Bill Frist

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will make a few comments in respect to the closing days of Black History Month, the month of February. Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to take a truly extraordinary journey with Members of the Senate and House Members. I use the word ``journey'' because this trip was not only to a geographic destination, not only a place to which we traveled but, indeed, was in many ways an emotional and a spiritual voyage that touched--I know me and, in talking to my colleagues, them--in very deep and meaningful ways. It was 2 weeks ago Friday that we departed from Washington. This journey was one I had the honor of leading. It was a bipartisan delegation. Ten Senators participated at some time over the course of those 3 days on this civil rights pilgrimage to Alabama and to Tennessee. It was a real privilege to travel not just with my colleagues in this body and the House of Representatives, but also traveling with us were some of the loftiest figures of the civil rights movement. These included our colleague, Congressman John Lewis, who, by the way, graciously organizes this trip each year for his colleagues. This is the first time he specifically put it together for the Senate, but also traveling with us or speaking to us as we were in Alabama and Tennessee were the real civil rights giants, people such as Dorothy Cotton; Bernard LaFayette, who I had the opportunity to get to know over the years, he is a close friend of a physician friend, Dr. Karl VanDevender from Nashville; Diane Nash, who played a prominent role in the nonviolence movement, much of which originated in Tennessee; Johnnie Carr; Attorney Chestnut, whose vivid words are starkly ringing in my mind even as I stand here; Bob Mants, and the list goes on-- people who were there, people who participated through the late 1950s and early 1960s in the civil rights and nonviolence movement. I say to them and take this opportunity, something I have told each one personally, to publicly thank them for their service to our country, for their willingness to face violence and intimidation directly, to face injustice and to face oppression, and to face all of this with bravery and to face it with love and caring and compassion. It was this juxtaposition of one facing the other that ultimately had the impact of transforming America. Indeed, it led to a great awakening that continues to reverberate through history. I also thank these remarkable individuals for sharing their hearts over this 3-day period, of sharing their faith, sharing their spirituality, and sharing their stories with us for these intense sessions over Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. I speak for my colleagues. Again, 10 Senators is 10 percent of the Senators in this body participating in this pilgrimage in some shape or form. I speak for all of them when I say that we thank the participants from the civil rights movement who spoke to us, who spent time with us, and left us profoundly inspired. We began our trip in Montgomery, AL, visiting the Montgomery bus stop where Rosa Parks said no to moving to the back of the bus. We marched over the Edmund Pettus Bridge where--you read about it and you study it and you hear where, as they marched over the bridge they were trampled by horses and were beaten with billy clubs and were sprayed with tear gas just for the audacity of seeking their constitutional right to vote. You read about it and you hear about it and you see it in some little clips, but actually being there, that physical presence, that physical sense of time and space that we were given 2 weeks ago, really captures the full picture as much as one can. Again, to those participants, I say thank you. We met with people throughout who were present and who described the crushing of bones as those billy clubs came down; people who, in the first person, described in such vivid detail, that had such a tremendous impact when you hear it. It is difficult for me to find just the right words to express the power of standing shoulder to shoulder with people who actually crossed the bridge at the time, that bridge that almost 40 years ago was faced with the threatening opposition standing before them. We later visited the Birmingham Sixteenth Street Baptist Church where four young girls perished on that vicious Sunday morning bomb attack-- again, talking to other people who were in the church that morning when that bomb went off, taking the lives of those four young girls. We walked through Kelly Ingram Park where Bull Connor unleashed dogs and fire hoses on schoolchildren. And on Sunday we entered the Nashville First Baptist Church where the nonviolence movement's young heroes studied and learned and where we heard accurately described the role-playing of nonviolence which ultimately played out just a few weeks and a few months later in the historic lunch counter sit-ins in Nashville. The role-playing, the studying, the curriculum, the discipline, was all around a movement of nonviolence which characterized so much of the subsequent Civil Rights Act in the late 1950s and early 1960s. We met many of the participants who were at the historic lunch counter sit-ins in Nashville, sit-ins that peacefully transformed Nashville, TN, over a period of weeks and then months, sit- ins that started at the lunch counters and subsequently a few months later moved to the movie theaters. We walked in the footsteps of giants, and we came closer thereby to knowing them as men and women. I relate all this because it is also clear to me that the movement is not over. So much has changed. We heard it again and again, so much has changed in a very short period of time, but the great hope of that movement has yet to be realized; that is, full equality not only before the law but in the lives of every single citizen. Immediately you relate it to the sort of things we do in the Senate, to create an environment that equality is not just before the law but in the lives of every citizen. That means equal education. It means no child left behind. It means equal opportunity to live the American dream. It means equal treatment at the doctor's office. It means equal consideration by the mortgage lender. It means equal opportunities to climb that economic ladder and to open the doors to higher learning. As we celebrate Black History Month, as we look forward to the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, we must remember that, yes, yes, we have come a long, long way, but there are still many miles to go. In his historic speech following the march to Selma, the great Dr. King told his fellow freedom marchers and, I should add, generations to follow: We must come to see that the end we seek is a society at peace with itself, a society that can live with its conscience. And that will be a day not of the white man, not of the black man. That will be the day of man as man. I would like to close with a wonderful account that I think does underscore the universality and great achievement of the civil rights movement. It also underscores the truth that all it takes is one person and one act of courage to inspire millions. The following is an account by the historian Douglas Brinkley. The year is 1990. Nelson Mandela is arriving in Detroit, MI, where Rosa Parks awaits on the tarmac. The passage reads: ``He won't know me,'' Parks kept repeating, embarrassed that she had come. Moments later the airplane's door opened and Nelson Mandela accompanied by his then-wife Winnie appeared to the enthusiastic crowd, shouting ``Viva Nelson!'' and ``Amandala!'' the Swahili word for power. Slowly he made his way down the steps and toward the receiving line. Suddenly he froze, staring openmouthed in wonder. Tears filled his eyes as he walked up to the small old woman with her hair in two silver braids crossed atop her head. And in a low, melodious tone, Nelson Mandela began to chant, ``Ro-sa Parks. Ro-sa Parks. Ro-sa Parks,'' until his voice crescendoed into a rapturous shout, ``Ro-sa Parks!'' Then the two brave old souls, their lives so distant yet their dreams so close, fell into each other's arms, rocking back and forth in a long, joyful embrace. And in that poignant, redemptive moment, the enduring dignity of the undaunted afforded mankind rare proof of its own progress. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FRIST

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

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Yes.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, let me make several points in response because we are going to work this out in some shape or form. I am not exactly sure how yet, but the challenge has been laid out. We have two independent issues that my two colleagues are rightfully linking, but by linking them, 5,000 Americans and their families are going to be hurt. I would argue they are being hurt by their proposal-- it can be blamed on all sorts of situations as to how we got to where we are, but the point is, if the action they propose is taken, 5,000 families who have nothing to do with the Commission--they are separate issues--these transportation families are going to be hurt unnecessarily by their action today. I hope what I have just said is proven right by us working together today and settling this matter because what they propose, because the House is out of session and because the bill is before us, if amended, cannot be acted upon by the House until next Tuesday night, and 5,000 transportation families will be hurt by what they are insisting upon. Therefore, that is unacceptable to me. I say that very quickly. Let me say that I support the extension. Both Senators who have spoken know I am a supporter of their initiative. The President of the United States supports their initiative of an extension. But I am not going to have 5,000 families hurt unnecessarily today. That is what we need to work out. That is No. 1. No. 2, the Commission--I have talked mainly about transportation--the Commission about which my colleagues from Arizona and Connecticut talked so eloquently, and the families, my commitment is to them to also make sure through this Commission that we have an extension, and I will use all the powers that a leader has in his caucus to make sure that Commission has sufficient time and access in fairness to the benefit of those families. They deserve that. It is very important the families understand that is my commitment as majority leader of the Senate and that is what the majority of the Senate believes. Though we are having a disagreement with the House, in part, I am confident we will be able to work through that, as well. The reason I say these 5,000 families do not have to be hurt, with paychecks stopping, a big furlough, don't show up for work, which has real repercussions throughout our transportation system, is that what we decide today on extension of the Commission will not have any impact if we can make that same decision a week from now or 2 days from now or 3 days from now. Why do I say that? Because the Commission is still working. It is working February, March, April, and May. The Commission is underway. They are doing their work. Originally, on May 27, the Commission is supposed to end, and the idea is extending it 2 months beyond that, which, again, I support. But the Commission is underway. We do not have to hurt 5,000 people in transportation families which will affect our infrastructure today because the Commission is working and we can still address the extension. There is no urgency about addressing the extension today. I understand my colleagues are using the leverage of this must-pass transportation bill, in my mind, to force the vote today on the extension. But for me, it does not have to be done today. I pledge to keep working with them.

Mr. FRIST. Let me go through my points quickly because it is important for people to understand we have been working on this for the last couple of days. I have been working with the Senator from Arizona, and he knows my commitment in trying to work out alternatives. The Senators from Arizona and Connecticut asked if there is another vehicle on which we can put this extension that is a must-do that will get through the system and make sure it will happen, which is their objective and my objective. The problem with that--and again we had this discussion--is, What vehicle does he suggest? I suggested the adjournment resolution. That is usually a must-do. But then the response to that was that is not certain these days for all sorts of reasons. Can we put it on the underlying bill that is pending before the Senate, the gun liability bill? That may not quite work because we don't know what the outcome of that bill is going to be. I mention that only to say, let's work together, and if we can agree on another amendable vehicle, then I am willing to work with that, and I will do everything I can. I think we can be successful. The problem is when you set a bar that is going to become law in the next few days, it is impossible.

Mr. FRIST. One other point, because it is going to be important as we go forward, has to do with what the Intelligence Committee did yesterday. Again, all of the Senators are aware that the Intelligence Committee yesterday, on Thursday, marked up a bill which is consistent with what I believe and what the Senator from Arizona believes, that a 2-month extension is appropriate. They marked up that legislation. We are going to hotline that bill right now to see if we can get unanimous consent for that bill. I just want to put that on the table. Again, it is a freestanding bill that later this morning I will ask unanimous consent that we address. That bill would be brought to the floor and passed, which again is exactly what the families want, what Senator McCain wants, what Senator Lieberman wants, what the President of the United States, I suppose, the administration wants and would ask that my two colleagues at least consider that approach as well. Let me close and say it is unnecessary to hurt these 5,000 people today. There are alternatives that will allow the Commission, if we work together, to be extended, if that is the will of the Senate. We would be unnecessarily hurting our transportation community by linking two unrelated issues just to use leverage to get this extension passed.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, let me go ahead, because I had asked that we further explore the only option I see, and again I think we ought to at least address that. If we do what the Senator from Arizona has proposed, 4,600 employees cannot show up for work, are not going to be paid and are going to be hurt if we accept their proposal. So I ask that they consider the proposal which I mentioned a few minutes ago, I said we would be hotlining, and to take the bill that was passed out of the Intelligence Committee yesterday, that does exactly what they want, what I want, which is to extend the Commission, and pass that as a freestanding bill. So as majority leader, I am prepared to get this bill done this minute.

Mr. FRIST. Let me yield to the Senator from Connecticut and then the Senator from Arizona, or either one.

Mr. FRIST. In response to the Senator's question, I have not read the article today, but I am glad he pointed it out. Let's do it by next week and not hurt 5,000 people with an unrelated issue trying to use leverage that he knows we have no alternative to deal with on the floor of the Senate. I am glad he pointed it out. Let's deal with it next week. He knows I am working to deal with it, which shows it does not have to be dealt with today and hurt 5,000 people.

Mr. FRIST. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. FRIST. Is it the contention of both the Senators that the Commission right now has had to shut down this week because we have not allowed this extension?

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this morning we will resume consideration of the gun manufacturers liability bill. We have made real progress over the course of the week. The managers are here to discuss the legislation and other Senators are expected to come to the floor for further debate over the course of the day. There will be no rollcall votes today. Therefore, the next vote will occur on Monday. As to the timing of that vote on Monday, I will have more to announce over the course of the day after consultation with the bill managers and the Democratic leader. Pursuant to the agreement that was reached on Wednesday, we will finish this bill on Tuesday. I thank everyone for their assistance in reaching that consent agreement. I commend the bill managers for their efforts during the negotiations. Highway Reauthorization We have a very important outstanding issue before we finish our business this week. As Members know, the current highway authorization expires this weekend. Thus, it is imperative that we pass an extension of the authorization before we conclude our work today. I have talked to Members on both sides of the aisle, as well as to our House counterparts, as to how best to achieve this temporary extension. Yesterday the House passed a 2-month extension, and they have adjourned for the week. Regardless of what Senators think about the long-term solution for this legislation--legislation which we debated-- we have an issue that we must settle today in terms of the extension. The House, again, passed a 2-month extension. They sent that to us and they have adjourned. The real issue is that we absolutely must extend the current law to keep people working until we find some agreement. We will need to address this over the next several minutes because of the sense of urgency, the significance of not passing this highway extension today, this week. That is because beginning Monday, 3 days from now, no funds will be available to pay for the operation of surface transportation programs or the salaries of individuals who run them. That is why we must act today. That means, as of this Monday, more than 4,600 Department of Transportation employees will be furloughed, if we fail to act today. The Federal Highway Administration will have to stop paying bills on Monday. That includes reimbursements to States for ongoing highway projects. Federal Highway Administration employees, 2,925 Federal Highway Administration employees, will be furloughed, in Washington, DC, and, indeed, in State offices around the country. If they are furloughed on Monday, these Federal Highway Administration employees will not be able to carry out the necessary steps required to approve the federally approved, funded highway projects. We have construction contractors and their suppliers who will suffer economic losses and hardships. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration also will be affected. They would have to stop paying bills on Monday. There are 630 Highway Traffic Safety Administration employees who would be furloughed. The operation of our Federal highway safety programs would be dramatically impacted. States would receive no Federal funding for things such as alcohol-impaired driving and safety belt programs. In addition, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration would have to stop its operations. The Motor Carrier Safety Administration employees, numbering 1,078, would have to be furloughed, and the agency and its partners would not be able to carry out the new entrant safety audits on motor carriers. The issues go on and on. I state those at the outset because by the end of the day we have to come to some agreement to make sure that what could happen doesn't happen. It is important for people to understand the significance of where we are, in particular the leadership, as we address the other important issues we will talk about shortly. For clarification, the House sent us two vehicles, a 2-month extension as well as a 4-month extension. The House is not in session today. The practical reality is we must pass one of the extensions--I think it would be the 2-month extension today--or 4,600 people are going to be laid off on Monday. We cannot let that happen. Now the challenge is to figure out how we are going to address that. Again, it is a very important issue, which I know my colleague from Arizona will address shortly and we need to resolve it. At this point, I am prepared to ask unanimous consent to allow us to pass the short-term extension. I know Senators will want to comment.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. That is correct.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 12 noon Monday, March 1. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of S. 1805, the gun liability bill; provided that there be 4 hours of debate with the following Senators to control the time: Senator McCain or his designee, 1 hour; Senator Feinstein or her designee, 1 hour; Senator Craig or his designee, 2 hours; provided further that at 4 p.m. Senator Bingaman be recognized to offer his definition amendment, and the time until 5 p.m. be equally divided between Senators Craig and Bingaman; provided further that at 5 p.m. the Senate will proceed to a vote in relation to the Bingaman amendment without any intervening action or debate, and following the disposition of the amendment, the Senate resume consideration of the Levin amendment numbered 2631.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Through the Chair, Mr. President, we have the agreement to complete the gun liability legislation Tuesday. It is our plan, although I want to discuss it further with the Democratic leadership and also my colleagues, but the plans are at this juncture to continue with the manufacturing bill called FSC/ETI. There is a deadline we are all familiar with of March 1. This bill has been taken through committee and we will be addressing it on the floor. The House has not yet addressed it. It is my intention, at this point in time--again, it could be subject to change--to proceed with FSC/ETI.

Mr. FRIST. On Monday, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1805, the gun liability bill. There are a number of Senators who will be here to debate the remaining amendments and there will be adequate time for debate on Monday. I sincerely thank the bill managers for their hard work on this legislation. They have been on the floor constantly for the past 3 days, working through amendments and moving this bill forward. Through their efforts and a lot of hard work, we are poised to finish the bill Tuesday of next week. Again, they should be complimented. I inform all my colleagues we will have a vote on an amendment to the bill Monday afternoon. Senators should expect that vote in relation to the Bingaman definition amendment to occur promptly at 5 p.m.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 3850, the highway program extension bill, which is at the desk. I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to discuss the progress that has been made to date in my efforts to resolve a critically important issue; that is, the issue of asbestos litigation-- a crisis that is currently playing out and has been playing out over the last several years, an issue I have addressed on the floor of the Senate. I wanted to give an update of where we are, a little bit about where we have been, but also what my expectations will be as we look to the future. First and foremost, we have made good progress toward enacting Chairman Hatch's FAIR Act, which is the Fairness In Asbestos Injury Resolution Act. I have made this a personal priority in that the Senate must resolve this issue. First of all, the crisis itself, the asbestos crisis. As I mentioned on the floor last fall, the magnitude of the asbestos crisis is truly overwhelming. The torrent of litigation has wreaked havoc on victims, on American jobs, and on the economy. The 600,000 claims that have been filed have already cost $54 billion in settlements, in judgments, and in litigation costs. Even with those billions being spent, the current asbestos tort system has today become nothing more than a litigation lottery. A few victims receive adequate compensation, and far more suffer long delays for unpredictable and inequitable awards, if they receive anything at all. Today, it is a system with only one real winner; that is, the plaintiffs' trial lawyers. They are taking half of every dollar that is awarded to victims. One-half of every dollar that is awarded to victims ends up going to plaintiffs' trial lawyers. The future prospect for people who have been victimized even gets worse. But let me say it is not only the victims who suffer--that is clear--but workers lose their jobs. Asbestos-related bankruptcies spell doom for workers' jobs, for their incomes and, of course, for their retirement savings. It has already cost more than 60,000 Americans their jobs. For those who lose their jobs, the average personal loss in wages over a career is as much as $50,000. That $50,000 does not include lost retirement and lost health benefits. Workers at asbestos-related bankrupt firms with 401(k) plans lost about 25 percent of the value of their 401(k) plans. The victims; yes. They have been hurt by the current system but, indeed, with the bankruptcy of these companies, employees are hurt all around the country. The problem is there. It is a crisis. It is a crisis that is getting worse. It is not getting better. Thus, it is incumbent upon us to act. I asked a simple question during my remarks last year. That question was, Can we create a system that is better than the status quo? The answer is, of course, yes. But time is running short. That is what brings me to the floor today. First of all, progress to date: The crisis is there, it is getting worse, and it demands a response from us. As an update on what we have accomplished to date, the FAIR Act--Fairness In Asbestos Injury Resolution Act--has already made significant headway. Under the leadership of Chairman Hatch, it was passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee last July, and there have been ongoing discussions and negotiations ever since. I commend Senator Hatch and the ranking minority member, Senator Leahy, for their tremendous hard work on this bill. I also want to recognize my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, who has done hard work in conjunction with Judge Becker on this particular issue. A strong bill, steady progress, and constant discussion. I want to note that my Democratic colleagues as well as organized labor and other stakeholders have been deeply involved throughout the process. Led by Senator Hatch, bipartisan breakthroughs were made on issues that previously have proved irreconcilable. These included a whole range of issues but included the linchpin issue of medical criteria that has proven historically to be so difficult and controversial. In addition, much work was done over the winter recess to resolve outstanding issues regarding the appropriate administrative structures of the system for resolving current and future asbestos claims. What has emerged under S. 1125 and the current negotiations is a streamlined national trust fund for paying asbestos claimants quickly, fairly, and efficiently. The new system will provide more certainty and efficiency for claimants, and more certainty and predictability for businesses. Passing this bill will create enormous economic benefits. Certainty that flows from a bill will stimulate capital investment, preserving existing jobs and creating new ones. I had hoped to bring this bill to a floor vote before the end of last session, but we were simply unable to achieve that goal. Chairman Hatch and Senator Leahy worked hard to resolve many difficult issues at the committee level. Senator Daschle and I, along with our staffs, have continued to work with stakeholders to put more issues behind us over the past months. In fact, there have been more than 20 meetings starting last July at which my staff, Senator Hatch's staff, Senator Specter's staff, and staff representing the minority have negotiated these issues. While there are many issues which remain outstanding, the core principles of an effective bill are now clear. The crisis is there, the crisis is getting worse, the bill has been delivered, continued progress, continued discussions with improvement of the bill. Then the question is, Where do we go from here? If we intend to make good on our collective hope to pass legislation, at some point the ongoing discussions and negotiations must end and a bill must be brought to the floor. In addition to the months of work that have been put in by my staff and others on these discussions last year, we had an additional 90 days since the winter recess, and I am prepared to have talks go on for another 30 days through the end of March. But at some point, talking must end. As I made clear last fall, I am committed to bringing a bill to the floor by the end of March. Victims are still going uncompensated. Companies are still going bankrupt, and the economy is still being unnecessarily burdened. The minority leader, as well as Senator Leahy, Senator Dodd and other Democratic Members have made clear to me their interest in working toward consensus legislation. I ask all participants in the process to work during these remaining days to bring these discussions to a close and to reach consensus on the remaining outstanding issues. I am not interested in forcing a vote on this bill. But the victims and the workers who are being hurt by these delays deserve closure. They deserve a bill that puts an end to this ongoing crisis. I will begin floor action on an asbestos bill either the last week of March or the first week in April. Again, I will begin floor action on an asbestos bill either the last week of March or the first week in April. There is no perfect solution to the current asbestos litigation crisis. But it is clear that maintaining the status quo is simply unacceptable. We must not let this historic opportunity to enact fair and meaningful reform pass in order to pursue a perfect solution that is unachievable. The time has come for the Senate to fashion the right solution for one of the most pressing issues facing us, facing our economy, and facing this Nation today.

Mr. FRIST

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

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

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered is the amendment my distinguished colleague from Kentucky spoke to a few moments ago. I introduce this on behalf of the Senator from Kentucky and myself in response, in part, to the expiration of a portion of the Voting Rights Act. I will speak to the details of it shortly. By way of introduction, 2 weeks ago, Congressman John Lewis and I participated in a trip to sites in Alabama and in Tennessee that reflected important times and places in those States as they pertained to civil rights and the movement of nonviolence and the struggle for voting rights. We had a wonderful, powerful trip crossing Selma's Edmund Pettus Bridge where almost 40 years ago Congressman Lewis had led marchers in the name of voting rights for all. The stories were powerful. They endured the beating without striking back, and they faced the hatred with the power of compassion and love. Their courage captured a victory that has been to the benefit of millions today, not just for African Americans but for others all over this country. I was deeply moved by their courage and their sacrifice at the time, and I am grateful for their service. This year, the 39th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act occurs. That act enshrined fair voting practices for all Americans. The act reaffirms the 15th amendment to the Constitution and prohibits individuals and governments from sabotaging the ability of African- American citizens to vote. Dorothy Cotton, one of the participants with Congressman Lewis and I, who ran the Citizenship Education Project of the Southern Christian Leadership Council with Andrew Young, remarked that she remembers when voting registration offices were open only when most African Americans were working during that time of day. Rev. Bernard Lafayette, who was also with us, another great civil rights leader, remembers routine harassment at the registration office, such as being required to interpret obscure sections of the U.S. Constitution or--and his words are so vivid in my mind--being required to give the number of bubbles in a bar of soap. Clearly this was wrong. It was ugly, and it was unconstitutional. That is why the Congress moved to pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to once and for all protect the right of every American to vote. The Voting Rights Act also includes section 4, and it will be up for reauthorization in 2007. President Reagan reauthorized it for 25 years in 1982. Section 4 is the section that contains the temporary preclearance provision that applies to certain States: Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and parts of Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, and North Carolina. These States must submit any voting changes to the U.S. Department of Justice for preclearance and, if the Department of Justice concludes that the change weakens the voting strength of minority voters, it can refuse to approve the change. Section 4 provides an important measure of assurance that the full force of the U.S. Government stands behind voting rights for all Americans. That is why Senator McConnell and I today are offering an amendment to permanently reauthorize section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. With or without section 4, every American has the right to vote. That will never change. However, Senator McConnell and I want to make clear that America will never renege on the hard-fought gains of the civil rights movement. We don't want anyone to fear that their right to vote will ever be taken away. Those shameful days are over. Some of the heroes of the civil rights movement have endorsed this particular amendment. Congressman John Lewis supports it. Rev. Bernard Lafayette, who joined Congressman Lewis and I--actually Bernard Lafayette went with us on our pilgrimage last week, but also he and John Lewis were together at that fateful time in 1965 for the march in Selma. His words were this amendment would be an ``important psychological and political victory for democracy.'' It is my fervent hope that one day soon racism and discrimination will be totally a thing of the past. Until that time, it is critical that the Justice Department retain this preclearance authority to review changes to State voting requirements, not only to allay fears that might arise but also to enshrine our progress to date. I do hope all of my colleagues will join me in ensuring the Federal Government will do all it can to protect the right to vote for all Americans. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their support of this amendment. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment No. 2626, which was to be considered next, be withdrawn.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1805, the gun liability bill. A unanimous consent agreement worked out by the managers last night means we will definitely make significant progress on a number of issues throughout the day, and we will complete action on the bill on Tuesday. Senators should be aware the agreement covers amendments to be offered today and on Tuesday, but we do expect additional amendments to be offered and voted on tomorrow and during Monday's session of the Senate. Those Senators who are not covered by the agreement should work with Senators Craig and Reed of Rhode Island to work through their amendments before Tuesday morning. The first vote of the day should occur between 10:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. Members will be notified of rollcall votes throughout the day and possibly into the evening. I wish to use a few moments of leadership time to comment on the bill. We will proceed right on the bill. It is going to be a fast-paced day. An agreement was worked out last night. I think we have a good game plan. We will finish the bill on Tuesday and we will start right in. The bill, S. 1805, has broad bipartisan support. We will be considering a lot of amendments. We will debate those amendments, and we have the time agreements to see that they are considered fairly. This bill is bipartisan, with 10 Senators from the Democratic side of the aisle supporting it. The bill also has 45 Republican cosponsors. I know we can move quickly and process these amendments and move toward final passage of this important legislation. There is a common misconception that the gun industry is a large and powerful industry, and it is simply not. In fact, the firearms trade is a relatively small industry. In 1999, the industry collectively made less than $200 million in total profits--just $200 million. To put that in perspective, Home Depot, a company with which we are all familiar, netted $4.3 billion in 2003. That one company made more than 20 times the profit of the entire firearms business. In 2003, Wal-Mart, a highly competitive retail chain, profited a hefty $9 billion. And if we look at a chain such as Starbucks, even Starbucks sees bigger profits than the American firearms manufacturers. I mention that because the issue is not of size or relative size. The real issue is that the gun manufacturing industry employs people with productive jobs, well-intentioned, well-meaning, good jobs. These are valuable jobs, and most of these jobs actually are in rural communities. Those are the communities that, in many ways, need jobs the most in this day and time. Often, these gun manufacturers are the largest employer in these small communities and, as a consequence, these ruinous lawsuits do not just threaten the manufacturers; they end up threatening the whole town, the whole community itself. Still, we have the antigun crusaders who insist that the firearms business, one of the most regulated industries in America today, must be brought to heel. Why? They believe the gun manufacturers themselves should be responsible for the criminal actions of other people. They believe it is OK to allow lawsuits to achieve some sort of political end. Clearly, I do not agree and a majority of people in this body do not agree. Indeed, most Americans certainly do not agree. Most Americans think this is just blatantly unfair. Our Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. Indeed, 33 States have passed laws to preempt frivolous gun lawsuits--33 States. Still today, we have the antigun crusaders who are, in effect, aided and abetted by the special interest trial lawyers charging ahead. Since 1997, more than 30 cities and counties have sued firearm companies in an attempt to force them to change the way they make guns and the way they sell guns. In California, then-Gov. Gray Davis signed legislation explicitly authorizing lawsuits against gun manufacturers. Because the firearms business is relatively small, one big verdict, one substantial verdict could bankrupt the entire industry. In California, that is a real possibility. Never mind that every trial court that has heard these municipality lawsuits has thrown them out in whole or in part. Appellate courts in three States have overturned lower court verdicts and allowed the suits to go forward. Thus, it is critical we act now. If the gun industry is forced into bankruptcy, the right to keep and bear arms will be a right in name only. Lawsuits have already pushed two companies into bankruptcy. Even if some gun manufacturers are able to hold on, the prices for firearms will be so high that owning a gun, such as a hunting rifle, will be a privilege only the wealthy can afford. There is one other important and little known aspect of the issue. America relies on private gun manufacturers to equip our soldiers and law enforcement officers with sidearms. The guns our police officers use, the guns that our soldiers carry, are made in the United States by American workers. We are all agreed, no one wants guns in the hands of criminals. There are thousands of laws and regulations to stop illegal gun sales, but we do not want these frivolous, unnecessary lawsuits to strip police officers and soldiers of their sidearms. Do we really want unfair litigation to cripple our national security? The answer clearly is no, and thus we will act and we will act over the course of today, tomorrow, Monday, and complete this action on Tuesday. The bill before us is narrowly tailored. It is focused. It is fair. It is equitable. It ensures that private parties are held responsible for their actions and that is why this bill comes to this floor with broad bipartisan support. That is why passing this bill is the right thing to do. I yield the floor.