John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. The costs incurred by the gun industry in defending these lawsuits is staggering. Indeed, the costs are so great that Beretta USA, an American company that supplies weapons for the U.S. Armed Forces, has written to me claiming that their ``ability to continue operations is threatened by these lawsuits.'' That is from the letter I placed in the Record. Without a doubt, I think some reasonable measure of tort reform is necessary to protect the manufacturers. However, I must say I am deeply concerned about the broad scope of this litigation in other areas. In my view, it will undoubtedly have unintended consequences, but it is likely that we in the Senate will not be able to recognize some of these inequities until they occur. However, experiences in my State of Virginia make it clear to me that there is currently one unintended consequence in the bill as drafted that, if not corrected now, could impose a glaring inequity. It is absolutely clear that this bill, if it had become law in a previous Congress, would have prevented certain lawsuits brought by victims of the snipers who wreaked havoc in the Virginia, DC, and Maryland area. In particular, this bill would have prevented the victims and their families from ever having their day in court, to sue a gun dealer, from which the snipers John Allen Muhammad and John Lee Malvo illegally received their weapon. The facts surrounding this gun dealer continue to amaze me. According to reports, the DC area snipers ``stole'' a gun from this particular gun dealer in Washington State who had lost over 200 guns in the previous 3 years. I say those words ``lost'' or ``stolen'' carefully, because I am not sure how any legitimate, law-abiding dealer can lose or have stolen from its possession over 200 guns. But these were the facts that were developed in this case. In my view, gun dealers such as this one, which at best have an established history of irresponsibility of securing its firearm inventory and at worst show signs of illegal activity in who they sell their guns to, ought not to have the blanket immunity as provided in this bill. I can understand the need to protect responsible gun dealers from frivolous lawsuits. I join those in seeking that effort. After all, if a gun dealer is selling legal products to people legally entitled to buy weapons, then the dealer has done nothing wrong and should not be legally held responsible. Indeed, in my view, the vast majority of gun dealers in America are faithfully abiding by the law. They are deserving of protection, and I would like to support the provisions of the bill that try to give that protection. But we need to make sure this bill does not immunize the irresponsible behavior of a gun store such as the one in Washington State. How do you ``lose'' or ``have stolen'' more than 200 weapons? In my view, gun dealers who have established histories of lost or stolen weapons should not be immune from lawsuits when such a weapon is used to commit a violent crime. To give these dealers immunity in these cases is to give them a completely free pass from having to exercise any type of responsibility in securing or accounting for their weapons. That is plain wrong. Accordingly, the amendment I am offering tonight would make it absolutely clear that victims of these types of crimes would be absolutely able to pursue their cases against those very few irresponsible or unscrupulous gun dealers in America. My amendment simply says if a gun dealer has an established history of lost or stolen guns as defined by the Attorney General of the United States, and the lost or stolen gun is used in a way that causes death or injury to another, then that lawsuit would not be barred from its outset from going forward by the legislation now before the Senate. In sum, this Warner amendment, which is based on the very real instances in the Virginia, DC, and Maryland sniper cases, makes it clear that irresponsible gun dealers will not be given a free pass by the Congress. It is a narrowly tailored amendment that will directly address a very real scenario. I would like at this time to read the language of the bill, together with my amendment. I go to a section of the bill. I refer colleagues to page 8 of S. 397, copies of which are on each Senator's desk. It provides as follows: An action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se. . . . I would add the following to it. My amendment reads: ``On page 8, line 21''--that is the line to which I have drawn the attention of the Senate--``before the semicolon, insert the following:'' . . . or an action against a seller that has an established history of qualified products being lost or stolen, under such criteria as shall be established by the Attorney General by regulation-- That is the Attorney General of the United States-- --for an injury or death caused by a qualified product that was in the possession of the seller, but subsequently lost or stolen. That provides, I think, and reposes in the proper authority the responsibility to look at these cases and determine what has, in fact, been the record of this dealer. As I understand it, the ATF keeps certain records, and other records are kept, perhaps, by the States to determine how this gun dealer conducted its business. The regulations would spell out the criteria, first of their record, and then how this weapon was stolen. So, in my judgment, I think it strengthens the legislation. If it is a case, as I say, such as the sniper case in Virginia and Maryland--it captivated with fear the people in this region. I think it is our duty, in drawing up this legislation, to ensure we are doing everything possible not to have a repetition of that chapter. I remember it so well because I was heavily involved with others in it. Certainly it was in my State. People didn't go out at night. People didn't go to gas stations; they didn't go to the market. They lived in fear, and it was a serious impact on the economy in this region, not to mention the tragedy of the loss of life and injury inflicted by these two extraordinary criminal individuals who had obtained a gun in the State of Washington from a dealer who had a horrible record, a record which on its face spelled out the highest degree of negligence. So I ask the managers, at the appropriate time, if I may bring up this amendment, and I entrust to them a sense of fairness.

Mr. WARNER. Yes, of course. I would ask the Parliamentarian if they would look at the amendment to determine whether, should cloture be filed, it would be a germane amendment.

Mr. WARNER. Which is to say that at this point in time I cannot obtain such ruling; is that correct?

Mr. WARNER. Then I yield to the wisdom of the Presiding Officer and the Parliamentarian and at some point in time that judgment can be made. I yield the floor to my good friend.

Mr. WARNER. Washington State.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will look at the Frist amendment.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have now had the opportunity to review the Frist amendment, No. 1606. This amendment simply restates that the Attorney General of the United States can continue to enforce current Federal firearms laws against those who violate them, including dealers. In my view, nothing in S. 397 would prohibit the Attorney General from going forward in those matters. Nevertheless, at this time, I have no objection to restating that authority, as proposed in amendment No. 1606. In my view, though, amendment No. 1606 does not address the circumstances that my amendment seeks to remedy. The Attorney General has always had the authority to enforce its gun laws yet some dealers continue to act irresponsibly. My concern is that the provisions of S. 397 would completely immunize from lawsuits those irresponsible gun dealers who have an established history of repeatedly losing guns or have an established history of firearms being stolen again and again from their inventory. If enacted without my amendment, S. 397 could cause the relatively small number of irresponsible gun deales to grow, not shrink. My amendment is precisely aimed at these irresponsible and unscrupulous gun dealers who repeatedly lose firearms and have firearms stolen from their inventory. This is exactly what happened in the DC area sniper case. The snipers, both of whom were not allowed under the law to purchase a firearm, apparently stole their weapon from a gun store in Washington state that had previously lost or had stolen more than 200 weapons over a short period of time. When a gun dealer has an established history of lost or stolen guns and that lost or stolen gun is used in the commission of a serious crime that causes death or injury, it is a grave inequity to lock those victims out of the courthouse doors. While I have no objection to amendment No. 1606, it clearly does not address the very real problem remedied by my amendment.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Chair advise the Senate as to the pending business. Amendment No. 1342, as Modified

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. All time having been yielded back, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1342, as modified. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. WARNER. I was just going to ask the Presiding Officer the regular order.

Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend and Democratic leader. I ask a very narrow question. He has pointedly raised three or four amendments that address the benefits that could go to veterans or active. The Senator from Nevada has been a leader every year that this bill has been brought up on a variety of issues, and no one takes the place to his fervor in trying to provide particularly for the concurrent receipt legislation. But I have to say to my good friend, and my question is, am I not correct that this bill came up Wednesday night, and Senator Levin and I were on the Senate floor into the evening, this bill was on the floor Thursday right up until early evening and again Friday morning? Every one of those bills--concurrent receipts, I remember specifically asking Senator Nelson of Florida: Could you not bring up that bill early? He said: No, I am going to wait until Tuesday. That is all he said. I have to say, I believe I am correct that all of those pieces of legislation that were mentioned could have been brought up Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and addressed by the Senate.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, who is participating in a ceremony in the Rotunda, the Support Our Scouts Act of 2005--and I am a cosponsor--is a very important piece of legislation, particularly in the wake of the tragic events that occurred last night. It will help ensure that the Defense Department continues to provide the Scouts the type of support it has lawfully provided in the past, to include supporting the Scouts at their jamborees. In this context, I thank Senator Durbin for helping to refine the amendment's language to provide flexibility to the agencies that provide like support. This amendment also ensures the Scouts have equal access to public facilities, forums, and programs that are open to other youth and community organizations. Boy Scouts, like other nonprofit organizations, depend on the ability to use public facilities and participate in these programs. The Scouts are a youth organization, well known to every Member of this body, that is committed to developing qualities such as patriotism, integrity, honesty, and other values in our Nation's boys and young men. The amendment by the distinguished majority leader makes that goal clear. As such, the amendment of the majority leader also makes clear that Congress believes the Boy Scouts should be treated the same as other national youth organizations. I hope that all of my colleagues will join the 50-plus cosponsors of this legislation and vote with me and other supporters of Scouting. Yesterday, July 25, tens of thousands of Scouts from around the country began arriving at Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia. Tennesseans, such as Bill and Diane Goins from Soddy Daisy, TN, have traveled great distances to participate. Vote for this amendment and let them know that Congress wants the Pentagon's support to the Scouts at their jamborees to continue. Let's also let them know that not only is Defense Department participation helpful to the Scouts, it is also beneficial to the training of our armed forces. Mr. President, I urge all of my Senate colleagues to vote for the young boys and girls who are following in the worthy Scouting tradition. A vote for this amendment is a vote for them.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am very pleased the Senate has turned to this important legislation. It was first brought up Wednesday night with activity on Thursday and again on Friday. I thank all those who participated. I am reminded that at 2 o'clock today, all first-degree amendments need to be filed in view of the pending cloture motion. This is a motion which the distinguished leader, Mr. Frist, and I will discuss, together with others. It ripens tomorrow morning. So as a protection, I ask Senators to consider their own interests in the context that it could be ripened, but that decision has not yet been made. At this time, even though the distinguished ranking member is not with me, there is a matter by the Senator from Maine about which I hope she will find the opportunity at this time to address the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before the Senator brings up this matter-- and he has the floor--I wonder if I can clarify this among my colleagues, to try to accommodate others. We have Senator Dorgan to be recognized under the previous unanimous consent. I understand 10 minutes would be sufficient there.

Mr. WARNER. We are anxious to get going, but we will do 15 minutes. I see the Senator from Colorado here. I know the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from South Carolina called within the hour. They need time. Can the Senator advise me as to what his desires might be?

Mr. WARNER. If the Senator from Colorado could be recognized following Senator Dorgan, I would like to reserve an hour for myself and Senator McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham.

Mr. WARNER. He will certainly get that time. I ask unanimous consent for that.

Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Oklahoma continue for about 10 minutes; Senator Dorgan for 15 minutes; the Senator from Colorado for 10 minutes; and 1 hour equally divided between Senators Warner, McCain, and Graham.

Mr. WARNER. He can be recognized following the hour of three of us.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent requirement, Senator McCain, Senator Graham, and I are now recognized for an hour. I ask our distinguished colleague from Arizona--I would like to amend that to allow Senator Salazar to go for 2 minutes. I request that unanimous consent.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator allow me to address the Senate on a separate matter for 1 minute? On the subject of cloture, my leader, Senator Frist, and I will confer in the morning and then confer with the Democratic leader himself. At the moment, it is not a matter of absolute certainty, even though it ripens, as to whether the leader will wish to pursue it. Also, we would like to advise all Senators there will be no more votes tonight, if you concur in that?

Mr. WARNER. The assistant Democratic leader is here.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to our good friend and colleague, we will take under consideration the Senator's amendment with great care.