[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 55 (Thursday, May 1, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3861-S3867]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    VOLUNTEER PROTECTION ACT OF 1997

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to consideration of S. 543, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 543) to provide certain protections to 
     volunteers, nonprofit organizations, and governmental 
     entities in lawsuits based on activities of volunteers.

  The Senate proceeded to consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, as the Presiding Officer knows, we have 
been at this for the better part of the week. I am pleased that the two 
sides have decided to proceed to the actual legislation and to consider 
its merits straightforwardly. I was also pleased to be notified this 
morning that during the summit--and I had not realized this--that 
occurred, Governors Branstad of Iowa, Whitman of New Jersey, and Wilson 
of California, issued a public statement in support of the Volunteer 
Protection Act while in Philadelphia, and called on the President to 
sign it. I am deeply grateful to these Governors, who have longstanding 
careers in public service, for stepping forward and calling on the 
passage of the Volunteer Protection Act.
  Mr. President, I thought it would be useful, given the fact that we 
are now beginning the actual debate, to revisit the general parameters 
of the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997, which is a bill to provide 
certain protections to volunteers, nonprofit organizations, and 
governmental entities in lawsuits based on the activities of 
volunteers.
  First, Mr. President, I will frame the problem. Prior to 1980, there 
was virtually no issue for us to consider here. Millions upon millions 
of Americans over the history of our country have continued to step 
forward, help their neighbors, help in disasters, help that is 
grandiose, like fighting off the waters in a flood to something as 
simple as crossing the street with a spare meal or a good wish for a 
neighbor.
  But something happened in 1980. Suddenly there were several very 
celebrated lawsuit cases that targeted the volunteer. It changed the 
whole nature of the environment for voluntarism in America. As we moved 
on through the 1980's we found a situation where, with increasing 
frequency, for a variety of reasons, it was the volunteer that was 
singled out by a plaintiff or a claimant. It could have been that the 
organization that the individual was contributing to did not have any 
resources, that

[[Page S3862]]

the volunteer had accumulated some assets--a home, a checking account, 
whatever--and so the lawyers for the claimant went to the volunteer.
  What has resulted from this? Well, as best we can tell, and you 
really cannot get the exact data, there have not been a rash of 
findings against the volunteers. They have been able to defend 
themselves, by and large. Many of the cases have been thrown out. But 
there is a chilling pall that has been cast over voluntarism across the 
land. In other words, we have put a question mark in the mind of an 
American volunteer. ``Well, I want to help this family, I want to 
travel to North Dakota and help in that flood, but could I be putting 
my home or my business, or whatever we have accumulated in our family, 
at risk for having made this decision?'' The answer, unfortunately, is 
yes. So the result is that voluntarism over the last several years 
since 1989 has been dropping--54 percent to 51 percent to 48 percent, 
the last number we have seen.
  Second, we have had thousands of volunteers who served on boards of 
colleges and universities and charities and charitable organizations 
resign because they became fearful they would be the target of these 
lawsuits. So you not only have people with a question in their mind 
about coming forward, you actually have caused volunteers to step 
backward and resign. Some estimates are as many as 50,000 of these 
kinds of occurrences have taken place.

  Now comes the summit, the volunteer summit, in the Presiding 
Officer's home State, Pennsylvania, in the city of Philadelphia, where 
the President and three former Presidents and First Ladies for six 
administrations have come forward, 100 mayors, 30 Governors, and called 
on America to step forward, to relight the fire, to reinvigorate 
volunteer activity in America. I believe that is a very wholesome 
thing, a very inspirational thing.
  But if you study the remarks, Mr. President, this was more than a 
call for voluntarism. It is very interesting as you review it. This is 
fairly well targeted. Children are evoked over and over and were the 
centerpoint of this call to voluntarism. Furthermore, the call was for 
voluntarism to occur in difficult environments. We have heard language 
like the poisonous streets. We are talking about difficult, rough, 
abnormal environment that you are asking these volunteers to go to. So 
the specter of the problem is elevating. You are asking them to go into 
a more troubled center, a more volatile arena, where communication and 
differences and diversity are great and, therefore, the probability of 
accident or misstep is higher.
  I have been arguing all week that the Congress should respond in a 
very forceful way by passing the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 which 
will make it easier for a volunteer to respond, in the first place; and 
second, to a troubled place. The Volunteer Protection Act takes the 
volunteer and provides some shield against being a target of a lawsuit.
  I told the story earlier in the week of a charity that ran a gym and 
a youngster broke a leg by dropping weights. A volunteer, a woman, was 
the receptionist--not in the gym. She is out answering the phone. She 
became the legal target. She had virtually nothing to do with the 
incident other than having been on the premises on the phone. The 
Volunteer Protection Act would have protected that woman because she 
had no relation to the incident. If she had been engaged in willful 
misconduct, if she had been reckless, wanton, if she had been involved 
in a hate crime or a sex crime or a civil rights crime, this 
legislation would not protect her, nor should it, and no one wants it 
to. It deals with simple acts of omission--an accident--that would 
protect the volunteer.
  I want to point out, because in all the chaotic conditions that go on 
on Capitol Hill, I am not sure everybody has had a chance to read it 
and understand that no one is protected from willful misconduct or 
reckless behavior or drunk driving. Mr. President, even if the 
volunteer is protected, the organization itself, the institution, the 
nonprofit, is still liable. This is directed, principally for acts of 
omission, at the volunteer. There are some other protections in the 
bill for nonprofits that would help the charitable organization, but 
primarily this legislation would protect the volunteer from simple acts 
of omission or an accident of that kind.

  The second thing it would do, Mr. President, is that it would create 
proportional responsibility. There is a legal term for that, but I 
think it is easier to understand when we say proportional 
responsibility. The case I just cited is a great example. This woman 
had no responsibility, so she would not be eligible to be a target. 
What it does here is, it says that you can't go after an individual, a 
volunteer, who has minimal responsibility or only a small proportion, 
or none, and cause them to be the target for compensation for the 
entire event, that there has to be proportional responsibility. That, 
too, would protect the volunteer.
  Mr. President, we have concluded--those of us who have cosponsored 
the legislation--that the issue is one of national concern and scope. I 
go back to the summit. They were not there creating volunteers for 
Philadelphia; they were there calling on the whole Nation to step 
forward. Volunteer organizations, many of them, are national in scope. 
You don't have to spend much time thinking about it. They are 
organizations like the American Red Cross, the United Way, and Little 
League Baseball. The call for voluntarism is a national call, not a 
local community call. Many of the volunteers cross State jurisdictions 
in their activities. There is absolutely no way that many of these 
charitable organizations--600,000 of them--could in any way understand 
the myriad of laws that relate to this across the several States. 
Certainly, a volunteer would have no capacity to do this.
  So this law, the Volunteer Protection Act, sets a national standard 
of protection. But if a State chose to create more protections, that 
would be their right. Or if the State took an affirmative act to opt 
out from under this in those cases where all the parties involved are 
citizens of that State, they could do that as well. So we believe this 
is an appropriate balance with regard to the interaction between the 
States and the Federal Government.
  Mr. President, I have gone back to this summit time and time again in 
the discussion, but there is something I noted here this morning that I 
think is very interesting. There was an article about the summit, and 
it says:

       Perhaps no one put the challenge more simply or 
     compellingly than former First Lady Nancy Reagan, known 
     during her White House years for her antidrug slogan, ``Just 
     say no'' . . .

  For which, I might add, many of us are greatly indebted.

       Speaking for herself and her husband, ailing former 
     President Ronald Reagan, she implored, ``From this day 
     forward, when someone asks you to help a child, just say 
     yes.''

  Just say yes. How right she is. My plea to the Senate and to the 
House and to the President is, just make it easier to say yes. Let's 
try to remove this question mark that is holding volunteers back. Let's 
try to not call on them to step forward and then leave a system in 
place that trips them if they do. Let's remove this cloud that causes 
high-profile public policymakers to not agree to serve on a board. I 
venture to say, Mr. President, that every Member of Congress has had 
the question mark I am talking about in their minds at one time or 
another when they had to make a decision about whether to respond to an 
organization seeking their support.
  Let's try to create an environment where volunteers don't resign from 
boards but are willing to serve on them. Let's try to create an 
environment where a volunteer immediately would rush to an accident 
scene and not put a question in their mind about whether they are 
putting their assets into a legal lottery. Let's do it in a way that is 
thoughtful--and I believe we have--and which does not protect somebody 
from ill doing, which I believe we have. The minority leader and I had 
a brief discussion with regard to this yesterday evening. I was 
enumerating the fact that this would not protect reckless conduct. We 
want to be conscious of a victim of an accident. But we have to do 
something here to free up America so that it can do what it has always 
done.
  Mr. President, just before I conclude here, I want to reiterate that 
I believe American voluntarism is as much a part of our culture and 
life and a treasure of American life as our national monuments, our 
parks, and this very

[[Page S3863]]

Capitol itself, because it is unique. There are very few places in the 
world where voluntarism takes on the components and proportions that it 
has in America. I was reading this morning that, last year alone, the 
equivalent value of American voluntarism, which was about 4\1/2\ hours 
a week, was around $200 billion-plus that had been given freely. But 
that is declining, and that trend should be reversed. We should nurture 
this American treasure and we should protect it, just as if it were one 
of the crown jewels of this Nation, like our Capitol.
  Mr. President, I wanted to begin the debate by at least framing the 
reason for the law, a brief description of the law, and a call for the 
Congress to come forward and reinforce what took place in the historic 
days of the summit in Philadelphia, PA.

  With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the Presiding 
Officer, who just spoke, for his stick-to-itiveness in continuing to 
force this issue here in the U.S. Senate and, finally, accomplishing 
what we had hoped to accomplish and probably should have accomplished a 
couple of days ago, which is at least to move to this bill and begin 
the debate on whether we can, here in the U.S. Senate, do some positive 
things to the volunteer spirit of America, to see if we can remove some 
of the barriers that are in place right now that limit the amount of 
volunteer participation in our society.
  I think the present Presiding Officer's remarks about the 
Philadelphia summit, the spirit created there, the momentum that was 
created there can only be enhanced. The big concern in Philadelphia, as 
I talked to so many people, was, ``Isn't this wonderful? Don't you feel 
this great spirit? Don't you feel like we are focused on the right 
thing and we are pulling the country together, Republican and Democrat 
alike, liberal or conservative, focusing on a value that we all 
share?'' It is an understanding that is sort of core as an American to 
understand the significance of participating as a volunteer in your 
community and the benefit that it gives not only the people you 
volunteer for but the benefit it gives you. But the big concern I heard 
over and over again, even from the most enthusiastic supporters of the 
summit, was, ``Can we keep this going? Can this momentum continue? Will 
much happen after this week? How can we keep this spirit alive and keep 
this momentum that we have built, the commitments that were made? How 
can we continue to keep this ball rolling?"
  I point right here to the U.S. Senate. This is the best way that I 
know of to keep the ball rolling, to keep the momentum going. If we 
follow up this week and maybe early next week with the passage of this 
legislation, with a strong message to the American public and to the 
prospective volunteers in America that not only do we think it is a 
good thing--and everybody says nice things about voluntarism and we 
talk about the benefits of it and about all of the wonderful things 
that it accomplishes for your community and for you as an individual--
but we can lay down something solid, something tangible for them to say 
that things are different. It is not just that people are talking about 
it now, or not that it is an in-vogue thing, but there is a different 
set of ground rules now to participate and, to me, they are much more 
favorable. I don't have to look over my shoulder as a Little League 
coach as to whether I gave the catcher the right mask. I know that was 
one of the examples that was used over in the House. But I am doing 
this because I love my community, I love my neighbors, and I want to do 
something positive to contribute to their lives. I want to do so in a 
way that I feel that I can really express myself without having to be 
concerned about the whole troop of lawyers hanging in the wings for 
somebody who may have some accident in the process of volunteering.

  So I think what we are doing here is taking that first step after the 
summit. This is the first step. People who have given all the great 
speeches about how important voluntarism is--if they don't follow 
through with doing something to move this agenda forward then I think 
we have every right to question the sincerity of the remarks. We have 
every right to question whether this was in fact a political stunt, and 
nothing more; that this was an attempt to revive individuals involved 
in their own public reception and nothing more than that; that it 
wasn't really real.
  This is an opportunity to make the summit in Philadelphia more real 
in the eyes of the American public, to do something tangibly good for 
the volunteer in America, and thereby for the needy among us who have 
such a need and such a desire to deal with their fellow men and 
neighbors in solving the problems that confront them and their 
communities.
  So I again congratulate the Senator from Georgia for his tremendous 
drive and enthusiasm and stick-to-itiveness to stand up here--for 3 
days now--and fight this battle and refuse to relent.
  I know some have said we are holding things hostage. I would suggest 
that this bill releases hostages all over America who are hostage to 
litigation fears--who now can go out and participate in their 
communities, and do the kind of things that will liberate so many other 
people who are in the need of volunteers, and the organizations with 
whom they work.
  So I again congratulate the Senator from Georgia. I commend him for 
this.
  It sounds like we have accomplished something tremendous. We have. 
All we have accomplished is that we can now talk about the bill, and we 
can now debate the bill. We are going to have, I am sure, amendments 
that will dramatically weaken this and that will take the teeth out of 
this legislation. Unfortunately, those will be offered on the floor. We 
have a tough battle ahead of us to be able to stand up to those kinds 
of weakening amendments, stay the course, and follow through with this 
responsibly.
  I believe it is a very valid piece of legislation that preserves the 
right of those who are injured and at the same time liberates the 
volunteer in America to go out and pursue what they know in their 
hearts is the right thing to do which is to serve their fellow man to a 
greater good.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, thank you very much.
  I certainly join my colleague, the Senator from Pennsylvania, in his 
expression of concern and hope for the outcome of the volunteer summit 
that has just occurred in Philadelphia. I, too, hope that we can keep 
the dynamics of that going.
  There is no question, though, that one of the blights against 
voluntarism and giving freely of one's time to the benefit of human 
kind is what has transpired in this country over the last several 
decades when we have, in fact, denied the doctrine of charitable 
immunity; in other words, the ability to go out and give of your time 
and then by chance you make an accident--or by chance somewhere in the 
process someone might claim some question of injury--that, all of a 
sudden, you are liable, the courts take it up, the trial lawyers drag 
you through the courts, and they put a phenomenal blight on the giving 
concept that voluntarism is all about.
  That is what S. 543 is about--to clearly prescribe what the limits 
are so that we don't put a legal damper on the kind of energies that 
are spilling forth from Philadelphia that Colin Powell is trying to 
once again fire up in this country. It is here. It is already here. It 
is part of the Judeo-Christian ethic that has made up the great growth 
of this country over the years.

  I want to relate to you a comment that the director of March of Dimes 
Easter Seals told me right after the Berlin wall came down and Eastern 
Europe was freeing itself from the shackles of communism that some of 
it had been under for 70-plus years; most of it for about 45 years. I 
was with this gentleman one night at a banquet. We were visiting, and 
we were both seated at the head table.
  I said, ``What are you doing nowadays besides the work of Easter 
Seals and March of Dimes?"

[[Page S3864]]

  He said, ``You would be fascinated.'' He said, ``I am spending a lot 
of time in Eastern Europe with the countries of Eastern Europe.''
  I said, ``Doing what?"
  He said, ``Teaching them voluntarism.''
  I said, ``Tell me more. What do you mean teaching voluntarism?"
  You and I, Mr. President, would have considered that part of our 
family heritage, part of going to church, part of the extension of the 
person of the American citizen--voluntarism. What had happened in 
Eastern Europe and throughout the greater Soviet empire was that 
government had taken over. Government had become the operative of 
people. No longer could you give of yourself. It was government that 
told you what to do, how to do it, what to say, what to think, and all 
of those kinds of things. Up until that time, I had forgotten, or I 
guess I had never really concentrated on the root of voluntarism, and 
what has transpired in our country over the years from the very early 
days of the barn raising in your State and mine--of neighbors sharing 
amongst themselves, because there was never enough work force to go 
around. So I would come over to your farm and help out, and you would 
come over to my farm and help out. And together, in a sense of 
community, we would help each other. That was before the days of lots 
of laws and lots of trial lawyers, and somebody looking around, and, 
saying ``Gee. You have to be liable for that. It is your fault that 
something happened. And, therefore, we are going to take you to task on 
that.''
  Voluntarism has always been a phenomenal force in our country. And it 
did start from a Judeo-Christian ethic of helping one fellow person. 
That has been and remains the strength of our country.
  I was so pleased when I heard Colin Powell through a series of 
interviews leading up to the summit in Philadelphia. In fact, I was 
pleased but a little disappointed one day when Katie Couric in a 
rather--at least my interpretation--cynical way said, ``Well, but, but, 
but, surely you have to have Government doing some of these things, 
and, surely, you have to have a Government program. I mean, you have 
cut welfare, or Congress cut welfare.'' And, very consistently, Colin 
Powell said there is a role for Government. Yes. But there is a very 
clear role for people. Government doesn't nurture the child in the 
community. We can put food to the child. But we cannot nurture the 
soul. That is a personal relationship. That is a giving kind of 
relationship that is only put forth through the volunteer effort of the 
caring individual.
  It was the sense of the Soviet States, if they were truly to become 
free states again and knowing that government could never provide 
everything to everybody, that they would have to reignite voluntarism 
in the voluntary spirit of nearly half a century past. So they were 
asking large contributive voluntary charitable groups from this country 
to come across, to extend to them how we did it, and to work with them 
to rekindle the human spirit in an effort of voluntarism.
  That is what Philadelphia is trying to do--not to rekindle because it 
is clearly here in this country, and it always has been, but to extend 
it into other areas, urge people to give more of their time, to urge 
companies to provide time for their employees to go out and participate 
in the community in a free and giving way, and to knock down some of 
the barriers that exist in normal life that limit people's ability to 
contribute to give and to volunteer.

  That is what S. 543 is all about--knocking down the percolation of 
legal barriers that have built up over the years of somebody trying to 
make somebody liable for something. We know that when you give of your 
time it is going to put you at risk. You are willing to give less. You 
back away, and say, ``I can't be a part of contributive or voluntary 
effort if I might be sued.'' I mean that isn't in the spirit of 
Americanism. That isn't in the spirit of the raising of the barn in 
Kansas a century ago. Sure, the wall might have fallen down, and you 
had to pick it back up and somebody might have been hurt. There was 
always that risk. But it was always understood that nobody was liable 
under those circumstances--that you weren't trying to profit from it 
personally, that you weren't trying to gain from it. You were giving.
  That is what this legislation is all about--to recreate at least an 
understanding that people can give of their time freely without a loss 
of the immunity they have always had with charitable voluntary efforts.
  So I am truly complimentary of the Senator from Georgia for the 
tremendous effort that he has put behind this. It has come at a very 
important time. I must say to my colleagues across the aisle. You are 
filibustering. Get with it. Don't do that. There may be other reasons. 
But, if it is for this, it is a bad reason. If the trial lawyers of 
this country are wanting to play games with this, it is the wrong 
reason. They ought to go somewhere else instead of trying to go at the 
voluntary spirit of this country, the energy that built our country 
that made us what we are. It was not Government. It was people giving 
freely of themselves to other people.
  That is what this legislation is about. That is what the nations of 
the former Soviet Union have had to actually seek from us. Yes. They 
want our institutions of government because they figure that ours is 
the best form of government. But they want our people institution. They 
know that they cannot have government alone, that it will not serve the 
needs of citizens of Poland, or Czechoslovakia, or one of those nations 
that was barricaded and imprisoned behind the Iron Curtain.
  So they reached out to our great charitable voluntary contributive 
organizations immediately after the fall of the wall, and said, ``Come. 
Teach us again how you make it work because what we see in America, 
what we see as the great energy and the spirit of your country, is the 
blend of government with the blend of the free citizen, both working 
together for the betterment of humanity and for the betterment of your 
country.''
  That is what S. 543 is all about. It isn't about trial lawyers taking 
people to court. There is plenty of that to go on in the private 
sector, and in the private economy, but not in the private giving 
should that be allowed. I am thankful that S. 543 speaks so clearly of 
that.
  I again say to my colleagues on the other side: Get with it. Come on. 
Stop this filibuster. This is a time to stand together, as former 
Republican Presidents and former Democratic Presidents and a Democrat 
President stood together in Philadelphia and said this is Americanism 
at its best. We should not use Government to tear down voluntarism. We 
should not use laws to restrict it. Let us use our energies to multiply 
it for the betterment of our citizens and for mankind.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you, Mr. President. I am particularly grateful 
for the statement of the Senator from Idaho, and for the measure of the 
Senator from Georgia.
  When you try to define America, you can't define America by looking 
at people and from outward appearance. We are not all of one race or 
one ethnic origin. We represent every possible assemblage from around 
the world. We have come here. What we have, together, is not ethnicity 
nor religious background. It is not racial. What we have is a common 
commitment to community, a common commitment to what it is America is. 
It goes beyond politics. It goes beyond where we go to church. It goes 
beyond where the ancestors on our family tree came from. It simply goes 
to the heart of how we feel about each other.
  No other nation on the face of the Earth has been so characterized by 
the idea of caring. Look at the great service organizations around the 
world, such as the Lions Club, which has a specific interest in 
protecting vision and making sure that people can see. The idea has 
been exported to the world from the United States of America. Look at 
the Rotary Club. Rotary clubs literally go around the globe. They have 
come from the United States of America where we look at the four-way 
test of rotary, which talks about the betterment of all concerned, 
which looks at the other side of the coin, which always asks about 
someone else.

[[Page S3865]]

  Look at the Kiwanis Club, the slogan of which is ``We Build.'' It has 
been exported to nation after nation. It has been embraced by cultures 
all around the globe, but it is something that started in the United 
States of America. It is something that is so universal and so 
important to the fabric, to the very tapestry that defines what this 
Nation is that it crosses party lines just like that.
  You have four Presidents of the United States joining together, 
Republicans and Democrats, in the Presidents' summit on voluntarism, 
and you have a person who in most societies would be considered to be 
an individual who knows how to deploy military resources and how to 
fight and how to hate and how to kill but an American whose heart 
really is in how to help, Gen. Colin Powell. He is heading up the 
entire focus again on voluntarism. It is something that is the 
character of this country. It is what makes us community. Frankly, it 
is richer than cultures that rely on Government and entitlement for all 
the things that are done. It is not universal in the world. In lots of 
places people think that charitable things are wrong, that it should be 
done by Government, so no one ever owes anyone else.
  Well, in America we do not owe each other. We love each other. And 
the idea of voluntarism is a way that we can extend to each other and 
build the chords of community that bind us together. The poets from 
overseas have said it well: Never send to know for whom the bell tolls; 
it tolls for you.
  That is why I have been involved in all kinds of charitable 
endeavors. I remember even when I was Governor of my home State, when a 
child was lost close to the State capital 20 or 30 miles away, I walked 
through the woods during the night with hundreds of other individuals 
to find the child. We were all kinds of people from all kinds of 
political persuasion, from all kinds of backgrounds, yet there we were 
walking through the woods at night. I remember in the great floods that 
afflicted Missouri, I filled sandbags next to people I did not know but 
people whom I loved because I cared for the communities, and I knew 
that if there were ever a flood at my place, they would be there with a 
shovel and their children with them, as mine were with me, filling 
sandbags.
  That is what America is about. We would not want to do anything to 
destroy the capacity of Americans to help each other, to love one 
another, to participate in community activities, charitable activities 
where we reach out to one another. How many times did dads, when I was 
a boy, haul me to the ball game? My father traveled a lot. My father 
was an itinerant, in some respects, minister at some times during his 
life and then traveled extensively when he was involved in education, 
raising money for the college. But you know, there was always some dad 
from the area who took me to the game.
  I will never forget Charles Wilcox. One time after a dusty, hot 
baseball practice, he took the whole team to the root beer stand, and 
he walked up to the window and said the most generous thing I have ever 
heard in my entire life. It almost knocked me over as a boy. He said to 
the fellow inside the root beer stand, ``This is my team. Fill em up.'' 
It had never happened to me before and perhaps has not happened to me 
since. I think soda pop is pretty commonplace these days, but back in 
the 1950's, when someone walked up to the root beer stand and said, 
``Fill em up,'' it was a big thing.
  I do not want the Charlie Wilcoxes of this world not to be able to do 
that anymore. I do not want them so afraid that when they coach the 
Little League team, they are going to have to put on their family the 
risk of financial ruin. We have seen the cases, the shear lunacy of 
cases where the coach is sued because the youngster was moved from 
shortstop to left field and got hurt when a fly ball hit him in left 
field. His mom had said he was a born shortstop. Who is going to be the 
coach if you can get sued when you move someone to left field?
  We have seen the ridiculous cases where the youngster insists on 
sliding in headfirst and then injures himself and the coach is sued 
because the youngster slides headfirst instead of feet first, in spite 
of the fact that the youngster has seen all the big leaguers doing it 
time after time after time. But if that coach is going to lose his 
home, if his children cannot go to college because he is generous 
enough to care for someone else, we will certainly have cheated a lot 
of young people out of a lot of helping hands.

  When I was at the summit this last weekend in Philadelphia, each of 
these Presidents called upon me personally. No, they did not come up to 
talk to me, but they spoke to me, they spoke to my heart. They said 
America needs again to have a revival of individuals who are willing to 
care for each other. I thought to myself, we need to make sure as 
Members of the Congress that we do what is necessary to make that 
possible. I think of the Scout volunteers on the west coast who allowed 
the boys to play touch football. When I was a Scout, we would never 
settle for touch football, but these must have been very good leaders, 
interested in the safety of the youngsters. But one got injured and he 
ended up with a $7 million judgment against two of the volunteers. The 
appellate courts reduced it to $4 million. I cannot imagine that was 
much of a consolation to those Scout volunteers.
  Most people do not want to have to choose between helping the 
community and protecting their family. No one really will ever say I 
will help someone else if I have to sacrifice my family, because we 
have a very strong commitment to our families in America. It is a 
cornerstone of what we are. But a similar cornerstone of this house we 
call the United States of America is helping each other, and we should 
not put these cornerstones at odds. We should not say to people, in 
order to help someone else, you have to put your family at risk. That 
is what we have done with a tort system that has awarded judgments like 
$4 million against Scout leaders, that has awarded judgments against a 
Little League coach who moved someone from shortstop to left field.
  Let us get serious. The Presidents, past and present, know what 
America is about. It is in the hearts of Americans across this country. 
We want to make it possible for people again to extend themselves in a 
voluntary way without putting their families at risk. That is the long 
and the short of what we want to do.
  I think it is entirely inappropriate for some in this Chamber to 
stand against us, for those whose President has called us to a summit 
on voluntarism to say no, we are not going to allow any discussion of 
that in the Senate, we are not even going to proceed to the bill; we do 
not want you to have a chance to vote on it. That is what this 
filibuster by the Democratic Members of this body is achieving right 
now. It is keeping us from voting on this bill. This is not the bill 
itself we are talking about. We are talking about the motion to 
proceed. This is technical gobbledygook of the Senate. But in order to 
consider a bill, you have to succeed in passing a motion to proceed to 
the bill, and we are being filibustered on the motion. It is time for 
all Americans to again enlist in this great enterprise of community 
which we call America and help each other, and it is time for the 
Senate, Members of the Congress, to build a framework where we do not 
ask people to choose between protecting their family and helping other 
people. We have to say we will make sure your family is protected if 
you are kind enough and loving enough and caring enough to extend a 
helping hand, a hand of care, compassion, and love to those in your 
community.
  I have been told we are on the bill now. I am glad to know that we 
are on the bill. Yesterday we were on a filibuster to the motion to 
proceed, and I appreciate the correction. I apologize to Members of 
this body on the other side of the aisle. I would not impair or impugn 
their motive here. I am glad to be on the bill. I think with that in 
mind we ought to make sure we all vote in favor of this. This is an 
outstanding piece of legislation which will stop the irrationality of 
asking people to choose between protecting their family and helping 
their neighbor. The history of this country is that we have not only 
protected our family; we have enriched our families by helping our 
neighbors because we have been taught one of the most important values 
of life, that is, that we are not alone, that we live together in 
community.

  I thank the Chair.

[[Page S3866]]

  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I commend both the Senator from Idaho 
and the Senator from Missouri for their statements. Senator Ashcroft is 
a cosponsor, as is Senator Craig, and they both have devoted extensive 
activity and time and energy to the promotion of this legislation.
  Mr. President, I am going to talk a little bit more about the bill 
and then move to a quorum call. It is my understanding there are 
several Senators who wish to speak as if they were in morning business. 
It would be appropriate with us. We have now had a full hour framing S. 
543, but I want to just go back to the summit a minute and quote three 
prominent figures in American life. As First Lady Hillary Rodham 
Clinton put it in her column last week in the Washington Times:

       Whether through tutoring children, picking up litter on a 
     highway, or providing free legal counsel to a needy client, 
     we all have a chance to help address problems in our 
     communities and enjoy the satisfaction that comes from being 
     good neighbors. What we may not realize is that in the 
     process we are also strengthening our democracy. Democracy 
     depends on citizenship and citizenship depends on people 
     voluntarily contributing their time and performing services 
     that their country needs.

  She is absolutely correct. I have always believed, Mr. President, the 
genesis of the American spirit is that we are a free people, and if you 
really want to know the roots of voluntarism, because it is uniquely 
American, it is because we have been free and we have unleashed spirits 
and thinking and activity which the world has never seen nor compared. 
What we are talking about here in this legislation is there has evolved 
in the last decade and a half a constriction, a choke, on that kind of 
freedom. We have chilled it. What we are seeing is the same kind of 
thing that happens anytime a government or practice becomes engaged in 
constriction of freedom and the natural activity of human beings.
  We have, unwittingly I believe, had evolve a situation where the 
volunteer has become a target, and they have become fearful of it, 
which is a step back from freedom. Fear is one of the first things that 
happens when people, for whatever reason, begin to lose their freedom. 
They become fearful and their behavior changes. The explosion of 
voluntarism in America was born in freedom, and the constriction of it 
is occurring because they do not feel as free to do it. They fear harm. 
They fear retribution. They fear consequences. They fear for their 
families. So they alter their activity, and the Nation and the neighbor 
suffer. This legislation is designed to remove the fear and come back 
to the genesis of freedom to make choices, freedom to help the person 
cross the street or the person suffering from the flood that was 
described yesterday.
  I do not believe our policymakers have really quite understood how 
serious this is. Everybody is busy with all their activities and their 
agenda, whether you are the President of the United States or you are 
running a store or you are the mayor of a local town. No one realized 
the field changed in the 1980's; the volunteer was not as free to step 
forward. It happened in the 1980's. So, this legislation is necessary 
to try to recreate the environment that has so enriched our Nation and 
our country.

  Mr. President, I will take a minute. I have mentioned several times I 
am the former Director of the U.S. Peace Corps, which is one of 
America's preeminent institutions of voluntarism. There have been about 
150,000, since 1961, who have gone all over the world, and their 
voluntarism does not stop there. In fact, the original charter of the 
Peace Corps has a third mission: Go where you are asked to go, be of 
assistance to the people there--and bring the knowledge of the world 
back home. So we continue to ask these volunteers to serve when they 
return, and thousands of them do. Many of their activities are 
addressed at the very core of the summit call--children.
  As you might expect in an institution like that, there is a lot of 
discussion about voluntarism. There would be discussion, from time to 
time, about: Should they receive greater compensation? Would that 
create more volunteers? And you always came up with the same answer, 
that what we wanted was the volunteer who willingly stepped forward and 
wanted to do it and there was not another incentive. They were not 
doing it for a check. They were doing it to serve. Because, when you 
alter that chemistry, the whole interaction between the volunteer and 
the beneficiary changes, and you create a completely different kind of 
interaction.
  I mentioned the story yesterday of the fellow who was helping train 
in the Civil Air Patrol. He even had to spend his own money to do it. 
But as he got out of the car he turned to me and he said, ``But the 
payback is when I look in their faces, when I see their pride and sense 
of accomplishment.'' That is a volunteer.
  This issue of legal threat changes the chemistry of the volunteer. It 
changes the component of the interaction between the volunteer and 
beneficiary and alters their behavior, sometimes to the point of 
causing it to cease. This is a very important piece of legislation, and 
it is about America. It is not very complicated--12 pages. But it is 
right near and sitting up beside the heart and soul of who we are as a 
people. We need to get this done.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see we have been joined by the 
distinguished Senator from--Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Georgia 
recognizing the North Pole.
  First, let me say a few words about the effort of my good friend from 
Georgia in bringing to the attention of this body, as well as to the 
Nation, the importance of the Volunteer Protection Act. The issue 
before us is vital; it is a matter defending the noble act of personal 
sacrifice and contribution for the benefit and good of others. So I 
commend the Senator for his diligence, the time he spent on the floor, 
and the effort that has been made. And I look forward to supporting the 
effort for the Volunteer Protection Act which has been introduced by 
Senator Coverdell of Georgia.
  Let me just ask my colleagues to bear with me for a moment. As we 
know, this past week President Clinton and other prominent Americans 
appeared in Philadelphia. Philadelphia is the city where our American 
heritage is rooted. What better place to come to for the recognition of 
voluntarism and what it means to this country, because those who 
founded our Constitution--our early efforts to formulate the principles 
of this country--were all volunteers. They were volunteers coming 
forward and contributing their knowledge, their expertise, their 
willingness to formulate a nation. So it was certainly appropriate that 
a summit on voluntarism was held in the city of Philadelphia during the 
past week. But what did this summit really accomplish?
  I am told there were balloons, streamers, speeches, and a lot of good 
photo ops. But, unfortunately, we have to look at the bottom line and 
ask what was accomplished? How much was accomplished? It brought the 
issue to the American people. But, specifically, what did we get out of 
it? Because I think the summit ignored the fact that, in order for the 
spirit of voluntarism to flourish, you must, first of all, have real 
reform in our American judicial system.

  What the Senate is basically doing today, and what we have been 
trying to do for the past 4 days--for the past 4 days--is not put on a 
highly publicized summit about voluntarism. We are trying to reform a 
justice system that deters voluntarism.
  I am pleased, after several days of procedural delay, we have finally 
begun debate on this important legislation.
  Mr. President, recent congressional findings reveal that our legal 
liability system deters voluntarism. In fact, according to the 
testimony given before a congressional committee last year, one in six 
volunteers withholds his or her services due to the fear of exposure to 
a lawsuit. That is the system that we have unfortunately devised. If 
that figure is applied to the number of volunteers in nonprofit 
organizations alone, we might see as many as 100,000 have had to 
decline to serve because of the fear of being sued.

[[Page S3867]]

  America's litigation explosion forces nonprofit organizations to 
spend an ever-increasing amount of time and resources preparing for and 
avoiding lawsuits. The American Society of Association Executives 
testified before Congress last year that the association's liability 
insurance premiums increased an average of 155 percent; one in eight 
nonprofit organizations reported an increase of insurance premiums of 
300 percent alone. This has put some of our most revered nonprofit 
organizations at risk.
  For example, Dr. Creighton Hale of Little League Baseball reports 
that the liability rate for a league increased from $75 to $795, in the 
last 5 years. Because most leagues cannot afford such an expense, many 
operate without insurance. Some have, unfortunately, been disbanded 
altogether. The bill before us protects volunteers from liability 
unless they cause harm through reckless or criminal conduct.
  This common-sense approach legislation would put an end to tragic 
liability cases such a 1990 negligence case in which a Chicago jury 
awarded $12 million to a boy who was injured in a car crash. Who was 
the negligent party? According to the jury, it was the estate of the 
volunteer--the estate of the volunteer, who gave his life attempting to 
save that boy.
  Here are just a few other examples of recent outrageous litigation 
which threatens voluntarism.
  In Oregon, a boy on a Boy Scout outing suffered a serious injury 
while playing tag football. The court dismissed the original lawsuit 
filed against the Boy Scouts, due to an insufficient nexus between the 
Boy Scouts and the youth's injury. The injured boy then decided to sue 
the volunteers who supervised the game. In one of the largest monetary 
verdicts in Oregon history, the jury found the two volunteers liable 
for $7 million.
  When a 10-year-old boy in New Jersey lost a fly ball in the Sun 
during Little League practice, the ball dropped and hit the boy in the 
eye. The boy's coaches were sued for negligence.
  In Oklahoma City, a member of an amateur softball league was so 
angered when he was ejected from a game that he drove away in a fit of 
rage and crashed his car. So what does the ejected player do? He files 
a suit against the umpire.
  According to William J. Cople, a Washington lawyer who is pro bono 
counsel for the Boy Scouts of America, ``Volunteers have simply been 
swept away in the hysteria of litigation. . . . Suits are brought for 
almost anything, under any circumstances.'' What good comes from these 
suits? Well, about all you can say is that they keep a lot lawyers in 
business.
  Mr. President, the bill we are debating will help put an end to such 
unwarranted litigation. This bill creates a system in which plaintiffs 
sue only for good reason and sue only those who are responsible for the 
damage. Such common-sense reforms will create an atmosphere which will 
nurture voluntarism. This legislation will foster the spirit of 
voluntarism, not just speak about it at a photo op.

  For centuries, volunteers in America have fed our hungry, sheltered 
our homeless, instilled values in our youth. Volunteers are vital, as 
we know, to our survival as a moral nation. It is time we gave 
volunteers something in return, and that something is this legislation 
that will protect them from frivolous and outrageous legal attacks that 
are the result of a judicial system in desperate need of reform.
  Finally, there is something else I believe we should do to encourage 
the volunteer spirit in America. This is to allow volunteers to get a 
more realistic tax deduction for their travel costs associated with 
charitable activities. Later today, I, along with Senator Cochran, will 
be introducing the Charitable Equity Mileage Act of 1997. This bill 
will increase the standard mileage rate of deduction for charitable use 
of an automobile from 12 cents a mile to 18 cents a mile. I think this 
bill should be unanimously supported by my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle.
  Further, many of our citizens who volunteer for charitable activities 
do incur expenses for which they are not reimbursed. For example, when 
an individual uses his or her automobile to deliver a meal to a home-
bound elderly individual or to transport children to Scouting 
activities, the volunteer usually pays the transportation costs out of 
his or her own pocket with no expectations of reimbursement. I believe 
the costs associated with charitable transportation services ought to 
be deductible at a rate which fairly represents the individual's actual 
costs. This is especially important for volunteers living in rural 
communities who have to travel long distances to provide community 
services.
  Congress, in 1984, set the standard mileage exemption deduction rate 
of 12 cents per mile for individuals who use their automobiles in 
connection with charitable activities. At the time the standard mileage 
rate for business use of an automobile was 20.5 cents per mile. In the 
intervening 13 years, the business mileage rate has increased to 30.5 
cents per mile, but the charitable rate has remained unchanged at 12 
cents per mile because the Treasury Department does not have the 
authority to adjust the rate. By raising the charitable rate to 18 
cents a mile, my legislation, I think, restores the relationship that 
existed in 1984 between the charitable mileage rate and the business 
mileage rate. In addition, the legislation authorizes the Secretary of 
Treasury to increase the charitable mileage rate in the same manner as 
is currently allowed for business mileage expenses.
  All of us agree that, with the changing role of the Federal 
Government, we need to do more to encourage voluntarism in our country. 
The Volunteer Protection Act will do that, and so will the legislation 
that I am introducing. Volunteers who provide transport services should 
be allowed to deduct such costs at a rate which fairly reflects their 
true out-of-pocket costs, and this is precisely what the bill does.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me in sponsoring this important 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I have a letter of support for my bill from the 
American Legion. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              The American Legion,
                                   Washington, DC, April 24, 1997.
     Hon. Frank Murkowski,
     Member, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Murkowski: The American Legion fully supports 
     the ``Charitable Travel Equity Act of 1997,'' to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the standard 
     mileage rate deduction for charitable use of passenger 
     automobiles.
       Not only does The American Legion applaud the increase in 
     the mileage rate deduction, but more importantly this measure 
     fixes the problem that has not allowed for incremental 
     increases without an act of Congress action. The standard 
     mileage rate deduction for business use of passenger 
     automobiles has increased significantly while no adjustments 
     were made in the charitable use rate. Granting the Secretary 
     the authority to make prescribed adjustments will provide 
     fairness and promote additional volunteerism.
       Thank you for your continuous leadership on behalf of 
     America's veterans and their dependents.
           Sincerely,

                                              Steve Robertson,

                                                         Director,
                                  National Legislative Commission.

  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized as 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________