John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support, once again, of America's teachers by joining with Senator Collins in introducing the Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2005. Senator Collins and I have worked closely for some time now in support of legislation to provide our teachers with tax relief in recognition of the many out-of-pocket expenses they incur as part of their profession. In the 107th Congress, we were successful in providing much needed tax relief for our Nations' teachers with passage of H.R. 3090, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002. This legislation, which was signed into law by President Bush, included the Collins-Warner Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2001 provisions that provided a $250 above the line deduction for educators who incur out-of-pocket expenses for supplies they bring into the classroom to better the education of their students. These important provisions provided almost half a billion dollars' worth of tax relief to teachers all across America in 2002 and 2003. In the 108th Congress we were able to successfully extend the provisions of the Teacher Tax Relief Act for 2004 and 2005. While these provisions will provide substantial relief to America's teachers, our work is not yet complete. It is now estimated that the average teacher spends $521 out of their own pocket each year on classroom materials--materials such as pens, pencils and books. First year teachers spend even more, averaging $701 a year on classroom expenses. Why do they do this? Simply because school budgets are not adequate to meet the costs of education. Our teachers dip into their own pocket to better the education of America's youth. Moreover, in addition to spending substantial money on classroom supplies, many teachers spend even more money out of their own pocket on professional development. Such expenses include tuition, fees, books, and supplies associated with courses that help our teachers become even better instructors. The fact is that these out-of-pocket costs place lasting financial burdens on our teachers. This is one reason our teachers are leaving the profession. Little wonder that our country is in the midst of a teacher shortage. Without a doubt the Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2001 took a step forward in helping to alleviate the Nation's teaching shortage by providing a $250 above the line deduction for classroom expenses. However, it is clear that our teachers are spending much more than $250 a year out of their own pocket to better the education of our children. Accordingly, Senator Collins and I have joined together to take another step forward by introducing the Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2005. This legislation will build upon current law in three ways. The legislation will: (1) Increase the above-the-line deduction, as President Bush has called for, from $250 allowed under current law to $400; (2) allow educators to include professional development costs within that $400 deduction. Under current law, up to $250 is deductible but only for classroom expenses; and (3) make the teacher tax relief provisions in the law permanent. Current law sunsets the Collins/Warner provisions after 2005. Our teachers have made a personal commitment to educate the next generation and to strengthen America. And, in my view, the Federal Government should recognize the many sacrifices our teachers make in their career. The Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2005 is another step forward in providing our educators with the recognition they deserve.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support, once again, of America's teachers by joining with Senator Collins in introducing the Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2005. Senator Collins and I have worked closely for some time now in support of legislation to provide our teachers with tax relief in recognition of the many out-of-pocket expenses they incur as part of their profession. In the 107th Congress, we were successful in providing much needed tax relief for our Nations' teachers with passage of H.R. 3090, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002. This legislation, which was signed into law by President Bush, included the Collins-Warner Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2001 provisions that provided a $250 above the line deduction for educators who incur out-of-pocket expenses for supplies they bring into the classroom to better the education of their students. These important provisions provided almost half a billion dollars' worth of tax relief to teachers all across America in 2002 and 2003. In the 108th Congress we were able to successfully extend the provisions of the Teacher Tax Relief Act for 2004 and 2005. While these provisions will provide substantial relief to America's teachers, our work is not yet complete. It is now estimated that the average teacher spends $521 out of their own pocket each year on classroom materials--materials such as pens, pencils and books. First year teachers spend even more, averaging $701 a year on classroom expenses. Why do they do this? Simply because school budgets are not adequate to meet the costs of education. Our teachers dip into their own pocket to better the education of America's youth. Moreover, in addition to spending substantial money on classroom supplies, many teachers spend even more money out of their own pocket on professional development. Such expenses include tuition, fees, books, and supplies associated with courses that help our teachers become even better instructors. The fact is that these out-of-pocket costs place lasting financial burdens on our teachers. This is one reason our teachers are leaving the profession. Little wonder that our country is in the midst of a teacher shortage. Without a doubt the Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2001 took a step forward in helping to alleviate the Nation's teaching shortage by providing a $250 above the line deduction for classroom expenses. However, it is clear that our teachers are spending much more than $250 a year out of their own pocket to better the education of our children. Accordingly, Senator Collins and I have joined together to take another step forward by introducing the Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2005. This legislation will build upon current law in three ways. The legislation will: (1) Increase the above-the-line deduction, as President Bush has called for, from $250 allowed under current law to $400; (2) allow educators to include professional development costs within that $400 deduction. Under current law, up to $250 is deductible but only for classroom expenses; and (3) make the teacher tax relief provisions in the law permanent. Current law sunsets the Collins/Warner provisions after 2005. Our teachers have made a personal commitment to educate the next generation and to strengthen America. And, in my view, the Federal Government should recognize the many sacrifices our teachers make in their career. The Teacher Tax Relief Act of 2005 is another step forward in providing our educators with the recognition they deserve.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to share my views on the legislation before the Senate, S. 397, the gun liability bill. From the outset, let me make clear: I am a strong supporter of measured, balanced, and fair tort reform. In my over 27 years in the Senate, I have consistently supported measures to reform our legal system when such measures benefit the American people as a whole, benefit our Nation's economy, and still remain fair to legitimate victims who have been wrongfully injured due to the wrongful actions of another. Without a doubt, the gun , liability bill tries to address a very real problem in America. There is no question that the gun industry in this country is under legal siege from frivolous lawsuits. These lawsuits threaten the very vitality of the gun industry in America and, by extension, the ability of those of us who enjoy hunting, sport shooting, and the collecting of vintage guns, as I have done nearly all of my life. In my view, there is no question that law abiding gun manufacturers and law-abiding gun dealers deserve some measure of fair, balanced legal reform. But equally true is that the gun liability bill before us today is an overly broad solution to a serious problem because it will immunize from legitimate lawsuits for negligence those very few, I repeat, very few irresponsible gun dealers and manufacturers in the industry whose actions, again and again, contribute to violent crime in this country. This wide grant of immunity undoubtedly comes with unintended consequences. For example, we know that under this bill, if it were law at the time, the victims of the DC area sniper shootings would have been unable to pursue their claim against an unbelievably negligent gun dealer who allowed the snipers to steal the weapon they used to kill so many innocent victims. This wasn't the first time this dealer had been negligent in accounting for its gun inventory. Indeed, it had previously lost over 200 weapons over a short period of time. This dealer had a track record of again and again losing firearms. That is why they were sued, and that is why the dealer ultimately settled the sniper victim's lawsuit for $2.5 million. The gun liability bill, though, would have rewarded this dealer's bad behavior by granting it immunity for these egregious acts. I offered an amendment to correct this flaw. My amendment would have ensured that the 99 percent of law-abiding gun dealers in America would be protected from frivolous lawsuits, but ensured that those very few irresponsible gun dealers were not rewarded with immunity for their bad behavior. Unfortunately, procedural maneuvers made by others in accordance with Senate rules prevented me from obtaining an up-or-down vote on my germane amendment. So these defects in the bill remain uncorrected. Over the course of the past week, these issues, both the pros and cons of this bill, have been extensively debated here in the Senate. The issues are clear. On the one hand, the need for tort reform for the gun industry is very real. On the other hand, I believe this is an overly broad measure that will likely treat some future victims of gun crimes unfairly. These factors are not easy to weigh. But as I went through the process of examining this legislation and listening to the debate, one particular point seemed to always stick out above all others. And that is the preeminent importance of America's national security. As the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I recently requested that the Department of Defense review this legislation. In its reply, the Department's Office of General Counsel stated that the Department supports this gun liability legislation because it ``would help safeguard our national security by limiting unnecessary lawsuits against an industry that plays a critical role in meeting the procurement needs of our men and women in uniform.'' I ask unanimous consent to include a copy of this letter in the Record. (See exhibit 1.)

Mr. WARNER. Indeed, the gun industry does play a crucial role in helping to equip the men and women of our Armed Forces. Companies like Beretta U.S.A., Colt Manufacturing, and others supply a host of weapons and small arms that are vital to our military. This fact is significant because the truth of the matter is that, for a variety of complex reasons, America's military is increasingly being forced to turn to foreign sources for new technology. We simply cannot afford to lose more and more technical expertise if we want to ensure that our men and women in uniform will always have the best equipment and the best technology in the world. Our national security is dependent on having home-grown talent and expertise, and this legislation will help ensure that we do. Ultimately, it is for these reasons that I have decided to cast my vote in support of this legislation. Exhibit 1 Department of Defense, Office of General Counsel, Washington, DC, July 29, 2005. Hon. John Warner, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: We are pleased to provide you with the Department of Defense's view on S. 397, a bill to ``prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.'' The Department of Defense strongly supports this legislation. We believe that passage of S. 397 would help safeguard our national security by limiting unnecessary lawsuits against an industry that plays a critical role in meeting the procurement needs of our men and women in uniform. The Office of Management and Budget advises that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the presentation of this letter for the consideration of the committee. Sincerely, Daniel J. Dell'Orto, Acting.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to commend an outstanding public servant, Judy Ansley who for many years has worked as diligently and as ably as anyone with whom I have had the privilege of serving during my years in the Senate. Today Judy serves as the first woman staff director of the Senate Armed Services Committee. During my time as vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Judy was the minority staff director. How proud I am; how proud the Senate is that Judy Ansley has been selected for the position of Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European Affairs at the National Security Council. The administration could not have made a better choice for this important post, and I am confident that Judy will serve her country with dignity and honor, as she has done throughout her extensive career in public service. My only regret is that Judy Ansley will be stepping down as the staff director for the Armed Services Committee after next week. Over the course of the last 6 years, Judy has dedicated her time, energy, and intelligence to the work of the Committee with great enthusiasm. As the deputy staff director and staff director, Judy has provided exceptional leadership to the committee during challenging times, and I am deeply grateful for her profound concern for the issues facing the men and women of our armed services. I am confident that my colleagues on the committee would agree that she has been an indispensable resource for our efforts. In those instances where she had professional views in opposition to mine, she never hesitated to express them. I trust she will most respectfully continue to offer her candid assessments in her new job at the White House. As the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, I have had the opportunity to observe closely Judy's indefatigable efforts. Before she joined the committee, Judy served as my national security advisor for 5 years, and her keen judgment and incisiveness were readily apparent throughout her work. Truly, while I am pleased that the administration will be gaining such a remarkable asset, I will miss Judy's wise counsel. I send my deepest gratitude to Judy as she begins her transition to the National Security Council, and I join with her wonderful family--husband Steve and daughters Megan and Rachel--in celebrating this achievement. I also take this opportunity to announce Judy's successor as staff director for the Armed Services Committee. I have asked Mr. Charles S. Abell, the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, to become the new staff director, and it gives me great pleasure to note that he has accepted this responsibility. A humble and devoted patriot, Charlie Abell has served his country with valor in every endeavor. Before joining the administration, Charlie was an exceptional member of the Armed Services Committee professional staff. During his years with the committee staff, Charlie was the lead staffer for the Subcommittee on Personnel, including issues of military readiness and quality of life. A highly decorated soldier, he retired from the Army as a lieutenant colonel after 26 years of distinguished service. I was privileged to work with this outstanding public servant during his previous term with the Committee, and I look forward to collaborating with him in the months ahead.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to commend an outstanding public servant, Judy Ansley, who for many years has worked as diligently and as ably as anyone with whom I have had the privilege of serving during my years in the Senate. When I was vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I selected Judy Ansley to serve as the first woman minority staff director. Today, Judy is the first woman staff director of the Senate Armed Services Committee which I chair. How proud I am; how proud the Senate is that Judy has been selected to be the Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European Affairs at the National Security Council. The administration could not have made a better choice for this important post, and I am confident that Judy will serve her country with dignity and honor, as she has done throughout her extensive career in public service. My only regret is that Judy Ansley will be leaving the Armed Services Committee after next week to move to the White House. Over the course of the last 6 years, Judy has dedicated her time, energy, and intelligence to the work of the committee with great enthusiasm. As the deputy staff director and staff director, Judy has provided excellent leadership to the committee during challenging times, and I am deeply thankful for her profound concern for the issues facing the men and women of our armed services. I am sure that my colleagues on the committee would agree that she has been an indispensable resource for our efforts. In those instances where she had professional views in opposition to mine, she has never hesitated to express them. I trust that she will most respectfully do the same for the President. As the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, I have had the opportunity to observe closely Judy's indefatigable efforts. Before she joined the committee, Judy served as my national security adviser for 5 years, and her keen judgment and incisiveness were readily apparent throughout her work. Truly, while I am pleased that the administration will be gaining such a remarkable asset, I will miss Judy's counsel and extraordinary nature. I send my deepest gratitude to Judy as she begins her transition to the National Security Council, and I join with her wonderful family, husband Steve and daughters Rachel and Megan, in celebrating this achievement. Mr. President, I also take this opportunity to announce Judy's successor as staff director for the Armed Services Committee. I have asked Mr. Charles S. Abell, the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, to become the new staff director, and it gives me great pleasure to note that he has accepted this responsibility. A humble and devoted patriot, Charlie Abell has served his country with valor in every endeavor. Before joining the administration, Charlie was an exceptional member of the Armed Services Committee professional staff. During his years with the committee staff, Charlie was the lead staffer for the Subcommittee on Personnel, including issues of military readiness and quality of life. A highly decorated soldier, he retired from the Army as a lieutenant colone1 after 26 years of distinguished service, and he brought a profound insight to his duties with the committee. I was privileged to work with this outstanding individual during his previous term with the committee, and I look forward to collaborating with him in the months ahead.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to the 10 courageous sailors who lost their lives in Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom on 28 June 2005 by printing the eloquent words of U.S. Navy RADM Joseph Maguire, Commander, Naval Special Warfare Command, during a memorial speech at Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek on July 8, 2005. I ask unanimous consent to print this tribute in the Record.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with these exceptional remarks by Admiral Maguire. Our great country will forever owe these courageous SEALs a debt of gratitude for their selfless actions in battle on June 28, 2005. While I am sorry that the families of these men have suffered such an irreplaceable loss, I am proud that America produced such fine gentlemen who valiantly answered the call to defend these United States. Recalling our national anthem, I say, we would not be ``the land of the free'' were we not also the ``home of the brave.'' Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to the 10 courageous sailors who lost their lives in Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom on June 28, 2005, by reading the eloquent words of U.S. Navy CAPT Pete Van Hooser, Commander, Naval Special Warfare Group Two, during a memorial speech at Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek on July 8, 2005. I ask unanimous consent to print this tribute in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to recognize and pay tribute to GEN Louis Hugh Wilson, Jr., U.S. Marine Corps, 26th Commandant of the Corps. General Wilson was the embodiment of everything the Marine Corps and our Nation stands for. I am honored to read the eloquent eulogy delivered by General Carl Epting Mundy, Jr., U.S. Marine Corps, 30th Commandant of the Corps, delivered in the Old Chapel, Fort Myer, Virginia, 19 July 2005, in General Wilson's memory. I ask unanimous consent to print this tribute in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to recognize and pay tribute to CAPT Kenneth J. Panos, U.S. Navy. Captain Panos will retire from the Navy on September 1, 2005, having completed an exemplary 26-year career of service to our Nation. Captain Panos was born in Union, NJ, and is a 1979 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. He also earned a masters degree in Financial Management from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, CA. During his military career, Captain Panos excelled at all facets of his chosen profession. As a naval aviator, he deployed to South America and the Caribbean. While serving aboard USS Paul (FF 1096), Captain Panos participated in peacekeeping operations in the waters off Beirut, Lebanon. In 1986, Captain Panos was redesignated a full-time support officer in the Navy Reserve. He reported aboard Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron (Light)-94 as the head of the Maintenance, Training and Administration Departments and achieved 1,000 flight hours in the SH-2F Seasprite while deployed aboard various Navy Reserve Force frigates. His outstanding capacity for leadership was recognized when he was selected as the HSL-94 Junior Officer of the Year in 1988. During Captain Panos' tour as the assistant reserve programs director/reserve service officer and later department head at Naval Air Station Willow Grove, he transitioned to fixed-wing aircraft and achieved an airline transport pilot rating while flying the UC-12B transport. Captain Panos made good use of his graduate degree in financial management with assignments in the Aviation Budgets and Requirements Office; the Chief of Naval Operations' Staff where he was assistant for aircraft procurement; research, design, test & evaluation; and ship construction appropriations; the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Financial Management; and as the director, Programming and Financial Management Division for the Chief of Navy Reserve. Many of my colleagues know Captain Panos from his service as the Navy's legislative affairs liaison for Reserve matters and anti-terrorism/force protection programs. The U.S. Navy is a better Navy thanks in part to the talent and dedication of CAPT Kenneth J. Panos. While Captain Panos' retirement means the Navy will lose a fine officer, I am happy to report to this body that he has found a replacement. His oldest son, Michael, is currently a midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy. His youngest son, Robert, is a sophomore at Robinson Secondary School in Fairfax, Virginia. I know all of my colleagues join me in congratulating Ken, his hometown sweetheart and wife Karen, as well as Michael and Robert, on the completion of an outstanding military career.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 32 years of service to our Nation of Sergeant Edward Owen Humphreys, U.S. Capitol Police, as he retires from the force. Edward Humphreys was born and raised in Chesapeake Beach, MD, the son of Louise and Edward Humphreys. Sergeant Humphreys attended Calvert County public schools, graduating from Calvert High School in June of 1967. Soon after graduation, in 1968, Humphreys voluntarily joined the U.S. Navy, and proudly served 4 years during the Vietnam war. During his service in the Navy, Second Class Petty Officer Humphreys served on the USS Kitty Hawk and was a member of the VF 213 Black Lions F-14 fighter squadron. He spent his Navy time in the Pacific, with service in Japan, China, Hong Kong, Australia, Hawaii, and the Philippines. After returning home from duty in the Navy, it was not long before Humphreys decided to continue his service to country by joining the U.S. Capitol Police in August of 1973. During his many years of duty in the Nation's Capitol, Sergeant Humphreys has worked in the Rayburn House Office Building, Communications, Patrol Division, and is currently assigned to the Senate Chamber section. Sergeant Humphreys will enjoy his well-earned retirement with his wife of over 30 years, Leslie, and their daughters Casey and Lindsey. Even in retirement, Sergeant Humphreys will continue to serve his local community as a member and administrator of the North Beach Volunteer Fire Department--which he joined at age 16. On behalf of the Senate, I am pleased to thank Sergeant Humphreys for his service to country and wish him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the managers of the bill for keeping the Senate advised. I have an amendment that has been filed. I think at this point I will make the motion and ask for the reaction of the managers. Mr. President, at this time, I ask unanimous consent that we lay aside the pending amendment such that my amendment No. 1625, which is on file, could be given the status of the pending amendment.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, and I thank the managers for the courtesy they showed us in the course of managing this bill. I rise, as I did in the previous consideration of this bill, to support my colleague from Michigan. I do so because I basically want to be counted among those who are trying to bring a measure of relief to those professional people, such as doctors and educators, a whole list of people I enumerated last night when I addressed this bill on the Senate floor, who need help. In my judgment, Senator Levin--both of us are lawyers--is reaching back to the very fundamentals of the common law. These standards which the Senator wishes to have in this bill are the same standards that have withstood the test of time in court litigation from the very beginning of the judicial process, indeed in England and in our country. It is for that reason that I support it. I also draw the attention of my colleagues to my amendment, which is not pending, but as I understand, it is filed at the desk, amendment No. 1625. I rise at this time to speak to it because it really addresses, in a very narrow way, one of the ultimate goals of the Senator from Michigan. My concern is that the gun dealers across America need some protection themselves in this legislation. Ninety-nine percent are honest, law-abiding citizens. Yet they are subjected to the problems of our society today; namely, people can come in and steal from them. My amendment adds to the bill, which has a provision in it on page 8 of the exclusions, and it would simply say, in actions brought against a gun dealer, a dealer which has a record of misconduct, negligence, and other types of criteria should not be entitled to the exemptions provided by this piece of legislation. So I want to be supportive. It protects those dealers who are trying to act in a lawful way who may have an accident, for some reason, and it does clearly remove from the protection of this bill dealers such as the one the Senator cited in the sniper case which struck my State of Virginia and Maryland and the District and paralyzed our businesses. People were afraid to go out on the street at night to conduct their ordinary affairs of life because of the threats. That was a stolen weapon from a gun dealer that, for one reason or another, allowed some 200 weapons to disappear from the shelves of that store or inventory over a period of a year or two. That dealer, in my judgment, would be protected as it now stands, unless the provisions comparable to perhaps those from the Senator from Michigan or in my amendment are brought to the attention of the Senate. At some time, I will arduously try to get my amendment in that status--I believe it is germane--that it can be considered by this body, as is the amendment of the Michigan Senator now being reviewed. So I say to my distinguished manager, I hope that whatever procedure by which you hereby determine such amendments can be heard--others not--that mine, which I understand is germane, can be heard by the Senate at an appropriate time. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my good friend for being absolutely forthright. I am fully aware of the parliamentary situation. The distinguished majority leader and the Democratic leader--to the extent that he has participated--are acting within the rules of the Senate. I do not ascribe any impropriety whatsoever to the exercise by any Senator at any time of the rules of the Senate. But it does put persons like myself who feel very strongly about amendments we have in a unique situation. I would like to support this bill, but I have grave reservations about those provisions relating to the dealers, and I'd like to have my amendment considered. I will express them momentarily. But the parliamentary situation, as the Senator has explained, does not allow me the opportunity at this juncture--although I may persist by other means--to get this amendment to be given the pending status. I inquire of the Presiding Officer if the Parliamentarian would examine amendment No. 1625 to determine whether it is germane.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair. So I have here an amendment that is clearly germane. I regret deeply that I am not able to bring it up such that I and other Senators could debate it and have a rollcall vote, which I would ask for, and if granted, we could allow each Senator to express his or her views on this amendment. Now, the manager said that we had a debate on the Levin amendment, and I supported the goal of the Senator from Michigan. And I listened to my distinguished colleague from Ohio as he spoke on this general subject. But my amendment is quite different from the Levin amendment. The Levin amendment would cause the gun industry, as some said, to suffer a death by a thousand cuts because it would essentially gut the bill. The Warner amendment does not come anywhere near to gutting the bill. I feel very strongly that of the gun dealers across this country, if we were able to make an assessment and evaluation, 99 percent of them are law-abiding citizens. They not only want to stay within the law, but they also do not want to be a part in any way of the use of a firearm that might be involved in a crime. My amendment is to focus in on those dealers who have, over a period of time, experienced, again and again, the loss of firearms from their inventory. And if it can be factually established that a dealer has a record of practices that for one reason or another--probably due to negligence--enables weapons in that dealer's inventory to find their way illegally into the hands of criminals, then that dealer should not be granted the benefits afforded by this bill. Nor should such dealers be spared from a closer inquiry into why they have an established record of having guns go out of that dealership that they cannot account for. My amendment does not affect the protection from the frivolous lawsuits that exist under this bill. My amendment only addresses that narrow category of dealers who have a record of, again and again, mismanaging their inventory in such a way that they cannot account for a large number of weapons. More specifically, my amendment does not take away the protections which 99 percent of the gun dealers should be able to avail themselves of, the honest ones, under this bill. I don't do that. My amendment is solely directed at those very few--I repeat, very few--dealers who have established a history of lost or stolen weapons as defined by the Attorney General of the United States pursuant to regulations that my amendment would call upon the Attorney General to promulgate for the industry. My amendment would enable the industry and, most particularly, the small gun dealers to know exactly what are the regulations that should be followed to maintain that inventory and conduct their business so that weapons cannot disappear and, by such disappearance, fall into the hands of criminals. That is what my amendment does. Maybe 1 percent of the dealers would be affected by this amendment. The other 99 percent are accorded the benefits of the underlying legislation. Why can't we in the Senate voice our opinions on this concept? Regrettably, the decision has been made that at this time the amendment cannot be, even though germane, brought up in such a way as the entire Senate can focus upon it. My amendment is not an attempt to gut the bill. Indeed, I recognize the gun industry, as I said last night, needs some reasonable, balanced, measure of tort reform. My amendment is offered in good faith, I say to the Senate. It is not just to protect the possible victims from criminal use of a weapon, but it is to protect the law- abiding gun dealers. If this legislation remains as it is now, without some type of correction, such as mine, there will undoubtedly be unintended consequences. We need look no further than our own backyard, based on the experiences we had here in the Nation's Capital and in adjoining Maryland and in my State of Virginia, with snipers committing wanton murder. The snipers illegally obtained their gun out of a gun shop that the record shows lost over 200 weapons over a period of a year or two. If another such tragic incident were to occur with a gun dealer who had a similar record of irresponsibility, and that gun dealer was immune from lawsuit, that would cast a very negative feeling all across America toward the gun industry and the gun dealers. They would be called to task to explain why they supported a law, if this is to become law, that would allow that to happen. My words are one thing, but I want to bring to the attention of the Senate a document that I find very interesting. In my modest career in the Nation's Capital and in Virginia, I have met a number of lawyers in my time, but one whom recently passed on--I remember working with him on a number of cases, even when I was in private practice--I will never forget. I go that far back, knowing Lloyd N. Cutler of the prestigious law firm of Wilmer, Cutler, and Pickering. Lloyd Cutler was asked by the Brady organization--Jim Brady, we all remember, was President Reagan's press secretary who suffered a frightful injury at the time there was an assassination attempt against our President. He and his courageous wife in the ensuing years have been unrelenting in their efforts to try and have a balance across America between the rights of those who acquire guns under the second amendment--and I strongly support the second amendment of the Constitution. But in any event, on January 15, 2004, Mr. Cutler wrote the organization which asked him to diagnose cases and the basic tenets and provisions of the legislation that is pending today. I ask unanimous consent to print portions of this opinion into the Record.

Mr. WARNER. If I may make a brief reply, I thank my colleague from Rhode Island. I think the managers are working on this situation. I am glad that my amendment is part of the consideration, and I just hope it is granted. As far as the business of the Senate, I entrust it to the majority leader and the Democratic leader as to what matters should be taken up at what time in relation to this bill. So I cannot make any comment on that and do not make one.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will read the last paragraph: Accordingly, I conclude that the Johnson case does not fall within the saving provision of the Daschle amendment or any other saving provision of S. 1805 would have to be dismissed if S. 1805 were enacted into law. S. 1805 is legislation from the 108th Congress that is nearly exact to the bill before us today in the Senate. The Johnson case is a case brought by the victims of the DC snipers--I repeat, the DC snipers, the serious murders about which I spoke. Those victims could not have collected had this underlying legislation before the Senate been law at that time. Is that what this Senate wants? I don't think so. I think I, and possibly other Senators, deserve the opportunity to go into greater length with regard to that provision which does not by any reading give the protection that is needed to victims should a dealer again and again have lost or stolen weapons from its inventory utilized for purposes of a crime. The bill as drafted does not give the protection we need, and I simply ask, let us impose on the Attorney General of the United States, if this legislation were to pass and remain on the books for an indeterminate period, let that Attorney General of the United States decide how best to analyze the gun dealers to establish a framework of regulations that would guide them in the conduct of their business such that we hope a weapon would never escape the inventory and find its way into the hands of the criminal. I fear some day we are going to see another case. I hope not. But if we do, maybe somebody will come back and examine the record of this colloquy and this debate and reflect on the gun industry's desire to get legislation that does not protect the American public against the negligence and wrongful actions of a very small percentage of gun dealers, maybe at most 1 or 2 percent. That is all I ask. I see the manager. Does the manager wish to pose a question?

Mr. WARNER. Please. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to reply to my good friend. The Senator is absolutely correct about the reporting requirements, but the reality is that some dealers ignore those requirements. They are totally unscrupulous, negligent, and ignore them. The recordkeeping requirements did not prevent Bull's Eye from losing 200 guns. They went ahead and ignored it. I strongly urge that we allow my amendment. It is but really one sentence. It simply says: On page 8, line 21, before the semicolon insert the following, or an action against a seller that has an established history of qualified products--that is the guns--being lost or stolen, under such criteria as shall be established by the Attorney General of the United States by regulation for an injury or death caused by a qualified product that was in the possession of the seller but subsequently lost or stolen. We have to have a stronger enforcement mechanism than is in the underlying bill. It has to be strengthened. I say to my good friend, I respectfully disagree, and I think the confirmation by this distinguished counsel, Lloyd Cutler, who concluded that had this statute that the Senator seeks been in effect at the time of the snipers, they could have gotten out from under it. Some sellers of guns repeatedly are losing firearms or having guns stolen and that is irresponsible behavior on its face. It has to be regulated, and it has to be regulated by the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, the Attorney General. So I thank the Senator for the opportunity to speak to this. I once again plead with the Senator to allow this amendment, which is germane. If it were not germane, I would say to myself I gave it a good try. I ask the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, is this amendment of mine involved in any discussions, might I inquire?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it was my understanding that the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island and the distinguished Senator from Idaho were working on a possible package of amendments, and the Senator now advises me my amendment is in that package under consideration. Is that a fact?

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I so amend my request to the Presiding Officer for the purpose of filing the amendment. I marvel at the parliamentary situation of the managing of this bill. Perhaps if I had done something similar, I would now be on the Defense bill. But nevertheless, we are where we are. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment, but I will file it at the present time and hope at some point I can be recognized for the purpose of having this placed into the queue.

Mr. WARNER. I thought I made that request to the Chair. I failed to communicate. I now make that request.

Mr. WARNER. From the outset, let me make it clear I have long been a supporter of tort reform. I believe the proliferation of baseless lawsuits and runaway jury awards is having a profound negative effect on many Americans, and indeed on the American economy. For these reasons I was a strong supporter of the Class Action Fairness Act that was signed into law earlier this year. I also support reforming the asbestos litigation system and I support medical malpractice liability reform. In my view, measured, balanced reforms to our tort system can address very real problems. That is the purpose of this amendment. Indeed, throughout history Congress has responded to very real problems in our tort system by passing reasonable tort reform measures. In 1994, Congress passed the General Aviation Revitalization Act. The law does not bar lawsuits altogether against the airline industry. Instead, it bars any product liability suit against a manufacturer involving planes more than 18 years old with fewer than 20 seats. I remember that legislation as if it were yesterday, to the everlasting credit of one of my classmates, who joined when I came into the Senate 20-some-odd years ago, Nancy Kassebaum. She was the author of that historic breakthrough in tort reform as a Senator. In 1996, Congress passed the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act. This law, which was intended to address the legal uncertainties that prevented food donation, provided limited immunity to certain individuals who are involved in the donation of food. It is important to note, however, that immunity does not apply in cases of gross negligence or intentional misconduct. In 2001, Congress passed the Paul Coverdell Teacher Protection Act. What a wonderful man Senator Coverdell was. I so cherish the memories, having served with him here in this Chamber. This measure provided teachers with immunity from negligence lawsuits when teachers' actions are legal and in furtherance of efforts to control classroom discipline. The act did not immunize teachers from lawsuits claiming gross negligence or reckless or willful misconduct. So we see there has been a slow evolution of the law so that you don't give absolute immunity, but immunity that is in a balanced way. That is the purpose of my amendment. In my view, the proponents of the gun immunity bill have undoubtedly acted in good faith by trying to respond to another very real problem. Without question, the gun industry in America is under legal siege, fighting lawsuits, many of them frivolous, all over the country. I will have a letter printed in the Record from a gun manufacturer in my State who indicates the seriousness of this problem and the likelihood that the facility in Virginia may not survive unless some protection is given to the manufacturing industry. I strongly support protection to the manufacturing industry as provided in this bill. My amendment goes to another provision in the bill, which I will enumerate momentarily. I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.