[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 53 (Tuesday, April 29, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3784-S3797]
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, just for clarification, before the 
Senate is a motion to proceed to S. 543. I would like to clarify for my 
colleagues, given the scope of the legislation, the importance of it, 
and timeliness of it, I am not eager to turn the aftermath of this 
cloture vote into a time that we substitute for morning business. I 
hope the remarks--and we, of course, sanctioned the previous remarks of 
the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Rhode Island--but I would 
be inclined to object to remarks for the next hour or so, not relating 
to the subject before the Senate.
  Mr. President, I might continue then, for a moment. The time for this 
debate ran out before our lunch recess. I was commenting on an article, 
a very balanced article that appeared in the ABA section of Business 
Law, with regard to what the Voluntary Protection Act is trying to 
accomplish. I had just read this point, that ``As publicity about 
lawsuits and the insurance crunch raised volunteers' apprehension, 
their willingness to serve waned.''
  The point is, we have documented evidence that a growing number of 
citizens in our country who have traditionally engaged in something 
that is uniquely American, it truly is--and I might add that as a 
former Director of the U.S. Peace Corps I had a chance to witness this 
and listen to it and hear it reiterated around the world--that 
voluntarism, as we describe it in America, is unique and it is an 
invaluable treasure for American people.
  Here we have a situation that developed in the 1980's, where, 
suddenly, lawsuits directed at a volunteer, in search of more financial 
means or whatever, became highly publicized. So, obviously, it made a 
good Samaritan, somebody trying to step forward, someone trying to be a 
good American, nevertheless conscious of his or her prudent 
responsibility to protect their family, to protect the assets and the 
valuables that were there for the security of their family. As much as 
they wanted to volunteer, they had to suddenly be aware of, ``Is this a 
threat to my own family?''
  I mentioned earlier this morning Terry Orr, who played for the 
Washington Redskins, was in the Capitol the other day and recounted the 
experience of joining the team and of senior players immediately taking 
him and putting him in the breach, so to speak, of voluntarism. It is 
something he wanted to do. Then, as his career grew and he matured in 
it, he turned to the rookies coming behind him and said: ``Look, this 
is important work for the youth of the Capitol city.'' And he was 
struck by the response.
  The response was, ``What is my liability? Am I putting my family at 
risk here?'' It was a whole new sequence or reaction to asking for 
volunteers. That is what this sentence means, ``As publicity about the 
lawsuits and insurance crunch raised volunteers' apprehension, their 
willingness to serve waned.''
  This 12-page piece of legislation--this is not a 1,500-page bill. 
This is not overhaul of Medicare. It is 12 pages. Its effort is 
directed at putting some protective buffer around people who want to 
step forward and be volunteers and reduce the level of fear that they 
would have with regard to the welfare of their own family.
  It goes on to say, ``Even though reports of actual judgments against 
volunteers remain scarce, the specter of a multimillion dollar claim 
casts a deep shadow.'' So what is being said here is you do not have to 
have a lot of judgments. You do not have to have a litany of cases that 
go against volunteers. You only have to have the specter or possibility 
of the risk to be public, and suddenly the volunteers are very, very 
cautious about what they do and what they do not do.

  ``Several surveys conducted during this period revealed that many 
organizations suffered board resignations''--which is what we alluded 
to earlier today--``and volunteer recruitment difficulties''--which I 
just talked about in the case of Washington Redskin player Terry Orr. 
``The lawyer on the board, a nonprofit's staff role, was often the 
first to resign.'' I have experienced this myself. My guess is the 
President has experienced this issue.
  I told this story earlier today--over the weekend, I was down at 
Robins Air Force base and it was raining badly. So we were trying to 
get from the aircraft to the car. I misjudged where the corner of the 
car door was, which is what has caused this mark across my forehead. As 
I got on in the car, the Air Force Colonel say, ``Gosh, I hope you are 
not going to sue the Air Force.'' Which is just--it permeates our 
society, the question of fear of lawsuits.

       Faced with the prospect of charitable organizations closing 
     their doors and potential volunteers staying home, 
     legislators sought to offer protective warmth from the chill 
     of potential liability. On the national level, U.S. 
     Representative John Porter, Illinois, dramatized the problem.

  This is the point I want to make. This morning the other side talked 
about how suddenly this new idea was thrust on the Senate. It had not 
had the appropriate length of debate or hearings and that sort of 
thing. Like this is a new idea that has been around. Listen to this:
  ``On the national level, U.S. Representative John Porter, Republican, 
Illinois, dramatized the problem in 1985''--Let's see, now, that is 12 
years ago--``by assigning bill number 911 to his proposed Volunteer 
Protection Act.'' Eleven years ago, and Lord knows how many thousands 
of volunteers who have not shown up in the 12 years, or how many 
hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent in an effort to try to 
respond to this that therefore did not go to help a child, an elderly 
person, a sick person, a person that has suffered from one of these 
floods that we have been talking about earlier today? Who knows how 
many people have not volunteered for that board or went out and coached 
Little League Baseball? Good grief, 1985, for a very narrowly defined 
effort to protect this unique quality in American government--or in 
American life, the volunteer.
  ``His proposal,'' Mr. Porter's, ``was a Federal bill designed to spur 
State adoption of volunteer protection laws. As has been mentioned by 
the other side, in 1990, President Bush released a model act and called 
for State-by-State adoption. By then, though, each State legislator had 
already addressed the matter at least once and few were eager to tackle 
it again.''
  The other side tried to allude to a lapse on our side of our role in 
federalism. They were suggesting we had forgotten our interest in State 
management of issues. But, as Senator McConnell said when he came to 
the floor, this is a national issue. It has State ramifications, but it 
is a national issue. These hundreds of organizations, some of which I 
cited this morning that are supporting the Volunteer Protection Act, 
are national organizations and they are looking for national relief. 
They are interactive across State borders. They are dealing with 
organizations who represent multistate jurisdictions. Then it goes on 
to say, this article: ``The blame falls largely on the patchwork nature 
of volunteer protection laws, which vary tremendously throughout the 
United States. To facilitate analysis and comparison, the

[[Page S3785]]

nonprofit risk management center compiled them in a publication.''

  The article draws on that analysis. Mr. President, the Volunteer 
Protection Act does recognize the role of the States. And in those 
cases in which all the parties are of a single State, the State has the 
option and authority to opt out of this legislation if the case is at 
all related to citizens of the same State.
  It also allows the States laws that are more protective of the 
volunteers to stay, in effect, without change or preemption. But this 
article itself points very directly at the difficulties faced by the 
patchwork nature of volunteer protection laws as they exist today.
  Mr. President, I am going to yield the floor. I see the Senator from 
Indiana has arrived and would like to comment on the legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for 
yielding and, more important, thank him for his leadership on this 
issue. I listened, as the Presiding Officer for the past hour, to his 
remarks about the irony of the voluntarism conference taking place in 
Philadelphia at the same time the U.S. Senate is attempting to secure 
approval to go ahead and debate--not vote on but just debate--the 
passage of legislation that will make voluntarism more acceptable to 
the American people and provide an incentive for people to volunteer.
  I had the privilege of being designated as a delegate to that summit 
conference in Philadelphia, and as a delegate attended various 
meetings, shared time with the President and former Presidents who were 
there, along with Colin Powell, and Ray Chambers, and others who were 
instrumental in putting that together.
  The whole thrust of the meeting, the whole thrust of the summit, the 
factor that drew all of our current living Presidents to this summit, 
was the idea that we needed to stimulate and do whatever we could to 
encourage Americans to take a more active role in solving some of the 
problems that our families face and in contributing their time and 
their resources on a volunteer basis to help particularly those in 
need.
  The thrust was directed toward children, children that were falling 
into what we describe as an at-risk category, children without fathers 
at home, children without the opportunities that many children in 
America enjoy.
  The goal--2 million children reached by the year 2000--is an 
ambitious goal, one which will require considerable commitment on the 
part of the American people. Yet a number of organizations were there 
that pledged their commitment to reach that goal, a number of 
corporations pledging their efforts to ensure and help their employees 
participate in reaching that goal, whether it is mentoring a fatherless 
child in an organization like Big Brothers/Big Sisters or working 
through Boys Clubs, Girls Clubs, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, various 
literacy programs, teaching a child to read, juvenile delinquency, drug 
abuse, teen pregnancy, all of these human problems that require not the 
hand of big Government--we have tried that, and it has been wanting--
but involves the personal commitment on the part of individuals working 
with those children.
  One of the most encouraging things about that summit was that there 
was a widespread recognition on the part of people from both parties, 
different points on the ideological spectrum and political spectrum. 
There was a consensus that big Government was not the solution, that 
our, in many cases well-motivated, efforts in the past to reach out 
through the mechanism of Government to address these human needs had 
not succeeded, and that while no one felt comfortable with simply 
absolving ourselves of all responsibility, hoping that the so-called 
free marketplace of social interaction and community support would fill 
the gaps, clearly there was a consensus that the solution did not lie 
in more funding for various Government agencies, more Government 
involvement, but the solution lay in individuals making commitments to 
help kids in need, to help organizations in their communities that were 
helping children in need. And this was a very uplifting occasion.
  As I said, our former Presidents and our current President was there. 
We had Republicans and Democrats speaking from the platform, 
organizations that are doing extraordinary work today in our 
communities all across America. But the bottom line was, in order to 
accomplish the task ahead, we need more volunteers. We need more people 
to commit time to join up with a child in need or a family in need or 
an organization that is there to serve those people in need. We need to 
recognize those who are already making those sacrifices in 
volunteering, and we need to encourage more to do it.
  Anyone who has been involved in volunteer work understands that the 
benefit exceeds the sacrifice, if we can even label it a sacrifice; 
that the recipient of the volunteer's efforts obviously is supported 
and helped; but the rewards, not money rewards, but the intangible 
rewards that come to the volunteer are very, very significant.
  So out of all of this, I am confident, we have come to a time when 
there is a renewed interest in supporting our neighbor, supporting 
those in need, providing effective compassion, expanding the role of 
volunteer community organizations and charitable organizations, 
expanding the role of the church and encouraging its work in dealing 
with some of these problems.
  But one of the key impediments to that involvement of voluntarism 
that we are trying to encourage has been what I would call almost a tax 
on voluntarism. That tax is the result of lawsuits, many of which are 
frivolous, that have been filed against organizations or against boards 
of directors of organizations or of volunteers. It is a discouragement 
and a disincentive for individuals to volunteer.
  The Senator from Georgia referenced that. The first response to a 
bump on the head or a trip on a step is, ``I hope you're not going to 
sue us,'' because we seem to be in a pattern of litigation in what has 
been described as the world's most litigious society. It seems that for 
many the first thought is, ``How can I collect? Who can I sue?'' Well, 
it is one thing if individuals are covered by insurance policies; it is 
another if they either are not covered or those insurance policy 
premiums have risen to the point where organizations are finding it 
difficult to pay the premium.
  Over just the past few years, liability premiums for volunteer 
associations have risen 155 percent. So organizations like Little 
League and Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, volunteer 
fire departments, and all the myriad number of volunteer associations 
and groups that provide so much important help to people in this 
country are finding themselves squeezed, squeezed by higher liability 
premiums, squeezed from their ability to attract people to serve on 
their boards, to attract volunteers to work in the work of the agency.

  We need to recognize that every dollar that is devoted to increased 
liability premiums means that it is a dollar less that goes to meet the 
needs that the organization or the individual is attempting to address.
  Congress has attempted to address this in piecemeal fashion. I was 
proud to lead the effort last year to pass the bill that provided 
liability protection for doctors and nurses that volunteered their time 
to those in poverty that did not have insurance. Senator Santorum 
passed a bill that provided restaurants that donate food to homeless 
shelters, food banks and soup kitchens some protection from liability.
  But essentially what we are talking about here today is a bill that 
would expand the scope of liability protection to the numerous agencies 
and literally hundreds of thousands of volunteers who are not now 
covered or who find that the premiums are prohibitive for liability 
coverage.
  Of course, there are protections in the bill here. We are not 
excusing people from negligence. We are not excusing people for willful 
injuries or criminal misconduct. If a suit is warranted, the suit can 
be brought. But what we are saying is that there ought to be some 
protection against frivolous lawsuits, there ought to be some 
protection against honest mistakes, there ought to be limitations on 
liability to those who actually bear the responsibility for the injury, 
and not this, what we call joint and several liability, that flows to 
every member of the organization, every member of the board

[[Page S3786]]

which allows lawyers to simply find the deepest pockets or the richest 
pockets to sue, and so if one member of a board commits an act which 
warrants an action against that individual, all members of the board 
find themselves involved in the lawsuit.
  As I said, liability insurance can be purchased, but the rising cost 
of that has been prohibitive, and it drains dollars away from the 
central purpose of that organization. In many cases we have people who 
are not covered by insurance, yet they want to volunteer their time.
  Mr. President, just a little bit ago--I think it was just a week or 
so ago--Lynn Swann, who is a former member of the Pittsburgh Steelers 
and is in the National Football League Hall of Fame, testified before 
the House on the impact of increasing insurance premiums and the 
problem of liability coverage for Big Brothers/Big Sisters.
  Lynn Swann is a national spokesperson for Big Brothers/Big Sisters of 
America. I had the privilege of serving on that national board with 
Lynn. He has dedicated an extraordinary amount of time and effort to 
promoting the concept of mentoring and promoting Big Brothers/Big 
Sisters as an organization that has been established now for nearly 100 
years in mentoring children on a one-on-one basis.
  Lynn testified before the House indicating that the inability to pass 
liability coverage for volunteers was providing a disincentive to 
attracting volunteers to be Big Brothers or Big Sisters. Currently, 
there are 100,000 individuals in this country who have volunteered 
their time on a consistent basis--not a one-time only, but a consistent 
basis--to mentor and be a Big Brother or Big Sister to a child from a 
fatherless family, to a child who needs someone to come alongside, to 
be with them, to help them with homework or just to listen to them on 
the phone or to incorporate them in some of their daily activities, to 
be a friend, to be a Big Brother, to be a Big Sister.
  But there are 40,000 young people on the waiting list because we do 
not have enough Big Brothers, Big Sisters to match those on the waiting 
list. One of the reasons is that agencies have not been able to attract 
enough people because people are concerned about frivolous lawsuits or 
liability actions taken against them that they know they are probably 
going to have to pay or settle to some extent just to keep from having 
to spend 2 or 3 or 4 years in court dragged out through an expensive 
legal process.
  So we go back to the original point. At a time when this Nation's 
attention is focused on the concept of voluntarism and how it can 
support those genuinely in need, how it can provide help for children 
at a time when former Democrat and Republican Presidents and our 
current President are meeting in Philadelphia to promote and encourage 
and ask and plead with individuals and corporations and businesses and 
entities in America to do more, the U.S. Senate is voting to not allow 
debate on a strictly--I guess it was strictly a partisan vote. There 
was a clear division between the Republicans and Democrats on this 
issue. They were voting to not even allow debate and amendments to go 
forward to move to final passage of this particular legislation.
  So on the one hand, our Nation's attention is focused on the plea of 
President Clinton, former President Bush, former President Ford, and 
former President Carter to get more involved, to volunteer, to support 
agencies that are reaching out to children in need, calling for 2 
million additional volunteers by the year 2000.
  Yet at the very same time the U.S. Senate is saying, no, we are not 
going to remove impediments to voluntarism, we are not going to adopt 
sensible measures to protect those who give voluntarily of their time 
to serve the needs of our communities and serve the needs of our fellow 
citizens, we are not going to do anything to take away any barriers 
that might be in place that are identified as limiting the size and the 
scope of the volunteer effort.

  It is just such a disconnect, just such an irony that our President 
is in Philadelphia urging us to become more involved in that spirit of 
voluntarism that I was privileged to experience in Philadelphia over 
the last 2 days, and that it is now clouded over with a deep, dark 
cloud that basically says, no, we are going to protect the lawyers, we 
are going to give the lawyers more protection than we are going to give 
the volunteers, we are going to make somebody who volunteers for Girl 
Scouts or Boy Scouts or Big Brothers/Big Sisters or any of a number of 
organizations and wants to give their time to the board, we are going 
to say that you are jointly and severally liable, if somebody on that 
board makes a mistake, we are going after the guy with deep pockets, we 
are going after the guy with all the money.
  So good people who want to give their time and effort to volunteer 
organizations and volunteer help find themselves restricted and limited 
because they may not have control over an individual on a board that 
does something that brings a lawsuit, that allows every member of that 
board to be swept up in that lawsuit.
  We are providing a disincentive to those citizens and volunteers who 
want to give of their time, who want to provide the support that 
children need in this country by saying, ``Do not forget about the 
lawsuit liability. Watch out for the trial lawyers.''
  We are losing people, 40,000 young people on the waiting list for a 
Big Brother or Big Sister, and we cannot reach out to volunteers with 
any assurance that they will be protected from sometimes some of the 
most frivolous, meaningless, but yet effective lawsuits filed against 
them.
  Are we foreclosing the right of someone to go after criminal 
misconduct or willful actions? Absolutely not. That protection is 
provided in the legislation that we are debating. What we are trying to 
do is make it easier for people to be good neighbors, to be good 
citizens. What we are trying to do is to provide a recognition that as 
Government necessarily scales back its effort at providing help for 
humans in need--which has been an extraordinary effort. I am not 
questioning the motivation of those who attempted it. It just simply 
has not produced results.
  There is a recognition across the spectrum now between Democrats and 
Republicans that we need to find better alternatives, that we need to 
support the role of the church, we need to encourage the role of the 
church, parish, and synagogue, of charity, of volunteer charity 
organizations, of volunteer associations, of PTA's, of all of the 
groups that are working now in our community--including the Salvation 
Army, on and on it goes--who want to do more but need help to do more. 
They need our involvement, No. 1. They need our funds, No. 2. But No. 
3, the least we can do is remove an impediment to voluntarism when 
someone's lawyer says better not be involved with that group because, 
as you know, while it is purely a voluntary act, if something happens 
to some member of the board, this whole board can be sued. Every one of 
you will find your name on a summons. Every one of you will find your 
name as defendants in a lawsuit. Every one of you will have to pony up 
for money to pay the attorneys. These guys will squeeze us for years 
until we settle, and maybe there is no liability at all, but we cannot 
afford the time. We cannot afford the ultimate money. So we will simply 
put a settlement out and everybody has to kick in. So people are 
discouraged from exercising some of their best instincts.
  This legislation makes a great deal of sense. I hope my colleagues 
who did not support the cloture motion, the motion to allow us to go 
ahead and proceed with this legislation, I hope they will weigh that 
action against what is taking place in Philadelphia. I hope they will 
take the opportunity, as I just did in our reading room back here, to 
go and look at the stories and pictures in a whole number of newspapers 
from across the country--the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, the 
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Chicago Tribune, and on and on it goes, 
USA Today--on the front page of every paper out there. A lead item on 
all the news stories last night was the Philadelphia summit, the 
President's gathering, organizations pledging, individuals committing 
to a new spirit of voluntarism that, hopefully, will sweep across this 
country, hopefully will reach out to those 40,000 kids and Big Brothers 
and Big Sisters that are waiting for a match that can change their 
life, that can make a difference in their lives. For all those who want 
to expand the board, expand the participation and expand the number of 
volunteers, I

[[Page S3787]]

hope they will go and read the headlines and look at the pictures. I 
hope they will look at the pictures of the kid waiting for the Big 
Brother/Big Sister match, for the involvement of organizations that can 
help their family, for the encouragement of groups like Habitat for 
Humanity and others that are making some an extraordinary difference in 
our world today. We want to do more. We want to do better. We want to 
expand that effort.
  What is stopping us? The trial lawyers--the trial lawyers who will 
not even let us go ahead and debate the bill and vote on the bill. A 
cloture motion has to be filed to prevent a filibuster. Because of a 
strict party-line vote, which escapes me why every member of the other 
party feels it necessary to prevent this at the same time their 
President is urging, in an eloquent address--one of the best addresses 
I ever heard President Clinton give. I am not often standing at the 
lectern praising the President, but it was an extraordinary address to 
the thousands that were gathered yesterday in Philadelphia. It was a 
plea for support.
  Here we are trying to provide one measure of support to remove one 
disincentive to voluntarism, to serving on a board of directors. As I 
said, I am on the national board of Big Brothers and Big Sisters. We 
have discussed this. Lynn Swann comes down and testifies and says we 
can put more kids together with more mentors, but one of the things 
that is holding us back is the liability we expose volunteers to and 
the extraordinary increase in insurance premiums over the past several 
years because of all these lawsuits. So every dollar that Big Brothers 
and Big Sisters worked so hard to achieve to provide a match between a 
Big Brother, Big Sister and a little brother and a little sister, every 
dollar that has to go to pay the increased liability premiums is a 
dollar that cannot go to provide for a match or support a match.

  I hope my colleagues will reconsider and allow us to go forward with 
this. If it needs to be amended, we should amend it. If it needs to be 
modified, we should modify it. But do not stop it from even being 
discussed, debated, and voted on, particularly at a time when our 
President and our former Presidents and our Nation is saying, ``We want 
to do more. We need to do more. We must do more.'' We should not throw 
a bucket of cold water on what I think is a noble effort, a necessary 
effort, to address some of the basic human needs in this country.
  Mr. President, I appreciate the generosity of the Senator from 
Georgia in allowing me to address the Senate. I again commend him for 
his efforts, and hope that when we get to the next cloture vote we can 
do better than we did today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  First of all, let me just say to my colleague from Indiana that I 
really appreciate much of what he said, and I also appreciate his 
passion. I do not know anybody more committed to this whole idea of 
volunteer citizen action and helping people. I deeply respect him for 
it.
  Mr. President, I think that one of the things I want people to know 
who are watching this debate is that there are some other things going 
on in the Senate right now that are extremely important. This piece of 
legislation, I think, can be debated and people can deal with the 
substance of it, but at the moment, just speaking for Minnesota, and I 
know there are other Senators that feel very strongly about this in the 
Dakotas, we have a disaster relief bill we are trying to get through 
the Senate.
  Mr. President, I think one of the stumbling blocks right now--and I 
am really sorry that my colleague from Georgia is faced with this, 
because I think it has nothing to do with him at all--with the disaster 
relief bill, on the one hand you have people like Chairman Stevens of 
the Appropriations Committee pushing hard to help. I am sure of that. 
But you now have a proposal--and I am not sure who exactly is playing 
this game, and it is a game--to attach a continuing resolution on to a 
disaster relief bill. Mr. President, I think that is the problem we are 
faced with.
  The whole issue of liability, the whole question of what kind of tort 
reform there might be in relation to nonprofits and citizen volunteer 
efforts is important. We should get to that legislation. We should vote 
it up or down. I am pleased to debate it. But at the moment I say that 
I think the business of the Senate and the House is to get the 
assistance to people who have really been faced with a real disaster in 
their lives. People in Grand Forks and East Grand Forks, everybody that 
lived in the city had to vacate. People are not going to be able to get 
back on their own two feet. They will not be able to repair their 
homes. They will not be able to start their businesses again. This is a 
life-or-death issue. I do not think I am being melodramatic. We were so 
hopeful there would be action.
  Again, I thank Chairman Stevens for his work, and certainly Senator 
Byrd for his work, but now we have a development which, essentially, 
led to the committee today essentially having to call off its business. 
It is this proposal that comes from somebody, or somebodies, to attach 
a continuing resolution.
  Now, for people who are listening to this debate and wondering what 
is that all about, let me just be clear about it. What this continuing 
resolution would do is, it would essentially attach on to a disaster 
relief bill 98 percent of this budget, although if you look to next 
year, it amounts to a 7-percent cut. In other words, rather than having 
up-or-down votes on appropriations bills, having an honest debate about 
what our priorities are or are not, some people would like to play this 
game of attaching on to what was supposed to be a disaster relief bill 
to provide assistance to families who were waiting for this assistance, 
who are hoping for this assistance, who are paying for this assistance, 
now we have this new effort which would put into effect cuts in the 
Pell grant program--I will not even go through all the statistics--
work-study program, education for disadvantaged children, literacy 
programs, National Institutes of Health programs, Head Start, senior 
nutrition, the list goes on.
  Mr. President, in all due respect, I do not know whose proposal this 
is, but I think it is a cowardly way--and I am pleased to debate 
anybody who wants to debate me--it is a cowardly way of loading junk on 
to a disaster relief bill.
  Mr. President, again, I give all the credit in the world to people 
like Senator Stevens, who is in there pitching for us, but I do not 
know who decided to do this, but it is really crass. Mr. President, the 
President has already said that he would veto such a piece of 
legislation because, as President of the United States of America, he 
cannot go back on a commitment he has made to people, the commitment he 
has made to Pell grants and higher education, the commitment he has 
made to Head Start, the commitment he made to nutrition programs for 
senior citizens, he cannot put, through the back door, cuts in those 
programs.
  I make a plea, and I would like to have a discussion with my 
colleague from South Dakota about this. I would like to make a strong 
plea to colleagues. Please join the efforts of Senators like Senator 
Stevens, who is in there pitching for us. Please understand there are 
people in the Dakotas and Minnesota who are really praying for help, 
who believe we will come through for them, who believe we will be able 
to help their families, who believe we will be able to help them get on 
their own two feet so they have a chance to rebuild their lives. Please 
do not attach this junk on to what is supposed to be a disaster relief 
bill. The business of the Congress right now ought to be to pass this 
disaster relief bill and get the assistance to people who need it.
  I just ask my colleagues, the Senator from North Dakota and the 
Senator from South Dakota, what you are hearing from your own States?
  Mr. DORGAN. Well, if the Senator from Minnesota would yield for a 
question. Mr. President, I spoke earlier this morning, and it is not my 
intention to upset anybody who might have another agenda, except to say 
that the most significant agenda at the moment is to deal with a lot of 
folks who have been put flat on their backs by an act of God they 
didn't expect or request--by floods, fires, and blizzards. In the State 
of North Dakota, for example, in Grand Forks, ND, an entire city 
evacuated. I was in the middle of a town in a boat, a town of 50,000 
people in which nobody

[[Page S3788]]

lived. Water was up to the eaves trough in some of the houses. You 
could barely see the tip of the roof. It was the most remarkable thing 
I have ever seen. It was a most devastating circumstance--except for 
loss of life. Thank God, we didn't have much loss of life.
  Family after family are losing their homes, their personal property. 
Many of them lost everything they had. But they haven't lost hope. Part 
of the hope is that we will do what is necessary to extend a helping 
hand to folks, to say that you are not alone, the rest of the country 
cares about you. As we have done with others around this country, in 
fires, floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, and other disasters, we have 
said here is some significant help to get you on your feet and help 
rebuild and recover and give you some hope.
  To the Senator from Minnesota, I ask this: We have had tens of 
thousands of people in North Dakota displaced as a result of the 
floods, and the resulting fires as well. I assume that the similar 
circumstance exists--in East Grand Forks, the entire city was 
evacuated. I know the Senator has some numbers on evacuations. But is 
it not the case that Minnesota, South Dakota, and North Dakota probably 
suffered the most significant natural disaster we have had in the 
history of our three States?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague--and I am pleased to take 
questions from both of my colleagues--he is quite right. It is a 
nightmare. It is something that nobody ever could have predicted, and 
everybody had to be evacuated from East Grand Forks. In other towns, 
like Breckenridge or Ada, not everybody in the town had to leave, but 
in Ada, the school is destroyed and has to be rebuilt. People had to be 
evacuated from a nursing home. There was a tremendous amount of damage. 
The community center was essentially destroyed. In Breckenridge, I met 
small business people who said, ``We need start-up grant assistance.''
  Again, I say to my colleagues, I understand the importance of this 
piece of legislation that is on the floor. But at this point in time, I 
think the first priority ought to be to get this disaster relief to 
people. I believe we operate by the rule, Mr. President--I always have 
as a Senator--that it is ``there but for the grace of God go I.'' I 
have always voted for disaster assistance for other States because I 
know something like this could happen to people in Minnesota. We count 
on people being there with us. I don't want this to be something that 
is symbolic. We need to get assistance to people--not 100 percent 
replacement, but at least something to help them get back on their own 
two feet.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to.
  Mr. JOHNSON. First, the Senator from Minnesota has done yeoman work 
in trying to bring relief to the tremendous, catastrophic disaster that 
has taken place in Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota over the 
recent months. We have 125,000 people rendered homeless in those States 
currently. I have visited all three States, and I have seen families, 
even those who can get back into their homes, who have no sewage, have 
no water, the roads are broken up. They are doing dishes in campers and 
using port-o-johns that are temporarily installed in the front yard, 
and sandbags are everywhere. It is chaos in so many of these areas. 
Livestock have been lost, equipment has been lost, buildings have 
collapsed under the weight of snow, culverts are out of place, bridges 
are down. The loss is a mess through this part of the northern Great 
Plains. It has been a disaster that has visited 22 States, although the 
Senator and I are most familiar with the problems, obviously, of 
Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota. We have tremendous urgency 
for assistance, as this country has always done during times of this 
level of distress.
  It appears that if extraneous language is added to this disaster 
legislation, for which there is broad-based bipartisan support, that 
will jeopardize the passage of the legislation and, even if it were to 
pass, would subject it to a veto and we would be back to square one. 
Timeliness will have been lost and we will have delayed the level of 
assistance that is so badly needed on an urgent basis.
  I ask the Senator from Minnesota, does it appear to the Senator that 
among the most egregious things trying to be added or forced on to this 
legislation are proposals that, while they are referred to as a 98-
percent CR, which to many people would sound reasonably innocuous, but 
the real consequence of that would be, would it not, over the coming 
year that we would in fact see college aid cut by $1.8 billion, 400,000 
students would lose Pell grants, 52,000 children would be cut from Head 
Start, we would have to end the Crop Insurance Program--one of the very 
vehicles that is being used to provide some level of relief for the 
farmers and ranchers who have been badly hit by this disaster--200,000 
veterans would lose medical care, 700,000 mothers and infants per month 
would lose Women, Infants and Children Nutrition Program services, 
Indian health services would be cut, there would be 500 fewer air 
traffic controllers and 173 fewer security officers hired for purposes 
of air security. Is it not correct that not only would we have to buy 
into this, but I would have to ask the Senator from Minnesota, 
procedurally, is it not also correct that we would not be permitted a 
vote up or down and there would be no debate on policy initiatives of 
such enormous consequence if we were to allow this kind of extraneous 
language onto the emergency legislation that we so badly need to pass 
immediately?

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Well, Mr. President, in response to my colleague from 
South Dakota, first of all, he is quite correct about what this 
continuing resolution would mean in personal terms for people in our 
States. Actually, if you look at a 98-percent cut--we can see where 
other cuts have taken place. As a matter of fact--and my colleague 
outlined some of the figures--let's translate it into personal terms 
one more time. I do not believe that people in South Dakota or 
Minnesota or others across the country are interested in reductions in 
financial aid and Pell grants so that higher education can be more 
affordable. I do not believe that. We have been reading about and 
talking about the very early years being so important in the 
development of the brain, that we have to make sure children at a very 
young age have adequate nutrition. Do you know what? We can't play 
symbolic politics with children's lives. If we are going to be 
espousing that, we better make the investment. I don't think people 
want to see cuts in nutrition programs for children.
  Mr. JOHNSON. If the Senator will yield, would the Senator agree that 
there is an appropriate time and place for a debate about whether Head 
Start should be continued or whether crop insurance should be continued 
or nutrition programs should be continued and at what level, and that 
the timeliness of that debate ought to be in the context of the 
appropriations process, rather than doing an end-run on the normal 
process and tying it to this badly needed legislation?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from South Dakota that that is 
precisely the case. I was simply trying to make the argument that I 
believe these cuts are not acceptable to people in the country, and 
this is not an intellectually honest or policy-honest way of doing it. 
We can have the debate on all these appropriations bills and we can 
have up-or-down votes and be accountable. I think this is a very 
cowardly way--and that is a pretty strong word to use--or a back-door 
approach to try to make cuts in some of these programs that are so 
important to the lives of the people we represent, and it is just 
adding junk onto what should be a straight disaster relief bill.
  Let's not play around with the lives of the people in the 22 affected 
States. I invite any of my colleagues, I say to my colleague from South 
Dakota, before you do something like this--and, again, I know Chairman 
Stevens has tried to be in there pitching for the people in our 
States--before you play this kind of game, come on out and look into 
the faces and eyes of some of the people. They are like refugees. The 
people in our States are like refugees. They are homeless and are 
trying to get back home and are trying to repair their homes. They are 
trying to move back into their homes with their children. Why play this 
kind of game with their lives? Let's bring this disaster relief bill 
before the Senate, and let's get the assistance out there to people who 
need it.

[[Page S3789]]

  If my colleagues then want to propose reductions in Pell grants and 
nutrition programs for senior citizens and reductions in the Women, 
Infants, and Children Program, and in all of the veterans benefits, go 
ahead and do it. We will debate it all. But this is an effort to 
essentially close off debate, not be accountable. I say to my colleague 
from South Dakota, the political part of it that I think is worst of 
all is those who are playing this game--and I hope it is very few, so 
they will back off--know the President will veto it. He would have no 
other choice. But then people are still waiting back in our States.
  So we urge our colleagues to please not go forward with this 
proposal. I cannot say anything more important right now. I say to my 
colleagues from Georgia and Wyoming, it is not the debate you and I 
will really soon finish up. But I know if you were out here and it was 
your States, you would be saying the same thing. Please, just get a 
disaster relief bill through, and then whatever you want to add or 
debate by way of priorities on the budget, or wherever you want to cut, 
or whatever, we can debate that. But don't do it on a disaster relief 
bill. Please don't add this continuing resolution onto a disaster 
relief bill. Please don't junk it up. Leave it the way it is. Let's try 
to get the best possible assistance program through the Senate and the 
House. Let's try to get relief to these people.
  These people are really down. But in our States we have seen the 
worst of times bring out the best in people. It is just amazing. We 
were talking about volunteer efforts. It is amazing the number of 
people who were sandbagging and who have taken strangers into their 
homes, and the number of people who have done food drives, and the 
number of people who are helping in every possible way. But it is 
really hard; it is really hard when you have been flooded out of your 
home, when you have had to leave your community. We need to give these 
people some hope now. The best way to give them hope is to try to get 
some of this assistance to the people.
  The reason I speak with some indignation is that I thought we were 
going to be able to move forward. I hoped we would be able to move 
forward Thursday in the Appropriations Committee. There are two 
different issues. No. 1, we have to make sure we have categories of 
assistance that provide the help to individual people. We have to have 
the flexibility and we have to give enough money to help people get on 
their own two feet to rebuild their lives. No. 2, we have the threat of 
adding a continuing resolution, which is a huge mistake. It is playing 
games with disaster relief. It is playing games with the agony of 
people. It is playing games with the pain of people. It is playing 
games with families in our States. It is profoundly mistaken, it is 
profoundly wrong, and I hope whoever is thinking about doing this will 
please not do it.
  Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Georgia for letting me 
speak.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I want to make it clear that the 
proposal that is before the Senate is a motion to proceed to S. 543, 
which is the Volunteer Protection Act. I will work right off the 
comment of my colleague from Minnesota that we should not be playing 
politics or symbolism for something that is as central and fundamental 
as trying to respond to people in need. The very volunteers he talks 
about, this legislation applies to them. In fact, the Senator from 
Kentucky earlier today referred to the problems involved with his 
floods. As you know, my State suffered a 500-year-level flood from 
Hurricane Alberto, 200 miles long and 200 miles wide, as it marched 
throughout the State. I hearken to the point that the Senator made, 
that sometimes the worst of times produces the best in people. I don't 
think anyone has ever been through any of these that have not seen, 
with great admiration, the spontaneous response of neighbor to 
neighbor, American to American.
  The legislation before us ought to be managed, in my judgment, in 
about 2 to 4 hours. It is 12 pages long. Its concepts have been before 
the Senate for 12 years. Yet, we are in a filibuster over whether to 
even be able to debate legislation that, certifiably, is directed at 
the very people the Senator from Minnesota is talking about, and that 
is the thousands upon thousands of volunteers from his State and from 
other States. That is another key point. I know right now--I don't know 
the number--that there are thousands of volunteers in your State and 
others' that don't live there. They have come from other States, which 
is the very point that we have been making. The context of parameters 
around the protection of good people just trying to respond is a 
national issue.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. If the Senator will yield for a question, I want to 
ask this question of the Senator because I have to leave soon. I didn't 
want to walk out because he makes a very important point. Would the 
Senator agree with me that it would be best if we could come together 
as two parties and work out these disagreements when it comes to what 
is going to be on the disaster relief bill or when it comes to Alexis 
Herman or judicial appointments, that we can work out an agreement and 
stop basically leveraging different pieces of legislation? I don't 
agree with the Senator on some substantive grounds. But I am sorry the 
Senator is caught up in this. I mean that sincerely. Would he agree 
with me that we really have to come together and work these things out? 
Because I understand the Senator's conviction about this particular 
piece of legislation, but I also hope that the Senator will understand 
my conviction about the mistakes of now adding a continuing resolution 
and trying to put into effect all sorts of budget cuts onto a bill that 
should be a disaster relief bill. Does the Senator agree that we need 
to get away from all of this?

  Mr. COVERDELL. I think there has been great discussion in this 105th 
Congress, I say to my colleague from Minnesota, about a bipartisan 
effort. That does require a give and take. Right now, it would appear 
that in several quadrants that is difficult to achieve. I have served 
in the legislative body an extended period of time, and I think what 
the Senator points to is always the laudable goal and what all of its 
Members should reach for. I am sure the Senator from Minnesota will 
agree. I am not surprised that, from time to time, very powerful 
interests and emotions cause these kinds of strenuous areas. I commend 
the Senator for being attentive to the needs of his State. It is 
exactly what he should be doing. I have been there myself. I hope that 
as we move through the week, the resolution of the issue which he 
addresses can be accorded. I appreciate the interest in the 
legislation.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Georgia. I say that I am 
interested. I don't agree with him, but I understand exactly why he 
wants to move forward.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I understand your caveat.
  Mr. President, we have been joined by the Senator from Pennsylvania, 
who, I might say, has been at the forefront of a concept called the 
``renewal alliance.'' Even before this legislation was put together, 
the Senator from Pennsylvania and others--and I have been pleased to be 
a small part--have been engaged nationally, not just in Pennsylvania, 
in reaching out, just as this summit did in Philadelphia, and tapping 
the compassion of the American volunteer on all levels to confront some 
of the most difficult problems with which our country is beset. It is 
entirely appropriate, and I am very pleased that he would take time to 
come to the floor and talk about what the Volunteer Protection Act 
means and does for the very effort that he and these other Senators are 
pursuing.
  I yield the floor to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of New Hampshire). The Chair 
recognizes the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished Senator 
from Georgia for his kind words and congratulate him on many counts. 
No. 1, for this piece of legislation. And while this piece of 
legislation has been around in various forms for quite some time, one 
thing it never had on its side was Paul Coverdell in a leadership role.
  One thing I found out about this place is things happen when people 
have the energy, the enthusiasm, a good plan, a good game plan and a 
willingness to work hard to bring the issue to the fore, and Paul 
Coverdell does

[[Page S3790]]

that with every issue I have ever seen him engage in. He has taken this 
issue and plucked it out of obscurity and driven it to the front here 
at a very appropriate time.
  And so the Senator's sense of timing is magnificent in bringing it up 
here at a time when many of us, who just yesterday were in Philadelphia 
at the volunteer summit, were very moved by what was going on there, 
excited about the opportunity. I had a tremendous opportunity 
personally to have a good, long talk with Harris Wofford, who, as you 
know, I succeeded in the Senate. We had a really delightful 
conversation about how this is a project that, while we may be apart on 
very many things, we can find common ground on and work together on. In 
fact, we worked together a lot on the summit, to make sure that a lot 
of the small organizations, small charitable organizations and 
nonprofits were included. We understood the significant role that they 
play in the nonprofit community of America, the volunteer community of 
America.
  So we saw a lot of coming together--right, left, Republican, 
Democrat--in Philadelphia. It was a wonderful experience. Bringing this 
bill to the floor was a hope, I guess, on the Senator's part, and 
certainly on mine, that we would see that spirit continue in the new 
Capitol of the United States, not where it all started in Philadelphia.
  It is unfortunate that we had a failure with this cloture motion 
today just to move to the bill. I think it is in some ways disturbing. 
We have in a sense solidarity going on on a subject that is at the core 
of who we are as America. I think we had a coming together, an 
understanding of the need for all of us to go beyond ourselves and look 
to each other and look at our brothers and our sisters and our 
neighbors, at their needs and the needs of our communities in 
fulfilling the promise of America. That was so clear in Philadelphia 
and yet becomes somewhat murky and cloudy here on the Senate floor, of 
all places, where it should be critically clear that is in fact the 
prerequisite to success in America.
  It is disturbing, but I am confident, as I am sure the Senator from 
Georgia is, with continued effort we will bring to the American public, 
as we try to do this afternoon and hopefully will do in the next 
several days, the importance of this particular piece of legislation in 
making what is going on in Philadelphia a reality.
  I heard the Senator from Georgia, the Senator from Indiana, the 
Senator from Kentucky, and others talk here about the importance of 
this legislation to so many nonprofit organizations all across this 
country. I could speak for Pennsylvania because that is where I have 
done the majority of visiting nonprofit organizations that serve the 
needs of communities, the team mission in the city of Chester in 
Delaware County, where I was just a few weeks ago, and I asked about 
the issue of the costs associated with liability insurance.

  The director there told me that his costs have skyrocketed in the 
last few years and now he is paying tens of thousands of dollars for 
liability coverage for his board, just a nonprofit board of well-
meaning people in the city of Chester who want to serve in a capacity 
of helping, promote, organize, run, operate a mission in the city of 
Chester which has gone under some very tough times over the last 
several years. They are expending thousands and thousands of dollars on 
liability coverage to protect themselves and their board members, and 
they have trouble getting board members and, frankly, have trouble 
sometimes, as I have heard from many other shelters and many other 
places, getting people to make a commitment, whether it is a volunteer 
commitment, whether it is a commitment of resources of some sort, 
whether it is equipment or loaning people a car or other things. They 
are scared to death of getting sued; we have become so litigious as a 
society.
  The Senator from Georgia has come forward with a great idea of saying 
let us at least focus on something that is noncontroversial, the human 
capital involved in serving our fellow citizens, the volunteer, whether 
it is the volunteer board member or the volunteer out there, big 
brother or sister or someone else. I would think of all the proposals 
that we have put forward--in fact, just last year we put forward a 
proposal in the same kind of genre. We had a bill which was called the 
Emerson Good Samaritan Food Bank, named after Bill Emerson, a late 
Congressman from Missouri, who was a tremendous champion for hunger in 
America, for feeding of the children of America. Shortly before he died 
last year, the bill passed in the House, and I was privileged enough to 
carry that bill here to the Senate and finally pass it on the last day, 
but I will tell you it took weeks, maybe even months--my memory is a 
little faded right now, but maybe even months--to get that bill which 
passed unanimously in the House even to be voted on here on the Senate 
floor. One Senator or another kept putting holds on this bill.
  This bill was very simple. It said if you give food to a food bank, 
we are going to raise the standard from negligence to gross negligence. 
A lot of States have done similar kinds of measures, some have not. 
This was a voluntary thing. We had a statute on the book--it was not a 
statute, but it was a suggestion to States with language to do this. It 
was not a law that required them to raise the standard from negligence 
to gross negligence. The special interests lobby that has been debated 
here often on the Senate floor today found one Senator after another to 
block it, to try to amend it, to gut it, to do everything they could. 
And finally several of us got together and said certain things aren't 
going to happen around here that did not happen before we left, that if 
it did not get through, we were going to get up on the floor and start 
exposing Members of the Senate who were putting holds on this bill and 
tell them, you want to feed the hungry but you do not want to allow 
those who process food and who sell food, whether it is in restaurants 
or grocery stores, to give it, because surveys showed 90 percent of the 
people, companies, organizations that refused to give food to food 
banks refused because they were afraid of legal liability, yet not one 
person had ever been sued, not one person had ever been sued or taken 
$1 out of any lawyer's mouth. And yet they still held the bill up.

  Well, now we are talking about areas that people actually do get 
sued, and so we have the special interests out in force to stop this 
piece of legislation. And they were successful in convincing enough 
Members on the other side of the aisle to do just that. I think that is 
unfortunate.
  This issue goes beyond the issue of just voluntarism in its broadest 
sense. I think you have to understand--and again this has been 
highlighted in Philadelphia but I think needs to be highlighted here--
the importance of voluntarism and community organizations, what Dan 
Coats refers to as the mediating institutions in our society, those 
that are the buffer between the individual and the Government, those 
just in free association to help each other out in our own communities 
to solve our problems and to be that sort of close-knit group that 
really makes things happen on a local level. Those mediating 
institutions, those nonprofit groups, those civic associations are so 
important for our survival as a country.
  We are a great country for a lot of reasons, but I can tell you that 
most people do not think we are a great country because we are the 
greatest superpower, we are the greatest economic power, we have the 
greatest, most powerful Government. Most people come to this country 
because they want to get out of a country that has a powerful 
government that dictates to them. They come to this country because 
they want to freely associate and raise their family and have the 
freedom to work where they want and solve their own problems in a 
community setting. Voluntarism is key to making that happen.
  It is so important for us as a society to recognize, to lift up the 
volunteer as really the unique thing about America, the unique thing. 
The unique instrument by which we govern ourselves is that small 
organization that solves most of the problems in our community. Not the 
big Government, but those small, local organizations with the volunteer 
participating that solves the problem but does even something more. It 
brings out the best in the individual, the volunteer.
  Most of the people here volunteer for one thing or another in their 
lives.

[[Page S3791]]

 How many people, when they volunteered, left that assignment, that 
mission, that duty, and as they are walking out say, ``You know, I 
helped somebody. But, you know, I got more out of it, I am sure, than 
that person that I helped got out of it.''
  See, voluntarism is not just about helping somebody else. It is about 
understanding more about yourself, it is about broadening your own 
horizons. It is about a real fundamental understanding of what your 
purpose is as an individual in our society. So, to the extent that we 
put barriers up to people experiencing that growth, their own personal 
growth, as well as a barrier to meeting real human needs, we are all--
those who need the help and those who are not participating in 
helping--both lose. And what we have seen, and you have heard all the 
numbers and all the statistics--you have seen how this problem, this 
barrier, is a real barrier. This is not something that we cooked up and 
said, ``Gee, let us just throw something out here to really honk off 
the other side.'' This is a real barrier.
  We heard Lynn Swann talk about it from Big Brothers and Sisters. We 
heard Terry Orr, former Washington Redskin, talk about it from Little 
League. And Senator Coverdell has read letter after letter at hearings, 
and others--we know the volunteer organizations tell us, plead with us 
to give them some breaks here. They need this relief if they are going 
to serve their duty, their mission, as well as ennoble the people who 
volunteer, get us to connect with each other.
  One of the great things, and reasons I am so excited about the 
Project for American Renewal and the Civil Society Project that Senator 
Coats and Senator Coverdell and Senator Ashcroft and Senator Abraham 
have been working on here in the Senate, and Congressmen Watts and 
Talent--I want to mention Senator Hutchison, who has been very 
involved--and Congressman Pitts--I could go on. But the most exciting 
thing, in focusing in on trying to empower the local communities, the 
nonprofit organizations, to do more, is--yes, they do it better. No 
question. They are more caring, more compassionate. They do it better, 
they do it cheaper, much more efficiently. They are volunteers. They 
have people who do this because of real motivation, inner motivation--
in many cases spiritual--but true, true inner compassion, not because 
it is a paycheck. Not to say those who do it because it is a paycheck 
do not have compassion. But that volunteer spirit just comes through 
and people understand it. That is important.
  But the most important thing that it does in my opinion is it 
reconnects us. One of the things I really fear about our society is we 
are becoming less and less connected to each other. You know, you can 
sit in front of a computer terminal right now and basically live your 
entire life without having to move. You don't have to go outside. You 
don't have to know who your neighbors are, or the people down the 
street, or go to church. You can do it all through television or 
through your computer.
  So we end up, as a society, that people--I am all for individualism. 
I think individualism is great. But, you know, we hear so much about 
individual rights and individual freedoms and all that stuff, we forget 
about the responsibility that we have to each other and our neighbors. 
This is a way to begin.
  All these things are in Senator Coverdell's legislation. I have 
introduced several pieces of legislation along the same lines that I 
hope someday we can bring up. I have not brought them up on this bill 
because I think this is so important that we move this forward, but we 
have other pieces of legislation I have introduced to encourage people 
to participate, to connect again, to get outside of that door. There 
are people who need you and, whether you know it or not, you need them.

  To the extent we, here, in the U.S. Senate can remove a barrier, can 
say: Look, don't be afraid of helping. Don't be afraid of asserting 
yourself. Don't be afraid that someone, Big Brother or big lawyer is 
over your shoulder, looking down at you, analyzing everything you say 
and do. Go out there and follow your heart, do what you know is right 
for your community and for the kids. The summit focuses so much on 
kids. A lot of the folks we are going to be helping are kids or the 
elderly--people in need.
  So, what Senator Coverdell is doing, what we are trying to do with 
the Renewal Alliance, is to empower those local groups to bring down 
the barriers that stop them from serving more people, to bring down the 
barriers that are almost in front of people's doors so they do not go 
out and minister to the needs of their neighbors much less--I should 
not even say that. In some cases they do not even bother to know who 
their neighbors are. They just do not want to get involved. ``There are 
all sorts of things that can happen to me if I get involved.''
  We have to be a country that stops thinking like that. Look, I am not 
suggesting people do not have legal rights, that if they are harmed 
they should not have rights and recourses. And we preserve that in this 
legislation. We are saying, if you are grossly negligent or you are 
reckless in your conduct, you can be sued. And the organization, no 
matter whether the conduct was negligent or grossly negligent, could 
still be sued. It is just the individual volunteer, if they happen to 
do something maybe they should not have, or said--I said something I 
should not have. I did not mean any harm. It was not reckless, but I 
just threw a baseball at somebody and the kid didn't look.
  Hopefully, I will not get sued. I did not mean to hit the kid. But, 
believe it or not, people get sued for that. It is those kinds of 
actions, those kinds of lawsuits that have such a chilling effect on 
the human nature that is so typically American, to give, to go out and 
meet the needs of the people.
  So, I congratulate, again, the Senator from Georgia for his 
tremendous leadership. I cannot say enough, that this bill is where it 
is today and we are moving forward with this, because of his energy, 
his enthusiasm, his vision in moving this forward. I stand ready to 
help him every step of the way to make this happen. I think this is 
important in bringing down those barriers. It is important in building 
a better, more civil, more responsible, more compassionate, more 
connected society. To the extent we can make some little contribution 
here in the U.S. Senate, we should do so and we should do so 
immediately.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. If the Senator will yield for a moment; earlier this 
morning there was discussion, almost because we are Republicans, about 
the national application of the act. And of course we have explained 
the national proportions of it, that volunteers are mobile. They are 
going into Minnesota and North Dakota right now. These organizations 
have national application.
  The Senator mentioned the Emerson Act. For a point of clarification, 
that legislation, which you struggled through and you were fighting the 
same kind of forces that we are here, had national application.
  Mr. SANTORUM. That is correct; it was.
  Mr. COVERDELL. In other words, we have established the precedent in 
this area.
  Mr. SANTORUM. In the past year, I might add, we passed it by 
unanimous consent; without an opposing voice, in the end, to getting 
this legislation passed. It had national application. The reason is it 
was clearly understood that these products travel, just like volunteers 
do, over State lines. There are companies that are multinational, not 
only multistate but multinational companies that produce goods, food 
products. If there was a chilling effect on one side, they would 
probably have a uniform policy against it. So we understood the nature 
of the goods involved and, obviously, Members on the other side of the 
aisle understood it also and went along on a unanimous vote and it was 
signed by the President.

  So, it is now law. I can tell you from the experience that I have 
had, talking to those at the soup kitchens and food banks, 
contributions are up. And I am somewhat surprised, because most of the 
places I go to, oddly enough, do not even know we passed the law. Most 
of those at the soup kitchens and food banks do not even know they can 
now tell the grocery store or restaurant or pizza parlor, that maybe 
has some extra pizza there at the end of the day

[[Page S3792]]

or whatever, that they can ship it over here and you do not have to 
worry about a serious legal liability.
  It has gone up. It is just by some of the folks who happened to pick 
it up. I just suggest, for, hopefully, those listening here, and for 
those Senators in particular listening, we did something in 
Pennsylvania as a result of that just recently, where we sent a letter 
out to all the different food banks and soup kitchens in my State to 
inform them of the legislation, to encourage them. And, in fact, I even 
offered to write the different grocery stores, food processors, and the 
like in my State, to encourage them.
  We have a duty here, as leaders in our community, to try to 
effectuate that change. But, it was a long answer to the Senator's 
question, but I do so because I want to emphasize, not only did this 
pass bipartisanly, signed by the President, but it has already had a 
positive impact even in the first 2 months, the proportions of which I 
don't think we know yet because I don't think the information has been 
disseminated to all the parties who could benefit from this knowledge.
  Mr. COVERDELL. The reason I asked the question was, first, to deal 
with the question brought up this morning about the importance of 
national policy with regard to--I mean, the summit was not about 
volunteers in Pennsylvania. The summit was about volunteers in America. 
This legislation is designed to protect volunteers in America.
  I will close with this and yield to the Senator from Missouri. 
Imagine, if you would, Senator, what will happen when Little League 
Baseball and United Way and the American Red Cross can stand up and 
say, ``come on, volunteers. We have removed a major impediment for you 
to come forward.''
  Given your example, you can imagine. We will be freeing up America to 
get back to what it has always done so well, volunteering, and 
responding to that eloquent address you heard in Philadelphia from 
President Clinton.
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Pennsylvania 
and the Senator from Georgia for talking about very important things 
that relate to the way in which we will operate as a nation, whether we 
sink or swim, whether we survive or succumb in the next century. I do 
not think Washington is the answer to the problems of this country. I 
don't think it is Wall Street. I think it is Main Street. It is how we 
respond to issues as people, what the character of America is.
  I believe we have the right character in this country. It is 
historically understood; it has been recognized by people around the 
world. Other countries don't solve problems the way Americans do, and, 
frankly, they don't solve them as well as we do. They reserve to 
Government, to the heavy hand of bureaucracy, so many things that we 
just like to roll up our sleeves and attend to ourselves.
  We have to be careful that our system of resolving disputes does not 
impair our capacity to release the energy and the creativity of the 
problem-solving nature of the American people.
  Over the last 30 or 40 or 50 years, we have seen a constant creep of 
Government and of rules about dispute resolution that has made it 
harder and harder for individual citizens to be involved in doing good, 
which is really the character of this great country.
  Alexis de Tocqueville, whose ride through America 150 years ago is 
being celebrated by C-SPAN this year--as a matter of fact, they are 
duplicating it--put it this way: America was great because her people 
were good. It wasn't because we had the corridors of the bureaucracy in 
Washington well populated, or it wasn't because the Congress was a 
particularly strong or effective body. It was because people were good. 
He talked about the fact that people formed associations and formed 
groups and alliances for almost every purpose in this country because 
free people, when they see a need, meet the need. That is what we want 
America to be.
  We have had so many problems recently where we found that our system 
for litigation has made it hard for people to solve problems. As a 
matter of fact, the Gallup organization conducted a poll in which it 
found that one out of every 10 charities surveyed said they have had 
trouble with litigation and it has caused people to refuse to serve on 
their boards of directors and the like.
  Frankly, a number of States responded to that poll, and they enacted 
protection for the people who are on the board of directors of the Red 
Cross, or the board of directors of the United Way. That was an 
appropriate thing to do to protect those individuals. But the average 
neighbor of mine is not on the board of directors of the Red Cross. My 
average neighbor and my own activity have more often been just in the 
volunteering capacity, doing the work, driving the Meals on Wheels. I 
have driven Meals on Wheels routes over and over again. I wasn't on the 
board of directors.
  It strikes me that it is appropriate to protect the folks on the 
board of directors, but how about the volunteer? It is OK to protect 
the silk-stocking folks in the boardroom, but how about the person on 
the front line? How about the coach of the Little League, one of the 
cases I previously mentioned, that was shocking to the conscience of 
the American people. As a matter of fact, it still almost strikes me as 
being humorous, the case in Runnemede, NJ, 15 years ago.
  The coach sent the kid from shortstop to left field. The mom 
protested: ``He's a born shortstop, not a left fielder.'' A fly ball 
came. The kid missed it, the ball hit him in the eye, and the coach got 
sued.
  Mr. President, we cannot have the value of male role models --and we 
need them desperately in our cities and our communities --and the 
discipline and sense of teamwork that sports provide to help people 
develop and have a situation where a mom can say, ``Well, my son plays 
only shortstop and not left field, and if you put him in left field, 
you'll be the victim of a lawsuit.''
  I have also talked about the fellow who was the Scout leader in the 
Northwest, with the Cascade Pacific Council, and the boys who were 
playing touch football. I suppose they must have proven he was 
negligent for allowing the boys to play touch football. I don't think 
our Scoutmaster could ever get us ratcheted down below flag football. 
We wanted to play tackle football. Here the restraint had been 
exercised to play touch football, and the scoutmaster ends up with a $7 
million judgment against him, because he cared enough about the young 
people of his community to volunteer. Yes, the courts did reduce the 
judgment from $7 million to $4 million. Well, for most folks, $4 
million isn't much better than $7 million.

  It reminds me of the first time I got sued. I called my wife Janet. I 
said, ``Good news and bad news.''
  She said, ``What is the bad news?"
  I said, ``We've been sued.''
  She said, ``What is the good news?"
  I said, ``Well, it is for $65 million.''
  It wouldn't make much difference if it was for $650, we didn't have 
it.
  The point is, you have folks willing to volunteer, to extend 
themselves, to reach out and say, ``We care for those beyond our own 
circle,'' and this is what makes America America. American communities 
are not defined by boundary lines and streets. They are not defined by 
geography and statute books. They are not defined in the property 
records. American communities are defined in the hearts of Americans 
because they are groups of people who love each other. That is probably 
a word some people would blanch at, someone saying on the floor of the 
Senate that we love each other. But that is what we mean when we say, 
``I'll help your son or daughter be a part of the team or scout 
troop,'' or ``I'll help them be a part of the soccer team. I love this 
community, and I'm willing to invest myself in it.''
  What is the price tag for investing yourself in a community now? We 
have a legal system that may make the price tag your own children's 
college education, or your car, or your house. A $4 million judgment 
for being a Scout leader and for somehow not stopping a touch football 
game among boys? That is a pretty stiff price tag to pay.
  I am reminded of the case in Evanston, IL. The Junior League wanted 
to set up a shelter for battered women. No insurance company would 
insure them. What happened? The shelter didn't happen. The insurance 
company said, ``You have to run the shelter for 3 years before we will 
extend coverage. Because of the litigious nature of our society

[[Page S3793]]

and everybody suing everybody, even the people you are trying to help 
turn around and sue you, and since our court allows it, we won't insure 
you until you have had 3 years of experience showing us you can run the 
shelter and what the risks will be.''
  We are still waiting for the 3 years of experience, but we don't have 
the shelter. We are out of whack, and we need to readjust this. We need 
to put it back in a framework where ordinary citizens can offer 
themselves. This isn't something that is localized or just a tiny 
fraction of the country. It is all across the United States of America.
  Here is a statement from the president of the United Way of San 
Francisco. I believe this was a couple of years ago:

       As fear of lawsuits drives away volunteers, it does more 
     than threaten or lower the number of people available to 
     charity. It threatens to bureaucratize organizations known 
     for their hands-on approach. It would replace the personal 
     touch with the impersonal touch of organizations afraid to be 
     different.

  Here is an interesting article, entitled ``A Thousand Points of 
Fright?'' Not a thousand points of light. We do need for people to be 
points of light. I didn't think a thousand points of light was corny. I 
thought it was the character of America. I thought it reflected what is 
great about this country, the fact that we care for each other, we 
literally love each other enough to put aside some of our own 
ambitions, to set aside some of our own time to make some sacrifices. 
But should we make the sacrifice the ultimate sacrifice? Should we make 
it so that you have to risk everything that you and your family stand 
for?
  The article says:

       Lawsuit fears are dampening enthusiasm for volunteers, and 
     the White House is beginning to take notice.

  I am grateful the White House is beginning to take notice. I was in 
Philadelphia on Sunday and on Monday, and I commend the President. I 
think inspiring us to be the very best we can be and to help each other 
in this culture is inspiring us to be what we ought to be as Americans. 
But it takes more than inspiration, especially in the context of 
litigation, where we might face the potential that we would make it 
impossible to provide for our own families, to see to it that our 
children have what they need, just because we cared enough about our 
community to do something special, something extra.

  The proposal before us says if you want to volunteer, we will provide 
an opportunity for you to do so in a context of reasonability. It 
simply says you are not going to be responsible for harm while you are 
delivering those services in a reasonable way. It does not relieve the 
organizations of responsibility. It just says that the volunteer 
himself or herself will not have to give up his or her family's 
potential in the next weeks, months, years, or decade or so, or 
whatever it is that would result from an extraordinary judgment.
  Over and over again, whether it is the ``A Thousand Points of 
Fright?'' article, whether it is the president of the United Way of San 
Francisco, whether it is the story about Runnemede, NJ, and the Little 
League or the story about the Cascade Pacific Council and the 
Scoutmaster with the $4 million judgment, we know there is a problem, 
and we ought to do something about it.
  We know there have been some things done, mostly to protect people in 
the board rooms and on the foundation governing bodies. But what 
happens to the average American who is not on the board but just a 
person who cares enough to give some of his own time or her own time, 
the most valuable thing?
  Perhaps more, in terms of the children of America--and the conference 
in Philadelphia focused on children--the thing that we lack the most is 
not money. The thing we lack the most for children is relationships. 
The Government has been spreading a lot of money around for a long 
time, but the kids are without role models, they are without 
relationships, they are without the opportunity to learn from adults. I 
think it is time for us to begin to provide a context in which that 
relationship can reappear, and that is what this bill is all about.
  This bill relieves volunteers of liability for acts which they would 
conduct in the course of doing what they were asked to do by charitable 
organizations. As it relates to the charitable organizations 
themselves, it establishes rules that would limit the kinds of cases in 
which there would be punitive damages and limits certain kinds of joint 
and several liability which provides a basis and a context in which we 
can expect to elicit far more help for people who need help in America.
  It seems to me that that is something we ought to pursue, and I think 
it is consistent with what the business of this body, representing the 
people of America, ought to talk about.
  So I am pleased to commend Senator Coverdell of Georgia for 
submitting this outstanding legislation, and I hope, as we work to make 
it an avenue for helping people help each other, that we will do the 
kind of job which will allow us to look back with gratitude on people 
who are able to help one another without the threat of a legal system 
making it impossible for them to serve.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary status at the 
moment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question before the Senate is the motion 
to proceed.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. I will speak for a few moments on the 
motion to proceed.
  Mr. President, I would like to comment, if I can--I was sitting here 
actually thinking about some other remarks--but I want to comment on 
the remarks of the distinguished Senator regarding voluntarism and sort 
of the special spirit of America that we talk about, which many of our 
colleagues in the Senate fall back on as a place to suggest we can deal 
with a lot of these problems of children.
  I heard my colleague say that it is really not a problem of money, it 
is not a problem of resources; what we need is this special spirit, we 
need to tap into this spirit.
  Mr. President, I am all for tapping into that special spirit, but I 
have to tell you, in too many communities that I visited, it is also a 
question of resources.
  I mean, I went to the middle school in Charlestown the other day with 
the drug czar and asked a bunch of kids in the middle school, aged 10 
to 14 years old, what time they leave school. They said, ``Well, we 
leave school at 1:30 or 2 o'clock in the afternoon.'' And then I asked 
them, ``Well, how many of you are home alone with nothing to do, with 
nobody at home, no parent between the hours of 2 o'clock and 6 or 7 in 
the evening?'' And 50 percent of the hands went up, Mr. President.
  I then asked, ``Well, how many of you have access to an afterschool 
program, Boys or Girls Club, parenting, or some sort of program?'' 
Well, they did not. More than 50 percent of the very same kids who had 
to go to a home that had nobody home raised their hands.
  You know, we can talk about the special spirit of America, and we can 
talk at great length about the capacity to be able to tap into 
voluntarism. But first of all, volunteers have to be organized. 
Volunteers have to be trained. I mean, volunteers cannot just show up 
one day and say, ``Hey, I'm qualified to take care of a kid who is an 
infant or a toddler or kids in the middle school'' and not know how to 
show up at the school, not know what to do, not even know if there is a 
program for them. Somebody has to work through that process.
  In a lot of communities we are lucky enough to have some entities 
that try to do that. But I can show you a lot of communities where, 
despite the fact that they have the entities that are trying to do 
that, they are just absolutely overwhelmed by their lack of private 
resources and private commitment and private individuals to be able to 
reach out and grab these lives and bring them back from the precipice.
  I do not want the Government doing it. I am not suggesting that we 
are better off having some big Government program come down and do this 
for those things. But I am suggesting that unless you empower some of 
those entities at the local level with the resources necessary, this is 
all one great farce. It is a masquerade.
  In Brockton, MA, we have 22,000 kids under the age of 18. We have a 
converted armory in Brockton that is their Boys and Girls Club. I have 
been there many times talking to their peer leaders who tell me that 
for the 2,000

[[Page S3794]]

kids who get access to it, it is very helpful. But then you ask the 
question, the really pregnant question, what happens to the 20,000 kids 
who do not get access to it? And the answer is, they are hanging around 
the streets.
  So, you know, I mean, does anybody in America believe that 
voluntarism is going to rescue a generation where almost four-fifths 
are out there, outside of access to these kinds of entities? And to 
make matters worse, I can take you to school district after school 
district where they have shut the library or it is part time, where 
they no longer have a sports program, they no longer have arts and 
music, and they no longer have even some remedial programs for some of 
these kids. I can take you to schools where they Xerox materials 
because they do not have books.
  So we can talk about sort of, you know, all this, quote, ``thousands 
of points of light'' and other kinds of things. But the fact is--I am 
going to say a lot more about this in the next days--the fact is, there 
are some fundamental responsibilities that we have to try to deal with 
on these things, and we are not living up to those responsibilities. I 
would like to empower the YWCA, the YMCA, the Boys Club, 
the YouthBuild, City Year, and thousands of organizations and entities 
out there.

  But, Mr. President, we cannot meet the demand. And not one of them 
have sufficient resources--not one of them. You can go to YouthBuild in 
Boston and find 80-some kids coming out of the court program, coming 
out of gangs, coming off the streets, the very thing they are talking 
about. Some adult is finally coming into their life to give them some 
kind of affirmation, some kind of self-esteem for the first time in 
their lives, but it is happening because of a dollar that has been 
decided to be spent here. And for the 80 kids who are in the program, I 
will show you 400 who are not. So you can decide, you know, how you are 
going to decide telling which 400 get what, which 80 get what.
  For all the rhetoric in this country, the bottom line is, Mr. 
President, we are not living up to our obligations in order to provide 
the fundamentals of child development and child growth. And that is the 
great debate for this country.
  We have one child every 8 seconds who drops out of school.
  We have one child every 10 seconds who is reported neglected or 
abused.
  We have one child every 34 seconds born low weight.
  We have one child every 2\1/2\ minutes arrested.
  We have one child every, I think, 2 hours or 2\1/2\ hours shot by 
gunfire.
  And we have one child every 4 hours who commits suicide.
  And what do we do? Well, we kind of are talking about it. We have 
this big thing going on in Philadelphia that will heighten some 
participation, I have no doubt. Some additional people will come and 
take part in some additional alternatives.
  But there is no way we will sufficiently rescue a generation where 33 
percent of the children of this country are currently born out of 
wedlock. It will take a massive intervention in the lives of rural and 
urban dispossessed and disenfranchised in order to help pull that back 
from the brink. The alternative is, we can wait 10, 15, or 20 years and 
pay $55,000 per prison cell, or $25,000 per drug treatment program, or 
deal with the disabilities that come from children who do not get to 
see a doctor when they have asthma when they are young so they wind up 
with permanent disabilities here or any of the permanent disabilities 
that come from the lack of medical attention.
  And 10 million kids in America have no medical care whatsoever. We 
are talking about children.
  Half the kids who have no medical care who have asthma never see a 
doctor.
  A third of the kids who have an eye infection or ear infection never 
see a doctor.
  And we are the only industrial country on the face of this planet 
that treats its children this way. Notwithstanding the fact that we 
have seen the gross domestic product of this Nation double since 1969, 
we have seen child poverty increase by 50 percent.
  So as we go on in this debate, Mr. President, I intend to come to 
this floor and make certain that we deal with the realities of what are 
happening to the children of this country. I cannot think of anything 
more important. And I think this is an important part of the debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Chair recognizes the Senator 
from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. I want to take a little bit of time this afternoon to talk 
about voluntarism, the subject we are debating on the floor this 
afternoon, and to add to that a discussion about the supplemental 
disaster appropriations bill that we will hopefully take up this week, 
dealing with the flood waters of northwest Minnesota and northern North 
and South Dakota.
  I think it is a shame a bill that is so plain and so simple and so 
necessary as the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997, or S. 543, has been 
stopped from coming to the floor of this Senate for debate. I think it 
is kind of ironic when you look at what has been going on in 
Philadelphia over the weekend, the talk of voluntarism.
  You do not have to attend a conference in Philadelphia to find 
voluntarism, Mr. President. If you want to discuss that subject, you 
need to look no further than those Minnesota communities that have been 
so devastated by flood waters. In the Midwest we consider ourselves 
independent. We proudly celebrate our differences, yet we also take 
great pride in knowing that when our communities call on us, that we 
are very quick to come together. We have seen that happen so many times 
during the flooding.
  I have heard some of my colleagues talk against this bill on 
voluntarism and how really we need a program of training because you 
have to have people trained in order to come in and perform adequate or 
good volunteer work. That might be true in some cases, but that does 
not get to the heart or the point of this bill. There is not much time 
to do on-the-job training when there is an accident, when somebody is 
caught in a burning car, when they have fallen off a bridge, or another 
disaster has befallen them such as the flooding of Minnesota.
  In Moorhead, the dedication of our young people impressed me as they 
worked alongside their parents and neighbors in filling sandbags 
against the rising waters. They did not get training for that ahead of 
time. That was on-the-job training, something they had to do at the 
time. In East Grand Forks, an army of volunteers fed the hungry, found 
shelter for the homeless, and comforted thousands more as the Red River 
swallowed an entire community. People have been evacuated from their 
homes, people were moved out of nursing homes and hospitals. This was 
all done on an emergency basis, by volunteers who offered their help 
and their time. Again, they do not have time for training. They react 
to the situation that is needed.
  In Ada, Mr. President, when the easiest thing in the world would have 
been to give up what seemed to be a hopeless battle against the rising 
river, nobody gave up. Over and over again, I witnessed simple acts of 
fellowship, demonstrations of stewardship, and above all, voluntarism, 
neighbors helping neighbors, and was reminded of the spirit that 
brought us together as communities and that will keep these communities 
together, I believe in the future.
  Voluntarism is a lofty goal and it usually shows itself in times of 
emergency, but you cannot just pass it by mere legislation. The anguish 
that rose every day with the flood waters has not been confined to 
those communities along the Red River or the Minnesota River. That pain 
has been felt in every corner of my State, and Minnesotans have 
responded with a tremendous outpouring of not only sympathy, but real, 
tangible offers of help. The volunteers were there when we needed them. 
The telephones at the Red Cross and the Salvation Army have been 
ringing constantly as people asked where can they send donations. 
Thousands have called the State's emergency operation center to sign up 
as volunteers for the long weeks of cleanup to come. Scout troops are 
also pitching in, churches are taking up special offerings, schools and 
families from parts of the State not touched by the floods have offered 
to host students without homes and teachers without classrooms. That is 
the spirit of voluntarism that Americans are capable of.
  Mr. President, I have come to the floor to argue and to urge my 
colleagues to support the supplemental

[[Page S3795]]

disaster appropriation, again, that we hope to take up yet this week in 
the Senate. The breadth of the flooding in Minnesota and the Dakotas 
has been difficult to comprehend. If you have not been there, if I had 
not seen it, I would not have believed that a pair of raging rivers 
could produce such widespread devastation. The cost has been enormous, 
both in the financial costs which may run well over $1 billion just on 
the Minnesota side, and the emotional and personal costs to our fellow 
Minnesotans, many of whom watched their homes, farms, businesses, and 
basically their possessions just literally washed away.
  I inspected the flood damage last week with President Clinton and 
also the week before with Vice President Gore. Without hesitation, they 
all assured me that the taxpayers of this Nation would stand with the 
people of Minnesota today and they would be there and remain with us 
until every family that had lost a home would have a home, and every 
life that had been turned upside down would somehow be righted again. 
Again, we cannot make everybody whole, but we need to be able to be 
there with whatever help and assistance we can afford. Senate majority 
leader Trent Lott made a similar pledge last Friday when he met with 
Governor Carlson of Minnesota and myself to talk about the promises 
that Washington has made, and promises we will make sure it lives up 
to.

  It is imperative we bring the disaster aid legislation to the floor 
and we pass it this week. There are thousands upon thousands of 
Americans who are depending on us to meet our responsibilities and also 
to deliver the aid that we have promised.
  To avoid Government's possible disruptions in future funding, we 
should also have a good Government contingency plan in place to make 
sure that the Government has the ability to continue supporting in the 
areas that it can, with aid and other supports. This is the way to 
ensure that the needs of our flood victims in Minnesota will be met now 
and will be met in the near future and in the long run. After all, the 
aid we are promising, the aid that we will debate this week on the 
floor, $488 million that the President has requested for the Midwest 
flooding and the Red River Basin will only be 20 percent or 25 percent 
of what the long-term aid and dollars are going to be.
  If we do not reach agreement that we will be able to keep the 
Government running to assure that the Government will be there in 
October, in November, they could be without the Government assistance 
they are depending on. This is good Government. It would help to take 
politics out of the process, because if we cannot come to terms on a 
budget agreement down the road, we cannot afford to have our flood 
relief efforts halted because of that.
  Now, this is not playing games with the flood victims, as we have 
heard the charges here on the floor today. It would cost no money. We 
are not asking for additional money. We want to put in place a process, 
and this should have been there last year, it should have been there 2 
years ago, and it should be there next year if it is needed, this is 
not playing games with any of the flood victims, with their families, 
or their possessions or their future. This is to help guarantee that 
the aid and the help and the supplies will be there.
  It is an effort to take politics out of the process, because if the 
budget debate that we have this year does not result in a total budget, 
we do not want any part of this Government to shut down. We want to 
make sure that the Government is up and running and that nobody--no 
Government service, no Government program, no Government employee, no 
people relying on those type of services--will be held hostage.
  I am right now disturbed by the political gamesmanship that is 
already being played, talking about this, going on, while our 
constituents are out there waiting for aid, emergency aid, short-term 
funds and long-term, that we need to pass this bill immediately this 
week. It is the responsible thing to do, again, because the disaster 
aid today nor the Federal services, and again the programs and 
employees that we should keep funding, must not be held political 
hostage in the near future. So we have to make sure that we pass some 
reasonable and some good Government contingency plans along with this. 
I hope it is part of this bill. I hope it has overwhelming support to 
ensure that these obligations are met.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I take a few minutes to talk about the Volunteer 
Protection Act and to respond to some of what I considered to be 
unjustified criticisms of the act which we have heard on the floor in 
recent hours.
  As I mentioned yesterday when we began this debate, the Volunteer 
Protection Act will give our volunteers and nonprofit organizations who 
rely on volunteers some much needed relief from frivolous lawsuits that 
are filed based on the actions of volunteers.
  All too often, while we ought to be protecting and encouraging 
volunteers--which President Clinton, Colin Powell, former President 
Bush, and others have done such a commendable job of encouraging in 
Philadelphia this week--we are, instead, permitting them to be 
subjected to baseless, abusive and unwarranted lawsuits. I spoke about 
many such lawsuits yesterday. I have also heard about others from 
community groups, nonprofit organizations, and volunteers in Michigan, 
and about various excesses along these lines.
  Today, I respond to those who criticized this desperately needed 
legislation and to talk about some specific provisions of the bill 
which would address any concerns that might have been raised with 
respect to volunteer protection legislation.
  Perhaps most disturbing to me is that some opponents of this 
legislation tried to characterize it by claiming it would protect white 
supremacist groups and other hate groups. That charge is entirely 
unfounded. It represents an attempt by those who oppose all civil 
justice reform to distort this legislation.
  I have to ask, Mr. President, how people could reach this conclusion. 
Frankly, I have to say that I find it offensive, as an advocate of this 
legislation, to have anybody suggest that we would permit such 
legislation to be brought to this floor.
  First, by its own limiting terms, this bill covers not-for-profit 
organizations that are organized and conducted for public benefit and 
operated primarily for charitable, civic, educational, religious, 
welfare, or health purposes. Not every not-for-profit organization is 
organized for the public benefit and operated primarily for charitable 
purposes. I think it is clear that hate groups, even where they are 
not-for-profit organizations, are not organized for the public benefit 
and operated for charitable or civic purposes. Accordingly, they would 
not be subject to the limitations in this bill.
  Second, the bill goes even further than that to ensure that hate 
groups will not be covered. The bill explicitly excludes from its 
coverage cases in which the misconduct constitutes a hate crime or in 
which the misconduct constitutes a civil rights violation. Thus, even 
if the defendant was associated with a group that was found to be a 
not-for-profit organization covered by the bill, there would be no 
limitation on the liability of the individual or the organization for 
hate crimes or civil rights violations.
  Given the careful drafting of these provisions, it is simply a 
blatant mischaracterization to suggest that this bill would protect the 
Ku Klux Klan, hate groups, white supremacist groups, or any other 
horrible organization. Frankly, I find it very disturbing to even have 
this legislation associated with such hateful groups. Those groups 
would not be sheltered from liability, and any suggestion that they 
would, I think, is just plain wrong.
  I also say, Mr. President, that using the kind of logic that could 
somehow link this legislation to such groups would allow us to say that 
if we provide benefits under Medicaid to people who belong to hate 
groups, we are trying to consciously subsidize white supremacist or 
hate group members. You could do that with any legislation. But we have 
gone the extra mile in this legislation to try to preclude those who 
are involved in hateful activity from being in any way protected by it.
  I also want to respond to another criticism of this legislation. It 
has been suggested that we should leave this

[[Page S3796]]

area to the States. I agree wholeheartedly that the States should be 
involved in offering legal shelter to voluntary and charitable 
activities. The Volunteer Protection Act has in fact been carefully 
drafted by Senators Coverdell, McConnell, myself, and others to ensure 
that we permit the States to do so and that we strike the right balance 
of Federalism.
  For example, in order to permit States to provide their own 
protections to volunteers, section 3 of the bill clearly provides that 
the Volunteer Protection Act will not preempt any State law that 
provides additional protections from liability relating to volunteers 
or nonprofit organizations. Thus, while the bill will set a standard in 
States without volunteer protections, it will permit the States to do 
more.
  Section 4(e) of the bill further provides that a number of State laws 
concerning the responsibilities of volunteers and concerning liability 
for the actions of volunteers will not be construed as inconsistent 
with the act. I would like my colleagues to consider those limitations.
  First, a State law that requires a nonprofit organization or 
Government entity to adhere to risk management or training procedures 
will not be inconsistent with the Volunteer Protection Act.
  Second, State laws that make the organization or entity liable for 
the acts of the volunteer to the same extent that an employer is liable 
for the acts of its employees will continue to have full effect.
  Third, any State law that makes a limitation of liability 
inapplicable if the volunteer was operating a motor vehicle, vessel, or 
aircraft will also continue in force.
  Fourth, also continuing to have effect will be any State law making 
liability limits inapplicable in civil actions brought by State or 
local government officials pursuant to State law. That provision 
ensures that State and local officials will be permitted to enforce 
State law.

  Fifth, the bill specifies that State laws will not be affected where 
they make a liability limitation applicable only if the nonprofit or 
Government entity provides a secure source of recovery for individuals 
who suffer harm as a result of actions taken by a volunteer on behalf 
of the organization or entity. That means that, in any example that 
opponents of this bill bring up and in any other case that occurs, the 
States will have the power to ensure that any injured parties will be 
compensated for those injuries.
  I urge my colleagues to keep these points in mind as we debate the 
motion to proceed and when we get to the final point of actually 
considering the bill.
  The Volunteer Protection Act, I also add, Mr. President, includes one 
other significant protection to ensure the proper respect for 
federalism. That is the State opt-out provision.
  This bill explicitly provides that a State may opt out of the 
provisions of this bill in State court cases involving parties from the 
State. Under the opt-out provision, a State may elect to forego the 
volunteer protections in the bill, provided that a State enacts 
legislation in accordance with the State's constitutional and 
legislative processes. That legislation must cite the opt-out provision 
in the Federal legislation, clearly state an election to opt out, and 
contain no other provisions.
  This ensures that States will opt out when they really do intend to 
do so and that volunteers will not be deprived of volunteer protections 
without the appropriate consideration of the issue by the State.
  As I have stated before, I do not believe that any State will opt out 
of the provisions of this legislation, and I know of no State that 
intends to do so. Rather, the provision was included by the drafters, 
by those of us who support the legislation, as a matter of principle 
out of respect for the States.
  Mr. President, I feel very strongly about litigation abuses in this 
country, and very strongly about fostering charitable and volunteer 
activities. President Clinton, General Powell, and others involved in 
the summit in Philadelphia are absolutely correct that we need to 
encourage the sense of community and charity that makes us so great as 
a nation.
  I encourage my colleagues to consider this legislation in all its 
detail. It has been crafted very carefully by those of us who developed 
the Senate bill. We sought to strike just the right balance with the 
States and to offer protection only to the many worthy activities that 
should be protected, while at the same time protecting the rights of 
those who are victims. I commend Senators Coverdell and McConnell, as I 
have from the beginning, for their efforts, in the hope that we can 
proceed to the consideration and passage of this bill.
  Mr. President, I will close by saying, as I did yesterday, that we 
often talk in this country about the extent to which the sense of 
community that binds us together has eroded in recent years. I think 
that is the case, and it is why so many of our constituents ask us to 
try to take action to rebuild the fabric that binds us together. I 
think the sense of community in America breaks down in no small measure 
because we have stopped looking at one another as neighbors and friends 
and we look at each other as potential plaintiffs and defendants. I 
believe this would not be any greater a case than when it comes to the 
activities of charitable organizations, whom we seek to address with 
the Volunteer Protection Act. If we do not take action to try to give 
volunteer organizations a greater opportunity to do their good deeds, I 
think we really will have set back efforts to build a stronger American 
community.
  For that reason, I sincerely hope our colleagues will join us in 
supporting this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for 
his many contributions--not just the comments today, but the many 
contributions he has made on behalf of the act and on behalf of the 
outreach I spoke of earlier to involve citizens, and the renewal 
alliance, and all of the other work he has done. I appreciate him being 
here.

  Before he leaves, I want to thank him also for specifically referring 
to the suggestion, which I characterized as ``very disappointing'' this 
morning, that this legislation somehow gave undue protections to the Ku 
Klux Klan. I thought introducing that in an attempt to make some 
legitimate criticism of this legislation was inappropriate. I am 
appreciative that you would come with your legal background and point 
out, as I have tried to do--perhaps not as effectively as you have--how 
totally inaccurate that assertion was. I appreciate that.
  Mr. President, if I might take a moment, we are discussing a proposal 
to bring the Volunteer Protection Act before the Senate. We are trying 
to get to the point where we can consider the legislation, and there is 
a filibuster being conducted to prohibit it.
  It has been said all day long that it is of the utmost irony that the 
party of the President, who spoke so eloquently yesterday in 
Philadelphia on behalf of voluntarism, is consciously engaged in 
obstructing and preventing even the debate--we are not to the point of 
voting--about the Volunteer Protection Act, whose sole purpose is to 
make it more possible for volunteers to respond to the request of 
President Clinton, President Bush, President Carter, and President Ford 
for America to step forward.
  Mr. President, just to read from a press release, it says:

       Together with President Clinton, former Presidents, 30 
     Governors, 100 mayors, participated in a conference on 
     volunteering. General Powell said, ``As many as 15 million 
     young Americans need mentoring to help them overcome the 
     adversities they face. They are at risk of growing up 
     unskilled, unlearned, or even worse, unloved.'' General 
     Powell said, standing outside Independence Hall, the 
     birthplace of this Republic, ``They are at risk of growing up 
     physically or psychologically abused. They are at risk of 
     growing up addicted to the pathologies and the poisons of the 
     street. They are at risk of bringing children into the world 
     before they themselves have grown up. They are at risk of 
     never growing up at all.''
  Mr. President, we have heard from Little League Baseball, from the 
Red Cross, from boys clubs and girls clubs, from United Way, from 
former athletes who provide excellent role models for our young people. 
Just 2 weeks ago, Terry Orr of the Washington Redskins, standing before 
the world, said that he cannot get volunteers to do the very work that 
General Powell is alluding to here with inner-city kids, without first 
confronting a barrage of questions from the volunteer he is trying to 
recruit, the current rookies, without

[[Page S3797]]

having to confront that rookie's attorney to determine how much risk is 
the volunteer going to face, how much threat is there to the assets of 
that volunteer's family.
  This legislation before the Senate, being filibustered before the 
Senate--and just another word on that. We have heard all day long about 
the holding up of the nomination of Alexis Herman. We have heard about 
the supplemental bill. We have heard about everything except allowing 
us to move forward with a 12-page bill that very simply makes it 
possible for a volunteer not to be free of willful or reckless activity 
or gross negligence but to be free of making just a mistake or omission 
in the act of being a volunteer--12 pages long. You would think we were 
rewriting the Constitution of the United States.
  It was suggested, well, this was brought up just because of the 
volunteer summit. Right. That is exactly why it is on the calendar 
today, so that there can be a congressional response to the call of the 
Nation's leaders, so that Americans can respond to the call of 
America's leaders. And I just find it unconscionable on two points, 
that we had an extended presentation which somehow would allege the 
authors of this legislation were protecting the Ku Klux Klan of all 
things. And I think a reading of any learned attorney would agree with 
the presentation by the Senator from Michigan that the legislation is 
carefully drafted. There would not be any protection to that kind of 
organization. And then that we would be confronted with a filibuster to 
keep us from trying to help fulfill the dreams and wishes of the summit 
and reinforce America's commitment to voluntarism.

                          ____________________