[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 53 (Tuesday, April 29, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3778-S3781]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          VOLUNTEER PROTECTION ACT OF 1997--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the motion to proceed.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes of our 
allotted time to the distinguished Senator from Kentucky.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me start by thanking my friend and 
colleague from Georgia, Senator Coverdell, for his leadership on this 
important issue this year.
  As the principal cosponsor of this bill in the previous Congresses, I 
am excited about the fact it is on the agenda and has an excellent 
chance of becoming law.
  My wife Elaine, who many of my colleagues know is former head of the 
United Way of America, was up at the volunteer conference yesterday in 
Philadelphia and there is no question that the timing of this could not 
be better. I commend my colleague from Georgia and the majority leader 
for scheduling this important piece of legislation during the volunteer 
conference, obviously making it easier for more and more Americans to 
contribute their time to others. It is something that ought to be a 
high priority in America in 1997.
  Unfortunately, volunteer service has become a high-risk venture. Our 
sue happy legal culture has ensnarled those selfless individuals who 
help worthy organizations and institutions through volunteer service. 
They try to do good and end up risking their fortunes. These lawsuits 
are proof that no good deed goes unpunished. In order to relieve 
volunteers from this unnecessary and unfair burden of liability, I am 
pleased to join in the reintroduction of the Volunteer Protection Act. 
I am particularly happy it is being considered today.
  The litigation craze is hurting the spirit of voluntarism that is an 
integral part of our American society. From school chaperons to Girl 
Scout and Boy Scout troop leaders to Big Brothers and Big Sisters, 
volunteers, as we all know, perform invaluable services for our 
society. At no time is this value more evident than right now where 
organizations like the Red Cross are making such a big difference for 
the victims in flood ravaged North Dakota, just like they did for the 
folks in my home State of Kentucky during the floods there earlier this 
year.
  So how do we thank the volunteers? All too often we drag them into 
court and subject them to needless and unfair lawsuits. The end result: 
too many people pointing fingers and too few offering a helping hand. 
Even Little League volunteers face major league liabilities.
  In February 1995, Dr. Creighton Hale, the CEO of Little League 
Baseball, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that Little League had in 
fact turned into ``litigation league.'' He pointed out that in one 
instance two youngsters collided in the outfield, picked themselves up, 
dusted themselves off, and then sued the coach. In another case, a 
woman won a cash settlement when she was struck by a ball that a player 
failed to catch. Incidentally, the player was her own daughter.
  It is sometimes difficult to quantify exactly how much of an 
organization's

[[Page S3779]]

time and money is spent on liability protection. But the Girl Scouts 
have been able to put it into terms we can all understand. The 
executive director of the Girl Scout Council of Washington, here in the 
District of Columbia, said in a February 1995 letter that ``locally, we 
must sell 87,000 boxes of Girl Scout cookies each year to pay our 
liability insurance.''
  Very simply, this bill protects volunteers who act within the scope 
of their responsibilities--within the scope of their responsibilities--
who are properly licensed or certified where necessary, and some places 
require that, and, third, who do not act in a willful, criminal or 
grossly negligent fashion.
  We are not trying to insulate from liability those who may act in a 
wanton way. Let me emphasize this bill does not create immunity for the 
organizations themselves or for volunteers who act, as I said, in a 
willful or grossly negligent manner.
  Let me also point out that our bill clearly spells out that there is 
no protection for individuals who commit hate crimes or violent crimes 
or who violate the civil rights of others. So the opponents of the 
volunteer protection bill who claim that this is a KKK bill are simply 
engaging in fear mongering and demagoguery at its worst. This is a bill 
about protecting our volunteers. That is what it is about, nothing more 
and nothing less. This bill creates a minimum standard for volunteer 
protection and then allows the States to add further refinements and 
protections to that standard.
  In short, the bill gives States flexibility. It strikes a balance 
between the federalism interests on the one hand and the need to 
protect volunteers from unfair and unnecessary litigation on the other. 
Specifically, any of the following State law provisions would be--I say 
would be--consistent with our bill.
  First, a requirement that the organization or entity be accountable 
for the actions of its volunteers in the same way that an employer is 
liable for the acts of its employees.
  Second, an exemption from liability protection in the event that the 
volunteer is using a motor vehicle or similar instrument.
  Third, a requirement that liability protection applies only if the 
nonprofit organization or Government entity provides a financially 
secure source of recovery such as an insurance policy for those who 
suffer harm.
  Fourth, a requirement that the organization or entity adhere to risk 
management procedures including the training of volunteers.
  Now, none of those would be inconsistent with our bill should they be 
the standards adopted by a given State. The bottom line: liability 
problems for volunteers is a national problem that deserves a national 
solution--a national problem that cries out for a national solution. My 
state of Kentucky just experienced devastating floods. During those 
floods, we also experienced an outpouring of compassion from volunteers 
all across the country. The volunteers were not just from Kentucky. 
They were from Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, just to name a few States from 
which people came to help us out in Kentucky. If a Red Cross volunteer 
from Ohio wants to cross the bridge and come into northern Kentucky and 
help on our flood relief, they cannot just put on their coat and boots 
and go to Kentucky. They need to do some legal research first. They 
need to do a survey of Kentucky and Ohio law to see if volunteers are 
protected and to what extent they are protected. Voluntarism is 
obviously a national issue and volunteers regularly and repeatedly 
cross State lines to help their neighbors.
  That is why, among other reasons, this is a national problem calling 
out for a national solution. I urge my colleagues to move forward on 
this bill. The volunteer summit in Philadelphia is a testament to our 
country's strong efforts in this regard. And we think that clearly this 
is the time for action.
  Today, in the cooperative spirit of the President's summit, I would 
ask our colleagues to set aside our differences on other issues like 
labor issues. I also would respectfully ask my colleagues not to try to 
suggest that this bill is about anything other than what it is about. 
It is not about the Ku Klux Klan. It is about protecting American 
volunteers.
  I am amazed, I might say further, Mr. President, how one day we are 
criticized for moving too slowly and the next day we are criticized for 
moving too fast. It is pretty difficult here to figure out exactly what 
avoids criticism. These criticisms appear to be nothing more than 
attempts to divert this legislation which is obviously good for 
volunteers and good for our country.
  Let me just summarize. What we are talking about here is a national 
problem crying out for a national solution to make it more possible for 
American volunteers to go to the assistance of their neighbors. We are 
bringing this bill up in the middle of the national summit in 
Philadelphia to encourage voluntarism and some are saying we are moving 
too fast. This bill has been around for quite a while. I offered a 
measure similar to this in 1991, I believe it was. It got about 31 
votes. But times have changed. There is a growing awareness that legal 
reform of a variety of different sorts is important to our country, and 
we are starting in this area with the volunteer protection bill because 
it is timely, it is important, and this is obviously the time to move 
forward.
  So let me conclude by thanking my good friend from Georgia for his 
leadership on this important issue. I hope we will soon be past the 
motion to proceed and well onto sending this legislation down to the 
President for signature.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am going to consume about 1 minute, so I 
would ask the Chair to keep an eye on the clock for me so that I leave 
time for my colleague from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At the current time, all the Democratic time 
has been divided between Senator Harkin and Senator Wellstone.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Each Senator has 2 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will yield 1 of my minutes to the Senator from 
Connecticut and tell him that he owes me big time forever.
  Mr. DODD. I owe him 1\1/2\ minutes, a minute with interest.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. As a former Peace Corps volunteer and someone who was a Big 
Brother and served on the national board of Big Brothers, I commend the 
effort to focus attention on the Philadelphia conference. I would like 
to make note of the fact, we are 6 months almost to the day since 
election day and still there is a chair vacant around the Cabinet 
table, that of the Secretary of Labor. This is a critically important 
issue to millions of people, a substantive issue that must be addressed 
immediately. My hope is that the leadership would see to it this week 
that we would vote. Vote against Alexis Herman if people wish but give 
her the opportunity to be confirmed or not confirmed. Give us a chair 
at that Cabinet table for the millions of people representing 
management and labor. So I urge that the leadership move on this issue. 
We brought up this issue. I understand that. But the confirmation of 
the Secretary of Labor 6 months after the election is long overdue.
  I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, this is blatant politics at its worst. Alexis Herman 
was voted unanimously out of the Labor and Human Resources Committee. 
She is eminently well qualified. This is an extremely important 
position to working people, to working families. We have a lot of 
important legislation before us--the TEAM Act, comptime, flextime. We 
are supposed to be focusing on living wage jobs and educational 
opportunities for our citizens. The Secretary of Labor is a critical 
position. She should not be held hostage. If the majority party does 
not like an action taken by the administration, then oppose that 
action, but do not hold Alexis Herman hostage. Free her. Let her become 
Secretary of Labor and let her serve working families all across this 
country.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to go on but I think I used up my minute.

[[Page S3780]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute of our time to the 
distinguished Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Georgia.
  I actually think that I was able to do this in a minute. Again, I 
think that it really behooves the Senate to move forward on this 
nomination. I do not think the Senate looks good as an institution. I 
think people really do not like this kind of inside politics where a 
particular party--in this case it is the majority party--does not agree 
with a particular policy or particular action taken by the President or 
the executive branch and then chooses to hold someone else, in this 
particular case Alexis Herman, hostage. It is not the way we should be 
conducting our business. It is not fair to her, an eminently well 
qualified candidate to serve our country and, quite frankly, it is not 
fair to families all across Minnesota and all across the Nation that 
are focused on good jobs, education, and safe workplaces. These are 
workaday issues. This is the Secretary of Labor--6 months without a 
Secretary of Labor. Again, do not hold her hostage. Free her and let us 
move forward. If my colleagues want to vote against her, vote against 
her, but she deserves a vote in this Chamber.

  I thank my colleague from Georgia for his graciousness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 19 minutes and 40 seconds.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield myself up to 5 minutes of my 
own time.
  Mr. President, of course, the matter before the Senate is the 
Volunteer Protection Act which we had hoped would be a response to an 
historic bipartisan summit on voluntarism. The Volunteer Protection Act 
is designed to stop a circumstance developing in our country where 
volunteers are frightened to participate in the 600,000 volunteer 
organizations for fear that by participating they will have put their 
family and their family's assets at risk.
  In the American Bar Association's section of business law recently a 
very balanced article occurs about the subject. It says:

       An analysis of the laws around the Nation uncovers two 
     important facts.

  This is not exactly a partisan outfit.

       Many volunteers remain fully liable for any harm they cause 
     and all volunteers remain liable for some actions. Prior to 
     1980, the number of significant lawsuits filed against 
     volunteers might have been counted on one hand--

  Prior to 1980, lawsuits directed at volunteers could be counted on 
one hand--

     with fingers left over. But that all changed in the mid 
     1980's as several suits against volunteers attracted national 
     media attention. Besides accounts of lawsuits against 
     coaches, one of the most frequently publicized cases involved 
     a California mountain rescue team which evacuated a climber 
     who had injured his spine in a fall. The man later sued for 
     $12 million alleging that rescuers' negligence had caused him 
     to become paralyzed. With stories like this getting big play, 
     volunteers were suddenly worrying about the possibility of 
     personal liability.
  In other words, stepping forward, being a good Samaritan, and then 
having your family's assets all at risk.
  To meet the cost of higher insurance premiums, some nonprofit 
organizations cut back on services, that is, less attention to helping 
the elderly, the poor, and the children of our Nation. Others went 
without insurance, increasing the risk that an injured party would sue 
the organization's volunteers in search of a deep pocket.
  As publicity about the lawsuits and insurance crunch raised 
volunteers' apprehension, their willingness to serve waned. Even though 
reports of actual judgments against volunteers remain scarce, the 
specter of a multimillion-dollar claim cast a deep shadow--and this is 
the point. This is not a 300-page bill. This bill is 12 pages long, 
double spaced. This is not rocket science law. This does not require 15 
years of hearings. This bill is very simple. It begins to protect the 
volunteer from simple mistakes or errors or omissions, not from gross 
negligence. It does not protect hate organizations. It is 
disappointing, to say the least, that an attempt to respond to four 
Presidents, two Republican and two Democrat, calling on America to step 
forward, and trying to aid and abet that by a very narrowly focused 
proposition that says when they do step forward, they are not stepping 
forward in front of a gun; they are free to step forward and volunteer 
without being unnaturally and unduly threatened from frivolous lawsuits 
or from an effort to seek a deep pocket.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 5 minutes of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. COVERDELL. In that I have consumed these 5 minutes in an effort 
to protect those coming to speak, I suggest the absence of a quorum. As 
I understand it, that will be equally divided, but it will fall on our 
time when theirs has expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will come out of the time of the Senator 
from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will 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, I see I have been joined by the 
distinguished senior Senator from Texas. In an effort to leave him as 
much of the remainder of the time--how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 12 minutes, 45 seconds.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Twelve minutes remaining, and I yield as much time as 
necessary to the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, there has been an extended debate here this 
morning about many different issues, about confirmation of Presidential 
nominees and about the protection of hate groups. What I would like to 
do is to get back to the point of this bill, to get back to a 
definition of what we are trying to achieve, what kind of safeguards we 
have in the bill, and to explain why it is critically important that we 
support this legislation.
  The distinguished Senator from Georgia and those who have cosponsored 
his bill--and I am proud to be one of them--believe in voluntarism. We 
believe that there is no Government substitute for people being engaged 
in and trying to participate in the activities of their own 
communities. We do not believe there is any Government program that can 
substitute for genuine volunteers.
  The President, numerous past Presidents, and General Powell are 
engaged at this very moment in trying to promote voluntarism. I see the 
bill of the Senator from Georgia as being a complement to that effort.
  First, let me try to define the problem. When I was coaching little 
league football 25 years ago, I never thought about the fact that I 
might be liable had some player who was playing for me been hurt. I 
never thought about the liability implications because 25 years ago, at 
least in the very active central Texas league I coached in for 3 years, 
to my knowledge we never had a lawsuit filed against any volunteer.

  The problem is that the world has changed dramatically in the last 25 
years. It is now commonplace for volunteers who are trying to help 
people, for no pay, taking time away from their businesses, their 
professions and their families, to end up being attacked in a lawsuit. 
Furthermore, the volunteer frequently has very little, if any, 
involvement in the incident, has very little responsibility for the 
harm that has been alleged, and yet is often the only one with deep 
pockets.
  Let me just give an example that I think is pretty easy to envision. 
Assume you have a volunteer working at a boys and girls club. Let us 
assume that the volunteer is working at the front entrance, checking 
people in as they come in to participate in the activities. This 
volunteer is critically important because, in trying to conserve the 
money we raise for the boys and girls club, we can hold down our costs 
if we can use volunteers.
  The problem that Senator Coverdell is trying to deal with is the 
following: You have a volunteer working at the front door checking 
people in. You have a professional staff person working in the back of 
the facility, say the

[[Page S3781]]

weight room, who might not be providing sufficient supervision and as a 
result some young person who is lifting weights, drops the weights on 
his leg, breaks his leg, and sues.
  The professional employee at the boys club probably does not have 
deep pockets. The boys club of Bryan-College Station, where I am from, 
is not a rich organization. But the volunteer, working in the front, 
who by definition of being a volunteer is able to give their time 
voluntarily might have substantial assets. Under Texas law, they could 
be held liable. In this situation, you might end up having a volunteer, 
who never went into the weight room and who simply was there helping 
check people in, be the only one with deep pockets. Some knowledgeable 
and aggressive lawyer could end up suing the volunteer for something 
they had nothing to do with.
  Here is what the Coverdell bill does, and it does it very simply. No. 
1, it recognizes the contributions that volunteers make and defines the 
reason we want to encourage voluntarism. Then it sets out some very 
simple principles about liability. That is, it relieves volunteers from 
liability for harm caused if: No. 1, the volunteer was acting within 
the scope of their responsibility; No. 2, if a license or training was 
required for the job the volunteer was doing and the volunteer indeed 
had the license or the required training; and, No. 3, if the harm was 
not caused by willful or criminal misconduct or gross negligence.
  So, it sets out some simple common-sense criteria which requires that 
volunteers meet the training requirements and to be carrying out their 
function for which they volunteered in a responsible manner. The bill 
also bars the awarding of punitive damages against a volunteer and, in 
a very important provision of the law, it sets out proportional 
liability for noneconomic damages. Under this bill, if you have a 
volunteer who has deep pockets and who is simply checking people in at 
the front of the building, and has nothing to do with what is going on 
in other parts of the building, then if a lawsuit should be filed, they 
could be liable only for an amount proportionate to their involvement 
in causing the harm.
  In addition, there are many safeguards in this bill which have been 
discussed at some length in this debate. States have the ability to opt 
out of this if they choose to do so. I do not believe they will choose 
to do this because basically what we are trying to do in this bill is 
to encourage voluntarism by limiting liability, by assuring people that 
if they are willing to put up their time and their talent and their 
money to help other people, and if they are willing to volunteer to try 
to help their community, as long as they do their job in a reasonable 
and responsible manner, then they are not going to end up being dragged 
into a courtroom.
  I want to address one part of the opposition to this bill. This is a 
very tiny step, in my opinion, in the right direction toward legal 
liability reform. This is a tiny step in the direction of beginning to 
do something about runaway litigation in America. I believe that the 
opposition to this bill really springs from those who do not want any 
limits on legal liability. I would just simply ask my colleagues to 
look at the limited nature of this bill, to look at the fact that 
America is a great beneficiary from volunteer activity by our citizens, 
and that one thing that has tended to happen as Government has done 
more and more is that volunteers have been crowded out into doing less 
and less in our communities. I believe that we are all losers for that 
decline in voluntarism.
  People who, 25 years ago, routinely volunteered to do things, now, in 
some cases, fear to do them because of legal liability. Two weeks ago I 
visited a school, a charter school in Texas, called the Dallas CAN 
Academy. This was the first charter school in my State. It is run 
almost exclusively by volunteers.
  It has a very small professional staff which runs a mentoring program 
where business and professional people come in and serve as mentors to 
kids who have dropped out of school because they have had some sort of 
problem. These kids have come back to this special charter school and, 
with the mentoring program, in about 80 percent of the cases are able 
to graduate from high school--and a not insignificant number of them 
end up going on to college. The secret of this program is voluntarism.
  This little program in Dallas, TX, pays $15,000 a year in liability 
insurance to protect its volunteers. That is $15,000 a year that could 
go to helping kids. That is $15,000 a year that might make it possible 
for 15, 20, 30, or 50 more kids to graduate from high school and to 
have an opportunity to get on the playing field of life.
  What the Coverdell bill will do is, by setting standards of reason 
and responsibility, it will dramatically reduce the liability cost of 
this charter school. It will make it easier to get people to coach 
youth soccer and little league. It will get more people involved, and I 
can say as a person who was very actively involved in volunteering in 
youth sports when I was a college professor, that the volunteer gets 
more out of it than the people who are the beneficiaries of 
voluntarism.
  We are trying to make it possible for millions of Americans to help 
tens of millions of Americans, but the benefits do not just go to the 
people who are the targets of this voluntarism, the benefits go to the 
people who volunteer as well. The Coverdell bill tries to limit a real 
impediment to voluntarism. The legal costs of people being liable for 
things they did not cause is driving away hundreds of thousands of 
volunteers.
  I want to congratulate Senator Coverdell. This is a very important 
bill, and I hope our colleagues will not let this whole political issue 
of legal liability and the interests of lawyers versus people who are 
sued interfere with what is a straightforward, reasonable, and limited 
bill. I strongly urge that this bill be adopted.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas once 
again for making a very cogent statement on this piece of important 
legislation. I thank him for coming to the floor.
  How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I yield the balance of my time to the Senator from 
Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has 1 minute.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent to have 5 minutes in morning 
business rather than taking from Senator Coverdell's time. So if the 
Senator wants to finish on his bill for a minute, then I would like to 
ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I yield back my time.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 5 
minutes in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.

                          ____________________