Hurricane alters fall agenda on the Hill; dozens of bills introduced.

When the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina became apparent, Congress cut short its monthlong August recess, returning to Washington five days ahead of schedule to confront the emergency. By October, more than 50 Katrina-related bills had been introduced in the House and Senate, including several that were quickly enacted.

More than a half-dozen bills propose to provide tort liability relief for people and entities responding to the disaster. At press time, no such bill had been enacted, but the Katrina Volunteer Protection Act (H.R. 3736), which passed the House by voice vote on September 14, was pending in the Senate.

This act would give civil liability protection to those who, in response to Katrina, "voluntarily, in good faith, and without a preexisting duty or expectation of compensation, render aid (including medical treatment and rescue assistance) to any individual."

For Katrina volunteers, these protections would significantly expand those that are already available under the 1997 Volunteer Protection Act, which provides people volunteering for nonprofit organizations and government entities immunity from liability for any harm arising from negligence in the course of their volunteer service.

Unlike H.R. 3736, however, the 1997 act protects only individuals, not entities or organizations, and it immunizes only negligent conduct; it does not protect acts of gross negligence.

ATLA expressed strong reservations regarding H.R. 3736--and the scope of tort protection in several other Katrina bills is even broader.

Contractor immunity

For example, ATLA is vigorously opposing the Gulf Coast Recovery Act (S. 1761), introduced on September 22. That bill goes well beyond offering protection to people and organizations that assist in recovery on a charitable basis. Instead, it proposes sweeping immunities for large contractors that are likely to earn millions of dollars for work in the Gulf Coast recovery zone.

Under the bill, citizens are stripped of all private remedies available against government contractors for violating a host of federal environmental statutes. Individuals could not bring a lawsuit against a contractor that caused environmental harm while performing work in the recovery zone. In state tort actions, recovery-zone contractors would have a virtually unbreakable government contractor defense even in cases where--contrary to guidelines established by the Supreme Court--there is no government supervision of the contract and no precise contract specifications.

At press time, S. 1761 had been placed on the Senate calendar and the Environmental and Public Works Committee had scheduled a meeting for late October, but when the Senate might consider the bill remained uncertain.