49–006 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 109–394 

VOLUNTEER PILOT ORGANIZATION PROTECTION ACT 

OF 2006 

MARCH 15, 2006.—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. 1871] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 1871) 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 ................................................................................................................... 7 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 7 

Vote of the Committee ............................................................................................. 7 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 8 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 8 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 8 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 9 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 9 

Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion .......................................................... 9 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 10 

Markup Transcript .................................................................................................. 12 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 41 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
2 

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 

2006’’. 

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 clauses (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, unless the conduct constitutes 

a Federal crime of terrorism (as such term is defined in section 2332b(g)(5) of 

title 18, United States Code) or an act of domestic terrorism (as such term is 

defined in section 2331 of such title), or unless the entity has been convicted 

of an offense under section 2339A of such title.’’; 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. Such referring agency shall include, 

among others, any nonprofit organization that provides disaster relief services that 

place staff, volunteers, evacuees, goods, supplies, or cargo on aircraft flights being 

coordinated by volunteer pilot organizations in circumstances of disaster response 

and relief.’’. 

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; 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
3 

1 N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 2A: 53A–7 to 7.1. 2Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60–3601. 3Ohio. Rev. Code Ann. § 2305.38. 4Wis. Stat. §§ 181.0670. 

(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. 1871, the ‘‘Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act of 

2006,’’ amends the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 (VPA) 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 and 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. 1871 

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

H.R. 1871 extends the liability protections already provided by 

Congress in the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 to volunteer pilot 

organizations that fly for public benefit. The extension of these liability protections reflects Congress’ recognition that America’s 

long tradition of volunteerism and generosity has been undermined 

by costly and often frivolous litigation. In recent decades, lawsuits 

and fears of liability have increasingly become a deterrent to people 

who might otherwise have given of their time or resources to better 

their community and country. 

HISTORY OF VOLUNTEER LIABILITY PROTECTIONS

The common law of all 50 States allows individuals to collect 

monetary damages in tort for personal injury or property damage 

caused by another person’s negligence or willful conduct. Virtually 

all of these States have recognized the need to encourage good 

works and volunteerism by protecting volunteers and nonprofit organizations from tort liability for accidents that arise in the normal 

course of their dealings. For example, New Jersey provides that 

charities and the volunteers they utilize are immune from liability 

for ordinary negligence.1 In Kansas, a volunteer or nonprofit organization is immune from liability for negligence if the organization 

carries general liability insurance coverage.2 Ohio offers broad immunity for volunteers of charitable organizations.3 Wisconsin State 

law limits the liability of volunteers of non-stock corporations organized under Chapter 181.4 Georgia grants immunity for members, 

directors, officers, and trustees of charities from negligence claims 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
4 

5Ga. Code Ann. § 51–1–20. 6 Volunteer Liability Legislation, Hearing on H.R. 911 and H.R. 1167 Before the House Committee on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. (1997). 7 H.R. Rep. No. 105–101, at 6 (1997). 8 Volunteer Liability Legislation: Hearing on H.R. 911 and H.R. 1167, supra, 105th Cong. at 

56. 9Pub. L. No. 105–19 (1997). 10 ‘‘Volunteer’’ is defined in the VPA as a person who performs services for a non-profit and who receives no more than $500 per year for such services. 24 U.S.C. § 14505(6). 11 42 U.S.C. §§ 14503(e), 14504. 12 42 U.S.C. §§ 14502(a), 14503(c). 13 42 U.S.C. § 14503(a)(4). 14See, e.g., Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2003, the Non Profit Athletic Organization Protection Act of 2003, and the Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act: 

Hearing Before the House Comm. on the Judiciary on H.R. 1787, H.R. 3369, and H.R. 

1084,108th Cong. (2004); 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. (1997); and 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. (1995). 

asserted by beneficiaries of the charity.5 These States’ efforts reflect a broader national consensus that volunteers and volunteer 

organizations should be protected from legal liability. 

Congress recognized this national consensus and held hearings 

examining this subject in 1997.6 Those hearings showed that in addition to causing potential volunteers to stay at home or refrain 

from certain needed activities, liability and the fear of liability for 

volunteer activities had very real financial impacts, including dramatically rising costs for liability insurance premiums for volunteer 

organizations. These increased premiums have practical consequences: the Executive Director of the Girl Scout Council of 

Washington, D.C. stated that ‘‘locally we must sell 87,000 boxes of 

. . . Girl Scout cookies each year to pay for [our] liability insurance.’’ 7 Furthermore, 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 moneys which otherwise would be used to build more houses [for] more persons in 

need.’’ 8

These concerns prompted Congress to pass the Volunteer Protection Act (VPA), which was signed into law by President Clinton on 

June 18, 1997.9 The VPA protects ‘‘volunteers’’ 10 for incidents that 

arise in the scope of their work, but it does not provide liability 

protection for willful, reckless, or criminal conduct or gross negligence. The Act limits punitive damages and non-economic damages for those individuals found liable.11 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.12

Hence, under the common law doctrine of respondeat superior, volunteer organizations and entities are still generally vicariously liable for the negligence of their employees and volunteers. Also, volunteers that operate motor vehicles, vessels, or aircraft are not protected by the VPA.13

The passage of the VPA has not ended the problem of liability 

and its associated costs for volunteers and the non-profit organizations that support them. Hence, the Committee has held hearings 14 in recent years about various aspects of this problem and 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
5 

15See, e.g., H.R. 911, 105th Cong. (1997); H.R. 1167, 105th Cong. (1997); H.R. 7, 107th Cong. 

(2001); H.R. 1787, 108th Cong. (2003); H.R. 3369, 108th Cong. (2003); H.R. 1084, 108th Cong. 

(2003); and H.R. 3736, 109th Cong. (2005). 16 H.R. 7, 107th Cong. § 401 (2001). 17 150 Cong. Rec. H7097 (daily ed. Sept. 14, 2004). 18 151 Cong. Rec. H11289 (daily ed. Dec. 8, 2005), Pub. L. No. 109–177. 19 150 Cong. Rec. H7098 (daily ed. Sept. 14, 2004). 20 151 Cong. Rec. H7887 (daily ed. Sept. 14, 2005). 21 150 Cong. Rec. H7098 (daily ed. Sep. 14, 2004). 

has advanced several pieces of legislation 15 designed to limit liability for volunteers and volunteer, non-profit, or charitable organizations. For example, in the 107th Congress, the House-passed 

version of the ‘‘Charitable Choice Act of 2001,’’ H.R. 7, contained 

provisions limiting liability for persons or entities who donated 

equipment to charitable organizations.16 In the 108th Congress, the 

House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 1787, the ‘‘Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2003,’’ which extends certain 

liability protections to those who donate equipment to volunteer 

fire stations, by a vote of 397–3.17 The provisions of that Act are 

now included as Section 125 of the USA PATRIOT Improvement 

and Reauthorization Act of 2005, which was signed into law on 

March 9, 2006.18 On the same day, the House also overwhelmingly 

passed H.R. 1084, the ‘‘Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection 

Act,’’ by a vote of 385–12.19

Most recently, the House passed the ‘‘Katrina Volunteer Protection Act of 2005,’’ H.R. 3736, by voice vote on September 14, 

2005.20 This bill extends liability protections to any person or entity that voluntarily rendered aid in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, 

provided that the harm was not caused by willful, wanton, reckless, 

or criminal conduct. 

H.R. 1871, ‘‘THE VOLUNTEER PILOT ORGANIZATION PROTECTION ACT’’

H.R. 1871 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 purpose of such organizations. The bill amends Section 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 that Act. 

However, H.R. 1871 does not confer blanket immunity for the actions of volunteers. Rather, it only confers immunity for simple 

negligence; it does not provide any liability protections for grossly 

negligent, or willful, reckless, or criminal conduct. Further, the exceptions to the general liability protections contained in the VPA 

would still apply (i.e. certain State laws on respondeat superior or 

adherence to licensing or risk management standards). A virtually 

identical bill, H.R. 1084, passed the House in the 108th Congress 

by a vote of 385–12.21

VOLUNTEER PILOT ORGANIZATIONS AND PUBLIC BENEFIT AVIATION

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 range from environmental observation, to wilderness rescue, to 

delivery of medical supplies and organs, to transport of medical paVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:37 Mar 18, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR394.XXX HR394

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
6 

22Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2003, the Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act of 2003, and the Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 108th Cong. 13 (2004) (testimony of Edward R. Boyer, 

President and CEO of Mercy Medical Airlift and Vice Chairman, Angel Flight America). 23 Id. 24 ‘‘Over 2,000 children reported missing after Katrina,’’ available at http://www.cnn.com/ 

2005/US/09/16/news.update/index.html. 25 Interview by Douglas Kennedy, Fox News Correspondent with Mike Keller, National Center 

for Missing and Exploited Children, in Baton Rouge, LA. (Sept. 9, 2005). 26Press Release, Angel Flight America, Angel Flight America Flies Relief for Hurricane 

Katrina Victims (Sept. 8, 2005), available at http://www.angelflightamerica.org/ 

index.php?src=news&prid=11&category=Press%20Releases. 27 Id. at 16. 28 Id. at 13, 16, 22, 24. 

tients.22 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 2003.23 These flights enable patients to travel to remote specialized medical centers to receive life saving treatments and partake in clinical trials that they 

could not otherwise obtain in their own hometowns or even in their 

own regions of the country. 

The benefits of public benefit aviation are even more pronounced 

in emergency situations, such as the recent Hurricane Katrina disaster. In the wake of that disaster, more than 2,800 children were 

reported missing by the National Center for Missing and Exploited 

Children (NCMEC).24 However, the NCMEC worked with Angel 

Flight America, a non-profit volunteer pilot organization, and its 

pilots to re-connect many of these children with their parents.25 In 

addition to reuniting families, Angel Flight America flew over 500 

missions in the first week after the hurricane to bring volunteers 

and supplies to the affected areas.26 Overall, Angel Flight America 

coordinated approximately 2,200 flights into the areas affected by 

Hurricane Katrina, second only to the United States military. 

THE LIABILITY DILEMMA FACED BY VOLUNTEER PILOT ORGANIZATIONS

AND THEIR PILOTS

The activities of volunteer pilots and volunteer pilot organizations are not protected from liability by the VPA, and 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 plane, time, and insurance are reluctant to take on passengers 

and expose themselves to possible liability that exceeds their own 

insurance coverage. 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 recommendation.27 Furthermore, volunteer pilot organizations can no longer obtain the needed ‘‘nonowned aircraft insurance’’ at a reasonable cost, or, in some cases, 

at all.28

The Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act of 2006 addresses these concerns by bringing volunteer pilot organizations, the volunteer pilots that fly for them, as well as the hospitals and other 

agencies that refer patients to them under the protection of the 

Volunteer Protection Act. By narrowly limiting the liability of these 

groups, the Committee hopes to foster the good works of the volunteer pilot organizations. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
7 

H.R. 1871 is supported by, among others, Angel Flight East, the 

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the Children’s Organ 

Transport Association, the National Association for Rare Disorders, 

Angel Flight America, the National Air Transportation Association, 

and the American Red Cross. 

HEARINGS

The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H.R. 1871 

in the 109th Congress. However, the full Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on a nearly identical bill, H.R. 1084, in the 

108th Congress, at which testimony was received from Mr. Edward 

R. Boyer, President and CEO, of Mercy Medical Airlift. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On March 2, 2006, the Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported the H.R. 1871 as amended by 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 the following 

rollcall votes occurred during the Committee’s consideration of H.R. 

1871. 

1. Mr. Scott offered an amendment that would have eliminated 

the liability protections afforded to volunteer pilots who fly on behalf of nonprofit volunteer pilot organizations that fly for public 

benefit. By a rollcall vote of 10 ayes to 18 nays, with one vote of 

present, the amendment was not agreed to. 

ROLLCALL NO. 1 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Hyde ............................................................................................................

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (Texas) ............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Gallegly .......................................................................................................

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Lungren ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jenkins ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Cannon ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Bachus ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Inglis ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Hostettler .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Green .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Keller ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa .............................................................................................................

Mr. Flake ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pence .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Feeney ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Conyers ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman .......................................................................................................

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler .........................................................................................................

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
8 

ROLLCALL NO. 1—Continued 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................

Ms. Lofgren ....................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Meehan ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler .........................................................................................................

Mr. Weiner .........................................................................................................

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Van Hollen .................................................................................................. X 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz .................................................................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman .......................................................................... X 

Total ................................................................................................ 10 18 1 

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. 1871, the following estimate and comparison prepared 

by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, March 10, 2006. 

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. 1871, the ‘‘Volunteer Pilot 

Organization Protection Act of 2006.’’ If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Gregory Waring (for 

Federal costs), who can be reached at 226–2860, and Melissa 

Merrell (for the state and local impact), who can be reached at 

225–3220. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN. 

Enclosure 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
9 

cc: Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Member 

H.R. 1871—Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act of 2006 

H.R. 1871 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 within the scope of the organization’s mission. Such organizations typically provide wilderness rescue or medical evacuation 

services. 

CBO estimates that implementing the legislation would result in 

no significant costs to the Federal Government. Enacting H.R. 1871 

would not affect direct spending or revenues. 

H.R. 1871 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined in 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), but CBO estimates 

that the resulting costs, if any, would not be significant and would 

be well below the threshold established in that act ($64 million in 

2006, adjusted annually for inflation). The bill contains no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. 

H.R. contains an intergovernmental mandate because it would 

preempt certain state liability laws. 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. CBO estimates that the resulting costs, if any, would not be significant and would be well below 

the threshold established in UMRA. 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Gregory Waring (for 

Federal costs), who can be reached at 226–2860, and Melissa 

Merrell (for the state and local impact), who can be reached at 

225–3220. 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. 1871, would protect and promote the important work of volunteer pilots and volunteer pilot organizations by creating limited liability protections to 

encourage needed pilots and to allow the procurement of necessary 

insurance. 

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 art. I, § 8 of the Constitution. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The following discussion describes the bill as reported by the 

Committee. 

Section 1. Short Title 

Section 1 provides that H.R. 1871 may be cited as the ‘‘Volunteer 

Pilot Organization Protection Act of 2006.’’


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
10 

Section 2. Findings and Purpose 

Subsection 2(a) cites findings about the beneficial nature of public benefit non-profit volunteer aviation, those served by such organizations and the difficulty such organizations face in obtaining 

reasonable insurance due to potential liability exposure. 

Subsection 2(b) sets forward 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. 

§ 14503) by extending the liability protections of the Act to a properly licensed and insured volunteer pilot who is flying in furtherance of a nonprofit volunteer pilot organization that flies for public 

benefit. Such volunteers are currently not covered under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 14503(a)(4). These liability protections apply only to pilot negligence; under H.R. 1871, pilots would still be liable for grossly negligent or willful, reckless, or criminal actions. Further, Section 3 

provides an incentive for pilots to carry the requisite insurance 

(whether they own, rent, or borrow the aircraft) so that they can 

partake of the liability limiting features of the bill. An amendment 

offered by Representative Waters and accepted by voice vote clarifies that nothing in this bill will extend liability protections to pilots who are engaged in acts of terrorism as that term is defined 

in 18 U.S.C. §§ 2332b(g)(5), 2331, or 2339A. 

Section 3 also extends the protection of the VPA to cover volunteer pilot organizations as well as referral organizations. Such organizations are currently not covered by the Volunteer Protection 

Act under 42 U.S.C. § 14503(c). This section addresses the insurance reality that volunteer pilot organizations are no longer able to 

obtain the insurance they need in the marketplace. An amendment 

offered by Representatives Chabot and Jackson Lee and accepted 

by voice vote clarifies that the referral agencies covered by the protections of H.R. 1871 also include those agencies, such as the 

American Red Cross, that provide disaster relief services and place 

staff, volunteers, evacuees, goods, supplies, or cargo on flights coordinated by volunteer pilot organizations. 

Section 4. Report by Attorney General 

Section 4 requires the Attorney General to study and file a report 

with Congress regarding the availability of insurance to nonprofit 

volunteer pilot organizations. 

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): 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
11 

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—

ø(A)¿ (i) possess an operator’s license; or 

ø(B)¿ (ii) maintain insuranceø.¿; 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, unless the conduct constitutes a 

Federal crime of terrorism (as such term is defined in section 

2332b(g)(5) of title 18, United States Code) or an act of domestic terrorism (as such term is defined in section 2331 of such 

title), or unless the entity has been convicted of an offense under 

section 2339A of such title. 

* * * * * * * 

(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. Such referring agency shall include, among others, any nonprofit organization that provides disaster relief services 

that place staff, volunteers, evacuees, goods, supplies, or cargo on 

aircraft flights being coordinated by volunteer pilot organizations in 

circumstances of disaster response and relief. 

* * * * * * * 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
12 

MARKUP TRANSCRIPT

BUSINESS MEETING 

THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2005 

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, the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

[Intervening business.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Pursuant to notice, I now call up the 

bill H.R. 1871, the ‘‘Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act of 

2005,’’ 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. 

[The bill, H.R. 1871, follows:] 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
13 

1

I

109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1871

To provide liability protection to nonprofit volunteer pilot organizations flying

for public benefit and to the pilots and staff of such organizations.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 27, 2005

Mrs. DRAKE (for herself, Mr. FORBES, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr. GRAVES, Mr.

KIRK, Ms. HART, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. TANNER, Mr. STEARNS, Mr.

SESSIONS, Miss MCMORRIS, Mr. MURPHY, Mr. PRICE of Georgia, Mr.

EHLERS, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. GOODE, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr.

SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. KUHL of New York, and Mr.

TAYLOR of Mississippi) introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide liability protection to nonprofit volunteer pilot

organizations flying for public benefit and to the pilots

and staff of such organizations.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Volunteer Pilot Orga5 nization Protection Act of 2005’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

7 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following:

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSI1871.AAB
14 

2

•HR 1871 IH

1 (1) Scores of public benefit nonprofit volunteer

2 pilot organizations provide valuable services to com3 munities and individuals.

4 (2) In calendar year 2001, nonprofit volunteer

5 pilot organizations provided long-distance, no-cost

6 transportation for over 30,000 people in times of

7 special need.

8 (3) Such organizations are no longer able to

9 reasonably purchase non-owned aircraft liability in10 surance to provide liability protection, and thus face

11 a highly detrimental liability risk.

12 (4) Such organizations have supported the in13 terests of homeland security by providing volunteer

14 pilot services at times of national emergency.

15 (b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this Act is to promote

16 the activities of nonprofit volunteer pilot organizations fly17 ing for public benefit and to sustain the availability of the

18 services that such organizations provide, including trans19 portation at no cost to financially needy medical patients

20 for medical treatment, evaluation, and diagnosis, as well

21 as other flights of compassion and flights for humani22 tarian and charitable purposes.

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSI1871.AAC
15 

3

•HR 1871 IH

1 SEC. 3. LIABILITY PROTECTION FOR NONPROFIT VOLUN2 TEER PILOT ORGANIZATIONS FLYING FOR

3 PUBLIC BENEFIT AND TO PILOTS AND STAFF

4 OF SUCH ORGANIZATIONS.

5 Section 4 of the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997

6 (42 U.S.C. 14503) is amended—

7 (1) in subsection (a)(4)—

8 (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A)

9 and (B) as (i) and (ii), respectively;

10 (B) by inserting ‘‘(A)’’ after ‘‘(4)’’;

11 (C) by striking the period at the end and

12 inserting ‘‘; or’’ and

13 (D) by adding at the end the following:

14 ‘‘(B) the harm was caused by a volunteer of a

15 nonprofit volunteer pilot organization that flies for

16 public benefit, while the volunteer was flying in fur17 therance of the purpose of the organization and was

18 operating an aircraft for which the volunteer was

19 properly licensed and insured.’’; and

20 (2) in subsection (c)—

21 (A) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ before ‘‘Nothing’’;

22 and

23 (B) by adding at the end the following new

24 paragraph:

25 ‘‘(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a nonprofit vol26 unteer pilot organization that flies for public benefit, and

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSI1871.AAD
16 

4

•HR 1871 IH

1 the staff, mission coordinators, officers, and directors

2 (whether volunteer or otherwise) of such organization or

3 a referring agency of such organization, shall not be liable

4 with respect to harm caused to any person by a volunteer

5 of such organization, while the volunteer is flying in fur6 therance of the purpose of the organization and is oper7 ating an aircraft for which the volunteer is properly li8 censed and has certified to such organization that such

9 volunteer has in force insurance for operating such air10 craft.’’.

11 SEC. 4. REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.

12 (a) STUDY REQUIRED.—The Attorney General shall

13 carry out a study on the availability of insurance to non14 profit volunteer pilot organizations that fly for public ben15 efit. In carrying out the study, the Attorney General shall

16 make findings with respect to—

17 (1) whether nonprofit volunteer pilot organiza18 tions are able to obtain insurance;

19 (2) if no, then why;

20 (3) if yes, then on what terms such insurance

21 is offered; and

22 (4) if the inability of nonprofit volunteer pilot

23 organizations to obtain insurance has any impact on

24 the associations’ ability to operate.

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSI1871.AAE
17 

5

•HR 1871 IH

1 (b) REPORT.—After completing the study, the Attor2 ney General shall submit to Congress a report on the re3 sults of the study. The report shall include the findings

4 of the study and any conclusions and recommendations

5 that the Attorney General considers appropriate.

Æ

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSI1871.AAF
18 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 

minutes to explain the bill. 

This is a bill which is narrowly tailored to address the liability 

exposure of certain volunteer and nonprofit activities. The next bill 

also proposes to do that. 

In 1997, Congress passed the Volunteer Protection Act to shield 

volunteers from liability for some forms of negligence in response 

to concerns that our lawsuit culture is inhibiting this country’s rich 

tradition of volunteerism. However, the act does not protect volunteers who operate an automobile, vessel, or aircraft, or organizations that coordinate the volunteers. 

This bill is very narrowly drafted so that it applies to organizations which fly for public benefit, the largest of which function together as Angel Flight America. I will ask unanimous consent to 

put my entire statement in the record and also to include letters 

of support from the National Association for Rare Disorders, Angel 

Flight America, the National Air Transportation Association, the 

American Red Cross. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sensenbrenner follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., A REP- RESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN, AND CHAIRMAN, COM- MITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

I urge my colleagues to join me in favorably reporting H.R. 1871, the ‘‘Volunteer 

Pilot Organization Protection Act.’’ This bill, along with H.R. 1176, which we will 

take up shortly, is narrowly tailored to address the liability exposure of certain volunteer and non-profit activities. 

In 1997, Congress passed the Volunteer Protection Act to shield volunteers from 

liability for some forms of negligence in response to concerns that America’s lawsuit 

culture was inhibiting this country’s rich tradition of volunteerism. However, the 

Volunteer Protection Act does not protect volunteers who operate an automobile, 

vessel, or aircraft, nor does it protect the organizations that coordinate the volunteers. 

There are approximately 30 separate volunteer pilot organizations flying for public benefit; the largest of which function together as Angel Flight America. These 

organizations coordinate the almost 8,000 volunteer pilots, who fly anywhere between 1 and 50 volunteer missions per year—all at the pilots’ expense. These pilots 

conduct ‘‘public benefit aviation,’’ which includes activities ranging 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, volunteer pilot organizations provided long distance transportation for free to over 

40,000 patients and their escorts in 2003. 

As beneficial as these groups are in ordinary circumstances, they are invaluable 

in cases of a national emergency, such as Hurricane Katrina. Angel Flight America, 

through its role with the Homeland Security Emergency Air Transportation System, 

flew over 500 missions in the first week after Katrina, bringing in emergency workers, agency staff, volunteers, and supplies. 

They also flew high-risk individuals to safer locations, and, once there, they began 

the process—together with groups such as the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children—of reuniting parents and children that were separated in the evacuation of New Orleans. Overall, Angel Flight America coordinated over 2,200 flights 

into the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina, second only to the United States military. 

Despite the invaluable services they provide, volunteer pilots are not protected 

from liability by the Volunteer Protection Act. As a result, these organizations and 

the pilots who fly for them face difficulty obtaining the necessary insurance because 

of liability exposure fears. In fact, in many cases, the volunteer pilot organizations 

cannot obtain, at any cost, the type of liability insurance that they need. In addition, 

hospitals and other medical establishments are sometimes reluctant to refer patients to volunteer pilot medical transport services because of their own fear of liability exposure based on the simple act of recommendation. 

This 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 negVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:37 Mar 18, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR394.XXX HR394

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
19 

ligence or reckless, willful, or criminal misconduct. The bill would also have an 

added benefit of allowing hospitals, clinics, and other organizations—including those 

organizations active like the American Red Cross—to refer needy patients for nocost medical transport with less fear of their own liability exposure. Further, this 

bill requires that pilots purchase insurance in order to be covered by the liability 

protections. 

The legislation is supported by a wide array of charitable organizations, including 

the American Red Cross, the National Organization For Rare Disorders, Angel 

Flight America, and the National Air Transportation Association. 

H.R. 1871 will end the cycle of litigation—and the threat of such litigation—that 

has stifled the efforts of the brave and public-minded volunteer pilots who risk their 

own lives for others. I urge Members to join me in favorably reporting this legislation today. 

[The letters follow:] 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
20 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSNORD.eps
21 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSAFA.eps
22 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSAFE.eps
23 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSNATA.eps
24 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSCOTA.eps
25 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSAOPA.eps
26 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSRC.eps
27 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And I yield back the balance of my 

time. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I knew this would—this wonderful 

cooperation would have to end somewhere, and I finally have found 

a bill that I am not able to support in this morning’s agenda, and 

it’s this one—the Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act. And 

the reason is simple enough. It’s that it flies into the face of the 

Volunteer Protection Act that we passed into law after 8 years of 

debate, extending across five Congresses. That act was carefully deliberated and negotiated, and 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. 

So under the earlier act, pilots and those operating aircraft were 

specifically left out of 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. So the choice is yours, Members of the Committee. 

Do we keep what we have worked on for so many years going on, 

or do we just turn around this morning and make an exemption? 

It doesn’t tackle—this bill does not tackle the real problem, 

which is the insurance industry’s failure to offer insurance to the 

volunteer pilot organizations. This bill establishes national policy 

specifically allowing certain pilots to operate their aircraft negligently and, if they do, still escape liability. 

So I hope those of you who follow this train of thought and the 

reasons I have suggested oppose the passage of the measure that 

is presently before us. 

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Does the gentleman yield back the 

balance——

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, all Members’

opening statements will be placed in the record at this point. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:] 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
28 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSLee71A.eps
29 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSLee71B.eps
30 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there amendments? The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment 

at the desk. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment. 

[Pause.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Does the clerk have the amendment? 

Mr. CHABOT. Here it comes, Mr. Chairman. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSLee71C.eps
31 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will be careful because the 

amendment might be hot since it’s right off the press. And the 

clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 1871, offered by Mr. Chabot of 

Ohio and Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment is 

considered as read. 

[The amendment follows:] 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
32 

1

H.L.C.

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1871

OFFERED BY MR. CHABOT OF OHIO AND MS.

JACKSON-LEE OF TEXAS

Page 4, line 10, insert after ‘‘craft.’’ the following

new sentence: ‘‘Such referring agency shall include,

among others, any nonprofit organization that provides

disaster relief services that place staff, volunteers, evacuees, goods, supplies, or cargo on aircraft flights being

coordinated by volunteer pilot organizations in circumstances of disaster response and relief.’’.

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS1871A.AAB
33 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 

Chabot, will be recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. It’s come to my attention that 

some organizations who refer the services of volunteer pilot groups, 

most notably the American Red Cross, are concerned that H.R. 

1871 as drafted might not protect them in the event of an accident 

involving the volunteer pilot organization. These organizations, 

after all, would likely be sued in the event something went wrong, 

even though they did nothing more than tell a patient that groups 

like Angel Flight America exist. And like the volunteer pilot organizations, these referrals agencies cannot obtain the insurance they 

need in order to protect them from this exposure. 

This amendment is designed to make it clear that groups like the 

American Red Cross, who during national crises like Hurricane 

Katrina place volunteers and supplies on flights coordinated by volunteer pilot organizations, are covered by the liability protections 

of this bill. 

I hope my colleagues will support this amendment and will be 

supporting the underlying bill, and I’d like to thank the gentlelady 

from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for her leadership and for supports 

and cosponsoring this particular amendment. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the Chabot 

amendment. Those in favor will say aye? Opposed, no? 

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The amendment 

is agreed to. 

Are there further amendments? 

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from California. 

The clerk will report the amendment. 

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, 

Waters 035. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 1871, offered by Ms. Waters of 

California. Page 3, line 19, insert before the period after ‘‘insured’’ the following: ‘‘, unless the conduct constitutes a Federal crime of 

terrorism’’——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment is 

considered as read. 

[The amendment follows:] 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
34 

1

H.L.C.

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1871

OFFERED BY MS. WATERS OF CALIFORNIA

Page 3, line 19, insert before the period after ‘‘insured’’ the following: ‘‘, unless the conduct constitutes a

Federal crime of terrorism (as such term is defined in

section 2332b(g)(5) of title 18, United States Code) or

an act of domestic terrorism (as such term is defined in

section 2331 of such title), or unless the entity has been

convicted of an offense under section 2339A of such

title’’.

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS1871B.AAB
35 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from California is 

recognized for 5—— Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman and Members, I offer an amendment 

that will—— Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentlewoman yield? 

Ms. WATERS. Yes, I will yield. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. To show the gentlewoman from California that the Chair is his usual warm and fuzzy self, this is a 

good amendment and I am prepared to accept it. 

Ms. WATERS. Well, I better look at this amendment again. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Does the gentlewoman wish to withdraw the amendment? 

Ms. WATERS. No, no, no. No, no, no. It’s such an unusual act by 

the Chairman, I must accept it. Thank you. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Does the gentlewoman yield back? 

Ms. WATERS. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Waters. Those in favor will say aye? Opposed, no? 

The ayes appears to have it. The ayes have it. The amendment 

is agreed to. 

Are there further amendments? The gentleman from Virginia, 

Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, when this came up last year—I am 

concerned about the remarks of the gentleman from Michigan. 

When this came up last year, the pilot was, in fact, not immunized 

by the bill from last year. I’m looking at page 3, paragraph (B) on 

line 14, where it suggests that—it’s a little unclear whether the 

pilot is immunized or not. Could somebody tell me whether the 

pilot with insurance gets immunized for negligence such that the 

insurance wouldn’t have to pay for ordinary negligence? And I yield 

to anybody that can respond to that question? 

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia has 

yielded to the gentleman from Ohio. 

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I’ll be brief. 

This bill is identical to the one that passed in the 108th Congress 

by a vote of 385–12. Both that bill and this one required pilots to 

purchase the necessary insurance in order to receive the liability 

protections of the bill. However, neither bill contemplated payouts 

under those insurance policies unless the pilot engaged in grossly 

negligent or willful, reckless, or criminal behavior. 

I yield. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The time belongs to the gentleman 

from Virginia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Reclaiming my time, so, in fact, the pilot in this case, 

just to be clear, would be liable for ordinary negligence. The organization that selected the pilot would not be liable, but the pilot himself would be. Is that the case? 

Mr. CHABOT. If the gentleman will yield? 

Mr. SCOTT. I yield. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
36 

Mr. CHABOT. The pilot is only negligent if it’s gross negligence 

or willful, reckless, or criminal behavior. 

Mr. SCOTT. Reclaiming my time, can you point out where that is 

in the bill, where that language is? 

Mr. CHABOT. If the gentleman will yield, he has to have insurance to get the protections of the bill——

Mr. SCOTT. Well, Mr. Chairman——

Mr. CHABOT. And the insurance is there to pay out any grossly 

negligent or any other——

Mr. SCOTT. Well, if he has insurance, what’s the problem with 

paying for ordinary negligence? And I yield. 

Mr. CHABOT. It increases the cost of the insurance and makes it 

more difficult for these pilots to obtain insurance. 

Mr. SCOTT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, when we have 

these immunity things, the situation always comes up with automobiles, so if somebody’s driving around that is a volunteer with 

insurance, you go through a red light, simple negligence. There’s no 

reason why the insurance shouldn’t pay for the damage done for 

the simple negligence, at least up to the minimum insurance. And 

when this thing came up before, we thought the idea was you’d pay 

at least up to the insurance for ordinary negligence and not get immunity for that. The organization itself that selected the pilot 

ought to have immunity because they didn’t do anything. And the 

purpose of the bill was to immunize the organization. That’s why 

it’s called the ‘‘Liability Protection to Nonprofit Pilot Organizations,’’ not to the pilots. 

So I would—well, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 

desk. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman will have to yield 

back first. 

Mr. SCOTT. I yield back. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there further amendments? 

Mr. SCOTT. I have an amendment at the desk. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia. The 

clerk will report the amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 1871, offered by Mr. Scott of 

Virginia. Page 3, line 14, strike paragraph (B). 

[The amendment follows:] 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
37 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I think this gets at the problem I was 

talking about. I think it aims at where the pilot was trying to get 

immunized. And I would hope that the Committee would accept 

this amendment so that the pilot with insurance committing ordinary simple negligence would be liable for the damage he caused, 

at least up to the insurance. 

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? Opposed, no? 

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. 

Are there further amendments? 

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, could we have a recorded vote on 

that, please? 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. A recorded vote is requested by the 

gentleman from Ohio. Those in favor of the Scott amendment will, 

as your names are called, answer aye, those opposed no, and the 

clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hyde? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith? 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS1871C.eps
38 

Mr. SMITH. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte, no. Mr. Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Lungren? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Pass. 

The CLERK. Pass. Mr. Jenkins? 

Mr. JENKINS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Bachus? 

Mr. BACHUS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bachus, aye. Mr. Inglis? 

Mr. INGLIS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis, no. Mr. Hostettler? 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Keller? 

Mr. KELLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Flake? 

Mr. FLAKE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence? 

Mr. PENCE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes? 

Mr. FORBES. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King? 

Mr. KING. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. King, no. Mr. Feeney? 

Mr. FEENEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney, no. Mr. Franks? 

Mr. FRANKS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Franks, no. Mr. Gohmert? 

Mr. GOHMERT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gohmert, no. Mr. Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Boucher? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott, aye. Mr. Watt? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee? 

[No response.] 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
39 

The CLERK. Ms. Waters? 

Ms. WATERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Sanchez? 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Van Hollen? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Wasserman Schultz? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, aye. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Further Members who wish to cast 

or change their votes? The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 

Coble? 

Mr. COBLE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon? 

Mr. CANNON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 

Green? 

Mr. GREEN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Green, no. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Massachusetts, 

Mr. Meehan? 

Mr. MEEHAN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Meehan, aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Further Members who wish to cast 

or change their votes? If not, the clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are 8 ayes, 18 nays——

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. 

Van Hollen? 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Any other stragglers? The gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff, aye. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Further Members who wish to cast 

or change their votes? If not, the clerk will try again. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are 10 ayes, 18 nays, and 1 

pass. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And the amendment is not agreed 

to. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
40 

Are there further amendments? 

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I’d ask unanimous consent to speak 

out of order for a moment. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman moves to strike the 

last word, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. I’ll be very brief. I just wanted to let 

the gentleman from Virginia know that we will work with the gentleman and try to clear up any misunderstandings prior to the bill 

getting to the floor. 

Mr. SCOTT. I thank you. If the gentleman would yield? Would the 

gentleman yield? 

Mr. CHABOT. I’ll yield. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, because I think the point is important because if a pilot negligently runs into another plane and he is given 

immunity, nobody in the other plane would have a claim against 

anybody. And I believe it’s the intention to immunize the organization and the pilot at least up to his required insurance so that the 

people in the other plane would have something to recover against. 

So I appreciate the gentleman working so that we can clear up 

this. I believe it’s the intention not to immunize the pilot at least 

up to his insurance, but to make sure that the organization is, in 

fact, immunized. 

Mr. CHABOT. I yield back my time. Thank you. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there further amendments? 

[No response.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. If there are no further amendments, 

a reporting quorum is present. Those in favor of reporting the bill 

favorably will say aye? Opposed, no? 

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the motion to 

report the bill 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 amendment adopted here today. Without 

objection, the staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes, and all Members will be given 2 days, as provided 

by the House rules, in which to submit additional, dissenting, supplemental, or minority views. 

[Intervening business.] 

The business noticed on today’s schedule having been concluded, 

without objection, the Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:01 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
(41) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

H.R. 1871, the ‘‘Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act’’ is 

the product of overreaching by the Majority in response to a hypothetical problem—a lack of volunteerism by pilot organizations in 

the face of civil liability. At our hearing on this legislation, we saw 

no quantitative proof of a problem in this area. Moreover, the legislation upsets the balance achieved in the Volunteer Protection 

Act—enacted to encourage the kind of volunteerism at issue here—

by specifically exempting pilots and air carriers from liability. 

As a general matter, H.R. 1871 does nothing to tackle the real 

problem, which is the insurance industry’s failure to offer insurance to volunteer pilot organizations. However, we also oppose this 

bill for several substantive reasons. First, the legislation repeals 

portions of the Volunteer Protection Act, a bill Congress passed 

into law after eight years of debate extending over five Congresses, 

and lets insurance companies off the hook while potentially harming innocent victims. Second, the bill is overly broad, applying to 

staff, mission coordinators, officers and directors of volunteer pilot 

organizations, and referring agencies, whether for profit or not-forprofit. Third, it leaves innocent victims without recourse by reducing the standard of care applicable to pilots. Finally, the bill is 

poorly drafted and includes loopholes that would insulate international terrorist organizations from liability and subject 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 nonprofit volunteer pilot organization. Section 3 also 

carves out liability protection for the nonprofit volunteer pilot organization, the staff, mission coordinators, officers, directors, and referring agencies. 

BACKGROUND ON THE VOLUNTEER PROTECTION ACT OF 1997 

Any discussion of this legislation requires an understanding of 

past efforts to insulate volunteers from civil liability. In 1997, we 

passed the Volunteer Protection Act 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 reVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:37 Mar 18, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR394.XXX HR394

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
42 

1 42 U.S.C. § 14053 (2003). 2 42 U.S.C. § 14053 (2003). 

sponsibilities; (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

In addition, the Act eliminated joint and several liability for noneconomic damages with respect to volunteers and limited 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 also preempts inconsistent state laws, except to the extent that such laws provide additional protection from liability to 

volunteers. Moreover, the legislation specifically provided 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. respondeat superior); (3) makes a 

limitation of liability inapplicable only if the nonprofit organization 

or governmental entity provides a financially 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. 1871 

A. H.R. 1871 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. 1871 

completely undermines this position. 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’ judgment 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. 

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 finanVerDate Aug 31 2005 04:37 Mar 18, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR394.XXX HR394

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
43 

3Sec. 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.’’) 4 Increasing Volunteers by Reducing Legal Fears: Hearings on H.R. 1871, 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). 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 runaway landing accident. The Court noted 

that under Texas law, liability growing out of aircraft accidents is determined by ordinary rules 

of negligence. 

cially 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 possess insurance. 

B. H.R. 1871 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. 

1871 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. 

As Professor Andrew Popper explained in his testimony before 

the Committee in the 108th Congress: 

[The legislation] 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

C. H.R. 1871 REDUCES THE STANDARD OF CARE FOR PILOTS

Finally, H.R. 1871 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 aircrafts 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 

judgment consistent with the practical operation of the plane. No 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
44 

6Dyer v. United States, 551 F. Supp. 1266 (W.D. Mich. 1982), applying Federal and Michigan 

law. 7 42 U.S.C. § 14503. 8 Increasing Volunteers by Reducing Legal Fears: Hearings on H.R. 1871, H.R. 3369, and H.R. 

1787, Before the Comm. on the Judiciary, 108th Cong. (statement of Edward R. Boyer) (July 

20, 2004.) 

lesser degree of care and prudence would be adequate under the 

circumstances or commensurate with the danger involved.6

Under H.R. 1871 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. 

D. H.R. 1871 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 The 

legislation contains a study to determine the gravity of the insurance situation. While a study is a good first step in figuring out the 

problem, it should be conducted before Congress decides 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. THE 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 that 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. 1871 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 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
45 

separately passed protections for non-profit organizations. There is 

no need to preempt state laws in this case. 

JOHN CONYERS, Jr. 

MAXINE WATERS. 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS