perceived necessity of purchasing liability 
insurance to protect board members. These are funds which 
otherwise would be used to build more houses [for] more persons 
in need.'' \10\ During the same hearing, John Graham, the CEO 
of the American Diabetes Association, added that ``[i]t is no 
coincidence that the issue of protecting volunteers has 
followed massive increases in both the size of litigation 
claims and the cost of liability insurance.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ H. Rep. No. 105-101, Part 1 (1997).
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ Volunteer Liability Legislation: Hearing on H.R. 911 and H.R. 
1167, supra, 105th Cong. at 56.
    \11\ Id. at 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volunteer Protection Act
    Based on the evidence gathered in such hearings, the 
Committee and Congress took actions to remedy the growing 
problem of liability fears for volunteers. The most notable 
action in recent years was consideration and passage of Federal 
legislation during the 105th Congress that became known as the 
``Volunteer Protection Act'' (VPA).\12\ The final legislation 
signed into law by President Clinton on June 18, 1997 was 
identical to H.R. 911 as reported by the House Committee on the 
Judiciary earlier that year. The Federal legislation setting a 
uniform national standard for limiting the liability of 
volunteers was preceded by a patchwork of state laws with 
similar purposes, which the VPA largely preempted as well as 
preempting relevant State tort laws. However, these earlier 
state efforts to limit liability for volunteers are noteworthy 
because they reflected a pre-existing national consensus that 
volunteers and volunteer organizations ought to be encouraged 
by reducing the fear of legal liability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Pub. L. No. 105-19; codified at 42 U.S.C. Sec. 14503 et. seq. 
(2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The common law of all fifty states allows individuals to 
collect monetary damages in tort for personal injury or 
property damage caused by another person's negligence or 
willful conduct. Almost all of these states, however, have 
limited the liability of volunteers and charitable 
organizations to some extent. New Jersey provides that 
charities and their volunteers are immune from liability for 
ordinary negligence.\13\ In Kansas, a volunteer or nonprofit 
organization is immune from liability for negligence if the 
organization carries general liability insurance coverage.\14\ 
Ohio offers broad immunity for volunteers of charitable 
organizations.\15\ Wisconsin state law limits the liability of 
volunteers of non-stock corporations organized under Chapter 
181.\16\ Georgia grants immunity for members, directors, 
officers, and trustees of charities from negligence claims 
asserted by beneficiaries of the charity.\17\ Each of these 
states and others have recognized the need to encourage good 
works and protect volunteers and nonprofit organizations from 
tort liability for accidents that arise in the normal course of 
their dealings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ N.J. Stat. Ann. Sec. Sec. 2A: 53A-7 to 7.1 (West 1983).
    \14\ Kan. Stat. Ann. Sec. 60-3601 (1987).
    \15\ Ohio. Rev. Code Ann. Sec. 2305.38 (Anderson Supp. 1987).
    \16\ Wis. Stat. Sec. Sec. 181.297, 180.0828.
    \17\ Ga. Code Ann. Sec. 105-114 (Harrison 1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The VPA was intended to encourage people to do necessary 
volunteer work for nonprofit and governmental entities by 
offering immunization from liability under state tort law for 
ordinary negligence. The VPA only protects ``volunteers'' \18\ 
for incidents that arise in the scope of their volunteer work, 
and it does not protect willful or criminal conduct and gross 
negligence. The VPA also limits punitive damages and non-
economic damages for those individuals found liable. However, 
the VPA does not protect nonprofit organizations and government 
entities themselves from liability for negligence of their 
volunteers unless state law provides ``charitable immunity'' 
for such organizations. Hence, under the common law doctrine of 
respondeat superior, volunteer organizations and entities are 
still generally vicariously liable for the negligence or their 
employees and volunteers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ ``Volunteer'' is defined in the VPA as a person who perfoms 
services for a non-profit and who receives no more than $500 per year 
for such services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The VPA also allows states to declare that affirmatively 
the Act does not apply to suits in which all the parties to the 
action are citizens of the state. The VPA became effective on 
September 16, 1997, and did not apply retroactively to suits 
brought before that date. The VPA represents a great 
improvement by setting a comprehensive and consistent standard 
governing the tort liability of volunteers and thereby 
encouraging their good works. However, the fear of liability 
exposure still affects and hampers volunteer and non-profit 
organizations. Subsequent efforts in Congress since passage of 
the VPA have focused on some of the remaining gaps in liability 
protection for both volunteer organizations themselves and 
their donors. For example, in the 107th Congress H.R. 7, the 
``Charitable Choice Act of 2001'' as passed by the House 
contained provisions limiting liability for persons or entities 
who donated equipment to charitable organizations.

                     VOLUNTEER PILOT ORGANIZATIONS

    Volunteer pilot organizations and the pilots who fly for 
them are involved in a range of activities constituting what 
may generally be called ``public benefit aviation.'' The 
activities of public benefit aviation include environmental 
observation, wilderness rescue, delivery of medical supplies 
and organs, and transport of medical patients. In the area of 
medical patient transport alone, volunteer pilot organizations 
provided long distance transportation at no cost to over 40,000 
patients and their escorts in 2003.
    However, the activities of volunteer pilots and volunteer 
organizations are not protected from liability by the VPA, 
which provided limited liability protection to a range of 
volunteers and volunteer organizations. As a result, volunteer 
pilot organizations (such as the Air Care Alliance) and the 
pilots who fly for them have come under legal attack for 
providing vital air transportation services to needy patients. 
Spiraling costs associated with this litigation have increased 
insurance premiums for these organizations and creating 
difficulty in obtaining the necessary insurance because of 
liability exposure fears. 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 on the simple act of 
recommending a needy patient to the care of a volunteer pilot 
association.

     H.R. 1084, THE ``VOLUNTEER PILOT ORGANIZATION PROTECTION ACT''

    H.R. 1084 was introduced by Representative Schrock on March 
5, 2003. The legislation is intended to promote the publicly 
beneficial activities of volunteer pilot organizations and 
their employees by exempting them from liability when flying 
volunteer missions in furtherance of the purposes of such 
organizations. The bill is designed to accomplish this by 
amending Sec. 4 of the VPA to ensure that volunteer pilot 
organizations and their employees, officers, and volunteer 
pilots acting within the scope of the mission of such 
organizations are explicitly covered by the VPA. The 
legislation also provides limited protection to institutions 
(such as hospitals) that refer patients to these organizations. 
The exceptions to the general liability protections contained 
in the existing Federal statute would still apply (i.e., 
intentional or criminal misconduct, certain State laws on 
respondeat superior, or adherence to licensing or risk 
management standards).

                                Hearings

    The full Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on H.R. 
1084 and two related bills, H.R. 1787, and H.R. 3369, on July 
20, 2004. Testimony was received from Mr. Edward R. Boyer, 
President and CEO of Mercy Medical Airlift and Vice Chairman, 
Angel Flight America, testified in favor of H.R. 3369. 
According to Mr. Boyer's testimony volunteer pilot 
organizations and the pilots who fly for them are involved in a 
range of activities constituting what may generally be called 
``public benefit aviation'' but need liability relief in order 
to obtain necessary insurance and continue operating with 
pilots willing to perform these volunteer duties.

                        Committee Consideration

    On September 8, 2004, the full Committee on the Judiciary 
met in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill 
H.R. 1084, with an amendment, by a voice vote, a quorum being 
present.

                         Vote of the Committee

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee notes that there 
were no recorded votes during the Committee's consideration of 
H.R. 1084.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does 
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax 
expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to the bill, H.R. 1084, the following estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                                September 13, 2004.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1084, the 
Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act of 2004.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Lanette J. 
Walker (for federal costs), and Melissa Merrell (for the state 
and local impact).
            Sincerely,
                                       Douglas Holtz-Eakin,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 1084--Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act of 2004

    H.R. 1084 would provide immunity to volunteer pilot 
organizations, their employees, officers, and volunteer pilots 
from liability in certain civil suits alleging harm resulting 
from such individuals acting with the scope of the 
organization's mission. Such organizations typically provide 
wilderness rescue or medical evacuation services.
    CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would result in 
no significant costs to the federal government. H.R. 1084 would 
not affect direct spending or revenues.
    H.R. 1084 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined 
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, but CBO estimates that the 
resulting costs, if any, would not be significant and would be 
well below the threshold established in that act ($60 million 
in 2004, adjusted annually for inflation). Specifically, the 
bill would exempt volunteer pilots and volunteer pilot 
organizations from Liability under state tort laws for injuries 
that may occur during the course of their volunteer activities. 
The bill contains no new private-sector mandates.
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Lanette J. 
Walker (for federal costs), and Melissa Merrell (for the state 
and local impact). This estimate was approved by Peter H. 
Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 
1084 would protect and promote the important work of volunteer 
pilot organizations by creating limited liability protections 
to volunteer pilot organizations so they are able to attract 
needed pilots and procure necessary insurance and continue 
their important operations.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution.

               Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion

    The following discussion describes H.R. 1084 as reported by 
the Judiciary Committee.

Section 1--Short Title

    Section 1 provides that H.R. 1084 may be cited as the 
``Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act of 2004.''

Section 2--Findings and Purpose

    (a) FINDINGS--Subsection 2(a) cites findings about the 
beneficial nature of public benefit non-profit volunteer 
aviation organizations, the benefits provided to those served 
by such organizations, and the difficulty such organizations 
face in obtaining reasonable insurance due to potential 
liability exposure.
    (b) PURPOSE--Subsection 2(b) sets out the purpose of the 
Act, which is: ``to promote the activities of non-profit 
volunteer pilot organizations flying for public benefit and to 
sustain the availability of the services that such 
organizations provide.''

Section 3--Liability Protection for Nonprofit Volunteer Pilot 
        Organizations Flying for Public Benefit and to the Pilots and 
        Staff of Such Organizations.

    Section 3 amends the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 (42 
U.S.C. Sec. 14503) by first creating an exception to the 
section of the VPA that does NOT currently extend the liability 
protections of the Act to any activity involving the volunteer 
operating a vehicle that is required under state law to be 
licensed and insured to operate. Secondly, section 3 extends 
the protection of the VPA to cover volunteer pilot 
organizations.
    Section 3 does this by first extending the VPA's protection 
to volunteer pilots themselves adding a new Sec. 14503(a)(4)(B) 
that provides that harm caused by the volunteer pilots flying 
in furtherance of the purpose of the organization is within the 
VPA's liability protections for volunteers.
    Section 3 also extends the VPA's protection to volunteer 
pilot organizations as entities that will uniquely enjoy the 
liability protections of the VPA when they comply with the 
exceptions of the VPA that currently extend only to individual 
volunteers and not to organizations. Section 3 does this by 
amending Sec. 14503(c) to add a new subsection (c)(2) that 
provides the unique protection for the volunteer pilot 
organizations.

Section 4. Report by Attorney General

    Section 4 was added by an amendment offered by 
Representative Scott and passed by voice vote. It provides for 
the Attorney General to carry out a study on the availability 
of insurance to non-profit volunteer pilot organizations that 
fly for public benefit.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

  TITLE deg.SECTION 4 OF THE VOLUNTEER PROTECTION ACT OF 1997


SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON LIABILITY FOR VOLUNTEERS.

    (a) Liability Protection for Volunteers.--Except as 
provided in subsections (b) and (d), no volunteer of a 
nonprofit organization or governmental entity shall be liable 
for harm caused by an act or omission of the volunteer on 
behalf of the organization or entity if--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4)(A) the harm was not caused by the volunteer 
        operating a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other 
        vehicle for which the State requires the operator or 
        the owner of the vehicle, craft, or vessel to--
                  [(A)] (i) possess an operator's license; or
                  [(B)] (ii) maintain insurance[.]; or
          (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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) No Effect on Liability of Organization or Entity.--(1) 
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the 
liability of any nonprofit organization or governmental entity 
with respect to harm caused to any person.
  (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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                           Markup Transcript



                            BUSINESS MEETING

                      WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2004

                  House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr., [Chairman of the Committee] Presiding.
    [Intervening business.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Pursuant to notice, I now call up 
the bill H.R. 1084, the Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection 
Act for purposes of markup and move its favorable 
recommendation to the House. Without objection, the bill will 
be considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and 
the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Forbes to 
explain the bill.
    [The bill, H.R. 1084, follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Congressman Schrock for 
his hard work on the bill before us today.
    H.R. 1084, the ``Volunteer Pilot Protection Act,'' will 
help promote the publicly beneficial activities of volunteer 
pilot organizations and their employees 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, generally known as 
public benefit aviation. The activities of public benefit 
aviation range from environmental observation to wilderness 
rescue to delivery of medical supplies and organs to transport 
of medical patients. In the area of medical patient transport 
alone, every year thousands of pilots with years of experience 
and hundreds of flight hours under their belt volunteer their 
time to fly these missions.
    In 2003, volunteer pilot organizations provided long-
distance transportation for free to over 40,000 patients and 
their escorts. These flights enabled patients to travel to 
remote specialized medical centers to receive lifesaving 
treatments and for taking clinical trials that they could not 
otherwise obtain in their own hometowns or even in their own 
regions of the country.
    Unfortunately the activities of volunteer pilots and 
volunteer pilot organizations are not protected from liability 
by the Volunteer Protection Act. And these organizations and 
the pilots who fly them face difficulty obtaining the necessary 
insurance because of liability exposure fears.
    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 on the mere recommendation of these services.
    The Committee conducted a legislative hearing on H.R. 1084 
and other bills on July 20, 2004. Mr. Boyer, who was the CEO of 
Mercy Medical Air Lift and vice chairman of Angel Flight of 
America, testified that the activities of volunteer pilots and 
volunteer pilot organizations are not protected from liability 
by the VPA. Therefore, these coordinating organizations and the 
pilots who fly for them face difficulty obtaining the necessary 
insurance because of liability exposure fears. Pilots who might 
otherwise volunteer using their own aircraft, time and 
insurance are reluctant to take on passengers and expose 
themselves to potential liability.
    When Congress passed the Volunteer Protection Act, 
volunteers operating a motor vehicle or aircraft were not given 
liability protection because these volunteers are required to 
have private insurance to operate the vehicle. When a group 
such as Angel Flight located in my home flight applies for 
insurance coverage, insurance companies interpret this clause 
in the VPA to leave charitable groups such as Angel Flight and 
all of their volunteers with no legal liability protection.
    This interpretation of the law has driven the insurance 
costs of these charities far higher than they can afford. The 
insurance that was available for $1,000 a year or a few years 
ago now costs more than $25,000 a year. The Volunteer Pilot 
Organization Protection Act would solve this problem by 
creating specific liability protection for nonprofit volunteer 
pilot organizations flying for public benefit and their pilots.
    It does not change the effect or the impact of the VPA. It 
only adds protection for a worthwhile group. The exceptions to 
the general liability protections contained in the VPA would 
still apply--IE, intentional or criminal misconduct, certain 
State laws and respond yet superior or to licensing or risk 
management standards.
    The Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act will insure 
that many of these organizations can continue to fly.
    Mr. Chairman, there is a whole host of groups that support 
this legislation, including the Shriners Hospital for Children. 
I would request unanimous consent to allow the letters of 
support to be introduced on behalf of this legislation.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    [The material referred to follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Forbes. Without this legislation, these organizations 
will be unable to provide their important services and the tens 
of thousands of people who benefit from their work will be 
unable to obtain the medical care they so desperately need. It 
is essential that we keep these lines of transportation to the 
people who need it the most.
    It would certainly be a tragedy if the lawsuit or the 
threat of a lawsuit were to bring down this network. This is a 
crisis we are having today. I thank the Chairman for holding 
this markup. I look forward to working with this Committee for 
further consideration of this legislation.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired. 
Who wishes to give the Democratic opening statement? Okay.
    If there is nobody who wishes to do that--without 
objection, all Members opening statements will appear in the 
record at this point.
    Are there amendments? The gentleman from Virginia has a 
manager's amendment. The Chair recognizes the gentleman for 
purposes of offering the amendment.
    Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment makes 
clerical----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the managers 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1084 offered by Mr. Forbes of 
Virginia. Page 1, line 5 insert of 2004 before the closed 
quotation marks. Page 3, line 19 strike ``individually.'' page 
4, line 19, strike ``individual.''
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The manager's 
amendment simply makes three technical changes to the bill to 
correct drafting errors.
    First, the year in the short title was changed from 2003 to 
2004. The other two changes made by the manager's amendment are 
to strike the words individually and individual in two places 
where they appear before the words ``insured'' and 
``insurance.''
    This is done to correct a drafting oversight that while 
most aviation insurance at issue is individual to a pilot or 
aircraft, there are other forms of nonindividual insurance 
policies that should not be discriminated against for no good 
reason.
    I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on adoption of the 
manager's amendment.
    The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt.
    Mr. Watt. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Watt. Just for the purpose of asking the same question 
I was trying to ask on the wrong bill before we recessed.
    Under this bill, the pilot would--the volunteer would 
certify that he has an operating license and insurance for such 
craft, aircraft. I am just trying to figure out what that 
insurance would normally consist of and whether there are 
exclusions and whether there are any exclusions in those 
policies that he would be certifying were in effect that might 
make it impossible for a third party to get anything if the 
airplane crashed, for example.
    A lot of insurance policies say we will insure you for your 
individual risk but not when you are engaged in any kind of 
third party or business risk. And I am just trying to get fixed 
in my own mind whether there is any kind of insurance likely to 
be out there to cover somebody if they are injured.
    I will yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, I can't tell you what insurance 
is out there or not, but let me tell you what we did have at 
the hearing. First of all, the intent of this legislation is to 
do exactly what the Volunteer Protection Act does for other 
volunteers, and just extend it to these volunteers on pilot 
associations.
    The focus of the Act, when it comes to insurance, is to 
make sure that the pilots are required to have whatever 
insurance the States require them to have.
    Mr. Watt. Will you talk into the mike?
    Mr. Forbes. The intent is that the pilots will have 
whatever insurance coverage the States require them to have. 
Same with the operators license. If the State requires them to 
have an operators license, they would have to have it. The type 
of insurance required by the State, they would have to have.
    The only reason for this correction on the technical 
correction with the manager's amendment is that some of these 
associations are able to get a group coverage that they get 
through the association and some of them, the bulk of them, get 
individual pilot coverage, of course.
    The other thing that was important from the hearing to note 
is that there was not a single bit of testimony that there was 
any negligence concerns, any problems with insurance in terms 
of the kind of insurance they were carrying.
    The testimony before the Subcommittee was clearly that this 
was serving as a chilling effect to absolutely stop this 
service from taking place, which is providing incredible 
benefit to patients across the country. So the insurance that 
would be there would be the insurance that would be required by 
the States for these pilots.
    Mr. Watt. As far as you know, those insurance policies 
wouldn't have any kind of exclusion that would make it 
impossible for a third party to recover, even if they were 
operating under these conditions?
    Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman. I don't want to represent that 
none of the policies would have that, because I don't know 
that. We have not gone through every individual policy. I would 
say, as the gentleman knows, these policies are going to vary 
from State to State. So there very well could be a company out 
there that has that exclusion in it.
    What I can say very clearly is that this will refer it back 
to the States for whatever insurance requirements that those 
particular States have currently.
    Mr. Watt. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Would you have any more 
information about the question in response to that?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If the gentleman will yield, the 
answer is no.
    Mr. Watt. All right. I am not trying to pin anybody down. I 
am just trying to find out whether there might be some 
unintended consequences.
    Mr. Carter. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Watt. Yes, I would be happy to yield.
    Mr. Carter. As I recall from the hearing that we held, I 
believe that pilot air liability insurance, they would still 
have to carry that. This is to prevent them from being sued 
when they are flying a patient, and the patient gets to the 
location and either dies or gets more ill than he was before he 
left the destination. They are getting sued for the condition 
of the patient that they are transporting.
    Mr. Watt. Oh, I see what you are saying.
    Mr. Carter. Not for any pilot error. The pilot may have 
flown there effectively, gotten there on time or been delayed 
by weather, whatever the reason. But they ended up being sued 
because the patient gets sicker or dies. They are wanting--they 
are having to carry a load of additional insurance, as I 
understand, to cover these patients that they are hauling in 
these airplanes.
    They would still have to have pilot liability if the pilot 
made an error, they would have to have the insurance that is 
required by the State to maintain pilot error insurance. That 
is what I understood from a question that I asked at the 
hearing.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. I yield back the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you very much for your comments. If I 
remember the testimony from this, if there is an allegation of 
ignorance--the victim would have recourse.
    Mr. Forbes. That is correct. The victim would have recourse 
to any insurance that would be available and that could include 
insurance that the organization has or insurance that the 
individual pilot has.
    Mr. Scott. And so the pilot would be covered for negligence 
in operating the aircraft--and that is what the insurance would 
be for--and a victim would have access to that liability policy 
so that we would not be leaving victims without any resource?
    Mr. Forbes. That is correct.
    Mr. Scott. The volunteer organization, however, that put 
the people together would not be part of the lawsuit because of 
the bill?
    Mr. Forbes. Both the volunteer organization, and also--as 
you recall from the hearing--the referring agencies were having 
a difficult time. Hospitals who simply wanted to make patients 
aware of these organizations were very concerned that they 
would have suits coming against them as well, and this is 
designed to protect them.
    Mr. Scott. And, again, reclaiming my time.
    A victim of ordinary negligence would be covered by the 
insurance policy covering the airplane?
    Mr. Forbes. Would continue to be covered.
    Mr. Scott. I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on agreeing to the 
manager's amendment.
    Those in favor say aye.
    Aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The manager's amendment is 
agreed to.
    Are there any further amendments.
    The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I have the amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment H.R. 1084 offered by Mr. Scott.
    At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:
    Section 4, report by Attorney General.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Scott, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, we have heard from the 
organizations that this insurance patiently is not available. 
We are asking the attorney general to determine whether or 
not--and this can't be the only situation where insurance of 
this kind is desired and difficult to find. We would like to 
have a study to find out exactly why they are not getting 
insurance and why it is not available.
    Mr. Forbes. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the 
Chairman of the Subcommittee is willing to accept this 
amendment, and I don't have any objection to it.
    Mr. Scott. I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
    Those in favor will say aye.
    Aye.
    Opposed no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The amendment 
is agreed to. Are there further amendments? If there are no 
further amendments, a reporting quorum is present.
    The question occurs on the motion to report the bill H.R. 
1084 favorably as amended.
    All in favor will say aye.
    Aye.
    Opposed, no.
    The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it.
    The motion to report favorably is agreed to.
    Without objection, the bill will be reported favorably to 
the House in the form of a single amendment in the nature of a 
substitute incorporating the amendments adopted here today. 
Without objection the Chairman is authorized to go to 
conference pursuant to House rules. Without objection, the 
staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes, 
and all Members will be given 2 days as provided by House rules 
in which to submit additional dissenting, supplemental or 
minority views.

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    H.R. 1084, the ``Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection 
Act'' is the product of overreaching by the Majority. It is a 
response to a hypothetical problem and does nothing but let 
insurance companies off the hook while potentially harming 
innocent victims. And it flies in the face of the Volunteer 
Protection Act, a bill Congress passed into law after eight 
years of debate extending over five Congresses. The Volunteer 
Protection Act was carefully deliberated and negotiated, and 
this bill wipes that slate clean and acts as if the Volunteer 
Protection Act never existed.
    We oppose this bill for several 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. H.R. 1084 also does 
nothing to tackle the real problem, which is the insurance 
industry's failure to offer insurance to the volunteer pilot 
organizations. Finally, the bill is poorly drafted and includes 
loopholes that would insulate international terrorist 
organizations from liability and subjects innocent bystanders 
to harm without any recourse.

                       DESCRIPTION OF LEGISLATION

    Section 2 of the bill, the ``Findings and Purpose'' 
section, contains four findings describing the benefits and 
services provided by nonprofit volunteer pilot organizations 
and states that these 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.''
    Section 3 of the bill amends the Volunteer Protection Act 
to provide a liability exemption when the harm was caused by a 
volunteer of a non-profit volunteer pilot organization. Section 
3 also carves out liability protection for the nonprofit 
volunteer pilot organization, the staff, mission coordinates, 
officers, directors, and referring agencies.

           BACKGROUND ON THE VOLUNTEER PROTECTION ACT OF 1997

    The Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 was passed in an 
effort to help increase volunteerism because of a fear that 
people were deterred by the potential for personal liability. 
Specifically, the Act limited the liability of volunteers who 
are: (1) acting within the scope of their responsibilities; (2) 
properly licensed, certified, or authorized to act; (3) not 
causing harm by willful or criminal conduct, gross negligence, 
reckless misconduct, or a conscious, flagrant indifference to 
the rights or safety of the individual; and (4) not causing 
harm while operating a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or 
other vehicle for which the State requires the operator to 
possess a license or to maintain insurance.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 14053 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, the Act eliminates joint and several liability 
for non-economic damages with respect to volunteers and limits 
awards of punitive damages against volunteers by requiring the 
plaintiff to establish ``by clear and convincing evidence that 
the harm was proximately caused by an action of such volunteer 
which constitutes willful or criminal misconduct, or a 
conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of the 
individual harmed.''
    The Act preempts inconsistent state laws except to the 
extent that such laws provide additional protection from 
liability to volunteers. Moreover, the legislation specifically 
provides that it would not preempt a State law that (1) 
requires a nonprofit organization or governmental entity to 
adhere to risk management procedures, including mandatory 
training of volunteers; (2) makes the organization or entity 
liable for the acts or omissions of its volunteers to the same 
extent that an employer is liable for the acts or omissions of 
its employees (i.e. respondent superior); (3) makes a 
limitation of liability inapplicable only if the nonprofit 
organization or governmental entity provides financial secure 
source of recovery for individuals who suffer harm as a result 
of actions taken by a volunteer on behalf of the organization 
or entity. The act also allows States to enact statutes voiding 
the new federal legal limitations, but only to the extent all 
of the parties to a particular action are citizens of the 
State.

                        CONCERNS WITH H.R. 1084

A. H.R. 1084 undoes the balance achieved by the Volunteer Protection 
        Act
    As noted above, the Volunteer Protection Act specifically 
excludes harm caused while ``operating a motor vehicle, vessel, 
aircraft, or other vehicle for which the State requires the 
operator to possess a license or to maintain insurance.'' \2\ 
Unfortunately, H.R. 1084 completely undoes this decision. 
Volunteers operating aircrafts or motor vehicles were exempted 
from liability protection under the Act because of the concern 
that in highly dangerous activities (such as flying airplanes), 
States have made it clear that they intend to hold individuals 
responsible for the consequences of their negligence by 
mandating insurance. Congress obviously chose to trust States' 
judgement in these cases. Similarly, because most individuals 
who fly already have insurance, Congress may not have viewed 
liability protection for airplane pilots as an incentive to 
volunteer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 14053 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, Congress was also concerned that if it 
extended liability protection to volunteer operators of 
airplanes and automobiles, these organizations would not be 
able to provide a financially secure source of recovery for 
individuals who suffer harm as a result of actions taken by a 
volunteer on behalf of an organization or entity. Indeed, the 
Volunteer Protection Act does not preempt state legislation 
that provides for such protection. Thus, Congress exempted 
operators of airplanes from liability protection because they 
feared with the high rates of accidents involving airplanes, 
there was a potential that innocent victims could go 
uncompensated if volunteers did not posses insurance.
B. H.R. 1084 goes well beyond protecting volunteers
    The 1997 Act excuses volunteers from negligence but holds 
organizations accountable if they act irresponsibly.\3\ By 
contrast, H.R. 1084 protects not just the volunteer, but also 
the staff, mission coordinator, officer, or director (whether 
volunteer or not) of the nonprofit organization. It also 
extends the protection to any referring agency (whether for-
profit or non-profit). This provision is designed to protect 
the matching programs that bring together volunteer pilots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Sec. 4(c) (``Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
affect the liability of any nonprofit organization or governmental 
entity with respect to harm caused to any person.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As Professor Andrew Popper explained in his testimony 
before the Committee:

          H.R. 1084 undercuts a fundamental premise of exiting 
        [sic] federal law, the 1997 Volunteer Protection Act. 
        That legislation immunized negligent coaches, lawyers 
        and doctors engaged in malpractice, and others who have 
        trusting contact with vulnerable populations, on the 
        premise that victims of such misconduct would still 
        have recourse against the organizations who sponsored 
        the immunized defendant-volunteers. If this bill 
        passes, that protection will vanish. Under this bill, 
        the pilots, as well as their organizations and 
        sponsoring entities, would all be immunized. In short, 
        those who are in need of emergency air service and must 
        rely on volunteers would be in the hands of individuals 
        and organizations who are unaccountable for negligent 
        acts.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Increasing Volunteers by Reducing Legal Fears: Hearings on H.R. 
1084, H.R. 3369, and H.R. 1787, Before the Comm. on the Judiciary, 
108th Cong. (statement of Andrew F. Popper, Professor, American 
University, Washington College of Law (July 20, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. H.R. 1084 reduces the standard of care for pilots
    Finally, H.R. 1084 alters the standard of care normally 
applied to pilots. Under current law, owners and operators of 
private aircraft must exercise ordinary care, or reasonable 
care under the circumstances.\5\ However, a number of courts 
have held that operators of private aircraft must exercise the 
highest degree of care. Indeed, one court reasoned that the 
nature of the conveyance and the great danger involved required 
the utmost practical care and prudence for the safety of 
passengers, and that the defendant was bound to exercise the 
highest degree of human care, caution, and judgement consistent 
with the practical operation of the plane. No lesser degree of 
care and prudence would be adequate under the circumstances or 
commensurate with the danger involved.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Brooks v. United States, 695 F.2d 984 (5th Cir. 1983). Owners 
sued in tort for property loss arising when an aircraft was badly 
damaged in a runway landing accident. The court noted that under Texas 
law, liability growing out of aircraft accidents is determined by 
ordinary rules of negligence.
    \6\ Dyer v. United States. 551 F. Supp. 1266 (W.D. Mich. 1982), 
applying federal and Michigan law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under H.R. 1084 by contrast, a volunteer pilot could only 
be held liable if harm was caused by ``willful or criminal 
misconduct, gross negligence, reckless misconduct, or a 
conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of the 
individual harmed by the volunteer.'' \7\ Thus, the standard of 
care would be uniformly altered for all pilots, regardless of 
their type of license, that are permitted to fly for a non-
profit organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 14503.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. H.R. 1084 ignores the problem of inadequate insurance coverage
    The real problem facing the nonprofit volunteer pilot 
organization community is that these organizations cannot 
obtain insurance. This was the point of Edward Boyer's 
testimony at the hearing on this bill: ``[A]viation insurance 
has skyrocketed up in price and certain key products are no 
longer reasonably available to volunteer pilot organizations. * 
* * Now virtually all volunteer pilot organizations have no 
non-owned aircraft liability insurance.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Increasing Volunteers by Reducing Legal Fears: Hearings on H.R. 
1084, H.R. 3369, and H.R. 1787, Before the Comm. on the Judiciary, 
108th Cong. (statement of Edward R. Boyer) (July 20, 2004.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the markup of this bill, Rep. Scott offered an amendment 
that directs the Attorney General to conduct a study to 
determine the insurance situation. The study will include an 
analysis of whether or not insurance is available to these 
nonprofit volunteer pilot organizations, and if not, then why. 
If insurance is available, the study will determine if it is 
made available on reasonable terms. Finally, the study will 
determine if there is collusion among insurance companies not 
to offer insurance, and the extent to which the inability to 
obtain insurance has affected these organizations' ability to 
operate.
    The study is a good first step in figuring out the problem, 
but it should have been conducted before Congress decided to 
pass a bill limiting liability for all volunteers and 
organizations in the industry and diminishing the chances of 
holding anyone accountable when harm occurs.
E. Legislation is poorly drafted
    As usual when it comes to ``tort reform'' proposals by the 
majority, this bill was poorly and hastily drafted and leaves 
all kinds of loopholes. For example, the bill does not address 
the situation of an innocent bystander who may be harmed by a 
volunteer pilot. While the bill attempts to address the 
situation between the pilots, the organizations, and the person 
in need of transport, it clearly does not contemplate the 
situation of someone outside the relationship, such as an 
innocent bystander. This is simply poor and thoughtless 
drafting.
    Even more egregious, this poor drafting leaves a loophole 
for acts of domestic terrorism. Thus, if a pilot flying for a 
nonprofit volunteer pilot organization commits an act of 
domestic terrorism with an airplane, the organization will 
completely escape liability for the harm caused by such an act. 
This is simply irresponsible.

                               CONCLUSION

    H.R. 1084 is overbroad and unnecessary. There have been no 
reported civil liability cases against a volunteer pilot or a 
volunteer pilot organization. In addition, 43 States have 
already passed legislation relating to volunteer liability; 
some States have included or separately passed protections for 
non-profit organizations. There is no need to preempt State 
laws in this case.

                                   John Conyers, Jr.
                                   Maxine Waters.
                                   Tammy Baldwin.
                                   Howard L. Berman.
                                   Jerrold Nadler.
                                   Sheila Jackson Lee.
                                   Robert Wexler.
                                   Linda T. Sanchez.

                                  
