[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 53 (Tuesday, April 29, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3763-S3773]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          VOLUNTEER PROTECTION ACT OF 1997--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). 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. LOTT. I suggest the absence of a quorum, Mr. President.
  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for the quorum call be rescinded.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.
  The time between 9:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. shall be equally divided 
between the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell] or his designee, and 
the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] or his designee. The Senator from 
Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, just for clarification, we are 
debating, in essence, whether the other side will allow us to move to 
the Volunteer Protection Act. That is the beginning of something we 
describe in the Senate as a filibuster, an attempt to block 
consideration of the Volunteer Protection Act.
  I will take a moment just to describe the cast of characters here. 
What we have is a community that can perhaps be best described as 
Little League baseball that is trying to find relief from our current 
litigious society because they claim and can substantiate

[[Page S3764]]

that it is having a chilling effect on the volunteer community.
  We have a number of legislators--myself, Senators McConnell, 
Ashcroft, Santorum, and others--who have tried to frame legislation 
under the Volunteer Protection Act that would protect the unique 
creature of a volunteer in America. We have some trial attorneys who 
are apparently objecting to even these limited reforms to protect 
volunteers and their participation in what makes America so good.
  The Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 is a bill, first to describe it 
in general terms, to provide certain protections to volunteers, 
nonprofit organizations, and Government entities from lawsuits based on 
activities of the volunteers. The findings are that potential 
volunteers are deterred from offering their services by the potential 
for liability actions against them; that many nonprofit organizations 
and Government entities that rely on volunteer service are harmed by 
the withdrawal of volunteers from boards of directors and other 
service; and that this, therefore, diminishes the contribution of these 
programs in this most important time in our history, of volunteer 
activity on behalf of communities and, therefore, our nonprofit 
organizations have fewer programs and they are experiencing higher 
costs.
  The purpose of the Volunteer Protection Act is to promote the 
interests of social service programs beneficiaries and taxpayers by 
sustaining programs that rely on volunteers, by helping those entities, 
those organizations that encourage voluntarism in America.
  This would reform the laws to provide liability protection for 
volunteers serving nonprofit organizations and Government entities. It 
would put a limitation on the liability for volunteers. No volunteer of 
a nonprofit organization or governmental entity would be liable for 
harm caused by the act or omission of the volunteer. It has certain 
protections, of course. The volunteer must be acting within the scope 
of his or her responsibilities in the organization. If required, the 
volunteer must be properly licensed, certified, or authorized in the 
State where the harm might have occurred. There is no protection for 
volunteers if harm caused was willful or criminal misconduct, if it was 
gross negligence or reckless misconduct.
  The legislation does not affect any action brought by the 
organization itself against a volunteer, and it does not affect the 
liability of the organization itself for harm caused to any person.
  Mr. President, in the area of punitive damages--this is an area of 
the law that goes beyond just direct costs and deals with punishing 
someone--punitive damages are awarded to punish or deter misconduct by 
a defendant, as opposed to compensatory damages awarded to pay the 
plaintiff for harm that he or she has suffered.

  In this legislation, punitive damages may not be awarded against a 
volunteer, nonprofit organization, or government entity for harm caused 
by a volunteer without clear and convincing evidence that the harm 
resulted from willful or criminal misconduct or gross negligence.
  No protection for volunteers or organizations for misconduct that 
constitutes a crime of violence, a hate crime, a crime that involves a 
sexual offense or a civil rights violation, or where the defendant was 
under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The legislation offers no 
defense or protection in these critical areas.
  The legislation deals with liability for noneconomic loss. 
Noneconomic losses are such things as physical and emotional pain or 
suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, or injury to reputation, et 
cetera.
  The legislation requires liability for noneconomic losses to be 
proportionately assigned and paid by each defendant. So it is therefore 
abolishing joint and several liability where any defendant can be 
required to pay the whole judgment even if the defendant were only 
minimally involved or at fault.
  The legislation, Mr. President, recognizes the State role in these 
affairs. It would preempt State law to the extent that State laws are 
inconsistent with the Volunteer Protection Act. But it does not preempt 
a State that provides greater protection for volunteers or any category 
of volunteers performing services for a nonprofit organization or 
governmental entity or for the organizations themselves.
  A State, Mr. President, may elect to have the Volunteer Protection 
Act not apply in cases where all parties are a citizen of that State. 
So, in other words, it can elect to opt out from under this national 
law if it is a circumstance that involves just citizens of their State. 
To opt out, the State must declare its election to do so in a 
freestanding bill.
  The Volunteer Protection Act would take effect 90 days after the date 
of enactment, and it applies to any claim filed on or after the 
effective date regardless of whether the underlying harm or the conduct 
that caused the harm occurred before the effective date.
  Mr. President, you cannot see this, but this is two complete pages of 
the kinds of institutions that are asking for national policy to 
protect the natural resource, the Nation's resource, that are 
represented by the American volunteer. It ranges from the Air Force 
Association--which reminds me of a vignette, Mr. President, that 
occurred over the weekend.
  I do not know if you can see this jagged scar above my eye here, but 
in running to get out of the inclement weather in my home State, in the 
middle of the State, I was jumping into an automobile owned by the U.S. 
Air Force, and misjudged and hit the corner of the door--it made for a 
rather interesting moment or two--and the first words from my Air Force 
companion were, ``Gosh, I hope you're not going to sue the Air Force,'' 
which I have no intention of doing.
  But it sort of reminded me of that. The first organization is the Air 
Force Association. And there is the American Camping Association, 
American Diabetes Association, American Hospital Association, American 
Red Cross, American Symphony Orchestra League, American Society of 
Association Executives, the B'Nai B'rith International, Big Brothers 
and Big Sisters, Boys Club, Little League, which I mentioned a moment 
ago, the Lupus Foundation of America, the National Association of Towns 
and Townships, the National Council of Jewish Women, the National Crime 
Prevention Council, the National Easter Seal Society, the National 
Military Family Association, the National PTA--and the list goes on.

  Just to restate the nature of what these organizations are saying and 
the appeal they are making, it is well documented in a letter to me 
dated April 22, 1997. I want to read it again. It is directed to me 
from the office of the president and chief executive officer of the 
National Little League Baseball, Inc., from their international 
headquarters in Williamsport, PA.

       Dear Senator Coverdell: On behalf of the 1,000,000 annual 
     Little League Baseball volunteers, I am writing to express 
     Little League Baseball's support for the ``Volunteer 
     Protection Act.''
       Little League Baseball, played in 6,800 communities in all 
     50 States, exists today with volunteerism as its foundation 
     strength. Each year this corps of 1,000,000 adult volunteers, 
     mostly mothers and fathers who consider Little League as a 
     healthy activity which strengthens families, give freely of 
     their time to provide an athletic arena in which their 
     children will learn valuable leadership lessons. To let this 
     volunteer spirit erode or be eliminated through frivolous and 
     expensive litigation would be a grave injustice to the 
     present and future generations.
       The time is now to reduce the chilling effect of liability 
     exposure for those who [would] donate their time and services 
     to Little League Baseball or any non-profit, charitable 
     institution. If protection from nuisance suits is not 
     provided, every community is at risk of losing those very 
     people whose community service will mold the leaders of 
     tomorrow.
       We thank you and your colleagues for giving this important 
     issue the attention it needs.
       Sincerely, Stephen D. Keener, President and Chief Executive 
     Officer.

  Here is a letter dated April 15, directed to me from Gordon Banks, 
who is the executive director of the American Industrial Hygiene 
Association.

       On behalf of the American Industrial Hygiene Association, I 
     am pleased to convey our support for passage of. . .the 
     ``Volunteer Protection Act of 1997.''
       AIHA is the world's largest association of occupational and 
     environmental health professionals. The membership of AIHA, 
     nearly 13,000 members, comes from government, labor, 
     industry, academia and private business. You would be hard-
     pressed to find a more diverse, professional organization 
     dedicated solely to the prevention of workplace

[[Page S3765]]

     fatalities, injury, and illness. AIHA's goal is to bring 
     ``good science'' and the benefit of our work place experience 
     to the public policy process directed at worker health and 
     safety.
       Enactment of [the Volunteer Protection Act] would be of 
     great benefit to AIHA.

  This is testimony of John H. Graham IV, who is the chief executive 
officer of the American Diabetes Association on behalf of the American 
Society of Association Executives and the National Coalition for 
Volunteer Protection. This testimony, Mr. President, was before the 
House Judiciary Committee on April 23, 1997. This gentleman says that:

       . . .on behalf of the American Society of Association 
     Executives, an organization representing more than 23,500 
     individuals from more than 11,000 national, state and local 
     trade and professional associations. As a member of the 
     ASAE's board of directors, I can report that these 
     associations are completely dependent upon volunteers who 
     serve on their boards and committees and who perform direct 
     service functions. . ..
       The National Coalition for Volunteer Protection continues 
     to coordinate and generate support for the passage of 
     volunteer protection legislation. As of April 18, 1997, this 
     coalition represents more than 300 national, state and local 
     volunteer-dependent groups. These groups collectively utilize 
     tens of millions of volunteers.

  He goes on to say:

       We have seen recently that otherwise qualified and willing 
     individuals are withholding their services out of fear of 
     liability and confusion concerning the different volunteer 
     protection laws on the books in many states. These are 
     individuals who would help house and feed the homeless, who 
     would treat and support the elderly, and who would clothe and 
     care for the poor.

  In his statement he cites a study done in 1988, a Gallop study. He 
says:

       The study, ``The Liability Crisis and the Use of Volunteers 
     by Nonprofit Associations,'' was released by the Gallop 
     Organization in January 1988. The study was sponsored by the 
     American Society of Association Executives and funded by the 
     Gannett Foundation. The study concentrated on director and 
     officers liability. The results of the study revealed very 
     interesting data on the effect of this crisis on direct 
     service volunteers. According to the study:
       Approximately one in ten nonprofit organizations 
     have experienced the resignation of a volunteer due to 
     liability concerns. If this figure were multiplied by the 
     number of nonprofit organizations in America (600,000), 
     then it would mean that 48,000 volunteers would have been 
     lost during the past few years strictly due to liability 
     concerns. Remember: these volunteers resigned. Resignation 
     is a very drastic measure.
       One in six volunteers report withholding their services due 
     to fear of exposure to liability suits.

  On that point, Mr. President, when we had a press conference in the 
House several days ago, it was attended by a very famous athlete with 
the Washington Redskins, Terry Orr, who remembered when he came to play 
for the Washington Redskins that it was a common practice for the 
senior members of the team to come to the rookies and say, ``We need 
some help with this Boy's Club or another organization generally 
dedicated to youth and youthful activities.'' When it came his turn--he 
was no longer the rookie--he was going to the rookies and asking for 
support to get these famous role models before young people right here 
in the Nation's Capital City. And to his surprise, Mr. President, he 
was shocked that it was not, as in his day, the response, ``Well, where 
do we go and what Saturday morning is it?'' The response was, ``What's 
the liability coverage and what is my risk and what kinds of forms do I 
have to complete in order to participate?'' And, ``I'm not sure that I 
can afford to do this kind of thing.''
  This is a dramatic change of events and a chilling experience that 
robs people of all walks of life, indeed, of an opportunity to be 
helped by the unique volunteer spirit that we know in America.
  Mr. President, I see we have been joined by the other side on this 
issue. As I understand it, we have from 9:30 to 12:30 equally divided. 
I yield to the other side at this point.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The Senator from Vermont is 
recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will observe the time between 9:30 
and 12:30 is equally divided between the Senator from Georgia and the 
Senator from Vermont. The Senator from Vermont has 84 minutes remaining 
on his time. The Senator from Georgia has 64 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, like many who have volunteered for everything from 
helping out libraries to volunteering on law enforcement matters, I 
support the idea of voluntarism, but I oppose the motion to proceed to 
immediate consideration of S. 543. The merit of this motion seems 
solely to be the fact that this may be an opportunity to jump aboard 
the train of the Philadelphia summit on volunteering in America.
  I applaud President Clinton, General Powell, President Bush, 
President Carter, Mrs. Reagan, and others who were at the summit on 
voluntarism in Pennsylvania. I hope it will encourage people to 
continue beyond the time of the weekend.
  We also have some things we are supposed to do in this body. We are 
supposed to pass a Federal budget. You and I, Mr. President, are 
required by law to file our income tax returns by April 15. If we do 
not, we get a knock on the door from the IRS. We are also, as Members 
of the Senate and Members of the House, required to pass a budget by 
April 15. The determination of when we start on a budget resolution is 
determined by the Republican leadership of the House and the Republican 
leadership of the Senate. Today is April 29 and they have yet to 
schedule 12 seconds of debate on the budget that the law requires us to 
have by April 15.
  We have a number of members of the President's Cabinet and subcabinet 
that we cannot get 18 seconds of debate on, or to vote on them. We have 
100 vacancies in the Federal courts. We have only found time--between a 
number of vacations this year--to confirm two members of the court, 
even though the Chief Justice has said that the vacancies have created 
a crisis in the courts of this country.
  Now, America's 93 million volunteers, in the spirit of altruism, 
should get better treatment than to be used as unwilling partners in a 
partisan publicity stunt as a way to come up with the fact that the 
Senate is not doing the work the law requires us to do, the 
responsibility that we dictate we do. Instead, we have this.
  Here we are, 2 weeks after the Senate missed its deadline to consider 
the budget, the legislative schedule again stretches before us as a 
vast desert of inactivity, but now in the vapor, also like a mirage, 
coming out of the desert, comes this bill.
  Now, why was this particular bill suddenly brought to the floor 
without any notice, without any hearings, without a committee report? 
Why was careful scrutiny of this bill avoided by short circuiting the 
normal process of bringing bills through committee and to the floor of 
the Senate? Why is this bill being tendered to the Senate and the 
public like a stowaway, opportunistically cloaked in the camouflage of 
the week--voluntarism?
  Mr. President, the answer is that this is a bill whose flaws would 
come to light under the scrutiny of our regular order. If we actually 
had 20 minutes of hearings, if we actually had a committee report, if 
we actually had a debate, we would find out the flaws.
  Now, a commendable bill in the other body, which more precisely and 
thoughtfully addresses the issue which S. 543 purports to address on 
liability and volunteer work, has been introduced by Congressman John 
Porter. The Porter bill is being publicly examined through committee 
hearings, as it should be, and it is a better bill for the examination 
it is receiving.
  The events this weekend in Philadelphia and for much of the rest of 
this week are a tribute to the spirit of American voluntarism. It is a 
magnifying glass that will help spark intensified efforts by all 
Americans to be better citizens and better neighbors; citizens who will 
be more willing to give of themselves to make life better in our 
communities and our Nation. The events in Philadelphia this week are 
designed to be nonpartisan and inclusive of the interests of all.
  I mentioned those who were there, and I want to express again my 
gratitude to President George Bush and Barbara Bush for their 
longstanding leadership in this cause. I remember Mrs. Bush reading to 
children when they were at the White House and the example that set. It 
is time to recognize the personal commitment of Jimmy and Rosalynn 
Carter with Habitat for Humanity. They have gone out

[[Page S3766]]

and worked and actually built houses for people to live in. They have 
done work around the world. It is time to heed and welcome the calls to 
action by national leaders such as Gen. Colin Powell, who, by his own 
life, set such a fine example to appreciate the vision of President 
Clinton and our First Lady. We see the President, even with his leg in 
a cast, hobbling over to set an example of helping.
  We should all look forward to the results of the summit, and we 
should pledge to work in a bipartisan way to consider any 
recommendations--any recommendations--for legislation that may emerge 
from this national forum and accept the example of President Clinton 
and President Bush, of President Carter and Mrs. Reagan, of General 
Powell and others, to act in a nonpartisan fashion.
  By contrast, the motion by the Republican majority to move to 
immediate consideration of S. 543, a bill rushed into the hop only days 
ago, reflects none of the spirit and instead actually is a narrow, 
partisan effort. Again, we find the Senate ignoring its own duties and 
responsibilities. We find the Senate ignoring the April 15 date, which 
by law required the leadership to bring forward a budget resolution. We 
ignored our duties and responsibilities to confirm Alexis Herman as the 
Secretary of Labor. We have ignored our responsibilities and duties and 
allowed this lengthening backlog of judicial nominees to the Federal 
court--now almost 100 vacancies--in order to tell some others what they 
should be doing and how.
  This time, what the majority in this body, the Republican leadership, 
has targeted are the legislatures of the 50 States. What the Senate is 
trying to tell the State legislatures is that they do not know how to 
do their business. Big Daddy is right here in Washington. We will tell 
you how to do it better. Frankly, that might not go over too well with 
the legislature in Vermont, and I hope it will not in Kansas, Georgia, 
or anywhere else. Over the last several years, the States have 
considered and passed a variety of statutes to provide protections they 
determined advisable to encourage and protect those who volunteer or 
work for charitable organizations.
  In 1990, President Bush endorsed a model State law to protect 
volunteers from legal liability, but he did it the right way. President 
Bush said, ``Here is a good law, here is a model law, but we are not 
going to impose it on the State legislatures. We in Washington are not 
going to tell the people of Missouri, Georgia, Vermont, Kansas, or 
anywhere else, how you must do it. We will make the suggestion but your 
own legislature can make that determination.''
  Amazingly, for once, the Senate of the United States or the House of 
Representatives was not trying to tell them what they had to do. They 
were delighted, and they endorsed it. Since 1990, when President Bush 
made what I thought was a very sensible call, and one I encourage, 
State legislatures across the country have moved to protect volunteers 
through enactment of State laws, not something imposed on them from 
Washington, but something they designed within their own States. At 
least 44 of the 50 States have enacted some form of volunteer 
protection from liability. But even though those 44 have been active, 
we want to come rushing in, with no hearings, no debate, no discussion, 
no consideration by the States or anything else of legislation, and we 
say, ``Tough luck, your legislatures do not count. Here we are. We will 
tell you what to do.''
  Why does the Senate of the United States need to take up and pass 
Federal legislation on this subject on an emergency or expedited basis 
when we cannot even do the work we are supposed to do? We cannot even 
get the budget here on April 15 like we are required. We cannot confirm 
judges. We cannot do anything we are supposed to do. Why are we 
proceeding to a bill that was only introduced days ago? Why are we 
proceeding without any hearings or committee consideration? Why are we 
being forced to proceed without the benefit of a committee report, 
without an opportunity to study the recent actions of our State 
legislatures? Can we at least look at what legislatures do before we 
hit them over the head and tell all these States, ``You are not smart 
enough to do this. We are so much smarter than you are.''
  Do we really want to do that when we have not even had 12 seconds of 
hearings on this bill? Why is the Republican leadership demanding the 
Senate consider a law to override the laws of each of our State 
legislatures designed to protect volunteers and charitable 
organizations in our States? Why are we being told to just wipe out all 
the things the State legislatures have done to protect volunteers in 
their States? The States of Vermont, Georgia, and many others, for 
example, have already provided protection for directors and officers of 
nonprofit organizations from civil liability. Do we, in the U.S. 
Senate, intuitively know better than our State legislatures what is 
needed?
  Do we know whether the better approach is to require indemnification 
or mandate insurance or provide limited immunity or help properly to 
structure acceptance of limitations of liabilities so that State law 
can serve to encourage charitable efforts without leaving innocent 
citizens to suffer from wrongful conduct without legal recourse? Have 
we developed any kind of a record--a page, a paragraph, a sentence, one 
itsy-bitsy tiny word--on which to justify such a legislative judgment 
or to justify Federal intrusion into areas that are traditionally 
matters of local concern? Of course not.
  For a group whose rhetoric is about reducing the role of the Federal 
Government and returning power to the States, the Republican Senate 
seems awfully sure it knows better than anyone else what the States 
should pass to encourage local volunteers. You go home and give a 
speech to the local Rotary Club and say, ``We want to give the power 
back to the States. We want the people to make these decisions; 
however, we know better than you in the long run, so we will pass 
this.'' For a group that criticizes others for acting as if Washington 
has solutions to every local problem, the smell of cherry blossoms 
seems to have gotten to someone.

  I do not know what is wrong with the partial immunity and limited 
liability laws passed in Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Pennsylvania, or 
Missouri. I have not seen convincing evidence that vast punitive damage 
judgments exist to a significant factor in voluntarism, yet we are 
about to enact a Federal law regime to alter State law and State common 
law traditions in one ill-considered swoop.
  At least when we considered Senate Joint Resolution 22, the 
independent counsel resolution, it was only a patently partisan sense-
of-the-Senate resolution. It was inappropriate. It demeaned the Senate. 
But it did not strip rights from individual Americans.
  At least when we considered the substitute for the Taxpayer Browsing 
Protection Act on April 15 to distract from the Republican leadership's 
failure to produce a Federal budget by that statutory deadline, we at 
least had previously considered and passed the National Information 
Infrastructure Protection Act, we had a GAO report noting the 
continuing problem of IRS employees snooping into confidential tax 
records, and we limited our action to a Federal agency.
  At least when the Senate discharged the Judiciary Committee from any 
consideration of S. 495 and engaged in an artificially abbreviated 
discussion of its provisions in order to get to debate on the Chemical 
Weapons Convention, it did so knowing that we would have an opportunity 
to reconsider and correct it in the context of implementing legislation 
for the chemical weapons treaty, and at least it concerned Federal law, 
not State law. But this matter is different. It is not a sense-of-the-
Senate resolution. It is not about a Federal agency or a Federal law or 
a Federal law problem. Instead, it is a repudiation of federalism and 
the primary role of the States in defining liability laws for local 
activities. It can have serious repercussions. When we just slap down 
the States like that and say they don't know enough to do these things, 
so we will do it for you, we ought to at least consider it 
substantively.

  There is a slight procedural twist in S. 543. It is technically not 
being discharged from the Senate Judiciary Committee because it wasn't 
referred to the committee at all. On April 9, the same group of 
Republican sponsors introduced the same bill twice, held it on the 
Senate calendar and allowed the identical twin to be referred to the 
Judiciary Committee as S. 544. I guess

[[Page S3767]]

Chairman Hatch and I did not jump quickly enough for their purposes. 
They get impatient after less than 3 weeks, and here we are on the 
floor with this ill-considered legislation and, again, we ignored the 
statutory date to get important legislation out, like the budget, on 
April 15.
  Now, of course, I did have a chance to read the bill over the 
weekend. That is a lot bigger opportunity for deliberation than was 
afforded the Senate when we voted on a substitute version of S. 495 the 
same afternoon it was offered. So we in the minority are grateful to 
actually have a chance to do our job.
  I want to point to a couple of problems. I wish to alert the Senate 
to several aspects of the bill. It may not be apparent from the 
statement of the sponsors. First, this bill is misnamed. It ought to be 
called the Ku Klux Klan Protection Act. That is as good an example as 
any of the nonprofit, ``volunteer'' organizations that will be the 
principal beneficiaries of premature consideration of this legislation. 
The bill's definition of ``nonprofit organization'' is overly broad and 
unnecessarily so. If we had had a hearing--something that apparently we 
no longer do in the Senate; we just bring bills to the floor--do you 
know what we would have found out about this bill, Mr. President? This 
bill is going to be supported, I assume strongly, by the Ku Klux Klan, 
because if you look at the web page of the Ku Klux Klan, look what they 
say on it: ``The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan are a noncommercial, 
nonprofit, volunteer organization.'' And when we knock down all the 
State laws by passing this to give immunity, who are we giving immunity 
to? Noncommercial, nonprofit, volunteer organizations like--oh, I don't 
know, maybe the Ku Klux Klan. Well, if we had had 20 minutes of 
hearings on this bill, we might have known that. Isn't this special? In 
rushing this sucker through, we rush through something that wipes out 
State laws and imposes our feelings and our judgment to protect 
noncommercial, nonprofit, volunteer organizations like ``the world's 
oldest, largest, and most professional whites' civil rights 
organization, the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.''
  Mr. President, look at the picture taken off of the web page of the 
Ku Klux Klan: ``The world's oldest, largest, and most professional 
whites' civil rights organization * * * a noncommercial, nonprofit, 
volunteer organization.'' But no matter what kind of laws we might have 
in Vermont or any other State, this bill would wipe those laws off the 
books and give them protection.
  I am not suggesting for one moment that this is what the sponsors of 
this legislation want to do. There is not a single one of these 
sponsors of this legislation that want to do something to protect the 
Ku Klux Klan. I think we all know that. But what happens, Mr. 
President, is that we just rush legislation through because it sounds 
good and fits in for a good political sound bite for the day, and we 
haven't had any hearings, haven't done any of the work the Senate is 
supposed to do. This is what happens--something like this comes 
slipping through. This is why I oppose this moving forward like this.
  This bill has been so hastily drafted as to provide legal protection 
to the Ku Klux Klan and its ``volunteer members'' as well as to all 
501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations under the Internal Revenue Code and 
to an untold variety of not-for-profit organizations.
  Who is to decide which groups qualify for limited liability under 
such a definition? Is it a matter for the organization to declare in 
its purposes, such as when the Ku Klux Klan declares itself to be a 
``noncommercial, nonprofit, volunteer organization''? Is this a matter 
for the State courts to decide, or is it a Federal question that will 
be reserved for Federal courts to determine on a case-by-case basis? Is 
it a matter for the organization to declare its purpose, such as the Ku 
Klux Klan does when it designates itself to be a noncommercial, 
nonprofit, volunteer organization? Do we want Government to decide 
whether the organization's activities are such that it should be held 
to be engaged in ``civic'' or ``educational'' purposes? Are the State 
legislatures expected hereafter to pass lists of qualifying or 
nonqualifying groups or activities? Consistent with the first amendment 
principles, can Government be directed to make judgments on liability 
based on the political orientation of the group? Should the group on 
the left be allowed and a group on the right not be allowed, or vice 
versa? For that matter, how are State legislatures constitutionally 
permitted to make case-by-case determinations that avoid the 
constraints of this Federal preemptive statute, such as required by 
section 3(b) of S. 543?

  I, for one, don't believe victims of hate groups should have to 
overcome the Federal law immunities that would be created by this bill 
in order to recover damages done to them. I don't think that somebody 
who wants to recover damages caused by actions of the Ku Klux Klan 
against them should have to overcome the prohibitions of this bill. Nor 
do I believe it is our job to encourage ``volunteer'' members of the 
KKK, street gangs, or violent militias, all of which might qualify for 
not-for-profit and nonprofit organizations under S. 543.
  The overly broad definition of nonprofit in S. 543 might also shield 
many hospitals from legal liability for actions involving a volunteer. 
If a not-for-profit hospital uses a volunteer to take down patient 
information during the admittance process, or to wheel a patient down a 
hallway, should that hospital be shielded later from liability for 
medical malpractice? Do we really want to close off remedies for 
medical malpractice because a hospital used a volunteer and, thus, is 
insulated under this?
  I don't know that victims of malpractice in not-for-profit hospitals 
need to overcome special federally imposed immunity rules to recover 
for their injuries and pain and suffering. In fact, for that matter, I 
am unaware of a rush to suits against volunteers or any circumstances 
that cry out for Federal preemption of State law on this subject. We 
don't have a mess of suits against volunteers going on around this 
country, where the States are saying: Please come in and save us from 
ourselves. You can do our jobs so much better than we can. You know so 
much better. You people are so much wiser in Washington than we are in 
the State legislatures. Please save us from ourselves.
  I haven't heard a lot of that. Maybe others have, but I haven't.
  When we want to encourage voluntarism to help others, we can do so as 
we did when we considered and passed legislation to encourage doctors 
to serve in medical clinics to provide medical services to people who 
would otherwise do without. Now, that actually helps.
  Last year, we enacted a targeted bill to encourage the delivery of 
food to the poor and needy when we passed the Bill Emerson Good 
Samaritan Act. It provides food banks to people on the front lines in 
the war against hunger, with sensible liability protection. We thought 
it out and did it.
  But this bill, S. 543, is not so targeted. I do not understand, for 
example, why the Republican sponsors insist on forcing victims of 
negligent driving by a volunteer for any nonprofit and not-for-profit 
activity to carry a heavier burden and be denied compensation for their 
disfigurement and pain and suffering. A victim of an auto accident does 
not care--if they are crossing the street and somebody goes barreling 
through a red light and nails you, when you are lying in traction in 
the hospital, you don't really care that that driver was speeding 
because he or she was late to a PTA meeting, or a meeting of some trade 
association. But if they are going to a PTA meeting and nailed you, you 
may not be able to recover. But if they are going to a trade 
association, you can. This might be enough to exempt the volunteer 
driver under volunteer in the bill.
  Many States have excluded motor vehicle injuries from their laws 
protecting volunteers. The Senators pushing this through to override 
what the States think, do they really know better than the State 
legislatures? What makes them think that the potential of a lawsuit for 
negligent driving is impeding volunteer activity across the Nation? Is 
it the potential to be liable like any other driver, a liability that I 
believe all States require a driver to be insured against, which is so 
affecting national insurance rates, that the Federal Government has to 
step in and create a Federal immunity? I doubt it.
  I will work with people who want to make a better law. We can do it. 
We ought to work together to correct the

[[Page S3768]]

excesses of S. 543. I believe that nobody wants to exempt the Ku Klux 
Klan, but that is what the bill does. Why don't we find a way that we 
can work on something, as President Bush did when he put together a 
model law and passed it on to the States and said, here, use your 
wisdom and determine what you need in your State. That sets a better 
way.
  The real volunteer protection act is H.R. 911, legislation introduced 
by Congressman Porter. This actually has tripartisan support--
Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--and almost 140 House 
cosponsors. It is endorsed by the American Heart Association; American 
Red Cross; Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America; Girl Scout Council USA; 
Little League; National Easter Seal Society; National PTA; Salvation 
Army; the United Way; American Diabetes Association; the National 
Coalition of Volunteer Protection, and a whole lot of others.
  That bill seeks to respect State prerogatives and State law, and it 
says we are not going to just pound you over the head in Washington and 
say that we know better, no matter what you think; we are so much wiser 
than your State legislatures on whether to impose Federal immunities, 
preempting State law. It offers financial incentives for States to 
enact model language for limiting volunteer liability. That makes a lot 
more sense to me.
  If we can achieve the objective in encouraging and protecting real 
volunteers in direct contact with those who need help, without 
Federalizing State law, we ought to consider the benefits of that. I 
know the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, and I strongly support the 
Porter bill as a substitute to S. 543.
  There is no record that our State courts are glutted with liability 
cases against volunteers. And there is no record that our State 
legislatures have fallen down on the job and have been ignoring a 
crisis that threatens voluntarism in our society. Frankly, Mr. 
President, I am far more comfortable to have the legislature, the 
general assembly in Vermont determine what makes a good law for Vermont 
than I am with a law rushed through the Senate with no hearings, 
virtually no debate. We don't have a Ku Klux Klan chapter in Vermont. 
At one time in our history, we did. I don't want anything that is going 
to encourage them to come back.
  Indeed, the Wall Street Journal reported last week, on April 23, 
1997: ``Voluntarism, a classic American solution to social problems, 
appears to be on the rise.'' I think we should tread kind of lightly. 
The States seem to know what they are doing. They usually do. We should 
tread lightly before we jump in and give them a slap up alongside the 
head and take over.
  This bill doesn't just apply to volunteers. In fact, immunizing the 
negligent conduct of volunteers is a small part of the bill. It also 
creates a regime of governmental entities, nonprofit organizations and 
not-for-profit organizations that changes the laws in our 50 States 
whenever a claim for personal injury is based on the action of a 
volunteer.
  It would shield myriad organizations from being liable for damages 
for failing to properly supervise or train or screen their volunteers.
  Suppose you say to the volunteers, take the car and drive down and 
pick somebody up. Are you screened from liability when they run over 
somebody? If a group that works with young people fails to investigate 
reports of sexual abuse by a volunteer and several young girls or young 
boys suffer abuse, should that organization be immune from sharing the 
damages for the trauma, suffering and psychological scars these young 
victims would carry with them the rest of their lives? Is that really a 
Federal immunity we want to pass? If the Senate wants to immunize them 
from any liability to those children who might be sexually abused, 
well, then, let us at least have a hearing on it and make that 
determination. I, for one, am not willing to give that immunity.
  The House Judiciary Committee last week held a hearing on volunteer 
liability. They considered H.R. 911 as a proposal to provide exemptions 
from liability for volunteers, not the supervisory organizations. I do 
not perceive the compelling need to extend liability protection beyond 
such volunteers as S. 543 insists. We should be encouraging, not 
discouraging, nonprofit organizations to properly screen and train and 
supervise their volunteers. We ought to have fair and balanced 
legislation on this.
  As a lifelong Vermonter, I am proud and profoundly appreciative of 
the thousands of volunteers in Vermont, and millions across the country 
in all our States, whose selfless acts make the world a better place 
for all of us. The people who spend their weekends preparing dinners 
for the homeless and the poor, the parents who organize a car wash to 
raise money for the local PTA, those filling sandbags in flood-
threatened areas--these kinds of acts of voluntarism are an essential 
part of the American social fabric, the kind of voluntarism I learned 
from my parents growing up as a boy in Montpelier, VT, as so many of 
the rest of Americans did. Those who volunteer deserve our thanks and 
encouragement.
  I think if we work together on this and actually have some hearings, 
we can have broad, strong consensus of Republicans and Democrats to 
give any needed protection and other helpful encouragement to our 
volunteers. These really are the heroes of America. These volunteers in 
service organizations are not asking for a free ride, for a license to 
behave badly. In fact, I imagine many of them, if they read what is in 
here, are going to be very offended to have any suggestion that they 
might want something like this. But S. 543 would encourage free rides 
and licenses to behave badly. Before we needlessly cut off rights of 
victims of harmful conduct, we ought to consider whether it is 
necessary or it is desirable.
  I think what we ought to do is send this bill on for its normal 
hearings in the Judiciary Committee. Lord knows, we are not doing 
anything there to get judges out, notwithstanding our 100 vacancies. We 
could take some time to take a look at this piece of legislation. Let 
us do that, Mr. President. Let us not rush something through just 
because it is volunteer week. I would hate to think if next week became 
organ transplant week; we might find ourselves all being marched down 
to the Capitol physician's office to donate an organ before we had 
any--maybe then we would actually ask for a hearing if it affected us 
that way. This affects a lot more than 100 Members of the Senate. It 
affects 260 million of our American citizens, 260 million Americans who 
have gone to their State legislatures and assume their State 
legislatures know what they are doing. We are saying to those 260 
million Americans, ``You do not need your State legislatures. You have 
us.'' Well, I do not want us to make this decision without any kind of 
a hearing.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, in a moment I am going to yield to my 
distinguished colleague from Missouri, but I want to make a couple of 
comments regarding the remarks of the Senator from Vermont. I have long 
worked with the Senator from Vermont on issues relating to voluntarism 
in the Peace Corps when I was director. But I have to say to him that 
evoking the Ku Klux Klan is something I would not have expected from 
him. It is demeaning. It is an inaccurate portrayal of the legislation. 
There is regional arrogance in the context of the Senator's statement, 
and I do not appreciate it.
  I will read to the Senator the exact sections of the bill.

       Section 4(f). Exceptions to Limitations on Liability. The 
     limitations on the liability of a volunteer, nonprofit 
     organization, or governmental entity under this section shall 
     not apply to any misconduct that--
       (1) constitutes a crime of violence (as that term is 
     defined in section 16 of title 18, United States Code) or act 
     of international terrorism (as that term is defined in 
     section 2331 of title 18) for which the defendant has been 
     convicted in any court;
       (2) constitutes a hate crime (as that term is used in the 
     Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note));
       (3) involves a sexual offense, as defined by applicable 
     State law, for which the defendant has been convicted in any 
     court;
       (4) involves misconduct for which the defendant has been 
     found to have violated a Federal or State civil rights law; 
     or
       (5) where the defendant was under the influence (as 
     determined pursuant to applicable State law) of intoxicating 
     alcohol or any drug at the time of the misconduct.


[[Page S3769]]


  I refer the Senator to:

       Section 6(4) Nonprofit Organization. The term ``nonprofit 
     organization'' means--
       (A) any organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under 
     501(a) of such code; or
       (B) any not-for-profit organization organized and conducted 
     for public benefit and operated primarily for charitable, 
     civic, educational, religious, welfare or health purposes.

  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a question on that point?
  Mr. COVERDELL. I do not yield just yet.
  Mr. President, I might also say that the organizations to which the 
Senator from Vermont alluded, Little League and others, are supporting 
this legislation before the Senate, or hope to if we can get it before 
the Senate, if we can get it over the cloture and the filibuster that 
is being conducted by the other side. These organizations hardly 
constitute a force in our society of evil or ill repute.
  Mr. President, I would like to yield at this time my time to the 
Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a question on my time?
  Mr. COVERDELL. I do not yield at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I am pleased to have this opportunity to address this 
problem. It is a problem that challenges the capacity of individuals in 
our culture to share with each other and to help one another. The fact 
that there are proposals that relate to this, in addition to this 
proposal, from a wide variety of perspectives, demonstrates that this 
is not an effort to address something that is not a problem.
  Let me just give you a couple of examples of how this problem has 
manifested itself and what are the effects. First of all, I will give 
you some of the general effects. The Gallup organization conducted a 
survey entitled: ``The Liability Crisis and the Use of Volunteers of 
Nonprofit Associations.'' What did the Gallup organization find? 
Approximately 1 in 10 nonprofit organizations has experienced the 
resignation of a volunteer due to liability concerns. One in six 
volunteers was reported to have withheld services due to a fear of 
exposure to liability suits.

  Now, the question is, do we need more volunteers in our culture or do 
we need less? Our current system is stopping 18 percent of volunteers 
from doing some volunteer activity and resulting in 10 percent of the 
organizations having people resign from their boards of directors.
  I might also indicate that mention has been made that some of the 
States have provided some protection for volunteers. I find it ironic 
that about half of all the States which provide protection do so only 
for the guy on the board of directors or the person at the top of the 
organization setting policy. The person who is the silk stocking guy in 
the boardroom gets protected, but the fellow out there on the field, 
the Little League coach, is the guy against whom the big judgment is 
rendered.
  Our question has to be, are we going to tie the hands of the person 
who is actually going to deliver the help while we provide some cocoon 
of protection to the fellow in the boardroom? Or are we going to say to 
the average citizen, you can afford to get involved in your community 
without putting your house on the line, without jeopardizing your 
children's college education. You can afford to help the Little League 
because we are not going to make it so that you will be sued when 
someone does not catch a fly ball. You might laugh and say, wait a 
second, getting sued because a child doesn't catch a fly ball? I wish 
it were not so true.
  Let me refer you to a 1982 case, and this is one of the first cases 
that started the run of liability cases against volunteers. In 
Runnemede, NJ, a Little League coach volunteer was sued because he 
repositioned his Little League shortstop to the outfield, and in the 
outfield the Little League shortstop misjudged a fly ball and sustained 
an eye injury.
  A suit was filed on the allegation that the 10-year-old youngster was 
``a born shortstop'' but not an outfielder, and the courts found the 
volunteer coach negligent. Over the next 5 years, liability rates for 
Little League baseball in that area went up 10 times--1,000 percent.
  Here is another example. We are talking about real people, real folks 
who get up in the morning early, work hard all day, sometimes take time 
off their jobs to go out and volunteer to help the kids of America, 
some of the kids without moms or dads or who do not have time to help 
children, kids who need positive role models, and here is what we do to 
them. A boy in a scouting unit with the Boy Scouts of the Cascade 
Pacific Council--a national problem, Runnemede, NJ, on the one side of 
the country, Cascade Pacific Council on the other side. A Boy Scout 
suffers a paralyzing injury while playing in a touch football game. I 
remember being a Boy Scout. Touch football was as mild as the 
supervisors could possibly make it. We wanted to play tackle football 
or flag football, but touch football was a part of the curriculum we 
had to play.
  A boy gets injured. What in the world happens when the volunteers are 
found personally liable for $7 million? What would a $7 million 
judgment do to your capacity to send your kids to college if you were 
the volunteer? What would it do to your capacity to have the kind of 
life you wanted? We are not making it difficult for volunteers; in many 
instances, we are saying to them, you cannot volunteer.
  Frankly, this is not something any of us intend. This is not a 
partisan issue. This is an issue of compassion. It is an issue about 
the character of America. When Alexis de Tocqueville came to America--
and they are having a wonderful series on de Tocqueville on C-SPAN; 
they are following his steps that he took across America 150 years 
ago--he talked about the greatness of this country, and he said 
greatness in America is not governmental. Greatness is not a matter of 
the law of this country. It is a matter of the people of this country. 
America is great because the people are good. But that was at a time 
when there was such a thing known as charitable immunity, when 
charities were simply held totally immune, so that if people were going 
to charities to get help, they got what help they could, and if a 
mistake was made or an injury, that is the way it was.
  Now, we are not asking that it be restored to that condition. But we 
are saying that, when a volunteer, someone who is giving of her time or 
of his time, when they are giving that time generously and they are 
trying to help the Boy Scouts, they should not end up with a $7 million 
judgment.
  I should add a correction. In that case, the judgment was reduced to 
$4 million by the courts. That would have been a great comfort to me 
and my family. We would not come any closer to paying a $4 million 
judgment than we would a $7 million judgment. The system, though, 
rewards those who try to help the youngsters with that kind of legal 
liability. The system is broken in that respect. If we want America to 
be great, it will be not because we have a governmental program that 
will fix everything. But we, at least, need to release the energy 
available in the American culture that comes from volunteers.
  I indicate, as well, that the bill, which is being filibustered by 
the other side, is not a bill that relieves organizations of all their 
responsibility. This is a bill that relieves the volunteer of 
responsibility for economic damages that are suffered by individuals 
who are injured through simple negligence. Economic damages still can 
be recovered against the organization, but the fellow who works all day 
and works hard to keep his family together and sometimes takes a little 
time away from his family to help the rest of the world should not find 
himself looking down the barrel of a $4 million judgment because he has 
been a good Scout leader. And unfortunately that has happened too 
frequently.
  Here is another example. From the Richmond Times-Dispatch, November 
4, 1995. A Red Cross volunteer in Virginia ``was driving a woman to a 
medical facility for routine care.'' I have volunteered for the Red 
Cross, done Meals on Wheels and things like that. ``The Red Cross-owned 
car was involved in a collision and the passenger was injured. She 
later died from causes unrelated to the crash. But the administrator of 
the woman's estate sought judgment against the volunteer and alleged 
that he negligently operated the vehicle.''

[[Page S3770]]

  We should not have people being hauled into court on things like 
that. The fact is that these volunteers are being asked to defend 
themselves.
  Here is an interesting fact from the Washington Times, a May 2, 1995, 
article.
  ``A Legal System That Fails the Test of Charity,'' was the headline. 
``A Washington, DC, area Girl Scout council reports that it must sell 
87,000 boxes of Girl Scout cookies each year just to pay for liability 
insurance.'' The first 87,000 boxes of cookies do not provide any help 
to any girls, do not provide any assistance, do not provide any of the 
reinforcement that these kids, without many of the benefits that you 
and I enjoyed as children, need. The first 87,000 boxes of cookies have 
to go to carry the liability insurance.
  ``We have no diving boards at our camps,'' the executive director 
said. ``We will never own horses. And, many local schools will no 
longer provide meeting space for our volunteers,'' because of the 
liability crisis as it relates to volunteers.
  Here is an interesting item from the Washington Times, May 1995. ``A 
Legal System That Fails the Test of Charity,'' again.

       The Junior League in Evanston, IL, discovered a few years 
     ago that, to set up a shelter for battered women, they would 
     have had to go without liability insurance for three years. 
     No directors would serve under these conditions, and the 
     plans for the shelter were shelved.

  We need people to drive people to the hospital for the Red Cross. We 
need the Junior League to help sponsor shelters for battered women. We 
need Boy Scout volunteers that will not operate under the threat of $4 
million judgments against them and the assets of their families. We 
need Little League volunteers who have the ability to ask the kid to 
play left field instead of shortstop, in spite of the claims of the 
child's parents that the child is a born shortstop and not an 
outfielder.

  We simply have to create an environment in this country where we do 
not rely on the Government for everything. And, in that context, we 
have to free up the energy of the goodness of the American people and 
not ask them to operate under the threat of judgments that would 
deprive them of their homes, their families' well-being, and their 
capacity to send their children to college.
  Americans are sacrificial people. They are willing to give you the 
proverbial shirts off their backs. But we should not make it a 
situation where, if they give you the shirt and you do not like the 
shirt, you can sue them and take their house and deprive their kids of 
an opportunity to go to college. That is too much. It is too much to 
ask of these generous volunteers. And our system of Government simply 
needs to provide a little protection, a framework in which people can 
operate in decency and can beneficially extend themselves, one to 
another. The idea that somehow America is automatically good and the 
Government can handle all this stuff is a bankrupt concept. We 
understood that in the debate last year over welfare reform. We saw the 
kind of miserable response that has come from this culture to welfare. 
We were intensifying problems. The problem was growing rather than 
slowing.
  If anything is going to help us recover, it will be our understanding 
that we can help each other. But we will have a hard time helping each 
other if we make it a condition of volunteering that you put your 
family's well-being on the line and you look down the barrel of that $4 
million cannon every time you want to go and help a few Boy Scouts. 
That is why I think it is so important to have a discussion of these 
issues and to act on these issues. It is high time we do so. It is a 
matter in discussion in this country and has been a matter of public 
debate. This is not a surprise.
  There are bills on the issue of voluntarism in both the House and 
Senate. Frankly, S. 543, Senator Coverdell's legislation, is 
outstanding legislation designed to relieve the volunteer of liability. 
This bill does not relieve organizations of liability for economic 
damages. I find it troublesome to have it suggested that this bill is 
designed in some way to relieve the Ku Klux Klan from consequences 
against the organization for criminal acts, or acts that would somehow 
disparage the civil rights or dignity of Americans. It is simply not 
so.
  I wonder if there are not any good arguments against this legislation 
when the only arguments that come up against it are arguments which do 
not hold water and which are designed to go to the most base emotions 
within us.
  When we are talking about making it possible for Americans to help 
other Americans, it is particularly troublesome that in order to 
disrupt this discussion we try to talk about Americans hating other 
Americans. We should be careful never to do anything to promote hate. 
It would be a terrible thing if we allowed those who suggested that we 
were doing that to impair our ability to provide a framework in which 
people could promote love and care and concern. One of the real values 
of volunteer activity is what it communicates. When you get something 
from the Government you do it because you are entitled to it, so you 
take it. But when you get something from your neighbor you know that he 
or she cares for you and loves you. And that mutual sense of concern is 
what builds community. It is what binds us together; it is not what 
tears us apart. We are talking about providing a context for people to 
demonstrate a sense of community.
  Two hundred years ago John Donne said it as eloquently as anyone has 
ever said it in his sonnet, on the fact that no man is an island. He 
said, ``No man is an island.'' He started out saying we are all in this 
thing together. We are not by ourselves. And he ends his sonnet:

       . . . never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls 
     for thee.

  And, in America, we have that sense. It is unique to America. It is 
what makes America what she is and what she will be in the future. And 
it is not that we want to try to promote organizations that would teach 
us to hate one another. This bill is designed and crafted and drafted 
to promote opportunities for people who want to demonstrate that they 
care for each other and respect one another.

  The hyperlitigious nature of our civil justice system is creating a 
barrier, though, between the desire of Americans to help others and 
their ability to do so. It is empirically established. The data is 
there: The resignations from the boards of directors; the reluctance of 
volunteers to do what they wanted to volunteer to do; one out of six 
volunteers say they withhold services; the absence of programs that can 
no longer be offered; the program for battered women in Evanston that 
the Junior League wanted to have. You do not have diving boards at the 
camp. You do not have horses at the camp.
  We must free this energy in America, this impetus that says I love 
you and I care for you and I would like to be active in helping you but 
I cannot afford to risk everything I own and have, and my children's 
education, to do so. I would like for that desire to be fostered and 
lifted up, and we ought to fan that ember of hope for America and we 
should not douse it.
  So I believe we need the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997. I am proud 
to join as a cosponsor of this legislation. It will reinstate reason. 
It will reinstate rationality. It will reinstate certainty and fairness 
in a judicial system with regard to voluntarism. And I am grateful for 
that. The Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 covers nonprofit 
organizations which are defined as those organizations having a 
501(c)(3) status, or nonprofit entities that are organized and 
conducted for public benefit and operated primarily for charitable, 
civic, educational, religious, welfare, or health purposes. And, if any 
organization is involved in criminal activity, any protection for the 
volunteer in that endeavor is gone.
  The volunteers are relieved of liability for simple acts of 
negligence, but it does not relieve the volunteer organization from 
liability for economic damages. This bill establishes a standard for 
punitive damages so there could not be outrageous levels of damages 
without high standards of proof. And it eliminates joint and several 
liability for noneconomic damages. Economic damages are those that you 
actually have in a monetary sense: The hospital bills, the lost wages 
and the like. In those settings, there is no limitation on the ability 
of an injured individual to go against the organization.
  This bill does say that the volunteer should not be held responsible 
unless

[[Page S3771]]

she engages in criminal activity or acted in a willful and wanton way. 
And if that is the case, the volunteer is not protected at all, because 
we are not interested in protecting willful or wanton activity or 
criminal activity. We are trying to allow people to say to their 
communities and to their fellow citizens that we care enough to love 
you and to share ourselves with you but we do not think we ought to 
have to risk the entirety of our family or the well-being of our family 
to do so.
  With that in mind, I am pleased to support this legislation. I think, 
when the President of the United States asks us to engage in 
volunteering, he calls us to the very best that is in us. He calls us 
to the character of America, to rekindle a spirit of community which 
could be lost. He needs to call us, though, in a context which makes 
our response reasonable and possible. Simply, we are trying to develop 
a framework for reasonable participation by volunteers, protecting them 
and their families from a litigious system which has found Scout 
leaders saddled with $4 million judgments because of a touch football 
game; which has found a Little League coach staring down the barrel of 
judgments because he shifted a boy from shortstop to left field; which 
has found people in court because they were good enough to drive a sick 
citizen in their community to the hospital.
  I do not think that is the kind of community in which we want to 
live. We want to live in a place that puts reasonable limits on the 
exposure and risk to people who are actually giving of themselves so 
they can afford to extend their charity to others without destroying 
the future of their own families.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, could I inquire as to the time 
remaining on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia has 39 minutes 
remaining. The Senator from Vermont has 51 minutes remaining.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and 
ask unanimous consent that it be equally charged to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have listened to the comments of my 
friends and colleagues on the other side. I wish to recount for the 
body parts of a conversation I had with the distinguished Senator from 
Georgia, my good friend, Mr. Coverdell, during the time when the other 
Senator was speaking.
  I had the pleasure of working with Senator Coverdell when he was in a 
position where he had to go not only around this country, but around 
the world seeking volunteers and help in some of the most important 
aspects of life. So I do not question his commitment to voluntarism. He 
has lived it and done it.
  My concern, as I expressed to the distinguished Senator from Georgia, 
is that this bill came to the floor immediately in this fashion with no 
hearings. I should note for the Record, so there will be no confusion 
on that, that this is not the decision of the Senator from Georgia or 
the decision of the Senator from Vermont as to when the bill would come 
to the floor. That has to be done by the Republican leadership, and I 
have expressed my concern to the Republican leadership in the past, and 
will again in the future, that bills cannot come to the floor in that 
fashion, bills with significant repercussions, with no hearings.
  Frankly, I took exactly the same position during the times I served 
here when the Democrats were in the majority and would determine what 
bills would come on the floor. I have been very consistent throughout 
my career in the Senate. If you have a significant matter, something 
that is going to affect all of us, take time to discuss it before it 
comes to the floor. We pass resolutions and sense-of-the-Senate 
resolutions all the time that say, ``on the one hand'' this, ``on the 
other hand'' that, ``God bless America.'' Those can move through 
quickly. But this is a bill, at least the analysis that I have of it 
and the analysis of totally nonpartisan lawyers who have discussed it 
with me, which would, in effect, replace State laws.
  I think that the 50 States of the United States should expect no less 
of the U.S. Senate. If we are going to fetch them a smack up alongside 
the head and knock their legislative work in the trash can, we ought to 
at least have a hearing about it and discuss what is involved in it.
  I am perfectly willing to work with the Senator from Georgia and 
others--as he knows we have worked together on so many issues in the 
past--on a voluntarism bill, on the question, as I did and others did, 
with former President Bush on volunteers, but in the normal course of 
events, with discussion. I hope we will not proceed to this bill today, 
not to kill the bill, not to kill the act, but to send it back, to at 
least go through the normal process where we actually have hearings.
  I have discussed the Ku Klux Klan and others. The Ku Klux Klan has 
had what I think is a vicious and long history in most States. It did 
in my State of Vermont during the time my parents were younger, and 
they saw directly the effect of the hate of the Ku Klux Klan. The 
church where my parents were married and where they were buried--one of 
them just a year from this coming Monday--the church where I was 
baptized had the cross of the Ku Klux Klan burned on its front steps. 
So I know the sense that they have, the sense that my mother of an 
immigrant family recounted to me of how she felt about that, the fear 
that was driven in to people who spoke a different language, as my 
mother and her family did, who practiced a religion very much in the 
minority in Vermont at that time.
  None of us in this body, Republican or Democrat, wants to encourage 
in any way racism or the kind of things that the Ku Klux Klan and many 
other organizations similar throughout this country stand for. There 
are exceptions on limits and liabilities, those who have been found to 
violate Federal and States civil rights laws, and so on.
  It is still too broad. If the Ku Klux Klan marches down a street 
carrying signs, they are not going to be convicted of international 
terrorism or a hate crime on that, but under the definition in here, 
they may still well qualify, under their definition, which is under 
section 6(4)(B):

       . . . any not-for-profit organization organized and 
     conducted for public benefit and operated primarily for 
     charitable, civic, educational, religious, welfare, or health 
     purposes.

  Because it does not state who is making these kinds of 
determinations.
  Again, Mr. President, let me make it very clear what my concerns are 
about this bill. One, it is a major piece of legislation that is on the 
floor with no hearings, none whatsoever. I understand it is the 
majority leader who makes that determination, not the Senator from 
Georgia who was called to be here on the floor and discuss this matter. 
But we should not have that procedure. We did it once on a major piece 
of legislation, raising actually worldwide implications on terrorism, a 
week ago with a bill, a huge bill that everybody voted on, either for 
or against. I doubt there were three Senators who could honestly say 
when they walked off the floor of the Senate that they had read the 
bill, because it was presented to us hours, some of us minutes, before 
we voted on it. But it affected everything from our international 
relations to our use of antiterrorism legislation, major criminal 
codes, treaties and everything else--a very thick bill--and we voted on 
it. I voted against it because it raised enough of a red flag, even 
though there were parts of the bill that were verbatim from parts of 
legislation I had written.

  I suppose imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but not when 
it is slapped together and handed to you to vote on matters that have 
major implications, and we whip it through. In fact, I encouraged the 
press actually to ask Senators who voted on it if they either read it 
or knew what was in it. To my knowledge, nobody was asked that 
question. It would have been interesting to hear the answers, because 
we all knew the answer. Nobody had.
  Now we have a similar piece of legislation brought up, hurried, no 
hearings, and pass it, even though it is

[[Page S3772]]

going to override the efforts of our State legislatures. I have heard 
so many speeches given about ``give the power back to the States; let 
the States make the decisions. So much wisdom resides in the States.'' 
Why do we say we are the ones who know what is best for the States? Why 
not let the State legislatures have the ability to make some of these 
decisions? And then when we are given that chance, we say, ``Not you, 
not you, State legislature, not this particular one.'' Actually, this 
other one, this other one, this other one--actually, not any of the 50 
legislatures are smart enough to do the work that the U.S. Senate can 
do without hearings, without debates and without any kind of a markup 
on a piece of legislation on the day we come back to work.
  Well, Mr. President, those who vote to go forward with this bill, I 
ask this question of them; maybe their State legislatures, maybe their 
State press could ask this question: Of those who vote to go forward 
with this, are you willing to go back to your State legislature and say 
that on a piece of legislation that overrides their work, you are 
willing to vote to do that, even though there have been no hearings on 
this bill, even though there has been no debate in committee, even 
though there is no report saying what it does? You are willing to on an 
act of faith, because the Republican leadership said we have to do this 
this week, because we have nothing else to do, you are willing to 
override the efforts of your State legislature? I wonder how many 
Senators are willing to go back home and say that. I am not. I have too 
much respect for the Vermont Legislature to do that. I think our 
general assembly can make this determination.
  So I encourage my friend from Georgia, and others, maybe we can sit 
down together and try to put together a good piece of legislation, as 
the Congressman from Illinois, Mr. Porter, has done in the other body, 
to find a way to do this without trampling on our States.
  I understand there is some concern in the Republican leadership 
knowing that all Americans had to file their taxes on April 15 because 
the law requires it, but the Republican leadership in the House and the 
Senate did not bring forth a budget on April 15, as the law also 
requires. Maybe we should talk about other things, and with the 
sterling example of the President and Mrs. Clinton, of President and 
Mrs. Bush, of President and Mrs. Carter or President Ford or Mrs. 
Reagan and others, General Powell, who went to Philadelphia, why not 
just jump on this bandwagon because, politically, who can be against 
some idea of protecting volunteers? That is not the issue.
  The issue is, do we draw it so broadly that we bring in organizations 
like the Ku Klux Klan that every single one of us in this body oppose? 
Do we draw it so broadly that we just knock down our State legislatures 
and say, ``You're immaterial because we 100 Members of the Senate, in 
our collective wisdom, know a lot more than you do?'' Do we draw it so 
broadly that we do not think of the rights of all individuals, not just 
a volunteer organization, but the rights of all individuals? Do we give 
blanket immunity to organizations we do not intend to, like hospitals 
and others?
  These are questions that should be asked if we have a hearing, but 
these are the questions that will never be answered if we continue with 
what I find a very, very disturbing trend in this country to rush major 
pieces of legislation to the floor with no hearings, no debate and then 
just ask us to vote on it, especially when we do not have time to 
fulfill the backlog in the Senate Judiciary on judges. Chief Justice 
Rehnquist said we have a real crisis because we have about 100 
vacancies in the Federal courts, and yet we have only filled two of 
those in 4 months.

  We have taken several vacations, but we have not had time to fill 
more than two. We have almost a zero population growth in the Federal 
judiciary. We have not found time to have a minute of debate on the 
budget, even though the law requires it by April 15. We have a number 
of other Cabinet officials, from Alexis Herman on, to be blocked. But 
suddenly we have time to rush forward something that just slaps down 
our 50 State legislatures, tells them they do not know enough, 
certainly do not know as much as we do. And we are rushing through with 
no hearings and no debate. I think we should find a better way to do 
it.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum. I am sorry, I see the Senator from 
Georgia on his feet. I did not realize that. I reserve the remainder of 
my time.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I am going to yield in a moment up to 10 minutes to 
the Senator from Alabama, but I would just make two or three very quick 
points.
  No. 1, I believe the issues before us have been thoroughly debated 
over the last decade. This is not a piece of new legislation. No one in 
this body is surprised by any of the language in it.
  No. 2, this language preempts the assertion that the other side has 
made that it would have protections for an organization like the Ku 
Klux Klan. That is just not so, as has been stated by myself and the 
Senator from Missouri.
  No. 3, yes, it is an adjunct to the summit in Philadelphia. Here we 
had a bipartisan expression of Republican and Democrat Presidents 
calling on America to reinforce voluntarism, and it is an appropriate 
response. Yes, this is linked to that summit. It would be highly 
appropriate to respond aggressively to freeing up the American 
volunteer from a cloud hanging over his or her head.
  Mr. President, I now yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I take the floor today to offer my support as a cosponsor of S. 543, 
the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997.
  As this week's volunteer summit clearly shows, there is a need 
throughout America for the kinds of services that are offered by 
selfless volunteers who are applying their time, their skills, and 
their labor toward bettering the lives of others.
  Regrettably, however, the fear of lawsuits has become so pervasive 
that many people fail to follow through on their charitable impulses, 
or the charities themselves decide not to take on activities because of 
the fear of litigation. The legislation being discussed today will go a 
long way toward removing this artificial barrier to individual service.
  I would also like to congratulate the drafters of the bill, Senator 
Coverdell in particular, for recognizing the need to take this 
corrective action. In my own experience as a member of various boards 
and commissions for charitable organizations, I have witnessed 
firsthand the difficulties these organizations face in recruiting 
volunteers to undertake worthwhile activities. Fear of lawsuits is one 
of these reasons.
  I remind my colleagues that there was a time in American tort law 
when the doctrine of charitable immunity would have isolated many of 
the individuals subjected to lawsuits today from this type of 
liability. This doctrine was based in large part on the public policy 
premise that a society is bettered in the long run not by creating 
barriers to volunteer activity but, instead, by encouraging volunteer 
action. In recent years, this fundamental policy principle has been 
undermined.
  I think it is time for this body to begin to address this problem. 
Few people will deny the need for unpaid, selfless volunteers in our 
society. These highly motivated individuals often will tackle problems 
that would have been impractical for anyone else, including the 
Government, to take on. In its purest form, every individual action 
taken by a volunteer in one area allows scarce resources to be used 
somewhere else. The efficient use of volunteers allows us to have more 
bang for our charitable buck.
  These efficiencies and cost savings are being undermined, however, in 
higher insurance premiums and legal fees. Senators Abraham, Coverdell, 
and McConnell pointed out this fact recently in a newspaper article. In 
their article they cite the example of a Little League baseball league 
that had its liability premiums go from $75 to $795 in just 5 years.
  I have been involved in Little League baseball. My son has played, 
and I have

[[Page S3773]]

coached. I know how hard those individuals work to sell hamburgers and 
hot dogs and peanuts to make money to buy ball caps and uniforms. These 
kinds of insurance rates are really detrimental to the public spirit in 
America--and the rate increases are driven by lawsuits.
  I believe that this bill will strengthen the role of both volunteers 
and nonprofit organizations. It restores common sense to the way our 
courts treat volunteers by protecting them from tort liability for 
simple acts of negligence. It also retains penalties for egregious 
activities such as sexual abuse and hate crimes and civil rights 
violations. Individuals who commit these kinds of acts will still be 
subject to lawsuits.
  It will not protect people who have done acts under the influence of 
drugs or alcohol, so that volunteers who commit illegal acts or 
improper acts under the influence of alcohol will still be liable. And, 
although the individual volunteer may not be liable for compensatory 
damages, the organizations who are utilizing the volunteer's services 
would remain liabile to compensate injured parties who have been 
wronged.
  I support this bill's limitation on punitive damages. Under this bill 
punitive damages may not be awarded unless a claimant demonstrates 
through clear and convincing evidence--it is not impossible evidence; 
just clear and convincing evidence--that the harm arising from the 
actions of a volunteer was the result of conduct that was either 
willful or criminal in nature or that showed a genuine indifference to 
the safety of others.
  By raising the legal bar for the award of punitive damages, we will 
accomplish two goals. We will help ensure that only the conduct that 
truly deserves such a penalty will be punished and we will reduce the 
amount of punitive damages awarded, thereby freeing up resources to be 
used for more productive purposes.
  The bill's elimination of joint and several liability for noneconomic 
losses, such as pain and suffering, will advance these goals as well.
  Let me say this, Mr. President. There has been a suggestion that the 
Ku Klux Klan would be covered under this bill. I do not believe that is 
correct. I do not believe the Klan would be covered by the definition 
of a charitable organization under this bill. I certainly would not 
want it to be covered. But in any case, in any circumstance, actions 
that are willful and unlawful would remain, under this bill, subject to 
lawsuits and punitive damages.
  I had the opportunity, as U.S. attorney, to be involved in 
prosecuting a number of Klan members for an illegal action. It resulted 
in the death of a young black man for no other reason than because of 
his race. One of those individuals is serving life without parole and 
another one is on death row today. As U.S. attorney, just last year, 
that death sentence was upheld by the Eleventh Circuit Court of 
Appeals. I expect, as months go by, that he will be brought forward to 
execution, as he should be.
  Arising out of that case, under the leadership of one of America's 
most capable lawyers, Morris Dees, a civil lawsuit was filed against 
the Klan. It resulted in the winning of that lawsuit because of the 
Klan's policies that encouraged violence. That organization itself was 
held responsible for the criminal actions of its members. As a result 
of that action, the Klan headquarters was forfeited and sold for the 
benefit of the family that suffered death in that case.
  I will just say this, Mr. President. That lawsuit would not be 
prohibited by this bill, because it was illegal and a part of a hate 
crime. The activities that gave rise to that lawsuit are exempted from 
the protections offered by this bill. Those kinds of lawsuits would 
continue. It is disturbing to me to see individuals take this floor and 
suggest that a bill designed to protect people's charitable impulses, 
to allow them to participate freely in helping other people without 
fear of being sued, that that would somehow be a bill designed to 
protect that despicable organization, the Ku Klux Klan. I think that it 
is unfortunate that that suggestion has been made. It is not true and 
is not a legitimate basis to object to this bill.

  Finally, I support the bill's respect for federalism. The inclusion 
of the State opt-out provision in this bill recognizes the role of 
individual States in setting the statutory boundaries of their own tort 
laws when citizens of the same State are the only parties to an action. 
States can opt out of this if they choose. It does not mandate that 
they concur in these activities.
  So again, I would like to encourage my colleagues to support this 
bill. It is good legislation which will serve to reinvigorate the 
volunteer spirit that has been a traditional component of the American 
character.
  There have been a number of shows and studies and reports done on 
Alexis de Tocqueville and his travels throughout America. One of the 
things he was most struck by was the volunteer community spirit of 
America. That is a good spirit. The President, former President Bush, 
Gen. Colin Powell, and others recognized that just this weekend. We 
need to make sure that the laws of this country are supportive and 
conducive to the volunteer spirit. I think we have lost some of that 
protection. It needs to be restored.
  I congratulate Senators Coverdell, Abraham, and McConnell for their 
efforts. I look forward to having the opportunity to vote for this 
bill's final passage.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. I want to thank the Senator from Alabama for his 
outstanding remarks, and I appreciate his support of the measure, 
particularly in light of his experience. I commend him for his 
involvement in this important concept to help promote volunteering and 
to help foster and encourage the better impulses we have to help each 
other. That is what this bill is about.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. My understanding is there are 36 minutes left on the time 
controlled by Senator Leahy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be 
allocated as follows: That I be allowed to speak for 14 minutes; the 
Senator from the State of Washington, Senator Murray, for 14 minutes; 
the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, for 8 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________