[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 52 (Monday, April 28, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3744-S3748]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          VOLUNTEER PROTECTION ACT OF 1997--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 543, which the 
clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 543) to provide certain protections to 
     volunteers, nonprofit organizations, and governmental 
     entities in lawsuits based on the activities of volunteers.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the motion to proceed.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, this week in Philadelphia, President 
Clinton is joining former Presidents Bush and Ford, along with former 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell at a summit to 
promote voluntarism.
  I commend any and all efforts to increase charitable activity on the 
part of Americans. And I find it extremely fitting that this summit is 
being held in the City of Brotherly Love because charitable activity 
does more even than providing help and counseling to those in need. 
Charitable activity helps all Americans by promoting habits and 
appreciation of benevolent actions--actions aimed at helping those in 
need because it is the right thing to do.

[[Page S3745]]

  Charitable activity binds us together as members of the same 
community. It helps each of us think of our neighbors, and even 
strangers, as our brothers, deserving of our care and help. By 
volunteering, Americans bring us together in our towns, cities, States, 
and indeed our Nation.
  America has a vast interstate network of 114,000 operating nonprofit 
organizations, ranging from schools to hospitals to clinics to food 
programs.
  This network's revenues totaled $388 billion in 1990.
  Meanwhile, revenues for the 19,000 support institutions--which raise 
money to fund operating organizations--came to $29 billion.
  And total revenues for religious congregations were $48 billion. 
That's 465 billion dollars worth of nonprofit activity we enjoyed in 
1990 alone.
  Nonprofit organizations rely heavily on volunteers, and Americans 
gladly comply. According to a 1993 report from the Independent Sector, 
a national coalition of 800 organizations, Americans donated 9.7 
billion hours of their time to nonprofit organizations that year.
  This volunteer time produced the equivalent of 5.7 million full time 
volunteers, worth an estimated $112 billion.
  But there is trouble in the organizations and among the people who 
promote voluntary, charitable activity in our country. Unfortunately 
voluntarism is declining nationwide.
  According to the Independent Sector report, the percentage of 
Americans volunteering dropped from 54 percent in 1989 to 51 percent in 
1991 and 48 percent in 1993.
  Americans also are giving less money. The average household's 
charitable donation dropped from $978 in 1989 to $880 in 1993.
  The decline of giving and volunteering spells danger for our 
voluntary organizations, for the people who depend on them, and for the 
social trust that is based on the spirit of association.
  This makes gestures, like the summit on voluntarism, important. It 
also means that we should look for immediate, practical means by which 
we in government can reduce the burdens that we impose on voluntary, 
charitable activity.
  That is why I am extremely pleased to rise today to join my 
colleagues, Senator Coverdell and Senator McConnell, in sponsoring the 
Volunteer Protection Act of 1997, which we are debating on the floor at 
this time.
  I commend Senators Coverdell and McConnell for their leadership in 
encouraging and supporting the voluntarism that is so important to 
communities in Michigan and across this country.
  This long overdue legislation will provide volunteers and nonprofit 
organizations with desperately needed relief from abusive lawsuits 
brought based on the activities of volunteers. Those are precisely the 
activities that we should be protecting and encouraging.
  And one major reason for the decline is America's litigation 
explosion. Nonprofit organizations are forced to spend an increasing 
amount of time and resources preparing for, avoiding, and/or fighting 
lawsuits.
  Thus, litigation has rendered our nonprofit organizations less 
effective at helping people, and allowed Americans to retreat more into 
their private lives, and away from the public, social activity that 
binds us together as a people.
  Last Congress, I spoke on the floor many times concerning the need 
for litigation reform and describing the litigation abuses that plague 
our small businesses, our consumers, our schools, and others. I came to 
Congress as a freshman Senator intending to press for lawsuit reforms, 
and it is something I have worked very hard on.
  I supported the securities litigation reform legislation, which 
Congress successfully enacted over the President's veto, and I also 
supported the product liability reform bill, which the President 
unfortunately killed with his veto.
  I also introduced legislation with Senator McConnell to provide 
broader relief in all civil cases, and offered floor amendments that 
would do the same.
  I continue to support broader civil justice reforms and I 
particularly look forward to considering product liability reform 
legislation both in the Commerce Committee and on the floor in this 
session.
  But I believe that our voluntary, nonprofit organizations, perhaps 
more than any other sector of our country, urgently need protection 
from current lawsuit abuses. I encourage my colleagues to consider the 
problems facing our community groups and their volunteers, and to 
support this legislation.
  I hope that, given his public support for voluntary activity, 
President Clinton will support this litigation reform bill, recognize 
the value of volunteers and nonprofit groups, and give them the 
protection they need to keep doing their good deeds.
  Litigation adds a variety of onerous burdens to our nonprofit 
organizations. Among the most obvious is increasing insurance costs.
  Mr. John Graham, on behalf of the American Society of Association 
Executives [ASAE], gave testimony last year arguing that liability 
insurance premiums for associations have increased an average 155 
percent in recent years.
  Some of our most revered nonprofit institutions have been put at risk 
by increased liability costs.
  Dr. Creighton Hale of Little League Baseball reports that the 
liability rate for a league increased from $75 to $795 in just 5 years. 
Many leagues cannot afford this added expense, on top of increasing 
costs for helmets and other equipment. These leagues operate without 
insurance or disband altogether, often leaving children with no 
organized sports in their neighborhood.
  What kind of suits add to insurance costs? ASAE reports that one New 
Jersey umpire was forced by a court to pay a catcher $24,000. Why? 
Because the catcher was hit in the eye by a softball while playing 
without a mask. The catcher complained that the umpire should have lent 
him his.
  Organizations that try to escape sky-rocketing insurance costs must 
self-insure, and Andrea Marisi of the Red Cross will describe self-
insurance costs only as ``huge.'' The result? ``Obviously, we have 
fewer funds available for providing services than would otherwise be 
the case.''
  Outside insurance generally comes with significant deductibles. 
Charles Kolb of the United Way points out that insurance deductibles 
for his organization fall into the range of $25,000 to $30,000. When, 
as has been the case in recent years, the organization is subjected to 
three or four lawsuits per year, $100,000 or more must be diverted from 
charitable programs.
  And there are even more costs. Mr. Kolb reports that the costs in 
lost time and money spent on discovery--for example going through files 
for hours on end to establish who did what when--can run into the 
thousands of dollars as well.
  Further, as the Boy Scouts' William Cople puts it:

       We bear increased costs from risk management programs of 
     many kinds--[including] those to prevent accidents. We have 
     higher legal bills as well. But even more of a problem is the 
     need to find pro-bono help to quell possible lawsuits. The 
     Scouts must spend scarce time, and use up scarce human 
     capital in preventing suits. For example, 5 years ago the 
     General Counsel's office, a pro-bono operation, committed 
     less than 100 hours per year on issues relating to lawsuits. 
     Last year we devoted about 750 hours to that duty.

  The Boy Scouts must do less good so that they can defend themselves 
from lawsuits, and that just doesn't seem quite right.
  Frivolous lawsuits also increase costs by discouraging voluntarism. 
Dottie Lewis of the Southwest Officials Association, which provides 
officials for scholastic games, observes, ``Some of our people got to 
the point where they were just afraid to work because of the threat of 
lawsuits.''
  What makes this fear worse is the knowledge that one need do no harm 
in order to be liable.
  Take for example Powell versus Boy Scouts of America. While on an 
outing with the Sea Explorers, a scouting unit in the Boy Scouts' 
Cascade Pacific Council, a youth suffered a tragic, paralyzing injury 
in a rough game of touch football.
  Several adults had volunteered to supervise the outing, but none 
observed the game. The youth filed a personal injury lawsuit against 
two of the adult volunteers. The jury found the volunteers liable for 
some $7 million, which

[[Page S3746]]

Oregon law reduced to about $4 million--far more than the volunteers 
could possibly pay.
  What is more, as Cople points out, ``the jury seemingly held the 
volunteers to a standard of care requiring them constantly to supervise 
the youth entrusted to their charge, even for activities which under 
other circumstances may routinely be permitted without such meticulous 
oversight.''
  Clearly, when an injury of this sort occurs, it is a tragic 
situation. The question is, How should society allocate these 
responsibilities, and to what extent should a voluntary organization 
and its volunteers be responsible for the same standard of care as 
outlined by this jury?
  No one can provide the meticulous oversight demanded by the jury. 
Thus volunteers are left at the mercy of events--and juries--beyond 
their control.
  Such unreasonable standards of care also penalize our nonprofit 
organizations.
  Len Krugel of the Michigan Salvation Army reports that regulations 
and onerous legal standards often keep his organization from giving 
troubled youths a second chance.
  Because the organization is held responsible for essentially all 
actions by its employees and volunteers, it can take no risks in 
hiring.
  As Mr. Krugel observes, ``If we can't give these kids a second 
chance, who can?''
  Then there is the problem of joint and several liability, in which 
one defendant is made to pay for all damages even though responsible 
for only a small portion.
  Such findings are a severe burden on the United Way, a national 
organization that sponsors numerous local nonprofit groups. Although it 
cannot control local operations, the United Way often finds itself a 
defendant in suits arising from injuries caused by the local entity.
  Such holdings result from juries' desire to find someone with the 
funds necessary to pay for an innocent party's injuries. But this 
search for the deep pocket leads to what Ms. Marisi calls a ``chilling 
effect'' on Red Cross relations with other nonprofits. And the same is 
obviously true for other national organizations.
  The Red Cross is now less willing to cooperate with smaller, more 
innovative local agencies that might make it more effective.
  Thus nonprofits forbear from doing good because they cannot afford 
the insurance, they cannot afford the loss of volunteers, they cannot 
afford the risk of frivolous lawsuits.
  The Volunteer Protection Act will address the danger to our nonprofit 
sector, Madam President.
  It will not solve all the problems facing our volunteers and 
nonprofits.
  But it will provide voluntary organizations with critical protection 
against improper litigation, at the same time that it recognizes the 
ability of the States to take additional or even alternative 
protections in some cases.
  By setting the standard for the protection of volunteers outright, 
this bill provides much-needed lawsuit relief immediately to volunteers 
and nonprofits wherever they may be. Let me briefly describe what this 
bill does.
  The bill protects volunteers from liability unless they cause harm 
through action that constitutes reckless misconduct, gross negligence, 
willful or criminal misconduct, or is in conscious, flagrant disregard 
for the rights and safety of those harmed.
  This ensures that where volunteers truly exceed the bounds of 
appropriate conduct they will be liable. But in the many ridiculous 
cases I have described, some of them clearly frivolous--where no real 
wrongdoing occurred--the volunteer will not be forced to face and 
defend a lawsuit.
  In lawsuits based on the actions of a volunteer, the bill limits the 
punitive damages that can be awarded.
  It is unfortunate that charities and volunteers have punitive damages 
awarded against them in the first place, but they do.
  Congressman John Porter, who is leading the fight for this 
legislation on the House side, reports that in August 1990, a Chicago 
jury awarded $12 million to a boy who was injured in a car crash. The 
negligent party? The estate of the volunteer who gave his life 
attempting to save the boy.
  Under this bill, punitive damages in cases involving the actions of a 
volunteer could be awarded against a volunteer, nonprofit organization, 
or Government entity only upon a showing by the claimant that the 
volunteer's action represented willful or criminal misconduct, or 
showed a conscious, flagrant disregard for the rights and safety of the 
individual harmed.
  This should ensure that punitive damages, which are intended only to 
punish a defendant and are not intended to compensate an injured 
person, will only be available in situations where punishment really is 
called for because of the egregious conduct of the defendant.
  The bill also protects volunteers from excessive liability that they 
might face through joint and several liability.
  Under the doctrine of joint and several liability, a plaintiff can 
obtain full damages from a defendant who is only slightly at fault. I 
have spoken many times before about the unfairness that may result from 
the application of this legal doctrine. The injustice that results to 
volunteers and nonprofits is often even more acute, because they lack 
the resources to bear unfair judgments.
  This bill strikes a balance by providing that, in cases based on the 
actions of a volunteer, any defendant that is a volunteer, nonprofit 
organization, or Government entity will be jointly and severally 
responsible for the full share of economic damages but will only be 
responsible for noneconomic damages in proportion to the harm that that 
defendant caused.
  Finally, I would like to speak for a moment about how this 
legislation preserves important principles of federalism and respects 
the role of the States.
  First, the bill does not preempt State legislation that provides 
greater protections to volunteers. In this way, it sets up outer 
protections from which all volunteers will benefit and permits States 
to do even more.
  But second, the bill includes an opt-out provision that permits 
States, in cases involving only parties from that State, to 
affirmatively elect to opt out of the protections provided in the 
Volunteer Protection Act. A State can do so by enacting a statute 
specifically providing for that. I suspect that no States will elect to 
do so, but I feel that, as a matter of principle, it is important to 
include that provision in order to maintain the proper balance of 
federalism in this legislation.
  Madam President, in short, these reforms can help create a system in 
which plaintiffs sue only when they have good reason--and only those 
who are responsible for their damages--and in which only those who are 
responsible must pay.
  Such reforms will create an atmosphere in which our fear of one 
another will be lessened, and our ability to join associations in which 
we learn to care for one another will be significantly greater. And 
that, Madam President, will make for a better America. I urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important piece 
of legislation.
  We talk often in this Chamber about how to foster a sense of 
community in America. It is something which many people have a varied 
perspective on. But it strikes me, Madam President, that nothing can do 
more to help generate the sense of community than to create an 
atmosphere in which people stop looking at their neighbors as possible 
plaintiffs and defendants and start looking at them as friends and 
neighbors again.
  I think we have moved in the wrong direction because of the 
litigation explosion generated by frivolous lawsuits. I think 
legislation such as the Volunteer Protection Act will help to redress 
that balance and put us back on the right course so that the ideals 
that are being talked about these days in the summit in Philadelphia 
can truly be realized and effectuated to their maximum possible degree.
  For that reason, I am glad to be a cosponsor of this legislation. I 
look forward to speaking again on it here as the debate continues. I do 
hope our colleagues will join us in supporting this very important 
piece of legislation which we might, with some help, get through the 
Congress in the very near future.
  I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S3747]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, as I noted in my past remarks a moment 
or so ago, today in Philadelphia, PA, some of the leaders of our 
country, former Presidents as well as President Clinton and numerous 
other elected officials and volunteer leaders from around the Nation, 
are meeting to try to provide incentives to all of us to take a greater 
and more active role in volunteering in our communities to help our 
fellow citizens.
  In light of that happening, I cannot help but think about a friend of 
mine who passed away a couple of years ago, former Gov. George Romney 
of Michigan.
  Governor Romney was elected Governor of our State in 1962 and held 
that job for 6 years, at which time he was asked to join the Cabinet of 
President Nixon and became Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. 
Prior to his Government service, he had been the president of American 
Motors Corp. So he had a distinguished career in both business as well 
as in the public sector.
  When he left Government officially, he then made sort of his 
principal focus in life the spirit of voluntarism and worked in a 
variety of ways throughout his remaining 20 years or so of life to try 
to generate nationwide interest and support for voluntarism. In fact, 
he started as head of the national organization called Volunteer, I 
believe, whose job it was to try to provide stimulus for greater 
volunteer participation.
  I recall very vividly in 1991 when Gov. John Engler was elected to 
his first term in our State. Governor Romney reinvolved himself in the 
voluntarism activity level in Michigan and helped put together a 
bipartisan voluntarism commitment in our State that has done many good 
deeds as a consequence.
  He also was active in the Points of Light organization nationally. He 
was on the board of the nonprofit entity, Points of Light, I believe it 
is called, and certainly served as an inspiration in both the launching 
of that as well as its successful development.
  I mention him today not just because of the connection to voluntarism 
that the summit provides but also because it turns out he was perhaps, 
more than anyone, the inspiration for this summit, having thought of 
the idea and recommended it, I believe, to Mr. Wofford and others who 
then moved it forward.
  So he was an inspiration both to his Nation and certainly to this 
U.S. Senator in many ways. But also he should be remembered today on 
the floor of the Senate, as so many Americans will spend the next day 
or so focusing on what they can do to help others in their communities. 
It is people like George Romney who have called our attention to the 
enormous challenges ahead of us.
  So I wish to mention him today to recall his many achievements, his 
many contributions, and how much I am confident that, were he still 
alive, he would be involved even today, in Philadelphia, if he could 
have been, in helping to further the cause for which he had such a 
great commitment.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senate 
is considering S. 543.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is on a motion to proceed to that 
bill, S. 543.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield myself whatever time is 
necessary to make my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, today the Senate begins debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 543, the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997.
  This bill would grant immunity from personal civil liability under 
certain circumstances to volunteers working for nonprofit organizations 
in governmental entities. This legislation is intended to encourage 
more people to step forward and serve their communities as volunteers 
by removing the fear of unwarranted lawsuits against volunteers.
  It is appropriate that we consider this issue today. Yesterday in 
Philadelphia a remarkable gathering got underway. The President's 
Summit for America's Future brought together President Clinton, 
President Bush, President Ford, President Carter, Gen. Colin Powell, 
and other national leaders in an effort to focus the Nation's attention 
on the importance of and the need for volunteer service.
  The assembled leaders there issued a call to action, asking every 
American to do more, asking all of us to volunteer our time and efforts 
in community service.
  This is in the best tradition of America. Since before our Nation's 
founding, charities have helped the poor, counseled the troubled, and 
by their example taught us to care for our neighbors. They are the key 
to our survival as a nation. Americans have a proud history of 
supporting volunteers.
  Yet, many who would heed the call of the Philadelphia summit will not 
do so--not because they lack the desire or the ability to help, but 
because they, quite frankly and rightly, fear risk of liability in a 
society that seems too often to resemble a lawsuit lottery.
  In a recent Gallup survey of nonprofit volunteers, one in six 
volunteers reported withholding their services for fear of being sued. 
About 1 in 10 nonprofit groups report the resignation of a volunteer 
over the threat of liability. Eighteen percent of those surveyed had 
withheld their leadership services due to fear of liability.
  These numbers reflect a chilling effect that causes potential 
volunteers to suppress their good intentions and their desire to get 
involved. Nonprofit organizations rely heavily on volunteers. Moreover, 
the very act of participating in charitable work helps bind Americans 
together as a people. At a time when there is so much good work that 
needs to be done, we cannot afford to have good people turn away for 
fear of a devastating lawsuit.
  That is why I introduced the Volunteer Protection Act, along with 
Senator McConnell, who has dedicated long service to this effort and 
who has been an outstanding leader on the issue, and Senator Abraham, 
Senator Santorum, and Senator Ashcroft. We have since been joined by a 
number of our colleagues.
  Briefly, Mr. President, our bill provides that no volunteer of a 
nonprofit organization or governmental entity shall be liable for harm 
caused by a volunteer's negligent acts or omissions on behalf of the 
organization. To enjoy this protection, the volunteer must be acting 
within the scope of his or her responsibilities in the organization and 
must not cause harm by willful or criminal misconduct, gross 
negligence, or reckless misconduct.
  It is also important to note that the protection from liability does 
not extend to misconduct involving violent crimes, hate crimes, sex 
crimes, or civil rights violations. It does not apply where the 
defendant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. This ensures 
that where volunteers truly exceed the bounds of appropriate conduct, 
they are liable.
  The bill is intended to protect volunteers who make simple, honest 
mistakes. Where behavior is more egregious, no protection is warranted. 
But in the many ridiculous cases where no such wrongdoing occurs, the 
volunteer will not face a lawsuit or financial ruin. We want to 
encourage people to get involved without the fear of losing their home 
and all the family assets in a lawsuit if an act happens.
  Persons injured by a volunteer's simple negligence will still be able 
to bring suit against the organization itself to compensate for their 
injuries. As a result, nonprofit organizations will continue to have 
the duty to properly screen, train, and supervise their volunteers. 
Nothing in this bill encourages carelessness on anyone's part.
  The bill requires clear and convincing evidence of gross negligence 
before

[[Page S3748]]

punitive damages may be awarded against a volunteer, nonprofit 
organization, or governmental entity because of a volunteer's actions. 
Because punitive damages are intended to punish and deter misconduct, a 
higher standard is required to trigger those damages. Punitive damages 
will only be available where the defendant's conduct merits punishment.
  This bill also establishes a rule of proportionate liability rather 
than joint and several liability in suits based on the action of a 
volunteer. For noneconomic losses, the volunteer, the organization, and 
others who may be at fault in a given action will be responsible for 
paying only for their portion of the harm. Any defendant will continue 
to be jointly and severally liable for economic loss.
  We have seen a problem with joint and several liability in which one 
defendant is made to pay for all damages even though responsible for 
only a small portion. Such results are a severe burden on the United 
Way, the national organization sponsoring numerous local nonprofits. 
Although it cannot control local operations, the United Way often must 
defend itself in suits arising from injuries caused by the local 
entity.
  These holdings result from juries' desires to find someone with funds 
to pay for an innocent party's injury but the search for deep pockets 
produces what a Red Cross spokesperson calls ``a chilling effect'' on 
Red Cross relations with other nonprofits. The Red Cross is now less 
willing to cooperate with smaller more innovative local agencies that 
might make it more effective.
  So, on the issue of joint and several liability, the bill promotes a 
balance between ensuring full compensation for economic losses, 
including medical expenses, lost earnings, placement services, and out-
of-pocket expenses, among others, and ensuring fairness in not holding 
volunteers, nonprofit organizations, and government entities 
responsible for noneconomic harm they do not cause.
  Mr. President, in putting this bill together, we were mindful of the 
concerns about federalism. While the bill will generally preempt State 
law to the extent that it is inconsistent with the bill, the bill will 
not preempt any State laws that provide additional protections from 
liability relating to volunteers, nonprofit organizations, and 
government entities. This sets an outer limit of volunteer liability 
while permitting States to provide even greater protections.
  We give States flexibility to impose conditions and make exceptions 
to the granting of liability protection. And we allow States to 
affirmatively opt out of this law for those cases where both the 
plaintiff and the defendant are citizens of that State.
  Mr. President, the independent sector reports that the percentage of 
American volunteering dropped from 54 percent in 1989 to 48 percent in 
1993. That, I might add, represents thousands upon thousands of 
volunteers. Obviously, there are a number of relevant factors 
explaining this decline. But one major reason is America's litigation 
explosion.
  Nonprofits must spend an increasing amount of time and resources 
preparing for, avoiding, and/or fighting lawsuits. Litigation renders 
them less effective at helping people, and it scares off the volunteers 
which they rely on.
  Mr. President, in closing, let me just once again remind my 
colleagues of the historic summit that occurred in Philadelphia 
yesterday. That summit was designed to remind Americans of something 
that is so very much unique to our Nation. The world has long studied 
and wondered and marveled at the American volunteer.
  I was fortunate to be the Director of the United States Peace Corps, 
which has sent about 150,000 volunteers into over 100 countries over 
the last 35-plus years. So I have had a chance to look right in the eye 
at this unique quality of the American spirit and can attest to it, and 
admire it.
  Your work is not finished when you leave the country that you have 
served. When you return to the United States the third goal begins--
helping to make America understand the world. To do that we call on the 
volunteers to step forward again, again, and again.
  The United States should do everything within its power to nurture 
this unique treasure and to make it grow. It is infectious, and it is 
wonderfully healing.
  On my trip from the airport to the Senate Chamber, I was advised that 
this legislation has been caught in a leveraging dispute, and it is a 
dispute in which I participated--the Executive order proposed by the 
administration to very much narrow those eligible for Federal contract 
work. That dispute will go on for some time, but I cannot think of a 
worse piece of legislation to be dragged into the dispute. It should 
not be ensnarled. It should become another demonstration of what 
Republican and Democrat Presidents said to the Nation in Philadelphia 
yesterday. I hope the other side would think very carefully about 
drawing the Volunteer Protection Act, which is an extension of efforts 
to strengthen the American volunteer, into that dispute.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________