PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jul 17, 2006
Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act of 2006 - Amends the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 to exempt from liability a nonprofit volunteer pilot organization or a referring agency of such organization that flies for public benefit, its staff members, and its volunteers for harm caused by a volunteer while flying on behalf of the organization an aircraft for which the volunteer was properly licensed and insured, unless the conduct constitutes a federal crime of terrorism, or an act of domestic terrorism, or the entity has been convicted of providing material support to terrorists. (Maintains the Act's current liability provisions for willful or criminal misconduct, gross negligence, reckless misconduct, or a conscious, flagrant indifference to rights or safety.) Declares that nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect the liability for negligence of a volunteer of a nonprofit volunteer pilot organization that flies for public benefit with respect to amounts within the limits of required liability insurance coverage.
Directs the Attorney General to study and report to Congress on the availability of insurance to nonprofit volunteer pilot organizations that fly for public benefit.
People & committees
Rep. Drake, Thelma D. [R-VA-2] · R–VA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5242)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H5242)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1871.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5242-5244)
Mr. Sensenbrenner moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 214.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 109-394.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 109-394.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1871 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1871 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1871 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1871 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.