[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 54 (Wednesday, April 30, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3809-S3810]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
VOLUNTEER PROTECTION ACT
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, on this legislation, again, I want to
emphasize to the American people that we are being prevented from even
debating the real merits of this very important legislation, which
would give some degree of protection to volunteers from being sued when
they are not even remotely involved in what may have caused a lawsuit.
If they are involved in some excessive action or some misconduct, they
would still be subject to lawsuits, but this would give some degree of
protection to volunteers.
I cannot help but again point out the fact that, at a time when there
is this great conference in Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love,
talking about voluntarism in America, how important it is to be
involved with Little League, to be involved with reading, to be
involved with the Boys and Girls Club, the Red Cross, the Salvation
Army--be involved. Here, when we say, ``Yes, but one of the problems is
that you run the risk of being sued; if your good will causes you to be
involved as a volunteer you could wind up having legal action against
you and we want to provide some protection against that''--the
Democrats are filibustering the motion to proceed to the bill.
That is very curious. They say maybe it is related to other issues
that have not been brought up. But the fact of the matter is, this is
very clear. It is a very clear choice. Is the Senate going to go on
record of supporting volunteers and giving them some reasonable
protection against frivolous lawsuits, or are we going to side with the
plaintiffs' lawyers who want to be able to sue everybody, anytime,
anywhere they want to, even volunteers? We are going to have to choose.
So I want to serve notice to the Senate we are going to vote on this
issue over and over and over, and we will not go to other legislation
until this Volunteer Protection Act is passed.
You know, if there is going to be a lot of whining about we cannot do
other things--this is important, fundamental legislation that tells an
awful lot about whether we are honest about wanting to encourage
volunteers and be helpful to volunteers in America.
I would like to address some questions to the distinguished Senator
from Georgia, who has done such outstanding work on this legislation. I
commend him for being prepared to come to the floor of the Senate and
point out what is actually in the bill. I put down some of the
ridiculous allegations that I have heard against the bill yesterday,
about who might be covered by this. You have stood here and you have
answered the questions. You have told the truth about what is in the
bill. You have been prepared to work out problems that might exist,
although it does not look to me like anybody is really very serious
about addressing concerns they may or may not have. So, I thank you on
behalf of the volunteers of America for volunteering to stand here in
the Senate and do battle for them. You have done a great job. I have
heard a lot of other good speeches from our colleagues out here in the
Senate, Senator Ashcroft--I encourage others to come over and engage in
this debate.
But would you answer for me this question? First of all, is this
going to
[[Page S3810]]
protect volunteers who are involved in misconduct in any way from
legitimate lawsuits?
Mr. COVERDELL. First of all, I thank the leader for focusing on this
important measure this morning. I think you have pointed out what to me
has been a startling irony, that the administration is calling on
thousands of Americans to step forward and then sends a team down here
to trip them if they do.
The answer to the question is absolutely not. First of all, it is
only 12 pages long and it is very precise. If you are involved with
misconduct, reckless conduct, gross negligence, driving under the
influence, a hate crime, a sex crime, a civil rights crime--this
legislation offers you no protection. What it does is it deals with the
volunteer who steps forward and makes a simple mistake or omission in
the act of being that volunteer. It would grant protections, limited
protections to a volunteer in that circumstance.
It was suggested yesterday that organizations who promote hate would
somehow find a shield in this measure. That was disappointing. I did
not think that had a real place in the debate. Nevertheless, it was
brought up and it is absolutely incorrect. No organization--they
specifically alluded to the Ku Klux Klan--given the definition of an
organization here, there is not a jury or a judge in America that would
find that definition to include the Ku Klux Klan.
Mr. LOTT. If the Senator from Georgia will yield, it is pretty clear
and narrowly defined, as I read it. It would be applicable to
volunteers or any category of volunteers in the performance of services
for a nonprofit organization or governmental entity; and (2) nonprofit
organizations or governmental entities. That is pretty narrow in its
applicability.
But let me ask you, are you telling me that there are examples in
America where individuals who get involved with the Salvation Army or
get involved with Little League Baseball literally are being sued?
Mr. COVERDELL. Absolutely. It is not so much a case of the judgments.
It is a case of the threat of the suit and what it can do to you. The
best example is listed here where a man who is part of a rescue team
rescued an individual who had fallen off a ledge and was paralyzed. The
person who was rescued by that rescue team sued the rescuers for $12
million.
It was ultimately thrown out of court. But it has had a chilling
effect on people. You come forward, you want to volunteer, but you
don't want to put your family's business or assets at risk for doing
that.
Mr. LOTT. Who is opposed to this legislation? What is the reason for
opposing it? I cannot understand it.
Mr. COVERDELL. Let us look at the lineup here. I read a letter
yesterday I have from Little League Baseball. You have the United Way,
the Red Cross, the Navy League, the Air Force Association, the American
Society of Association Executives. Who is on the other side here? What
is the cast? It is those among the trial attorneys who simply cannot
abide that there be any reform at all, including volunteers, from the
protection of these kind of suits. That is never mentioned. But that is
where the opposition is.
We had a case from Senator Santorum who, in the last Congress,
finally got the Emerson bill passed, which protected people who were
giving food to homeless and starving people. It took the entire session
and it was finally passed by unanimous consent in the waning hours of
the last Congress--the same opponents.
So here we are, trying to make it possible for Americans to respond
to four Presidents: Clinton, Bush, Carter, and Ford; and here they are
trying to block it.
Mr. LOTT. I thank you again for your effort. I am hoping we will
begin to see a break in the stonewall against the motion to proceed to
the bill today and that we will have some Democrats join in getting
cloture so we can go on and finish our discussion of the bill and get
to a final vote. I think that will happen because I think all of us
really want to encourage voluntarism and I think this legislation will
help that all across America.
Then we can go on, either later on this week or next week, to take up
some nominations that are pending on the Executive Calendar and be
prepared on Monday to go to the supplemental appropriations bill. It is
our intent to move forward with that legislation. There is a lot of
complaining now that there may be some amendments in committee or
amendments offered on the floor. What's new? This is the U.S. Senate.
Any Senator, he or she, can offer an amendment. We can debate it. And
there are those who say, ``If you offer certain amendments or if there
are certain things in the bill, we are going to filibuster those items
and hold up the bill,'' and then they say we are holding up the bill.
I am saying now the Appropriations Committee will do its job today or
tomorrow and report out the supplemental appropriations bill, hopefully
in a way that will pay for the cost of the bill, for the most part. And
then we will be prepared to begin on Monday and I will be prepared to
have the final vote Tuesday or Wednesday. If we have to, we will file
cloture to try to cut off a filibuster on items that may or may not be
in the bill. And we hope to be able to complete it Wednesday or
Thursday of next week.
With that, I yield the floor.
____________________