PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 217 - 176 (Roll no. 445). (text: CR H7084-7085)
Congressional Research Service
Version 79 · Reported to House without amendment · Sep 13, 2004
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act of 2003 - Exempts a nonprofit athletic organization from liability for harm caused by an act or omission in the adoption of rules for sanctioned or approved athletic competitions or practices if: (1) the organization was acting within the scope of its duties; (2) the organization was properly licensed, certified, or authorized for the competition or practice; and (3) the harm was not caused by the organization's willful or criminal misconduct, gross negligence, or reckless misconduct.
States that this exemption shall not be construed to affect civil actions brought by nonprofit athletic organizations against their employees, agents, or volunteers.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Makes exceptions where State law: (1) requires such an organization to adhere to risk management procedures, including mandatory training; (2) makes the organization liable for the acts or omissions of its employees, agents, and volunteers to the same extent as an employer is liable for its employees; and (3) makes a limitation of liability inapplicable if the civil action was brought by an officer of a State or local government.
Preempts inconsistent State laws except for those that provide additional protections from liability relating to the rule-making activities of nonprofit athletic organizations.
People & committees
Rep. Souder, Mark E. [R-IN-3] · R–IN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 217 - 176 (Roll no. 445). (text: CR H7084-7085)
House roll call 445 · Individual votesFailed of passage/not agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 217 - 176 (Roll no. 445).(text: CR H7084-7085)
House roll call 445 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H7096-7097 )
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3369.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7084-7090)
Mr. Sensenbrenner moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 420.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 108-681.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 108-681.
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 14 - 7.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Hearings 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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. 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.3369 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.3369 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.3369 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.3369 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.