Mark Hatfield

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Chair. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendments were agreed to.

Mr. HATFIELD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HATFIELD. No, I am not familiar with the situation. Could the Senator from South Dakota please explain.

Mr. HATFIELD. I could not agree more with my friend from South Dakota. Consistency in the disaster declaration process should be a reasonable expectation of all Americans. FEMA needs to take a close look at its current declaration policies. The similarities surrounding the landslides in Lead and Ventura County are striking. For the residents of Ventura County, FEMA's response is reassuring. For the people of Lead, the response from FEMA is disconcerting. I must stress a point I have made on this very floor in the past: Disasters occurring in isolated rural areas do not seem to capture the attention of the national media, Federal agencies, or the President. Lead, SD, does not compare to Southern California glamour, and it certainly is not near a major media outlet. However, as we all know, the size of a community or its media outlets should not dictate whether or not Federal relief is granted or how fast the assistance gets to those in need. I believe the time has come for FEMA take a close look at its policies. In the meantime, I have asked GAO to examine FEMA's responsiveness to urban and rural disasters. I hope Congress will be able to maintain an oversight role. If there is an inconsistency we should not hesitate to consider legislation to ensure emergency assistance is provided consistently and judiciously. In fact, I believe it would be appropriate for the conferees of this bill to include language in the accompanying report to direct FEMA to report to Congress on how it found that disaster assistance could be provided in response to the identified preexisting condition in Ventura County, but came to a different conclusion with the preexisting condition in Lead. I believe this instruction is an appropriate first step in what I hope will be a comprehensive review by FEMA of its current declaration policies and criteria. Would the distinguished chairman of the committee agree that this review is necessary?

Mr. HATFIELD. I agree with the Senator from South Dakota that a review of the disaster declaration process may be appropriate. His concerns have merit. The people of Lead, SD, deserve to be assured that they are being treated fairly by the federal government. The Senator from South Dakota is to be commended for his diligent attention to the needs of his constituents. The Senator can be assured I will deliver this message to the conferees and will do my best to include a directive to FEMA regarding its declaration policies and criteria in the conference report to this bill.

Mr. HATFIELD. Yes. First, let me assure the Senator from South Dakota this provision should not be read by any Member of Congress as an attempt to jeopardize future congressional support for EAS. This provision applies only to fiscal year 1995. Further, as the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, I intend to work with my friend from South Dakota on an appropriate level of EAS funding for Fiscal Year 1996.

Mr. HATFIELD. I would be happy to accept the Senator's amendment which would strike lines 1 through 3 on page 42. As he knows, the language which was provided by the Department had the effect of totally canceling the EAS program which was not the Committee's intent.

Mr. HATFIELD. This language simply forces the EAS office to have EAS contracts conform to the federal fiscal year. The office has had almost twenty years to make this adjustment. When the Appropriations Committee tries to get data from this office it often does not comport to the fiscal year basis that the Committee must consider in its deliberations.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, if there had been a rollcall vote on the Dole-Daschle amendment, I would have voted ``no.'' As my colleagues know, I support many, if not all, of the programs that would benefit from the funding restorations of the amendment. They are worthwhile, meritorious programs that address important national needs. But as I said at the outset of this debate, Mr. President, many of the Appropriations Committee's recommended rescissions were reductions in the rate of funding increases, not reductions in actual funding below the previous year's level. I see no reason to add more money now to simply increase the increase. The Appropriations Committee made a considered judgment on these matters, and we found our recommended rescissions to be reasonable. Further, we found them to be urgently needed for the task of deficit reduction. On that point, Mr. President, I believe this amendment is a serious mistake. We do not have CBO scoring of this amendment as yet, but it would appear to me that the recommended ``offsets'' of this amendment reduce significant amounts of budget authority but very little in outlays. The reductions are primarily drawn from accounts with annual outlay rates as low as 1 percent, while the funding restorations occur in accounts with outlay rates as high as 80 percent. In short, Mr. President, it appears to me that this amendment may actually increase the deficit. The bill that I brought to the floor on behalf of the Appropriations Committee was a first step in the long march toward a balanced budget. This amendment is a step backward.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill passed, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HATFIELD. My estimate at this point is that we are in the process of putting that together and of alerting our colleagues who are involved. I notice Senator McCain is here. He will have an amendment in that wrap-up. Senator Wellstone will have one. Senator Jeffords will have one. In each case, Mr. President, I say to the Democratic whip, each of these amendments that are in the wrap-up are totally offset amendments. So they do not add to the deficit. And they have been cleared on both sides. We should have that within the next few minutes.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, at this point, I would say it should all be wrapped up, as far as the managers' amendment, in about 15 minutes.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I will now make a unanimous consent request to make a technical correction. We had cleared the Levin amendment No. 578, but I ask unanimous consent to correct a drafting error by modifying it with the language that I now send to the desk. What we are doing is we are, on page 9, line 12, striking one figure, $37 million, and putting in $25 million; and one figure $35 million and putting in $23 million. This does not change the basic content of the amendment. It was inaccurately drafted. I ask that it be modified.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, that will appear in our wrap-up package now that it is corrected. It is easier to correct it now than correct it down the line. That is why I took the time to do that at this point. I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the enrolling clerk, in making technical and clerical corrections to the bill, may insert all amendments that have been adopted to the committee substitute at appropriate places in the Senate amendment to the House bill.

Mr. HATFIELD. I move that the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, may I inquire of the Chair the list of the amendments that were incorporated in the unanimous consent agreement?

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, so as far as the process of those needing to be disposed of, we have the Wellstone amendment and the managers' wrap-up amendment?

Mr. HATFIELD. I withdraw the request for a quorum call.

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

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, we have resolved the Wellstone amendment. We are now putting that together with the managers' wrap-up. Therefore, I believe that would complete the business at this point as far as amendments are concerned; is that correct?

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Madam President, the Senator is correct. The matter has been cleared by our side of the aisle, by the subcommittee chair, and the Senator from Arkansas is the ranking member of that subcommittee.

Mr. HATFIELD

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

Mr. HATFIELD

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, if you want to know more about Parkinson's disease all you have to do is read the newspaper or watch the nightly news. You don't even have to read the whole paper, the information is usually on page 1. Prestigious and international papers such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal believe that the news is worthy of front page coverage. ``Prime Time'' had a feature on Parkinson's, and our very own Washington Post devoted three pages to promising new developments. What has caused the media fervor is the exciting new and dramatic medical discoveries in the field of neurology and neurosurgery. As I speak, scientists are uncovering new important data on nerve cell function and repair. Our biomedical research teams are on the cusp of breaking the code to nerve regeneration. In these times of exciting new developments, we are unfortunately encountering a financial impediment. Last year, the Federal funding for Parkinson's disease at the NIH was $26 million. To put that number in prospective, the annual Federal budget for Alzheimers is $300 million, $1 billion each for cancer and heart disease. Our commitment to eradicating Parkinson's disease is minuscule in comparison. I cannot understand the lack of financial support for a disease that affects over 1 million Americans and costs our society over $6 billion a year. This disease is so widespread that each one of us has a close friend or loved one who is facing the challenge of life with Parkinson's. We must change our message to the American public and declare that increased Federal funding for Parkinson's disease research is a worthy investment in the future health of our Nation. [[Page S5405]] Today, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation that accomplishes that goal. The Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Research, Assistance, and Education Act of 1995, increases the Federal investment in Parkinson's research to $100 million for fiscal year 1996. The bill establishes an Interagency Coordinating Council, composed of representatives from the relevant agencies and NIH, which will develop a strategic plan for Parkinson's research. At the heart of the bill is the funding of Morris K. Udall Parkinson's Centers which will conduct basic and clinical research and patient care. Having these three individual areas of research and treatment linked in a center will assure that the research developments will be coordinated and the quality of patient care will be greatly improved. In addition, the centers may develop teaching programs for health professionals and dissemination programs for public information. To compile necessary data on patients and their families a clearinghouse will be established. Morris K. Udall Leadership and Excellence Awards will be granted to scientists who excel in Parkinson's research. Finally, a national Parkinson's Disease Education Program will be established to provide technical assistance to advocacy groups and facilitate public understanding of Parkinson's. This important legislation honors Mo Udall, a dedicated Congressman from the Second District in Arizona. For 30 years, Mo represented his constituents with integrity, compassion, and humor. He is remembered for his stewardship of the public lands by setting aside millions of acres of wilderness. He also championed civil rights and political reform. In 1980, Congressman Udall was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, and struggled with the neurologic decay for years. He resigned from Congress in 1991, his career prematurely and tragically ended. Other famous individuals such as Mohammed Ali and Harry S Truman have all succumbed to this disease which knows no boundaries and strikes without warning. For Mo Udall and the millions of Americans who suffer from Parkinson's, we must enact this legislation now. By uniting the advocacy groups, the scientists, the caregivers, the patients and their families, we can become a solidified and cohesive group dedicated to alleviating the hardship of Parkinson's. We must give our world- respected researchers the funding and the time to combat this and other neurological diseases, and improve the future health of all Americans. I ask unanimous consent that this bill, a section-by-section summary, various letters of support, and two newspaper articles appear in the Record.