[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 90 (Thursday, May 23, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3874-S3876]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 4403

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I deeply appreciate the insights offered 
today by my friends and colleagues, and that they truly are. The senior 
Senator from Missouri and the junior Senator from New Mexico have made 
an impassioned plea--an impassioned plea that I am deeply sympathetic 
to for a variety of reasons, including and especially the fact that 
they are both right as to their respective States. The folks in 
Missouri deserve to have this coverage, and so do people in New Mexico. 
There are also additional people not covered by the existing program in 
Utah who need to be covered.
  In all three instances with respect to Utah, New Mexico, and 
Missouri, we need to get this done. You know, taking into account all 
of the arguments that they have made and the evidence that I have 
reviewed, I am prepared to do what it takes, and I am prepared to get 
this done today.
  As I mentioned, this isn't just an abstract concept to me; this is 
near and dear to my heart. Many people I know and love have had their 
lives altered and, in many cases, ended by exposure to downwind 
radiation.
  One of those people was a loving husband and father who raised seven 
children, who was taken at the prime of his life, at the peak of his 
career, just days after his 61st birthday, as he was surrounded by his 
wife and their seven children, one of whom stands at this desk today.
  My father died from this in 1996, just 28 years ago, and we didn't 
know at the time--didn't know until years after that he had, in fact, 
been a victim of and then died of a cancer linked to his exposure as a 
child growing up in eastern Arizona, spending his summers in Reserve, 
NM, a small sawmill camp where his family lived each summer. He was 
exposed to downwind radiation, and that led to his untimely death.
  My dad would be nearly 90 if he were alive today, and I can only 
imagine the youth and the vitality we would still see in him. I am 
convinced he would still be practicing law. I am convinced he would 
still be a runner. His life and that of so many others in Utah, 
Missouri, and New Mexico have been cut tragically short by this 
exposure, which is why we need to get this done.
  So, look, in light of these concerns and the political realities we 
face, again, I want to make sure that RECA doesn't lapse, and so I want 
to offer an updated version of the Downwinders Act.
  This bill would extend the benefits of the program to those in 
Missouri exposed to the hazards of improperly stored nuclear waste, 
while also addressing the historical oversights in New Mexico and in 
parts of Utah.
  When we look at this, we have to do this to make sure that we are 
following the science, and in all three of those areas, the science is 
backed up, and in all three of those jurisdictions, not only does the 
science back it up, but there aren't other government programs that may 
overlap with it that provide this compensation.
  Remember, if this were not the U.S. Government doing it, this would 
ultimately be some species of tort law. But because it is the U.S. 
Government and the U.S. Government, as a sovereign entity--you can't 
just sue it unless the U.S. Government makes itself amenable to suit, 
and that is really where RECA came in. Because of the fact that we are 
uniquely situated, both by virtue of what the science currently backs 
up and the absence of other programs to do it, I think it makes sense 
to accord that to these States.
  The other States covered by the legislation now pending in the House, 
that is stalled out in the House--it passed here, and so that is done. 
It has moved on from this Chamber. One of the reasons that I understand 
why it stalled out in the House is because of cost.
  Now, I am not aware of the full context of the quote provided by my 
colleague from Utah in that quote. I don't know whether there was more 
context there or not. But if that was the whole context, I don't share 
that approach. I don't share that sentiment. In other words, we don't 
not do this just because it is expensive. The whole thing is expensive. 
The loss of life is expensive, and we need to address that.
  The issue is, again, one, whether and to what extent claims are 
backed up by the science and whether and to what extent there are other 
programs that already cover it in one way or another, such that the 
bill adequately addresses that.
  There are other States in that legislation pending in the House that 
deal with law in the Marshall Islands, Idaho, Kentucky, Ohio, Alaska, 
and perhaps one or two other jurisdictions. The claims of those States 
are not on equal footing. They are different from these claims. The 
Utah and New Mexico claims are very similar. They stem from the same 
sequence of events related primarily to exposure to downwind radiation 
from the atomic weapons testing. In Missouri, they are a little bit 
different, but they share enough of the same elements, and they are 
similarly backed by science. In these other jurisdictions, it is a 
little bit different.
  That is where a lot of the--not all but a lot of the expense is 
accrued and a lot of concerns expressed in the House impeding its quick 
passage over there that might lead to it not being able to be passed at 
all.
  But, again, look, to ensure we do our due diligence here, where there 
is uncertainty as to some of the other jurisdictions covered by that 
bill now pending in the House, my bill that I am offering now includes 
a requirement that the Federal Government must study and report on 
other regions that should be eligible for compensation.
  We need to get this done. I will continue to fight for the 
recognition and compensation of all those exposed to radiation through 
no fault of their own because it is the right thing to do regardless of 
cost.
  With the clock ticking down to just 18 days before RECA expires, 
every moment that jeopardizes benefits for those suffering the 
consequences of our Nation's past actions is significant. We can't 
ignore it. These individuals do not have the luxury of time that seems 
so abundant here in Washington; they need our help now. They deserve 
swift

[[Page S3875]]

and unencumbered continuation of access to the support that RECA 
provides.
  So I urge my colleagues in Congress to pass the Downwinders Act, this 
expanded Downwinders Act, and send a clear message: America takes care 
of its own.
  With this legislation, we will be able to take care of our own and 
expand the coverage to Missouri, to New Mexico, and to the previously 
unaddressed regions of Utah that have nonetheless been affected.
  To that end, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent 
that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4403, 
which is at the desk. I further ask that the bill be considered read a 
third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made 
and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I think now I have heard my friend from 
Utah change his position. Now he is saying he is willing to acknowledge 
that there needs to be an expansion of coverage for the people of 
Missouri, for the people of his own State, for the people of New 
Mexico.
  I am glad we have gotten to this point. I am glad we are willing to 
acknowledge finally that indeed there are those who have suffered, 
Americans who have been poisoned by their government, who have never 
been compensated, and it is basic justice to compensate them. I think 
that is now the position that we are at. It has taken us a long time to 
get there, but I think that is what I now hear the senior Senator from 
Utah saying.
  I think I also heard him say that cost should not be used as an 
excuse. Let's just be clear about something. The cost has been paid. It 
has been paid by the victims. Who is it who is paying the medical 
bills? The victims are. Who is it who is having to choose whether to do 
a cancer treatment or be able to afford school supplies for their kids? 
The victims are. Who are the ones who are having to decide whether they 
can afford the burial services or not for a loved one who has passed 
away from nuclear radiation? The victims are. They are the ones paying 
the cost.
  The U.S. Government has gotten off scot-free. Fifty years, the U.S. 
Government hasn't paid a penny in my State, in New Mexico, the Navajo 
Nation in Arizona, to the miners, our veterans--nothing. Nothing. They 
are the ones who made the mess. In Missouri, it is still not cleaned 
up. As I stand here on this floor, Coldwater Creek is still poisoned, 
the Westlake Landfill is still burning, and Weldon Spring is not 
cleaned up. The government hasn't done anything.
  I am glad to hear an acknowledgment finally that it is time for the 
Federal Government to take responsibility for what it has done. We can 
all agree on that.
  We can all agree that the time to act is now, which is why this body 
has acted. It has done everything Senator Lee has just talked about. We 
have done it. We did it months ago--months ago. The Senator talks about 
getting this done today; it has been done. The Senate has done it. We 
passed this bill with nearly 70 votes months ago.

  I urge the Senator to use his good offices in the House to speak to 
Speaker Johnson, who pledged, by the way, to the Congresswoman from 
Missouri, Ann Wagner, in a public statement--he said the House would 
take this up and make sure RECA is renewed.
  I believe the Senator is right. They have 18 days--18 days. He made a 
commitment. Let's keep our commitments.
  I urge the Senator to use his good offices, now that we all agree, to 
get this done in the U.S. House of Representatives. That is where the 
obstacle is. But I reiterate, I will not be party to any attempt at 
some halfway measure, some short stopgap bill, or some effort to sweep 
this under the rug--not anymore. The victims have waited too long. They 
have waited too long.
  I yield to my friend from New Mexico.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. President, let me begin by quoting Senator Orrin 
Hatch, the primary author of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. 
In his final years, Senator Hatch said:

       Updating this legislation is a moral imperative. RECA, as 
     it is currently written, extends benefits only to uranium 
     miners, millers, and transporters who worked until 1972. But 
     an updated bill would extend benefits to those who worked 
     after 1972, many of whom have developed cancer as a result of 
     radiation exposure.

  Let me repeat that. Senator Orrin Hatch said it was a moral 
imperative to provide justice to what are called Post-71 miners. And 
what does this bill offer to these Americans who have suffered for our 
country? Nothing. What does this bill offer to downwinders in Arizona, 
Nevada, Colorado, Idaho, Montana? Again, nothing. Instead, this 
exercise is an attempt to undermine the strong bipartisan coalition 
that passed historic RECA legislation.
  I hope no one misreads what is happening today. There is a bipartisan 
coalition, there is a bipartisan group of advocates across the country 
that is growing and growing. There are more cosponsors in the House. 
The strongest vote that has ever taken place in the U.S. Senate has 
already passed this bill.
  Let me be clear. Our bipartisan coalition will work with anyone who 
wants to meaningfully help the victims of all radiation and uranium 
exposure illnesses--including those that voted no when the Senate 
passed the RECA to the House just a few months ago. But we should help 
all of them, every one of these families that qualifies.
  By the way, just because a community is included as a downwind 
county, it doesn't mean all the people living there benefit from the 
program. They still have to fight and prove that they lived in this 
community for a number of years, that their critical illnesses and 
cancers are those that science shows were due to this exposure. They 
have to fight. It is not just given to them. There is a whole process 
associated with the science, and study after study continues to show 
how these families deserve this help.
  As a matter of fact, in committee this week, we were having a hearing 
to help coal miners in America. And some of the experts that were in 
that room, I asked them about exposure with uranium and the kind of 
cancers that we should expect, and I asked them specifically about 
uranium mine workers. And it wasn't surprising when that witness told 
us that the same uranium mine workers who worked 1971 and before--their 
cancers--it turns out that the uranium mine workers that worked in 1972 
had the same cancer as well.

  Senator Orin Hatch, through his wisdom and his words and in my 
conversations with this great leader, said: We have to fix these 
mistakes.
  I will close with this. A few years ago, a Navajo elder--and I have 
shared this with our colleagues before--when she spoke before the House 
of Representatives, she asked an important question to a panel of 
Members that were not supportive of expanding RECA, and it was simple: 
Are you waiting for all of us to die so that the problem goes away?
  With a simple vote in the House, taking up this Senate legislation 
that the Senate passed with 69 votes, authored by Senator Hawley, we 
can answer her question with a resounding: No, we are going to get help 
to families.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, we have got to keep our eye on the ball, our 
eye on the fact that the legislation, while pending in the House, is 
itself mired.
  Now, I want to be clear in response to something, a comment made by 
the senior Senator from Missouri. This is not a new realization on my 
part. This is not a new willingness on my part to acknowledge the 
legitimacy of the claims and the suitability of the claims under RECA 
from Missouri and those from New Mexico. It is not new at all.
  In fact, it is not just in this Congress that I support them. And 2 
or 3 years ago, in the previous Congress, I introduced legislation 
because after reviewing the data, I concluded the beneficiaries--the 
would-be, need-to-be beneficiaries--in Missouri and those in New Mexico 
deserve to be added.
  And so, to be clear, what I am offering here is not the whole thing 
that exists in the bill that is now passed by

[[Page S3876]]

the Senate and pending in the House but appears to be mired with no 
hope of passage over there. It is not the whole bill, but it is 
something, and it takes care of our three States. And it is not just 
because our three States are important and the others aren't. No, it is 
because the claims arising in our three respective States are 
materially different than those pending in other jurisdictions.
  In most of those other jurisdictions, the scientific data isn't of 
the same caliber, drawing the same causal link between radiation 
exposure and liability on the part of the U.S. Government, and, 
ultimately, the conditions at issue, the types of cancers and related 
ailments that go along with it. They are materially different.
  And so until such time as the science catches up, I think it is going 
to continue to have difficulty passing in the House. I could be wrong. 
That is how I see it. That is what I have heard from everyone I trust 
as to diagnosing the ability of that bill, or lack thereof, to pass in 
the House.
  With respect to the Post-1971 uranium miners and millers, there is a 
distinction here. It is not a distinction that is necessarily 
impossible to overcome in every circumstance. But the Congressional 
Research Service looked at this for us, and we asked them to examine 
it. They concluded that the Post-1971 uranium millers and miners 
covered by the Hawley legislation now pending in the House were from 
the commercial sector. They were not doing this as contractors or as 
employees or otherwise as agents of the U.S. Government, but rather for 
private sector industry. And in those circumstances--in many of those 
circumstances, if not most or all--those can be addressed through tort 
law and/or through workmen's compensation law.
  Now, for those that can't, there may well be an appropriate use of 
RECA. But if we are going to start expanding this into purely private 
sector activities, that changes the nature of this bill, and I suspect 
will continue to make it more difficult to pass in the House of 
Representatives.

  So as to what we have got in Guam, the Marshall Islands, Idaho, 
Kentucky, Ohio, and Alaska, there may well be worthy beneficiaries 
there as to whom there exists adequate scientific research to justify 
the expansion of RECA and as to whom there is no other adequate 
recourse provided for by some other government program or through State 
tort law, workers' compensation law, or something else.
  As to those, I would be happy to expand RECA, but we have to overcome 
those two issues. Those haven't been overcome. But they have been 
overcome as to Utah, as to New Mexico, and as to Missouri.
  It is unfortunate that my friend and colleague from Missouri chose, 
rather than to allow the victims in his State and in New Mexico and the 
yet-uncovered victims in the State of Utah to be taken within the 
protective boundaries of RECA today--we could have gotten this done 
today. I am confident we could have gotten it passed in the House right 
away. He chose to object to it.
  In other words, unless you can have all of his bill passed, including 
the parts that are not scientifically backed--making it unpassable in 
the House--he is not going to let even the victims in Missouri or the 
victims in New Mexico get covered. That is most unfortunate.
  We have got to deal with this. I will be back. We have to get this 
done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.