John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator from South Carolina desires a couple of minutes following the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I presume the managers desire to have this amendment laid aside for the present time, unless there are other speakers. I yield such time as the Senator from Oklahoma desires. Mr. President, would you advise the Senator from Virginia the amount of time we have left?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Yes.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my distinguished colleague, a distinguished military professional in his own right, knows the answer full well. It was given to us this morning by General Jones, the NATO commander. The Senator was sitting next to me. It was given to us by General Abizaid, Director of Central Command, which has jurisdiction over Afghanistan and Iraq. They are fighting in both of those areas with coalition forces--again, troops being lost, life and limb--of nations that would be affected by this amendment as presently drawn. I just observed where the distinguished Senator from Connecticut and yourself had a colloquy, which I followed off the floor. I think you are making progress toward the amendment that the Senator has, to which I have affixed my cosponsorship, which will resolve this problem. But it is important that we come to the floor--the Senator from Arizona and myself, and perhaps others--to alert colleagues. You have men and women in the Armed Forces from each of your States engaged in the very conflicts that the Senator from Arizona has recounted.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Dodd amendment and support of the McCain second degree amendment. The Dodd amendment would prohibit any portion of work covered under a Federal contract for goods or services from being performed at locations outside the United States. This will do incalculable damage to our national security, undermine our relationship with our allies, and violate many of our trade agreements with respect to defense procurement. The Dodd amendment will spark a trade war in aerospace and defense trade--one of the few remaining areas that the United States has a manufacturing trade surplus. It will lead to the destruction of the U.S. aerospace industry and the loss of thousands of jobs that will migrate overseas. How can I be so sure of the impact of this legislation? It is because, last year, the Senate Armed Services Committee fought off on a bipartisan basis similar legislation from the House of Representatives. For 6 months, this issue was debated in the National Defense Authorization Conference. In the end, we narrowly averted a national catastrophe that would have put every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine in harms way. This legislation, like the legislation from the House on last year's defense bill, marks a return to the days of Smoot- Hawley and the Buy American Act of 1933, which were passed at the height of the depression and extended the misery for so many Americans during that decade. The Dodd legislation would significantly change the Defense Department's industrial base policy and have a devastating effect on the health of the U.S. aerospace industry. The Dodd amendment, if passed, would erase decades of procurement reforms designed to integrate the civilian and military industrial bases that support DOD, destroy our global aviation trade surplus, increase program costs, and substantially delay the transformation our forces. One might ask how would such a well meaning amendment do such harm? First, one has to understand what has happened in the defense market in the last 15 years. After the first Gulf War, it was realized that DOD no longer dominated many of the most dynamic industries such as the computer and telecommunications industries. To maintain and transform the force, DOD needed to tap into this commercial market, but none of these industries wanted to sell to DOD because of the extraordinary red tape involved with Government contracting. The Clinton administration and the Congress passed far-reaching acquisition reform measures to allow DOD to tap into the commercial marketplace. The Dodd amendment places this progress in jeopardy. Under the Dodd amendment, the Defense Department would no longer realize the efficiencies of using commercial buying practices, as many commercial companies with a relatively small portion of their business base devoted to defense would stop selling to the Defense Department. Why? Because commercial companies will be required to identify every microchip, every part, all of its raw materials to ensure that they were produced in the United States. As was the case before the 1994 and 1996 acquisition reforms very few commercial companies will want to do this. As a result, the Defense Department will have to pay more for its products and will not have access to the most advanced electronics and information technologies from the commercial marketplace. Every weapon system in the U.S. inventory uses information technologies and electronics systems no longer being made in the United States. DOD will have to recreate a DOD specific supply chain with contractors that only support the Defense Department at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars. To conform with the Dodd amendment, the Defense Department would need to require companies to comply with a substantial data gathering exercise, merely for the right to bid on a program. It is likely that DOD would have to impose burdensome compliance and certification requirements which would expose bidders to significant liabilities, even in cases where a contract is awarded to another bidder. A commercial contractor who may do less than 1 percent of its business with the DOD is not going to expend this kind of effort for so little return. To comply with the Dodd amendment, defense and nondefense business segments would have to be separated, slowing the development of next- generation war fighting systems and increasing program costs. For example, the aircraft engine business supports both civilian and military requirements and is only competitive because of the economies of scale inherent in producing for both markets. To conform with this language, U.S. engine manufactures would have to establish two sources of supply and two different production lines--one for the military and one for the civilian marketplace. Military and civilian engines costs would skyrocket and, most likely, the commercial engine market will be lost to overseas competitors because it will be cheaper to buy European engines. Thus, these jobs will be ``off-shored,'' something that the authors of this legislation are trying to prevent. The international considerations of the Dodd amendment are immense. this isolationist, go-it-alone approach will have serious consequences on our relationship with our allies. Currently, our allies purchase over 26 percent of their defense needs from the United States compared to less than 1 percent that the United States buys from our allies. We don't need protectionist measures to protect our aerospace industry. However, if we pass this legislation, our allies will retaliate and the ability to sell U.S. equipment as a means to greater interoperability with NATO and non-NATO allies would be seriously undercut. Critical international programs, such as the Joint Strike Fighter and missile defense, would likely be terminated as our allies reassess our defense cooperative trading relationship. As a result, U.S. aerospace trade and the jobs and benefits that it brings to the U.S. economy will be jeopardized. Aerospace exports 40 percent of its products. In 2002, the U.S. aerospace industry delivered a $30 billion export surplus, the largest of any sector of the U.S. economy. What will the Dodd amendment mean for the budget? The cost of defense programs would skyrocket putting even greater pressure on domestic programs. Since companies would have to separate their defense and commercial businesses, overhead and program costs will increase. Because the number of companies willing to sell to the Government would also decrease, there would be less competition, less innovation, and fewer new technologies in defense products. With international programs jeopardized, there would be little or no cost-sharing by our allies such as the $4 billion invested by our allies in the Joint Strike Fighter program, further adding to the costs that the U.S. taxpayer will have to bear. Overall program cost increases would force a scaling back of procurement and R&D programs. Operational costs would rise as older legacy systems would remain in use for longer periods. The safety of our men and women in the Armed Forces will be put at risk with this older equipment. Defense transformation and the acquisition of new technologies would be drastically slowed or curtailed. The electronics and information technology building blocks would no longer be available from American commercial sources for our weapon systems. This would disrupt existing programs such as the Virginia class submarine, the Future Combat System and the F-22. An inefficient technology base serving only defense will have to be constituted at great expense in funding and time. The long- term result would be less equipment and technology in the hands of our warfighters. Finally, the aerospace and defense industry competes with other industry sectors for investment based on a number of economic factors such as projected rate of return. The investment community would likely be concerned about investing in an industry that would be cut off from commercial sources of advanced technology, forcibly disengaged from the global marketplace and forced to rely on a single customer's requirements. Now the supporters of this amendment will state that they have provided for a national security exemption. Unfortunately, this exemption is unworkable as it needs to be made at either the Presidential or the Secretary of defense level for each contract. The Department of Defense has over 500,000 contracts and many more individual task orders on these contracts. This is an impossible and unnecessary waiver to implement. Mr. President, again, supporters will also state that the requirements of the Dodd amendment do not apply to procurement covered by the WTO's agreement on Government procurement. That is helpful for the rest of Government, but most defense contracts are not covered by the WTO, World Trade Organization. DOD has separate trade agreements that cover defense cooperation. These include so-called memorandums of understanding with 21 of our closest allies, additional agreements with Canada, and seven declarations of principal countries, over 60 acquisition and cross-servicing agreements, and additional provisions in NAFTA and those that apply to the Caribbean Basin countries. All of these agreements would be overridden by the proposed Dodd amendment. The sponsors of the amendment have tried to limit the damage by only applying those restrictions to ``new'' contracts. This would be of limited help, for example, on the Joint Strike Fighter. In essence, the sponsors would welcome foreign nations' participation and money on the current development contract, but these nations would not be allowed to participate on any follow-on production contract. Under these conditions, the Joint Strike Fighter partner countries will leave the program and JSF will be terminated. It is simply that. And we desperately need it in this country. We may have to foot the entire bill of the JSF out of our own military budget if this type of legislation were to pass. So my conclusion is that this amendment is not in the best interest of the security efforts of our Nation. It would jeopardize, as the Senator from Arizona has said, the efforts of our men and women in the Armed Forces as they work, fighting along with coalition partners in many parts of the world. So I strongly join with Senator McCain on the second-degree amendment to exempt DOD contracts from the restrictions contained in the Dodd amendment. I urge the support of my colleagues. Please contact your own defense contractors if there is any doubt in your mind. You each have them. Mr. President, at this point, I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator is quite observant in his long experience. It is a very negative effect. I also bring to the Senator's attention that we heard this morning that we are thinking of reducing some of our very large bases in Europe and putting a smaller U.S. presence in a number of countries--I mean, actually going in, spending MILCON, and putting our troops in more forward positions in this most uncertain war on terrorism. So it affects that, as well as the ability of that country to engage with us in military alliances.

Mr. WARNER. Right here in the Senate on this floor, Mr. President.

Mr. WARNER. The Senator is correct, Mr. President.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend my distinguished colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, who has been working on an amendment with me, and I will be his principal cosponsor on the amendment. Senator McCain and I and other members of the Armed Services Committee, in the course of last year's authorization bill, had extensive deliberations on the core issue with regard to how such legislation, as proposed by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, would impair our ability to work with so many of our allies on defense contracts, and the high dependence today that we have on that working relationship between a number of individual allies. For example, the Joint Strike Fighter, which is to hopefully be the plane that will be utilized in the cause of fighting freedom by so many nations that are working on it, nine different nations are on that particular contract. Great Britain has already put down $2 billion toward that contract. At some point, I will put in the Record a printed letter written by the Ambassador of Great Britain in the context of the debate we had on last year's authorization bill, which is directly apropos of the matter before us. Furthermore, I am going to hand to the Senator from Arizona a letter that arrived from the Under Secretary of Defense.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, today at Arlington National Cemetery we laid to rest a great patriot to whom I am proud to pay tribute. Captain Henry ``Hank'' W. Putek, Sr., USN, was a naval aviator whose lifelong love of flying led to a 27 year Navy career that spanned the cold war and included service in Korea and Vietnam. It is my solemn honor today to recall his selfless commitment to this great Nation. A pilot from the age of 14, Captain Putek obtained a commission in the U.S. Navy in 1953 through the Naval Aviation Cadet program. His distinguished career in naval aviation began with flight training in Pensacola, FL where he earned the coveted ``wings of gold'' of a naval aviator. He went on to fly combat jets in Korea and Vietnam, including the F-9 Fury, Douglas Skyraider, and F-4 Phantom. He served in numerous aircraft carriers with such storied names as Lexington, Wasp, Yorktown, Hornet, and Saratoga. In the race for space, Captain Putek was a project engineer for various research and development efforts and piloted tracking aircraft during the Gemini program. Captain Putek was a Navy test pilot who accumulated an astonishing 7,600 hours in 22 types of military aircraft throughout his career. In 1977, Captain Putek retired from the United States Navy but continued to pursue his love for aviation as a training director with Piper Aircraft Corporation. He qualified in 22 Piper models and types. He was well known in his hometown as the owner of a bright orange ``Davis'' single engine aircraft, his pride and joy, which he built by hand. Captain Putek is survived by his wife of 47 years, Mary Louis Putek, his sons, Hank and Jon, his daughters, Gwen and Janet, his sister, Dolores, and his brother, James. He was a loving husband and father, a passionate aviator, and a true gentleman.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague from California. I salute her leadership on this measure. I am very hopeful we can persuade the Senate this morning to continue this legislation. Might I say that when first introduced, it was somewhat different than what the President indicated he would support. At my request, the Senator conformed her bill so it is precisely the legislative measure to which the President of the United States has indicated he would lend his support. I could say many things about this bill. But in the time constraints we have, law enforcement was the pivotal decision which switched me from 10 years ago voting against this measure, to today not only standing here to vote for it but joining in the leadership of the Senator from California to get it passed. Law enforcement has shown it has reduced the use of these weapons in crime. My words pale in significance to the law enforcement officers from the four corners of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The sheriff of Amherst County, the chief of police of Blacksburg, the chief of police of the town of Vienna, the chief of police of Waynesboro, the acting chief of police of Fairfax County, the sheriff of the city of Alexandria, the chief of police of Roanoke, the chief of police of Virginia Beach, the chief of police of Chesapeake, the chief of police of Portsmouth, the sheriff of Roanoke City, the chief of police of Newport News, the chief of police of Winchester, the chief of police of the city of Alexandria, the chief of police of Arlington County, the chief of police of Staunton, the chief of police of Salem, the sheriff of Rockingham County, and the chief of police of Norfolk-- the four corners of the Commonwealth of Virginia. These law enforcement officers come forward to support this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer. I thank my colleagues. I rise today in support of the Feinstein/Warner amendment to reauthorize the assault weapons ban. Signed into law in 1994, the assault weapons ban placed a 10-year prohibition on the domestic manufacture, transfer, or possession of semi-automatic assault weapons and the transfer and possession of high capacity ammunition clips. The 10-year ban ends on September 13, 2004. Consequently, unless Congress and the President act prior to September 13, 2004, weapons like Uzis and AK-47s will once again be produced in America, and more and more often, these weapons will fall into the hands of criminals who lurk in our neighborhoods. For a number of years, President Bush has indicated that he supports renewing the assault weapons ban for another decade. Although his administration has not presented a bill to date, it recently reiterated his support for the renewal. Consequently, we introduced a bill, S. 2109, that achieves his goal: extending the law, without any changes, for another 10 years. The Feinstein/Warner amendment that we debate today is the exact text of S. 2109. Some in the Senate, myself included, opposed the ban a decade ago, fearing it would do little to reduce crime, and could threaten the Constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners and hunters. However, a decade of experience has provided us with key facts. The assault weapons ban has made our communities safer. Recent Department of Justice records indicate that the use of banned assault weapons in crimes has declined measurably--by 65 percent in one analysis--since the measure took effect. Moreover, it is clear that the assault weapons ban has in no way challenged legitimate gun-owners' rights. Let me state, without hesitation, the vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens who responsibly keep their guns. As a gun-owner myself, I have long been a supporter of the Second Amendment. I remember well the day my father gave me my first gun, and I have spent most of my life around guns, both with antiques and in hunting. The assault weapons ban only bans a small percentage of all weapons-- those military-style assault weapons, that have no hunting or sporting purpose, and that are just used to create mass destruction. Furthermore, our world has changed dramatically from 10 years ago. September 11, 2001, has taught us many lessons; among them that terrorism lurks in our own cities and communities. Given the current world situation, it defies logic to let a good law expire, and in so doing let suicidal terrorists and others simply walk up to a counter and buy these weapons for potential attacks. It is for these reasons that my thinking on the assault weapons ban has evolved over the last 10 years, and for these reasons that I join with Senator Feinstein in sponsoring legislation to extend the assault weapons ban another 10 years. Not only does President Bush support the continuation of these protections; men and women of law enforcement across the Nation join him, because, being on the front lines, they know it makes communities safer. I note that several sheriffs and chiefs of police, all across Virginia, have written to me indicating their support for reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, as has the Virginia State Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police. Now, over my 25 years plus in the United States Senate, I have always tried to stand up for what is right, regardless of politics. I believe that is why the good people of the Commonwealth of Virginia have given me their trust and elected me to represent them in the United States Senate. I know that reauthorizing the assault weapons ban is the right thing to do. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague. I think we clarified among ourselves the parliamentary situation of this matter. I therefore ask, at the conclusion of the disposition of the Levin amendment, whatever that may be, is the amendment by the Senator from Virginia in order?

Mr. WARNER. Could I then ask unanimous consent my amendment, also offered on Friday morning in good faith, pursuant to the instructions you laid down, be the pending amendment following that?

Mr. WARNER. I see my colleague from Michigan. He, likewise, offered an amendment on Friday morning. My understanding is his is the pending amendment following the Bingaman vote; is that correct?

Mr. WARNER. Fine. Then if I could quickly ask the distinguished floor leaders----

Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent the parliamentary inquiry be addressed by the Chair outside the time agreement.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this time I am not trying to seek in any way by my UC to modify that request. It is simply that I be considered after the disposition of the Levin amendment. It is a very simple procedural request.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for those remarks. We have been together in the Senate for 25 years. We have a responsibility together on the Armed Services Committee and so we know how to work together. I intend to support the distinguished Senator from Michigan in his efforts. The fact is, it is a good amendment and I urge all Members to take a look at the amendment of the Senator from Michigan. I thank the Senator from Michigan for his personal comments. No one works harder for people than the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I feel very strongly that we have to recognize, as a nation, that the medical profession must, at some point in time, be given protections not dissimilar to those protections sought in this particular legislation. In this humble Senator's view, I feel it is far more important that the medical profession be cared for now, and it should be the top priority. The situation is, though, that I cannot get a vote on my amendment. I feel this vote would be a very strong one, if I could get a vote, because I have stripped out all other beneficiaries that were included in previous efforts, such as insurance companies and drug manufacturers. I have limited it purely to physicians and nurses. I think they need help now because they are not able to deliver that quality of medical care they want to give to Americans throughout the fifty states. With a great sense of disappointment I say that tonight I will not withdraw the amendment, it will remain, but under the standing order it will, unfortunately, expire automatically. I say to my colleagues, though, that I will continue this fight another day. I ask unanimous consent to place in the Record the full text of the statement I made Friday on the Senate floor in support of my amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. I rise to speak to an amendment to address the issue of tort reform. While today, the Senate is debating tort reform for the gun industry, I wish to take a few moments to raise the issue of tort reform with regard to another industry--the health care profession. My father dedicated his life's work to medicine as a surgeon gynecologist. As a youngster, I watched first-hand how he caringly watched over his patients. As a result of my father, I have always had a great deal of respect for the medical profession. For one reason or another, though, I did not follow in my father's footsteps. Rather than become a doctor, I became a lawyer. Upon graduation from law school, I served as a law clerk for Judge E. Barrett Prettyman of the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Subsequently, I worked as a Federal prosecutor and then moved to private practice with a major law firm. I have direct experience with two professions--the medical profession and the legal profession. I admire both professions and believe the overwhelming majority of doctors and lawyers are dedicated people who work hard to serve their patients and clients. Soon, the Senate will vote on S. 1805, legislation that provides certain legal protections to the gun industry. Legal protections which are denied almost across the board to every other industry in the private sector, including the medical profession. Proponents have argued that this legislation is necessary because lawsuits are driving gun dealers and gun manufacturers out of business. Well, the same is happening to our doctors. Doctors, nurses, and other health professionals are leaving the practice of medicine due to the astronomical costs of malpractice insurance and due to the constant battle against frivolous lawsuits and runaway jury verdicts. In my view, if we are going to protect the gun industry from lawsuits, we at least ought to provide some measure of protection for doctors and nurses as well. We have all heard the real stories from doctors about the rapidly increasing cost of medical malpractice insurance. In some States, malpractice insurance premiums have increased as much as 75 percent in 1 year. As a result, the fact is that those doctors, unable to afford ever-increasing premiums, are leaving the profession altogether and patients are losing access to quality health care. I have received numerous letters from medical professionals in the Commonwealth of Virginia that share with me the very real difficulties they are encountering with malpractice insurance and the consequences of this problem. Let me read part of one those letters that was sent to me by a doctor in Virginia. The doctor writes: I am writing you to elicit your support and advice for the acute malpractice crisis going on in Virginia. . . . I am a 48-year-old single parent of a 14 and 17 year old. After all the time and money spent training to practice Ob-Gyn, I find myself on the verge of almost certain unemployment and unemployability because of the malpractice crisis. I have been employed by a small Ob-Gyn Group for the last 7 years. . . . Our malpractice premiums were increased by 60% in May 2003. . . . The prediction from our malpractice carrier is that our rates will probably double at our next renewal date in May 2004. The reality is that we will not be able to keep the practice open and cover the malpractice insurance along with other expenses of practice. Out of respect for this doctor's privacy, I will not share the doctor's name, but I do keep her letter in my files. Unfortunately, though, this doctor's experience is not unique. Both Time Magazine and Newsweek have thoroughly detailed the crisis doctors are facing across America. In June of 2003, Time Magazine had a cover story on the affects of rising malpractice insurance rates. The story, entitled ``The Doctor is Out'' discusses several doctors, all across America, who have had to either stop practicing medicine or have had to take other action due to increased insurance premiums. One example cited in Time's article is the case of Dr. Mary-Emma Beres. Time reports: Dr Mary-Emma Beres, a family practitioner in Sparta, N.C., has always loved delivering babies. But last year Beres, 35, concluded that she couldn't afford the tripling of her $17,000 malpractice premium and had to stop. With just one obstetrician left in town for high risk cases, some women who need C-sections now must take a 40-minute ambulance ride. Dr. Beres case makes clear that not only doctors are being affected by the medical malpractice insurance crisis, patients are as well. With increased frequency, due to rising malpractice rates, more and more patients are not able to find the medical specialists they need. Newsweek also recently had a cover story on the medical liability crisis. That cover story was entitled, ``Lawsuit Hell.'' I was particularly struck by the feature in this magazine about a doctor from Ohio who saw his malpractice premiums rise in one year from $12,000 to $57,000 a year. As a result, this doctor, and I quote from the article, ``decided to lower his bill by cutting out higher-risk procedures like vasectomies, setting broken bones and delivering babies even though obstetrics was his favorite part of the practice. Now he glances wistfully at the cluster of baby photos still tacked to a wall in his office, `I miss that terribly,' he says.'' While these stories are compelling on their own, the consequences of this malpractice crisis can even be more profound. On February 11, 2003, Ms. Leanne Dyess of Gulfport, MS, shared with both the HELP Committee and the Judiciary Committee her very personal story about how this crisis has affected her. Ms. Dyess told us how on July 5, 2002, her husband, Tony, was involved in a single car accident. He was rushed to the hospital in Gulfport where he had head injuries and received medical attention. Tony could not be treated at the Gulfport hospital because they did not have the specialist necessary to take care of him. After a 6 hour wait, he was airlifted to the University Medical Center. Today, Tony is permanently brain damaged. According to Mrs. Dyess, no specialist was on staff that night in Gulfport because rising medical liability costs had forced almost all of the brain specialists in that community to abandon their practices. As a result, Tony had to wait 6 hours before the only specialist left in Gulfport could treat Tony to reduce the swelling in his brain. Without a doubt, the astronomical increases in medical malpractice insurance premiums are having wide-ranging effects. It is a national problem, and it is time for a national solution. The President has indicated that the medical liability system in America is largely responsible for the rising costs of malpractice insurance. The American Medical Association and the American College of Surgeons agree with him as does almost every doctor in Virginia who I have discussed the issue with. The President of the AMA, Dr. John Nelson, has publicly stated, ``We cannot afford the luxury of waiting until the liability crisis gets worse to take action. Too many patients will be hurt.'' The American College of Surgeons concurs by stating, ``More and more Americans aren't getting the care they need when they need it. . . . The `disappearing doctor' phenomenon is getting progressively and rapidly worse. It is an increasingly serious threat to everyone's ability to get the care they need.'' Let me state unequivocally that I agree with our President, with the AMA, with the American College of Surgeons, and with the vast majority of doctors all across Virginia. That is why I am offering my amendment today. My amendment is simple, like other measures that have come before the Senate, my amendment provides a nationwide cap on damages in medical malpractice lawsuits. My amendment differs from other measures that have been voted on in the Senate in one key aspect--whereas these other bills would have applied to doctors, nurses, insurance companies, drug companies, and others, my amendment is solely limited to the caring medical professionals who take care of each and every one of us when we need medical care. It is a common sense solution to a serious problem. Now that I have laid out the amendment, I would like to reiterate one important point. The gun immunity bill provides broad protection to gun manufacturers and gun dealers in both federal and state court. The bill is aimed at protecting the manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits that result from the criminal or unlawful use of a firearm. The basic idea is that if a manufacturer or dealer follows the statutory law in the manufacturing and sale of a legal product, they should not be held responsible for the actions of a third party. While some may claim that this gun immunity bill might be an important component of tort reform, in my opinion, health care liability reform is even more important. We must protect the medical profession and the patients it serves. How can we give near absolute protection from litigation for one industry, the gun industry, and do absolutely nothing for another industry that is solely dedicated to saving lives? Let's ask ourselves, in the event that a bullet from a firearm is shot into an innocent victim, is our healthcare system prepared to help that victim? Without healthcare liability reform, it may not be, as there might not be the appropriate doctor in the area to tend to the patient. That is why my amendment goes hand-in-hand with the gun immunity bill. So now it is up to my colleagues in the Congress. It is their choice. If we are going to give legal protections to the gun industry, all I say is let's give it to the doctors as well. If this choice is given to the American people, there is no doubt that the doctors would win by a 100-1 margin. Now, I clearly recognize my situation. I want to compliment the leadership of both the majority and the minority. They were eminently fair. They explained to me the situation, and I am not able to obtain a vote on my amendment tonight. It comes as a matter of considerable disappointment to me. Nevertheless, I think there are times when frankness and honesty have to be shared. Under the current parliamentary situation on this bill, it is not possible for me to achieve the vote. I ask unanimous consent that the magnificent communications I have received from a number of groups, physicians and their organizations, that have strongly supported the initiative the Senator from Virginia has taken on their behalf, be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I will need less than 5 minutes.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object because I think everyone has been very straightforward in the presentations on this issue, I hope I would be given a few minutes before we close down tonight to speak on my situation and put some material into the Record. Is there objection to that--less than 5 minutes before we close tonight?