[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 55 (Thursday, May 1, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3874-S3880]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    VOLUNTEER PROTECTION ACT OF 1997

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the 
pendency of S. 543, there be 30 minutes for debate, to be equally 
divided between Senators Coverdell and Leahy or their designees, with 
an additional 15 minutes under the control of Senator McConnell; that 
there be one amendment in order only, to be offered by Senator 
Coverdell, encompassing the managers' agreed-upon language, that there 
be 40 minutes of debate on the amendment to be equally divided between 
Senators Coverdell and Leahy or their designees, that no other 
amendments or motions be in order and, following the disposition of the 
amendment, the bill be advanced to third reading and there be an 
additional 10 minutes for debate to be equally divided between Senators 
Coverdell and Leahy.
  Mr. President, this agreement has been cleared by the ranking 
minority member.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Amendment No. 53

              (Purpose: To provide a complete substitute.)

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

[[Page S3875]]

  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Coverdell], for himself, Mr. 
     Leahy, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. McConnell and Mr. Abraham, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 53.

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Volunteer Protection Act of 
     1997''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       The Congress finds and declares that--
       (1) the willingness of volunteers to offer their services 
     is deterred by the potential for liability actions against 
     them;
       (2) as a result, many nonprofit public and private 
     organizations and governmental entities, including voluntary 
     associations, social service agencies, educational 
     institutions, and other civic programs, have been adversely 
     affected by the withdrawal of volunteers from boards of 
     directors and service in other capacities;
       (3) the contribution of these programs to their communities 
     is thereby diminished, resulting in fewer and higher cost 
     programs than would be obtainable if volunteers were 
     participating;
       (4) because Federal funds are expended on useful and cost-
     effective social service programs, many of which are national 
     in scope, depend heavily on volunteer participation, and 
     represent some of the most successful public-private 
     partnerships, protection of volunteerism through 
     clarification and limitation of the personal liability risks 
     assumed by the volunteer in connection with such 
     participation is an appropriate subject for Federal 
     legislation;
       (5) services and goods provided by volunteers and nonprofit 
     organizations would often otherwise be provided by private 
     entities that operate in interstate commerce;
       (6) due to high liability costs and unwarranted litigation 
     costs, volunteers and nonprofit organizations face higher 
     costs in purchasing insurance, through interstate insurance 
     markets, to cover their activities; and
       (7) clarifying and limiting the liability risk assumed by 
     volunteers is an appropriate subject for Federal legislation 
     because--
       (A) of the national scope of the problems created by the 
     legitimate fears of volunteers about frivolous, arbitrary, or 
     capricious lawsuits;
       (B) the citizens of the United States depend on, and the 
     Federal Government expends funds on, and provides tax 
     exemptions and other consideration to, numerous social 
     programs that depend on the services of volunteers;
       (C) it is in the interest of the Federal Government to 
     encourage the continued operation of volunteer service 
     organizations and contributions of volunteers because the 
     Federal Government lacks the capacity to carry out all of the 
     services provided by such organizations and volunteers; and
       (D)(i) liability reform for volunteers will promote the 
     free flow of goods and services, lessen burdens on interstate 
     commerce and uphold constitutionally protected due process 
     rights; and
       (ii) therefore, liability reform is an appropriate use of 
     the powers contained in article 1, section 8, clause 3 of the 
     United States Constitution, and the fourteenth amendment to 
     the United States Constitution.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to promote the 
     interests of social service program beneficiaries and 
     taxpayers and to sustain the availability of programs, 
     nonprofit organizations, and governmental entities that 
     depend on volunteer contributions by reforming the laws to 
     provide certain protections from liability abuses related to 
     volunteers serving nonprofit organizations and governmental 
     entities.

     SEC. 3. PREEMPTION AND ELECTION OF STATE NONAPPLICABILITY.

       (a) Preemption.--This Act preempts the laws of any State to 
     the extent that such laws are inconsistent with this Act, 
     except that this Act shall not preempt any State law that 
     provides additional protection from liability relating to 
     volunteers or to any category of volunteers in the 
     performance of services for a nonprofit organization or 
     governmental entity.
       (b) Election of State Regarding Nonapplicability.--This Act 
     shall not apply to any civil action in a State court against 
     a volunteer in which all parties are citizens of the State if 
     such State enacts a statute in accordance with State 
     requirements for enacting legislation--
       (1) citing the authority of this subsection;
       (2) declaring the election of such State that this Act 
     shall not apply, as of a date certain, to such civil action 
     in the State; and
       (3) containing no other provisions.

     SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON LIABILITY FOR VOLUNTEERS.

       (a) Liability Protection for Volunteers.--Except as 
     provided in subsections (b) and (d), no volunteer of a 
     nonprofit organization or governmental entity shall be liable 
     for harm caused by an act or omission of the volunteer on 
     behalf of the organization or entity if--
       (1) the volunteer was acting within the scope of the 
     volunteer's responsibilities in the nonprofit organization or 
     governmental entity at the time of the act or omission;
       (2) if appropriate or required, the volunteer was properly 
     licensed, certified, or authorized by the appropriate 
     authorities for the activities or practice in the State in 
     which the harm occurred, where the activities were or 
     practice was undertaken within the scope of the volunteer's 
     responsibilities in the nonprofit organization or 
     governmental entity;
       (3) the harm was not caused by willful or criminal 
     misconduct, gross negligence, reckless misconduct, or a 
     conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of 
     the individual harmed by the volunteer; and
       (4) the harm was not caused by the volunteer operating a 
     motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other vehicle for which 
     the State requires the operator or the owner of the vehicle, 
     craft, or vessel to--
       (A) possess an operator's license; or
       (B) maintain insurance.
       (b) Concerning Responsibility of Volunteers to 
     Organizations and Entities.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to affect any civil action brought by any nonprofit 
     organization or any governmental entity against any volunteer 
     of such organization or entity.
       (c) No Effect on Liability of Organization or Entity.--
     Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the 
     liability of any nonprofit organization or governmental 
     entity with respect to harm caused to any person.
       (d) Exceptions to Volunteer Liability Protection.--If the 
     laws of a State limit volunteer liability subject to one or 
     more of the following conditions, such conditions shall not 
     be construed as inconsistent with this section:
       (1) A State law that requires a nonprofit organization or 
     governmental entity to adhere to risk management procedures, 
     including mandatory training of volunteers.
       (2) A State law that makes the organization or entity 
     liable for the acts or omissions of its volunteers to the 
     same extent as an employer is liable for the acts or 
     omissions of its employees.
       (3) A State law that makes a limitation of liability 
     inapplicable if the civil action was brought by an officer of 
     a State or local government pursuant to State or local law.
       (4) A State law that makes a limitation of liability 
     applicable only if the nonprofit organization or governmental 
     entity provides a financially secure source of recovery for 
     individuals who suffer harm as a result of actions taken by a 
     volunteer on behalf of the organization or entity. A 
     financially secure source of recovery may be an insurance 
     policy within specified limits, comparable coverage from a 
     risk pooling mechanism, equivalent assets, or alternative 
     arrangements that satisfy the State that the organization 
     or entity will be able to pay for losses up to a specified 
     amount. Separate standards for different types of 
     liability exposure may be specified.
       (e) Limitation on Punitive Damages Based on the Actions of 
     Volunteers.--
       (1) General rule.--Punitive damages may not be awarded 
     against a volunteer in an action brought for harm based on 
     the action of a volunteer acting within the scope of the 
     volunteer's responsibilities to a nonprofit organization or 
     governmental entity unless the claimant establishes by clear 
     and convincing evidence that the harm was proximately caused 
     by an action of such volunteer which constitutes willful or 
     criminal misconduct, or a conscious, flagrant indifference to 
     the rights or safety of the individual harmed.
       (2) Construction.--Paragraph (1) does not create a cause of 
     action for punitive damages and does not preempt or supersede 
     any Federal or State law to the extent that such law would 
     further limit the award of punitive damages.
       (f) Exceptions to Limitations on Liability.--
       (1) In general.--The limitations on the liability of a 
     volunteer under this Act shall not apply to any misconduct 
     that--
       (A) constitutes a crime of violence (as that term is 
     defined in section 16 of title 18, United States Code) or act 
     of international terrorism (as that term is defined in 
     section 2331 of title 18) for which the defendant has been 
     convicted in any court;
       (B) constitutes a hate crime (as that term is used in the 
     Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note));
       (C) involves a sexual offense, as defined by applicable 
     State law, for which the defendant has been convicted in any 
     court;
       (D) involves misconduct for which the defendant has been 
     found to have violated a Federal or State civil rights law; 
     or
       (E) where the defendant was under the influence (as 
     determined pursuant to applicable State law) of intoxicating 
     alcohol or any drug at the time of the misconduct.
       (2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
     be construed to effect subsection (a)(3) or (e).

     SEC. 5. LIABILITY FOR NONECONOMIC LOSS.

       (a) General Rule.--In any civil action against a volunteer, 
     based on an action of a volunteer acting within the scope of 
     the volunteer's responsibilities to a nonprofit organization 
     or governmental entity, the liability of the volunteer for 
     noneconomic loss shall be determined in accordance with 
     subsection (b).
       (b) Amount of Liability.--
       (1) In general.--Each defendant who is a volunteer shall be 
     liable only for the amount of noneconomic loss allocated to 
     that defendant in direct proportion to the percentage of 
     responsibility of that defendant (determined in accordance 
     with paragraph (2))

[[Page S3876]]

     for the harm to the claimant with respect to which that 
     defendant is liable. The court shall render a separate 
     judgment against each defendant in an amount determined 
     pursuant to the preceding sentence.
       (2) Percentage of responsibility.--For purposes of 
     determining the amount of noneconomic loss allocated to a 
     defendant who is a volunteer under this section, the trier of 
     fact shall determine the percentage of responsibility of that 
     defendant for the claimant's harm.

     SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act:
       (1) Economic loss.--The term ``economic loss'' means any 
     pecuniary loss resulting from harm (including the loss of 
     earnings or other benefits related to employment, medical 
     expense loss, replacement services loss, loss due to death, 
     burial costs, and loss of business or employment 
     opportunities) to the extent recovery for such loss is 
     allowed under applicable State law.
       (2) Harm.--The term ``harm'' includes physical, 
     nonphysical, economic, and noneconomic losses.
       (3) Noneconomic losses.--The term ``noneconomic losses'' 
     means losses for physical and emotional pain, suffering, 
     inconvenience, physical impairment, mental anguish, 
     disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of society and 
     companionship, loss of consortium (other than loss of 
     domestic service), hedonic damages, injury to reputation and 
     all other nonpecuniary losses of any kind or nature.
       (4) Nonprofit organization.--The term ``nonprofit 
     organization'' means--
       (A) any organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under 
     section 501(a) of such Code; or
       (B) any not-for-profit organization organized and conducted 
     for public benefit and operated primarily for charitable, 
     civic, educational, religious, welfare, or health purposes.
       (5) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Northern 
     Mariana Islands, any other territory or possession of the 
     United States, or any political subdivision of any such 
     State, territory, or possession.
       (6) Volunteer.--The term ``volunteer'' means an individual 
     performing services for a nonprofit organization or a 
     governmental entity who does not receive--
       (A) compensation (other than reasonable reimbursement or 
     allowance for expenses actually incurred); or
       (B) any other thing of value in lieu of compensation,

     in excess of $500 per year, and such term includes a 
     volunteer serving as a director, officer, trustee, or direct 
     service volunteer.

     SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--This Act shall take effect 90 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Application.--This Act applies to any claim for harm 
     caused by an act or omission of a volunteer where that claim 
     is filed on or after the effective date of this Act, without 
     regard to whether the harm that is the subject of the claim 
     or the conduct that caused the harm occurred before such 
     effective date.

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, let me explain our disposition. While 
there is considerable more time in the unanimous consent, it is 
anticipated that there would be a delegating of time back so we might 
vote as closely to 2 o'clock as possible. So, I would like to proceed 
to explain this amendment so we might get this piece done. There are 
conditions that are affecting certain Members that would require, 
hopefully, we could vote as close to 2 o'clock as possible.
  Mr. President, I want to explain to our colleagues. First, I thank 
the ranking member, the Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy. It has 
been a long week for both of us. He and his staff and colleagues have 
worked diligently with this Senator and his staff and colleagues 
throughout the morning to arrive at the amendment that has just been 
forwarded to the desk under unanimous consent.
  This substitute adds a finding to clarify the Federal role in civil 
liability matters related to voluntarism. The substitute clarifies the 
State opt-out section, to ensure the provision does not supersede State 
requirements for enacting legislation and allows for States to include 
an effective date. The substitute clarifies the punitive damage 
protections only relate to cases that are based on the actions of the 
volunteer and do not supersede more restrictive Federal or State laws.
  The substitute would clarify that the specific exemptions in the bill 
for cases of violent crime, sex offenses, hate crimes, civil rights 
violations, and DUI, do not restrict the general exemption where the 
harm was willful or criminal misconduct, gross negligence, reckless 
misconduct or conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights or safety 
of the individual harmed.
  The substitute clarifies that the joint and several liability 
limitations for noneconomic damages and the punitive damage limitations 
only apply to defendants who are volunteers. The substitute clarifies 
that the volunteer can receive reimbursement for reasonable expenses 
and still be considered a volunteer.
  I and the other authors on our side have concurred with these 
changes. We still believe the version we submitted, S. 543, was 
reasoned and balanced, but feel that this is a compromise that gets us 
to the target we were after--the shield for the volunteer. And in these 
actions, assuming we receive a favorable vote, we will have responded 
responsibly and rightfully to the call of the administration, President 
Clinton, and Presidents Bush, Ford, and Carter, to launch a new era in 
voluntarism in the United States.
  With that brief statement, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to learn we have worked 
out a compromise with the other side on this very important issue. I 
commend the Senator for his diligence and commitment to proceed with a 
solution that is going to be in the best interests of voluntarism.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, let me give the disposition of our 
situation on S. 543. We are trying to communicate to the principal 
authors so that they might have a chance to make closing comments with 
regard to the amendment that I have submitted, and we are still 
endeavoring to try to vote between 2 and 2:15.
  While we are waiting for those Senators to arrive, I will talk about 
what the passage of this bill will mean, an achievement that will be 
secured in the Senate.
  We will have effectively responded to a circumstance that has been 
developing since the mid-1980's when volunteers suddenly found 
themselves the targets of lawsuits in the act of volunteering. Prior to 
that time, very little of this type of legal allegation occurred. We 
have discovered that voluntarism has been chilled and threatened and 
pushed back and been less exuberant. Volunteers' behavior is even 
different when they do volunteer because of the threat of legal 
consequences.
  When we pass this legislation, S. 543, and hopefully ultimately pass 
it in the House and send it to the President and he signs it, we will 
have created a protective buffer, a shield for the well-meaning 
volunteer, the volunteer who experiences a simple accident or omission. 
We have heard some of the stories on the floor of the Senate. A coach 
who has a player who inadvertently slides into home head first instead 
of feet first will not have to spend long nights awake wondering 
whether, because he was or she was a volunteer, they will lose their 
home and assets and checking account, et cetera. The principle we will 
have accomplished is to protect a volunteer from being under assault 
for that kind of omission.
  The second thing we will have achieved is that the volunteer will no 
longer be looked at as the deep pocket. If they volunteer for an 
organization that does not have any resources, they may have a home, or 
something to that effect, and so the suit goes to the volunteer instead 
of the organization. But now the volunteer cannot be held liable for 
anything more than their proportional responsibility. So the story we 
talked about on the floor of the Senate yesterday and today of the 
woman who was nothing more than a receptionist out front answering a 
phone while an accident occurred in the gym will no longer be held 
liable for the fact that something went wrong somewhere else.
  So this is very meaningful, as I said a moment ago, a very 
significant congressional initiative that keeps the legacy of the 
summit alive and helps fuel the call for new volunteers.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, said earlier today 
that one of the concerns of the summit was that it would flame out, 
that after all the glitz and the visuality of seeing the celebrities 
and political leaders gathered together, what would keep it

[[Page S3877]]

going? I think S. 543 will be one response from the Congress, one 
opportunity to keep the fuel under the idea of more and more Americans 
stepping forward in a very, very difficult time.
  Mr. President, I am hopeful that we will be able to conclude this 
vote, if at all possible, by at least 2:15.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased today to announce my strong 
support for S. 543, the Volunteer Protection Act.
  As the excitement surrounding today's events in Philadelphia have so 
poignantly illustrated, ours is a nation that has a particular 
dependence on the volunteer movement. Nonprofit organizations mobilize 
volunteers by drawing on their members' special talents to meet social 
or economic needs. Volunteer organizations are currently deeply 
involved in such activities as alleviating hunger, educating the public 
about the dangers of drug and alcohol abuse, providing care of the 
elderly and infirm, providing athletic programs for our Nation's youth, 
providing opportunity for the poor, building housing for the homeless, 
promoting literacy and education, finding missing children, teaching 
fire safety, aiding victims of natural disasters, providing moral 
education for our youth, and spreading American ideals across the 
world. In fact, according to a 1990 study by the Hudson Institute, 
which polled approximately 5,500 associations, volunteer time in 
America was conservatively estimated to total $3.3 billion per year.
  This is nothing new. In his 1835 commentary of our country, the epic 
``Democracy in America,'' Alexis de Toqueville noted that America was a 
nation of joiners. To de Toqueville this was very significant. 
Nongovernmental charitable, religious, and community organizations 
combined with the family and other natural social units to form what he 
termed ``intermediary'' organizations--organizations that impede the 
trend toward centralization of virtually all administration in the 
national government. It is these intermediary groups that are essential 
in protecting the liberty of the individual and community from the 
regulatory state.
  In recent times, there has been an awareness of the need to 
strengthen volunteer organizations as a way to buttress the newly 
rediscovered virtues of limited government. Americans are coming to 
realize that government should not and cannot be relied on to provide 
all social services. The gap between American needs and American 
resources must be filled by the generous efforts of our volunteer 
corps. But the current litigation nightmare sweeping our Nation is 
going a long way to hinder the efforts of these important volunteers. 
This at a time when we must be doing everything possible to encourage 
the spirit of voluntarism.
  Mr. President, I'd like to illustrate for you a couple of reasons why 
I believe the litigious nature of our society is dampening the spirit 
of voluntarism. A Gallup study revealed the large extent to which the 
threat of lawsuits, and the prohibitive cost of liability insurance, 
have a negative effect on volunteer participation in charitable 
organizations. The survey found that nearly 20 percent of all nonprofit 
organizations in the United States have experienced volunteers 
withholding service or resigning due to fear of liability exposure. 
This figure represents a very significant portion of the volunteer 
community. Specifically, 1 in 10 nonprofit organizations have 
experienced the resignation of a volunteer due to liability concerns. 
Let's do the math--with approximately 600,000 nonprofit organizations 
in America, we know that 48,000 volunteers have been lost during the 
past few years strictly due to liability concerns. Additionally, one in 
six volunteers report withholding their services due to fear of 
exposure to liability suits. This means that 100,000 potential American 
volunteers have declined to serve due to fear of exposure to lawsuits. 
This is an extraordinary figure.

  Additionally, the rate voluntarism has been steadily declining in 
recent years. The percentage of Americans volunteering dropped from 54 
percent in 1989 to 48 percent in 1993. Sadly, charitable donations are 
also declining, falling roughly $100 per household during this same 
short period. However, in 1991 alone, Americans spent a hefty $132 
billion on the civil justice system. As a result, it is not surprising 
to note that liability insurance premiums for nonprofit organizations 
continue to rise.
  These figures demonstrate that the on-going litigation craze has 
seriously damaged the spirit of voluntarism. I would like to document 
several cases that stand out in particular:
  Lawyers for an injured mountain climber sued volunteer rescuers for 
$12 million on the grounds that their rescue methods were negligent and 
reckless. Prior to assisting this particular climber, the rescue team 
successfully and carefully made hundreds of rescues without incident.
  In February 1995, Cleighton Hall, then CEO of Little League Baseball, 
wrote in the Wall Street Journal that Little League had turned into 
``Litigation League.'' In one instance, two youngsters collided in the 
outfield, picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and sued their 
coach. In another instance, lawyers won a large cash settlement when 
their client was struck by a ball that a player failed to catch--that 
player, strangely enough, was the client's daughter. Finally, trial 
attorneys for a child in Runnymeade, NJ, filed suit against the youth's 
coach when he was struck by a flyball in center field.
  Finally, a boy in a scouting unit with the Boy Scouts of the Cascade 
Pacific Council suffered a paralyzing injury in a game of touch 
football. Several adults volunteered to supervise the trip. The youth's 
attorneys filed a personal injury suit alleging that the Boy Scouts and 
the volunteers were negligent for failing to supervise the youth 
adequately. The jury found that the volunteers were personally liable 
for $7 million. Oregon law ultimately caused the judgment to be reduced 
to around $4 million, but few Boy Scout volunteers can afford this kind 
of judgment.
  Anyone who has been a Boy Scout or has volunteered in any capacity 
knows that certain accidents are impossible to prevent. The basic 
problem is that the actions of this Nation's greedy trial lawyers are 
serving to undermine the positive effects of voluntarism. Clearly, Mr. 
President, the current situation cries out for reform.
  The Volunteer Protection Act helps charities and nonprofit 
organizations serve their communities by giving their volunteers 
immunity from lawsuits. Volunteers who act in a grossly negligent or 
incompetent manner are, of course, not be protected under the 
legislation.
  This bill will provide a volunteer protection from litigation in 
cases where, first, the volunteer was acting within the scope of the 
volunteer's responsibilities; second, the volunteer was properly 
licensed, certified, or authorized by the State in which the harm 
occurred, if such authorization is required; and third, the harm was 
not caused by willful or criminal misconduct, gross negligence, 
reckless misconduct, or a conscious, flagrant indifference to the 
rights or safety of the individual harmed by the volunteer.
  The bill also limits punitive damages that may be awarded against 
volunteers and nonprofit organizations based on harm caused by a 
volunteer acting within the scope of the volunteer's responsibilities. 
Punitive damages against any such defendant will be available only 
where the claimant demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that 
the volunteer caused the harm through willful or criminal misconduct.
  Finally, while the bill preempts State law to the extent that it is 
inconsistent with the bill, the bill will not preempt any State laws 
that provide additional protections from liability relating to 
volunteers or nonprofit organizations.
  Mr. President, this bill is consistent with the overall thrust and 
punitive damages reforms of my bill, S. 79, the Civil Justice Fairness 
Act. I am proud to support it as another step in our march toward 
complete civil justice reform.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S3878]]

  Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes of my time to 
the distinguished Senator from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes left.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming has 5 minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  First, let me say how much I have appreciated the efforts of the 
Senator from Georgia in promoting this legislation, this Volunteer 
Protection Act of 1997. I think probably most everything about the bill 
has been said. I am delighted to hear that there has been an agreement. 
I can hardly imagine that anybody does not agree with the concept of 
making it easier for people to volunteer, of taking away some of the 
kinds of threats that have inevitably been there when someone does 
volunteer to serve. So I am very pleased about that.
  I think it is true--and I guess I will probably be saying some of the 
same things again--it is true that the nature of this society, this 
democracy, requires that people care. It is a Government of the people 
and by the people, and designed to be a relatively minimal Government 
in that it sets a framework for us to do the things that we think 
should be done, for us to take the leadership to cause our communities 
to be strong.
  The Federal Government clearly has a role. But, you know, the more I 
am here, Mr. President, and the more I see what I think is the role of 
the Federal Government, the more I am impressed with the fact that you 
and I make our communities strong there. And much of that is because we 
are willing to volunteer. I think it was the Frenchman de Tocqueville 
who came to examine and to explore and to look into this new idea of 
democracy. One of the things that he observed and found to be most 
important was this was a country, this was a society that was doing 
things together for each other voluntarily. And that still is--that 
still is--the root, it seems to me, of our society. The role of the 
Federal Government is minimal in that.
  I was pleased with the President and the several Presidents last week 
who raised the image and raised the visibility of voluntarism. But the 
fact is, national voluntarism is not really the key. It is in Casper, 
WY, or Gillette, WY, or Louisville, KY. That is where voluntarism works 
and that is where it will continue to work.
  So I think this bill is something we all should support. I am so 
delighted that the sponsors have done this, worked on it. I am 
delighted that we will be able to vote and vote positively on it in a 
few minutes.
  I see some others wishing to speak, Mr. President, so I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I now ask for the yeas and nays on 
final passage of S. 543.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this is a very significant bill. I want 
to commend the Senator from Georgia for his leadership which has 
brought us to this point this year. As he knows, I introduced similar 
legislation in 1990 and in 1993 and again in 1995. So I take particular 
pride in seeing it moved to this point where, hopefully, it will pass 
the Senate in the next minutes ahead.
  This bill really, Mr. President, comes from the grassroots of 
American voluntarism. This bill sprang from the concerns and complaints 
of volunteers and national leaders in the volunteer community, thoughts 
of the men and women who are on the frontlines in our national 
volunteer efforts.
  Just last week over on the House side we heard from Terry Orr, a 
former Washington Redskins football player. He said when he came into 
the NFL a few years ago players were asked to volunteer, and they 
responded, ``Just tell me where to go.'' There was not a moment's 
hesitation. In today's litigious world, players are asked to volunteer, 
and they respond, as Terry Orr said, ``Do we have coverage?''
  Players are afraid to play a benefit ballgame or do any kind of 
volunteer activity without engaging in extensive discussions with their 
lawyers. That is today's environment, Mr. President.
  Lynn Swann, another famous football player with the Pittsburgh 
Steelers, is a commentator on one of the networks. He was also at that 
press conference. He is the immediate past president of Big Brothers/
Big Sisters of America. This is what he had to say. He said in the late 
1980's the Big Brothers/Big Sisters federation endorsed Federal 
volunteer protection legislation. According to Lynn Swann, the Big 
Brothers and Big Sisters organization endorsed the legislation because 
``a series of high visibility law suits against direct service 
volunteers had dampened [the] enthusiasm for volunteering in our 
program.''
  He went on to say the legislation was necessary because: ``We [can] 
not afford to lose prospective, high quality volunteers due to 
liability fears.''
  That was Lynn Swann and Terry Orr, two former professional football 
players, just expressing their own experience in this highly litigious 
society in which we live and how it affects the willingness of people 
to volunteer their time.
  William Cople, former pro bono general counsel for the National 
Capital Area Council of the Boy Scouts of America has written as 
follows:

       Volunteer service is under assault from an unlikely 
     quarter--the civil justice system.

  The civil justice system.

       Like so many others, volunteers and their service 
     organizations have been swept into the courts to face 
     potential liability in civil suits.

  Thomas L. Jones of Habitat for Humanity International also testified 
just this past week that volunteers across the United States have 
declined service on Habitat for Humanity boards ``because of perceived 
liability responsibility.''
  Mr. President, the bill before us protects volunteers who serve on 
the boards of nonprofit organizations.
  H.R. 911, a bill over on the House side, however, provides little 
protection for volunteers who want to serve as officers on nonprofit 
boards. H.R. 911 defines volunteer so narrowly that it excludes anyone 
who receives reimbursement for expenses of $300 per year. And H.R. 911 
would not--I repeat, not--cover a volunteer who serves in a rape crisis 
center or a child abuse center and gets reimbursed $30 a month for 
reasonable expenses, such as transportation costs. In other words, the 
bill over in the House is simply too narrow.

  Our bill allows a volunteer to be fully reimbursed for reasonable 
expenses.
  The opponents of volunteer protection argue that: This legislation is 
not necessary because there is no comprehensive digest of jury awards 
against volunteers. That is the argument.
  First, let me say I have already cited several examples of outrageous 
lawsuits and jury verdicts. Second, the fact that jury verdicts are not 
rendered against volunteers every month is simply not relevant--simply 
not relevant.
  Most lawsuits settle before trial and thus are unreported. The 
chilling effects of even one case is astounding.
  As the Boy Scouts' former general counsel has explained, ``a legal 
judgment entered in a single case can have a multitude of consequences 
extending far beyond that case itself. This surely is a reason for 
concern in the case of volunteers to service organizations.''
  We have heard opponents argue that the bill is too broad and might 
offer immunity to the Ku Klux Klan or other organizations whose views 
we all abhor. This argument fails for several reasons.
  Organizations are not granted immunity from lawsuits under this bill.
  A volunteer is not covered under this bill if the volunteer engages 
in willful misconduct, specifically including hate crimes or civil 
rights violations.
  It is not at all clear that the KKK would be covered as a nonprofit 
entity that exists primarily for public benefit and operates primarily 
for charitable purposes.
  Survey of State volunteer protection laws indicates that there are 
States

[[Page S3879]]

that define ``nonprofit organization'' in the same manner as S. 543 or 
even broader. Yet, no one can come up with any examples from those 
States where KKK members were immune from lawsuits. The KKK argument is 
an offensive and bogus bogeyman argument.
  Mr. President, also, opponents argue that this is a matter of States 
rights. I am constantly amazed to hear people make that argument. It is 
reminiscent of the argument against the civil rights laws in the 1960's 
where opponents said this really is a States rights matter, not a 
matter for the Federal Government.
  The same argument was made against national voting rights 
legislation. And a lot of the folks who were the most enthusiastic for 
that kind of legislation now turn around and start arguing that the 
States rights is a good argument to not deal with what is clearly a 
national problem with national implications which needs a national 
solution.
  Opponents also argue that some States have some protections for some 
volunteers in some circumstances. Well, that is not good enough. That 
kind of patchwork protection is simply not going to get the job done.
  In my State we have some basic protections for volunteers. But these 
Kentucky protections are of no benefit to a Kentucky volunteer who goes 
to help his neighbor in one of the seven States which border the 
Commonwealth of Kentucky.

  Volunteers, Mr. President, should not have to hire a lawyer in order 
to cross State lines to help their neighbor.
  Bob Goodwin, president and CEO of the Points of Light Foundation, 
testified last week that a national solution is necessary because 
``there is no consistency among our States with regard to volunteer 
liability statutes, and that lack of consistency has led to confusion 
in the volunteer community.''
  Let me quote another leader in the national volunteer movement. John 
H. Graham, CEO of the American Diabetes Association, also testified 
last week on behalf of the National Coalition for Volunteer Protection. 
This is what he had to say:

       We have seen recently that otherwise qualified and willing 
     individuals are withholding their services out of fear of 
     liability and confusion concerning the different volunteer 
     protection laws on the books in many states. These are 
     individuals who would help house and feed the homeless, who 
     would treat and support the elderly, and who would clothe and 
     care for the poor.

  So in summary, Mr. President, our national volunteer movement is 
built upon the idea of loving your neighbor as yourself, of being a 
good Samaritan, of stopping alongside the road and lending your 
neighbor a helping hand.
  People from my home State of Kentucky understand this concept. Their 
neighbor is not just the child across the street, but it is the family 
across the bridge or across the State line.
  If the Kentucky Red Cross volunteer wants to cross over into 
Tennessee or Ohio or Illinois or Indiana or West Virginia or Virginia 
and help his neighbor recover from a flood, then he should not have to 
call his lawyer to check on his liability potential in a surrounding 
State. We must have a uniform minimum standard.
  The principles of loving your neighbor, of being a good Samaritan are 
woven deeply into the fabric of our Nation. We need to find ways to 
free up this spirit, not to suppress it. We must inspire and encourage 
people to do good works, not sue and harass and discourage.
  Those who say that our volunteers do not need this legislation have 
obviously not been talking to the people on the frontlines.
  My longstanding interest in this issue comes from talking to 
volunteers like the very ones that I have mentioned here today. 
However, I must confess, Mr. President, that one particular volunteer 
leader has had my ear on this issue for quite awhile. That is my wife, 
Elaine, who is a former Director of the Peace Corps and former 
president and CEO of the United Way of America. She has been involved 
in this battle for a long time and understands fully the implications.
  So, Mr. President, let me close by again thanking Senator Coverdell 
for his leadership, and the others who participated in this. This is an 
extremely important piece of legislation which I hope will pass the 
Senate overwhelmingly.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I do wish to thank my friend from Georgia, 
Mr. Coverdell. With the Coverdell-Leahy-Ashcroft-McConnell and others 
substitute, I think this piece of legislation has been substantially 
improved.
  So Members know, we have limited it to individual volunteers. The 
bill is no longer intended to provide immunity or limitation of 
liability for organizations. I think it is also important that the 
original sponsors of the bill agree not to include any limitation on 
motor vehicle liability, even as it relates to individuals. I think 
that is important.
  I believe this bill has been significantly modified. It is not 
precisely the bill I would have written, but it is not precisely the 
bill my friend from Georgia would have written. I think it reflects 
what is best in the Senate when both sides can give and come out with 
something that can be better and more acceptable to a broad cross-
section of Senators. Most of us do have concerns if we preempt State 
laws. In this, we have tried as best as possible to preserve State 
options.
  I do not believe the threat of litigation deters Americans from 
volunteering to help neighbors, and did not deter the hundreds and 
hundreds who volunteered in floods in the Dakotas or in so many other 
areas we have seen in recent times. I am glad we have been able to 
limit the reach of the Federal protections provided, but we will be 
able to help individual volunteers. They should have some insulation 
from honest mistakes. We all want volunteers to be able to help 
whenever they can and worry most about how much stamina they will have 
to help, and have that be their chief concern.
  So we will continue to work on this. Of course, it will have to go 
through conference, and we will make sure there is no unintended 
benefit or defenses available to anybody, and that nobody is harmed or 
left without a remedy.
  We have seen an extraordinary week, as I said, in Philadelphia, with 
the President of the United States, together with past Presidents, the 
wife of a past President, General Powell, and others, who came together 
to promote voluntarism. We do not want to do anything to hamper that.
  Again, I thank my friend from Georgia. I thank Ed Pagano and Jonathan 
Lamy on the Judiciary Committee staff, and all the others on both sides 
of the aisle who worked to make this legislation better.
  I am prepared to yield if there is any time left on this side, and am 
prepared to go to vote on the Coverdell-Leahy substitute.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I will take just a few minutes of my time, then do the 
same as the Senator from Vermont and yield back time and proceed to the 
vote.
  I want to take a moment to thank Senator Leahy and his staff. It is 
interesting how life makes people's paths cross each other from time to 
time. He and I have done so now on various occasions over the last 
decade. As always, I have found him to be an admirable either adversary 
or cooperator, but always with well-intentioned and good purpose. I 
thank him for his attention to this matter and the assistance both here 
and on those occasions in the past.
  I also want to thank Senator McConnell. Senator McConnell has labored 
in this area for years and has made contributions to this legislation 
that are exceedingly significant. I am very grateful for his assistance 
on this matter, as well as Senators Ashcroft, Santorum, and others.
  I want to acknowledge the work of Kyle McSlarrow, Terri Delgadillo, 
and Dan McGirt on our side who have worked so hard to iron out the 
differences so we could produce this meaningful piece of legislation.
  The hour is 2:05. We said we would vote as near as possible to 2 
o'clock. I yield back all time on our side.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 53) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was 
read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 10 minutes equally divided.

[[Page S3880]]

  Mr. LEAHY. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. COVERDELL. We yield back all time on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on final passage of S. 543 as 
amended. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 55 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Thompson
       
  The bill (S. 543), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________