[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 54 (Wednesday, April 30, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3824-S3831]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          VOLUNTEER PROTECTION ACT OF 1977--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The Senate continued with consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the motion to proceed 
to S. 543.
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. I came to the floor to speak to that piece of legislation, 
but also to speak to the supplemental and the current situation the 
Senate finds itself in at this moment.
  Senator Dorgan has spoken passionately, as he should, about a concern 
for the citizens of his State and that their needs are responded to 
because of the devastating floods that are ongoing in his State. For 
that, this Senate will respond.
  I now have the privilege of serving on the Appropriations Committee, 
and I must tell you that it is my intent to support a supplemental 
appropriation that has disaster relief in it--for the citizens of North 
Dakota, yes, but also for the citizens of Midvale, ID, my hometown.
  In early January of this year, the national television cameras did 
not sweep across the 4 feet of water that surged through my hometown, 
that displaced 40 residents, destroyed homes, took the one small 
general store and put it out of business. I flew over it a few days 
later in a helicopter to see utter devastation like I had never seen 
before and like my friends and neighbors had never witnessed. I 
remembered looking at the files of the local newspaper and the flood of 
1950 when I was a small child in that community. This, of course, was 
even worse. This was, without doubt, the 100-year flood.
  Now, what I found out at that time--and I have great praise for FEMA 
and the Army Corps of Engineers and others--is that they did respond 
and they responded immediately. The citizens of Midvale were cared for 
within the limitations of the law and prescriptive to their needs. I am 
pleased about that and played a small role in helping them.
  What I also find out is that the citizens of North Dakota are being 
cared for at this moment. There is adequate money at this moment to 
deal with the immediate needs. They are being cared for. Will there be 
necessary moneys for the future needs of rebuilding and repair? No. 
That is what the supplemental is all about. There is adequate time for 
a responsible and reasoned debate on what we do about the expenditures 
of our Government.
  I am going to support a continuing resolution tied to the 
supplemental appropriation. Why? Because I do not like the budget 
process gamed. I do not like a President, who owns a bully pulpit, to 
veto and then stand on that pulpit, when it was his pen that brought 
the Government to a halt, turning and saying, ``Look at those folks up 
on the Hill. They did not give me what I wanted, so I am shutting the 
Government down.'' He says, ``They did not give me what I wanted, so 
they are shutting the Government down,'' and he got away with it. The 
American people said, ``Oh my goodness, isn't that terrible. Congress 
should not have done that.''
  Congress did not intend to do that. Congress will not do that again. 
That is why we have considered amongst

[[Page S3825]]

ourselves the importance of putting together a supplemental with a 
continuing resolution that has a level of expenditure of 98 percent of 
the 1997 fiscal year level. That is right and it is responsible.
  Now, I am on the Appropriations Committee. Yes, I am a freshman. I 
understand that. Does it take away my power and my leverage on the 
committee? I really do not think so. All appropriators want to produce 
and pass the 13 appropriations bills that will constitute the new 
budget for fiscal year 1998. Why? Because it is good policy. The 
President has some new programs, and he will get them. We have some new 
programs that we want and some spending reduction levels that we want 
and a tax package that we want that we think are important for the 
American people, and we will get there and the budget will be balanced.
  But what the CR gives us is the room to operate and to say to our 
Government employees, you will not be put at risk and we will not allow 
you to be gamed. I have a sense there is a little gaming going on now 
about the need and the urgency.
  Let me make myself clear. It is my understanding, based on an 
immediate review of the budgets of FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers 
and other areas, that they have money to deal with the immediate 
situation, and it has been dealt with. Every citizen in this country 
that turned on the national news saw Federal employees and Federal 
people on the ground in North Dakota helping, and they are there today 
and will be there tomorrow. What is important is that we deal with this 
issue and deal with it in a responsible and timely way. Will there be 
add-ons to the supplemental? Yes, there will be.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I am not on the Appropriations Committee. Let me say 
this just for clarification here. The supplemental is a vehicle by 
which we can help the flood; it is not a disaster supplemental.
  Mr. CRAIG. That is correct.
  Mr. COVERDELL. In other words, this has been in the process since 
before the emergency, so it is going to probably deal with Bosnia. I am 
just guessing, as I am not on the committee. Do you not have something 
dealing with our troops overseas in this matter?
  Mr. CRAIG. The President, as the Commander in Chief, has the latitude 
within the law to spend beyond the limits of the budget when we have 
troops in foreign lands. The Food and Foraging Act allows for the 
President to do that. That case has occurred in Bosnia. What the 
supplemental offers is some reprogramming of dollars within the defense 
budget to pay for expenditures that have already been let in the area 
of Defense. So it is not just flood money. It is clearly reprogramming 
money for the Department of Defense and for our troops stationed in 
Bosnia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. My point is this. When we have a disaster, we 
typically use whatever vehicle is moving to deal with it. For example, 
in the great 500-year flood that we experienced several years ago in 
Georgia as a result of Alberto--and I believe we all understand the 
sense of urgency that comes from any Member of the body who represents 
that kind of a condition--for the long-term relief, I, along with my 
colleague at the time, Senator Nunn, were addressing it on a series of 
appropriations bills. So this disaster is being addressed on this 
appropriation vehicle, but it is not a bill for the disaster. It is the 
process in which we are engaged that we are using to help the disaster.
  Now, this is my last question, and then I will let the Senator 
proceed with his remarks. The Senator very astutely made the point that 
the emergency brings out our emergency resources. In our case, FEMA was 
there immediately. A coordinated center was set up for relief, water 
was flown in, and the National Guard was dispatched throughout the 
southwestern quadrant of the State. What we were dealing with in 
appropriations was the long-term build-back, which takes a long time.
  I just find it ironic, the one thing that you have to have to protect 
the long-term build-back is that the system does not shut down. So, for 
me, the idea of putting a disaster protection in the supplemental that 
assures that the long-term relief will not come to a stop suddenly 
because of politics is a pretty good idea. Would the Senator agree with 
that?
  Mr. CRAIG. Well, I agree with that, of course. As you know, our 
budgets operate on a fiscal year basis. My guess is that, come October 
1, 1997, when the 1998 budget begins, there will be Federal agencies on 
the ground in North Dakota negotiating contracts with private 
contractors to rebuild or restore facilities in those devastated areas. 
They will be, at that moment, negotiating. If the Government shuts down 
for any given time, all negotiations have to stop, all transactions 
have to stop. That is reality. The Government isn't functioning.
  As we found out in the last shutdown, it is a very clear shutdown--
cease and desist, turn out the lights, go home--except for only 
essential employees who, by definition of their employment, might stay 
on location for the security of the buildings and operations of the 
facilities. That is reality.
  So I think the point the Senator from Georgia makes is a very clear 
and important point. Now, with these disasters ongoing and impending, 
the reality of continuation is very, very important. I have money in 
this supplemental for Idaho. It could be called disaster money. It goes 
to my hometown of Midvale and Washington County and Payette County and 
Jerome County. I have 13 counties in Idaho that have been declared 
disasters. We have flooding going on in my State as we speak.
  Senator Dorgan mentioned he didn't want any add-ons. Let me tell you 
of an amendment I am going to try to put on. It deals directly with 
disaster, and it is an add-on. When a disaster strikes and there is an 
immediate event and an emergency situation and there needs to be build-
back of dikes to protect private property and private life, we have a 
problem. The problem is that the Endangered Species Act can step in, 
and external agencies like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services and 
National Marine Fisheries can oftentimes come in like they have in 
California during the incidents in January of this year. There was a 
special area designated by the Assistant Secretary to allow the waivers 
to take place because it had to be an Executive waiver. In St. Marys in 
north Idaho, a flood event that occurred in 1996 was in the midst of 
being repaired. At that time, there were over 400 homes in that 
community under water. As I flew over in a helicopter, just the 
rooftops were sticking out. The dikes had blown. Now they are repairing 
them. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stepped in and said, ``We 
don't think you are following the Endangered Species Act. Stop.'' That 
order went out about a month and a half ago. There is no more dike 
building going on in St. Marys in Benewah County in north Idaho. The 
water is rising as we speak and the dike is not complete. This is all 
about habitat for osprey eagles and has nothing to do with human life 
and property.

  My little amendment says that during the time of a declared 
emergency--in this instance, I am simply saying 1996 and 1997--the 
Endangered Species Act doesn't pertain during the time of emergency and 
emergency repairs to follow. I am sure that that will be the case along 
the Red River in North Dakota and other areas that we will have to deal 
with. That is an add-on, and I am sure the Senator from North Dakota 
would want that. There can be others that can be argued to be direct 
and specific as it relates to the supplemental.
  Mr. President, I came to the floor to suggest that this Senate 
deserves to debate and to vote upon S. 543. I find it amazing that, in 
this system of Government by laws that we all support and believe in, 
we have found ourselves so encumbered by laws that we can no longer 
volunteer, or you can't give freely of your time without liability or 
without risk of liability, or to work in a voluntary organization, and 
that organization has to take out insurance to protect themselves so 
that they are exempt from lawsuit. We used to deal with that as a free 
and open society. We had a doctrine of charitable immunity. In other 
words, we said, if you are giving to charity and you are giving in a 
voluntary and charitable way, you are immune from litigation. Well, 
that

[[Page S3826]]

no longer exists. Most States abrogated charitable immunity by imposing 
full liability for damages without adequate consideration of whether 
unique characteristics of charitable organizations and volunteers 
warranted some other arrangement.
  I find it amazing that we are being blocked by the party of the 
President, who has just done a very admirable thing in Philadelphia 
about voluntarism, to launch a national voluntarism program across this 
country, which I suspect 100 percent of the Senate believes in, along 
with the huge majority of the American people. We are now at a 
standstill on legislation to protect those who would come out in 
response to our President and to General Powell and to past Presidents 
and to a nation which really does believe that the way to save our 
cities of America is not just a Federal program, but to incorporate the 
cause and caring of citizens of our country that give of their time in 
a voluntary way.
  I hope that we can pass this legislation. It is literally being 
filibustered at this moment. Are there extenuating circumstances? Yes, 
there are. We all know that. It is too bad we can't move on with this 
legislation and deal with it. But I will tell the Senator this. I 
mentioned it to him several times on the floor in, I think, appropriate 
and just ways. We will convene the Appropriations Committee this 
afternoon, we will mark up a supplemental, and it will have some 
emergency dollars in it and some defense reprogramming. It will have a 
CR in it, I believe, and it will probably have other issues in it that 
Senators, bipartisan Senators, Democrats and Republicans, will find 
necessary to put in the supplemental.
  I yield to the Senator.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me say that the amendment you 
described a few moments ago--I understand that there is some 
controversy about it, but it is perfectly appropriate. Your amendment 
deals with the disaster. I read it last evening at home, and I 
certainly would not intend to be critical of somebody who is offering 
amendments that deal with the bill. I want you to understand that. My 
concern is amendments that really don't have any relationship to this 
bill but which people want to get passed. I heard you describe it and 
use my name. I have no problem with that amendment being offered 
because it relates to this bill.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator for saying so. I said it in the 
context that it is an add-on. You are right. I think it is appropriate 
and I think it will have bipartisan support. We are all for the 
Endangered Species Act, and we want to make sure our Government 
agencies function and operate in a way that their activities do not 
damage or threaten endangered species. But in a time of a flood 
incident or emergency, to invoke a bureaucracy and withhold the ability 
to immediately get out there and solve that problem and protect private 
property and human life is really beyond me. Yet, we find ourselves in 
that circumstance. My amendment will deal with that.
  With those comments, I hope we can move in a timely fashion to deal 
with S. 543. I hope that, with the work of the Appropriations Committee 
this afternoon, we can have a supplemental come to the floor that deals 
with disaster relief, that deals with reprogramming of defense dollars. 
It is going to deal with a lot of other issues. It is not the disaster 
bill. It should not be said that it is. It is an appropriation bill 
dealing with supplemental needs, most of them requested by the 
President and sent to the Congress. We are responding to the 
administration, in most instances, by dealing with those things that 
the President feels are necessary and that the majority of the Congress 
would agree with.

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, about an hour ago, to facilitate 
remarks on the subject we have been hearing about for the last hour, I 
stepped aside from the explanation of what is really before the Senate, 
which is S. 543. I see the Senator from Illinois here. I do have some 
rather extended comments to make about S. 543. So I might ask what 
would be required by the Senator who has come to the Senate floor? I 
have been trying to accord the various interests here.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator. I wanted to address my remarks to 
the issue concerning the disaster assistance and the continuing 
resolution.
  Mr. COVERDELL. How much time would the Senator need?
  Mr. DURBIN. Since I am new to this Chamber, it will be brief.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I will yield the floor so that you might make your 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is S. 543.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it may be of interest to note why we are 
here and what we are talking about. Nominally, we are here to consider 
Senate bill 543, an important piece of legislation and one which I 
cosponsored in a slightly different form as a Member of the House of 
Representatives. I commend the Senator for offering this. I think it is 
an important piece of legislation. I hope that we can have real debate 
on it and consider some amendments and enact legislation to certainly 
achieve the goals. They are worthy goals. People who volunteer to help 
organizations should not risk or fear liability for their acts, unless, 
of course, they are guilty of something which is wanton or criminal in 
nature. I think the Senator offers a good piece of legislation. I would 
like to see some changes, and I hope we reach that point.
  The reason why we are not considering it, the reason why the 
Democrats have voted on two successive days to continue this debate has 
nothing to do with the bill directly. It relates to the appointment of 
a person to serve as Secretary of Labor. We feel this has been delayed 
for the wrong reasons. We hope the Republican majority will move on Ms. 
Herman's nomination very quickly. Unfortunately, your bill has become a 
captive in this negotiation.
  The other measure that came up here today is one I would like to 
address for a moment, one that I feel an affinity to, the question of 
disaster assistance. In 1993, in my congressional district, in 
downstate Illinois, we were literally inundated by the Illinois and 
Mississippi Rivers, and it was awful. I feel very badly for families 
that are victimized by disasters. But I will tell you. Some disasters 
come and go very, very quickly. In the dead of night a tornado rips 
through a town, and by the next morning people are picking up the 
pieces, clearing the rubble, and planning for rebuilding. A fire rips 
through an area and people the next day are talking about demolition 
and reconstruction. But a flood lingers and lingers. Mr. President, 
125,000 Americans are now homeless in North Dakota and Minnesota 
because of this flood. The pictures that I have seen make my experience 
in downstate Illinois almost pale in comparison. That is something I 
thought I would never see because the flood that we experienced was 
devastating.

  It is really sad, though, as we consider the response of this Nation 
through our Government to this disaster, that we have seen other issues 
extraneous to the issue at hand really take center stage. I hope that 
the Appropriations Committee will think about the families that have 
been hurt, businesses destroyed, and the farms inundated when they 
markup this afternoon. Give us a clean disaster bill that will help 
these families. There are important issues to debate. But save those 
for another day. Let's really come to the rescue of the families of 
this Nation. Let's show compassion for these families.
  I daresay there isn't a Senator in this body who could go up to North 
Dakota to one of shelters where these homeless people are now waiting 
and say, ``You have to understand. We can't help you out until we have 
a momentous debate on another issue.'' That would be a hard sell. I 
wouldn't want to have to do it. I hope that Members who have been 
spared in their own States and districts from this kind of disaster 
will try to commiserate with those of us who have been through it. It 
is time to think about those families, and this issue that is tying us 
up as to whether or not we will endure another Government shutdown. I 
pray that we will not. The decision about 2 years ago by the Republican 
majority to send a bill that they knew would be vetoed leading to the 
shutdown of the Government is a sad experience. I think all involved in 
that understand that today, and they want to avoid that in the future. 
That is a goal that I share.
  I don't agree with the approach that is being used because the 
continuing

[[Page S3827]]

resolution bill is a complete abdication of responsibility by the 
Members of the Senate. It was only a few weeks ago that Members came to 
this floor, and in very convincing and pious tones talked about 
amending the Constitution of the United States to require the Senate 
and the House to meet their obligation and their responsibility to 
balance the budget. We were about to amend the Constitution of the 
United States because we take that issue so seriously. It failed by one 
vote.
  Despite all of the fervor and all of the commitment, where are we 
today? The Republican majority in the House and Senate has failed to 
meet its statutory obligation to produce a budget resolution which is a 
blueprint on how you will reach a balanced budget. That was supposed to 
have been done by April 15. Yet here we are weeks later without a 
budget resolution. Negotiations continue.
  So now the proposal is that we will amend or add to the disaster bill 
this blueprint for balancing the budget. Excuse me. The people in North 
Dakota whose homes have been flooded, whose kids who are out of school 
sitting in homeless shelters, people who are drinking water out of cans 
because you can't use the water system--they are gone--folks that do 
not know what has happened to articles in their lives that have meant 
so much to them--it is a little hard to explain to them that we have a 
more important thing to worry about than the roof over their heads or 
the food that they are going to eat. We have, instead, to worry about 
this continuous debate about balancing the budget.
  If the goal is to avoid shutting down the Government, I am about to 
offer a solution. It is one that I guarantee you will make certain that 
the Federal Government never shuts down again. It has two parts to it. 
The first part is this: No budget, no pay. If Members of House of 
Representatives fail to enact a budget, if Members of the Senate fail 
to enact a budget, they don't get paid. That will focus the attention 
of this Chamber and the House on getting its business done in a hurry.
  There is a second part. I call this ``no dessert until you clean your 
plate.'' Have you ever heard of that one? You did while you were 
growing up. Mom and dad used to tell you that one all the time.
  It is very simple. It merely says that the last appropriations bill 
to be enacted, the last spending bill to be enacted, would be the 
spending bill that covers this Chamber and the House of 
Representatives. So, if we fail to appropriate the money for the 
Department of Justice, or the Department of State, we know that the 
House and the Senate will not continue in business. ``No dessert until 
you clean your plate.'' Pass the spending bills for all the agencies of 
Government, and make ours the last one. And until all the others are 
enacted we cannot enact our own.

  I will guarantee you all of the volumes of debate that we will hear 
about balancing the budget may lead to a good conclusion and a good 
ending--that we will finally see Members who have their paychecks on 
line, and who will realize that the operations of the House and Senate 
are on the line, decide, ``Yes, we had better pass the appropriations 
bill. Yes, we had better enact a balanced budget instead of a 
constitutional amendment, and get down to the business of passing 
bills.''
  It is sad that this Appropriations Committee in the Senate will come 
back this afternoon and amend this disaster bill, and embroil these 
poor people--125,000 homeless people who have lost their homes because 
of this flood--in the middle of this political debate. They really 
deserve better. America deserves better.
  We are a caring people. And the people in this Chamber--men and women 
alike, Democrats and Republicans--are caring people as well. Let us not 
sacrifice what is good about America, and what we are so proud of in 
the name of a political debate. Let us get down to the business of 
helping the flood victims, and then let us get down to the business of 
balancing the budget.
  I thank my colleague for yielding this time. I am sure we will return 
to this bill in earnest very soon, and his patience will be rewarded.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I appreciate the brevity of my 
colleague from Illinois. I will make a couple of comments about his 
remarks, and then return to S. 543.
  First, as he properly stated regarding S. 543, I was pleased to hear 
that he felt good about the legislation, that it has gotten caught up 
in the debate about the supplemental budget and about the nomination of 
Alexis Herman. But I would point out to the Senator from Illinois that 
we have been on S. 543 since Monday and have been blocked from action 
on it. And the supplemental legislation--which deals with Bosnia, which 
deals with the disaster, which deals with the multitude of issues--is 
not out of committee. And there is no reason whatsoever for it to be 
used as some political obstacle to block legislation that would help 
American volunteers respond to the President's request to step forward.
  I point out that S. 543 has been on the floor since Monday afternoon, 
and that we have been blocked from going to the legislation by a 
filibuster. And they have evoked the fact something about the 
supplemental and whether we are in a debate over a continuing 
resolution or not. It is not even out of committee. So, obviously, it 
cannot be used as any leverage against S. 543.
  With regard to the President's nomination of Alexis Herman to be 
Secretary of Labor, and the fact that that matter has not been brought 
to the floor, I don't believe that issue--which I will talk about in a 
second--should be used to deal with this very targeted, narrow 
legislation in response to the summit in Philadelphia.
  What you have there is an individual who went through the committee 
process, and purportedly handled her business there very well, but as 
the future spokesperson for the administration on labor failed to 
mention that the administration was contemplating a massive change in 
labor law; and that they were contemplating doing it not by bringing 
legislation to the House and the Senate but by making the change occur 
by decree--an Executive order issued by the President--that would 
exclude about 80 percent of the American work force from eligibility on 
a labor contract. That didn't come up in the hearing. That is not an 
insignificant policy. It is even in the minds of many a constitutional 
confrontation.

  We don't govern by decree in America--nor edict. The President cannot 
write the law. He can veto it, but he cannot write it. That is a huge 
issue. And the majority said, ``Wait a minute. We want to talk more 
about that.'' And we are going to. It is likely to be extensive. That 
is what that nomination is entrapped about--the idea that the President 
would rewrite law that has been in place for 60 years, and bypass the 
Congress.
  That disagreement, purportedly, according to the other side, is the 
reason that we should take no further action on S. 543, a 12-page bill, 
double-spaced bill, whose simple goal is to protect American volunteers 
from being undue legal targets.
  Prior to 1980, this was not a problem in our country. You can count 
on two fingers the number of lawsuits that have been targeted at 
volunteers. But in the 1980's there were several celebrated cases. And, 
all a sudden, there was a rush. ``Well, here is a new resource that we 
can sue.'' Often the volunteer organization has very limited resources. 
But maybe one of the volunteers owns a home, or maybe it is worth a 
quarter of a million dollars. ``We will go after that.'' This 
legislation says no. You can't do that. It has to be proportionate.
  There was a case discussed yesterday where a volunteer was sitting at 
the reception desk at a gym. A child in the gym dropped a weight and 
broke his or her leg. The volunteer agency that organized this 
recreation didn't have anything. But guess what? The volunteer 
answering the phone did. Who did they sue? Right--the volunteer 
answering the phone who had nothing to do with anything other than 
being a good-spirited American. When that news gets around town, how 
many people are going to go answer the phone? Not many.
  That is what we are trying to protect here in this legislation--that 
the volunteer could only be held liable for that which she was 
responsible, which was zero. A 12-page bill, double-spaced with a very 
narrow focus to that, tries to help fulfill the call of Presidents 
Clinton, Bush, Carter, and Ford: America, step up, renew our volunteer 
spirit,

[[Page S3828]]

renew what is so unique about it, and reinvigorate your desire to come 
forward.
  If they do not protect those families and their assets, their homes, 
their checking accounts, that is asking more than they are going to 
get. Volunteers are willing to step forward, but it is another thing to 
say step forward and place everything you have in place to manage your 
family, you put that in a legal lottery, which is why there have been 
48,000 resignations in the last several years, which is why voluntarism 
has dropped from 54 percent to 48 percent and going down, which is why 
charitable organizations do not have as much in resources to spend on 
their work because they are spending it on insurance, and which is why 
there is this chilling cloud. As more and more Americans realize they 
are not just volunteering to help someone in need, they are placing all 
their own property at risk, as everyone learns that, their first 
priority is to protect their own family.
  S. 543 comes to this problem in a very balanced and appropriate 
manner. Now, I have discovered that even though this is only 12 pages 
long, double spaced--and I know we always talk about how much of the 
actual legislation is read. It is pretty obvious this has not been read 
by a number of the Members because of the comments they have made. 
Yesterday we heard that it would protect the Ku Klux Klan, of all 
things. I suggested that it be read. I will read the provision that 
deals with that. It is the definition of a nonprofit organization, what 
is one. It is this. It is ``any organization described in section 
501(c)(3)''--that has to be an educational effort--``of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 and is exempt from tax under section 501(a).''
  That means the Internal Revenue Service has to certify that it is an 
appropriate organization. I have been through that myself. It takes a 
long time. They ask a lot of questions. It would be ``any not-for-
profit organization organized and conducted for public benefit and 
operated primarily for charitable, civic, educational, religious, 
welfare, or health purposes,'' period.
  That is the kind of organization this legislation provides some 
protection for. Why do I say some? Because it does not protect the 
organization or the volunteer for willful misconduct.
  In other words, let us say the volunteer was driving, carrying 
children and was inebriated--drunk. No protection. Let us say the 
volunteer was involved in a hate crime or a sexual offense or a civil 
rights matter. No protection. This is designed to deal with the 
volunteer at the Little League who is just carrying out his or her job 
as a volunteer and somebody trips or slips or falls. We all know what 
that means. It would give them some protection from liability.
  So this legislation, as narrow as it is, would cut a wide swath and 
open the door for a large number of Americans to do what they naturally 
want to do anyway; it is a part of who we are, and that is to step 
forward and volunteer and answer the call of four Presidents and 
General Powell. It is being filibustered and has been since Monday at 
about 2 o'clock--with the exception of the managing Member on the other 
side, virtually none of the other side's debate has had anything to do 
with this at all but extraneous matters--for which we have now had two 
cloture votes, and the majority leader has said we are going to have 
two more because we are going to do something about voluntarism in 
America.
  It does not have anything to do with the supplemental, and it does 
not have anything to do with our argument over labor law. Those are 
both very, very powerful issues and ought to be dealt with in the 
appropriate venue. It is a little bit like taking a sledgehammer to 
deal with an ant. This is a good Samaritan act, and the fact that we 
are now sitting here at 1:20 on Wednesday for these 12 pages, double 
spaced, is a rather remarkable comment on goodwill--or the lack of it.
  Now, Mr. President, I would like to cover questions that have been 
raised, not so much by the other side but by others, about what we need 
to do on voluntarism. Some people have suggested that we do not need to 
do much, if anything, that voluntarism is healthier than ever.
  That is simply not true. I am going to repeat this. According to the 
Independent Sector report, the percentage of Americans volunteering 
dropped from 54 percent in 1989 to 51 percent in 1991, and then 48 
percent in 1993--a clear pattern. Fear of litigation alone does not 
explain the decline, but it is one factor we can address.
  I was glad to see the Presidents and General Powell calling on 
America to reinvigorate itself. I was once the Director of the U.S. 
Peace Corps, and I feel I have some personal knowledge. I had a chance 
to be right up close to the American spirit. It is unique and it is a 
treasured value, a treasured piece of the American spirit. Anything 
that interrupts it or gets in the way, anything that chills it, 
discourages it, we ought to be attentive to. Historically and 
contemporarily, voluntarism as it occurs in the United States is fairly 
unique around the world even. It has been written about, and it is 
true. It began with our very beginning. As Americans moved all across 
the country to the West, over and over again was that coming together 
and that volunteer spirit to help one another build this great Nation. 
It would be like being concerned about protecting our national 
monuments, protecting our national treasures, our parks.

  Voluntarism is an American national treasure of immense proportions. 
I used to try, with my mental calculator, to figure out the value that 
the Peace Corps volunteers had contributed to the world and to the 
United States, and it is in the billions--billions. I assume there are 
people who have tried to do that here domestically, but it would be 
very difficult to calculate because there is so much of it we do not 
even know about--the person who walks across the street to take a warm 
meal to an invalid, or that special hand that is held out to a child 
lost in a train station. If you stop and think about it and become a 
little more observant, you will not be able to get through a single day 
in America when you will not see some manifestation of this treasure, 
and it requires and deserves our attention. I frankly think it deserves 
a lot more attention than it has received in the last 72 hours here.
  The Gallop organization studied voluntarism and found, in a study 
titled ``Liability Crisis and the Use of Volunteers of Nonprofit 
Associations,'' that 1 in 10 nonprofit organizations has experienced 
the resignation of a volunteer from a board or some function in the 
organization. They have stepped aside. That is even worse. That just 
shows you the degree of fear we have here. It is not that they did not 
step forward or there was something in their mind that said, ``I do not 
know whether I should do it because I could get sued.'' This is a 
person who already agreed to do it and became so intimidated that they 
quit. They resigned from the board. They left. I would venture to say 
there is not a Member of this body who has not experienced and thought 
about this very thing, if they would all think back. Because they are 
in public life, they are more visible, and so they have thought, do I 
really want to do this? Does this put me at more risk, or my family? I 
bet every Member of this Congress of the United States has had their 
thinking modified because of fear of a legal challenge.
  One in seven nonprofit agencies has eliminated one or more of their 
valuable programs because of exposure to lawsuits. So here we have the 
organization that is eliminating its services--we are not going to do 
that anymore; we are not going to teach people how to swim. That is a 
dangerous environment. We are not going to do the same kind of camping 
programs because you are in the outdoors and it is harder to control. 
Or the story we heard from my colleague from Wyoming where the Boy 
Scouts cannot have a volunteer with a child now. They have to have two. 
They cannot have one adult and a child alone for fear there will be an 
allegation and a lawsuit.
  This is a very worrisome development--fairly new, mid-1980's, last 10 
years, this chilling cloud that is growing and growing.
  Look at these statistics. One in five volunteers are more concerned 
about serving in volunteer organizations due to the increased liability 
threat. One in five. That is 20 percent, and it is going to grow unless 
we do something like S. 543. And 18 percent of those surveyed had 
withheld their leadership services due to fear of liability.

[[Page S3829]]

  That is the point I was making about the Members of Congress. It 
would be interesting if we could document it, if everybody would think 
back and say, well, was there a board I left? I can think of one. Was 
there a board on which I refused to serve? I guarantee you that the 
vast majority, if not all, have changed or made a different decision 
about assistance because of the fear of liability.
  And 49 percent reported seeing fewer people willing to serve on 
nonprofit organizations. That is like the story I told about Washington 
Redskin Terry Orr when he took over trying to recruit team members to 
help in the inner city here in Washington. They had to fight to get 
him, because he was concerned about liability.

  Mr. President, ``72 percent reported volunteers becoming cautious in 
what they say or do, relating to their volunteer work.'' That is a 
point that has not been talked about much here. But, clearly, people 
make different decisions when they are fearful of liability and they 
begin, even if they are a volunteer, not being as effective a 
volunteer. The kind of duty they will accept, the kind of thing they 
might or might not do, begins to be less effective. One of the reasons 
I have always argued against programs that say they are volunteer, but 
for which there is a large sum of money paid, which is actually a 
payment relationship, is that the unique chemistry that creates the 
American volunteer is altered; the free spirit of it, the nature of it 
is not the same if the volunteer is forced to be there.
  Some have suggested that we ought to mandate voluntary service. The 
minute you mandate it you cannot use the word ``volunteer'' anymore. 
That is drafted, and that person interacts with the children or elderly 
people they are serving in a completely different way than when it is 
self-sought.
  I was with a man the other day in middle Georgia. He volunteers a 
great deal of his time teaching youngsters how to fly and be involved 
in the Civil Air Patrol. He has spent several thousands of his own 
dollars to help these young men and women. He was driving me to my 
destination and, as we approached, he said: But it's all worth it when 
I see their faces, when I see the excitement in their faces. That is 
voluntarism and that is a special chemistry. The point I am making here 
is, when you introduce this fear, this chilling fear about what you can 
and cannot do and how liable you are, you change the entire chemistry 
of this volunteer that I have called an American treasure.
  Another thing I have heard from time to time is, ``There is no 
evidence of a national crisis involving a flood of lawsuits.'' It is 
not the number of judgments we are worried about here. We do not know 
all of them because many of them are settled. Institutions do not like 
to talk about this. It only invites more. So you really cannot get a 
total picture of what is happening in this arena. But you only have to 
have one of these celebrated cases to change the behavior of millions 
of Americans. So it is not a question of how much has happened. The 
fact is that it has happened and therefore the insurance companies have 
modified their premiums manyfold.
  There is one example of a Little League whose premium for protection 
in this arena was $75. It went to $775. You multiply that all across 
the land. It is the fact that it is a phenomenon that is occurring more 
readily, volunteers are a target, premiums are up, and volunteers step 
back.
  We have heard some on the floor say persons injured by volunteer 
negligence will not be protected. In other words, there is not a 
redress for the first person who was injured, the young fellow who 
broke his leg when he dropped the weight. Under this legislation, 
anyone injured by this simple negligence, that is conduct that is not 
reckless, wanton, intentional, or criminal, of a volunteer, can still 
seek recovery from the organization. In other words, the organization 
would still have a liability, but not the volunteer who is just there 
as a good Samaritan. It would be the organization. The volunteer who 
came there as a good Samaritan, who just happened to have resources 
more than maybe the organization, is not set aside as a target. Which 
is appropriate.
  Of course, as I have said repeatedly on the floor, and I hope some on 
the other side would listen to this, that when the volunteer's conduct 
is reckless, wanton, intentional, or criminal, then nothing in this 
legislation changes the terms of recovering the damages. In other 
words, there is no shield, there is no protection for a volunteer who 
was engaged in reckless, wanton, intentional, or criminal activity.
  A question has been raised, why should a volunteer who causes harm to 
a child through negligence be immune from suit?
  It is not the intention of the bill to cause volunteers to act 
carelessly with children, or any that they are helping, or those that 
are entrusted to their care. The truth is that simple, honest mistakes 
and accidents happen in life. They just do. The organization still 
remains potentially liable for the actions of its volunteers, and will 
still encourage due care by its volunteers. In fact, the legislation 
specifically says that if it is the practice to certify licensure, 
train the volunteer, the volunteer organization, the charitable 
institution, is still responsible for carrying that activity out. 
Otherwise they do, indeed, increase their liability.
  We believe, in fact, that the organization will often be in a better 
position to pay than the volunteers would be anyway. Volunteers 
themselves can be people of limited means or not, just as those who are 
served by charitable volunteers are often people of limited resources. 
We have heard that no independent study suggests federally imposed tort 
immunity, legal immunity, will increase the number, frequency, or 
quality of volunteers. As I have said over and over here, every one of 
us has met someone like this. If it was ourselves, we looked at 
ourselves in the mirror. Who has not expressed fear of liability in 
volunteering?

  This is not rocket science. It is pretty straightforward. We have a 
situation where the current system is chilling the impact of 
volunteers--reducing their ability to come forward, causing them to 
leave, causing them to alter the way in which they carry out their 
work.
  I hesitate to bring this up again, but I guess I have to because the 
other side has alluded to it, particularly yesterday, where it was 
suggested that organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan might gain 
lawsuit immunity from S. 543. As I have read here, now, at least three 
times and probably, given the circumstance, will do so three more, the 
bill specifically excludes from its protection suits based on 
misconduct that includes violent crime, hate crimes, sex crimes, or 
civil rights violations. It also does not apply where the defendant was 
under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The bill only provides limited 
immunity for the simple negligence of volunteers in carrying out their 
volunteer duties for a nonprofit organization, organized for public 
benefit, and primarily carrying out charitable, civic, educational, 
religious, welfare, or health purposes. And, as I have said, it 
includes volunteers for 501(c)(3) organizations, which are educational 
organizations that must be certified and approved by the Internal 
Revenue Service.
  Some have said, if this bill is passed it will not reduce the 
liability insurance rates of nonprofit organizations at all. In fact, 
insurance rates for nonprofit organizations could go up. The primary 
objective of the bill is to encourage more volunteers. Insurance 
ramifications are secondary. The primary purpose, I repeat, of this 
legislation, S. 543, is to encourage more Americans--in your State, Mr. 
President, and in mine, and in every State of the Union--to come 
forward and reinforce the meaning of voluntarism in our country. While 
we can look at nonprofits' insurance rates as a measure of the problem, 
reducing the insurance rates of nonprofit organizations is not the 
bill's main goal. I personally believe that you will see a reduction in 
the rates because it stands to reason that, if the liability is 
circumscribed, made smaller, that the rates will ultimately reflect 
that. And that those sums of money, instead of being used for insurance 
premiums, can be used to buy meals, give rides, teach, provide meals, 
and otherwise give aid and assistance to Americans in need.
  We have heard this objection, and this has been mentioned on the 
floor: ``We do not need a Federal law. We

[[Page S3830]]

should leave it to each State to decide how to protect volunteers.'' It 
was, I think, very well stated yesterday when Senator McConnell, from 
Kentucky, pointed out the national nature of voluntarism. Many of the 
Nation's most preeminent volunteer organizations are national in scope. 
We do not have to spend much time thinking about it--the American Red 
Cross, the United Way, Little League International--and the list goes 
on. These are national organizations and their activities interact with 
all the States and volunteers. Their activities cross State lines. We 
have a classic example. We have been talking about it today. There is 
no telling how many volunteers are in the Midwest and how many of them 
come from somewhere else in the country. Many of them do.
  I experienced a flood of these proportions in our State several years 
ago and people came from everywhere and volunteered and pitched in. 
They made sandbags, they helped clean out the mess, the mud. And, as 
has been characterized, a flood takes a long time to get straight. In 
fact, I think I could sadly say that many of the communities that have 
been confronted with this flooding in the Midwest will never be the 
same. Their character will be altered forever. It takes a while to 
appreciate the scope of what massive flooding can do. The point here is 
that the volunteers move across State lines a lot, and the 
organizations that recruit them are national organizations.
  The decline of voluntarism is of national concern, else why would we 
have three former Presidents and the President all gathered together 
with 30 Governors and 100 mayors? They were not in Philadelphia to 
encourage voluntarism just in Philadelphia. They recognize that this is 
a national problem, and as I mentioned a little earlier, it is also a 
national treasure. Voluntarism, and what it means to America, is a 
piece of our national mystique, just as our national parks and our 
national monuments, and it needs national attention.
  Having said that, the legislation does acknowledge the State role. 
First, if the State takes greater safeguards in the national bill, the 
national bill does not preempt those safeguards that go beyond the 
scope of the national bill.
  If everybody involved in the legal action is a citizen of the same 
State, the State, by legislative action, may opt out from under S. 543 
and only State law would apply, where all the defendants and plaintiffs 
were of that State. But, as I said, if it is a case that involves 
volunteers or activities among States, the Federal law would prevail.
  I have said the national groups can cross State lines, but even local 
groups operate across State lines. How often is the camping trip to the 
next State, the neighbor State, or to the beach or to the mountains, to 
a lake--somewhere else? A lot of volunteer activity occurs across 
multiple State lines.
  A Boy Scout troop in Georgia may go to an outing in Tennessee or 
North Carolina, Alabama, or Florida. This would be the case in every 
State. I remember when I was an Explorer Scout. A lot of the activities 
occurred somewhere else, outside the home State.
  In emergency situations and disasters, which I have alluded to, such 
as hurricanes and floods in the upper Midwest States, volunteers come 
from many States, and under pretty difficult situations, too, which has 
not been talked about. Volunteers are often confronted with situations 
and circumstances that are abnormal, such as working in a disaster, 
where accidents are more prone. If you think back, most of the 
accidents that you have had in your own home were usually during 
inclement weather, you were doing something that was a little out of 
the norm. You were more prone to a mistake or accident. Volunteers are 
often embroiled in that very kind of situation where you are more 
likely to have a mistake made, which would be another argument for S. 
543.
  There is so much volunteer activity that is directed at a 
circumstance or phenomenon that is out of the norm--a fire, a calamity 
of some sort in the community, and people make more mistakes in that 
environment because they are in places with which they are not familiar 
and they are confronting circumstances they do not deal with on a daily 
basis, which is yet another argument, frankly, that has not been 
chronicled. But it just occurred to me as another reason why S. 543 
would be so pertinent.
  State laws are a hodgepodge of Good Samaritan laws and, in some 
cases, provide little protection at all. On that point, I want to read 
from the ``ABA Section of Business Law,'' a recent article that deals 
with this subject pretty well. It talks about the fact that in the 
eighties, this began to become a major problem. Prior to that, it was 
not. Then it talks about the States all trying to deal with this. It 
goes on to say:

       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 
     Nonprofit Risk Management Center compiled them in a 
     publication, State Liability Laws for Charitable 
     Organizations and Volunteers. This article--

  The one I am quoting--

     draws on that analysis.
       Each of the laws grants volunteers partial immunity. The 
     extent of that immunity, and the conditions required for it 
     to apply, vary not only across the states, but even within 
     some states depending on the type of volunteer and the nature 
     of the organization the volunteer serves. The common feature 
     of the statutes is that unless volunteers' conduct fails to 
     satisfy whatever standard the law specifies, they cannot be 
     held personally liable.

  Which is, of course, the goal we are after in S. 543.

       The variations result from differences in circumstances 
     that impelled legislatures to act, effectiveness of the 
     volunteer-protection proponents, and the sensitivity of 
     legislatures to the prospect of injured parties being denied 
     recovery.

  The point here is that this article chronicles in a very thoughtful 
way that the current situation is unmanageable, when you have national 
organizations, volunteers crossing State borders, activity in the 
various States and none of the two States being the same. Therefore, 
this has accomplished very little in terms of the chilling impact on 
volunteers. They do not know what risks they face and, therefore, they 
are stepping back from volunteering.
  Charities, especially small charities, do not have the resources to 
determine the difference in State laws affecting them. Amen. There is 
absolutely no way. Of course, as you know, Mr. President, with the 
outburst of lawmaking here and across the States, it is almost 
impossible for any citizen to understand the complexities of the law 
today. Just talk to them about the IRS, that one alone. But here the 
charities do not have the resources to understand what they are 
confronted with in all the different States, and if the charity does 
not, the volunteer certainly does not. The volunteer is really the 
hapless wanderer as that volunteer travels from this State to that 
State, and their liability threat is changing each time they go to a 
new location. There is absolutely no way for them to unravel it.

  Therefore, concluding on this point, the national interest requires 
some uniformity. It does not prohibit the State from exceeding it, and 
it does not prohibit the State--in fact, it gives them an option to 
come out from under it, if all the parties of the case are from that 
State.
  Some say this bill preempts State law, violating principles of 
federalism. This is the activity we have just been talking about. The 
bill respects federalism concerns by allowing States to opt out of its 
provisions for those cases in which all parties are citizens of the 
State. It leaves in place State laws that are not inconsistent with its 
provisions and allows States to pass stronger volunteer protections if 
they wish.
  The bill also leaves in place existing State laws on vicarious 
liability requiring a financially secure source of recovery, requiring 
risk management procedures and other State requirements.
  Mr. President, I am going to conclude my remarks in just a few 
minutes. It is my understanding that Senator D'Amato is going to be in 
the Chamber at 2 o'clock for a matter that he will choose to discuss. I 
want to reiterate, S. 543 is a 12-page, double-spaced, clean-cut bill 
that helps Americans respond to the President's call to volunteer. It 
has nothing to do with the significant labor dispute on policy between 
the Congress trying to protect its rights of the third branch, and the 
President trying to change labor law by Executive order. It has nothing 
to do with that whatsoever. Nor does it

[[Page S3831]]

have anything to do with the controversy or debate over the 
supplemental on Bosnia, disaster, and other matters. That legislation 
is still in committee and not before the Senate. What is before the 
Senate is S. 543. Its sole purpose is to make it easier for an American 
to volunteer and protect the unique treasure that voluntarism 
represents for the United States.
  We have, I believe, two cloture votes set for tomorrow. So given the 
circumstances, I suspect we will come back to this legislation. I 
suggest the absence of a quorum pending the arrival of the Senator from 
New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________