[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 61 (Wednesday, May 11, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Page S4939]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. Craig):
  S. 998. A bill to include the State of Idaho as an affected area 
under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note); to 
the committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in the 1950s and 1960s, this country was in 
the midst of a cold war and arms race, a race to perfect the hydrogen 
bomb. To win the race, nuclear weapons technology was developed using 
above ground testing in Idaho's neighbor to the south, Nevada. During 
these tests, Idahoans recount going outside in the evenings to look at 
the beautiful sunsets caused by the testing. Unfortunately and 
unbeknown to them, these skies were filled with dangerous radiation 
that very much elevated their exposure and subsequent risk of 
developing cancer.
  I will not debate whether government authorities adequately knew the 
extent of the long-term dangers to radiation exposure. However, after a 
long and protracted discussion in this very chamber, Congress did 
recognize that what had occurred during this time of nuclear testing 
and rightly came forward providing for compensation through the 
Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990 (RECA). This bill said that 
if you lived in certain counties in certain States during a certain 
period of time and had specified diseases, you were eligible for 
compensation. It is now time to review that program and make it work 
for everyone who may have become ill because of radiation fall-out 
exposure.
  The criteria established in the Act were driven by limited scientific 
knowledge and political expediency. This was recognized in 1999, when a 
group of Senators, led by Senator Hatch, amended RECA to include 
additional counties in Arizona. During the floor debate at the time, 
Senator Hatch said, ``Through advances in science, we now know so much 
more about the effects of radiation than we did in the late 1950s and 
1960s. Our current state of scientific knowledge allows us to pinpoint 
with more accuracy which diseases are reasonably believed to be related 
to radiation exposure, and that is what necessitated the legislation we 
are considering today.''
  But the truth is even more encompassing than a few more counties. 
According to a report from the National Academies of Sciences, a report 
commissioned by Congress, radiation fall-out didn't know any arbitrary 
geographic boundaries. It didn't stop because it crossed a State or 
county line. The NAS report, released last month, clearly demonstrated 
that we continue to be wide of the mark in who is eligible for 
compensation and that is why I am introducing legislation today to 
bring RECA back on course. Information used to establish who would be 
eligible for compensation failed to recognize that four counties in 
Idaho ranked in the top five in having the highest per capita thyroid 
dosage of radiation in the nation, more than any county currently 
recognized by RECA for eligibility. This clear inequity must be 
rectified; Idaho has a documented history of high cancer rates in 
people who lived in these areas during testing.
  At this time I would like to thank people like Sheri Garmon, Kathy 
Skippen, Tona Henderson, and so many others who have spent time and 
energy on this issue. Some like Sheri are fighting multiple cancers and 
yet have taken the time to pursue their belief that they to deserved to 
be eligible for the RECA program. The NAS report recognizes that the 
RECA program needs revamping, but Idahoans deserve equal treatment with 
those in Utah, Arizona, and Nevada now. They should not have to wait 
while Congress comes up with a better way to administer this program. 
That is why I am introducing legislation today that will extend the 
present program to cover the full State of Idaho. And I am encouraging 
my colleagues to work with me on making the entire RECA program more 
comprehensive for the future.
  It is the right thing to do.
                                 ______