[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 51 (Friday, April 25, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3717-S3718]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         BREAST CANCER RESEARCH

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, let me speak, if I might, to an issue of 
critical national importance--an issue that has plagued the people of 
the State of New York, most particularly those in Long Island. I am 
talking about Nassau and Suffolk County, the communities of Long 
Island. A major county is described legally as a county that has more 
than 250,000 women, for the purposes of compiling these statistics. And 
they are dreadful statistics because we are talking about the incidence 
of breast cancer. Long Island has had an unenviable position of being 
ranked No. 1 in the incidence rates of breast cancer in years gone by.
  It is incredible. As a result, the National Institutes of Health has 
undertaken a very comprehensive study, one of the first of its kind, 
which says we will look to see what environmental factors may be 
contributing to these high rates of breast cancer. They are undertaking 
that study. Some $5 million has been allocated. Mr. President, that $5 
million is not enough, even though it is among the most sophisticated 
studies being undertaken.
  Recently, some very real questions have arisen as it relates to what 
impact there may be as it relates to radioactive materials, radio 
nuclides, and other materials that may have gained entry into the 
groundwater system, or that may, as a result of being dispersed in the 
air, some of these radioactive materials out in Brookhaven, Long 
Island. What impact has this had, if any?
  Indeed, it seems to me, if we were to spend $5 million, that is not 
an inconsequential sum. But one of the most comprehensive studies 
undertaken--this is a study that will take over 5 years; not to 
complete this study, addressing all concerns, as it relates to the high 
rate of breast cancer on Long Island, would be wrong. The scientific 
community will not have completed its chore. And part of that is to be 
able to say to the public we have examined the situation.
  Brookhaven National Lab--and it seems we may have an additional 
responsibility--has been run under the aegis of the Department of 
Energy. May I say here and now that it has been run abysmally as it 
relates to the impact of its operation on the community.
  Over the years, there has been a litany of abuses of burying of waste 
materials, hazardous waste, of creating almost a dump site of 
indifference to the operation of this lab where, indeed, the water 
tables have been impacted and have actually had radioactive materials--
tritium--discharged; and the reports of leaks, and the reports of these 
discharges have been systematically withheld from the public. The lab 
has operated with an indifference to public health--``The public be 
damned'' attitude. I commend the Assistant Secretary for Energy, who 
has come in to look at what can be done to straighten this fiasco out. 
The scientists have

[[Page S3718]]

been more concerned with the success of their project than they have in 
terms of what the operational impact is. You would think some of the 
world's leading scientists would know that to even pose a threat to 
contaminate the drinking water, the drinking supply system, is just 
unconscionable. Yet they have been there with total indifference.

  So I mention this because there is a real reason why that study 
should be expanded. The NIH has done an outstanding job with the funds 
available. They have not had sufficient funds.
  That is why it was last Wednesday I spoke to Senator Stevens, 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee. We are going to be 
undertaking a supplemental appropriations on this floor.
  By gosh, let me tell you when we have disasters, we should take care 
of them. This is a disaster. We should see to it that there are the 
necessary funds. Not only on Long Island, but we have another facility 
in Seneca, NY. It is a small community with an incredibly high 
incidence of breast cancer.
  Why do I mention Seneca? There is very direct Government 
responsibility because we operated a huge storage depot there for all 
kinds of materials, such as atomic, et cetera. Some of them are still 
classified and are stored there. It has one of the highest rates of 
breast cancer in the Nation. They should be included. The people of 
that community should have a comprehensive study.
  I have requested of Senator Stevens consideration that we increase 
the NIH funding. We are not talking hundreds of millions. But we are 
asking, and I have asked him. Hopefully they will include some $15 
million so that Long Island's study can be brought to a successful 
conclusion so that they can monitor the operation as it relates to 
whether radioactive materials have had any impact on the groundwater 
and in the incidence of breast cancer and to the health of Long Island.
  So whether it be Seneca, or whether it be my colleagues who seek 
funding from other parts of the country, California, New Jersey, or 
wherever it might be, the State of Florida, where people would come and 
say, ``We want to know. Are there environmental factors that are 
contributing to the higher rates?'' We should be doing this.
  I want to commend Senator Stevens for his looking at this. I hope 
that we will all be supportive.
  So it is not a question of us appropriating money just so that we can 
do this for Long Island. I am concerned about that, and Seneca in 
upstate New York, but, indeed, the people of this Nation.
  I can't think of a better allocation of resources than to use this to 
ascertain with definitiveness with the best science available so the 
communities can raise their children with a piece of mind that there 
are hazards that can be avoided and are identified.
  I just leave you with one chilling statistic as it relates to the 3 
million people who live in Nassau County and Suffolk County. More than 
half of them are women. Women who live on Long Island for more than 40 
years are 70 percent more likely to come down with breast cancer than a 
woman of comparable age, et cetera, and background who lives there for 
20 years. Why? That is why there are so many of us who think there are 
some very real environmental factors that must be considered.
  So I hope that all of my colleagues could support this increase of 
$15 million, which is a very modest sum, to expand the NIH; and, yes, 
to earmark for breast cancer research to ascertain what impact the 
environment may have in causing the higher incidence.
  I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues for being so generous in 
permitting me the opportunity of making this presentation in morning 
business.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

                          ____________________