Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act-Motion to Proceed

PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS ACT-MOTION TO PROCEED

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I come to the Chamber in a hurry because it has come to my attention that this amendment, which is perhaps in a technical sense not germane to the main bill in the Senate-but I understand there is an agreement that it could be considered and would not be out of order-but my concern is this: The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was an important landmark in the Nation's history. It was passed by the Congress in an attempt to make sure that no person, regardless of race, regardless of color, was denied their right, their fundamental right to vote. This was long overdue, very important, and certainly a result to which we all continue to aspire.

Perhaps Members of the Senate who have, like me, not had a chance to study this amendment in great detail, or perhaps what the ramifications of this amendment are, might be interested to know a few facts; that is, that the Voting Rights Act does not apply to all the States in the Nation. In other words, we are being asked to extend the Voting Rights Act only as it applies to a handful of primarily Southern States.

In 1965, perhaps it made sense to apply the Voting Rights Act to just a handful of States that historically and, yes, tragically, had a history of denying minorities their rights to be American citizens and enjoy the franchise unimpeded by those who would deny them that right. But this is not 1965. This is the year 2004.

If, indeed, this presumption, in essence, that says in order to change the way in which you conduct your elections, before you redistrict your State and electoral districts, you must seek permission from the Department of Justice, if indeed, that is still good policy for the States that are covered by the Voting Rights Act, I submit it is good policy for the Nation as a whole. I doubt in all seriousness that many Members of this body understand what they are being asked to do, which is to extend this act only to a handful of States.

As I say, if it is good policy, I believe it should be extended to the entire Nation. Obviously, we have come a long way in this country since 1965. Some may argue that some States should have a presumption of guilt while others should have a presumption of innocence. But, indeed, I believe there ought to be a uniform policy that applies to the entire Nation when we are talking about something as important as voting rights and when we are talking about something as important as protecting the voting rights of all Americans, including minorities who have, in fact, suffered discrimination in the past.

I raise the question for my colleagues, those who are listening, to ask whether we truly understand what the implications are of this amendment and how it would affect the entire country, and how in practice, if I understand the amendment correctly, it would only apply to a handful of States. There is an agreement under which second-degree amendments are out of order, or I would offer an amendment to apply to the entire Nation, if that were permitted. But under this arrangement, under this agreement, I can merely ask the question for my colleagues to ponder if this policy should apply nationwide and not just to a handful of States, including my State of Texas.

I yield back any remaining time to the Senator from Idaho.