Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have 18 amendments at the desk, and I understand these have been approved now by both Senator McCain and I and the two leaders. They have all approved these 18 amendments. Under the previous unanimous consent agreement, these amendments now are part of the managers' package and, with the approval of the four I have identified, I understand that these are now part of the bill. Is my understanding correct?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.J. Res. 56, which was received from the House.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, Friday, July 24; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a moment of silence in honor of the fallen Capitol Police officers, and that following the moment of silence, there be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there will be no rollcall votes during tomorrow's session of the Senate. Senators should expect the next vote to begin around 5:30 p.m. on Monday.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I indicated there were 18 amendments that had been cleared by Senator McCain and the leadership and myself, which under the previous UC would then be automatically adopted and made part of the bill. In fact, there were 19 amendments on this list as it now appears, including that modified Sessions amendment. So I wanted to clarify the Record on that point. There are 19 amendments on that list, No. 19 being one that we, frankly, thought we previously approved but apparently had not. So it is intended that it is on that list, and we are assured by the staff that this is the way we can correct that problem.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer. And I thank Senator McCain's staff for bringing that to our attention.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, under current law each State adopts and enforces their own eligibility standards for who is qualified to obtain a concealed carry permit. Carrying a concealed weapon is a crime if those eligibility standards are violated and a citizen of that State carries a concealed weapon. For example, 35 States prohibit those with criminal misdemeanor convictions from obtaining a concealed carry permit. The Thune amendment would federally authorize an individual who has been issued a concealed carry permit in one State the right to carry a concealed weapon in 47 other States, even though those other States prohibit an individual who resides in those other 47 States from carrying a concealed weapon. A Federal standard is thereby imposed on the States. The 35 States that prohibit criminal misdemeanants from carrying concealed weapons are told under the Thune amendment: You can enforce your own laws regarding your own residents but cannot enforce your own laws against residents of the 13 States who issue concealed carry permits to convicted criminal misdemeanants when those nonresidents visit your State. The laws of those 35 States cannot be applied to all persons in their States--those from 13 other States who get permits under weaker laws are immunized. A double standard would be adopted and would be imposed on the States. A terrible precedent of a national standard would also be adopted and imposed on the States, superseding a State's ability should they choose to regulate concealed possesion of a firearm in their States by visiting criminal misdemeanants who do not meet their standards for concealed firearms possession. So while the Thune amendment says it doesn't preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, that is true only as to residents--it does preempt the right of the States to apply its laws as to who can carry a concealed weapon to all persons in the State, residents and nonresidents alike. Senator Thune's statement that everyone must comply with restrictions of States they are in is not accurate then as to the key restriction relating to who can carry concealed weapons. The amendment will also create serious problems for law enforcement. Law enforcement officials use concealed carry permits as an important tool in combating illegal trafficking. In most States, carrying a firearm without a permit is a crime. The Thune amendment would hamper law enforcement's ability to identify and arrest illegal traffickers before they are able to sell their weapons on the black market, for instance: This is one reason why the amendment is opposed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major Cities Chiefs Associations, Mayors Against Illegal Guns and State Legislatures Against Illegal Guns. The National Defense Authorization Act is enacted every year to help make this a safer nation. This amendment will not do that. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kyl be recognized as in morning business for 10 minutes, and that Senator Tester then be recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we are expecting that unanimous consent agreement can be propounded within the next few minutes so we can continue to press forward.

Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so that I may call up an amendment.

Mr. LEVIN. On behalf of Senator Kerry, Senator Lugar, and myself, I call up amendment No. 1761.

Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that amendment Nos. 1761 and 1597 be debated concurrently for up to 30 minutes, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Kerry and Brownback or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to amendment No. 1761, to be followed by a vote in relation to No. 1597; that no amendment be in order to either amendment; that prior to the second vote there be 2 minutes of debate divided as provided above.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the language in the Kerry amendment does one other thing relative to this report. It says if the United States determines that the Government of North Korea has indeed engaged in terrorist activities, then the Secretary of State shall ``immediately list North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism.'' So it requires a report in not more than 30 days. That could come at any time. But it also requires action if the Secretary of State makes the finding. The last administration, the Bush administration, delisted North Korea. They found there was no credible evidence of state-supported terrorism. We are a government of laws. Our laws provide for a listing of countries that engage in terrorist activities or support terrorist activities. It does not provide for a listing of countries that, no matter all of the other things they do which are so wrong, so bad, so objectionable to the international community, so justifiably producing sanctions and other kinds of diplomatic actions against them--regardless of those activities, unless they are a supporter of terrorist acts, our laws do not provide that they be put on the terrorist list. That is our law. That is what the Bush administration was applying when they delisted North Korea. North Korea is a country which engages in horrendous activities. That is not the issue. I don't know of anybody in this Senate who does not believe North Korea engages in repressive, authoritarian activities. I don't know of anybody in this Senate who does not believe the North Korean leadership is reprehensible in the way it treats its citizens. There is a long list of actions on the part of North Korea in terms of its pursuit of ballistic missiles, provocative actions it has taken of the testing of nuclear devices, firing a series of missiles. It has clearly solidified its status as a pariah of the region and of the international community at large. So the question isn't whether strong action should be taken. We should take strong action which will be effective against the government--not the people but the government--of North Korea. The Kerry amendment lays out a course of action, exploring additional sanctions so that we can put additional power and leverage against the Government of North Korea, as well as requiring our administration to consider whether the Government of North Korea should be listed again. And if so, if they find that under our law there is reason to put it back on the terrorist list, then they must, under the Kerry amendment, take that step. What the Kerry amendment avoids doing is what the Brownback amendment does in one part of the Brownback amendment, which is saying that the Government of North Korea should be on a list of terrorist states when the last thing we have heard from an American administration was from the Bush administration taking the North Korean Government off the list because they could not find credible evidence that the government took actions which would require it being placed on the list of terrorist states. So again, it seems to me that clearly our goals here are similar. I had hoped we might be able to reach a consensus on common language, but so long as this body expresses itself very strongly, as the Kerry and Lugar amendment does, it seems to me we will then have made an important statement to the Government of North Korea and at the same time avoided taking a step which our laws do not provide for. One of our arguments with North Korea is that they are lawless, they are a totalitarian government. Our government is a government of laws. We have a law that provides for the listing of countries that support terrorist acts. The administration, after a long assessment, concluded there was no credible evidence that North Korea engaged in the activities which appropriately required it or appropriately permitted it to be listed on the terrorist state list and therefore removed it from that list. That is the last action by the administration. By the way, being on that terrorist list did not change the actions or the activities of the Government of North Korea, in any event. I very much support that terrorist list. I very much support it being kept up to date and being used appropriately. But I don't think we should in any way kid ourselves as to whether being on that list is going to change the activities of North Korea. We need other countries to support us in putting maximum pressure on North Korea. When we act lawfully--when we put sanctions on North Korea, working with other countries, we are acting lawfully. If we do not abide by our own law which defines when a country will go on a terrorist list, we are setting the wrong example for the world, and it makes it more difficult for us to obtain the kind of support from other countries which we deserve in going after the abominable activities of the Government of North Korea. I don't know whether our side has any time left, but if we do, I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on both amendments.

Mr. LEVIN. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, after the conclusion of this vote, is there any pending amendment?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, to let folks know, I intend to ask for a quorum call immediately following this vote to try to work out an orderly way to proceed on amendments.

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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