Ben Campbell

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Further question: Are we to assume that it would then be open to further amendments dealing with Medicare or Medicaid?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Will the Senator yield? Is it the Senator's understanding, as it is mine, if this amendment is adopted, it then becomes amendable?

Mr. CAMPBELL. What is to stop amending it saying anyone not wearing seatbelts is denied Medicaid or what is to stop amending it to say we do away with Medicaid altogether, or something of that nature?

Mr. CAMPBELL. I would like to respond to a few of the comments my friend, Senator Chafee, has made. First of all, since I come from the State of Colorado, I can tell him that I called the State agencies to try to find out if there was any agency in our State that kept track of people who are being paid because they were incapacitated under what is commonly called the ``public burden theory.'' The public burden theory, as I mentioned yesterday, basically says that if you are injured and you have no insurance and no way to pay for your hospital bills, the public picks up the cost. In the State of Colorado there are no numbers whatsoever that define which people are incapacitated by automobile injuries, by motorcycles, by skiing or anything else. If they are injured, they do not have an insurance policy and they do not have finances to take care of themselves, they are put in a pool. That is what I am told by the State of Colorado. I would also like to point out that we are concerned that the Federal Government sometime or other is going to get involved in defining all forms of personal behavior that have some element of risk. That may include skiers in my State. We had something like five deaths this year on the slopes of Colorado. None of them were wearing a helmet. Perhaps we should mandate that they do because it is on Federal ground and, therefore, the Federal Government has some kind of a vested interest. [[Page S 8751]] In the State of California, since my colleague mentioned that a number of times, I would tell him that bicycles recently in the State of California came under a State law that requires everyone to wear a helmet that rides a bicycle. But the Federal Government did not mandate it. It let the State of California make its own decision. And if that is what the people of California want, and the legislature, their elected officials want, then that probably fits all right in the State of California. I do not think we would want it in Colorado. But clearly we let them make the decision. Now, I mention California because there is over 100 times more head injuries and automobile accidents than there is on motorcycles and over ten times more deaths. Recently--several years ago, in fact--there was an assemblyman named Dick Floyd of Hawthorne, CA, who told a radio audience in Los Angeles that he favored a helmet law for automobile drivers and was thinking of introducing a bill to mandate that everybody that drives an automobile in California wear a helmet, even though there have been instances where the California Highway Patrol have given citations for people that were wearing a helmet in automobiles. And the reason they gave them is because they cut down hearing and visibility. Mr. Floyd's comments came during a debate during appearances concerning a helmet bill which he introduced in California, and did pass, by the way, for motorcycles. Mr. Floyd was not reelected. So he is no longer in the State legislature, probably for a good reason, because I think he believed in taking away personal choices and personal freedoms. There is another thing I would like to say. I hope that my colleague, Senator Chafee, does not imply that within States where people elect their own legislators they do not have elected officials that can make decisions for their own constituents and that we should overrule them at the Federal level, because I think that is absolutely wrong. He mentioned something about who pays the bills under the highway users trust fund, the gasoline tax. But we have 3.5 million people in Colorado, most of whom drive, who pay money every time they buy a gallon of gasoline in any gas station, as your State of Wyoming does, the State of Maine does, where my colleague, Senator Snowe, is from. That money goes into a pool, the highway users trust fund, that people in those States have every right to expect to be paid back for construction in the States. There was nothing, to my knowledge, in the enabling bill, the bill that originally set up the highway users trust fund, that said we are going to collect a tax from you, however we are only going to give it back if you comply under this condition or that one, which may be a mandatory helmet law. The money is supposed to go back to the States for construction. As it is now, under the mandatory section of ISTEA that did pass--and we are trying to get repealed--they simply do not have that option. It is simply a Federal blackmail of the State governments. Now, we can stand, I guess, here all day and hear some of the horror stories, the public burden theory, who was injured, who was not, and we should have mandatory laws dealing with them about their recreation. But I would point out that the Federal Government simply cannot get involved in every form of behavior in which there is some risk. Melanoma is a skin cancer from sunbathing that kills more people than motorcycle accidents, yet we do not outlaw sunbathing or require they have certain kinds of Sun screen on, or tell them we will deny some funding under Medicaid or Medicare if they do not. Swimming and diving accidents cause more quadriplegics each year than motorcycling, yet we have not outlawed swimming and diving. I think it gets beyond ridiculous when we tell States that we are going to require certain things that take away fundamental rights and deny them money that they have every right to if they do not comply with what we think they should be doing with their recreation in private states. With that, I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise also in support of the amendment proposed by my friend and colleague, Senator Smith. This legislation will provide for a full repeal of the financial penalties established under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 and will provide relief to the 25 States, as he has mentioned. There are, as my colleagues know, probably going to be three amendments, depending on how the vote goes on the Smith amendment. But I am just going to make some general statements. If we go on to the next amendments, I will make some others dealing specifically with helmets. But this is not only a burdensome Federal mandate placed on the backs of State legislatures but also an erosion of States rights. [[Page S 8661]] This amendment, by the way, does not require States to repeal any mandatory laws they now have in effect, not seatbelt laws or helmet laws. Strictly speaking, 25 States have refused to be blackmailed by the Federal Government. They have refused to comply with the Federal mandates. In accordance with ISTEA, they are required to transfer very scarce transportation and construction dollars to section 402 safety programs. This shift forces States to spend 10 to 20 times the amount they are currently spending on section 402 safety programs. As Senator Smith mentioned, it is money that is not even needed in one program and is badly needed in another, yet they are forced to transfer it from one to another. These penalties are assessed regardless of whether the State already has the funds dedicated to safety programs or not. This year, these States had to divert 1.5 percent of their Federal highway funding to safety programs. This transfer affects the National Highway System, the Surface Transportation Program, and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program. Those States which did not enact seatbelt or helmet laws by September 30, 1994, are required to shift 3 percent of their Federal highway funds from these important programs into safety. This year $48 million will not be spent on highways and bridges because of this section 153, as Senator Smith has mentioned. Clearly, this is a punitive action by the Federal Government against States. The amendment Senator Smith offers repeals that section. I, like many people, believe the Federal Government has blackmailed States long enough and forced them to pass laws which may or may not be in the best interests of their citizens but certainly has taken away the right for them to choose what is best for them in their own States, in sort of a one-case-fits-all scenario. It should not be a question of whether you should or should not wear helmets or whether you should or should not wear seatbelts. The question is who decides, you or the people in your State as elected legislators? Or the Federal Government, which is far removed from many of the people who have to comply with these laws? The question is, What level of Government regulations becomes too absurd? In my view, that mandate has already reached that point. When the Federal Government starts requiring what you wear for some recreational pursuits, as it is now doing, it has gone too far. Let us just say for the sake of argument that those on the other side of the issue are right, that in fact seatbelts and motorcycle helmets make people safer. You can find many personal accounts to support either side of the issue. There is no question about that. But clearly neither one prevents accidents. Does that give the Federal Government the right to force people to wear them? Most people agree that too much exposure to the Sun can cause cancer. Should the Federal Government require all sunbathers to wear sunscreen and threaten the States with withholding Federal money in case people get cancer? I might also say I come from a State where over a million Americans ski, the State of Colorado. It is a big industry. I would like to point out we have had about five skiers killed on the slopes of Colorado this year. None of them was wearing a helmet. I am a skier and I tell you I would be concerned if the Federal Government decided here in Washington to require everybody who skis to wear a helmet. I think we see the same kind of general direction taken for people riding bicycles or horses or young people who use skateboards or rollerblades. Should we have a Government that dictates what you can wear and what you cannot with your recreation? There is a thing called a public burden theory that often people use to defend the use of seatbelts and helmets, too. That public burden theory says if you are injured and do not have an insurance policy and do not have the money to pay for your hospitalization, then you become kind of a ward of the Government. That money has to be taken from the taxpayers to provide for your medical services. There is no study I know of in the United States that says people who do not wear helmets become public burdens any more than anyone else, skiers or bicyclists or rollerbladers or ski boarders or anyone else. When you talk about the public burden I think you can use the same logic for anyone. There is an element of risk in any form of recreation. The question is how many individual rights do we take away in the name of the public burden theory? In my view, the helmet law mandate has reached that point. We have talked on the floor many times this session about Federal mandates. I think if the voting public said anything to us last fall, it was to relieve them of some of the unfunded mandates, some of the things the Federal Government requires without setting the finances to implement the requirement. The last election certainly was about that. While it can be argued that mandating these things may be good for American citizens, is it right to have the Federal Government intrude in our lives to that extent? And, where do we draw the line? In closing, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the amendment of Senator Smith and I yield the floor. Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Perhaps 5 minutes to wind up.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Very frankly, I thought we would probably be able to avoid a game of statistics and studies. But it looks like we are not going to. I have a number of them that I will ask unanimous consent to have introduced in the Record. I would like to mention just a few things. First of all, my colleague, the chairman, talked a little bit about the California study. And I would like to point out that the California study done by Dr. Krause took only--I think the figures were misleading because basically he took only the accidents into consideration based on the number of motorcycles that were registered at the time, not using figures up to 2 years before that indicated almost a drop of 50 percent in the registrations in California during the 2 years preceding his study. Clearly, if you have less of them on the highways, there are going to be less accidents. He also did not take into consideration there is in excess of over 1 million motorcyclists that went through rider safety training. I would like to read just a few statements from different studies that have been made which I will try to abbreviate very shortly. One, accident and fatality statistics, analyzed by Dr. A.R. MacKenzie, said that in a study of over 77 million motorcycle registrations covering the 16-year period, 1977 to 1992, the accident and fatality rates have been calculated and compared with in the helmet law States than in the repeal States. On the basis of registrations, there have been 10.4 percent more accidents and 1.1 percent more fatalities in those States that had mandatory helmet laws than in repeal States. Our State is one of them. In Colorado, in fact, the fatalities went down after we repealed it. According to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation 1978 Division of Motor Vehicle study, 29.4 percent of the motorcyclists that died wearing a helmet died of a head injury; 28.9 percent, almost 29 percent, of motorcyclists that died without a helmet also died of head injury. In other words, almost identical statistics with or without the helmets. According to the National Safety Council ``Accident Facts'' of 1991, motorcycles represented only 2.2 percent of the overall U.S. vehicle population, and yet they were only involved in less than 1 percent of all the traffic accidents, the smallest recorded category of any moving vehicles. Furthermore, only 2.53 percent of all registered motorcycles were reportedly involved in accidents, and just a little over 3 percent of those were fatal. The University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center study says--and I am trying to abbreviate these: Helmet use was not found to be associated with overall injury severity, discharge facility . . . or insurance status. Injured motorcycle operators admitted to trauma centers had lower injury severity scores compared to other road trauma victims, a group including motor vehicle occupants, pedestrians and bicyclists. A State of Kansas Health and Environment Department report to NHTSA stated: . . . we have found no evidence that the death rate for motorcycle accidents increased in Kansas as a result of the repeal of the helmet law. We have also not found any such evidence on a national basis. I skipped over one, the Second International Congress of Automobile Safety said: The automobile driver is at fault in over 70 percent of our car/motorcycle conflicts. Seventy-two percent of U.S. motorcyclists already wear a helmet, either by choice or existing State laws, while auto drivers use seatbelts only 47 percent of the time. Even with seatbelt laws in effect in 48 States, covering over 98 percent of America's population-- only Maine and New Hampshire [[Page S 8665]] currently have no seatbelt law--more than half of all auto fatalities involve head injury, yet no one would suggest that auto drivers should wear a helmet. There are 10 times the fatalities in automobiles due to head injuries than motorcycles. In a Hurt Report, Traffic Safety Center, University of California, they indicate 45.5 percent of all motorcyclists involved in accidents had no license at all and over 92 percent had no training. That is what we are trying to emphasize here. Helmets do not prevent accidents, training prevents accidents. The American College of Surgeons declared in 1980 that improper helmet removal from injured persons may cause paralysis. Inside a new label--I just happened to read one a couple years ago and wrote it down, a new DOT label said: Warning: No protective headgear can protect the wearer against all foreseeable impacts. This helmet is not designed to provide neck or lower head protection. This helmet exceeds Federal standards. Even so, death or severe injury may result from impacts of speeds as low as 15 miles an hour . . . So, in other words, not a Federal agency that is empowered to authorize the testing and no private industry that does the testing, since DOD does not do their own, none will guarantee helmets over 15 miles an hour. From my perspective, they do darn little help. In a DOT test report of 1974 through 1990, where DOT tested helmets by a 6-foot vertical drop, impacting at 13.6 miles an hour, even at those low speeds, 52 percent of the helmets failed during that test. Another study, done by Jonathan Goldstein at Bowdoin College: In contrast to previous findings, it is concluded that: One, motorcycle helmets have no statistically significant effect on the probability of fatality and, two, past a critical impact speed-- And I assume that is past 13.6 miles an hour, the DOT test speed. helmets will increase the severity of neck injuries. A study done by Dr. John G.U. Adams, University College of London, said: Wearing a helmet can induce a false sense of security, leading to excess risk-taking and dangerous riding habits. In fact, the six safest States by actual study in the United States per fatalities for 10,000 registrations are: Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Wyoming. None has adult helmet laws. And yet the States that have the helmet laws also have the highest injury and fatality rates. So we could probably stay here all day long talking about studies that support either thesis, that they are good or bad, but I think we are still getting away from the fact that the decision should be made by the States, by the individuals, not by the Federal Government. I see my friend and colleague from Montana in the Chamber. We were discussing the cost of each State a while ago. In fact, according to the statistics I have, Montana stands to lose $2,192,000 this year out of their construction funds if we do not pass some relief for States from this punitive measure we took in the Federal Government. My own State loses over $2 million. Many of the people who will be here on the floor today--over 50 Senators, since there are 25 States that have refused to comply--are going to be penalized collectively to the point of hundreds of millions of dollars. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL. To shorten the debate, I yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL

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

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation. The hearing will take place Thursday, June 29, 1995, at 2 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to review S. 594, a bill to provide for the administration of certain Presidio properties at minimal cost to the Federal taxpayer. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Subcommittee on Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole of the subcommittee staff at (202) 224-5161.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Telecommunications Competition and Deregulation Act of 1995--S. 652. S. 652 will open telecommunications markets to competition which will benefit consumers and the American economy. It will give America the freedom we need to remain the world's leader in telecommunications, information and computer technology in the 21st century. Keeping this edge will enhance our competitiveness, spur domestic economic growth and job creation, and, most importantly, provide a better quality of life for our citizens. Mr. President, I want to make sure that these same benefits flow into the educational system and into our classrooms, libraries and hospitals. The communications revolution is leaving our schools behind. As access to telecommunications technology and information increases across the country, our classrooms are cut off from the information revolution. The National Center for Education Statistics reports that overall, 35 percent of public schools have access to the Internet but only 3 percent of classrooms in public schools are networked. Smaller schools in rural areas are even less likely to be on the Internet than schools with larger enrollment sizes. Mr. President, I live in a small rural town in Colorado where many schools lack even basic phone lines. I have seen, first-hand, how many rural areas were left unserved and were dependent on the Federal Government to finance cooperatives to bring basic telephone service to rural communities. Schools and libraries in rural Colorado and in rural America cannot afford to be left unserved and kept out of the information revolution. The Snowe-Rockefeller provision in S. 652 ensures that rural communities and high cost areas have access to communications and information technology. This provision builds on the overall universal service provision in S. 652 and adds the important component of providing schools, libraries and hospitals with affordable access to the Information Superhighway. In my view, it is essential to rural communities to keep this provision in the bill. Otherwise, rural areas will not benefit from technological advances in communications. There is a growing understanding that technology can have a significant positive impact on teaching and learning and can serve as a means for achieving educations excellence. For example, a computer network connected to the classroom means that every teacher and student has access to the world's greatest libraries. New technologies and tools such as e-mail and the World Wide Web will give schools greater access to text, audio and video-on-demand. Through telecommunications, students and teachers will gain access to significantly greater amounts of information than would otherwise be available. Teachers could be far more productive and innovative if they had access to new ideas and technologies through computer networks. Studies show productivity increases of as much as 30 percent when teachers are connected to the Information Superhighway. In essence, teachers would be able to exchange lesson plans, get tips from their colleagues, or obtain access to the Library of Congress or the National Archives for teaching materials. In rural areas, students can access information through distance learning programs where information and instruction is exchanged by two-way videos. There are many exciting technological opportunities available for our schools and libraries across the country. Yet, teachers simply do not have adequate tools to use the resources of the information revolution. Most teachers have not had adequate training to prepare them to use technology effectively in teaching. According to survey data from the National Education Association, an estimated 56 percent of all public school teachers feel they need training to use personal computers adequately in their classes and 72 percent need training in the use of on-line databases. Technology can even draw parents into the education process. Many parents do not understand how technology filters into the education process, and they do not understand its significance in their children's schooling. However, parents can have access to simple voice- mail technology and can call into a mailbox to find out the homework assignment or information about a class trip. In the future, classroom networks could eventually extend to the home and thereby fulfill what educators say is their biggest unmet need: lengthening the learning day and involving the parents. Mr. President, all of the Nation's children deserve to be exposed to the best possible education, not just those who live in affluent areas. But, without a national commitment to providing affordable access to these emerging technologies in schools and libraries in rural areas, our Nation will fall far short in preparing all its citizens for the 21st century.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly on a matter that has caused me great personal concern and that has rapidly been allowed to escalate into another tragic example of political class warfare in the United States. I am speaking of the overzealous and counterproductive rhetoric of extremists and extremism. Most recently, the National Rifle Association has provided an example of the worst in political debate. At this time, Mr. President, I include a letter I recently received from Mr. Jack Sands, of Waldorf, MD. Mr. Sands is typical of many former NRA members who have seen its leadership become more violent in its rhetoric over the years. Addressing his letter to Wayne R. LaPierre, he states: I hereby resign as a life member of the NRA. Enclosed is my membership card dated 1973. Please remove my name from all mailing lists. I have chosen today to take this action, since this is Peace Officers Memorial Day when we pay tribute to the nearly 14,000 American law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty. As a retired Federal officer, I no longer wish to be affiliated with the NRA. Sincerely, Jack M. Sands. I commend the national leadership for its courage in apologizing for its most recent example of political hatred. The comments circulated by the NRA were both offensive and irresponsible. I commend them for their apology, but I condemn them, Mr. President, for not having the good sense to exercise responsible restraint in the first place. There is a popular ad campaign that says ``I'm the NRA,'' and we are shown a normal, everyday, person. The message from that ad is that the NRA is just a rank-and-file, next-door-neighbor organization. Well, Mr. President, there are two NRA's. There is the leadership of the NRA and there is the rank and file reflected in this memo sent to several Members. This is their way of lobbying Congress. It is a picture of a gun-toting person speaking about ``jack-booted BATF thugs.'' Mr. President, I was in the NRA but I quit a year ago. So did some of our friends and colleagues like Congressman Brewster who dropped off the board, and Congressmen John Dingell and Tom Foley. Just like former President George Bush. It is time for the rank and file membership of the NRA to take back their association. Otherwise, Mr. President, they will be tarred with the same brush as those few, but vocal, zealots who have initiated this most destructive campaign of hatred, innuendo, fear, animosity, and intimidation which are the NRA leadership's favorite tools for lobbying elected officials. Those who preach hatred and disrespect for the law bear some responsibility if their message of hatred contributes to lawless acts of others. Likewise, those in the Government who act with arrogance or disrespect for the rights of our law abiding citizens--regardless of the political or social beliefs of the citizens--will bear some responsibility if their official behavior contributes to an atmosphere of distrust and animosity toward the Government. There is no excuse to justify vigilante-ism or open lawlessness. It is absolutely inexcusable and irresponsible for a national organization--such as the NRA--which claims it speaks for a great number of our constituents--to openly promote lawlessness or disrespect for our law enforcement personnel. That is precisely what our system of government was created to avoid. Political debate, discussion, recall, referendum, and involvement is how we keep our Government responsive to the needs of the people in the traditional and acceptable way. I can tell you, Mr. President, that I also resigned my membership from the NRA. I did that over a year ago because some of its fanatical members actually made threats against me and my staff if I did not vote their way. I will not lend my name to an organization which appears to cater to that kind of violent behavior. I can also tell you, Mr. President, that views of the beltway NRA is not reflective of the majority of its members' attitudes. Certainly not the Coloradans who have been such dedicated and generous members. Those NRA members would, I am certain, join me in condemning the irresponsible behavior of earlier this month. I am personally highly offended that there is now a trend to politicize the tragedy in Oklahoma City. That was a heinous, terrible, criminal act. These responsible deserve nothing more than due process of law and total, complete, scorn from society. That was contemptible and it was barbarism. It is almost equally contemptible to use that tragedy to further a political agenda. It does not matter what the agenda is, whether additional forms of gun control or whether it is an agenda of anti- governmentalism. To use that tragedy for political or personal advantage cheapens the lives of the innocent victims and it cheapens the rights protected by our Constitution. The NRA is not the only national organization to use lies, hate, fear, or intimidation to generate contributions and to influence public policy. This is a phenomenon that has become quite popular among many groups who wish to influence national policy despite representing small, minority, views on a given issue. However, I can think of no other organization in our history which has advocated acts of outright violence against the Government or law enforcement. That was a new low and I am relieved--somewhat--that the NRA has at least apologized. Let's have no more. The NRA held its national convention this week. To the NRA membership in Colorado and the Nation, I say: Take back your association before it is destroyed--before it destroys itself--from within.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, this morning I take great personal pleasure in introducing the Buffalo Nickel Commemorative Coin Act of 1995. Those of us with more than a little gray hair will remember this unique piece of history, with the Indian head design on one side and the buffalo design on the reverse side. This coin was in general circulation from 1913 to 1938, which is a very short timeframe, only 25 years, but it is still one of the most recognizable coins in American history. Now, nearly 60 years after the mint ceased production of the Indian head nickel, I would like this generation of Americans to reacquaint themselves to this unique piece of American heritage. It is also an opportunity to raise some extra needed revenue for the National Park System. For these reasons, Senator Cochran, who has cosponsored this legislation with me, and I propose a limited edition commemorative Indian head nickel. The artist who designed the coin over 80 years ago is James Earle Fraser. He wanted to produce a coin that was truly American, according to his original writings, that cannot be confused with the currency of any other country. There is no more significant motif, I suppose, than the American bison, the only animal in this country not found in any other place in the world. Mr. Fraser himself was a famous artist, having done many works of art, including ``End of the Trail,'' which is now in the Cowboy Hall of Fame in Oklahoma City. The Indian head motif has always been accepted as an impression of liberty in this country. The American bison was certainly an important part of our history. Mr. Fraser himself said: In designing the buffalo nickel, my first object was to produce a coin which was truly American, and that could not be confused with the currency of any other country. I made sure, therefore, to use none of the attributes that other nations had used in the past. And, in my search for symbols, I found no motif within the boundaries of the United States so distinctive as the American buffalo or bison. According to historical sources, the Indian head on the nickel was created by Fraser based on three models: Iron Tail, an Olala Sioux; Two Moons, a northern Cheyenne, a greater leader of the tribe, of which I am an enrolled member; Big Tree, a Seneca Iroquois, which is part of the Iroquois Confederation. Supposedly the three Indians were all performers appearing in wild- west shows in New York City at the time they posed for Mr. Fraser. Most historians generally accept that the model for the buffalo on the nickel was a famous bull bison in the Central Park Zoo. The name of the bull was Black Diamond. Unfortunately, after being immortalized on the coin, he was slaughtered for meat and hide in 1915, which was the same demise many of his wild brethren met on the plains. These coins would serve another purpose, appropriate to their heritage: Profits from their sale would be earmarked for the maintenance and improvement of our national parks, which are virtually being ``loved to death'' by far too many people coming to them now. This is not meant, by the way, to replace any of the appropriated money that now goes to parks. It was meant that the profit would supplement the amount of money they now receive from the appropriations process. Mr. President, we are working closely with the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee and the U.S. Treasury to make this commemorative coin a success. Last year, the committee recommended the consideration of a Native American theme for a commemorative coin. I think that the buffalo nickel fits that theme perfectly. I wish I could take credit for having this idea, which I think is a good idea, but I cannot. It was originally suggested to me by a man by the name of Mitchell Simon, who contacted my office and suggested it. Former U.S. Senator Tim Wirth from Colorado also sent me a note saying he thought it was a good idea. And since that time we received a pile of postcards from people all over the country saying they thought reissuing the buffalo nickel would be well received. Mr. President, I welcome my colleagues to join me in reintroducing this coin act, a coin with deep historical and cultural significance to this Nation. I would especially like to thank my colleagues, Senators Cochran, Hatch, Mack, DeWine, and McCain who joins me as original cosponsor.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I want to say a few words of congratulation to the people who work for Atlantis Community is the largest home health care agency in Colorado, with an outstanding record of service to and advocacy for disabled individuals. With Norwest Bank, Atlantis developed a unique program to help lower income disabled people achieve an American dream: the dream of owning a home. Atlantis and Norwest pioneered the Disability Community Homeownership Program to help provide home mortgage financing to disabled people. This program features 15- to 30-year first mortgage loans with no down payment, no closing costs, below market interest rates, and other advantages to qualified home buyers. In 1993, Norwest set aside $2.5 million for loans to the disabled community. Norwest now has over $6 million in home loans to 100 people with disabilities, who could not avail themselves of existing lending programs. Atlantis teamed with Norwest to help build awareness of this program among the disabled community. In addition, Atlantis offers financial counseling and money management services specifically tailored to meet the needs of disabled people. The interest in these services was so high, Atlantis and Norwest decided to expand it to a consumer loan program for buying and modifying vehicles, improving disabled access to homes, and other purposes. In recognition of these community-oriented efforts, Atlantis and Norwest received nominations for the Social Compact Outstanding Community Investment Award. Social Compact is a coalition of hundreds of leaders from the financial services and community development industries, coming together to strengthen American communities through neighborhood partnerships. I congratulate Atlantis and Norwest for their nominations for this award, and I applaud their initiative for turning community concerns into concrete results.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, possibly the most important provision of this legislation for my State is in restoring the opportunity for small community or county landfills to be exempt from the ground water monitoring requirements of RCRA, if they meet certain conditions. Under the bill a community landfill can be exempt from monitoring if it can demonstrate four things: that it takes in no more than 20 tons of waste per day, that there is no evidence of ground water contamination, that it is in an area that receives less than 25 inches of precipitation, and that it has no practical landfill alternative. The problem we have in Colorado and, I suspect, throughout the West, is that we have many landfills that pose zero threat to ground water but they may be taking in more than the bill's limit of 20 tons of trash per day. My amendment does two things: First, it codifies an existing regulation under which a landfill operator may file a no-migration petition with the State; if the petition is approved, the landfill operator becomes exempt from the ground water monitoring requirements. And second, my amendment directs the Administrator to publish within 6 months an explanatory, or guidance, document by which small towns and counties will be able to easily and directly take advantage of this opportunity. Since the implementation of RCRA, about a third of the landfills in Colorado have closed. Towns and counties have spent millions developing new landfills that comply with the subtitle D requirements, in spite of the fact that in most of Colorado there is practically zero threat of leaching dangerous substances from landfills into ground water. Dozens of landfills in Colorado are situated more than 100 feet above the water table; the intervening layers are often composed of shale and clay, making it impossible for materials to leach downward. Under the existing subtitle D landfill rules these landfills must be lined with an impermeable liner; to then require that these communities spend an additional $15,000 per year or so to test the ground water is an extreme form of overkill. Mr. President, the EPA understands that these conditions exist and to their credit the agency conceived of and adopted this no migration petition process. All that my amendment does is to codify this opportunity, an opportunity that has already stood the full test of rulemaking, and to push EPA to make the program available in our rural counties. Mr. President, I want to particularly thank the distinguished chairman, Senator Chafee, and the distinguished ranking member, Senator Baucus, for working with me on this important amendment to our western counties.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation. The hearing will take place Tuesday, May 23, 1995, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this oversight hearing is to review the Department of the Interior's programs, policies, and budget implications on the reintroduction of wolves in and around Yellowstone National Park. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Subcommittee on Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole of the subcommittee staff at (202) 224-5161. subcommittee on forests and public lands

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to add my very strong voice to that of my colleague from South Dakota, who will be speaking on this; the Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus; as well as Senator Daschle, on the potential sale of the Power Marketing Administrations that the administration has proposed. There are a lot of things wrong with the Federal Government, very frankly, and I know we should always be looking for the functions we can privatize, that are done better in the private sector than by the Federal Government. The American system of the Power Marketing Administrations is, in my experience and that of many of my constituents, an example of something that the Government does well in direct partnership with those folks living in rural regions of America. The electrification of rural America is a success story because it involved a true partnership between the Federal Government and the people of rural America who rely on the electrification of the REA's to provide their power. The partnership with the Federal Government has been a mutually beneficial one. America's rural electric cooperatives and small municipal power systems agreed to purchase the initially more expensive Federal hydropower because they understood the long-term security of a publicly owned power system. Without the commitment to purchase the power, the system could not have been built. The REA members and other customers pay for electricity based on the cost of providing service, retirement of the construction debt, and interest. The system is working well, Mr. President. Those who rely on electrical power from the system are repaying the Federal Government for capital investment costs of building a system, as well as the annual operation and maintenance costs of the system. Down the road, when the projects are paid for, these dams and facilities will be federally owned and will continue to provide significant sources of revenue to the Federal Government. The proposal of selling off the PMA's has a great deal of uncertainty. It is clearly our goal to cut the deficit, but on the other hand, if we are simply doing things to privatize another Government function without understanding the effects of doing so, I think it is rather risky. Is it change just for the sake of change? I hope not. If it is to maximize deficit reduction, that means we sell to the highest bidder. If we do that, clearly the highest bidder will have to raise the electric rates for rural America, and that will not do any good for those who represent the States. The rural regions that are having the toughest economic times of anywhere must have low rural electric rates. As Congress considers a new farm bill and the probability that many vulnerable programs may be cut or eliminated, I think it would be cruel to also turn out the lights. If, on the other hand, those who represent rural regions insist, and we will, that there be a safe prohibition placed on the rate increases if they are sold, then it seems to me we are truly in a pointless exercise, privatizing a function that most agree serves its customers well at no annual cost to the Treasury. I want to thank my colleagues, Senator Pressler, Senator Daschle, and Senator Baucus, for arranging a section on which they will also speak. I yield the floor.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, there will be several people this morning who have reserved time to speak on the potential sale of the Power Marketing Administrations. I ask unanimous consent to also speak on this issue during morning business.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Daschle amendment to H.R. 1158, supplemental appropriations and rescissions bill, that would restore funding to many important programs that aid children and support housing programs. This amendment restores valuable funding for several programs that support and educate our children. Few programs are as important to the future to our country as the program that assists our Nation's children. Mr. President, the Daschle amendment also preserves $36 million of funding for the Community Development Financial Institutions [CDFI] Fund. This amount falls short of the original $125 million, however, I believe it is a good first step to address the critical problems that exist in our economically distressed communities. I have long been committed to empowering disadvantaged and minority communities to help themselves and to invest in their own communities. While I recognize the need to cut the Federal deficit, I believe it is important to achieve the national policy goals of revitalizing communities, increasing access to credit and investment capital, promoting entrepreneurship, and rebuilding private markets in distressed neighborhoods. As in other States, Colorado's cities have neighborhoods which lack access to resources for business and economic development. I know that many rural communities in Colorado have never had proper access to credit and banking services. Many of them have no hope. But, in fact, there are many creative entrepreneurs in our rural communities who are idea rich, but resource poor. Mr. President, I believe community development financial institutions will open new markets for conventional lenders while giving borrowers access to previously unreachable sources for capital and credit. Community development financial institutions are specifically dedicated to revitalization. They possess specialized expertise in community development and are successful in tailoring loan products and services to meet the needs of low-income and minority communities. In the case of native American communities, reservations generally are among the most disinvested and poor areas with weak economies. These communities, in particular, are in desperate need of creative banking and financial services. I believe the CDFI fund is a first step and an important step in addressing these critical needs. The CDFI fund is a next generation Federal initiative that combines private entrepreneurship, extensive leveraging of Federal dollars and a strong commitment to self-help credit. I believe the CDFI fund will fill market niches that banks and other conventional lenders are not serving, especially in native American communities, and provide bridges between unconventional borrowers and conventional lenders. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota. Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to reauthorize Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Centers [VAMC's] to establish nonprofit research corporations [NPRC's]. In 1988, Congress passed a law, Public Law 100-322, allowing VAMC's to establish NPRC's as a means to provide a flexible funding mechanism for VA-approved research. The purpose of these foundations is to enhance ongoing federally-funded VA research by allowing them to accept private funds, contributions and grants. Between June 1993 and June 1994, the 65 active corporations provided nearly $40 million in VA research support. These NPRC's have five overlapping functions which help VAMC's serve veteran patients and their families. First, these foundations help recruit and maintain qualified staff inside the VA health care system by insuring a strong research program. Not only do NPRC's fund research projects directly, they also help send VA researchers, nurses, pharmacists, and other staff to conferences and other research events. This both encourages physicians and other health professionals to work for VA and keeps the knowledge inside the VA system. Second, these foundations manage research donations and grants with Government oversight. NPRC researchers must abide by sunshine laws and conduct every project in the open. Unlike universities and private foundations, NPRC's must follow strict conflict of interest guidelines which protect integrity of the research and the interests of veteran patients. Third, these foundations insure that substantial overhead funds are retained by VAMC's. Most universities charge overhead costs from 30 to 50 percent, while NPRC's charge only about 5 to 30 percent for overhead. Simply stated, foundations allow more money to be spent on research-related activities and insure that the money stays inside the VA system. Furthermore, some NPRC's provide funds for overheard costs. For example, the San Diego foundation contributes over $100,000 for overhead expenses, including paying one-quarter of the hospital's bill for hazardous waste disposal at the research facility. Before NPRC's were established, the medical centers were forced to carry all the administrative costs of research. Fourth, these foundations help provide resources for research-related personnel, equipment, supplies, and conferences. For example, in Seattle, WA, the foundation purchases approximately 75,000 dollars worth of new equipment for the medical center each year. In some instances, the staff supplied provide direct patient care. In Washington, DC, the foundation has 25 employees who work directly in patient care as doctors, nurses, or clinicians. Finally, NPRC's allow interested veterans to participate in the development of new drugs and treatments benefiting veterans. In Knoxville, TN, the foundation participated in a study which made a new blood pressure medication available to patients in a safe, controlled manner. In Indianapolis, IN the foundation conducted a drug study that gave veteran patients access to a new medication that benefits chronically ill heart patients. By helping to provide equipment, treatment, staff, and other resources, while defraying the costs of overhead, these foundations are serving veterans without requiring more money from the VA budget. This legislation would correct two problems in current law. First, it would extend the window of opportunity for the establishment of new NPRC's until December 31, 2000. To my knowledge, there are several VAMC's that would like to establish these important research corporations, including one in Colorado. If these VAMC's were allowed to establish NPRC's, it would pump much-needed supplemental funds into the VA research program. The second provision of this bill would delete the requirement that NPRC's be established as 501(c)(3) corporations. Realizing that the IRS has recognized several foundations under different classifications, this technical correction is needed to insure the legality of several NPRC's. I am happy to include Senators Brown and Akaka as original cosponsors of this bill. Mr. President, I hope the Committee on Veterans' Affairs will consider this legislation favorably so that interested VA Medical Center can once again establish new nonprofit research corporations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, this morning the leader time has been reserved, and there will be a period for morning business until the hour of 10:45 a.m., with Senators to speak for up to 5 minutes each with the exception of the following: Senator Campbell, 10 minutes, and Senators Nickles and Reid, 10 minutes combined. At the hour of 10:45 a.m. today, the Senate will proceed to a 15-minute rollcall vote on passage of S. 219, the regulatory moratorium bill. Immediately following the vote on passage of S. 219, the Senate will begin consideration of H.R. 1158, the supplemental disaster assistance bill. Therefore all Senators should be aware that votes can be expected throughout today's session.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I'm sending legislation to the desk to designate the Old Spanish Trail and the northern branch of the Old Spanish Trail for study for potential addition to the National Trails System. crookedest, most arduous pack mule route in the history of America.'' Linking two quaint pueblo outposts, Villa Real de Sante Fe de San Francisco--now known as Santa Fe; and El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora La Reina de Los Angeles--present day Los Angeles--this 1,200 mile route was a well worn path 150 years ago as annual caravans traded woolen blankets from New Mexico for California horses and mules. According to an early historian, the trail: * * * Headed Northwest from Santa Fe * * * eased over the Continental Divide in northern New Mexico, cut through a spur of the Rocky Mountains into Colorado, forded two swift rivers (the Colorado and the Green above their junction), circled northward to avoid the Grand Canyon's sculptured country, dipped over the rim of the Great Basin into Utah, and crept southwest through desert stretches of Nevada and California to Los Angeles * * * Hoofs of pack animals leave but fleeting imprints. As soon as the last mule train and left the Trail, nature closed in to obliterate marks of human intrusion. Matted brush sprang up to hide the mountain paths. Flash floods gullied the gravel courses beside the streams. Chalky gypsum surfaced the dry lake bottoms, so welcome to the hoofs of foot-sore mules. Wind-born sand drifted over the shallow trace through the wastelands. Even the dry bones that marked the toll of an insatiable desert's greed crumbled to dust. The trail entered present day Colorado south of Pagosa Springs and proceeded northwesterly past today's settlements of Arboles, Ignacio, Durango, Mancos, Dolores, and Dove Creek. This is essentially the route used by Fathers Dominguez and Escalante in 1776. Unlike Dominguez and Escalante, the trail continued to the northwest toward the site of present day Monticello and crossed the Grand (Colorado) River at Moab and the Green River, 5 miles north of today's settlement of Green River. It continued westerly and passed the present settlements of Castle Dale, Salina, Sevier, Parowan, Newcastle, and St. George in Utah. Another historic trade route, known as the northern branch of the Old Spanish Trail, was used by trappers and traders to access northwestern Colorado and northeastern Utah. This route followed the east side of the Rio Grande river northward to Taos and into Colorado to the area near the present town of Alamosa. Another route of the northern branch followed the west side of the Rio Grande northward to Tres Piedras, New Mexico, and to Antonito, Colorado, and joined the other branch near Monte Vista. From the vicinity of Monte Vista, the trail continued northwesterly and passed the present day settlements of Saguache, Gunnison, Montrose, Delta, and Grand Junction. From Grand Junction, the trail followed the Grand (Colorado) River for some 50 miles through Fruita and Loma to near Dewey, UT, and then struck out northeast across the desert and joined the main Spanish Trail approximately 20 miles southeast of the Green River crossing. The northern branch was less used than the main Spanish Trail and very little is recorded concerning its use. Antoine Robidoux's trading fort, near Delta, was a principal outpost on the trail. The first person to record his journey from Santa Fe to Los Angeles was Antonio Armejo, who went on a trading expedition in 1829. His route had never been properly documented until 10 years ago when a historian from the University of Nevada began a study of the origins of the trail for her masters thesis. Much of what we know about the trail comes from recent scholarship and there is obviously much left to learn. A journey over the Spanish Trail and the northern branch in 1848 was later recorded by Lt. George B. Brewerton. The young lieutenant accompanied a party of some 30 men which included the noted scout, Kit Carson. Carson was carrying mail from Los Angeles to the East Coast. The party left Los Angeles on May 4 and reached Santa Fe via Taos on June 14, 41 days later. Carson proceeded east, reaching Washington, DC in mid-August, bringing news of the discovery of gold in California, and the great gold rush was on. Another description of the northern branch of the Old Spanish Trail in Colorado is told in the report of the Gunnison Expedition. In 1853, Capt. John Williams Gunnison, of the U.S. Corps of Topographic Engineers, was commissioned by the War Department to find a route for the railroad across the Colorado Rockies along the 38th Parallel. The party of 31 men and 32 U.S. Army Dragoons left Fort Leavenworth, KS, on June 23, 1853. Among the civilians were a topographer, an artist- topographer, an astronomer, a botanist, a geologist-surgeon, and a wagon master and his crew to manage the 18-unit wagon train. After crossing the Sangre de Cristo Range, north of La Veta Pass, the Gunnison Expedition came upon the northern branch of the Spanish Trail in the San Luis Valley. Captain Gunnison followed this existing trade route of the northern branch of the Spanish Trail into eastern Utah where it joined the main Spanish Trail. The Gunnison Expedition came to a tragic end on October 26, 1853, when Gunnison and four of his men and three soldiers were killed in a skirmish with Indians near the present site of Delta, UT. The Old Spanish Trail played a part in all the cultures that occupied the West: the Utes, Navajos, Spaniards, Mexicans, and American settlers, including the mormons. The trail's period of use, from 1830 to the 1880's spans the development of the West, from the Spaniard on foot to the great railways. Few routes, if any, pass through as much relatively pristine country as the Old Spanish Trail, particularly in northwest New Mexico, western Colorado, central Utah, southern Nevada and southern California. A number of independent scholars and various researchers have begun separate studies of different segments of the trail, and an Old Spanish Trail Assoc. was recently founded in Colorado to study and preserve this trail, and raise the public awareness of our country's diverse cultural heritage in this region. Some of the members of the association have already located wagon ruts and other vestiges of the trail's heyday, and a proper study is certain to produce more such exciting echoes of our shared heritage. These is a groundswell of support for a study of the Old Spanish Trail. I've received resolutions to designate the trail as historic from over 20 municipalities in Colorado, as well as the Colorado General Assembly. There are also a number of volunteer groups along the trail who are anxious to offer their services, expertise and assistance to this very exciting and long overdue endeavor. The time has come to acknowledge the national historical importance of the Old Spanish Trail. Mr. President, this bill to designate the Old Spanish Trail for study for potential addition to the National Trails System promotes the recognition, protection and interpretation of our history in the West. By introducing this legislation today, we pay tribute to the cultures of the West, and to an important period in American history. I urge my colleagues to support swift passage of this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I do not have a formal statement but I add my best wishes to Dr. Halverson. I am reminded that when Jesus was on the cross, he forgave a prostitute and a thief. I think there are very few people in the world that have hearts as open and as forgiving as Dr. Halverson. Three years ago, in a discussion about crime, Dr. Halverson and I decided to try to bring some gang members to Washington on the day of the National Prayer Breakfast. So the next year we did, and this year was the second time we did that. We brought, as I remember, about 35 gang members. These are some pretty tough youngsters, the hoods, they are called, Crips and Bloods and Inca Boys and so on. We tried, through Dr. Halverson's leadership, to take them to the National Cathedral on the day of the Prayer Breakfast, and tried to show them a little different way of conducting their lives. I know Dr. Halverson has that same attitude as Jesus himself, that there lost if you really to try to help them. I certainly wish him good luck. I want him to know that program he started now will be in its third year. I intend, with the help of my colleagues, to carry that on. My best wishes. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. CAMPBELL

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, On January 26, 1915, Congress passed legislation creating a 265,726-acre Rocky Mountain National Park. In 1892, long before the park was created, the town of grand lake established a small, less than 5-acre community cemetery that lies barely 1,000 feet inside the western edge of the park. Apparently, in the early 1950's, the National Park Service took notice of the cemetery and issued the town a formal special use permit, which has been renewed over the years. In 1991, Rocky Mountain National Part apparently informed the town of grand lake that it would issue one final 5-year special use permit. This 103-year-old cemetery has become part of the community's heritage. Grand Lake residents have very strong emotional and personal attachments to it and need to be assured of its continued use and designation as a cemetery. The current permit is due to expire in 1996. All parties have agreed that a more permanent solution was needed to meet the needs of the community and the resource preservation and protection intended by the establishment of the park. Existing measures available to the National Park Service, including special use permit authority, do not provide for a permanent solution that satisfies both the park and the community. In addition, special uses apparently can only be permitted for a maximum period of 5 years. Given that the town and park agree that the small cemetery is a permanent use, continued renewal of a 5-year permit is not a realistic solution. In an effort to avoid future difficulties, park and town representatives have agreed that this legislation would offer the best solution to this problem. Authorizing the continued existence of the cemetery with specific size and boundaries within the park also protects park resources. The community has expressed a strong willingness and desire to assume responsibility for permanent management of the cemetery. This legislation would authorize the development of an agreement to turn maintenance responsibilities for the cemetery and road over to the town, resulting in a financial savings to the park. It also recognizes the cultural significance of the cemetery and its strong ties with the history of the Grand Lake area, which includes the story of Rocky Mountain National Park. This legislation would negate the need for repeated negotiations between the community and the National Park Service, and the chance for misunderstandings. The National Park Service and Grand Lake representatives have worked long and hard on developing this proposal. Enactment of this legislation would go a long way in maintaining and enhancing the spirit of cooperation and good will between park and community that has been achieved during the development of this resolution.