[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 68 (Wednesday, May 21, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H3096-H3103]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                    VOLUNTEER PROTECTION ACT OF 1997

  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the 
rules and pass the bill (H.R. 911) to encourage the States to enact 
legislation to grant immunity from personal civil liability, under 
certain circumstances, to volunteers working on behalf of nonprofit 
organizations and governmental entities, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 911

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--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)) 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:

[[Page H3097]]

       (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 which is described in section 
     501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt 
     from tax under section 501(a) of such Code and which does not 
     practice any action which constitutes a hate crime referred 
     to in subsection (b)(1) of the first section of the Hate 
     Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note); or
       (B) any not-for-profit organization which is organized and 
     conducted for public benefit and operated primarily for 
     charitable, civic, educational, religious, welfare, or health 
     purposes and which does not practice any action which 
     constitutes a hate crime referred to in subsection (b)(1) of 
     the first section of the Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 
     534 note).
       (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 but only 
     if the harm that is the subject of the claim or the conduct 
     that caused such harm occurred after such effective date.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Inglis] and the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. 
Jackson-Lee] each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis].


                             General Leave

  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that all members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we will consider the Volunteer Protection Act of 
1997. My distinguished colleague from Illinois, Mr. Porter, has worked 
on this bill for some time now, and I hope that we will fulfill his 
hard work today in this House.
  Our Nation has an extensive tradition of volunteering. It is almost 
impossible to be an American and not have had contact with one of the 
hundreds of public service groups. The circumstances surrounding that 
volunteer work are as pleasant as a Girl Scout camping trip or as 
tragic added flood relief. Now our tradition is in danger like never 
before. One of the reasons is frivolous lawsuits.
  Mr. Speaker, across the country the fear of getting sued keeps people 
from volunteering. In a recent Gallup survey one in six volunteers 
reported withholding their services for fear of being sued. About 1 in 
10 nonprofit groups report the resignation of a volunteer over the 
threat of liability.

                              {time}  1200

  I have seen this problem firsthand. In my district, for example, a 
group called Christmas in April, associated with a national 
organization, rehabilitates houses, creating all kinds of possibilities 
for frivolous lawsuits. Fear of getting sued is omnipresent and getting 
worse all the time.
  I can illustrate with an example. Assume a volunteer is working on 
one of those houses and his or her hammer head falls off and hits the 
homeowner's parked car. Should the homeowner be able to sue the 
volunteer? Reasonable people, I believe, would say no. The volunteer 
did not intend to hit the car and was not negligent in losing the 
hammer. If one is being a good Samaritan and there is an accident that 
is not one's fault, one should not get sued.
  That is the commonsense intent of this bill and here is how it would 
protect volunteers. First, the bill provides that volunteers will not 
be liable for harm caused by their acts, as long as they are acting in 
good faith. To have this protection, the volunteers must act within the 
scope of their responsibilities in the organization and must not cause 
harm by willful or criminal misconduct, gross negligence, or reckless 
misconduct.
  Second, the bill offers no protection for individuals who commit hate 
crimes, violent crimes, section crimes, or who violate the civil rights 
of others. The bill also does not apply when defendants were under the 
influence of drugs or alcohol.
  Third, the bill allows States to opt out if they choose not to adhere 
to these standards. In sum, Mr. Speaker, this bill sets a very 
commonsense standard for protecting volunteers. It makes sense that 
volunteer groups should use their scarce resources to do their work of 
mercy rather than use them to defend against frivolous lawsuits.
  By passing the Volunteer Protection Act, we will promote voluntarism 
by removing the risk of getting sued for acts of kindness.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Porter], who has done such fine work on this bill 
for a number of years and whose work we are now hopefully going to 
fulfill today.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina 
for yielding, and for his great leadership on this issue.
  Let me say that H.R. 911, Mr. Speaker, was originally introduced in 
1986 in Congress and was introduced in every Congress since that time. 
It has repeatedly had over 200 Members as cosponsors and about 30 to 40 
percent of those cosponsors were our colleagues from the other side of 
the aisle. It has had very, very strong bipartisan support. 
Nevertheless, until this Congress, the bill had never had a hearing and 
was strongly opposed by the American Trial Lawyers Association.
  In 1993, even without a hearing, Mr. Speaker, it was offered by me as 
an amendment to the National Service Act, and was adopted on a voice 
vote, and then on a motion to instruct conferees to keep that amendment 
for volunteer protection in the act. The vote was 422 to nothing. 
Cynically, however, Mr. Speaker, it was stripped out immediately in 
conference and never adopted.
  In 1997, this year, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], chairman 
of the Committee on the Judiciary, granted hearings. Senators Coverdell 
and McConnell over on the Senate side provided leadership to bring the 
bill to the Senate floor where it passed 99 to 1. Over here on this 
side, my colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis] 
provided the leadership in the House to make a good bill even better.
  The Inglis legislation, which was reported out by the Committee on 
the Judiciary, provides a uniform national standard for protecting 
volunteers, but allows States to opt out by an affirmative act if they 
do not wish to be covered. The original bill merely encouraged State 
action. H.R. 911 now provides a national standard for all volunteers.
  The problem, Mr. Speaker, is not that volunteers are having to pay 
large judgments, that has not occurred in our legal system, but what 
has occurred is that volunteers have routinely been named as defendants 
in lawsuits and have had to hire an attorney, go to court, and attend 
to all the costs and time obligations that that involves.
  Volunteers, Mr. Speaker, are central to our society. America could 
not operate without them. The fact that so many have been named as 
defendants has had a chilling effect, both on direct service volunteers 
and as those who

[[Page H3098]]

would serve as members of boards of directors of charitable 
organizations.
  That is why, Mr. Speaker, there are 124 separate charitable 
organizations that support this legislation very strongly. They range 
from the American Association of University Women to the American Heart 
Association, to the American Red Cross, to the American Symphony 
Orchestra League, to B'nai Brith International, the Girl Scout Council 
USA, the National Association of Retired Federal Employees, the 
National Easter Seal Society, the Salvation Army, Save the Children, 
United Way, the YMCA. Any national organization that one can think of 
probably is a strong supporter of this legislation.
  I commend the leadership of our Committee on the Judiciary, and the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis] in particular, for moving 
this legislation ahead so strongly. I commend it to the Members. I hope 
that the House will see fit to pass it with the same good margin as the 
Senate.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the concept of volunteer tort liability 
legislation. The purpose of this act is to promote the interests of 
social service program beneficiaries and taxpayers and to sustain the 
availability of programs and nonprofit organizations and government 
agencies that depend on volunteer contributions.
  Let me first of all thank the leading proponent of this legislation. 
I think I was just with him in an appropriations meeting where he gave 
the history of his advocacy. Since 1986, I believe, the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter] has been on the side of encouraging a volunteer 
spirit that does not hamper or hinder the quality of the volunteer 
service, but protects the dedicated volunteer.
  None of this suggests that we are interested in protecting section 
offenders, criminals, and others who may find their way into the warm 
and comfortable settings of Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, other types of 
volunteer entities. We are suggesting that the bulk of America's 
volunteers are the average Mr. and Mrs. America in the urban and rural 
communities who every day rise up to support causes in our cities and 
in our counties and in our States.
  As a result, H.R. 911 encourages the States to enact legislation to 
grant immunity from personal civil liability under certain 
circumstances to volunteers working on behalf of nonprofit 
organizations and government entities.
  Let me as well acknowledge the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] our 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Inglis] for their work in committee, and of course, 
although we had opportunities to disagree, I am gratified that there 
were many opportunities to agree, and I thank the gentleman for his 
work on this matter.
  In 1996, the Nonprofit Risk Management Center and the American Bar 
Association published an analysis of State liability laws for 
charitable organizations and volunteers. Their findings revealed that 
prior to the last decade, the number of lawsuits filed against 
volunteers might have been counted on one hand, perhaps with fingers 
left over. Although the law permitted suits against volunteers, in 
practice no one sued them, and volunteers had little reason to worry 
about personal liability.
  In the mid-1980's, that changed. More volunteers were sued and those 
suits attracted national media attention. Thus, many individuals were 
deterred from volunteering their services to nonprofit organizations. 
The nonprofit organizations that thrive on the services of volunteers 
have been hurt by the drastic reduction of volunteers who were scared 
away because of the rising threat of suits.
  I raised issues in committee which I would like to comment on. This 
legislation in no way counters the rights of citizens to go in and 
address their grievances or to not seek remedy for being harmed. I 
think it is extremely important that we recognize the importance that 
where there is an extreme degree of culpability on the part of an 
entity that there should be relief on behalf of that individual. This 
is to give protection, if you will, to the thousands upon thousands 
upon thousands upon millions of volunteers who volunteer without danger 
to those they volunteer on behalf of.
  Since 1986 at least 20 States have passed some form of volunteer 
immunity legislation. However, all of this legislation has given a 
false impression that volunteers nationwide are immune from lawsuits. 
To the contrary, many volunteers remain fully liable for any harm they 
cause and all volunteers remain liable for some actions. Furthermore, 
some State laws exclude gross negligence or some other category of 
error above negligence. A few laws even permit suits based on 
negligence, which nullifies the purpose for which they are offered.
  Some of the State laws are confusingly worded, exceptionally 
complicated, designed for profit making when other problems arise.
  Let me say a note if I might to the legal community. From my 
perspective, this is not a bashing the legal community legislation, and 
I would like to defend them. I have never seen a calling which has so 
many accusers, and I would venture to say that throughout this Nation 
there are a body of individuals, lawyers who practice before the bar, 
who raise up the highest standards of the legal profession.
  I would hope that this discussion does not relegate itself to lawyer 
bashing, for every citizen deserves to be represented. This creates an 
even playing field for our volunteers, which we cherish. Just a few 
weeks ago, the President, Colin Powell, and others, raised up the call 
for voluntarism.
  I hope as we speak today, more and more people are volunteering 
everywhere and throughout their community, not necessarily the large 
entities, but working in their neighborhood recreational centers, in 
their churches and parishes and synagogues, or maybe simply on their 
block.
  A few laws even permit suits based on negligence, which, as I said, 
nullifies the purpose for which they are offered, and some States are 
having laws confusingly worded. Even the very best laws require a 
careful analysis to determine which volunteers they cover and what 
exceptions they contain. The goal of H.R. 911 is to establish volunteer 
protection laws that are not confusing and are easily applicable in a 
judicial proceeding. However, this bill also states that nothing in 
this act shall be construed to preempt the law governing tort liability 
actions.
  Let me also note, and I appreciate and will engage the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Inglis] in a colloquy later in the debate, but let 
me appreciate very much the support of the members of the Committee on 
the Judiciary for clarifying that this particular legislation does not 
promote hate groups and their activities.
  Mr. Speaker, volunteers are essential to the everyday workings of 
nonprofit service organizations. In fact, we begin to teach our 
children voluntarism. With that in mind, I hope that this legislation 
will be seen for what it is, simply a good measure to both protect 
those who are volunteered upon as well as those who volunteer. It is 
important that we remember the good samaritans.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the concept of volunteer tort liability 
legislation. The purpose of this act is to promote the interests of 
social service program beneficiaries and taxpayers and to sustain the 
availability of programs and nonprofit organizations and government 
agencies that depend on volunteer contributions. As a result, H.R. 911 
encourages the States to enact legislation to grant immunity from 
personal civil liability, under certain circumstances, to volunteers 
working on behalf of nonprofit organizations and government entities.
  In 1996, the Nonprofit Risk Management Center and the American Bar 
Association published an analysis of State liability laws for 
charitable organizations and volunteers. There findings revealed that, 
prior to the last decade, the number of lawsuits filed against 
volunteers might have been counted on one hand, perhaps with fingers 
left over. Although the law permitted suits against volunteers, in 
practice no one sued them and volunteers had little reason to worry 
about personal liability. In the mid-1980's, that changed. More 
volunteers were sued and those suits attracted national media 
attention. Thus, many individuals were deterred from volunteering their 
services to nonprofit organizations. The nonprofit organizations that 
thrive on the services of volunteers have been hurt by the drastic 
reduction

[[Page H3099]]

of volunteers who are scared away because of the rising threat of 
suits. Since 1986, at least 20 States have passed some form of 
volunteer-immunity legislation. However, all of this legislation has 
given a false impression that volunteers nationwide are immune from 
suit. To the contrary, many volunteers remain fully liable for any harm 
they cause and all volunteers remain liable for some actions. 
Furthermore, some State laws exclude gross negligence or some other 
category of error above negligence. A few laws even permit suits based 
on negligence, which nullifies the purpose for which they are offered. 
Some of the State laws are confusingly worded, exceptionally 
complicated, designed for profit-making corporations, or otherwise 
problematic. Even the very best laws require a careful analysis to 
determine which volunteers they cover and what exceptions they contain.
  The goal of H.R. 911 is to establish volunteer protection laws that 
are not confusing and are easily applicable in a judicial proceeding. 
However, this bill also states that nothing in this act shall be 
construed to preempt the laws of any State governing tort liability 
actions. Mr. Chairman, volunteers are essential to the every day 
workings of nonprofit service organizations. It is important that we 
provide protection to these good samaritans.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner], the distinguished chairman of the 
Republican Conference.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the members of the 
Committee on the Judiciary for bringing this important piece of 
legislation to the floor today. I particularly want to give thanks to 
our colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], for his hard 
work on this subject for many years.
  Mr. Speaker, this is important legislation that is long overdue. It 
is important for our citizens who volunteer; it is important for those 
groups that do so much for our communities, and to those who need the 
services that volunteers provide.
  As General Powell stated so compellingly in Philadelphia a few weeks 
ago, our volunteers share our Nation's most important asset: the 
guiding hands and caring hearts of the American people. Millions of 
people volunteer on a daily basis for one big reason: because they 
care. Their caring not only builds homes for Habitat for Humanity, not 
only helps children and adults reach the goal of literacy, not only 
does that caring result in coaches for Little League and scout leaders 
for Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts, this is the type of action that we want 
to promote on behalf of communities in America.
  Government can provide some level of service, but if we are going to 
be successful in solving our Nation's problems, we need to reach out 
and we need to allow these organizations to do the best that they can 
do, and this bill will help that.

                              {time}  1215

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo].
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise procedurally in opposition to this 
bill, theoretically in favor of it. I will explain that during the 
course of my remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today concerned and in opposition to this bill. 
This is very difficult, because the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 is 
legislation that has the greatest of intentions. There is no question 
in my mind that the sponsor of it, my distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] is sincerely concerned about the 
issue of volunteer liability.
  However, the legislation presented before us today is vastly 
different than that of the original bill, which has over 150 
cosponsors. I encourage those who cosponsored H.R. 911 as it was 
introduced originally to read carefully the amended version of the 
bill. Section 3 of the original bill stated that nothing in this act 
shall be construed to preempt the laws of any State governing tort 
liability actions.
  The original bill stated that in cases where a State certifies that 
it has enacted this type of bill, then there would be an increase in 
the social services block grant program under title 20 of the Social 
Security Act. In other words, a State could opt into the Federal law, 
and if a State did nothing, State law nonetheless applied. This would 
keep the principles of federalism.
  However, H.R. 911, as amended, is a major change from that standard. 
Section 3(a) of H.R. 911, as amended, states that the act preempts the 
laws of any State to the extent that such laws are inconsistent with 
this act, unless the State goes further in protecting volunteers.
  Under the amended version, States must specifically choose under 
certain circumstances not to be covered under the proposed bill, and 
the State still cannot opt out entirely because it changes such 
important issues as whether or not the State has jurisdiction of the 
particular action.
  We realize there are liability problems with the not-for-profits, but 
not every problem means that there is a Federal solution. The issue of 
volunteer liability has been addressed by many States because the 
States have exclusive authority over that, with the exception of very 
few areas. What we are considering here today is legislation that will 
federalize tort law for volunteers. I am unconvinced there is any 
blanket Federal jurisdiction with regard to volunteer protection.
  States may vary in how they deal with the problems, but it is their 
prerogative to do so. It is not a Federal matter. There is no Federal 
law involved. There is absolutely no connection with interstate 
commerce. I personally like the bill, and if a member of the State 
legislature, would vote in favor of it.
  Three years ago I voted against the current bill because it 
federalized the criminal code. One year ago I voted against the 
terrorism bill for the same reason. Today I will vote against this bill 
because I disagree with federalizing tort law for volunteers. It is 
different from issues of product liability, where in those cases I 
favor Federal legislation because there is interstate and worldwide 
commerce with regard to the production of a particular item.
  H.R. 911 is entirely different. I recognize the increasing liability 
problems of a not-for-profit. My wife and I helped to start the crisis 
pregnancy centers in Rockford, IL. It is important, however, to allow 
States the rights and opportunities to resolve these issues, because 
that is what federalism is about, that it allows the States the options 
to come up and craft their own types of laws.
  Now, let us take this bill and defeat it, and bring it back in the 
proper form. What I would suggest is this: I would suggest that 
Congress enact on the Federal level, if it so chooses, a special type 
of bill to protect volunteers, make it applicable in Federal courts or 
at the discretion in the State court, providing that there is a finding 
of interstate commerce. That would give a jurisdictional basis so that 
this Congress can constitutionally act within the parameters of what we 
are bound by. That is the Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of this type of legislation. But 
we have to protect the rights and allow the States to move in this 
area, unless there is jurisdiction.
  The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis] said what happens in 
the case that a hammer drops on the hood of a car. There is absolutely 
no Federal connection. If we were to follow the language of the 
substitute bill, under this bill, if a hammer drops on a car there 
would be Federal jurisdiction. Under this bill, because insurance is 
purchased through interstate insurance markets, there would be Federal 
jurisdiction.
  Mr. Speaker, that means that simply because somebody buys insurance, 
that means that the Federal Government will now take over the entire 
field of saying that this is interstate commerce, and therefore, we 
have jurisdiction.
  This bill also says that where there are private entities that 
operate in interstate commerce, the law is very clear as set forth by 
the Lopez decision. Let us not federalize everything. This body 
yesterday just passed a bill to try to devolve power back to the 
States, away from the Federal Government. We should be doing that. We 
should be taking the original H.R. 911 of the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Porter], which encourages the States to pass this type of 
legislation and, as part of the encouragement, allows more Federal 
funds in certain types of programs. But the original H.R. 911 is so 
totally and dramatically different from this one that I cannot support 
it.

[[Page H3100]]

  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Bryant], a member of the 
committee.
  Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me. Also let me extend my congratulations and thanks 
to the members of the Committee on the Judiciary, our chairman, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], and also the chairman, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], for the work he has done in this 
area.
  I do rise in support of H.R. 911. I believe this is a good bill. I 
think, No. 1, it is a timely bill. As has already been said today, 
given the renewed spirit of voluntarism advocated by our President and 
other distinguished leaders, private citizens ought to be encouraged to 
get involved without fear of an unjustified lawsuit. Unfortunately, in 
today's litigious society such concerns are very real, and have had a 
chilling effect on voluntarism.
  No. 2, this bill is appropriate. I have a great deal of respect for 
my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo], and he 
certainly makes a very good argument on this issue, but it is one with 
which I would disagree. I think with volunteers serving both from 
within and without their home State, a Federal, consistent law is 
certainly needed. If a State strongly disagrees with this, then that 
State, as he pointed out and as I would state today, has the option to 
opt out completely.
  Finally, No. 3, this bill is reasonable. It protects a volunteer, not 
the organization but the volunteer herself, who is serving within the 
scope of her duties with the organization. It protects him or her from 
the day-to-day ordinary, simple negligence cases. It does not protect 
against willful negligence, willful conduct, gross negligence, a 
criminal act, drug use, alcohol, or in a situation where a vehicle is 
involved.
  As such, I think it is overall a very good bill, one that we were 
proud to vote out from the Committee on the Judiciary, and one that I 
think does the right things at the right time. I would encourage my 
colleagues to join in support of this, and also, as part of this, to 
encourage additional voluntarism.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], a member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Texas for yielding time to me for the purposes of debate.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say that this bill will be characterized as a 
vote on whether one supports voluntarism or not. I really do not think 
that this has to do with whether one supports voluntarism at all. I 
think we all support voluntarism. We all supported voluntarism last 
week or the week before last when the housing bill came to the floor 
and we got into a massive debate about whether the Federal Government 
ought to be requiring residents of public housing to volunteer.
  It was not about whether we supported voluntarism or not. It was 
about the relationship that should exist between the Federal Government 
and the State government, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Manzullo] has hit the nail completely on the head on that issue.
  It amazes me the extent to which we will go to make ourselves 
reelectable. We will disregard any kind of principles if it makes us 
look good, and we will get on a one-track mindset, and the one-track 
mindset for the last 2 or 3 weeks has been voluntarism, and let us do 
everything we can do to support voluntarism.
  Mr. Speaker, there are some principles here that are more important 
than voluntarism. I thought that my Republican colleagues, of all 
people, supported those principles of believing in the rights of States 
to have certain territory within our Federalist system that they have 
jurisdiction over. This is one of those areas.
  There is no reason that we ought to be federalizing the entire tort 
law of the Nation related to volunteers. We have no jurisdiction. It is 
unconstitutional, probably, for us to do that, to take an issue that 
has no connection with the Federal Government and turn it in such a way 
that we preempt all State law, and then say we are not overstepping our 
bounds; in fact, we believe in States' rights.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle keep 
telling me that they believe in States' rights, and I keep saying, 
``Well, when are you going to show it? When are you planning to stand 
up, and stand up for the rights of States in the Federalist system?''
  They federalize juvenile justice, they tried to federalize tort law, 
they tried to federalize the criminal law. Now here we are, trying to 
federalize an obligation of the volunteer or the rules related to 
volunteering and liability when one does volunteer. These are matters 
of State law, and should be protected in our Federal system if we are 
going to protect the Federal system at all.
  This whole notion that, well, a State can opt out if it wants to, 
what right do we have to make a State go back to its legislature and 
pass a law that opts itself out of a piece of Federal legislation? If 
that is not preemption of State law, we are requiring the States to do 
that, the Federal Constitution never gave us the right to do that. That 
is a violation of the whole concept of States' rights.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo]. 
Were I a member of a State legislature, this is probably a very, very 
good bill. But that is not the issue here. They did not send us to 
Washington to pass legislation that State legislators ought to be 
dealing with. They sent us here to protect the rights of the States in 
our Federalist system.
  I thought that is what my colleagues stood for on the Republican 
side, and I hope one day they will come back to that realization and 
start standing up for States' rights, which they give so much lip 
service to, rather than just doing what is convenient when it is 
politically popular to do so. This is a bad idea. We ought to defeat 
it, send it back, and let the State legislators do it.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/
4\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for 
yielding me the time.
  If I may respond to the rather strident criticism of this bill by the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], there is a practical reason 
why Federal preemption occurs here. Many of the disasters, such as the 
earthquakes in California, the forest fires, hurricanes in Florida 
attract volunteers from across State lines. The Red Cross, for example, 
would like to be able to train people to go in for disaster relief for 
people to train other volunteers, and it is important that they not 
have to concern themselves with a checkerboard of liability laws.
  In addition, there is a very small insurance market to cover 
volunteers. The cost of that insurance becomes prohibitive if it has to 
be complicated by a plethora of liability standards from State to 
State.
  So from a very practical point of view, and sometimes that is 
inconvenient, but from a very practical point of view, it is useful to 
have a Federal preemption in many cases so that volunteers who cross 
State lines to give and risk their lives many times are not troubled by 
having to comply with a checkerboard of laws and are able to get 
insurance from the organization that attracts them to protect them.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I would submit to the gentleman, Mr. 
Speaker, that nobody ever said that federalism was convenient. It is 
terribly inconvenient to operate in a federalist system. But that is 
not a justification for the Federal Government taking over all the 
rights of the State.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman says may well be true, but 
common sense also has a role to play in legislating.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that today the House of 
Representatives is considering H.R. 911, the Volunteer Protection Act 
of

[[Page H3101]]

1997. While modest in scope, it will yield significant dividends to our 
communities by assuring charitably minded Americans that they can 
volunteer their time without the threat of suit over honest mistakes.
  We as a society are caring and giving by nature. Clearly Americans 
have taken to heart the notion that we all bear some responsibility to 
help the less fortunate. We recognize that in order to enrich our 
society, we must foster the arts, religion, education, and other such 
worthy causes with our contributions. Charitable donations are one way 
in which we show our support for these causes, but an equally important 
asset that we contribute is our time. For many, the donation of cash is 
an economic impossibility. On the other hand, all of us have skills 
which are as essential to providing services to the community as the 
funding the nonprofits receive. In fact, giving of our time is really 
more important than giving money, because time cannot be replaced, and 
in that sense, it is more valuable.
  Unfortunately, over the past two decades, our legal liability system 
has become more and more of a deterrent to people who would otherwise 
give of themselves. Most volunteers in most States are fully liable for 
any harm they cause as a volunteer, and only about half the States 
protect volunteers other than officers and directors of the nonprofit 
organization. This means that before deciding to volunteer, individuals 
have to consider whether they are willing to risk liability which could 
threaten the financial viability of their families. Not surprisingly, 
the tradeoffs involved in that calculation frequently discourage the 
volunteer. In fact, frightened by well-publicized cases where 
volunteers have been sued, one in seven nonprofit organizations whose 
officers were polled by the Gallup Organization reported that they had 
eliminated certain worthwhile programs simply because they could be 
breeding grounds for legal action.
  The problem is not that volunteers have been sued successfully in 
large numbers, but that they are named in so many lawsuits. Ultimately, 
the volunteer defendants in most of these cases are found not liable, 
for good reason. However, the cost of legal defense can be staggering, 
and the mental anguish a volunteer suffers when sued for exorbitant 
amounts of damages cannot be measured.
  In addition to inhibiting people from volunteering, fear of these 
high-stakes lawsuits arising from volunteer efforts has led to the 
scarcity and ballooning expense of insurance to protect against 
potential verdicts. Between 1984 and 1989, the cost of liability 
coverage for local Little League Baseball programs shot up from $75 to 
$795 a year. Nationally, the Little League's biggest cost is not bats 
and balls, but legal and insurance costs associated with liability. 
This means that organizations must spend more of their resources paying 
overhead and less in actually providing the services for which they are 
created. Or, put another way, in order to provide the same level of 
services, they must raise substantially more money.
  The signal that all of this gives is that volunteerism does not pay. 
This is absolutely 180 degrees from the message we should be 
delivering. Volunteers provide services which fill large gaps in 
government programs for the truly needy--gaps which will no doubt 
increase over the next decade. As both Federal and State governments 
make fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets the cornerstone of 
public policy, nonprofit organizations and the volunteers they utilize 
will play an even larger role. Besides, it is to volunteers that we owe 
a great deal of gratitude for our social cohesion--our sense of 
community in America. Giving money to help the needy is certainly 
laudable, but it cannot replace the sense of personal connection that 
comes from being the person who ladles the soup at a food bank, or hugs 
and feeds the AIDS baby, or helps a recent immigrant obtain rights 
under our laws.
  The time to enact protection for our volunteers has come, and I urge 
my colleagues to join in supporting H.R. 911.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. I would like to engage in a colloquy with the 
distinguished gentleman from South Carolina.
  I thank the gentleman for the management of this legislation, and I 
wanted to engage with the gentleman in a discussion on the issue of the 
hate crime provision that, as the gentleman well knows, I offered in 
committee, and I was gratified that we were able to work together along 
with members of the committee to clarify the position as it relates to 
this particular legislation.
  My question refers to the bill's exclusion for groups which practice 
actions constituting hate crimes. When the committee report states that 
in order to fall within this exclusion, it would not be sufficient that 
the organization practice a conduct that forms a predicate of a crime 
referenced in that statute, that is, the organization's action must 
rise to the level of a crime, it is my understanding that this language 
was inserted merely to ensure that the conduct covered falls within 
subsection (b)(1) of the first section of the Hate Crime Statistics 
Act.
  It is my further understanding neither the bill nor the report 
language in any way implies that such conduct must rise to the level of 
a conviction or that it could be established under the usual criminal 
standard, proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
  Am I also correct in understanding that the bill is not intended to 
prevent exclusion of a group which practices hate crimes but avoid a 
conviction because of application of evidentiary rules unique to 
criminal proceedings, such as exclusionary rule.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman 
yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is 
correct. It is my understanding that any group which is responsible for 
conduct covered by subsection (b)(1) of the first section of the Hate 
Crimes Statistics Act would be excluded from the protection of the 
bill. The language was inserted to clarify that nonprofit groups 
responsible for civil violations, which did not constitute a hate 
crime, were not subject to exclusion from the bill's coverage.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
engaging in this colloquy with me to clarify this issue.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The time of the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] has expired. The gentleman 
from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis] has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 911. I 
commend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] for introducing this 
legislation. I have been a longtime supporter and cosponsor of such 
legislation. The fact is that in our increasingly litigious society, 
volunteers are being sued more often. Insurance premiums for charitable 
organizations are increasing at a dramatic rate. As a 1988 poll shows, 
10 percent of all volunteers are rethinking their existing commitment 
to charitable work. Despite the concerns that were raised by the 
distinguished gentlemen from Illinois and North Carolina, this Member 
consciously supports what the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo] 
has termed the federalization of tort reform in this area because of 
the unreasonable opposition in this area of tort reform among some in 
the legal community in some States, because the distinguished gentleman 
from Tennessee [Mr. Bryant] has pointed to the opt out, State opt out 
provisions and because of the arguments made by the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  The measure could very well be entitled the Good Samaritan Act. As 
the New Testament parable makes clear, only a few people are willing to 
sacrifice their time and money to help others. That remains true today.
  Mr. Speaker, those who are willing to help others should not be 
penalized by the threat of lawsuit if someone is inadvertently harmed 
during the course of a volunteer activity. In closing, I support this 
legislation and urge my colleagues to do so.
  And, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], who has done excellent work on 
this bill.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I have the highest 
respect for those who would defend the Constitution as they see it. The 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo] and the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Watt], I would say to both of the gentlemen that the 
Senate very, very carefully considered this question when they 
considered this bill before the House did. The Senate is, after all, 
the

[[Page H3102]]

repository of States' rights under our Constitution. They added the 
provision for opting out for any State that wished to do so before 
passing the legislation almost unanimously. I would also say that many 
of the organizations that depend upon volunteers are national 
organizations who operate across State lines every day and across the 
entire country.
  Finally, I would say that this matter undoubtedly could be considered 
by the courts in the course of a lawsuit. I think, rather, what is 
going to happen, though, Mr. Speaker, is that States, many of which 
have made progress in this area since this legislation was introduced, 
and I would like to think maybe were prodded into making some of that 
progress, will again come back and address this issue. Those who have 
not addressed it will come back and address it in their own way and, in 
the process, will adopt legislation that they think is appropriate and 
then perhaps opt under the clause in the legislation. That will get the 
job done as well.
  The goal here is to protect volunteers, to prevent the chilling 
effect of possibly being dragged into court from preventing people from 
coming forward and offering their services that are so vital to our 
country. I believe this legislation addresses that issue head on and 
makes great progress. I think it is going to work out in all areas.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lantos].
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  As a cosponsor of the Porter bill, I merely want to commend my good 
friend, the Republican cochairman of the Congressional Human Rights 
Caucus, for another act of legislative statesmanship. He is bringing 
great credit to this institution, and I want to congratulate the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], with appreciation for her 
support of this bill.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have been 
able to work with the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis] and to 
add my appreciation to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] for his 
guidance.
  Let me emphasize to all who might hear, I encourage the support of 
this legislation and particularly explain to those who heard our 
colloquy, I am gratified that this legislation excludes those heinous 
promoting groups of hate and hate crime activities, such as the Ku Klux 
Klan and others who may engage in these very dastardly thought 
processes and acts that are not part of the American psychology.
  Let me also say that we must think about who is impacted. Diverse 
groups from the likes of the American Diabetes Association, the 
American Heart Association, Salvation Army, Save the Children, NAACP 
and the National Urban League, all fall under the same category of 
voluntarism.
  Might I say to my colleagues that I think this is a giant step not to 
bribe volunteers or pay off volunteers but it is a giant step to 
appreciate volunteers.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my 
time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], a member of the 
committee.
  (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, on the same weekend that four Presidents met 
in Philadelphia to call the country to voluntarism, on that same 
weekend, I attended three, I think it was four Little League opening 
games for the season. During those proceedings, there were coaches, 
administrators, refreshment stand workers, other kinds of attendants at 
those functions that were in the true spirit of voluntarism.
  I wish the four Presidents had come there to observe what voluntarism 
in action really was. The passage of this legislation here today will 
do more to add to the incentive that our neighbors and community 
workers have for helping out in Little League and 100 other kinds of 
activities than the meeting in Philadelphia, sorry to say.
  It was wonderful to see the Presidents espouse voluntarism, but it is 
more important to give some kind of relief to give volunteers the sense 
of safety that they will have in proceeding to provide those services 
for the young people of our country.
  Those who worry about whether or not our country is falling apart at 
the seams, all they have to do is go to Big Brothers, to Red Cross, to 
the charities, to the churches, to the Little League and back again to 
Philadelphia to see the Presidents call the people to action and 
voluntarism. What we do here today is more important.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to again express my support for H.R. 911, the 
Volunteer Protection Act, and to congratulate Mr. Porter, the sponsor, 
for his efforts over these many years. My support for this measure goes 
back to its original introduction over 10 years ago. The bill, which 
reforms current civil statutes to protect individuals from being sued 
from harm incurred by another person in the course of volunteering for 
a charitable cause, arose out of many cases of wrongly-incurred legal 
liability which has threatened to destroy our system of community 
volunteerism. The examples abound, and I will not here restate them. 
But I will point to a particular sector of Americana that has been 
especially jeopardized by these suits and will find great relief in the 
passage of this measure: Sports volunteers.
  Possibly no sector of our culture relies on volunteers more than 
sports, and especially youth sports. And over the last decade, 
volunteer participation in youth sport programs has decreased and 
become increasingly more difficult to fulfill, and the cost of 
protecting those volunteers who do risk the personal and financial 
anguish should a suit arise has grown. All due to the success of what 
many call completely frivolous law suits. A sad formula: Lawsuit 
success equals volunteerism decline. Throughout my entire political 
career, including when I was elected to the U.S. House of 
Representatives in 1982 until this moment, I have been closely involved 
with nonprofit sports groups and well aware of the growing lawsuit 
problem. In 1985, as the representative of the Pennsylvania 
congressional district which included Williamsport, the home of Little 
League Baseball, I introduced a measure in the 99th Congress, H.R. 
3756, the Nonprofit Sports Liability Limitation Act, modeled after a 
recently passed State law, in an effort to remove the black cloud of 
frivolous lawsuits hanging over the nonprofit sports system by limiting 
the civil liability of managers, coaches, sponsors, and other 
volunteers who engage in youth sports programs throughout the country.
  To no one's surprise, my measure, while lauded as being a ``good 
idea,'' went nowhere in the Democratic Congress. So, the measure was 
reintroduced in the 100th Congress as H.R. 1993--with the gentleman 
from Illinois, Mr. Porter, as an original cosponsor--and then in the 
following Congresses. While H.R. 911 speaks to a broad coverage, my 
measure was more targeted in the hope that its focus, nonprofit sports 
groups, would be less controversial. I do not feel that either measure 
was controversial at all, but the reigning party in Congress differed 
with my acumen. So success eluded both my and Mr. Porter's measure 
until now. I am very happy that now, after over a decade of trying, the 
Congress is finally and definitively addressing the issue of volunteer 
jeopardy for which both Mr. Porter and I have been fighting.
  I wish to include in the Record a copy of an April 17, 1987, 
Harrisburg Patriot editorial, supporting my proposal, and by extension, 
H.R. 911. I congratulate Mr. Porter for his determination and success.

              [From the Harrisburg Patriot, Apr. 17, 1987]

                      Legal Shield for Volunteers

       If this country's civil litigation arena often takes on the 
     appearance of a shark tank at feeding time, it is altogether 
     understandable that otherwise-generous people show some 
     reluctance for getting involved in volunteer work that may 
     involve the risk of legal liability.
       Certainly, second thoughts have been generated among adult 
     volunteers in charge of youth sports programs. A 1982 New 
     Jersey case in which the coach of a kids' baseball team was 
     sued after a team member suffered an injury in the outfield 
     provides a chilling example. The case was settled for an 
     undisclosed amount.
       Is it right that volunteers and ``good Samaritans'' should 
     have to bear the same liability as neglectful motorists or 
     contractors paid for their services? U.S. Rep. George W. 
     Gekas does not think so. With the backing of Little League 
     Baseball, whose Williamsport headquarters is in his district, 
     the Harrisburg Republican has reintroduced a bill restricting 
     the legal liability of non-paid coaches and managers.
       Gekas' bill is based on tried-and-true state law now in 
     effect in Pennsylvania, Delaware and new Jersey. In fact, 
     Pennsylvania's ``Good Samaritan Act,'' intended to protect 
     citizens who come to the rescue of others in distress, was a 
     pioneer effort in this direction.

[[Page H3103]]

       The Gekas bill provides an umbrella of protection for men 
     and women of good will, enabling them to carry on their 
     beneficent works without the fear of being sued or the 
     expense of having to acquire high-priced liability insurance.
       The volunteer spirit is an American institution that is 
     threatened by an aberrant phenomenon. Any reasonable measure 
     that strengthens and preserves this spirit deserves favorable 
     consideration.

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. 
Although H.R. 911 is well intentioned, it will do nothing to encourage 
increased voluntarism, it will unnecesarily preempt traditional State 
law, discriminates against women and seniors, and it fails to 
adequately protect against abuse by hate groups. Simply put, I believe 
we can encourage voluntarism without encouraging negligence.


            h.r. 911 will do nothing to increase voluntarism

  We all want to increase voluntarism in our communities, but this bill 
doesn't amount to a hill of beans in that respect. No witness has been 
able to identify a single case whose outcome would have been altered 
had H.R. 911 been law at the time of the case, and we've found no 
evidence of any case filed during the last 7 years whose outcome would 
have been altered by the legislation. There is absolutely no empirical 
evidence showing that this bill would do anything to increase 
voluntarism.


             h.r. 911 unnecessarily preempts state tort law

  To the extent there is any problem with volunteer liability, the 
States are fully capable of passing their own laws protecting 
volunteers from personal civil liability. As a matter of fact, every 
State in the union now has a law specifically limiting the legal 
liability of volunteers or nonprofit organizations.
  Moreover, by mandating these provisions on the States, we invite 
legal challenges to congressional authority to legislate in this area, 
particularly under the Supreme Court's recent decision in United 
States versus Lopez. The Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel has 
similarly expressed concern that the bill would invite constitutional 
challenges because its coverage is not limited to volunteer 
organizations that engage in interstate commerce or liability that 
arises by reason of volunteer services affecting interstate commerce.

  Arguments that the so called opt-out provision protects State 
prerogatives because it allows them to elect not to have the provisions 
apply miss the mark. Not only does this require affirmative action in 
the statehouse and senate as well as the Governor's signature, many 
States only meet on a biennial basis and couldn't even consider 
electing to opt-out for several years. In addition, the opt-out 
provision is unduly narrow in that it would only allow States to 
preserve their laws if all the parties are residents of the State. This 
is in direct contravention of traditional conflict of law principles, 
which typically apply a State's law to outsiders so long as the injury 
occurred within a State.


         h.r. 911 fails to protect against abuse by hate groups

  While there is a limited provision relating to hate groups in the 
bill, this does nothing to insure that State law does not unnecessarily 
immunize such persons. For example, if a particular State provides 
across the board immunity to volunteers, H.R. 911 continues to allow a 
member of a militia or hate group who negligently entrusts a gun to a 
child--who in turn harms an innocent victim--to avoid responsibility 
for the negligent entrustment.
  It is because of the bill's failure to provide full protection 
against harm perpetrated by hate group members that the Southern 
Poverty Law Center has chosen to oppose the legislation. Morris Dees, 
there chief trial counsel has written:

       Under this legislation . . . a state could maintain or 
     reinstate protections for volunteers of white supremacists, 
     neo-Nazi and violent militia groups--the types of 
     organizations the Southern Poverty Law center has crippled 
     over the past ten years through the use of both federal and 
     state tort laws . . . Without two-way preemption, ensuring 
     that volunteers connected with hate groups are never 
     insulated from liability, we would oppose H.R. 911.


      h.r. 911 discriminates against women, children, and elderly

  Because H.R. 911 limits recovery for noneconomic damages--the loss of 
a limb, the loss of reproductive capacity and other pain and 
suffering--by saying that tortfeasors are not jointly and severely 
liable for such damages. Losses incurred by a wealthy CEO who is a 
victim of negligence are easily translated into economic losses which 
are not limited by this bill. By contrast, losses incurred by a women 
who loses her reproductive capacity, or a senior, or child who loses a 
limb, are more likely to be considered noneconomic damages which are 
limited by the bill.


                               conclusion

  Instead of enhancing volunteerism or helping our poor and 
underprivileged, H.R. 911 creates a complex and inconsistent new 
overlay of limitations, confusing a system of State tort law that has 
served this Nation well for more than 200 years. I urge a ``no'' vote 
on this legislation.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of the Volunteer Protection 
Act in both the 104th and 105th Congress, I am pleased that the House 
is considering this thoughtful approach to voluntarism, as it relates 
to the disincentive of potential litigation. This measure has 
significant bipartisan support and represents our commitment to 
encouraging individuals to contribute to the success of their 
communities by volunteering their valuable time.
  In today's climate, schedules are busy and personal demands are 
great. As Members of Congress, we cannot directly remedy the day-to-day 
responsibilities of individuals which may pose as obstacles for 
volunteer service. We can however, remove obstacles for those 
individuals who have the time and interest in committing themselves to 
community service.
  The Volunteer Protection Act provides protection from personal civil 
liability in reasonable circumstances to volunteers involved in the 
activities of groups such as nonprofits, community organizations, 
nursing homes, educational institutions, and local governments. If we 
are truly serious about encouraging voluntarism, support of H.R. 911 
embodies a responsible, concrete first step. The consensus on the 
merits of this bill is evident by the wide range of philosophical views 
held by its 152 cosponsors.
  The Volunteer Protection Act has met with success at every level. The 
Senate overwhelmingly approved this bill by a 99-to-1 vote. And the 
House Judiciary Committee reported this measure by a 20-to-7 vote. I am 
confident that the full House will act today in favor of this 
provolunteer legislation.
  In the spirit of voluntarism, I urge my colleagues to join me in 
sending a message of assurance to those who selflessly provide 
uncompensated services to those in need by voting in favor of H.R. 911, 
the Volunteer Protection Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis] that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 911, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________