Summary:

All articles in Senate section

Law Enforcement Protection Act of 1999
(Senate - March 25, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S3457-S3516] Law Enforcement Protection Act of 1999 Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill to authorize States to recognize each other's concealed weapons laws and exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms. This legislation is designed to support the rights of States and to facilitate the right of law-abiding citizens as well as law enforcement officers to protect themselves, their families, and their property. I am pleased to be joined by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch as an original cosponsor of this legislation. The language of this bill is based on my bill, S. 837, in the 105th Congress and is similar to a provision in S. 3, the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1997, introduced by Senator Hatch. In light of the importance of this provision to law-abiding gunowners and law enforcement officers, I am introducing this freestanding bill today for the Senate's consideration and prompt action. This bill allows States to enter into agreements, known as ``compacts,'' to recognize the concealed weapons laws of those States included in the compacts. This is not a Federal mandate; it is strictly voluntary for those States interested in this approach. States would also be allowed to include provisions which best meet their needs, such as special provisions for law enforcement personnel. This legislation would allow anyone possessing a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm in their respective State to also carry it in another State, provided that the States have entered into a compact agreement which recognizes the host State's right-to-carry laws. This is needed if you want to protect the security individuals enjoy in their own State when they travel or simply cross State lines to avoid a crazy quilt of differing laws. Currently, a Federal standard governs the conduct of nonresidents in those States that do not have a right-to-carry statute. Many of us in this body have always strived to protect the interests of States and communities by allowing them to make important decisions on how their affairs should be conducted. We are taking to the floor almost every day to talk about mandating certain things to the States. This bill would allow States to decide for themselves. Specifically, the bill allows that the law of each State govern conduct within that State where the State has a right-to-carry statute, and States determine through a compact agreement which out-of-State right-to-carry statute will be recognized. To date, 31 States have passed legislation making it legal to carry concealed weapons. These State laws enable citizens of those States to exercise their right to protect themselves, their families, and their property. The second major provision of this bill would allow qualified current and former law enforcement officers who are carrying appropriate written identification of that status to be exempt from State laws that prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons. This provision sets forth a checklist of stringent criteria that law enforcement officers must meet in order to qualify for this exemption status. Exempting qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, I believe, would add additional forces to our law enforcement community in our unwavering fight against crime. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 727 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Law Enforcement Protection Act of 1999''. [[Page S3458]] SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED CURRENT AND FORMER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS. (a) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926A the following: ``Sec. 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified current and former law enforcement officers ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision of a State, an individual may carry a concealed firearm if that individual is-- ``(1) a qualified law enforcement officer or a qualified former law enforcement officer; and ``(2) carrying appropriate written identification. ``(b) Effect on Other Laws.-- ``(1) Common carriers.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to exempt from section 46505(B)(1) of title 49-- ``(A) a qualified law enforcement officer who does not meet the requirements of section 46505(D) of title 49; or ``(B) a qualified former law enforcement officer. ``(2) Federal laws.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or limit any Federal law or regulation prohibiting or restricting the possession of a firearm on any Federal property, installation, building, base, or park. ``(3) State laws.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that-- ``(A) grant rights to carry a concealed firearm that are broader than the rights granted under this section; ``(B) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or ``(C) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park. ``(4) Definitions.--In this section: ``(A) Appropriate written identification.--The term `appropriate written identification' means, with respect to an individual, a document that-- ``(i) was issued to the individual by the public agency with which the individual serves or served as a qualified law enforcement officer; and ``(ii) identifies the holder of the document as a current or former officer, agent, or employee of the agency. ``(B) Qualified law enforcement officer.--The term `qualified law enforcement officer' means an individual who-- ``(i) is presently authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, or investigation of any violation of criminal law; ``(ii) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm in the course of duty; ``(iii) meets any requirements established by the agency with respect to firearms; and ``(iv) is not the subject of a disciplinary action by the agency that prevents the carrying of a firearm. ``(C) Qualified former law enforcement officer.--The term `qualified former law enforcement officer' means, an individual who is-- ``(i) retired from service with a public agency, other than for reasons of mental disability; ``(ii) immediately before such retirement, was a qualified law enforcement officer with that public agency; ``(iii) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the retirement plan of the agency; ``(iv) was not separated from service with a public agency due to a disciplinary action by the agency that prevented the carrying of a firearm; ``(v) meets the requirements established by the State in which the individual resides with respect to-- ``(I) training in the use of firearms; and ``(II) carrying a concealed weapon; and ``(vi) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm. ``(D) Firearm.--The term `firearm' means, any firearm that has, or of which any component has, traveled in interstate or foreign commerce.''. (b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926A the following: ``926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified current and former law enforcement officers.''. SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO INTERSTATE COMPACTS. (a) In General.--The consent of Congress is given to any 2 or more States-- (1) to enter into compacts or agreements for cooperative effort in enabling individuals to carry concealed weapons as dictated by laws of the State within which the owner of the weapon resides and is authorized to carry a concealed weapon; and (2) to establish agencies or guidelines as they may determine to be appropriate for making effective such agreements and compacts. (b) Reservation of Rights.--The right to alter, amend, or repeal this section is hereby expressly reserved by Congress. ______ By Mr. CAMPBELL: S. 728. A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to increase the maximum term of imprisonment for offenses involving stolen firearms; to the Committee on the Judiciary. Stolen Gun Penalty Enhancement Act of 1999 Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, many crimes in our country are being committed with stolen guns. The extent of this problem is reflected in a number of recent studies and news reports. Therefore, today I am introducing the Stolen Gun Penalty Enhancement Act of 1999 to increase the maximum prison sentences for violating existing stolen gun laws. Reports indicate that almost half a million guns are stolen each year. As of March 1995 there were over 2 million reports in the stolen gun file of the FBI's National Crime Information Center including 7,700 reports of stolen machine guns and submachine guns. In a 9 year period between 1985 and 1994, the FBI received an annual average of over 274,000 reports of stolen guns. Studies conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms note that felons steal firearms to avoid background checks. A 1991 Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of State prison inmates notes that almost 10 percent had stolen a handgun, and over 10 percent of all inmates had traded or sold a stolen firearm. This problem is especially alarming among young people. A Justice Department study of juvenile inmates in four states shows that over 50 percent of those inmates had stolen a gun. In the same study, gang members and drug sellers were more likely to have stolen a gun. In my home State of Colorado, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation receives over 500 reports of stolen guns each month. As of this month, the Bureau has a total of 36,000 firearms on its unrecovered firearms list. It is estimated that one-third of these firearms are categorized as handguns. All these studies and statistics show the extent of the problem of stolen guns. Therefore, the bill I am introducing today will increase the maximum prison sentences for violation of existing stolen gun laws. Specifically, my bill increases the maximum penalty for violating four provisions of the firearms laws. Under title 18 of the U.S. Code, it is illegal to knowingly transport or ship a stolen firearm or stolen ammunition. It is also illegal to knowingly receive, possess, conceal, store, sell, or otherwise dispose of a stolen firearm or stolen ammunition. The penalty for violating either of these provisions is a fine, a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years, or both. My bill increases the maximum prison sentence to 15 years. The third statutory provision makes it illegal to steal a firearm from a licensed dealer, importer, or manufacturer. For violating this provision, the maximum term of imprisonment would be increased to a maximum 15 years under by bill. And the fourth provision makes it illegal to steal a firearm from any person, including a licensed firearm collector, with a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. As with the other three provisions, my bill increases this maximum penalty to 15 years. In addition to these amendments to title 18 of the U.S. Code, the bill I introduce today directs the United States Sentencing Commission to revise the Federal sentencing guidelines with respect to these firearms offenses. Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of the rights of law-abiding gun owners. However, I firmly believe we need tough penalties for the illegal use of firearms. The Stolen Gun Penalty Enhancement Act of 1999 will send a strong signal to criminals who are even thinking about stealing a firearm. I urge my colleagues to join in support of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 728 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. STOLEN FIREARMS. (a) In General.--Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in subsection (a)-- (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(i), (j),''; and [[Page S3459]] (B) by adding at the end the following: ``(7) Whoever knowingly violates subsection (i) or (j) of section 922 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.''; (2) in subsection (i)(1), by striking ``10 years'' and inserting ``15 years''; and (3) in subsection (l), by striking ``10 years'' and inserting ``15 years''. (b) Sentencing Commission.--The United States Sentencing Commission shall amend the Federal sentencing guidelines to reflect the amendments made by subsection (a). ______ By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Lott, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Burns, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Hagel and Mr. Bennett): S. 729. A bill to ensure that Congress and the public have the right to participate in the declaration of national monuments on federal land; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. THE NATIONAL MONUMENT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACT OF 1999 Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that ensures the public will have a say in the management of our public lands. I am pleased that Senators Murkowski, Lott, Stevens, Burns, Gordon Smith, Crapo, Shelby, Hagel, and Bennett are joining me as original cosponsors. After President Clinton's proclamation of four years ago, declaring nearly two million acres of southern Utah a national monument, I introduced the Idaho Protection Act of 1999. That bill would have required that the public and the Congress be included before a national monument could be established in Idaho. When I introduced that bill, I was immediately approached by other Senators seeking the same protection for their state. This bill, The National Monument Public Participation Act, will provide that protection to all states. The National Monument Public Participation Act amends the Antiquities Act to require the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to provide an opportunity for public involvement prior to the designation of a national monument. It establishes procedures to give the public and local, State, and federal governments adequate notice and opportunity to comment on, and participate in, the formulation of plans for the declaration of national monuments on public lands. Under the 1906 Antiquities Act, the President has the unilateral authority to create a national monument where none existed before. In fact, since 1906, the law has been used some 66 times to set lands aside. It is important to note that with very few exceptions, these declarations occurred before enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which recognized the need for public involvement in such issues and mandated public comment periods before such decisions are made. The most recent use of the Antiquities Act came on September 18, 1996, with Presidential Proclamation 6920, Establishment of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Without including Utah's Governor, Senators, congressional delegation, the State legislature, county commissioners, or the people of Utah--President Clinton set off- limits forever approximately 1.7 million acres of Utah. What the President did in Utah, without public input, could also be done in Idaho or any other States where the federal government has a presence. That must not be allowed to happen. My state of Idaho is 63 percent federal lands. Within Idaho's boundaries, we have one National Historic Park, one National Reserve, two National Recreation Areas, and five Wilderness Areas, just to name the major federally designated natural resource areas. This amounts to approximately 4.8 million acres, or to put things in perspective, the size of the state of New Jersey. Each of these designations has had public involvement and consent of Congress before being designated. As you can tell, the public process has worked in the past, in my state, and I believe it will continue to work in the future. In Idaho, each of these National designations generated concerns among those affected by the designation, but with the public process, we were able to work through most of the concerns before the designation was made. Individuals who would be affected by the National designation had time to prepare, but Utah was not as fortunate. With the overnight designation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, the local communities, and the State and federal agencies were left to pick up the pieces and work out all the ``details.'' The President's action in Utah has been a wake-up call to people across America.We all want to preserve what is best in our States, and I understand and support the need to protect valuable resources. That is why this bill will not, in any way, affect the ability of the federal government to make emergency withdrawals under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). If an area is truly worthy of a National Monument designation, Congress will make that designation during the time frame provided in FLPMA. Our public lands are a national asset that we all treasure and enjoy. Westerners are especially proud of their public lands and have a stake in the management of these lands, but people everywhere also understand that much of their economic future is tied up in what happens on their public lands. In the West, where public lands dominate the landscape, issues such as grazing, timber harvesting, water use, and recreation access have all come under attack by this administration seemingly bent upon kowtowing to a segment of our population that wants these uses kicked off our public lands. Everyone wants public lands decisions to be made in an open and inclusive process. No one wants the President, acting alone, to unilaterally lock up enormous parts of any State. We certainly don't work that way in the West. There is a recognition that with common sense, a balance can be struck that allows jobs to grow and families to put down roots while at the same time protecting America's great natural resources. In my view, the President's actions in Utah were beyond the pale, and for that reason--to protect others from suffering a similar fate I am introducing this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill appear in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 729 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``National Monument Public Participation Act of 1999''. SEC. 2. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Act is to ensure that Congress and the public have the right and opportunity to participate in decisions to declare national monuments on Federal land. SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION OF CONGRESSIONAL AND PUBLIC ROLES IN DECLARATION OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS. The Act entitled ``An Act for the preservation of American antiquities'', approved June 8, 1906 (commonly known as the ``Antiquities Act of 1906'') (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), is amended by adding at the end the following: ``SEC. 5. CONGRESSIONAL AND PUBLIC ROLES IN NATIONAL MONUMENT DECLARATIONS. ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall promulgate regulations that establish procedures to ensure that Federal, State, and local governments and the public have the right to participate in the formulation of plans relating to the declaration of a national monument on Federal land on or after the date of enactment of this section, including procedures-- ``(1) to provide the public with adequate notice and opportunity to comment on and participate in the declaration of a national monument on Federal land; and ``(2) for public hearings, when appropriate, on the declaration of a national monument on Federal land. ``(b) Other Duties.--Prior to making any recommendations for declaration of a national monument in an area, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall-- ``(1) ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, compliance with all applicable Federal land management and environmental laws, including the completion of a programmatic environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); ``(2) cause mineral surveys to be conducted by the Geological Survey to determine the mineral values, if any, that may be present in the area; ``(3) cause an assessment of the surface resource values of the land to be completed and made available by the appropriate agencies; ``(4) identify all existing rights held on Federal land contained within the area by type and acreage; and ``(5) identify all State and private land contained within the area. [[Page S3460]] ``(c) Recommendations.--On completion of the reviews and mineral surveys required under subsection (b), the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture shall submit to the President recommendations as to whether any area on Federal land warrants declaration as a national monument. ``(d) Federal Action.--Any study or recommendation under this section shall be considered a federal action for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). ``(e) Reports.--Not later than 2 years after the receipt of a recommendation under subsection (c), the President shall-- ``(1) advise the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the President's recommendation with respect to whether each area evaluated should be declared a national monument; and ``(2) provide a map and description of the boundaries of each area evaluated for declaration to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. ``(f) Declaration After Effective Date.--A recommendation of the President for declaration of a national monument that is made after the effective date of this section shall become effective only if the declaration is approved by Act of Congress.''. Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon in support of the National Monument Public Participation Act of 1999. This legislation puts the ``Public'' back into public land management and the ``Environment'' back into environmental protection. Passage of this Act will insure that all the gains we have made over the past quarter century in creating an open participatory government which affords strong environmental protection for our public lands are protected. For those of you who thought those battles were fought and ``won'' with the passage of National Environmental Protection Act in 1969, the Federal Land Policy Management Act in 1976, and the National Forest Management Act of 1976, I have bad news. There is one last battle to be fought. Standing in this very Chamber on January 30, 1975, Senator Henry M. ``Scoop'' Jackson spoke to the passion Americans feel for their public lands. He said: The public lands of the United States have always provided the arena in which we American's have struggled to fulfill our dreams. Even today dreams of wealth, adventure, and escape are still being acted out on these far flung lands. These lands and the dreams--fulfilled and unfulfilled--which they foster are a part of our national destiny. They belong to all Americans. Amazingly, there exists today ``legal'' authorities by which the President, without public process or Congressional approval and without any environmental review, can create vast special management units. Special management units which can affect how millions of acres of our public lands are managed, what people can do on these lands, and what the future will be for surrounding communities. This is a powerful trust to bestow upon anyone--even a President. On September 12, 1996, the good people of Utah woke up to find themselves the most recent recipient of a philosophy that says: ``Trust us we're from the federal government, and we know what's best for you''. On that day, standing in the State of Arizona, the President invoked the 1906 Antiquities Act to create a 1.7 million acre Nation Monument in Southern Utah. By using this antiquated law the President was able to avoid this nation's environmental laws and ignore public participation laws. With one swipe of the pen, every shred of public input and environmental law promulgated in this country over the past quarter of a century was shoved into the trash heap of political expediency. What happened in Utah is but the latest example of a small cadre of Administration officials deciding for all Americans how our public lands should be used. It is a classic example of a backroom deal, catering to special interests at the expense of the public. It is by no means the only one. As a Senator from Alaska, I have a great deal of personal experience in this area. In 1978, President Jimmy Carter used this law to create ``17'' National Monuments in Alaska covering more than 55 millions acres of land. This was followed in short order by this Secretary of the Interior Cecil Andrus who withdrew an additional 50 million acres. All this land was withdrawn from multiple uses without any input from the people of Alaska, the public, or the Congress of the United States. All this occurred while Congress was considering legislation affecting these lands, while Congress was conducting workshops throughout Alaska and holding hearings in Washington, DC to involve the public. With over 100 million acres of withdrawn land held over Alaska's head like the sword of Damocles, we were forced to cut the best deal we could. Twenty years later the people of my state are still struggling to cope with the weight of these decisions. President Carter cut his deal for his special interests to avoid the public debate on legislation, just as President Clinton did with the Grand Staircase/ Escalante. I would not be here this afternoon if the public, and Congress were not systematically being denied a voice in the creation of National Monuments. I would not be here if environmental procedures were being followed. But the people of this nation are being denied the opportunity to speak, Congress is being denied its opportunity to participate, and environmental procedure are being ignored. The only voice we hear is that of the President. Without bothering to ask what we thought about it, he told the citizens of Utah and the rest of the country that he knew better than they what was best for them. It has been a long time since anyone has had the right to make those kinds of unilateral public land use decisions for the American public. Since passage of the Forest Service Organic Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act in 1976 we have had a rock hard system of law on how public land use decisions are to be made. Embodied within these laws are public participation. Agencies propose an action, they present that action to the public, the public debates the issue, bad decisions can be appealed, the courts resolve disputes, and finally the management unit is created. Where was this public participation in the special use designation of 1.7 million acres of federal land in southern Utah? Since the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969 activities which effect the environment are subject to strict environmental reviews. Does anyone believe there is no environmental threat posed by the creation of a national monument? The economic and social consequences of this decision will have enormous and irrevocable impacts not only on the land immediately affected, but on surrounding lands and communities. All these effects on the human environment would have been evaluated under the land management statutes and the environmental procedural review. Where is the NEPA compliance documentation associated with this action? The Constitutions explicitly provides that ``The Congress shall have the power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.'' The creation of specialized public use designations such as National Parks and Wilderness Areas are debated within the Halls of Congress. These Debates provide for the financial and legal responsibilities which come with the creation of special management units. Where are the proceedings from those debates? They simply do not exist because, in the heat of political expediency, the Administration determined that public process, environmental analyses, and Congressional deliberations were a waste of time. Mr. President, either you believe in public process or you do not, you can't have it both ways. We can no longer trust the Administration to involve the public in major land use decisions and we can no longer tolerate the blanket evasion of the laws designed to protect our natural resources. The time has come for Congress to reassert its Constitutional responsibility under Article IV. The legislation which Senator Craig and I offer today will require that any future designations of National Monuments to follow the public participation principals laid down in law over the past 25 years. No poetic images, no flowery words, no smoke and mirrors, no special coverage on Good Morning America, just good old fashion public land management process. Before these special land management units can be created, our legislation will require that agencies gather and analyze resource data affected by these land use decisions; that full public participation in the designation of [[Page S3461]] the units takes place (with all appeal rights protected); that there be compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act; and that Congress review and approve final designation. No longer will an administration be able to side-step public participation and environmental reviews to further its political agenda and cater to special interest. Nobody--not even the President--should be above the law. The National Monument Participation Act will make all future land use decisions a joint responsibility of the public through the Congress, that they elect. This legislation reasserts the Constitutional role of the Congress in public land decisions. I do not question the need for National Monuments. If the national benefit can be demonstrated, then by all means a national monument should be created. But, if they are to serve the common good, they must be created under the same system of land management law that has managed the use of the public domain for the past 25 years and pursuant to the document that has governed this Nation for the past 225 years. There has always been a sacred bond between the American people and the lands they hold in common ownership. No one-regardless of high station or political influence--has the right to impose his will over the means by which the destiny of those land is decided. This legislation re-establishes that bond. Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to join a number of my colleagues in introducing The National Monument Participation Act of 1999. This bill would amend the Antiquities Act of 1906 to clearly establish the roles for public participation and Congressional involvement in declaring national monuments on federal lands. This bill requires specific processes and requirements to ensure that the public, local, state, and Federal government are both informed and involved in the formulation of any plans to declare national monuments on federal lands. It requires that the public be actively involved in the formulation of any plans to declare a national monument. Considering the recent controversy surrounding the designation of monuments with the stroke of a pen rather than through open debate and assessment, it only makes sense to include the public in any future designation decisions. I remind my colleagues and the administration that we are managing our land resources for the people. This bill suggests that perhaps we should listen to them before drastically changing the management of our land resources. Additionally, the legislation requires that the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture perform an assessment of current land uses on the land proposed for designation. This is necessary to provide information about the impact of declaring any national monument before recommendations are made by the President. It makes absolutely no sense to pursue designation changes without learning what is at stake. What mineral interests are affected? Does it change traditional grazing uses? These are questions that will have to be answered before new monuments are designated. The legislation also requires that we look at the impact a monument would have on state or private land holdings. Once again, common sense is needed. If the federal designation change affects state an private lands, Congress must be informed of these impacts before a decision is finally reached. It is irresponsible to make decisions without the proper information. Finally, this legislation would require the President to submit his decision on these recommendations to the Congress for final review and approval. If we are going to change our designations and impact local communities, Congress must weigh in on the decision. Public involvement in federal decision making is critical today to ensure that local citizens are involved in the decision changing how federal lands near their homes are used. This bill will mandate broader involvement to ensure the public and the legislative branch have an opportunity to participate in any plans to establish new national monuments on federal lands. In addition, this ensures the information is available for the public and ourselves to understand the impacts of any proposed declaration and make an informed decision. Overall, I believe this bill establishes a clear set of roles and responsibilities for all parties involved in the declaration of new national monuments on federal lands to ensure that such decisions are made in a manner that respects the rights of both local communities and the interests of the nation as a whole. I encourage my colleagues to carefully examine this legislation and lend their support to its ultimate passage. Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today as an original co- sponsor of the National Monument Public Participation Act of 1999. I commend my colleague, Senator Craig, for bringing forward this important measure and am pleased to offer it my support. The National Monument Public Participation Act of 1999 will establish guidelines for public and local, State, and federal government involvement in the designation and planning of national monuments. Currently, under the 1906 Antiquities Act, the President has the authority to proclaim a national monument and determine its composition and scope without any prior or subsequent public involvement. Although this authority has rarely been invoked since the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which mandates public comment periods prior to federal land management actions, the recent exercise of this authority by the current Administration has called attention to the need to revise the Antiquities Act. These proposed amendments to the Antiquities Act reflect the contemporary recognition that public involvement in federal land management decisions is both proper and beneficial. This measure, beyond requiring the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to include the public and the different levels of government in the decision to designate and form national monuments, also directs the Secretaries to research and make available information about the land to be designated. Factors such as the mineral values present and identification of existing rights held on federal lands within the area to be designated have an obvious bearing on the decision of whether designation is appropriate and, if it is, how it should be structured. An understanding of these factors should be a part of an inclusive decision-making process and, hence, it is appropriate to require that they be explored and publicly shared prior to the designation of a national monument. The strongest protection, however, that the National Monument Public Participation Act of 1999 provides for public oversight of national monument designation is the requirement that any recommendation of the President for declaration of land as a national monument shall become effective only if so provided by an Act of Congress. By subjecting proposals for monument designations to congressional approval, this Act ensures that when national monuments are established they are truly supported, both nationally and by local communities. This Act provides an important level of protection for public involvement in land use issues and I am pleased to offer it my support. ______ By Mr. DURBIN: S. 730. A bill to direct the Consumer Product Safety Commission to promulgate fire safety standards for cigarettes, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. fire safe cigarette act of 1999 Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the First Safe Cigarette Act of 1999. This legislation would solve a serious fire safety problem, namely, fires that are caused by a carelessly discarded cigarette. The statistics regarding cigarette-related fires are truly startling. In 1996 there were 169,500 cigarette-related first that resulted in 1,181 deaths, 2,931 injuries and $452 million in property damage. According to the National Fire Protection Association, one out of every four fire deaths in the United States in 1996 was attributed to tobacco products. In my state of Illinois, cigarette-related fires have also caused too many senseless tragedies. In 1997, alone, there were more than 1,700 cigarette-related fires, of which more than 900 [[Page S3462]] were in people's homes. These fires led to 109 injuries and 8 deaths. Also in 1997, smoking-related fires in Illinois led to property loss of more than $10.4 million. According to statistics from the U.S. Fire Administration, half of the known residential fire deaths in Illinois from 1993 to 1995 were from arson and careless smoking. During that three-year period, 69 deaths in Illinois were attributed to careless smoking. A Technical Study Group (TSG) was created by the Federal Cigarette Safety Act in 1984 to investigate the technological and commercial feasibility of creating a self-extinguishing cigarette. This group was made up of representatives of government agencies, the cigarette industry, the furniture industry, public health organizations and fire safety organizations. The TSG produced two reports that concluded that it is technically feasible to reduce the ignition propensity of cigarettes. The manufacture of less fire-prone cigarettes may require some advances in cigarette design and manufacturing technology, but the cigarette companies have demonstrated their capability to make cigarettes of reduced ignition propensity with no increase in tar, nicotine or carbon monoxide in the smoke. For example, six current commercial cigarettes have been tested which already have reduced ignition propensity. The technology is in place now to begin developing a performance standard for less fire prone cigarettes. Furthermore, the overall impact on other aspects of the United States society and economy will be minimal. Thus, it may be possible to solve this problem at costs that are much less than the potential benefits, which are saving lives and avoiding injuries and property damage. The Fire Safe Cigarette Act would give the Consumer Product Safety Commission the authority to promulgate a fire safety standard for cigarettes. Eighteen months after the legislation is enacted, the Consumer Product Safety Commission would issue a rule creating a safety standard for cigarettes. Thirty months after the legislation is enacted, the standards would become effective for the manufacture and importation of cigarettes. Here are some examples of changes that could be made to cigarettes that would reduce the likelihood of fire ignition: reduced circumference or thinner cigarettes, making the paper less porous, changing the density of the tobacco in cigarettes, and eliminating or reducing the citrate added to the cigarette paper. Also, there is limited evidence suggesting that the presence of a filter may reduce ignition propensity. Again, there are cigarettes on the market right now that show some of these characteristics and are less likely to smolder and cause fires. While the number of people killed each year by fires is dropping because of safety improvements and other factors, too many Americans are dying because of a product that could be less likely to catch fire if simple changes were made. I strongly believe that this issue demands immediate and swift action in order to prevent further deaths and injuries. An industry that can afford to spend more than $4 billion in advertising every year cannot claim it would be too expensive to make these changes. It is not unreasonable to ask these companies to make their products less likely to burn down a house. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 730 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, FINDINGS. (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Fire Safe Cigarette Act of 1999''. (b) Findings.--Congress finds that-- (1) cigarette ignited fires are the leading cause of fire deaths in the United States, (2) in 1996 cigarette ignited fires caused-- (A) 1,083 deaths; (B) 2,809 civilian injuries; and (C) $420,000,000 in property damage; (3) each year, more than 100 children are killed from cigarette-related fires; (4) the technical work necessary to achieve a cigarette fire safety standard has been accomplished under the Cigarette Safety Act of 1984 (15 U.S.C. 2054 note) and the Fire Safe Cigarette Act of 1990 (15 U.S.C. 2054 note); (5) it is appropriate for Congress to require the establishment of a cigarette fire safety standard for the manufacture and importation of cigarettes; (6) the most recent study by the Consumer Product Safety Commission found that the cost of the loss of human life and personal property from the absence of a cigarette fire safety standard is $6,000,000,000 a year; and (7) it is appropriate that the regulatory expertise of the Consumer Product Safety Commission be used to implement a cigarette fire safety standard. SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. In this Act: (1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Consumer Product Safety Commission. (2) Cigarette.--The term ``cigarette'' has the meaning given that term in section 3 of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (15 U.S.C. 1332). (3) Stockpiling.--The term ``stockpiling'' means the manufacturing or importing of a cigarette during the period beginning on the date of promulgation of a rule under section 3(a) and ending on the effective date of that rule, at a rate greater than the rate at which cigarettes were manufactured or imported during the 1-year period immediately preceding the date of promulgation of that rule. SEC. 3. CIGARETTE FIRE SAFETY STANDARD. (a) In General.-- (1) Promulgation of cigarette fire safety standard.--Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall promulgate a rule that establishes a cigarette fire safety standard for cigarettes to reduce the risk of ignition presented by cigarettes. (2) Requirements.--In establishing the cigarette fire safety standard under paragraph (1), the Commission shall-- (A) consult with the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and make use of such capabilities of the as the Commission considers necessary; (B) seek the advice and expertise of the heads of other Federal agencies and State agencies engaged in fire safety; and (C) take into account the final report to Congress made by the Commission and the Technical Study Group on Cigarette and Little Cigar Fire Safety established under section 3 of the Fire Safe Cigarette Act of 1990 (15 U.S.C. 2054 note), that includes a finding that cigarettes with a low ignition propensity were already on the market at the time of the preparation of the report. (b) Stockpiling.--The Commission shall include in the rule promulgated under subsection (a) a prohibition on the stockpiling of cigarettes covered by the rule. (c) Effective Date of Rule.--The rule promulgated under subsection (a) shall take effect not later than 30 months after the date of the enactment of this Act. (d) Procedure.-- (1) In general.--The rule under subsection (a) shall be promulgated in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code. (2) Construction.--Except as provided in paragraph (1), no other provision of Federal law shall be construed to apply with respect to the promulgation of a rule under subsection (a), including-- (A) the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq.); (B) chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code; (C) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and (D) the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121) and the amendments made by that Act. (e) Judicial Review.-- (1) General rule.-- (A) In general.--Any person who is adversely affected by the rule promulgated under subsection (a) may, at any time before the 60th day after the Commission promulgates the rule, file a petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or for any other circuit in which that person resides or has its principal place of business to obtain judicial review of the rule. (B) Petition.--Upon the filing of a petition under subparagraph (A), a copy of the petition shall be transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Secretary of Commerce. The Commission shall file in the court the record of the proceedings on which the Commission based the rule, in the same manner as is prescribed for the review of an order issued by an agency under section 2112 of title 28, United States Code. (2) Additional evidence.-- (A) In general.--With respect to a petition filed under paragraph (1), the court may order additional evidence (and evidence in rebuttal thereof) to be taken before the Commission in a hearing or in such other manner, and upon such terms and conditions, as the court considers appropriate, if the petitioner-- (i) applies to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence; and (ii) demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the court, that-- (I) such additional evidence is material; and (II) there was no opportunity to adduce such evidence in the proceeding before the Commission. (B) Modification.--With respect to the rule promulgated by the Commission under subsection (a), the Commission-- (i) may modify the findings of fact of the Commission, or make new findings, by reason of any additional evidence taken by a court under subparagraph (A); and [[Page S3463]] (ii) if the Commission makes a modification under clause (i), shall file with the court the modified or new findings, together with such recommendations as the Commission determines to be appropriate, for the modification of the rule, to be promulgated as a final rule under subsection (a). (3) Court jurisdiction.--Upon the filing of a petition under paragraph (1), the court shall have jurisdiction to review the rule of the Commission, as modified under paragraph (2), in accordance with chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code. (f) Small Business Review.--Section 30 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657) shall not apply with respect to-- (1) a cigarette fire safety standard promulgated by the Commission under subsection (a); or (2) any agency action taken to enforce that standard. SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT. (a) Prohibition.--No person may-- (1) manufacture or import a cigarette, unless the cigarette is in compliance with a cigarette fire safety standard promulgated under section 3(a); or (2) fail to provide information as required under this Act. (b) Penalty.--A violation of subsection (a) shall be considered a violation of section 19 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2068). SEC. 5. PREEMPTION. (a) In General.--This Act, including the cigarette fire safety standard promulgated under section 3(a), shall not be construed to preempt or otherwise affect in any manner any law of a State or political subdivision thereof that prescribes a fire safety standard for cigarettes that is more stringent than the standard promulgated under section 3(a). (b) Defenses.--In any civil action for damages, compliance with the fire safety standard promulgated under section 3(a) may not be admitted as a defense. ______ By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Dodd): S. 731. A bill to provide for substantial reductions in the price of prescription drugs for medicare beneficiaries; to the Committee on Finance. the prescription drug fairness for seniors act Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are well on our way to doubling the budget of the National Institutes of Health. Scientists are discovering new cures and developing new therapies for previously incurable and untreatable illnesses on a regular basis. Breakthrough medications are modern medical miracles that allow people with previously crippling conditions to lead normal lives. Yet too many of our nation's elderly citizens are denied access to these life-saving and life-improving therapies because they lack basic coverage for prescription medications. Today I am introducing the ``Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act of 1999,'' the Senate companion bill to H.R. 664, introduced in the House last month by Representatives Tom Allen, Jim Turner, Marion Berry, Henry Waxman, and sixty-one other House Members. This legislation responds to the need for affordable prescription drugs for senior citizens by requiring pharmaceutical companies to make the same discounts available to senior citizens that are offered to their most favored customers. Prescription drugs represent the largest single source of out-of-pocket costs for health services paid for by the elderly. The Prescription Drug Fairness Act will provide significant benefits to elderly citizens struggling to pay for the prescription drugs they need. This Act represents one important way to improve senior citizens' access to affordable medications. Other steps are necessary as well to deal with the overall prescription drug crisis facing millions of elderly citizens. I plan to introduce legislation soon that will offer additional protections. Providing fair access to prescription drugs for senior citizens is a high priority, and I hope to see quick action by Congress on this critical issue this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 731 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act of 1999''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following: (1) Manufacturers of prescription drugs engage in price discrimination practices that compel many older Americans to pay substantially more for prescription drugs than the drug manufacturers' most favored customers, such as health insurers, health maintenance organizations, and the Federal Government. (2) On average, older Americans who buy their own prescription drugs pay twice as much for prescription drugs as the drug manufacturers' most favored customers. In some cases, older Americans pay over 15 times more for prescription drugs than the most favored customers. (3) The discriminatory pricing by major drug manufacturers sustains their annual profits of $20,000,000,000, but causes financial hardship and impairs the health and well-being of millions of older Americans. More than 1 in 8 older Americans are forced to choose between buying their food and buying their medicines. (4) Most federally funded health care programs, including medicaid, the Veterans Health Administration, the Public Health Service, and the Indian Health Service, obtain prescription drugs for their beneficiaries at low prices. Medicare beneficiaries are denied this benefit and cannot obtain their prescription drugs at the favorable prices available to other federally funded health care programs. (5) Implementation of the policy set forth in this Act is estimated to reduce prescription drug prices for medicare beneficiaries by more than 40 percent. (6) In addition to substantially lowering the costs of prescription drugs for older Americans, implementation of the policy set forth in this Act will significantly improve the health and well-being of older Americans and lower the costs to the Federal taxpayer of the medicare program. (7) Older Americans who are terminally ill and receiving hospice care services represent some of the most vulnerable individuals in our Nation. Making prescription drugs available to medicare beneficiaries under the care of medicare-certified hospices will assist in extending the benefits of lower prescription drug prices to those most vulnerable and in need. (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to protect medicare beneficiaries from discriminatory pricing by drug manufacturers and to make prescription drugs available to medicare beneficiaries at substantially reduced prices. SEC. 3. PARTICIPATING MANUFACTURERS. (a) In General.--Each participating manufacturer of a covered outpatient drug shall make available for purchase by each pharmacy such covered outpatient drug in the amount described in subsection (b) at the price described in subsection (c). (b) Description of Amount of Drugs.--The amount of a covered outpatient drug that a participating manufacturer shall make available for purchase by a pharmacy is an amount equal to the aggregate amount of the covered outpatient drug sold or distributed by the pharmacy to medicare beneficiaries. (c) Description of Price.--The price at which a participating manufacturer shall make a covered outpatient drug available for purchase by a pharmacy is the price equal to the lower of the following: (1) The lowest price paid for the covered outpatient drug by any agency or department of the United States. (2) The manufacturer's best price for the covered outpatient drug, as defined in section 1927(c)(1)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-8(c)(1)(C)). SEC. 4. SPECIAL PROVISION WITH RESPECT TO HOSPICE PROGRAMS. For purposes of determining the amount of a covered outpatient drug that a participating manufacturer shall make available for purchase by a pharmacy under section 3, there shall be included in the calculation of such amount the amount of the covered outpatient drug sold or distributed by a pharmacy to a hospice program. In calculating such amount, only amounts of the covered outpatient drug furnished to a medicare beneficiary enrolled in the hospice program shall be included. SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION. The Secretary shall issue such regulations as may be necessary to implement this Act. SEC. 6. REPORTS TO CONGRESS REGARDING EFFECTIVENESS OF ACT. (a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall report to Congress regarding the effectiveness of this Act in-- (1) protecting medicare beneficiaries from discriminatory pricing by drug manufacturers; and (2) making prescription drugs available to medicare beneficiaries at substantially reduced prices. (b) Consultation.--In preparing such reports, the Secretary shall consult with public health experts, affected industries, organizations representing consumers and older Americans, and other interested persons. (c) Recommendations.--The Secretary shall include in such reports any recommendations that the Secretary considers appropriate for changes in this Act to further reduce the cost of covered outpatient drugs to medicare beneficiaries. SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS. In this Act: (1) Participating manufacturer.--The term ``participating manufacturer'' means [[Page S3464]] any manufacturer of drugs or biologicals that, on or after the date of enactment of this Act, enters into or renews a contract or agreement with the United States for the sale or distribution of covered outpatient drugs to the United States. (2) Covered outpatient drug.--The term ``covered outpatient drug'' has the meaning given that term in section 1927(k)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-8(k)(2)). (3) Medicare beneficiary.--The term ``medicare beneficiary'' means an individual entitled to benefits under part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act or enrolled under part B of such title, or both. (4) Hospice program.--The term ``hospice program'' has the meaning given that term under section 1861(dd)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(2)). (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Health and Human Services. SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE. The Secretary shall implement this Act as expeditiously as practicable and in a manner consistent with the obligations of the United States. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, today by introducing the ``Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act of 1999''. Earlier this year, Representatives Tom Allen, Jim Turner, Marion Barry, and Henry Waxman were joined by sixty-one of their colleagues when they introduced H.R. 664, ``The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act of 1999'' in the U.S. House of Representatives. This legislation address

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

Law Enforcement Protection Act of 1999
(Senate - March 25, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S3457-S3516] Law Enforcement Protection Act of 1999 Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill to authorize States to recognize each other's concealed weapons laws and exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms. This legislation is designed to support the rights of States and to facilitate the right of law-abiding citizens as well as law enforcement officers to protect themselves, their families, and their property. I am pleased to be joined by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch as an original cosponsor of this legislation. The language of this bill is based on my bill, S. 837, in the 105th Congress and is similar to a provision in S. 3, the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1997, introduced by Senator Hatch. In light of the importance of this provision to law-abiding gunowners and law enforcement officers, I am introducing this freestanding bill today for the Senate's consideration and prompt action. This bill allows States to enter into agreements, known as ``compacts,'' to recognize the concealed weapons laws of those States included in the compacts. This is not a Federal mandate; it is strictly voluntary for those States interested in this approach. States would also be allowed to include provisions which best meet their needs, such as special provisions for law enforcement personnel. This legislation would allow anyone possessing a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm in their respective State to also carry it in another State, provided that the States have entered into a compact agreement which recognizes the host State's right-to-carry laws. This is needed if you want to protect the security individuals enjoy in their own State when they travel or simply cross State lines to avoid a crazy quilt of differing laws. Currently, a Federal standard governs the conduct of nonresidents in those States that do not have a right-to-carry statute. Many of us in this body have always strived to protect the interests of States and communities by allowing them to make important decisions on how their affairs should be conducted. We are taking to the floor almost every day to talk about mandating certain things to the States. This bill would allow States to decide for themselves. Specifically, the bill allows that the law of each State govern conduct within that State where the State has a right-to-carry statute, and States determine through a compact agreement which out-of-State right-to-carry statute will be recognized. To date, 31 States have passed legislation making it legal to carry concealed weapons. These State laws enable citizens of those States to exercise their right to protect themselves, their families, and their property. The second major provision of this bill would allow qualified current and former law enforcement officers who are carrying appropriate written identification of that status to be exempt from State laws that prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons. This provision sets forth a checklist of stringent criteria that law enforcement officers must meet in order to qualify for this exemption status. Exempting qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, I believe, would add additional forces to our law enforcement community in our unwavering fight against crime. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 727 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Law Enforcement Protection Act of 1999''. [[Page S3458]] SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED CURRENT AND FORMER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS. (a) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926A the following: ``Sec. 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified current and former law enforcement officers ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision of a State, an individual may carry a concealed firearm if that individual is-- ``(1) a qualified law enforcement officer or a qualified former law enforcement officer; and ``(2) carrying appropriate written identification. ``(b) Effect on Other Laws.-- ``(1) Common carriers.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to exempt from section 46505(B)(1) of title 49-- ``(A) a qualified law enforcement officer who does not meet the requirements of section 46505(D) of title 49; or ``(B) a qualified former law enforcement officer. ``(2) Federal laws.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or limit any Federal law or regulation prohibiting or restricting the possession of a firearm on any Federal property, installation, building, base, or park. ``(3) State laws.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that-- ``(A) grant rights to carry a concealed firearm that are broader than the rights granted under this section; ``(B) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or ``(C) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park. ``(4) Definitions.--In this section: ``(A) Appropriate written identification.--The term `appropriate written identification' means, with respect to an individual, a document that-- ``(i) was issued to the individual by the public agency with which the individual serves or served as a qualified law enforcement officer; and ``(ii) identifies the holder of the document as a current or former officer, agent, or employee of the agency. ``(B) Qualified law enforcement officer.--The term `qualified law enforcement officer' means an individual who-- ``(i) is presently authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, or investigation of any violation of criminal law; ``(ii) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm in the course of duty; ``(iii) meets any requirements established by the agency with respect to firearms; and ``(iv) is not the subject of a disciplinary action by the agency that prevents the carrying of a firearm. ``(C) Qualified former law enforcement officer.--The term `qualified former law enforcement officer' means, an individual who is-- ``(i) retired from service with a public agency, other than for reasons of mental disability; ``(ii) immediately before such retirement, was a qualified law enforcement officer with that public agency; ``(iii) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the retirement plan of the agency; ``(iv) was not separated from service with a public agency due to a disciplinary action by the agency that prevented the carrying of a firearm; ``(v) meets the requirements established by the State in which the individual resides with respect to-- ``(I) training in the use of firearms; and ``(II) carrying a concealed weapon; and ``(vi) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm. ``(D) Firearm.--The term `firearm' means, any firearm that has, or of which any component has, traveled in interstate or foreign commerce.''. (b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926A the following: ``926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified current and former law enforcement officers.''. SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO INTERSTATE COMPACTS. (a) In General.--The consent of Congress is given to any 2 or more States-- (1) to enter into compacts or agreements for cooperative effort in enabling individuals to carry concealed weapons as dictated by laws of the State within which the owner of the weapon resides and is authorized to carry a concealed weapon; and (2) to establish agencies or guidelines as they may determine to be appropriate for making effective such agreements and compacts. (b) Reservation of Rights.--The right to alter, amend, or repeal this section is hereby expressly reserved by Congress. ______ By Mr. CAMPBELL: S. 728. A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to increase the maximum term of imprisonment for offenses involving stolen firearms; to the Committee on the Judiciary. Stolen Gun Penalty Enhancement Act of 1999 Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, many crimes in our country are being committed with stolen guns. The extent of this problem is reflected in a number of recent studies and news reports. Therefore, today I am introducing the Stolen Gun Penalty Enhancement Act of 1999 to increase the maximum prison sentences for violating existing stolen gun laws. Reports indicate that almost half a million guns are stolen each year. As of March 1995 there were over 2 million reports in the stolen gun file of the FBI's National Crime Information Center including 7,700 reports of stolen machine guns and submachine guns. In a 9 year period between 1985 and 1994, the FBI received an annual average of over 274,000 reports of stolen guns. Studies conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms note that felons steal firearms to avoid background checks. A 1991 Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of State prison inmates notes that almost 10 percent had stolen a handgun, and over 10 percent of all inmates had traded or sold a stolen firearm. This problem is especially alarming among young people. A Justice Department study of juvenile inmates in four states shows that over 50 percent of those inmates had stolen a gun. In the same study, gang members and drug sellers were more likely to have stolen a gun. In my home State of Colorado, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation receives over 500 reports of stolen guns each month. As of this month, the Bureau has a total of 36,000 firearms on its unrecovered firearms list. It is estimated that one-third of these firearms are categorized as handguns. All these studies and statistics show the extent of the problem of stolen guns. Therefore, the bill I am introducing today will increase the maximum prison sentences for violation of existing stolen gun laws. Specifically, my bill increases the maximum penalty for violating four provisions of the firearms laws. Under title 18 of the U.S. Code, it is illegal to knowingly transport or ship a stolen firearm or stolen ammunition. It is also illegal to knowingly receive, possess, conceal, store, sell, or otherwise dispose of a stolen firearm or stolen ammunition. The penalty for violating either of these provisions is a fine, a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years, or both. My bill increases the maximum prison sentence to 15 years. The third statutory provision makes it illegal to steal a firearm from a licensed dealer, importer, or manufacturer. For violating this provision, the maximum term of imprisonment would be increased to a maximum 15 years under by bill. And the fourth provision makes it illegal to steal a firearm from any person, including a licensed firearm collector, with a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. As with the other three provisions, my bill increases this maximum penalty to 15 years. In addition to these amendments to title 18 of the U.S. Code, the bill I introduce today directs the United States Sentencing Commission to revise the Federal sentencing guidelines with respect to these firearms offenses. Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of the rights of law-abiding gun owners. However, I firmly believe we need tough penalties for the illegal use of firearms. The Stolen Gun Penalty Enhancement Act of 1999 will send a strong signal to criminals who are even thinking about stealing a firearm. I urge my colleagues to join in support of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 728 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. STOLEN FIREARMS. (a) In General.--Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in subsection (a)-- (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(i), (j),''; and [[Page S3459]] (B) by adding at the end the following: ``(7) Whoever knowingly violates subsection (i) or (j) of section 922 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.''; (2) in subsection (i)(1), by striking ``10 years'' and inserting ``15 years''; and (3) in subsection (l), by striking ``10 years'' and inserting ``15 years''. (b) Sentencing Commission.--The United States Sentencing Commission shall amend the Federal sentencing guidelines to reflect the amendments made by subsection (a). ______ By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Lott, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Burns, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Hagel and Mr. Bennett): S. 729. A bill to ensure that Congress and the public have the right to participate in the declaration of national monuments on federal land; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. THE NATIONAL MONUMENT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACT OF 1999 Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that ensures the public will have a say in the management of our public lands. I am pleased that Senators Murkowski, Lott, Stevens, Burns, Gordon Smith, Crapo, Shelby, Hagel, and Bennett are joining me as original cosponsors. After President Clinton's proclamation of four years ago, declaring nearly two million acres of southern Utah a national monument, I introduced the Idaho Protection Act of 1999. That bill would have required that the public and the Congress be included before a national monument could be established in Idaho. When I introduced that bill, I was immediately approached by other Senators seeking the same protection for their state. This bill, The National Monument Public Participation Act, will provide that protection to all states. The National Monument Public Participation Act amends the Antiquities Act to require the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to provide an opportunity for public involvement prior to the designation of a national monument. It establishes procedures to give the public and local, State, and federal governments adequate notice and opportunity to comment on, and participate in, the formulation of plans for the declaration of national monuments on public lands. Under the 1906 Antiquities Act, the President has the unilateral authority to create a national monument where none existed before. In fact, since 1906, the law has been used some 66 times to set lands aside. It is important to note that with very few exceptions, these declarations occurred before enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which recognized the need for public involvement in such issues and mandated public comment periods before such decisions are made. The most recent use of the Antiquities Act came on September 18, 1996, with Presidential Proclamation 6920, Establishment of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Without including Utah's Governor, Senators, congressional delegation, the State legislature, county commissioners, or the people of Utah--President Clinton set off- limits forever approximately 1.7 million acres of Utah. What the President did in Utah, without public input, could also be done in Idaho or any other States where the federal government has a presence. That must not be allowed to happen. My state of Idaho is 63 percent federal lands. Within Idaho's boundaries, we have one National Historic Park, one National Reserve, two National Recreation Areas, and five Wilderness Areas, just to name the major federally designated natural resource areas. This amounts to approximately 4.8 million acres, or to put things in perspective, the size of the state of New Jersey. Each of these designations has had public involvement and consent of Congress before being designated. As you can tell, the public process has worked in the past, in my state, and I believe it will continue to work in the future. In Idaho, each of these National designations generated concerns among those affected by the designation, but with the public process, we were able to work through most of the concerns before the designation was made. Individuals who would be affected by the National designation had time to prepare, but Utah was not as fortunate. With the overnight designation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, the local communities, and the State and federal agencies were left to pick up the pieces and work out all the ``details.'' The President's action in Utah has been a wake-up call to people across America.We all want to preserve what is best in our States, and I understand and support the need to protect valuable resources. That is why this bill will not, in any way, affect the ability of the federal government to make emergency withdrawals under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). If an area is truly worthy of a National Monument designation, Congress will make that designation during the time frame provided in FLPMA. Our public lands are a national asset that we all treasure and enjoy. Westerners are especially proud of their public lands and have a stake in the management of these lands, but people everywhere also understand that much of their economic future is tied up in what happens on their public lands. In the West, where public lands dominate the landscape, issues such as grazing, timber harvesting, water use, and recreation access have all come under attack by this administration seemingly bent upon kowtowing to a segment of our population that wants these uses kicked off our public lands. Everyone wants public lands decisions to be made in an open and inclusive process. No one wants the President, acting alone, to unilaterally lock up enormous parts of any State. We certainly don't work that way in the West. There is a recognition that with common sense, a balance can be struck that allows jobs to grow and families to put down roots while at the same time protecting America's great natural resources. In my view, the President's actions in Utah were beyond the pale, and for that reason--to protect others from suffering a similar fate I am introducing this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill appear in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 729 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``National Monument Public Participation Act of 1999''. SEC. 2. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Act is to ensure that Congress and the public have the right and opportunity to participate in decisions to declare national monuments on Federal land. SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION OF CONGRESSIONAL AND PUBLIC ROLES IN DECLARATION OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS. The Act entitled ``An Act for the preservation of American antiquities'', approved June 8, 1906 (commonly known as the ``Antiquities Act of 1906'') (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), is amended by adding at the end the following: ``SEC. 5. CONGRESSIONAL AND PUBLIC ROLES IN NATIONAL MONUMENT DECLARATIONS. ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall promulgate regulations that establish procedures to ensure that Federal, State, and local governments and the public have the right to participate in the formulation of plans relating to the declaration of a national monument on Federal land on or after the date of enactment of this section, including procedures-- ``(1) to provide the public with adequate notice and opportunity to comment on and participate in the declaration of a national monument on Federal land; and ``(2) for public hearings, when appropriate, on the declaration of a national monument on Federal land. ``(b) Other Duties.--Prior to making any recommendations for declaration of a national monument in an area, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall-- ``(1) ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, compliance with all applicable Federal land management and environmental laws, including the completion of a programmatic environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); ``(2) cause mineral surveys to be conducted by the Geological Survey to determine the mineral values, if any, that may be present in the area; ``(3) cause an assessment of the surface resource values of the land to be completed and made available by the appropriate agencies; ``(4) identify all existing rights held on Federal land contained within the area by type and acreage; and ``(5) identify all State and private land contained within the area. [[Page S3460]] ``(c) Recommendations.--On completion of the reviews and mineral surveys required under subsection (b), the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture shall submit to the President recommendations as to whether any area on Federal land warrants declaration as a national monument. ``(d) Federal Action.--Any study or recommendation under this section shall be considered a federal action for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). ``(e) Reports.--Not later than 2 years after the receipt of a recommendation under subsection (c), the President shall-- ``(1) advise the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the President's recommendation with respect to whether each area evaluated should be declared a national monument; and ``(2) provide a map and description of the boundaries of each area evaluated for declaration to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. ``(f) Declaration After Effective Date.--A recommendation of the President for declaration of a national monument that is made after the effective date of this section shall become effective only if the declaration is approved by Act of Congress.''. Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon in support of the National Monument Public Participation Act of 1999. This legislation puts the ``Public'' back into public land management and the ``Environment'' back into environmental protection. Passage of this Act will insure that all the gains we have made over the past quarter century in creating an open participatory government which affords strong environmental protection for our public lands are protected. For those of you who thought those battles were fought and ``won'' with the passage of National Environmental Protection Act in 1969, the Federal Land Policy Management Act in 1976, and the National Forest Management Act of 1976, I have bad news. There is one last battle to be fought. Standing in this very Chamber on January 30, 1975, Senator Henry M. ``Scoop'' Jackson spoke to the passion Americans feel for their public lands. He said: The public lands of the United States have always provided the arena in which we American's have struggled to fulfill our dreams. Even today dreams of wealth, adventure, and escape are still being acted out on these far flung lands. These lands and the dreams--fulfilled and unfulfilled--which they foster are a part of our national destiny. They belong to all Americans. Amazingly, there exists today ``legal'' authorities by which the President, without public process or Congressional approval and without any environmental review, can create vast special management units. Special management units which can affect how millions of acres of our public lands are managed, what people can do on these lands, and what the future will be for surrounding communities. This is a powerful trust to bestow upon anyone--even a President. On September 12, 1996, the good people of Utah woke up to find themselves the most recent recipient of a philosophy that says: ``Trust us we're from the federal government, and we know what's best for you''. On that day, standing in the State of Arizona, the President invoked the 1906 Antiquities Act to create a 1.7 million acre Nation Monument in Southern Utah. By using this antiquated law the President was able to avoid this nation's environmental laws and ignore public participation laws. With one swipe of the pen, every shred of public input and environmental law promulgated in this country over the past quarter of a century was shoved into the trash heap of political expediency. What happened in Utah is but the latest example of a small cadre of Administration officials deciding for all Americans how our public lands should be used. It is a classic example of a backroom deal, catering to special interests at the expense of the public. It is by no means the only one. As a Senator from Alaska, I have a great deal of personal experience in this area. In 1978, President Jimmy Carter used this law to create ``17'' National Monuments in Alaska covering more than 55 millions acres of land. This was followed in short order by this Secretary of the Interior Cecil Andrus who withdrew an additional 50 million acres. All this land was withdrawn from multiple uses without any input from the people of Alaska, the public, or the Congress of the United States. All this occurred while Congress was considering legislation affecting these lands, while Congress was conducting workshops throughout Alaska and holding hearings in Washington, DC to involve the public. With over 100 million acres of withdrawn land held over Alaska's head like the sword of Damocles, we were forced to cut the best deal we could. Twenty years later the people of my state are still struggling to cope with the weight of these decisions. President Carter cut his deal for his special interests to avoid the public debate on legislation, just as President Clinton did with the Grand Staircase/ Escalante. I would not be here this afternoon if the public, and Congress were not systematically being denied a voice in the creation of National Monuments. I would not be here if environmental procedures were being followed. But the people of this nation are being denied the opportunity to speak, Congress is being denied its opportunity to participate, and environmental procedure are being ignored. The only voice we hear is that of the President. Without bothering to ask what we thought about it, he told the citizens of Utah and the rest of the country that he knew better than they what was best for them. It has been a long time since anyone has had the right to make those kinds of unilateral public land use decisions for the American public. Since passage of the Forest Service Organic Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act in 1976 we have had a rock hard system of law on how public land use decisions are to be made. Embodied within these laws are public participation. Agencies propose an action, they present that action to the public, the public debates the issue, bad decisions can be appealed, the courts resolve disputes, and finally the management unit is created. Where was this public participation in the special use designation of 1.7 million acres of federal land in southern Utah? Since the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969 activities which effect the environment are subject to strict environmental reviews. Does anyone believe there is no environmental threat posed by the creation of a national monument? The economic and social consequences of this decision will have enormous and irrevocable impacts not only on the land immediately affected, but on surrounding lands and communities. All these effects on the human environment would have been evaluated under the land management statutes and the environmental procedural review. Where is the NEPA compliance documentation associated with this action? The Constitutions explicitly provides that ``The Congress shall have the power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.'' The creation of specialized public use designations such as National Parks and Wilderness Areas are debated within the Halls of Congress. These Debates provide for the financial and legal responsibilities which come with the creation of special management units. Where are the proceedings from those debates? They simply do not exist because, in the heat of political expediency, the Administration determined that public process, environmental analyses, and Congressional deliberations were a waste of time. Mr. President, either you believe in public process or you do not, you can't have it both ways. We can no longer trust the Administration to involve the public in major land use decisions and we can no longer tolerate the blanket evasion of the laws designed to protect our natural resources. The time has come for Congress to reassert its Constitutional responsibility under Article IV. The legislation which Senator Craig and I offer today will require that any future designations of National Monuments to follow the public participation principals laid down in law over the past 25 years. No poetic images, no flowery words, no smoke and mirrors, no special coverage on Good Morning America, just good old fashion public land management process. Before these special land management units can be created, our legislation will require that agencies gather and analyze resource data affected by these land use decisions; that full public participation in the designation of [[Page S3461]] the units takes place (with all appeal rights protected); that there be compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act; and that Congress review and approve final designation. No longer will an administration be able to side-step public participation and environmental reviews to further its political agenda and cater to special interest. Nobody--not even the President--should be above the law. The National Monument Participation Act will make all future land use decisions a joint responsibility of the public through the Congress, that they elect. This legislation reasserts the Constitutional role of the Congress in public land decisions. I do not question the need for National Monuments. If the national benefit can be demonstrated, then by all means a national monument should be created. But, if they are to serve the common good, they must be created under the same system of land management law that has managed the use of the public domain for the past 25 years and pursuant to the document that has governed this Nation for the past 225 years. There has always been a sacred bond between the American people and the lands they hold in common ownership. No one-regardless of high station or political influence--has the right to impose his will over the means by which the destiny of those land is decided. This legislation re-establishes that bond. Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to join a number of my colleagues in introducing The National Monument Participation Act of 1999. This bill would amend the Antiquities Act of 1906 to clearly establish the roles for public participation and Congressional involvement in declaring national monuments on federal lands. This bill requires specific processes and requirements to ensure that the public, local, state, and Federal government are both informed and involved in the formulation of any plans to declare national monuments on federal lands. It requires that the public be actively involved in the formulation of any plans to declare a national monument. Considering the recent controversy surrounding the designation of monuments with the stroke of a pen rather than through open debate and assessment, it only makes sense to include the public in any future designation decisions. I remind my colleagues and the administration that we are managing our land resources for the people. This bill suggests that perhaps we should listen to them before drastically changing the management of our land resources. Additionally, the legislation requires that the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture perform an assessment of current land uses on the land proposed for designation. This is necessary to provide information about the impact of declaring any national monument before recommendations are made by the President. It makes absolutely no sense to pursue designation changes without learning what is at stake. What mineral interests are affected? Does it change traditional grazing uses? These are questions that will have to be answered before new monuments are designated. The legislation also requires that we look at the impact a monument would have on state or private land holdings. Once again, common sense is needed. If the federal designation change affects state an private lands, Congress must be informed of these impacts before a decision is finally reached. It is irresponsible to make decisions without the proper information. Finally, this legislation would require the President to submit his decision on these recommendations to the Congress for final review and approval. If we are going to change our designations and impact local communities, Congress must weigh in on the decision. Public involvement in federal decision making is critical today to ensure that local citizens are involved in the decision changing how federal lands near their homes are used. This bill will mandate broader involvement to ensure the public and the legislative branch have an opportunity to participate in any plans to establish new national monuments on federal lands. In addition, this ensures the information is available for the public and ourselves to understand the impacts of any proposed declaration and make an informed decision. Overall, I believe this bill establishes a clear set of roles and responsibilities for all parties involved in the declaration of new national monuments on federal lands to ensure that such decisions are made in a manner that respects the rights of both local communities and the interests of the nation as a whole. I encourage my colleagues to carefully examine this legislation and lend their support to its ultimate passage. Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today as an original co- sponsor of the National Monument Public Participation Act of 1999. I commend my colleague, Senator Craig, for bringing forward this important measure and am pleased to offer it my support. The National Monument Public Participation Act of 1999 will establish guidelines for public and local, State, and federal government involvement in the designation and planning of national monuments. Currently, under the 1906 Antiquities Act, the President has the authority to proclaim a national monument and determine its composition and scope without any prior or subsequent public involvement. Although this authority has rarely been invoked since the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which mandates public comment periods prior to federal land management actions, the recent exercise of this authority by the current Administration has called attention to the need to revise the Antiquities Act. These proposed amendments to the Antiquities Act reflect the contemporary recognition that public involvement in federal land management decisions is both proper and beneficial. This measure, beyond requiring the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to include the public and the different levels of government in the decision to designate and form national monuments, also directs the Secretaries to research and make available information about the land to be designated. Factors such as the mineral values present and identification of existing rights held on federal lands within the area to be designated have an obvious bearing on the decision of whether designation is appropriate and, if it is, how it should be structured. An understanding of these factors should be a part of an inclusive decision-making process and, hence, it is appropriate to require that they be explored and publicly shared prior to the designation of a national monument. The strongest protection, however, that the National Monument Public Participation Act of 1999 provides for public oversight of national monument designation is the requirement that any recommendation of the President for declaration of land as a national monument shall become effective only if so provided by an Act of Congress. By subjecting proposals for monument designations to congressional approval, this Act ensures that when national monuments are established they are truly supported, both nationally and by local communities. This Act provides an important level of protection for public involvement in land use issues and I am pleased to offer it my support. ______ By Mr. DURBIN: S. 730. A bill to direct the Consumer Product Safety Commission to promulgate fire safety standards for cigarettes, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. fire safe cigarette act of 1999 Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the First Safe Cigarette Act of 1999. This legislation would solve a serious fire safety problem, namely, fires that are caused by a carelessly discarded cigarette. The statistics regarding cigarette-related fires are truly startling. In 1996 there were 169,500 cigarette-related first that resulted in 1,181 deaths, 2,931 injuries and $452 million in property damage. According to the National Fire Protection Association, one out of every four fire deaths in the United States in 1996 was attributed to tobacco products. In my state of Illinois, cigarette-related fires have also caused too many senseless tragedies. In 1997, alone, there were more than 1,700 cigarette-related fires, of which more than 900 [[Page S3462]] were in people's homes. These fires led to 109 injuries and 8 deaths. Also in 1997, smoking-related fires in Illinois led to property loss of more than $10.4 million. According to statistics from the U.S. Fire Administration, half of the known residential fire deaths in Illinois from 1993 to 1995 were from arson and careless smoking. During that three-year period, 69 deaths in Illinois were attributed to careless smoking. A Technical Study Group (TSG) was created by the Federal Cigarette Safety Act in 1984 to investigate the technological and commercial feasibility of creating a self-extinguishing cigarette. This group was made up of representatives of government agencies, the cigarette industry, the furniture industry, public health organizations and fire safety organizations. The TSG produced two reports that concluded that it is technically feasible to reduce the ignition propensity of cigarettes. The manufacture of less fire-prone cigarettes may require some advances in cigarette design and manufacturing technology, but the cigarette companies have demonstrated their capability to make cigarettes of reduced ignition propensity with no increase in tar, nicotine or carbon monoxide in the smoke. For example, six current commercial cigarettes have been tested which already have reduced ignition propensity. The technology is in place now to begin developing a performance standard for less fire prone cigarettes. Furthermore, the overall impact on other aspects of the United States society and economy will be minimal. Thus, it may be possible to solve this problem at costs that are much less than the potential benefits, which are saving lives and avoiding injuries and property damage. The Fire Safe Cigarette Act would give the Consumer Product Safety Commission the authority to promulgate a fire safety standard for cigarettes. Eighteen months after the legislation is enacted, the Consumer Product Safety Commission would issue a rule creating a safety standard for cigarettes. Thirty months after the legislation is enacted, the standards would become effective for the manufacture and importation of cigarettes. Here are some examples of changes that could be made to cigarettes that would reduce the likelihood of fire ignition: reduced circumference or thinner cigarettes, making the paper less porous, changing the density of the tobacco in cigarettes, and eliminating or reducing the citrate added to the cigarette paper. Also, there is limited evidence suggesting that the presence of a filter may reduce ignition propensity. Again, there are cigarettes on the market right now that show some of these characteristics and are less likely to smolder and cause fires. While the number of people killed each year by fires is dropping because of safety improvements and other factors, too many Americans are dying because of a product that could be less likely to catch fire if simple changes were made. I strongly believe that this issue demands immediate and swift action in order to prevent further deaths and injuries. An industry that can afford to spend more than $4 billion in advertising every year cannot claim it would be too expensive to make these changes. It is not unreasonable to ask these companies to make their products less likely to burn down a house. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 730 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, FINDINGS. (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Fire Safe Cigarette Act of 1999''. (b) Findings.--Congress finds that-- (1) cigarette ignited fires are the leading cause of fire deaths in the United States, (2) in 1996 cigarette ignited fires caused-- (A) 1,083 deaths; (B) 2,809 civilian injuries; and (C) $420,000,000 in property damage; (3) each year, more than 100 children are killed from cigarette-related fires; (4) the technical work necessary to achieve a cigarette fire safety standard has been accomplished under the Cigarette Safety Act of 1984 (15 U.S.C. 2054 note) and the Fire Safe Cigarette Act of 1990 (15 U.S.C. 2054 note); (5) it is appropriate for Congress to require the establishment of a cigarette fire safety standard for the manufacture and importation of cigarettes; (6) the most recent study by the Consumer Product Safety Commission found that the cost of the loss of human life and personal property from the absence of a cigarette fire safety standard is $6,000,000,000 a year; and (7) it is appropriate that the regulatory expertise of the Consumer Product Safety Commission be used to implement a cigarette fire safety standard. SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. In this Act: (1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Consumer Product Safety Commission. (2) Cigarette.--The term ``cigarette'' has the meaning given that term in section 3 of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (15 U.S.C. 1332). (3) Stockpiling.--The term ``stockpiling'' means the manufacturing or importing of a cigarette during the period beginning on the date of promulgation of a rule under section 3(a) and ending on the effective date of that rule, at a rate greater than the rate at which cigarettes were manufactured or imported during the 1-year period immediately preceding the date of promulgation of that rule. SEC. 3. CIGARETTE FIRE SAFETY STANDARD. (a) In General.-- (1) Promulgation of cigarette fire safety standard.--Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall promulgate a rule that establishes a cigarette fire safety standard for cigarettes to reduce the risk of ignition presented by cigarettes. (2) Requirements.--In establishing the cigarette fire safety standard under paragraph (1), the Commission shall-- (A) consult with the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and make use of such capabilities of the as the Commission considers necessary; (B) seek the advice and expertise of the heads of other Federal agencies and State agencies engaged in fire safety; and (C) take into account the final report to Congress made by the Commission and the Technical Study Group on Cigarette and Little Cigar Fire Safety established under section 3 of the Fire Safe Cigarette Act of 1990 (15 U.S.C. 2054 note), that includes a finding that cigarettes with a low ignition propensity were already on the market at the time of the preparation of the report. (b) Stockpiling.--The Commission shall include in the rule promulgated under subsection (a) a prohibition on the stockpiling of cigarettes covered by the rule. (c) Effective Date of Rule.--The rule promulgated under subsection (a) shall take effect not later than 30 months after the date of the enactment of this Act. (d) Procedure.-- (1) In general.--The rule under subsection (a) shall be promulgated in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code. (2) Construction.--Except as provided in paragraph (1), no other provision of Federal law shall be construed to apply with respect to the promulgation of a rule under subsection (a), including-- (A) the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq.); (B) chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code; (C) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and (D) the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121) and the amendments made by that Act. (e) Judicial Review.-- (1) General rule.-- (A) In general.--Any person who is adversely affected by the rule promulgated under subsection (a) may, at any time before the 60th day after the Commission promulgates the rule, file a petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or for any other circuit in which that person resides or has its principal place of business to obtain judicial review of the rule. (B) Petition.--Upon the filing of a petition under subparagraph (A), a copy of the petition shall be transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Secretary of Commerce. The Commission shall file in the court the record of the proceedings on which the Commission based the rule, in the same manner as is prescribed for the review of an order issued by an agency under section 2112 of title 28, United States Code. (2) Additional evidence.-- (A) In general.--With respect to a petition filed under paragraph (1), the court may order additional evidence (and evidence in rebuttal thereof) to be taken before the Commission in a hearing or in such other manner, and upon such terms and conditions, as the court considers appropriate, if the petitioner-- (i) applies to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence; and (ii) demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the court, that-- (I) such additional evidence is material; and (II) there was no opportunity to adduce such evidence in the proceeding before the Commission. (B) Modification.--With respect to the rule promulgated by the Commission under subsection (a), the Commission-- (i) may modify the findings of fact of the Commission, or make new findings, by reason of any additional evidence taken by a court under subparagraph (A); and [[Page S3463]] (ii) if the Commission makes a modification under clause (i), shall file with the court the modified or new findings, together with such recommendations as the Commission determines to be appropriate, for the modification of the rule, to be promulgated as a final rule under subsection (a). (3) Court jurisdiction.--Upon the filing of a petition under paragraph (1), the court shall have jurisdiction to review the rule of the Commission, as modified under paragraph (2), in accordance with chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code. (f) Small Business Review.--Section 30 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657) shall not apply with respect to-- (1) a cigarette fire safety standard promulgated by the Commission under subsection (a); or (2) any agency action taken to enforce that standard. SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT. (a) Prohibition.--No person may-- (1) manufacture or import a cigarette, unless the cigarette is in compliance with a cigarette fire safety standard promulgated under section 3(a); or (2) fail to provide information as required under this Act. (b) Penalty.--A violation of subsection (a) shall be considered a violation of section 19 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2068). SEC. 5. PREEMPTION. (a) In General.--This Act, including the cigarette fire safety standard promulgated under section 3(a), shall not be construed to preempt or otherwise affect in any manner any law of a State or political subdivision thereof that prescribes a fire safety standard for cigarettes that is more stringent than the standard promulgated under section 3(a). (b) Defenses.--In any civil action for damages, compliance with the fire safety standard promulgated under section 3(a) may not be admitted as a defense. ______ By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Dodd): S. 731. A bill to provide for substantial reductions in the price of prescription drugs for medicare beneficiaries; to the Committee on Finance. the prescription drug fairness for seniors act Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are well on our way to doubling the budget of the National Institutes of Health. Scientists are discovering new cures and developing new therapies for previously incurable and untreatable illnesses on a regular basis. Breakthrough medications are modern medical miracles that allow people with previously crippling conditions to lead normal lives. Yet too many of our nation's elderly citizens are denied access to these life-saving and life-improving therapies because they lack basic coverage for prescription medications. Today I am introducing the ``Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act of 1999,'' the Senate companion bill to H.R. 664, introduced in the House last month by Representatives Tom Allen, Jim Turner, Marion Berry, Henry Waxman, and sixty-one other House Members. This legislation responds to the need for affordable prescription drugs for senior citizens by requiring pharmaceutical companies to make the same discounts available to senior citizens that are offered to their most favored customers. Prescription drugs represent the largest single source of out-of-pocket costs for health services paid for by the elderly. The Prescription Drug Fairness Act will provide significant benefits to elderly citizens struggling to pay for the prescription drugs they need. This Act represents one important way to improve senior citizens' access to affordable medications. Other steps are necessary as well to deal with the overall prescription drug crisis facing millions of elderly citizens. I plan to introduce legislation soon that will offer additional protections. Providing fair access to prescription drugs for senior citizens is a high priority, and I hope to see quick action by Congress on this critical issue this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 731 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act of 1999''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following: (1) Manufacturers of prescription drugs engage in price discrimination practices that compel many older Americans to pay substantially more for prescription drugs than the drug manufacturers' most favored customers, such as health insurers, health maintenance organizations, and the Federal Government. (2) On average, older Americans who buy their own prescription drugs pay twice as much for prescription drugs as the drug manufacturers' most favored customers. In some cases, older Americans pay over 15 times more for prescription drugs than the most favored customers. (3) The discriminatory pricing by major drug manufacturers sustains their annual profits of $20,000,000,000, but causes financial hardship and impairs the health and well-being of millions of older Americans. More than 1 in 8 older Americans are forced to choose between buying their food and buying their medicines. (4) Most federally funded health care programs, including medicaid, the Veterans Health Administration, the Public Health Service, and the Indian Health Service, obtain prescription drugs for their beneficiaries at low prices. Medicare beneficiaries are denied this benefit and cannot obtain their prescription drugs at the favorable prices available to other federally funded health care programs. (5) Implementation of the policy set forth in this Act is estimated to reduce prescription drug prices for medicare beneficiaries by more than 40 percent. (6) In addition to substantially lowering the costs of prescription drugs for older Americans, implementation of the policy set forth in this Act will significantly improve the health and well-being of older Americans and lower the costs to the Federal taxpayer of the medicare program. (7) Older Americans who are terminally ill and receiving hospice care services represent some of the most vulnerable individuals in our Nation. Making prescription drugs available to medicare beneficiaries under the care of medicare-certified hospices will assist in extending the benefits of lower prescription drug prices to those most vulnerable and in need. (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to protect medicare beneficiaries from discriminatory pricing by drug manufacturers and to make prescription drugs available to medicare beneficiaries at substantially reduced prices. SEC. 3. PARTICIPATING MANUFACTURERS. (a) In General.--Each participating manufacturer of a covered outpatient drug shall make available for purchase by each pharmacy such covered outpatient drug in the amount described in subsection (b) at the price described in subsection (c). (b) Description of Amount of Drugs.--The amount of a covered outpatient drug that a participating manufacturer shall make available for purchase by a pharmacy is an amount equal to the aggregate amount of the covered outpatient drug sold or distributed by the pharmacy to medicare beneficiaries. (c) Description of Price.--The price at which a participating manufacturer shall make a covered outpatient drug available for purchase by a pharmacy is the price equal to the lower of the following: (1) The lowest price paid for the covered outpatient drug by any agency or department of the United States. (2) The manufacturer's best price for the covered outpatient drug, as defined in section 1927(c)(1)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-8(c)(1)(C)). SEC. 4. SPECIAL PROVISION WITH RESPECT TO HOSPICE PROGRAMS. For purposes of determining the amount of a covered outpatient drug that a participating manufacturer shall make available for purchase by a pharmacy under section 3, there shall be included in the calculation of such amount the amount of the covered outpatient drug sold or distributed by a pharmacy to a hospice program. In calculating such amount, only amounts of the covered outpatient drug furnished to a medicare beneficiary enrolled in the hospice program shall be included. SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION. The Secretary shall issue such regulations as may be necessary to implement this Act. SEC. 6. REPORTS TO CONGRESS REGARDING EFFECTIVENESS OF ACT. (a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall report to Congress regarding the effectiveness of this Act in-- (1) protecting medicare beneficiaries from discriminatory pricing by drug manufacturers; and (2) making prescription drugs available to medicare beneficiaries at substantially reduced prices. (b) Consultation.--In preparing such reports, the Secretary shall consult with public health experts, affected industries, organizations representing consumers and older Americans, and other interested persons. (c) Recommendations.--The Secretary shall include in such reports any recommendations that the Secretary considers appropriate for changes in this Act to further reduce the cost of covered outpatient drugs to medicare beneficiaries. SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS. In this Act: (1) Participating manufacturer.--The term ``participating manufacturer'' means [[Page S3464]] any manufacturer of drugs or biologicals that, on or after the date of enactment of this Act, enters into or renews a contract or agreement with the United States for the sale or distribution of covered outpatient drugs to the United States. (2) Covered outpatient drug.--The term ``covered outpatient drug'' has the meaning given that term in section 1927(k)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-8(k)(2)). (3) Medicare beneficiary.--The term ``medicare beneficiary'' means an individual entitled to benefits under part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act or enrolled under part B of such title, or both. (4) Hospice program.--The term ``hospice program'' has the meaning given that term under section 1861(dd)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(2)). (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Health and Human Services. SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE. The Secretary shall implement this Act as expeditiously as practicable and in a manner consistent with the obligations of the United States. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, today by introducing the ``Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act of 1999''. Earlier this year, Representatives Tom Allen, Jim Turner, Marion Barry, and Henry Waxman were joined by sixty-one of their colleagues when they introduced H.R. 664, ``The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act of 1999'' in the U.S. House of Representatives. This legislati

Summary:

All articles in Senate section

Law Enforcement Protection Act of 1999
(Senate - March 25, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S3457-S3516] Law Enforcement Protection Act of 1999 Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill to authorize States to recognize each other's concealed weapons laws and exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms. This legislation is designed to support the rights of States and to facilitate the right of law-abiding citizens as well as law enforcement officers to protect themselves, their families, and their property. I am pleased to be joined by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch as an original cosponsor of this legislation. The language of this bill is based on my bill, S. 837, in the 105th Congress and is similar to a provision in S. 3, the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1997, introduced by Senator Hatch. In light of the importance of this provision to law-abiding gunowners and law enforcement officers, I am introducing this freestanding bill today for the Senate's consideration and prompt action. This bill allows States to enter into agreements, known as ``compacts,'' to recognize the concealed weapons laws of those States included in the compacts. This is not a Federal mandate; it is strictly voluntary for those States interested in this approach. States would also be allowed to include provisions which best meet their needs, such as special provisions for law enforcement personnel. This legislation would allow anyone possessing a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm in their respective State to also carry it in another State, provided that the States have entered into a compact agreement which recognizes the host State's right-to-carry laws. This is needed if you want to protect the security individuals enjoy in their own State when they travel or simply cross State lines to avoid a crazy quilt of differing laws. Currently, a Federal standard governs the conduct of nonresidents in those States that do not have a right-to-carry statute. Many of us in this body have always strived to protect the interests of States and communities by allowing them to make important decisions on how their affairs should be conducted. We are taking to the floor almost every day to talk about mandating certain things to the States. This bill would allow States to decide for themselves. Specifically, the bill allows that the law of each State govern conduct within that State where the State has a right-to-carry statute, and States determine through a compact agreement which out-of-State right-to-carry statute will be recognized. To date, 31 States have passed legislation making it legal to carry concealed weapons. These State laws enable citizens of those States to exercise their right to protect themselves, their families, and their property. The second major provision of this bill would allow qualified current and former law enforcement officers who are carrying appropriate written identification of that status to be exempt from State laws that prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons. This provision sets forth a checklist of stringent criteria that law enforcement officers must meet in order to qualify for this exemption status. Exempting qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, I believe, would add additional forces to our law enforcement community in our unwavering fight against crime. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 727 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Law Enforcement Protection Act of 1999''. [[Page S3458]] SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED CURRENT AND FORMER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS. (a) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926A the following: ``Sec. 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified current and former law enforcement officers ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision of a State, an individual may carry a concealed firearm if that individual is-- ``(1) a qualified law enforcement officer or a qualified former law enforcement officer; and ``(2) carrying appropriate written identification. ``(b) Effect on Other Laws.-- ``(1) Common carriers.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to exempt from section 46505(B)(1) of title 49-- ``(A) a qualified law enforcement officer who does not meet the requirements of section 46505(D) of title 49; or ``(B) a qualified former law enforcement officer. ``(2) Federal laws.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or limit any Federal law or regulation prohibiting or restricting the possession of a firearm on any Federal property, installation, building, base, or park. ``(3) State laws.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that-- ``(A) grant rights to carry a concealed firearm that are broader than the rights granted under this section; ``(B) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or ``(C) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park. ``(4) Definitions.--In this section: ``(A) Appropriate written identification.--The term `appropriate written identification' means, with respect to an individual, a document that-- ``(i) was issued to the individual by the public agency with which the individual serves or served as a qualified law enforcement officer; and ``(ii) identifies the holder of the document as a current or former officer, agent, or employee of the agency. ``(B) Qualified law enforcement officer.--The term `qualified law enforcement officer' means an individual who-- ``(i) is presently authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, or investigation of any violation of criminal law; ``(ii) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm in the course of duty; ``(iii) meets any requirements established by the agency with respect to firearms; and ``(iv) is not the subject of a disciplinary action by the agency that prevents the carrying of a firearm. ``(C) Qualified former law enforcement officer.--The term `qualified former law enforcement officer' means, an individual who is-- ``(i) retired from service with a public agency, other than for reasons of mental disability; ``(ii) immediately before such retirement, was a qualified law enforcement officer with that public agency; ``(iii) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the retirement plan of the agency; ``(iv) was not separated from service with a public agency due to a disciplinary action by the agency that prevented the carrying of a firearm; ``(v) meets the requirements established by the State in which the individual resides with respect to-- ``(I) training in the use of firearms; and ``(II) carrying a concealed weapon; and ``(vi) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm. ``(D) Firearm.--The term `firearm' means, any firearm that has, or of which any component has, traveled in interstate or foreign commerce.''. (b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926A the following: ``926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified current and former law enforcement officers.''. SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO INTERSTATE COMPACTS. (a) In General.--The consent of Congress is given to any 2 or more States-- (1) to enter into compacts or agreements for cooperative effort in enabling individuals to carry concealed weapons as dictated by laws of the State within which the owner of the weapon resides and is authorized to carry a concealed weapon; and (2) to establish agencies or guidelines as they may determine to be appropriate for making effective such agreements and compacts. (b) Reservation of Rights.--The right to alter, amend, or repeal this section is hereby expressly reserved by Congress. ______ By Mr. CAMPBELL: S. 728. A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to increase the maximum term of imprisonment for offenses involving stolen firearms; to the Committee on the Judiciary. Stolen Gun Penalty Enhancement Act of 1999 Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, many crimes in our country are being committed with stolen guns. The extent of this problem is reflected in a number of recent studies and news reports. Therefore, today I am introducing the Stolen Gun Penalty Enhancement Act of 1999 to increase the maximum prison sentences for violating existing stolen gun laws. Reports indicate that almost half a million guns are stolen each year. As of March 1995 there were over 2 million reports in the stolen gun file of the FBI's National Crime Information Center including 7,700 reports of stolen machine guns and submachine guns. In a 9 year period between 1985 and 1994, the FBI received an annual average of over 274,000 reports of stolen guns. Studies conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms note that felons steal firearms to avoid background checks. A 1991 Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of State prison inmates notes that almost 10 percent had stolen a handgun, and over 10 percent of all inmates had traded or sold a stolen firearm. This problem is especially alarming among young people. A Justice Department study of juvenile inmates in four states shows that over 50 percent of those inmates had stolen a gun. In the same study, gang members and drug sellers were more likely to have stolen a gun. In my home State of Colorado, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation receives over 500 reports of stolen guns each month. As of this month, the Bureau has a total of 36,000 firearms on its unrecovered firearms list. It is estimated that one-third of these firearms are categorized as handguns. All these studies and statistics show the extent of the problem of stolen guns. Therefore, the bill I am introducing today will increase the maximum prison sentences for violation of existing stolen gun laws. Specifically, my bill increases the maximum penalty for violating four provisions of the firearms laws. Under title 18 of the U.S. Code, it is illegal to knowingly transport or ship a stolen firearm or stolen ammunition. It is also illegal to knowingly receive, possess, conceal, store, sell, or otherwise dispose of a stolen firearm or stolen ammunition. The penalty for violating either of these provisions is a fine, a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years, or both. My bill increases the maximum prison sentence to 15 years. The third statutory provision makes it illegal to steal a firearm from a licensed dealer, importer, or manufacturer. For violating this provision, the maximum term of imprisonment would be increased to a maximum 15 years under by bill. And the fourth provision makes it illegal to steal a firearm from any person, including a licensed firearm collector, with a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. As with the other three provisions, my bill increases this maximum penalty to 15 years. In addition to these amendments to title 18 of the U.S. Code, the bill I introduce today directs the United States Sentencing Commission to revise the Federal sentencing guidelines with respect to these firearms offenses. Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of the rights of law-abiding gun owners. However, I firmly believe we need tough penalties for the illegal use of firearms. The Stolen Gun Penalty Enhancement Act of 1999 will send a strong signal to criminals who are even thinking about stealing a firearm. I urge my colleagues to join in support of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 728 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. STOLEN FIREARMS. (a) In General.--Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in subsection (a)-- (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(i), (j),''; and [[Page S3459]] (B) by adding at the end the following: ``(7) Whoever knowingly violates subsection (i) or (j) of section 922 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.''; (2) in subsection (i)(1), by striking ``10 years'' and inserting ``15 years''; and (3) in subsection (l), by striking ``10 years'' and inserting ``15 years''. (b) Sentencing Commission.--The United States Sentencing Commission shall amend the Federal sentencing guidelines to reflect the amendments made by subsection (a). ______ By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Lott, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Burns, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Hagel and Mr. Bennett): S. 729. A bill to ensure that Congress and the public have the right to participate in the declaration of national monuments on federal land; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. THE NATIONAL MONUMENT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACT OF 1999 Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that ensures the public will have a say in the management of our public lands. I am pleased that Senators Murkowski, Lott, Stevens, Burns, Gordon Smith, Crapo, Shelby, Hagel, and Bennett are joining me as original cosponsors. After President Clinton's proclamation of four years ago, declaring nearly two million acres of southern Utah a national monument, I introduced the Idaho Protection Act of 1999. That bill would have required that the public and the Congress be included before a national monument could be established in Idaho. When I introduced that bill, I was immediately approached by other Senators seeking the same protection for their state. This bill, The National Monument Public Participation Act, will provide that protection to all states. The National Monument Public Participation Act amends the Antiquities Act to require the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to provide an opportunity for public involvement prior to the designation of a national monument. It establishes procedures to give the public and local, State, and federal governments adequate notice and opportunity to comment on, and participate in, the formulation of plans for the declaration of national monuments on public lands. Under the 1906 Antiquities Act, the President has the unilateral authority to create a national monument where none existed before. In fact, since 1906, the law has been used some 66 times to set lands aside. It is important to note that with very few exceptions, these declarations occurred before enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which recognized the need for public involvement in such issues and mandated public comment periods before such decisions are made. The most recent use of the Antiquities Act came on September 18, 1996, with Presidential Proclamation 6920, Establishment of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Without including Utah's Governor, Senators, congressional delegation, the State legislature, county commissioners, or the people of Utah--President Clinton set off- limits forever approximately 1.7 million acres of Utah. What the President did in Utah, without public input, could also be done in Idaho or any other States where the federal government has a presence. That must not be allowed to happen. My state of Idaho is 63 percent federal lands. Within Idaho's boundaries, we have one National Historic Park, one National Reserve, two National Recreation Areas, and five Wilderness Areas, just to name the major federally designated natural resource areas. This amounts to approximately 4.8 million acres, or to put things in perspective, the size of the state of New Jersey. Each of these designations has had public involvement and consent of Congress before being designated. As you can tell, the public process has worked in the past, in my state, and I believe it will continue to work in the future. In Idaho, each of these National designations generated concerns among those affected by the designation, but with the public process, we were able to work through most of the concerns before the designation was made. Individuals who would be affected by the National designation had time to prepare, but Utah was not as fortunate. With the overnight designation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, the local communities, and the State and federal agencies were left to pick up the pieces and work out all the ``details.'' The President's action in Utah has been a wake-up call to people across America.We all want to preserve what is best in our States, and I understand and support the need to protect valuable resources. That is why this bill will not, in any way, affect the ability of the federal government to make emergency withdrawals under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). If an area is truly worthy of a National Monument designation, Congress will make that designation during the time frame provided in FLPMA. Our public lands are a national asset that we all treasure and enjoy. Westerners are especially proud of their public lands and have a stake in the management of these lands, but people everywhere also understand that much of their economic future is tied up in what happens on their public lands. In the West, where public lands dominate the landscape, issues such as grazing, timber harvesting, water use, and recreation access have all come under attack by this administration seemingly bent upon kowtowing to a segment of our population that wants these uses kicked off our public lands. Everyone wants public lands decisions to be made in an open and inclusive process. No one wants the President, acting alone, to unilaterally lock up enormous parts of any State. We certainly don't work that way in the West. There is a recognition that with common sense, a balance can be struck that allows jobs to grow and families to put down roots while at the same time protecting America's great natural resources. In my view, the President's actions in Utah were beyond the pale, and for that reason--to protect others from suffering a similar fate I am introducing this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill appear in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 729 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``National Monument Public Participation Act of 1999''. SEC. 2. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Act is to ensure that Congress and the public have the right and opportunity to participate in decisions to declare national monuments on Federal land. SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION OF CONGRESSIONAL AND PUBLIC ROLES IN DECLARATION OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS. The Act entitled ``An Act for the preservation of American antiquities'', approved June 8, 1906 (commonly known as the ``Antiquities Act of 1906'') (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), is amended by adding at the end the following: ``SEC. 5. CONGRESSIONAL AND PUBLIC ROLES IN NATIONAL MONUMENT DECLARATIONS. ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall promulgate regulations that establish procedures to ensure that Federal, State, and local governments and the public have the right to participate in the formulation of plans relating to the declaration of a national monument on Federal land on or after the date of enactment of this section, including procedures-- ``(1) to provide the public with adequate notice and opportunity to comment on and participate in the declaration of a national monument on Federal land; and ``(2) for public hearings, when appropriate, on the declaration of a national monument on Federal land. ``(b) Other Duties.--Prior to making any recommendations for declaration of a national monument in an area, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall-- ``(1) ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, compliance with all applicable Federal land management and environmental laws, including the completion of a programmatic environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); ``(2) cause mineral surveys to be conducted by the Geological Survey to determine the mineral values, if any, that may be present in the area; ``(3) cause an assessment of the surface resource values of the land to be completed and made available by the appropriate agencies; ``(4) identify all existing rights held on Federal land contained within the area by type and acreage; and ``(5) identify all State and private land contained within the area. [[Page S3460]] ``(c) Recommendations.--On completion of the reviews and mineral surveys required under subsection (b), the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture shall submit to the President recommendations as to whether any area on Federal land warrants declaration as a national monument. ``(d) Federal Action.--Any study or recommendation under this section shall be considered a federal action for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). ``(e) Reports.--Not later than 2 years after the receipt of a recommendation under subsection (c), the President shall-- ``(1) advise the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the President's recommendation with respect to whether each area evaluated should be declared a national monument; and ``(2) provide a map and description of the boundaries of each area evaluated for declaration to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. ``(f) Declaration After Effective Date.--A recommendation of the President for declaration of a national monument that is made after the effective date of this section shall become effective only if the declaration is approved by Act of Congress.''. Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon in support of the National Monument Public Participation Act of 1999. This legislation puts the ``Public'' back into public land management and the ``Environment'' back into environmental protection. Passage of this Act will insure that all the gains we have made over the past quarter century in creating an open participatory government which affords strong environmental protection for our public lands are protected. For those of you who thought those battles were fought and ``won'' with the passage of National Environmental Protection Act in 1969, the Federal Land Policy Management Act in 1976, and the National Forest Management Act of 1976, I have bad news. There is one last battle to be fought. Standing in this very Chamber on January 30, 1975, Senator Henry M. ``Scoop'' Jackson spoke to the passion Americans feel for their public lands. He said: The public lands of the United States have always provided the arena in which we American's have struggled to fulfill our dreams. Even today dreams of wealth, adventure, and escape are still being acted out on these far flung lands. These lands and the dreams--fulfilled and unfulfilled--which they foster are a part of our national destiny. They belong to all Americans. Amazingly, there exists today ``legal'' authorities by which the President, without public process or Congressional approval and without any environmental review, can create vast special management units. Special management units which can affect how millions of acres of our public lands are managed, what people can do on these lands, and what the future will be for surrounding communities. This is a powerful trust to bestow upon anyone--even a President. On September 12, 1996, the good people of Utah woke up to find themselves the most recent recipient of a philosophy that says: ``Trust us we're from the federal government, and we know what's best for you''. On that day, standing in the State of Arizona, the President invoked the 1906 Antiquities Act to create a 1.7 million acre Nation Monument in Southern Utah. By using this antiquated law the President was able to avoid this nation's environmental laws and ignore public participation laws. With one swipe of the pen, every shred of public input and environmental law promulgated in this country over the past quarter of a century was shoved into the trash heap of political expediency. What happened in Utah is but the latest example of a small cadre of Administration officials deciding for all Americans how our public lands should be used. It is a classic example of a backroom deal, catering to special interests at the expense of the public. It is by no means the only one. As a Senator from Alaska, I have a great deal of personal experience in this area. In 1978, President Jimmy Carter used this law to create ``17'' National Monuments in Alaska covering more than 55 millions acres of land. This was followed in short order by this Secretary of the Interior Cecil Andrus who withdrew an additional 50 million acres. All this land was withdrawn from multiple uses without any input from the people of Alaska, the public, or the Congress of the United States. All this occurred while Congress was considering legislation affecting these lands, while Congress was conducting workshops throughout Alaska and holding hearings in Washington, DC to involve the public. With over 100 million acres of withdrawn land held over Alaska's head like the sword of Damocles, we were forced to cut the best deal we could. Twenty years later the people of my state are still struggling to cope with the weight of these decisions. President Carter cut his deal for his special interests to avoid the public debate on legislation, just as President Clinton did with the Grand Staircase/ Escalante. I would not be here this afternoon if the public, and Congress were not systematically being denied a voice in the creation of National Monuments. I would not be here if environmental procedures were being followed. But the people of this nation are being denied the opportunity to speak, Congress is being denied its opportunity to participate, and environmental procedure are being ignored. The only voice we hear is that of the President. Without bothering to ask what we thought about it, he told the citizens of Utah and the rest of the country that he knew better than they what was best for them. It has been a long time since anyone has had the right to make those kinds of unilateral public land use decisions for the American public. Since passage of the Forest Service Organic Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act in 1976 we have had a rock hard system of law on how public land use decisions are to be made. Embodied within these laws are public participation. Agencies propose an action, they present that action to the public, the public debates the issue, bad decisions can be appealed, the courts resolve disputes, and finally the management unit is created. Where was this public participation in the special use designation of 1.7 million acres of federal land in southern Utah? Since the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969 activities which effect the environment are subject to strict environmental reviews. Does anyone believe there is no environmental threat posed by the creation of a national monument? The economic and social consequences of this decision will have enormous and irrevocable impacts not only on the land immediately affected, but on surrounding lands and communities. All these effects on the human environment would have been evaluated under the land management statutes and the environmental procedural review. Where is the NEPA compliance documentation associated with this action? The Constitutions explicitly provides that ``The Congress shall have the power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.'' The creation of specialized public use designations such as National Parks and Wilderness Areas are debated within the Halls of Congress. These Debates provide for the financial and legal responsibilities which come with the creation of special management units. Where are the proceedings from those debates? They simply do not exist because, in the heat of political expediency, the Administration determined that public process, environmental analyses, and Congressional deliberations were a waste of time. Mr. President, either you believe in public process or you do not, you can't have it both ways. We can no longer trust the Administration to involve the public in major land use decisions and we can no longer tolerate the blanket evasion of the laws designed to protect our natural resources. The time has come for Congress to reassert its Constitutional responsibility under Article IV. The legislation which Senator Craig and I offer today will require that any future designations of National Monuments to follow the public participation principals laid down in law over the past 25 years. No poetic images, no flowery words, no smoke and mirrors, no special coverage on Good Morning America, just good old fashion public land management process. Before these special land management units can be created, our legislation will require that agencies gather and analyze resource data affected by these land use decisions; that full public participation in the designation of [[Page S3461]] the units takes place (with all appeal rights protected); that there be compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act; and that Congress review and approve final designation. No longer will an administration be able to side-step public participation and environmental reviews to further its political agenda and cater to special interest. Nobody--not even the President--should be above the law. The National Monument Participation Act will make all future land use decisions a joint responsibility of the public through the Congress, that they elect. This legislation reasserts the Constitutional role of the Congress in public land decisions. I do not question the need for National Monuments. If the national benefit can be demonstrated, then by all means a national monument should be created. But, if they are to serve the common good, they must be created under the same system of land management law that has managed the use of the public domain for the past 25 years and pursuant to the document that has governed this Nation for the past 225 years. There has always been a sacred bond between the American people and the lands they hold in common ownership. No one-regardless of high station or political influence--has the right to impose his will over the means by which the destiny of those land is decided. This legislation re-establishes that bond. Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to join a number of my colleagues in introducing The National Monument Participation Act of 1999. This bill would amend the Antiquities Act of 1906 to clearly establish the roles for public participation and Congressional involvement in declaring national monuments on federal lands. This bill requires specific processes and requirements to ensure that the public, local, state, and Federal government are both informed and involved in the formulation of any plans to declare national monuments on federal lands. It requires that the public be actively involved in the formulation of any plans to declare a national monument. Considering the recent controversy surrounding the designation of monuments with the stroke of a pen rather than through open debate and assessment, it only makes sense to include the public in any future designation decisions. I remind my colleagues and the administration that we are managing our land resources for the people. This bill suggests that perhaps we should listen to them before drastically changing the management of our land resources. Additionally, the legislation requires that the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture perform an assessment of current land uses on the land proposed for designation. This is necessary to provide information about the impact of declaring any national monument before recommendations are made by the President. It makes absolutely no sense to pursue designation changes without learning what is at stake. What mineral interests are affected? Does it change traditional grazing uses? These are questions that will have to be answered before new monuments are designated. The legislation also requires that we look at the impact a monument would have on state or private land holdings. Once again, common sense is needed. If the federal designation change affects state an private lands, Congress must be informed of these impacts before a decision is finally reached. It is irresponsible to make decisions without the proper information. Finally, this legislation would require the President to submit his decision on these recommendations to the Congress for final review and approval. If we are going to change our designations and impact local communities, Congress must weigh in on the decision. Public involvement in federal decision making is critical today to ensure that local citizens are involved in the decision changing how federal lands near their homes are used. This bill will mandate broader involvement to ensure the public and the legislative branch have an opportunity to participate in any plans to establish new national monuments on federal lands. In addition, this ensures the information is available for the public and ourselves to understand the impacts of any proposed declaration and make an informed decision. Overall, I believe this bill establishes a clear set of roles and responsibilities for all parties involved in the declaration of new national monuments on federal lands to ensure that such decisions are made in a manner that respects the rights of both local communities and the interests of the nation as a whole. I encourage my colleagues to carefully examine this legislation and lend their support to its ultimate passage. Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today as an original co- sponsor of the National Monument Public Participation Act of 1999. I commend my colleague, Senator Craig, for bringing forward this important measure and am pleased to offer it my support. The National Monument Public Participation Act of 1999 will establish guidelines for public and local, State, and federal government involvement in the designation and planning of national monuments. Currently, under the 1906 Antiquities Act, the President has the authority to proclaim a national monument and determine its composition and scope without any prior or subsequent public involvement. Although this authority has rarely been invoked since the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which mandates public comment periods prior to federal land management actions, the recent exercise of this authority by the current Administration has called attention to the need to revise the Antiquities Act. These proposed amendments to the Antiquities Act reflect the contemporary recognition that public involvement in federal land management decisions is both proper and beneficial. This measure, beyond requiring the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to include the public and the different levels of government in the decision to designate and form national monuments, also directs the Secretaries to research and make available information about the land to be designated. Factors such as the mineral values present and identification of existing rights held on federal lands within the area to be designated have an obvious bearing on the decision of whether designation is appropriate and, if it is, how it should be structured. An understanding of these factors should be a part of an inclusive decision-making process and, hence, it is appropriate to require that they be explored and publicly shared prior to the designation of a national monument. The strongest protection, however, that the National Monument Public Participation Act of 1999 provides for public oversight of national monument designation is the requirement that any recommendation of the President for declaration of land as a national monument shall become effective only if so provided by an Act of Congress. By subjecting proposals for monument designations to congressional approval, this Act ensures that when national monuments are established they are truly supported, both nationally and by local communities. This Act provides an important level of protection for public involvement in land use issues and I am pleased to offer it my support. ______ By Mr. DURBIN: S. 730. A bill to direct the Consumer Product Safety Commission to promulgate fire safety standards for cigarettes, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. fire safe cigarette act of 1999 Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the First Safe Cigarette Act of 1999. This legislation would solve a serious fire safety problem, namely, fires that are caused by a carelessly discarded cigarette. The statistics regarding cigarette-related fires are truly startling. In 1996 there were 169,500 cigarette-related first that resulted in 1,181 deaths, 2,931 injuries and $452 million in property damage. According to the National Fire Protection Association, one out of every four fire deaths in the United States in 1996 was attributed to tobacco products. In my state of Illinois, cigarette-related fires have also caused too many senseless tragedies. In 1997, alone, there were more than 1,700 cigarette-related fires, of which more than 900 [[Page S3462]] were in people's homes. These fires led to 109 injuries and 8 deaths. Also in 1997, smoking-related fires in Illinois led to property loss of more than $10.4 million. According to statistics from the U.S. Fire Administration, half of the known residential fire deaths in Illinois from 1993 to 1995 were from arson and careless smoking. During that three-year period, 69 deaths in Illinois were attributed to careless smoking. A Technical Study Group (TSG) was created by the Federal Cigarette Safety Act in 1984 to investigate the technological and commercial feasibility of creating a self-extinguishing cigarette. This group was made up of representatives of government agencies, the cigarette industry, the furniture industry, public health organizations and fire safety organizations. The TSG produced two reports that concluded that it is technically feasible to reduce the ignition propensity of cigarettes. The manufacture of less fire-prone cigarettes may require some advances in cigarette design and manufacturing technology, but the cigarette companies have demonstrated their capability to make cigarettes of reduced ignition propensity with no increase in tar, nicotine or carbon monoxide in the smoke. For example, six current commercial cigarettes have been tested which already have reduced ignition propensity. The technology is in place now to begin developing a performance standard for less fire prone cigarettes. Furthermore, the overall impact on other aspects of the United States society and economy will be minimal. Thus, it may be possible to solve this problem at costs that are much less than the potential benefits, which are saving lives and avoiding injuries and property damage. The Fire Safe Cigarette Act would give the Consumer Product Safety Commission the authority to promulgate a fire safety standard for cigarettes. Eighteen months after the legislation is enacted, the Consumer Product Safety Commission would issue a rule creating a safety standard for cigarettes. Thirty months after the legislation is enacted, the standards would become effective for the manufacture and importation of cigarettes. Here are some examples of changes that could be made to cigarettes that would reduce the likelihood of fire ignition: reduced circumference or thinner cigarettes, making the paper less porous, changing the density of the tobacco in cigarettes, and eliminating or reducing the citrate added to the cigarette paper. Also, there is limited evidence suggesting that the presence of a filter may reduce ignition propensity. Again, there are cigarettes on the market right now that show some of these characteristics and are less likely to smolder and cause fires. While the number of people killed each year by fires is dropping because of safety improvements and other factors, too many Americans are dying because of a product that could be less likely to catch fire if simple changes were made. I strongly believe that this issue demands immediate and swift action in order to prevent further deaths and injuries. An industry that can afford to spend more than $4 billion in advertising every year cannot claim it would be too expensive to make these changes. It is not unreasonable to ask these companies to make their products less likely to burn down a house. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 730 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, FINDINGS. (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Fire Safe Cigarette Act of 1999''. (b) Findings.--Congress finds that-- (1) cigarette ignited fires are the leading cause of fire deaths in the United States, (2) in 1996 cigarette ignited fires caused-- (A) 1,083 deaths; (B) 2,809 civilian injuries; and (C) $420,000,000 in property damage; (3) each year, more than 100 children are killed from cigarette-related fires; (4) the technical work necessary to achieve a cigarette fire safety standard has been accomplished under the Cigarette Safety Act of 1984 (15 U.S.C. 2054 note) and the Fire Safe Cigarette Act of 1990 (15 U.S.C. 2054 note); (5) it is appropriate for Congress to require the establishment of a cigarette fire safety standard for the manufacture and importation of cigarettes; (6) the most recent study by the Consumer Product Safety Commission found that the cost of the loss of human life and personal property from the absence of a cigarette fire safety standard is $6,000,000,000 a year; and (7) it is appropriate that the regulatory expertise of the Consumer Product Safety Commission be used to implement a cigarette fire safety standard. SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. In this Act: (1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Consumer Product Safety Commission. (2) Cigarette.--The term ``cigarette'' has the meaning given that term in section 3 of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (15 U.S.C. 1332). (3) Stockpiling.--The term ``stockpiling'' means the manufacturing or importing of a cigarette during the period beginning on the date of promulgation of a rule under section 3(a) and ending on the effective date of that rule, at a rate greater than the rate at which cigarettes were manufactured or imported during the 1-year period immediately preceding the date of promulgation of that rule. SEC. 3. CIGARETTE FIRE SAFETY STANDARD. (a) In General.-- (1) Promulgation of cigarette fire safety standard.--Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall promulgate a rule that establishes a cigarette fire safety standard for cigarettes to reduce the risk of ignition presented by cigarettes. (2) Requirements.--In establishing the cigarette fire safety standard under paragraph (1), the Commission shall-- (A) consult with the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and make use of such capabilities of the as the Commission considers necessary; (B) seek the advice and expertise of the heads of other Federal agencies and State agencies engaged in fire safety; and (C) take into account the final report to Congress made by the Commission and the Technical Study Group on Cigarette and Little Cigar Fire Safety established under section 3 of the Fire Safe Cigarette Act of 1990 (15 U.S.C. 2054 note), that includes a finding that cigarettes with a low ignition propensity were already on the market at the time of the preparation of the report. (b) Stockpiling.--The Commission shall include in the rule promulgated under subsection (a) a prohibition on the stockpiling of cigarettes covered by the rule. (c) Effective Date of Rule.--The rule promulgated under subsection (a) shall take effect not later than 30 months after the date of the enactment of this Act. (d) Procedure.-- (1) In general.--The rule under subsection (a) shall be promulgated in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code. (2) Construction.--Except as provided in paragraph (1), no other provision of Federal law shall be construed to apply with respect to the promulgation of a rule under subsection (a), including-- (A) the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq.); (B) chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code; (C) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and (D) the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121) and the amendments made by that Act. (e) Judicial Review.-- (1) General rule.-- (A) In general.--Any person who is adversely affected by the rule promulgated under subsection (a) may, at any time before the 60th day after the Commission promulgates the rule, file a petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or for any other circuit in which that person resides or has its principal place of business to obtain judicial review of the rule. (B) Petition.--Upon the filing of a petition under subparagraph (A), a copy of the petition shall be transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Secretary of Commerce. The Commission shall file in the court the record of the proceedings on which the Commission based the rule, in the same manner as is prescribed for the review of an order issued by an agency under section 2112 of title 28, United States Code. (2) Additional evidence.-- (A) In general.--With respect to a petition filed under paragraph (1), the court may order additional evidence (and evidence in rebuttal thereof) to be taken before the Commission in a hearing or in such other manner, and upon such terms and conditions, as the court considers appropriate, if the petitioner-- (i) applies to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence; and (ii) demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the court, that-- (I) such additional evidence is material; and (II) there was no opportunity to adduce such evidence in the proceeding before the Commission. (B) Modification.--With respect to the rule promulgated by the Commission under subsection (a), the Commission-- (i) may modify the findings of fact of the Commission, or make new findings, by reason of any additional evidence taken by a court under subparagraph (A); and [[Page S3463]] (ii) if the Commission makes a modification under clause (i), shall file with the court the modified or new findings, together with such recommendations as the Commission determines to be appropriate, for the modification of the rule, to be promulgated as a final rule under subsection (a). (3) Court jurisdiction.--Upon the filing of a petition under paragraph (1), the court shall have jurisdiction to review the rule of the Commission, as modified under paragraph (2), in accordance with chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code. (f) Small Business Review.--Section 30 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657) shall not apply with respect to-- (1) a cigarette fire safety standard promulgated by the Commission under subsection (a); or (2) any agency action taken to enforce that standard. SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT. (a) Prohibition.--No person may-- (1) manufacture or import a cigarette, unless the cigarette is in compliance with a cigarette fire safety standard promulgated under section 3(a); or (2) fail to provide information as required under this Act. (b) Penalty.--A violation of subsection (a) shall be considered a violation of section 19 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2068). SEC. 5. PREEMPTION. (a) In General.--This Act, including the cigarette fire safety standard promulgated under section 3(a), shall not be construed to preempt or otherwise affect in any manner any law of a State or political subdivision thereof that prescribes a fire safety standard for cigarettes that is more stringent than the standard promulgated under section 3(a). (b) Defenses.--In any civil action for damages, compliance with the fire safety standard promulgated under section 3(a) may not be admitted as a defense. ______ By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Dodd): S. 731. A bill to provide for substantial reductions in the price of prescription drugs for medicare beneficiaries; to the Committee on Finance. the prescription drug fairness for seniors act Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are well on our way to doubling the budget of the National Institutes of Health. Scientists are discovering new cures and developing new therapies for previously incurable and untreatable illnesses on a regular basis. Breakthrough medications are modern medical miracles that allow people with previously crippling conditions to lead normal lives. Yet too many of our nation's elderly citizens are denied access to these life-saving and life-improving therapies because they lack basic coverage for prescription medications. Today I am introducing the ``Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act of 1999,'' the Senate companion bill to H.R. 664, introduced in the House last month by Representatives Tom Allen, Jim Turner, Marion Berry, Henry Waxman, and sixty-one other House Members. This legislation responds to the need for affordable prescription drugs for senior citizens by requiring pharmaceutical companies to make the same discounts available to senior citizens that are offered to their most favored customers. Prescription drugs represent the largest single source of out-of-pocket costs for health services paid for by the elderly. The Prescription Drug Fairness Act will provide significant benefits to elderly citizens struggling to pay for the prescription drugs they need. This Act represents one important way to improve senior citizens' access to affordable medications. Other steps are necessary as well to deal with the overall prescription drug crisis facing millions of elderly citizens. I plan to introduce legislation soon that will offer additional protections. Providing fair access to prescription drugs for senior citizens is a high priority, and I hope to see quick action by Congress on this critical issue this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 731 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act of 1999''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following: (1) Manufacturers of prescription drugs engage in price discrimination practices that compel many older Americans to pay substantially more for prescription drugs than the drug manufacturers' most favored customers, such as health insurers, health maintenance organizations, and the Federal Government. (2) On average, older Americans who buy their own prescription drugs pay twice as much for prescription drugs as the drug manufacturers' most favored customers. In some cases, older Americans pay over 15 times more for prescription drugs than the most favored customers. (3) The discriminatory pricing by major drug manufacturers sustains their annual profits of $20,000,000,000, but causes financial hardship and impairs the health and well-being of millions of older Americans. More than 1 in 8 older Americans are forced to choose between buying their food and buying their medicines. (4) Most federally funded health care programs, including medicaid, the Veterans Health Administration, the Public Health Service, and the Indian Health Service, obtain prescription drugs for their beneficiaries at low prices. Medicare beneficiaries are denied this benefit and cannot obtain their prescription drugs at the favorable prices available to other federally funded health care programs. (5) Implementation of the policy set forth in this Act is estimated to reduce prescription drug prices for medicare beneficiaries by more than 40 percent. (6) In addition to substantially lowering the costs of prescription drugs for older Americans, implementation of the policy set forth in this Act will significantly improve the health and well-being of older Americans and lower the costs to the Federal taxpayer of the medicare program. (7) Older Americans who are terminally ill and receiving hospice care services represent some of the most vulnerable individuals in our Nation. Making prescription drugs available to medicare beneficiaries under the care of medicare-certified hospices will assist in extending the benefits of lower prescription drug prices to those most vulnerable and in need. (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to protect medicare beneficiaries from discriminatory pricing by drug manufacturers and to make prescription drugs available to medicare beneficiaries at substantially reduced prices. SEC. 3. PARTICIPATING MANUFACTURERS. (a) In General.--Each participating manufacturer of a covered outpatient drug shall make available for purchase by each pharmacy such covered outpatient drug in the amount described in subsection (b) at the price described in subsection (c). (b) Description of Amount of Drugs.--The amount of a covered outpatient drug that a participating manufacturer shall make available for purchase by a pharmacy is an amount equal to the aggregate amount of the covered outpatient drug sold or distributed by the pharmacy to medicare beneficiaries. (c) Description of Price.--The price at which a participating manufacturer shall make a covered outpatient drug available for purchase by a pharmacy is the price equal to the lower of the following: (1) The lowest price paid for the covered outpatient drug by any agency or department of the United States. (2) The manufacturer's best price for the covered outpatient drug, as defined in section 1927(c)(1)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-8(c)(1)(C)). SEC. 4. SPECIAL PROVISION WITH RESPECT TO HOSPICE PROGRAMS. For purposes of determining the amount of a covered outpatient drug that a participating manufacturer shall make available for purchase by a pharmacy under section 3, there shall be included in the calculation of such amount the amount of the covered outpatient drug sold or distributed by a pharmacy to a hospice program. In calculating such amount, only amounts of the covered outpatient drug furnished to a medicare beneficiary enrolled in the hospice program shall be included. SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION. The Secretary shall issue such regulations as may be necessary to implement this Act. SEC. 6. REPORTS TO CONGRESS REGARDING EFFECTIVENESS OF ACT. (a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall report to Congress regarding the effectiveness of this Act in-- (1) protecting medicare beneficiaries from discriminatory pricing by drug manufacturers; and (2) making prescription drugs available to medicare beneficiaries at substantially reduced prices. (b) Consultation.--In preparing such reports, the Secretary shall consult with public health experts, affected industries, organizations representing consumers and older Americans, and other interested persons. (c) Recommendations.--The Secretary shall include in such reports any recommendations that the Secretary considers appropriate for changes in this Act to further reduce the cost of covered outpatient drugs to medicare beneficiaries. SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS. In this Act: (1) Participating manufacturer.--The term ``participating manufacturer'' means [[Page S3464]] any manufacturer of drugs or biologicals that, on or after the date of enactment of this Act, enters into or renews a contract or agreement with the United States for the sale or distribution of covered outpatient drugs to the United States. (2) Covered outpatient drug.--The term ``covered outpatient drug'' has the meaning given that term in section 1927(k)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-8(k)(2)). (3) Medicare beneficiary.--The term ``medicare beneficiary'' means an individual entitled to benefits under part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act or enrolled under part B of such title, or both. (4) Hospice program.--The term ``hospice program'' has the meaning given that term under section 1861(dd)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(2)). (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Health and Human Services. SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE. The Secretary shall implement this Act as expeditiously as practicable and in a manner consistent with the obligations of the United States. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, today by introducing the ``Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act of 1999''. Earlier this year, Representatives Tom Allen, Jim Turner, Marion Barry, and Henry Waxman were joined by sixty-one of their colleagues when they introduced H.R. 664, ``The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act of 1999'' in the U.S. House of Representatives. This legislation address

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

Law Enforcement Protection Act of 1999
(Senate - March 25, 1999)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S3457-S3516] Law Enforcement Protection Act of 1999 Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill to authorize States to recognize each other's concealed weapons laws and exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms. This legislation is designed to support the rights of States and to facilitate the right of law-abiding citizens as well as law enforcement officers to protect themselves, their families, and their property. I am pleased to be joined by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch as an original cosponsor of this legislation. The language of this bill is based on my bill, S. 837, in the 105th Congress and is similar to a provision in S. 3, the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1997, introduced by Senator Hatch. In light of the importance of this provision to law-abiding gunowners and law enforcement officers, I am introducing this freestanding bill today for the Senate's consideration and prompt action. This bill allows States to enter into agreements, known as ``compacts,'' to recognize the concealed weapons laws of those States included in the compacts. This is not a Federal mandate; it is strictly voluntary for those States interested in this approach. States would also be allowed to include provisions which best meet their needs, such as special provisions for law enforcement personnel. This legislation would allow anyone possessing a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm in their respective State to also carry it in another State, provided that the States have entered into a compact agreement which recognizes the host State's right-to-carry laws. This is needed if you want to protect the security individuals enjoy in their own State when they travel or simply cross State lines to avoid a crazy quilt of differing laws. Currently, a Federal standard governs the conduct of nonresidents in those States that do not have a right-to-carry statute. Many of us in this body have always strived to protect the interests of States and communities by allowing them to make important decisions on how their affairs should be conducted. We are taking to the floor almost every day to talk about mandating certain things to the States. This bill would allow States to decide for themselves. Specifically, the bill allows that the law of each State govern conduct within that State where the State has a right-to-carry statute, and States determine through a compact agreement which out-of-State right-to-carry statute will be recognized. To date, 31 States have passed legislation making it legal to carry concealed weapons. These State laws enable citizens of those States to exercise their right to protect themselves, their families, and their property. The second major provision of this bill would allow qualified current and former law enforcement officers who are carrying appropriate written identification of that status to be exempt from State laws that prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons. This provision sets forth a checklist of stringent criteria that law enforcement officers must meet in order to qualify for this exemption status. Exempting qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, I believe, would add additional forces to our law enforcement community in our unwavering fight against crime. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 727 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Law Enforcement Protection Act of 1999''. [[Page S3458]] SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED CURRENT AND FORMER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS. (a) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926A the following: ``Sec. 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified current and former law enforcement officers ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision of a State, an individual may carry a concealed firearm if that individual is-- ``(1) a qualified law enforcement officer or a qualified former law enforcement officer; and ``(2) carrying appropriate written identification. ``(b) Effect on Other Laws.-- ``(1) Common carriers.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to exempt from section 46505(B)(1) of title 49-- ``(A) a qualified law enforcement officer who does not meet the requirements of section 46505(D) of title 49; or ``(B) a qualified former law enforcement officer. ``(2) Federal laws.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or limit any Federal law or regulation prohibiting or restricting the possession of a firearm on any Federal property, installation, building, base, or park. ``(3) State laws.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that-- ``(A) grant rights to carry a concealed firearm that are broader than the rights granted under this section; ``(B) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or ``(C) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park. ``(4) Definitions.--In this section: ``(A) Appropriate written identification.--The term `appropriate written identification' means, with respect to an individual, a document that-- ``(i) was issued to the individual by the public agency with which the individual serves or served as a qualified law enforcement officer; and ``(ii) identifies the holder of the document as a current or former officer, agent, or employee of the agency. ``(B) Qualified law enforcement officer.--The term `qualified law enforcement officer' means an individual who-- ``(i) is presently authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, or investigation of any violation of criminal law; ``(ii) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm in the course of duty; ``(iii) meets any requirements established by the agency with respect to firearms; and ``(iv) is not the subject of a disciplinary action by the agency that prevents the carrying of a firearm. ``(C) Qualified former law enforcement officer.--The term `qualified former law enforcement officer' means, an individual who is-- ``(i) retired from service with a public agency, other than for reasons of mental disability; ``(ii) immediately before such retirement, was a qualified law enforcement officer with that public agency; ``(iii) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the retirement plan of the agency; ``(iv) was not separated from service with a public agency due to a disciplinary action by the agency that prevented the carrying of a firearm; ``(v) meets the requirements established by the State in which the individual resides with respect to-- ``(I) training in the use of firearms; and ``(II) carrying a concealed weapon; and ``(vi) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm. ``(D) Firearm.--The term `firearm' means, any firearm that has, or of which any component has, traveled in interstate or foreign commerce.''. (b) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926A the following: ``926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified current and former law enforcement officers.''. SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO INTERSTATE COMPACTS. (a) In General.--The consent of Congress is given to any 2 or more States-- (1) to enter into compacts or agreements for cooperative effort in enabling individuals to carry concealed weapons as dictated by laws of the State within which the owner of the weapon resides and is authorized to carry a concealed weapon; and (2) to establish agencies or guidelines as they may determine to be appropriate for making effective such agreements and compacts. (b) Reservation of Rights.--The right to alter, amend, or repeal this section is hereby expressly reserved by Congress. ______ By Mr. CAMPBELL: S. 728. A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to increase the maximum term of imprisonment for offenses involving stolen firearms; to the Committee on the Judiciary. Stolen Gun Penalty Enhancement Act of 1999 Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, many crimes in our country are being committed with stolen guns. The extent of this problem is reflected in a number of recent studies and news reports. Therefore, today I am introducing the Stolen Gun Penalty Enhancement Act of 1999 to increase the maximum prison sentences for violating existing stolen gun laws. Reports indicate that almost half a million guns are stolen each year. As of March 1995 there were over 2 million reports in the stolen gun file of the FBI's National Crime Information Center including 7,700 reports of stolen machine guns and submachine guns. In a 9 year period between 1985 and 1994, the FBI received an annual average of over 274,000 reports of stolen guns. Studies conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms note that felons steal firearms to avoid background checks. A 1991 Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of State prison inmates notes that almost 10 percent had stolen a handgun, and over 10 percent of all inmates had traded or sold a stolen firearm. This problem is especially alarming among young people. A Justice Department study of juvenile inmates in four states shows that over 50 percent of those inmates had stolen a gun. In the same study, gang members and drug sellers were more likely to have stolen a gun. In my home State of Colorado, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation receives over 500 reports of stolen guns each month. As of this month, the Bureau has a total of 36,000 firearms on its unrecovered firearms list. It is estimated that one-third of these firearms are categorized as handguns. All these studies and statistics show the extent of the problem of stolen guns. Therefore, the bill I am introducing today will increase the maximum prison sentences for violation of existing stolen gun laws. Specifically, my bill increases the maximum penalty for violating four provisions of the firearms laws. Under title 18 of the U.S. Code, it is illegal to knowingly transport or ship a stolen firearm or stolen ammunition. It is also illegal to knowingly receive, possess, conceal, store, sell, or otherwise dispose of a stolen firearm or stolen ammunition. The penalty for violating either of these provisions is a fine, a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years, or both. My bill increases the maximum prison sentence to 15 years. The third statutory provision makes it illegal to steal a firearm from a licensed dealer, importer, or manufacturer. For violating this provision, the maximum term of imprisonment would be increased to a maximum 15 years under by bill. And the fourth provision makes it illegal to steal a firearm from any person, including a licensed firearm collector, with a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. As with the other three provisions, my bill increases this maximum penalty to 15 years. In addition to these amendments to title 18 of the U.S. Code, the bill I introduce today directs the United States Sentencing Commission to revise the Federal sentencing guidelines with respect to these firearms offenses. Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of the rights of law-abiding gun owners. However, I firmly believe we need tough penalties for the illegal use of firearms. The Stolen Gun Penalty Enhancement Act of 1999 will send a strong signal to criminals who are even thinking about stealing a firearm. I urge my colleagues to join in support of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 728 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. STOLEN FIREARMS. (a) In General.--Section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in subsection (a)-- (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(i), (j),''; and [[Page S3459]] (B) by adding at the end the following: ``(7) Whoever knowingly violates subsection (i) or (j) of section 922 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.''; (2) in subsection (i)(1), by striking ``10 years'' and inserting ``15 years''; and (3) in subsection (l), by striking ``10 years'' and inserting ``15 years''. (b) Sentencing Commission.--The United States Sentencing Commission shall amend the Federal sentencing guidelines to reflect the amendments made by subsection (a). ______ By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Lott, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Burns, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Hagel and Mr. Bennett): S. 729. A bill to ensure that Congress and the public have the right to participate in the declaration of national monuments on federal land; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. THE NATIONAL MONUMENT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACT OF 1999 Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that ensures the public will have a say in the management of our public lands. I am pleased that Senators Murkowski, Lott, Stevens, Burns, Gordon Smith, Crapo, Shelby, Hagel, and Bennett are joining me as original cosponsors. After President Clinton's proclamation of four years ago, declaring nearly two million acres of southern Utah a national monument, I introduced the Idaho Protection Act of 1999. That bill would have required that the public and the Congress be included before a national monument could be established in Idaho. When I introduced that bill, I was immediately approached by other Senators seeking the same protection for their state. This bill, The National Monument Public Participation Act, will provide that protection to all states. The National Monument Public Participation Act amends the Antiquities Act to require the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to provide an opportunity for public involvement prior to the designation of a national monument. It establishes procedures to give the public and local, State, and federal governments adequate notice and opportunity to comment on, and participate in, the formulation of plans for the declaration of national monuments on public lands. Under the 1906 Antiquities Act, the President has the unilateral authority to create a national monument where none existed before. In fact, since 1906, the law has been used some 66 times to set lands aside. It is important to note that with very few exceptions, these declarations occurred before enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which recognized the need for public involvement in such issues and mandated public comment periods before such decisions are made. The most recent use of the Antiquities Act came on September 18, 1996, with Presidential Proclamation 6920, Establishment of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Without including Utah's Governor, Senators, congressional delegation, the State legislature, county commissioners, or the people of Utah--President Clinton set off- limits forever approximately 1.7 million acres of Utah. What the President did in Utah, without public input, could also be done in Idaho or any other States where the federal government has a presence. That must not be allowed to happen. My state of Idaho is 63 percent federal lands. Within Idaho's boundaries, we have one National Historic Park, one National Reserve, two National Recreation Areas, and five Wilderness Areas, just to name the major federally designated natural resource areas. This amounts to approximately 4.8 million acres, or to put things in perspective, the size of the state of New Jersey. Each of these designations has had public involvement and consent of Congress before being designated. As you can tell, the public process has worked in the past, in my state, and I believe it will continue to work in the future. In Idaho, each of these National designations generated concerns among those affected by the designation, but with the public process, we were able to work through most of the concerns before the designation was made. Individuals who would be affected by the National designation had time to prepare, but Utah was not as fortunate. With the overnight designation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, the local communities, and the State and federal agencies were left to pick up the pieces and work out all the ``details.'' The President's action in Utah has been a wake-up call to people across America.We all want to preserve what is best in our States, and I understand and support the need to protect valuable resources. That is why this bill will not, in any way, affect the ability of the federal government to make emergency withdrawals under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). If an area is truly worthy of a National Monument designation, Congress will make that designation during the time frame provided in FLPMA. Our public lands are a national asset that we all treasure and enjoy. Westerners are especially proud of their public lands and have a stake in the management of these lands, but people everywhere also understand that much of their economic future is tied up in what happens on their public lands. In the West, where public lands dominate the landscape, issues such as grazing, timber harvesting, water use, and recreation access have all come under attack by this administration seemingly bent upon kowtowing to a segment of our population that wants these uses kicked off our public lands. Everyone wants public lands decisions to be made in an open and inclusive process. No one wants the President, acting alone, to unilaterally lock up enormous parts of any State. We certainly don't work that way in the West. There is a recognition that with common sense, a balance can be struck that allows jobs to grow and families to put down roots while at the same time protecting America's great natural resources. In my view, the President's actions in Utah were beyond the pale, and for that reason--to protect others from suffering a similar fate I am introducing this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill appear in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 729 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``National Monument Public Participation Act of 1999''. SEC. 2. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Act is to ensure that Congress and the public have the right and opportunity to participate in decisions to declare national monuments on Federal land. SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION OF CONGRESSIONAL AND PUBLIC ROLES IN DECLARATION OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS. The Act entitled ``An Act for the preservation of American antiquities'', approved June 8, 1906 (commonly known as the ``Antiquities Act of 1906'') (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.), is amended by adding at the end the following: ``SEC. 5. CONGRESSIONAL AND PUBLIC ROLES IN NATIONAL MONUMENT DECLARATIONS. ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall promulgate regulations that establish procedures to ensure that Federal, State, and local governments and the public have the right to participate in the formulation of plans relating to the declaration of a national monument on Federal land on or after the date of enactment of this section, including procedures-- ``(1) to provide the public with adequate notice and opportunity to comment on and participate in the declaration of a national monument on Federal land; and ``(2) for public hearings, when appropriate, on the declaration of a national monument on Federal land. ``(b) Other Duties.--Prior to making any recommendations for declaration of a national monument in an area, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall-- ``(1) ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, compliance with all applicable Federal land management and environmental laws, including the completion of a programmatic environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); ``(2) cause mineral surveys to be conducted by the Geological Survey to determine the mineral values, if any, that may be present in the area; ``(3) cause an assessment of the surface resource values of the land to be completed and made available by the appropriate agencies; ``(4) identify all existing rights held on Federal land contained within the area by type and acreage; and ``(5) identify all State and private land contained within the area. [[Page S3460]] ``(c) Recommendations.--On completion of the reviews and mineral surveys required under subsection (b), the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture shall submit to the President recommendations as to whether any area on Federal land warrants declaration as a national monument. ``(d) Federal Action.--Any study or recommendation under this section shall be considered a federal action for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). ``(e) Reports.--Not later than 2 years after the receipt of a recommendation under subsection (c), the President shall-- ``(1) advise the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the President's recommendation with respect to whether each area evaluated should be declared a national monument; and ``(2) provide a map and description of the boundaries of each area evaluated for declaration to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. ``(f) Declaration After Effective Date.--A recommendation of the President for declaration of a national monument that is made after the effective date of this section shall become effective only if the declaration is approved by Act of Congress.''. Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon in support of the National Monument Public Participation Act of 1999. This legislation puts the ``Public'' back into public land management and the ``Environment'' back into environmental protection. Passage of this Act will insure that all the gains we have made over the past quarter century in creating an open participatory government which affords strong environmental protection for our public lands are protected. For those of you who thought those battles were fought and ``won'' with the passage of National Environmental Protection Act in 1969, the Federal Land Policy Management Act in 1976, and the National Forest Management Act of 1976, I have bad news. There is one last battle to be fought. Standing in this very Chamber on January 30, 1975, Senator Henry M. ``Scoop'' Jackson spoke to the passion Americans feel for their public lands. He said: The public lands of the United States have always provided the arena in which we American's have struggled to fulfill our dreams. Even today dreams of wealth, adventure, and escape are still being acted out on these far flung lands. These lands and the dreams--fulfilled and unfulfilled--which they foster are a part of our national destiny. They belong to all Americans. Amazingly, there exists today ``legal'' authorities by which the President, without public process or Congressional approval and without any environmental review, can create vast special management units. Special management units which can affect how millions of acres of our public lands are managed, what people can do on these lands, and what the future will be for surrounding communities. This is a powerful trust to bestow upon anyone--even a President. On September 12, 1996, the good people of Utah woke up to find themselves the most recent recipient of a philosophy that says: ``Trust us we're from the federal government, and we know what's best for you''. On that day, standing in the State of Arizona, the President invoked the 1906 Antiquities Act to create a 1.7 million acre Nation Monument in Southern Utah. By using this antiquated law the President was able to avoid this nation's environmental laws and ignore public participation laws. With one swipe of the pen, every shred of public input and environmental law promulgated in this country over the past quarter of a century was shoved into the trash heap of political expediency. What happened in Utah is but the latest example of a small cadre of Administration officials deciding for all Americans how our public lands should be used. It is a classic example of a backroom deal, catering to special interests at the expense of the public. It is by no means the only one. As a Senator from Alaska, I have a great deal of personal experience in this area. In 1978, President Jimmy Carter used this law to create ``17'' National Monuments in Alaska covering more than 55 millions acres of land. This was followed in short order by this Secretary of the Interior Cecil Andrus who withdrew an additional 50 million acres. All this land was withdrawn from multiple uses without any input from the people of Alaska, the public, or the Congress of the United States. All this occurred while Congress was considering legislation affecting these lands, while Congress was conducting workshops throughout Alaska and holding hearings in Washington, DC to involve the public. With over 100 million acres of withdrawn land held over Alaska's head like the sword of Damocles, we were forced to cut the best deal we could. Twenty years later the people of my state are still struggling to cope with the weight of these decisions. President Carter cut his deal for his special interests to avoid the public debate on legislation, just as President Clinton did with the Grand Staircase/ Escalante. I would not be here this afternoon if the public, and Congress were not systematically being denied a voice in the creation of National Monuments. I would not be here if environmental procedures were being followed. But the people of this nation are being denied the opportunity to speak, Congress is being denied its opportunity to participate, and environmental procedure are being ignored. The only voice we hear is that of the President. Without bothering to ask what we thought about it, he told the citizens of Utah and the rest of the country that he knew better than they what was best for them. It has been a long time since anyone has had the right to make those kinds of unilateral public land use decisions for the American public. Since passage of the Forest Service Organic Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act in 1976 we have had a rock hard system of law on how public land use decisions are to be made. Embodied within these laws are public participation. Agencies propose an action, they present that action to the public, the public debates the issue, bad decisions can be appealed, the courts resolve disputes, and finally the management unit is created. Where was this public participation in the special use designation of 1.7 million acres of federal land in southern Utah? Since the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969 activities which effect the environment are subject to strict environmental reviews. Does anyone believe there is no environmental threat posed by the creation of a national monument? The economic and social consequences of this decision will have enormous and irrevocable impacts not only on the land immediately affected, but on surrounding lands and communities. All these effects on the human environment would have been evaluated under the land management statutes and the environmental procedural review. Where is the NEPA compliance documentation associated with this action? The Constitutions explicitly provides that ``The Congress shall have the power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.'' The creation of specialized public use designations such as National Parks and Wilderness Areas are debated within the Halls of Congress. These Debates provide for the financial and legal responsibilities which come with the creation of special management units. Where are the proceedings from those debates? They simply do not exist because, in the heat of political expediency, the Administration determined that public process, environmental analyses, and Congressional deliberations were a waste of time. Mr. President, either you believe in public process or you do not, you can't have it both ways. We can no longer trust the Administration to involve the public in major land use decisions and we can no longer tolerate the blanket evasion of the laws designed to protect our natural resources. The time has come for Congress to reassert its Constitutional responsibility under Article IV. The legislation which Senator Craig and I offer today will require that any future designations of National Monuments to follow the public participation principals laid down in law over the past 25 years. No poetic images, no flowery words, no smoke and mirrors, no special coverage on Good Morning America, just good old fashion public land management process. Before these special land management units can be created, our legislation will require that agencies gather and analyze resource data affected by these land use decisions; that full public participation in the designation of [[Page S3461]] the units takes place (with all appeal rights protected); that there be compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act; and that Congress review and approve final designation. No longer will an administration be able to side-step public participation and environmental reviews to further its political agenda and cater to special interest. Nobody--not even the President--should be above the law. The National Monument Participation Act will make all future land use decisions a joint responsibility of the public through the Congress, that they elect. This legislation reasserts the Constitutional role of the Congress in public land decisions. I do not question the need for National Monuments. If the national benefit can be demonstrated, then by all means a national monument should be created. But, if they are to serve the common good, they must be created under the same system of land management law that has managed the use of the public domain for the past 25 years and pursuant to the document that has governed this Nation for the past 225 years. There has always been a sacred bond between the American people and the lands they hold in common ownership. No one-regardless of high station or political influence--has the right to impose his will over the means by which the destiny of those land is decided. This legislation re-establishes that bond. Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to join a number of my colleagues in introducing The National Monument Participation Act of 1999. This bill would amend the Antiquities Act of 1906 to clearly establish the roles for public participation and Congressional involvement in declaring national monuments on federal lands. This bill requires specific processes and requirements to ensure that the public, local, state, and Federal government are both informed and involved in the formulation of any plans to declare national monuments on federal lands. It requires that the public be actively involved in the formulation of any plans to declare a national monument. Considering the recent controversy surrounding the designation of monuments with the stroke of a pen rather than through open debate and assessment, it only makes sense to include the public in any future designation decisions. I remind my colleagues and the administration that we are managing our land resources for the people. This bill suggests that perhaps we should listen to them before drastically changing the management of our land resources. Additionally, the legislation requires that the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture perform an assessment of current land uses on the land proposed for designation. This is necessary to provide information about the impact of declaring any national monument before recommendations are made by the President. It makes absolutely no sense to pursue designation changes without learning what is at stake. What mineral interests are affected? Does it change traditional grazing uses? These are questions that will have to be answered before new monuments are designated. The legislation also requires that we look at the impact a monument would have on state or private land holdings. Once again, common sense is needed. If the federal designation change affects state an private lands, Congress must be informed of these impacts before a decision is finally reached. It is irresponsible to make decisions without the proper information. Finally, this legislation would require the President to submit his decision on these recommendations to the Congress for final review and approval. If we are going to change our designations and impact local communities, Congress must weigh in on the decision. Public involvement in federal decision making is critical today to ensure that local citizens are involved in the decision changing how federal lands near their homes are used. This bill will mandate broader involvement to ensure the public and the legislative branch have an opportunity to participate in any plans to establish new national monuments on federal lands. In addition, this ensures the information is available for the public and ourselves to understand the impacts of any proposed declaration and make an informed decision. Overall, I believe this bill establishes a clear set of roles and responsibilities for all parties involved in the declaration of new national monuments on federal lands to ensure that such decisions are made in a manner that respects the rights of both local communities and the interests of the nation as a whole. I encourage my colleagues to carefully examine this legislation and lend their support to its ultimate passage. Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today as an original co- sponsor of the National Monument Public Participation Act of 1999. I commend my colleague, Senator Craig, for bringing forward this important measure and am pleased to offer it my support. The National Monument Public Participation Act of 1999 will establish guidelines for public and local, State, and federal government involvement in the designation and planning of national monuments. Currently, under the 1906 Antiquities Act, the President has the authority to proclaim a national monument and determine its composition and scope without any prior or subsequent public involvement. Although this authority has rarely been invoked since the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which mandates public comment periods prior to federal land management actions, the recent exercise of this authority by the current Administration has called attention to the need to revise the Antiquities Act. These proposed amendments to the Antiquities Act reflect the contemporary recognition that public involvement in federal land management decisions is both proper and beneficial. This measure, beyond requiring the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to include the public and the different levels of government in the decision to designate and form national monuments, also directs the Secretaries to research and make available information about the land to be designated. Factors such as the mineral values present and identification of existing rights held on federal lands within the area to be designated have an obvious bearing on the decision of whether designation is appropriate and, if it is, how it should be structured. An understanding of these factors should be a part of an inclusive decision-making process and, hence, it is appropriate to require that they be explored and publicly shared prior to the designation of a national monument. The strongest protection, however, that the National Monument Public Participation Act of 1999 provides for public oversight of national monument designation is the requirement that any recommendation of the President for declaration of land as a national monument shall become effective only if so provided by an Act of Congress. By subjecting proposals for monument designations to congressional approval, this Act ensures that when national monuments are established they are truly supported, both nationally and by local communities. This Act provides an important level of protection for public involvement in land use issues and I am pleased to offer it my support. ______ By Mr. DURBIN: S. 730. A bill to direct the Consumer Product Safety Commission to promulgate fire safety standards for cigarettes, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. fire safe cigarette act of 1999 Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the First Safe Cigarette Act of 1999. This legislation would solve a serious fire safety problem, namely, fires that are caused by a carelessly discarded cigarette. The statistics regarding cigarette-related fires are truly startling. In 1996 there were 169,500 cigarette-related first that resulted in 1,181 deaths, 2,931 injuries and $452 million in property damage. According to the National Fire Protection Association, one out of every four fire deaths in the United States in 1996 was attributed to tobacco products. In my state of Illinois, cigarette-related fires have also caused too many senseless tragedies. In 1997, alone, there were more than 1,700 cigarette-related fires, of which more than 900 [[Page S3462]] were in people's homes. These fires led to 109 injuries and 8 deaths. Also in 1997, smoking-related fires in Illinois led to property loss of more than $10.4 million. According to statistics from the U.S. Fire Administration, half of the known residential fire deaths in Illinois from 1993 to 1995 were from arson and careless smoking. During that three-year period, 69 deaths in Illinois were attributed to careless smoking. A Technical Study Group (TSG) was created by the Federal Cigarette Safety Act in 1984 to investigate the technological and commercial feasibility of creating a self-extinguishing cigarette. This group was made up of representatives of government agencies, the cigarette industry, the furniture industry, public health organizations and fire safety organizations. The TSG produced two reports that concluded that it is technically feasible to reduce the ignition propensity of cigarettes. The manufacture of less fire-prone cigarettes may require some advances in cigarette design and manufacturing technology, but the cigarette companies have demonstrated their capability to make cigarettes of reduced ignition propensity with no increase in tar, nicotine or carbon monoxide in the smoke. For example, six current commercial cigarettes have been tested which already have reduced ignition propensity. The technology is in place now to begin developing a performance standard for less fire prone cigarettes. Furthermore, the overall impact on other aspects of the United States society and economy will be minimal. Thus, it may be possible to solve this problem at costs that are much less than the potential benefits, which are saving lives and avoiding injuries and property damage. The Fire Safe Cigarette Act would give the Consumer Product Safety Commission the authority to promulgate a fire safety standard for cigarettes. Eighteen months after the legislation is enacted, the Consumer Product Safety Commission would issue a rule creating a safety standard for cigarettes. Thirty months after the legislation is enacted, the standards would become effective for the manufacture and importation of cigarettes. Here are some examples of changes that could be made to cigarettes that would reduce the likelihood of fire ignition: reduced circumference or thinner cigarettes, making the paper less porous, changing the density of the tobacco in cigarettes, and eliminating or reducing the citrate added to the cigarette paper. Also, there is limited evidence suggesting that the presence of a filter may reduce ignition propensity. Again, there are cigarettes on the market right now that show some of these characteristics and are less likely to smolder and cause fires. While the number of people killed each year by fires is dropping because of safety improvements and other factors, too many Americans are dying because of a product that could be less likely to catch fire if simple changes were made. I strongly believe that this issue demands immediate and swift action in order to prevent further deaths and injuries. An industry that can afford to spend more than $4 billion in advertising every year cannot claim it would be too expensive to make these changes. It is not unreasonable to ask these companies to make their products less likely to burn down a house. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 730 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, FINDINGS. (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Fire Safe Cigarette Act of 1999''. (b) Findings.--Congress finds that-- (1) cigarette ignited fires are the leading cause of fire deaths in the United States, (2) in 1996 cigarette ignited fires caused-- (A) 1,083 deaths; (B) 2,809 civilian injuries; and (C) $420,000,000 in property damage; (3) each year, more than 100 children are killed from cigarette-related fires; (4) the technical work necessary to achieve a cigarette fire safety standard has been accomplished under the Cigarette Safety Act of 1984 (15 U.S.C. 2054 note) and the Fire Safe Cigarette Act of 1990 (15 U.S.C. 2054 note); (5) it is appropriate for Congress to require the establishment of a cigarette fire safety standard for the manufacture and importation of cigarettes; (6) the most recent study by the Consumer Product Safety Commission found that the cost of the loss of human life and personal property from the absence of a cigarette fire safety standard is $6,000,000,000 a year; and (7) it is appropriate that the regulatory expertise of the Consumer Product Safety Commission be used to implement a cigarette fire safety standard. SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. In this Act: (1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Consumer Product Safety Commission. (2) Cigarette.--The term ``cigarette'' has the meaning given that term in section 3 of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (15 U.S.C. 1332). (3) Stockpiling.--The term ``stockpiling'' means the manufacturing or importing of a cigarette during the period beginning on the date of promulgation of a rule under section 3(a) and ending on the effective date of that rule, at a rate greater than the rate at which cigarettes were manufactured or imported during the 1-year period immediately preceding the date of promulgation of that rule. SEC. 3. CIGARETTE FIRE SAFETY STANDARD. (a) In General.-- (1) Promulgation of cigarette fire safety standard.--Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall promulgate a rule that establishes a cigarette fire safety standard for cigarettes to reduce the risk of ignition presented by cigarettes. (2) Requirements.--In establishing the cigarette fire safety standard under paragraph (1), the Commission shall-- (A) consult with the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and make use of such capabilities of the as the Commission considers necessary; (B) seek the advice and expertise of the heads of other Federal agencies and State agencies engaged in fire safety; and (C) take into account the final report to Congress made by the Commission and the Technical Study Group on Cigarette and Little Cigar Fire Safety established under section 3 of the Fire Safe Cigarette Act of 1990 (15 U.S.C. 2054 note), that includes a finding that cigarettes with a low ignition propensity were already on the market at the time of the preparation of the report. (b) Stockpiling.--The Commission shall include in the rule promulgated under subsection (a) a prohibition on the stockpiling of cigarettes covered by the rule. (c) Effective Date of Rule.--The rule promulgated under subsection (a) shall take effect not later than 30 months after the date of the enactment of this Act. (d) Procedure.-- (1) In general.--The rule under subsection (a) shall be promulgated in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code. (2) Construction.--Except as provided in paragraph (1), no other provision of Federal law shall be construed to apply with respect to the promulgation of a rule under subsection (a), including-- (A) the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq.); (B) chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code; (C) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and (D) the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121) and the amendments made by that Act. (e) Judicial Review.-- (1) General rule.-- (A) In general.--Any person who is adversely affected by the rule promulgated under subsection (a) may, at any time before the 60th day after the Commission promulgates the rule, file a petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or for any other circuit in which that person resides or has its principal place of business to obtain judicial review of the rule. (B) Petition.--Upon the filing of a petition under subparagraph (A), a copy of the petition shall be transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Secretary of Commerce. The Commission shall file in the court the record of the proceedings on which the Commission based the rule, in the same manner as is prescribed for the review of an order issued by an agency under section 2112 of title 28, United States Code. (2) Additional evidence.-- (A) In general.--With respect to a petition filed under paragraph (1), the court may order additional evidence (and evidence in rebuttal thereof) to be taken before the Commission in a hearing or in such other manner, and upon such terms and conditions, as the court considers appropriate, if the petitioner-- (i) applies to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence; and (ii) demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the court, that-- (I) such additional evidence is material; and (II) there was no opportunity to adduce such evidence in the proceeding before the Commission. (B) Modification.--With respect to the rule promulgated by the Commission under subsection (a), the Commission-- (i) may modify the findings of fact of the Commission, or make new findings, by reason of any additional evidence taken by a court under subparagraph (A); and [[Page S3463]] (ii) if the Commission makes a modification under clause (i), shall file with the court the modified or new findings, together with such recommendations as the Commission determines to be appropriate, for the modification of the rule, to be promulgated as a final rule under subsection (a). (3) Court jurisdiction.--Upon the filing of a petition under paragraph (1), the court shall have jurisdiction to review the rule of the Commission, as modified under paragraph (2), in accordance with chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code. (f) Small Business Review.--Section 30 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657) shall not apply with respect to-- (1) a cigarette fire safety standard promulgated by the Commission under subsection (a); or (2) any agency action taken to enforce that standard. SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT. (a) Prohibition.--No person may-- (1) manufacture or import a cigarette, unless the cigarette is in compliance with a cigarette fire safety standard promulgated under section 3(a); or (2) fail to provide information as required under this Act. (b) Penalty.--A violation of subsection (a) shall be considered a violation of section 19 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2068). SEC. 5. PREEMPTION. (a) In General.--This Act, including the cigarette fire safety standard promulgated under section 3(a), shall not be construed to preempt or otherwise affect in any manner any law of a State or political subdivision thereof that prescribes a fire safety standard for cigarettes that is more stringent than the standard promulgated under section 3(a). (b) Defenses.--In any civil action for damages, compliance with the fire safety standard promulgated under section 3(a) may not be admitted as a defense. ______ By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Dodd): S. 731. A bill to provide for substantial reductions in the price of prescription drugs for medicare beneficiaries; to the Committee on Finance. the prescription drug fairness for seniors act Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are well on our way to doubling the budget of the National Institutes of Health. Scientists are discovering new cures and developing new therapies for previously incurable and untreatable illnesses on a regular basis. Breakthrough medications are modern medical miracles that allow people with previously crippling conditions to lead normal lives. Yet too many of our nation's elderly citizens are denied access to these life-saving and life-improving therapies because they lack basic coverage for prescription medications. Today I am introducing the ``Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act of 1999,'' the Senate companion bill to H.R. 664, introduced in the House last month by Representatives Tom Allen, Jim Turner, Marion Berry, Henry Waxman, and sixty-one other House Members. This legislation responds to the need for affordable prescription drugs for senior citizens by requiring pharmaceutical companies to make the same discounts available to senior citizens that are offered to their most favored customers. Prescription drugs represent the largest single source of out-of-pocket costs for health services paid for by the elderly. The Prescription Drug Fairness Act will provide significant benefits to elderly citizens struggling to pay for the prescription drugs they need. This Act represents one important way to improve senior citizens' access to affordable medications. Other steps are necessary as well to deal with the overall prescription drug crisis facing millions of elderly citizens. I plan to introduce legislation soon that will offer additional protections. Providing fair access to prescription drugs for senior citizens is a high priority, and I hope to see quick action by Congress on this critical issue this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 731 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act of 1999''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following: (1) Manufacturers of prescription drugs engage in price discrimination practices that compel many older Americans to pay substantially more for prescription drugs than the drug manufacturers' most favored customers, such as health insurers, health maintenance organizations, and the Federal Government. (2) On average, older Americans who buy their own prescription drugs pay twice as much for prescription drugs as the drug manufacturers' most favored customers. In some cases, older Americans pay over 15 times more for prescription drugs than the most favored customers. (3) The discriminatory pricing by major drug manufacturers sustains their annual profits of $20,000,000,000, but causes financial hardship and impairs the health and well-being of millions of older Americans. More than 1 in 8 older Americans are forced to choose between buying their food and buying their medicines. (4) Most federally funded health care programs, including medicaid, the Veterans Health Administration, the Public Health Service, and the Indian Health Service, obtain prescription drugs for their beneficiaries at low prices. Medicare beneficiaries are denied this benefit and cannot obtain their prescription drugs at the favorable prices available to other federally funded health care programs. (5) Implementation of the policy set forth in this Act is estimated to reduce prescription drug prices for medicare beneficiaries by more than 40 percent. (6) In addition to substantially lowering the costs of prescription drugs for older Americans, implementation of the policy set forth in this Act will significantly improve the health and well-being of older Americans and lower the costs to the Federal taxpayer of the medicare program. (7) Older Americans who are terminally ill and receiving hospice care services represent some of the most vulnerable individuals in our Nation. Making prescription drugs available to medicare beneficiaries under the care of medicare-certified hospices will assist in extending the benefits of lower prescription drug prices to those most vulnerable and in need. (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to protect medicare beneficiaries from discriminatory pricing by drug manufacturers and to make prescription drugs available to medicare beneficiaries at substantially reduced prices. SEC. 3. PARTICIPATING MANUFACTURERS. (a) In General.--Each participating manufacturer of a covered outpatient drug shall make available for purchase by each pharmacy such covered outpatient drug in the amount described in subsection (b) at the price described in subsection (c). (b) Description of Amount of Drugs.--The amount of a covered outpatient drug that a participating manufacturer shall make available for purchase by a pharmacy is an amount equal to the aggregate amount of the covered outpatient drug sold or distributed by the pharmacy to medicare beneficiaries. (c) Description of Price.--The price at which a participating manufacturer shall make a covered outpatient drug available for purchase by a pharmacy is the price equal to the lower of the following: (1) The lowest price paid for the covered outpatient drug by any agency or department of the United States. (2) The manufacturer's best price for the covered outpatient drug, as defined in section 1927(c)(1)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-8(c)(1)(C)). SEC. 4. SPECIAL PROVISION WITH RESPECT TO HOSPICE PROGRAMS. For purposes of determining the amount of a covered outpatient drug that a participating manufacturer shall make available for purchase by a pharmacy under section 3, there shall be included in the calculation of such amount the amount of the covered outpatient drug sold or distributed by a pharmacy to a hospice program. In calculating such amount, only amounts of the covered outpatient drug furnished to a medicare beneficiary enrolled in the hospice program shall be included. SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION. The Secretary shall issue such regulations as may be necessary to implement this Act. SEC. 6. REPORTS TO CONGRESS REGARDING EFFECTIVENESS OF ACT. (a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall report to Congress regarding the effectiveness of this Act in-- (1) protecting medicare beneficiaries from discriminatory pricing by drug manufacturers; and (2) making prescription drugs available to medicare beneficiaries at substantially reduced prices. (b) Consultation.--In preparing such reports, the Secretary shall consult with public health experts, affected industries, organizations representing consumers and older Americans, and other interested persons. (c) Recommendations.--The Secretary shall include in such reports any recommendations that the Secretary considers appropriate for changes in this Act to further reduce the cost of covered outpatient drugs to medicare beneficiaries. SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS. In this Act: (1) Participating manufacturer.--The term ``participating manufacturer'' means [[Page S3464]] any manufacturer of drugs or biologicals that, on or after the date of enactment of this Act, enters into or renews a contract or agreement with the United States for the sale or distribution of covered outpatient drugs to the United States. (2) Covered outpatient drug.--The term ``covered outpatient drug'' has the meaning given that term in section 1927(k)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-8(k)(2)). (3) Medicare beneficiary.--The term ``medicare beneficiary'' means an individual entitled to benefits under part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act or enrolled under part B of such title, or both. (4) Hospice program.--The term ``hospice program'' has the meaning given that term under section 1861(dd)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(dd)(2)). (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Health and Human Services. SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE. The Secretary shall implement this Act as expeditiously as practicable and in a manner consistent with the obligations of the United States. Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, today by introducing the ``Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act of 1999''. Earlier this year, Representatives Tom Allen, Jim Turner, Marion Barry, and Henry Waxman were joined by sixty-one of their colleagues when they introduced H.R. 664, ``The Prescription Drug Fairness For Seniors Act of 1999'' in the U.S. House of Representatives. This legislati