[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 54 (Wednesday, April 30, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3818-S3819]
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 before the vote, the minority 
leader was speaking. Of course he addressed many matters not related to 
the legislation before us, but he did allude to it. I appreciate the 
kind remarks that he made and that perhaps there could be work done to 
arrive at an agreement which both sides--at least he could agree with. 
But he specifically alluded to the situation where you would not want 
to have a volunteer involved with a sexual harassment or sexual crime.
  I really do hope--this is not a long piece of legislation. It is 12 
pages. I wish the staffs and Members would read it. I want to read this 
brief section, to respond to his comment:

       Exceptions to Limitations on Liability.--The limitations on 
     the liability of a volunteer, nonprofit organization, or 
     governmental entity under this section shall not apply [Note. 
     No protection. There is no protection to the volunteer] to 
     any misconduct that--
       (1) constitutes a crime of violence . . . (2) constitutes a 
     hate crime . . . (3) involves a sexual offense. . . .

  So the very point to which the minority leader felt that he could not

[[Page S3819]]

agree is not a difference between us. There may be others, but this is 
not, because a volunteer, involved in that type of activity, is not 
protected.
  Mr. President, I might point out, too, the announcement that this 
legislation would be before the Senate was published in the calendar 
issued by the majority leader to everybody, including the minority 
leader, some time back. It specifically said that on Monday, April 28, 
this is the legislation that would be before us. We are now up to 55 
votes to break this filibuster. I guess I could be somewhat relieved. 
At the rate we are going we will only need five more cloture votes and 
we will actually be able to proceed to the congressional response to 
the President's summit on voluntarism. We have heard a lot about 
gridlock, about not being able to do anything, and this is a very 
visible example right here on the Senate floor of the obstacle and 
hurdle, the gridlock that is preventing us from proceeding to a very 
good piece of legislation. It has broad support all across the country. 
It would help volunteers step forward and participate and respond to 
the President's request. But we are being blocked by a Democrat 
filibuster to prevent our proceeding to S. 543, the Volunteer 
Protection Act.

  I would like to take a moment or two, here, to talk about the 
responses to the limited debate from the other side about the bill. 
Most of the debate has been about other subjects.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will yield?
  Mr. COVERDELL. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator for yielding. 
One of the reasons for the discussion about the other subjects is 
especially the gravity of the disaster that has occurred in the States 
of Minnesota, South Dakota, and North Dakota. A number of us wanted to 
address the issue. We face a markup this afternoon, and hope very much 
that can occur without extraneous amendments and we wanted to discuss 
that a bit. I appreciate very much the courtesy.
  I wonder if the Senator might indicate to me when we might be able to 
get some time?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Of course we are on S. 543, as you know.
  Mr. DORGAN. I understand.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I would say I would need maybe another 10 or 15 
minutes on this matter before yielding to the other side.
  Let me also say, in deference, having experienced this sort of 
natural disaster in my own State, I can appreciate the deep concern of 
the Senator about it. It is my understanding that the supplemental is 
being marked up this afternoon. To have listened to the debate 
yesterday, you would have thought it was already out of committee, 
though. That is a proposal that is still in committee. This is a matter 
that is before the Senate.
  We have heard that voluntarism is healthier than ever, we have 
millions of volunteers, and we do not need a bill to encourage 
voluntarism. That is simply not the case, clearly not the case. 
According to the Independent Sector report, the percentage of Americans 
volunteering dropped from 54 percent in 1989 to 51 percent in 1991 and 
48 percent in 1993. So, from 1989, the number of Americans willing to 
volunteer has dropped 54, to 51, to 48. There may be any number of 
factors involved. I commend the President and ex-Presidents for trying 
to step forward and call on Americans to reverse the trend.
  If they want to reverse the trend, they are going to have to deal 
with this subject. They are going to have to make it not a threat to be 
a volunteer. They are going to have to create a condition that the 
volunteer, in addition to being asked to come forward and provide the 
public service, is not at the same time saying, ``And I am going to 
take my family's home and bank account and put them on a Russian 
roulette lottery wheel to see if they are going to be at risk.''
  The Gallup organization studied voluntarism and found, in a study 
titled, ``Liability Crisis and the Use of Volunteers of Nonprofit 
Associations,'' that approximately 1 in 10 nonprofit organizations has 
experienced the resignation of a volunteer due to liability concerns. 
The only way we are going to turn that around is to pass S. 543, and to 
do it quickly. All the work of General Powell and the Presidents and 
the 30 Governors and 100 mayors in Philadelphia--that is a beautiful 
visual, and inspirational, but, unless we do something pragmatic like 
protecting these volunteers, you are not going to get the response that 
you are looking for.
  The Gallup organization also found that one in six volunteers 
reported withholding services due to a fear of exposure to liability 
suits. That is the point I made about, you step forward to volunteer 
but you are also putting at risk your home, your assets, your savings 
accounts. That is a little bit more to ask of a volunteer than I think 
they will find to be acceptable.
  One in seven nonprofit agencies have eliminated one or more of their 
valuable programs because of exposure to lawsuits. So, there are a 
number of conditions at play here. Not only do the organizations have 
to invest more of their dollars into insurance costs to try to protect 
the volunteers--and of course when it goes to insurance it is not 
buying swimming lessons, it is not feeding the hungry, it does not pay 
for medicine or assistance that goes to an elderly person. It goes to 
an insurance company to protect the volunteer, as best they can, from a 
lawyer in a lawsuit.
  So, it is diverting resources away from the purposes of the charity. 
It says, ``We have heard that there is no evidence of a national crisis 
involving a flood of lawsuits and huge damage awards against volunteers 
of nonprofit organizations.''
  First, volunteers and organizations sued are not interested in 
publicizing the fact. They would just as soon it not be heard. So you 
really don't have a true sense of the magnitude of these lawsuits. 
Second, many cases are settled out of court. So there is no judgment 
entered. Again, insurance companies are not interested in publicizing 
or providing data on their settlements.

  Mr. President, I am told we have several Senators who are seeking 
time on various matters. I am going to ask unanimous consent, see if I 
can get this right, that we would next turn to Senator Dorgan for 10 
minutes, go to Senator McCain for 10 minutes, Senator Conrad for 10 
minutes and Senator Hutchison for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota.

                          ____________________