|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
Home > D.C. > Research > Congress > CRW > Page | |
|
 |
| ||||||
|
|
|
||||
Congressional Record Weekly UpdateSeptember 30 – October 4, 2002Return to the Congressional Report Weekly. 1A) Benefits to DOE Employees S. 3058. A bill to amend the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 to provide benefits for contractor employees of the Department of Energy who were exposed to toxic substances at Department of Energy facilities, to provide coverage under subtitle B of that Act for certain additional individuals, to establish an ombudsman and otherwise reform the assistance provided to claimants under that Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, two years ago we enacted the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, EEOICPA. This important legislation was intended to give timely, uniform and reasonable compensation to Department of Energy employees suffering injury and disease resulting from working in the nuclear weapons program. The program has two parts: a Federal component for certain diseases, and, for all others, an assistance program for the filing of State workers' compensation claims. The Federal component, for workers made ill by exposure to substances unique to DOE facilities, gives a one-time $150,000 payment and covers medical payments for illnesses like beryllium disease, certain cancers and silicosis. Since the passage of the original act in October 2000 a number of additional issues, complicating factors and implementation barriers have emerged. Recently I held a public meeting in Espanola, New Mexico with Representative TOM UDALL, to review the performance of the program. The gathering, attending by over 300 present and former workers, focused on three broad issues: delays in processing claims, missing radiation exposure records and difficulty gaining compensation for exposure to toxic substances, like mercury. Upon my return I continued to investigate the implementation barriers facing the program. Meetings with Department of Energy, Labor and HHS officials as well as experts in occupational health and workers compensation revealed further flaws. Let me describe some of the problems this legislation is intended to address based on what I have recently learned. First, with regard to subtitle D, the program relies on an amalgamation of private insurance, state workers compensation programs and DOE contractor self-insurance for the timely and fair payment of medical costs and lost wages. Unfortunately, Department of Energy officials recently stated that up to 50 percent of all eligible beneficiaries would not have access to a willing payor. Assistant Secretary of Energy Beverly Cook in a June 7, 2002 letter noted DOE cannot give directives to ``persons who are not DOE contractors, such as insurers or lessees of DOE facilities.'' In short, workers found to have a meritorious claim under the program may not have a payor. The legislation introduced today would address this problem by making DOE the defacto for all claims. Further, the Department of Energy failed, for nearly two years following the passage of the legislation, to publish a rule crucial for the submission of subtitle D claims. The physician panel rule is a critical component allowing injury claims to be adjudicated by a panel of physicians specializing in occupational medicine. Since the inception of the program and because of delays like the one described above, only four claims have been sent to the physician panel for review. Clearly, we must do better. My legislation simplifies the process to allow the expeditious handling of claims. The dangers faced by these workers is only now being fully understood. In addition to certain cancers, silicosis and beryllium disease, increased risk for other maladies are now being discovered. In my own State of New Mexico I have workers suffering from mercury poisoning, once known as ``Mad Hatters'' disease. Mr. Alex Smith of Espanola operated a mercury still for many years at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. At one point Mr. Smith displayed all the signs of both acute and chronic mercury poisoning. He approached LANL's medical clinic seeking treatment only to be told he was not suffering from mercury poisoning. Documentation later revealed a different story. In fact, the physician did suspect Mr. Smith suffered from mercury toxicity but, for reasons we can only speculate on now, failed to act. According to the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, during the 1950's a majority of the world's mercury was used in the production of nuclear weapons. Although mercury usage is not unique to DOE facilities, the volumes utilized in these facilities, at one point 70 percent of the world's supply, set mercury toxicity in this setting apart from other exposures. Recent data has revealed an increased risk of chronic renal disease and lung cancer from exposure to uranium and beryllium, respectively. Although lung cancer can arise from many causes, clear scientific data points to beryllium disease as a precursor for this devastating illness. As well, chronic renal disease has many etiologies with uranium among them. Like mercury, these exposures and the consequent illnesses are unique to the environment workers found themselves in and should be recognized. The legislation I am introducing today, along with Senators BUNNING, HARKIN, ALLARD and REID, entitled the Energy Workers Compensation Act of 2002 is intended to fulfill the original legislative objectives of Congress, address unforeseen obstacles and assure just compensation for our Nation's energy workers. The Energy Workers Compensation Act of 2002 addresses and improves the shortcomings of the original legislation by: Establishing the Department of Labor as the willing payor of benefits for claimants approved by the Department of Energy under Subtitle D. Benefit payments are authorized from the previously established EEOICPA fund. Setting time limits for DOE to make determinations regarding claimant's employment records. Setting at 150 days the time limit for the reconstruction of worker's radiation dosages. Adding lung cancer to a list of covered beryllium related diseases. Adding chronic renal disease as a covered illness for uranium workers. Adding mercury disease as a covered illness for workers employed at facilities utilizing more than 100 kilograms of mercury. Establishing an ombudsman to help claimants with administration of claims. Allowing individuals otherwise eligible for compensation under EEOICPA, but who previously received Radiation Exposure Compensation Act awards, to be compensated at levels equal to EEOICPA. It is imperative we protect those who helped America win the cold war. Members of the House of Representatives have come to similar conclusion. Representatives WHITFIELD and STRICKLAND have recently introduced legislation similar to ours. They too realize that promises made to cold war era workers and families must be kept. A debt of gratitude to these workers, who became sick through no fault of their own, must be paid. I request unanimous consent that the bill and selected testimony be printed in the RECORD. [Page: S9987] There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: S. 3058 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Energy Workers Compensation Act of 2002''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE. (a) FINDINGS.--Congress makes the following findings: (1) The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (the ``Act'') was intended to ensure timely, uniform, and adequate compensation of covered employees (and, where applicable, survivors of such employees) suffering from illnesses incurred by such employees in the performance of duty for the Department of Energy and certain of its contractors, subcontractors, and vendors, and to provide parity for uranium miners under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note). (2) Four Federal agencies, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Energy, and Justice, have been assigned responsibilities under the Act pursuant to Executive Order No. 13179, dated December 7, 2000 (42 U.S.C. 7384 note). (3) The Department of Labor began accepting claims July 31, 2001, and the Department of Health and Human Services, through the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, will perform radiation dose reconstruction for cancer claims and evaluate petitions for Special Exposure Cohorts. (4) The Department of Energy finalized its regulations governing claims under Subtitle D of the Act on August 14, 2002. Those regulations require claimants to use a State workers' compensation system to secure benefits after receiving a positive findings from a Department of Energy physicians panel. The Department of Energy has conceded, however, that it will not have a willing payor for as many as 50 percent of the claims that are meritorious. As a consequence, many deserving claimants with a positive determination from a Department of Energy physicians panel will nonetheless be denied benefits. (5) The Department of Energy's regulations (at 10 C.F.R. Part 852) direct contractors of the Department to adopt a non-adversarial posture in state workers' compensation proceedings, which are structured as an adversarial forum. The policy of inserting a non-adversarial respondent in an adversarial system should be remedied by utilizing a non-adversarial dispute resolution system. Taxpayers would also benefit from placing claimants in a non-adversarial system, such as the type of systems administered by the Department of Labor under subtitle B of the Act or under chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code (known as the Federal Employees Compensation Act), as doing so would assure that disabilities related to occupational illnesses would be compensated proportional to the degree of injury. (6) In order to assure that congressional intent is honored with respect to the Department of Energy's program of worker assistance with state worker compensation for occupational illnesses that arose out of the course of employment from exposure to toxic substances at Department of Energy facilities, the Department of Energy's implementation of subtitle D of the Act requires reform, refinement, and clarification. (7) Certain renal diseases related to uranium exposure and cancers related to employment by beryllium vendors should be added to coverage under subtitle B. (8) Congress intended that follow-up implementing legislation would be required when it passed the Act and, in section 3613 of the Act, directed the administration to provide such legislation. Although such legislation was forwarded on January 15, 2001, and Congress adopted technical amendments to the Act in 2001, significant shortcomings in the Act have been identified as the Act has been implemented. (b) PURPOSE.--The purpose of this Act is to amend the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 to-- (1) ensure that meritorious claims for exposure to toxic substances at Department of Energy facilities are compensated under subtitle D of the Act; (2) enhance assistance to claimants at the Department of Labor; (3) ensure that there is parity in treatment of chronic renal disease between uranium-exposed Department of Energy employees (including employees of contractors, subcontractors, and atomic weapons employer facilities) and the uranium-exposed workers under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act; (4) provide coverage of lung cancer for covered beryllium workers; and (5) make administrative improvements and technical corrections.
SEC. 101. BENEFITS. Subtitle D of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 7385o) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 3661. DEFINITIONS. ``In this subtitle: ``(1) The term `DOE contractor' means any of the following: ``(A) A contractor (or subcontractor at any tier) of the Department of Energy. ``(B) A contractor (or subcontractor at any tier) of USEC, a Government-owned corporation, during the period beginning on July 1, 1993, and ending on July 28, 1998. ``(2) The term `DOE contractor employee' means any of the following: ``(A) An employee of a contractor (or subcontractor at any tier) of the Department of Energy. ``(B) An employee of a contractor (or subcontractor at any tier) of USEC, a Government-owned corporation, during the period beginning on July 1, 1993, and ending on July 28, 1998. ``(3) The term `covered DOE contractor employee' means a DOE contractor employee, if a claim relating to that employee is forwarded by the Secretary of Energy under section 3662(d)(3)(A) to the Secretary of Labor for payment under section 3663. ``(4) The term `specified illness' means, with respect to a covered DOE contractor employee, the illness by reason of which the claim relating to that employee was forwarded by the Secretary of Energy under section 3662(d)(3)(A) to the Secretary of Labor for payment under section 3663. ``SEC. 3662. DETERMINATIONS OF CAUSATION BY DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY. ``(a) PROCEDURE FOR SUBMITTING CLAIMS.-- ``(1) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary of Energy shall establish, by regulation, procedures under which an individual may submit a claim for benefits under this subtitle due to occupational illness from exposure to toxic substances. ``(2) NOTICE TO CLAIMANT.--Not later than 10 days after the receipt of a claim under paragraph (1), the Secretary of Energy shall notify the claimant of the receipt of the claim and provide the name, address, and phone number of a person capable of answering questions and providing additional information with respect to the procedures and benefits under this subtitle. ``(b) INITIAL REVIEW BY DOE.-- ``(1) EVIDENCE REQUIRED.--The Secretary of Energy shall review each claim submitted under this section and, for each such claim, determine not later than 30 days after receipt of the claim whether the claimant submitted reasonable evidence of both of the following: ``(A) The claim was filed by or on behalf of a DOE contractor employee or such employee's estate. ``(B) The illness or death of the DOE contractor employee may have been related to employment at a Department of Energy facility. ``(2) DETERMINATIONS.-- ``(A) If the Secretary determines that the claimant did not submit reasonable evidence under either paragraph (1)(A) or (1)(B), or both, the Secretary shall, not later than 10 days after making such determination, notify the claimant of such determination and include the claimant's options for appeal or for submitting additional evidence. ``(B) If the Secretary determines that the claimant did submit reasonable evidence under both paragraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B), the Secretary shall-- ``(i) not later than 10 days after making such determination, notify the claimant of such determination; ``(ii) ensure that the claimant is afforded the opportunity to review the entire record, and to supplement the record within 30 days after the date on which information is provided by the DOE contractor, before the claim is submitted to a physicians panel; ``(iii) not later than 10 days after the end of the 30-day period referred to in clause (ii) or the date on which the claimant completes the supplement of the record under that clause, whichever is later, submit the claim to a physicians panel for review under subsection (c); and ``(iv) not later than 10 days after submitting the claim to a physicians panel, notify the claimant of such submission. ``(c) REVIEW BY PHYSICIANS PANELS.-- ``(1) COMPOSITION.-- ``(A) The Secretary of Energy shall inform the Secretary of Health and Human Services of the number of physicians panels the Secretary of Energy has determined to be appropriate to administer this section, the number of physicians needed for each panel, and the area of jurisdiction of each panel. ``(B) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall appoint panel members with experience and competency in diagnosing occupational illnesses under section 3109 of title 5, United States Code. Each member of a panel shall be paid at the rate of pay payable for level III of the Executive Schedule for each day (including travel time) the member is engaged in the work of a panel. ``(C) A panel established under this subsection shall not be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.). ``(2) OPERATION.-- ``(A) The Secretary of Energy shall assist the claimant in obtaining additional evidence within the control of the Department of Energy or a DOE contractor who employed a DOE contractor employee and relevant to the panel's deliberations. ``(B) At the request of a panel, the Secretary of Energy and a DOE contractor who employed a DOE contractor employee shall provide additional information relevant to [Page: S9988] ``(C) In any case in which the panel finds that additional diagnostic testing or an exposure assessment is necessary to the panel's deliberations-- ``(i) the panel shall so notify the Secretary of Energy and the claimant; ``(ii) the claimant may obtain such diagnostic testing or exposure assessment using a qualified physician chosen by the claimant or a qualified occupational health expert (as applicable) or, if the claimant so desires, may obtain such diagnostic testing or exposure assessment using the program carried out under section 3162 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (42 U.S.C. 7274i) to monitor Department of Energy workers exposed to hazardous and radioactive substances; and ``(iii) any costs of such diagnostic testing or exposure assessment shall be paid for from the Fund established under section 3612 and shall be provided by the Secretary of Energy through a method under which the claimant is not required to advance any amount toward payment of such costs. ``(D) The Secretary of Energy is authorized to enter into or modify cooperative agreements with providers who are implementing the program carried out under section 3162 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (42 U.S.C. 7274i) to provide assessments of exposures to toxic substances at Department of Energy facilities to claimants under circumstances covered by subparagraph (C). ``(3) DETERMINATION OF CAUSATION.--A panel shall review a claim submitted to it under this subsection and shall determine, under guidelines established by the Secretary of Energy, by regulation, whether the illness or death that is the subject of the claim arose out of and in the course of employment by the Department of Energy and exposure to a toxic substance at a Department of Energy facility. For purposes of the preceding sentence, illness or death shall be deemed to arise out of and in the course of employment by the Department of Energy and exposure to a toxic substance at a Department of Energy facility if exposure to the toxic substance (or substances, as the case may be) was a significant factor which aggravated, contributed to, or caused the illness or death. ``(4) MAJORITY VOTE.--A determination under paragraph (3) shall be made by majority vote. ``(5) REPORT TO SECRETARY.--Once a panel has made a determination under paragraph (3), it shall report to the Secretary of Energy its determination and the basis for the determination. ``(d) REVIEW OF PANEL DETERMINATIONS.-- ``(1) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary of Energy shall review a panel's determination under subsection (c)(3), information the panel considered in reaching its determination, any relevant new information not reasonably available at the time of the panel's deliberations, and the basis for the panel's determination. ``(2) ACCEPTANCE OF PANEL DETERMINATION.--As a result of the review under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall accept the panel's determination in the absence of a preponderance of evidence to the contrary. ``(3) ACTION UPON ACCEPTED CLAIMS.--If the panel has made a positive determination under subsection (c)(3) and the Secretary accepts the determination under paragraph (2), or the panel has made a negative determination under subsection (c)(3) and the Secretary finds significant evidence to the contrary-- ``(A) the Secretary of Energy shall within 10 days forward the claim to the Secretary of Labor for payment under section 3663, together with information relating to-- ``(i) the DOE contractor employee to whom the claim relates; ``(ii) the illness to which the claim relates; ``(iii) the determination of the panel and the basis for the determination; ``(iv)(I) the acceptance of the Secretary and the basis for the acceptance; or ``(II) the reversal of the negative determination by the panel and the basis for the reversal; ``(v) the employment to which the claim relates, including available wage or salary information; and ``(vi) any other matter that the Secretary of Labor considers necessary; ``(B) the Secretary of Energy thereafter-- ``(i) shall not contest the claim; ``(ii) shall not contest an award made regarding the claim; and ``(iii) shall direct the DOE contractor who employed the DOE contractor employee to which the claim relates not to contest the claim or such award in any administrative or judicial forum, and such obligation in no case shall be considered discretionary; and ``(C) any costs of contesting a claim or an award regarding the claim incurred by the DOE contractor who employed the DOE contractor employee who is the subject of the claim shall not be an allowable cost under a Department of Energy contract. ``(e) ACCESS TO INFORMATION.-- ``(1) DUTY TO PROVIDE INFORMATION.--At the request of the Secretary of Energy, a DOE contractor who employed a DOE contractor employee and any other entity possessing information related to such employee relevant to deliberations under this section shall make such information available to the Secretary. ``(2) COPIES TO CLAIMANT.--The Secretary of Energy shall require that a DOE contractor who provides any information to the Secretary or a panel under this section shall simultaneously provide such information to the claimant. ``(f) OUTREACH.--The Secretary of Energy, in cooperation with the Secretary of Labor, shall carry out a program of outreach and education about the availability of benefits under this subtitle. The Secretary shall make available in paper and electronic format forms and information available for potential claimants. As part of the program of outreach, the Secretary shall conduct notification by mail and use the former worker medical screening programs to notify, educate, and assist claimants. ``(g) ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.--The Secretary of Energy shall establish a process under which a claimant may obtain prompt and independent administrative review of any adverse determination by the Secretary under subsection (b) or (d) or by a panel under subsection (c). The results of any such administrative review shall be deemed to be a final agency action subject to judicial review. ``(h) REPORT TO CONGRESS.--Not later than February 1 of each year, the Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress a report on the implementation and operation of this section. The report shall include, for the preceding calendar year-- ``(1) the number of claims received under this subtitle; ``(2) the size of the backlog in processing such claims; ``(3) the number of such claims submitted to a physicians panel; ``(4) the number of such claims for which a panel made a determination, including the number of determinations that were positive and the number that were negative; ``(5) the number of determinations accepted, reversed, and denied by the Secretary; ``(6) the number of claims denied under subsection (b) for failure to submit reasonable evidence; ``(7) the number and type of diagnostic tests and exposure assessments requested by a panel, and the number and type of such tests and assessments that were carried out; ``(8) the number and type of claims appealed, and the dispositions of such appeals; and ``(9) the expenditures made, and staff and contractors employed, in carrying out the Department of Energy's responsibilities under this section. ``(i) APPLICABILITY OF EXISTING REGULATIONS.--In implementing the Energy Workers Compensation Act of 2002 and the amendments to this title made by that Act, regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Energy before the date of the enactment of that Act may, to the extent not inconsistent with this title (as so amended), continue to apply to this title. ``SEC. 3663. PAYMENT OF BENEFITS BY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. ``(a) IN GENERAL.-- ``(1) PAYMENTS.--Payments shall be made with respect to a covered DOE contractor employee in accordance with this section for the disability or death of that employee resulting from that employee's specified illness. ``(2) MEDICAL BENEFITS.--A covered DOE contractor employee shall receive medical benefits under section 3629 for that employee's specified illness. ``(3) PAYMENT FROM FUND.--The compensation provided under this section shall be paid from the Fund established under section 3612. ``(b) DUTY OF SECRETARY OF LABOR.--The Secretary of Labor shall have the duty to carry out this section. ``(c) NATURE AND AMOUNT OF PAYMENTS.-- ``(1) IN GENERAL.--The following provisions of subchapter I of chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, apply to a covered DOE contractor employee (including the regulations prescribed with respect to those provisions, adapted as appropriate), and the Secretary of Labor shall provide, with respect to that employee and that employee's specified illness, payments determined in accordance with those provisions: Sections 8102(a), 8105, 8106, 8107, 8108, 8109, 8110, 8111(a), 8112, 8114, 8115, 8116, 8117, 8133, 8134, and 8146a. ``(2) ORGANS AND PHYSIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS.--For purposes of carrying out this subtitle, the Secretary of Labor shall prescribe additional regulations for resolving claims under this subtitle of partial or total loss of use of function of organs or physiological systems that are not already covered by existing regulations. Such additional regulations shall cover the liver, brain, stomach, heart, esophagus, bladder, thyroid, pancreas, and nervous system, and such additional organs and physiological systems as the Secretary considers appropriate. The Secretary shall issue such regulations not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of the Energy Workers Compensation Act of 2002. ``(d) ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.-- ``(1) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary of Labor shall establish a process under which a claimant may obtain administrative review of any adverse determination by the Secretary of Labor under this section. Such process shall not apply to any adverse determination by the Secretary of Energy. ``(2) JUDICIAL REVIEW.--The results of any such administrative review shall be deemed to be a final agency action subject to judicial review in the United States district [Page: S9989] ``(3) ATTORNEY FEES.--In any proceeding pursuant to this subsection, attorney fees shall be available on the same basis as such fees are available under section 28 of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 928). ``SEC. 3664. GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO RESOLUTION OF CLAIMS. ``(a) NONADVERSARIAL.--The Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Labor shall each ensure that claims under this subtitle are resolved in a nonadversarial manner. ``(b) NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.--A claim under this subtitle shall not be barred by any statute of limitations. ``SEC. 3665. OFFSET FOR CERTAIN PAYMENTS. ``A claimant awarded benefits under this subtitle as a result of a specified illness or death of a DOE contractor employee who receives benefits because of the same illness or death from any State workers' compensation system shall receive the benefits specified in this subtitle for such illness or death, reduced by the amount of any workers' compensation benefits that the claimant receives or will receive on account of such illness or death under any State workers' compensation system during the period that awarded benefits are provided under this subtitle, after deducting the reasonable costs, as determined by the Secretary of Labor by regulation, of obtaining such benefits. ``SEC. 3666. SUBROGATION OF THE UNITED STATES NOT APPLICABLE. ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the United States has no right of subrogation against any person by reason of payments or other benefits provided under this subtitle. ``SEC. 3667. CERTIFICATION OF TREATMENT OF PAYMENTS UNDER OTHER LAWS. ``Compensation or benefits provided to an individual under this subtitle-- ``(1) shall be treated for purposes of the internal revenue laws of the United States as damages for human suffering; and ``(2) shall not be included as income or resources for purposes of determining eligibility to receive benefits described in section 3803(c)(2)(C) of title 31, United States Code, or the amount of such benefits. ``SEC. 3668. CERTAIN CLAIMS NOT AFFECTED BY AWARDS OF DAMAGES. ``A payment under this subtitle shall not be considered as any form of compensation or reimbursement for a loss for purposes of imposing liability on any individual receiving such payment, on the basis of such receipt, to repay any insurance carrier for insurance payments; and a payment under this subtitle shall not affect any claim against an insurance carrier with respect to insurance. ``SEC. 3669. FORFEITURE OF BENEFITS BY CONVICTED FELONS. ``(a) FORFEITURE OF COMPENSATION.--Any individual convicted of a violation of section 1920 of title 18, United States Code, or any other Federal or State criminal statute relating to fraud in the application for or receipt of any benefit under this title or under any other Federal or State workers' compensation law, shall forfeit (as of the date of such conviction) any entitlement to any compensation or benefit under this subtitle such individual would otherwise be awarded for any injury, illness, or death covered by this subtitle for which the time of injury was on or before the date of the conviction. ``(b) INFORMATION.--Notwithstanding section 552a of title 5, United States Code, or any other Federal or State law, an agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State shall make available to the President, upon written request from the President and if the President requires the information to carry out this section, the names and Social Security account numbers of individuals confined, for conviction of a felony, in a jail, prison, or other penal institution or correctional facility under the jurisdiction of that agency. ``SEC. 3670. EXCLUSIVITY OF REMEDY. ``The liability of the United States or a DOE contractor in its capacity as an employer of a DOE contractor employee under this subtitle with respect to the specified illness or death of a DOE contractor employee for which compensation is made under this subtitle is exclusive and instead of all other liability of the United States or DOE contractor in such capacity to the employee, his legal representative, spouse, dependents, next of kin, and any other person otherwise entitled to recover damages from the United States or DOE contractor in such capacity because of the specified illness or death in a direct judicial proceeding, in a civil action, or in admiralty, except for a State workers' compensation proceeding or a State intentional tort liability proceeding. However, this section shall not apply to illness or death for which compensation under this subtitle is not made. ``SEC. 3671. COORDINATION WITH BENEFITS UNDER SUBTITLE B. ``(a) RECEIPT OF SUBTITLE B BENEFITS NO BAR TO APPLICATION UNDER THIS SUBTITLE.--An individual may apply for benefits under this subtitle without regard to whether the individual received a lump sum payment under subtitle B. ``(b) OFFSET FOR BENEFITS PAID ON SAME ILLNESS OF SAME PERSON.--If a lump sum payment is made under subtitle B by reason of a specified illness of a person, any payment (excluding medical costs) made under this subtitle by reason of the same specified illness of the same person shall be offset by the amount of such lump sum payment. In no case shall a claimant obtain double indemnity wage replacement benefits for specified illness under this subtitle. ``SEC. 3672. ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIM. ``An assignment of a claim for compensation under this subtitle is void. Compensation and claims for compensation are exempt from claims of creditors.''. SEC. 102. GAO REPORT. Not later than February 1, 2004, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report on the implementation by the Department of Energy of subtitle D of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 7385o et seq.), as amended by section 101, and of the effectiveness of such subtitle in assisting DOE contractor employees in obtaining compensation for exposure to a toxic substance at a Department of Energy facility.
SEC. 201. COVERAGE FOR CHRONIC RENAL DISEASE. (a) DEFINITIONS FOR PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION.--Section 3621 of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 7384l) is amended-- (1) in paragraph (1), by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: ``(D) A covered employee with chronic renal disease.''; (2) in paragraph (15), by striking ``or chronic silicosis'' and inserting ``chronic silicosis, chronic renal disease,''; and (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs: ``(19) The term `chronic renal disease' includes nephritis and kidney tubal tissue injury and related illnesses of the urogenitoury tract. ``(20) The term `covered employee with chronic renal disease' means an individual determined to have sustained chronic renal disease in the performance of duty in accordance with section 3623(f).''. (b) EXPOSURE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTY.--Section 3623 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 7384n) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: ``(f) CHRONIC RENAL DISEASE.--(1) An individual with chronic renal disease shall, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, be determined to have sustained chronic renal disease in the performance of duty for purposes of the compensation program if the individual-- ``(A) was employed in a Department of Energy facility (in the case of a Department of Energy employee or a Department of Energy contractor employee) or an atomic weapons employer facility (in the case of an atomic weapons employee) that conducted uranium processing, converting, refining, enriching, extruding, calcining, machining, or rolling, or that operated as a uranium foundry; ``(B) carried out job functions while so employed that resulted in the potential for exposure, inhalation, or uptake of uranium or uranium compounds for at least 250 days; and ``(C) submits medical evidence that the individual, after commencing the employment specified in subparagraph (A), contracted chronic renal disease. ``(2) Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of the Energy Workers Compensation Act of 2002, the Secretary of Energy shall designate a list of Department of Energy facilities and atomic weapons employer facilities that were engaged in uranium processing, converting, refining, enriching, extruding, calcining, machining, or rolling, or that operated as a uranium foundry, including the dates such activities were performed. The list of facilities shall not include facilities for which uranium millers and transporters are already covered under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note). ``(3) Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of the Energy Workers Compensation Act of 2002, the Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall establish, by regulation, procedures to be followed and medical evidence to be submitted by claimants for chronic renal disease claims.''. (c) OFFSET FOR CERTAIN PAYMENTS.--Section 3641 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 7385) is amended-- (1) by striking ``or covered uranium employee (as defined in section 3630),'' and inserting ``covered uranium employee (as defined in section 3630), covered employee with chronic renal disease,''; and (2) by striking ``or radiation,'' and inserting ``radiation, uranium,''. (d) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.--The following provisions of such Act are amended by inserting ``chronic renal disease,'' after ``chronic silicosis,'' each place such term appears: (1) Subsections (a)(1) and (b)(2)(A) of section 3631 (42 U.S.C. 7384v). (2) Section 3644(a) (42 U.S.C. 7385c(a))-- (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1); (B) in paragraph (2)(C); and (C) in the matter following paragraph (2)(C). SEC. 202. COVERAGE FOR MERCURY POISONING. (a) DEFINITIONS FOR PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION.--Section 3621 of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 7384l), as amended by section 201(a) of this Act, is further amended-- (1) in paragraph (1), by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: ``(E) A covered employee with mercury poisoning.''; [Page: S9990] (2) in paragraph (15), by inserting ``or mercury poisoning'' after ``chronic renal disease,''; and (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ``(21) The term `covered employee with mercury poisoning' means an individual determined to have sustained mercury poisoning in the performance of duty in accordance with section 3627A.''. (b) PARTICIPATION IN COMPENSATION PROGRAM.--Subtitle B of that Act (42 U.S.C. 7384l et seq.) is further amended by inserting after section 3627 the following new section: ``SEC. 3627A. MERCURY POISONING. ``(a) IN GENERAL.--A Department of Energy employee or Department of Energy contractor employee who was exposed to mercury in the performance of duty and who experiences mercury poisoning shall be treated as a covered employee for purposes of the compensation program. ``(b) EXPOSURE TO MERCURY IN PERFORMANCE OF DUTY.--A Department of Energy employee or Department of Energy contractor employee shall, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, be treated as having been exposed to mercury in the performance of duty for purposes of subsection (a) if while employed in activities associated with the design, production, or testing of atomic weapons, or clean-up related thereto, such employee was present in a Department of Energy facility that-- ``(1) contained more than 100 kilograms of mercury; and ``(2) did not confine mercury operations to work spaces with dedicated ventilation systems for the removal of airborne toxic substances. ``(c) MERCURY POISONING.--A Department of Energy employee or Department of Energy contractor employee shall be treated as experiencing mercury poisoning for purposes of subsection (a) if such employee manifests a physical, psychological, or neurological illness consistent with mercury poisoning. ``(d) DETERMINATIONS OF MERCURY POISONING.--The Secretary of Labor shall utilize evaluations, tests, or other medical information obtained pursuant to section 3162 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (42 U.S.C. 7274i), and may utilize any other evaluations, tests, information, or other means that the Secretary considers appropriate, to determine whether a Department of Energy employee or Department of Energy contractor employee manifests a physical, psychological, or neurological illness consistent with mercury poisoning for purposes of subsection (a).''. (c) OFFSET FOR CERTAIN PAYMENTS.--Section 3641 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 7385), as amended by section 201(c) of this Act, is further amended-- (1) by inserting ``or covered employee with mercury poisoning'' after ``covered employee with chronic renal disease,''; and (2) by inserting ``or mercury'' after ``uranium,''. (d) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.--The following provisions of such Act, as amended by section 201(d) of this Act, are further amended by inserting ``mercury poisoning,'' after ``chronic renal disease,'' each place such term appears: (1) Subsections (a)(1) and (b)(2)(A) of section 3631 (42 U.S.C. 7384v). (2) Section 3644(a) (42 U.S.C. 7385c(a))-- (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1); (B) in paragraph (2)(C); and (C) in the matter following paragraph (2)(C). SEC. 203. COVERAGE FOR LUNG CANCER IN COVERED BERYLLIUM EMPLOYEES. Section 3621(8) of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 7384l(8)) is amended-- (1) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D) and, in that subparagraph, by striking ``or (B)'' and inserting ``(B), or (C)''; and (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new subparagraph: ``(C) Lung cancer, if such cancer occurs within 5 years after the date on which the employee is determined to have been first exposed to beryllium in the performance of duty in accordance with section 3623(a).''. SEC. 204. CLARIFICATION OF SPECIAL EXPOSURE COHORT EXPANSION PROCEDURE. (a) AUTOMATIC DESIGNATION BY LAPSE OF TIME.--Section 3626 of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 7384q) is amended-- (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection: ``(c) AUTOMATIC DESIGNATION BY LAPSE OF TIME.--Notwithstanding subsection (b), if a class of employees described in subsection (a)(1) petitions to be treated as members of the Special Exposure Cohort under subsection (a)(3), the members of that class shall, as of the expiration of the 180-day period beginning with the date on which the petition was received, be deemed to be members of the Special Exposure Cohort for purposes of the compensation program, unless before the expiration of that period the petition is denied.''. (b) INDIVIDUAL PRESUMPTION BY LAPSE OF TIME.--Section 3623 of that Act (42 U.S.C. 7384n) is amended by adding at the end of subsection (d) the following new paragraph: ``(3) An estimate referred to in paragraph (1) shall be completed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services within 150 days after the date on which the Department of Labor submits to the Secretary of Health and Human Services the claim for which the estimate is required. If such estimate cannot be completed before the expiration of such period, it shall be deemed, for purposes of section 3626(b)(1), that it is not feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy the radiation dose received by the individual to which the claim relates.''. SEC. 205. CORRECTING PROBLEMS IN THE RADIOEPIDEMIOLOGIC MODEL FOR DETERMINING COMPENSATION. Section 3623(c)(3) of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 7384n(c)(3)) is amended-- (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end; (2) in subparagraph (C)-- (A) by striking ``past health-related activities (such as smoking),''; and (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: ``(D) provide the benefit of the doubt to the claimant wherever there is reasonable scientific evidence to justify compensation, including such factors as dose rate effectiveness of low dose radiation, bias due to selection effects, and increasing risks from radiation with increasing age at exposure.''. SEC. 206. ADDITIONAL SPECIFIED CANCERS. (a) REPORT.--The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health shall prepare a report that identifies each type of cancer (other than specified cancers, as already defined in section 3621(17) of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 7384l(17))) that the Institute has determined from epidemiology studies of workers or atomic bomb survivors to be radiosensitive and, for each cancer so identified, provides a basis for that determination. Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Institute shall submit the report to Congress, the Secretary of Labor, and the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, and shall publish the report in the Federal Register, for public review and comment. (b) FINAL REPORT.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Institute shall submit to Congress, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health a final report, taking into account comments received in response to the report under subsection (a), that identifies each type of cancer that is appropriate to be deemed an additional specified cancer for purposes of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. SEC. 207. COVERAGE FOR INDIVIDUALS EMPLOYED BY ATOMIC WEAPONS EMPLOYERS OR BERYLLIUM EMPLOYEES DURING PERIOD OF RESIDUAL CONTAMINATION. Paragraphs (3) and (7)(C) of section 3621 of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 7384l) are each amended by inserting before the period at the end the following: ``, or during a period when, as specified by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in the reports required by section 3151(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (42 U.S.C. 7384 note) or any subsequent report, significant contamination remained in a facility of the employer after such facility discontinued activities relating to the production of nuclear weapons and such contamination could have caused or substantially contributed to the cancer of a covered employee with cancer or a covered beryllium illness, as the case may be''. SEC. 208. COORDINATION OF COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS FOR CANCER WITH COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS UNDER OTHER RADIATION COMPENSATION LAWS. (a) COORDINATION.--Section 3651 of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 7385j) is amended to read as follows: ``SEC. 3651. COORDINATION WITH OTHER RADIATION COMPENSATION LAWS. ``(a) IN GENERAL.--Except in accordance with section 3630 and except as provided in subsection (b), an individual may not receive compensation or benefits under the compensation program for cancer and also receive compensation under either of the following: ``(1) The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note). ``(2) Section 112(c) of title 38, United States Code. ``(b) OFFSET.--A payment of compensation may be made to an individual, or the survivor of an individual, under subtitle B for cancer for which payment has been made under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, but the amount of such payment shall be offset by the amount of any payment made pursuant to section 4(a)(1)(A)(i)(III) or 4(a)(2)(C) of that Act on account of such cancer.''. (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 209. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS. (a) FINDINGS.--Section 3602(a)(6) of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 7384(a)(6)) is amended by striking the second sentence and inserting the following: ``Furthermore, studies indicate that 98 percent of radiation-induced cancers within the Department of Energy nuclear weapons complex [Page: S9991] (b) PAYMENTS IN THE CASE OF DECEASED PERSONS.--Section 3628(e)(3)(A) (42 U.S.C. 7384s(e)(3)(A)) of such Act is amended by inserting before the semicolon the following: ``, or a wife or husband of that individual who was married to that individual immediately before the death of that individual and filed, on or before December 28, 2001, a claim in that capacity under this subtitle''.
SEC. 301. PROVIDING ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF IN CASES WHERE MEDICAL RECORDS ARE NOT AVAILABLE. Subtitle C of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 7385 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new section: ``SEC. 3652. PROOF WHEN MEDICAL RECORDS NOT AVAILABLE. ``For any claim under any subtitle of this title, if the Department of Energy, a contractor of the Department of Energy (including a DOE contractor, as defined in section 3661), an atomic energy weapons employer, or a beryllium vendor is unable to locate medical records necessary for the processing of that claim that it possessed or was required to possess within 120 days after receiving a written request from the claimant to locate such records, an affidavit of the employee as to the contents of those records, together with any medical records possessed by the claimant or otherwise made available, shall be considered in determining the medical evidence relating to the claim.''. SEC. 302. RESOURCE CENTERS AND OUTREACH PROGRAMS. Subtitle C of such Act is further amended by adding after section 3652 (as added by section 301) the following new section: ``SEC. 3653. RESOURCE CENTERS AND OUTREACH PROGRAMS. ``(a) REQUIREMENT.--The Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Energy shall maintain resource centers and outreach programs relating to the availability of benefits under any subtitle of this title. Such centers shall be staffed and maintained proportional to the demand for assistance and follow-up. ``(b) UNDERSERVED AREAS.--The resource centers required by subsection (a) shall include one or more resource centers in each underserved area near a Department of Energy facility. ``(c) DURATION.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), such centers and programs shall be maintained through September 30, 2004. ``(2) In the case of a resource center in an underserved area referred to in subsection (b), such center shall be maintained until demand is exhausted.''. SEC. 303. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN. (a) IN GENERAL.--Subtitle C of such Act is further amended by adding after section 3653 (as added by section 302) the following new section: ``SEC. 3654. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN. ``(a) ESTABLISHMENT.--There is established within the Office of the Secretary of Labor an office, to be known as the Office of the Ombudsman for Occupational Illness Compensation (in this section referred to as the `Office'), to assist claimants under this title. ``(b) OMBUDSMAN.-- ``(1) APPOINTMENT.--The head of the Office shall be the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman shall be appointed by the Secretary of Labor, after consultation with claimants or claimant advocates, worker compensation experts, and members of the advisory committees to Federal agencies implementing this title, from among individuals with at least one of the following qualifications: ``(A) Experience or training as an advocate. ``(B) Training as a health care provider with knowledge of occupational illness and disease. ``(C) Experience in assisting claimants with worker compensation claims. ``(2) REMOVAL.--The Secretary of Labor may remove the Ombudsman for just cause and shall, in such a case, communicate to Congress the circumstances forming the basis of such just cause. ``(c) DUTIES.--The duties of the Ombudsman are as follows: ``(1) To direct the operations of the Office. ``(2) To report to the Secretary of Labor with respect to the activities of the Office. ``(3) To assist claimants under this title with claims filed with the Department of Labor or the Department of Energy. ``(4) To receive and investigate complaints or inquiries regarding the status of a claim under this title. ``(5) To provide claimants under this title with contacts at agencies with responsibilities under this title. ``(6) To offer informal advice on options available to claimants under this title. ``(7) To identify whether claimants under this title are encountering systematic difficulties or delays with respect to claims under this title, and to make recommendations for improvement, with respect to such claims, in speed, equity, fairness, or compliance with statutes and regulations. ``(8) With respect to individuals filing complaints or requests for information under this title-- ``(A) to respond within 30 days after receiving such a complaint or request; ``(B) to maintain reasonable communication with the individual until the matter is resolved; and ``(C) to maintain, as confidential and privileged, the identity of the individual, unless such confidentiality or privilege is otherwise waived. ``(9) To maintain and publish a telephone number, facsimile number, electronic mail address, and post office address for the Office. ``(d) LIMITATION.--The Ombudsman may not reverse or make decisions regarding any claim under this title. ``(e) AUTHORITY.--The Ombudsman is authorized to carry out the following activities: ``(1) Investigate questions regarding a claim under this title, or procedures or systems for processing such claims, with the offices of the Department of Energy, Department of Labor, and Department of Health and Human Services (including the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), and any contractor of any such department, that has responsibility under this title. ``(2) Contract for expert advice with respect to the Ombudsman's responsibilities under this title. ``(3) Access any material relating to a matter under investigation under paragraph (1). ``(4) Request explanations from any Federal agency with responsibilities under this title about the activities of that agency under this title. ``(5) Enter and inspect places in order to carry out an investigation under paragraph (1). ``(6) Refer any matter within the responsibility of the Ombudsman to an appropriate inspector general. ``(f) COOPERATION WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES.--Federal agencies and the officials responsible for the implementation of this title shall assist the Ombudsman in carrying out this section and shall promptly make available to the Ombudsman all information requested by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman shall cooperate with such agencies and officials. ``(g) COORDINATION.--The Ombudsman shall coordinate the activities of the Office with the activities of the Secretaries of Energy, Health and Human Services, and Labor in carrying out this title. Such coordination shall be carried out pursuant to memoranda of agreement entered into among and between the Ombudsman and such Secretaries. ``(h) ANNUAL REPORT.--Not later than January 1 of each year, the Ombudsman shall submit a report on this title to the President, Congress, and the Secretaries of Energy, Health and Human Services, and Labor. No official outside the Office may require such outside official's approval before submitting the report. The report shall contain the following: ``(1) The number and types of complaints, grievances, and requests for assistance received by the Ombudsman in the previous year. ``(2) Identification of the most common difficulties encountered by claimants under this title. ``(3) Recommended changes to the administrative practices of the Federal agencies with responsibility under this title. ``(4) Recommended legislative changes that may be appropriate to mitigate problems with the implementation of this title. ``(i) PUBLICATION.--The Secretaries of Energy, Health and Human Services, and Labor shall publicize the availability of the services of the Office. ``(j) SEPARATE LINE ITEM.--The budget of the President under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, shall include funding for the Office as a separate line item. ``(k) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $800,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007.''. (b) INITIAL APPOINTMENT.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall appoint the Ombudsman required by section 3654 of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (as added by subsection (a)). (c) MEMORANDA OF AGREEMENT.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Ombudsman shall enter into the memoranda of agreement required by such section 3654 (as added by subsection (a)). -- Meeting on the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, May 11, 2002, 3:00 p.m., Espanola, New Mexico You know, these people are all good people. And after 9/11, when there's been so much talk about patriotism and doing the right thing by people who helped their country, on behalf of Levi and others similarly situated, I would just ask the Congress and the Administration to remember those words and not let them be hollow, empty phrases. Thank you very much. (Applause.) Mr. SMITH: My name is Alex Smith. I'm a 33-year employee with the Lab. I testified before Tom and Senator Bingaman and David Michaels the last time. I went to work for the Lab in 1947 in the chemical warehouse. Tom and Bingaman already know and I've been doing this for your benefit. I went to work for the chemical warehouse there at the Lab in the old TA 1. My duties [Page: S9992] In 1948, early in 1948, I started having trouble. My face would swell up, and my gums were bleeding. And I would go down to Q Building to see Dr. Whipple, and he would send me home. He said, ``You're allergic to something,'' and that was it. And when my face went back down, I'd come back to work and it would happen all over again. About the fourth time, I got to see Dr. Harriet Harding, who was a consultant there, and she interviewed me. Luckily, I got to see her. And she asked me where I worked, and I told her. She asked me what my duties were, and I told her that I run a mercury still when I didn't issue chemicals. She said, ``You're operating what?'' I said, ``I operate a mercury still.'' She said, ``Take me up there and show it to me.'' So I did. She shut it down. And so we were full, me and Lewis Devetima were full of mercury. We used to heat it, and it had a still, like it was made out of glassware. It would go through this, heat it, and form a gas, go through that, come out condensed on that end, pure mercury. And we would breathe in vapors, and it was in a small 10 x 10. The old warehouse there in TA 1 was a shed. It was formerly the stable for the school that was there before the Lab took over, and they converted it into a chemical shop. Anyway, when I retired in 1982--prior to 1982, I suffered from depression, bleeding gums, and so I went to the doctor there at the Lab. I was in very bad shape, and she sent me to a sanitarium in Albuquerque, and I spent some time there, about two or three weeks. I then was on an outpatient to Dr. Kenneth Poole there in Albuquerque for about three years. And then I came back and was under the tutelage of Dr. William Oakes who worked for the H Division, and then he retired. And I saw Dr. Charles Shafer, and then he retired. And then I saw Dr. Ralph Greer. And anyway, when I retired, I noticed that there was no record of this sickness on my medical records. And I asked Dr. Greer why. And he said they searched and they searched and they searched and they even went back into the microfilms, and they could find no evidence of anything to do with a mercury still or anything. So I retired thinking that. When I testified before Mr. Bingaman and Mr. Udall and Mr. Michaels, I didn't have any evidence. It was my story against theirs. And I have met a fellow named Ken Silver. He found these letters from Dr. Harding telling the whole story in six letters, and the DOE database of historical documents, it tells the whole story about me and Devetima's sickness, about the mercury still, their shutting it down. These are all H Division letters to our division leader, Van Gammer, Assistant Property Division leader. Yet they couldn't find them. There was no evidence. They're here, right here. Everything I have reverts back to those six letters. In one of them, she refers to a fellow name Carl Butler. I happen to know Carl Butler, so I wrote him a letter telling him what was happening. He wrote me back a five-page handwritten letter confirming everything that I said when I testified, everything, even to closing down and admitted that nobody in 1947 and 1948 in H Division knew anything about mercury until an industrial engineer named Harold Sheeton--Harry Sheeton--came on board, and this was months later. And after I got that letter from Butler, I wrote a letter to Mr. Udall and Mr. Bingaman, asking him--I sent them a copy of those six letters. I didn't give them a copy of this, but I did take it to Mr. Udall's office, everything I had, when you were in Federal Place over there, and I gave it to Raul and he made copies of it. He said he would forward it on to you, your office. And this is my letter to Senator Bingaman asking that you amend that Act to include mercury. I don't know what happened there. I got a letter from Mr. Udall there, and he asked that I get documentation. So I've got it. Don't you think I have it? And you asked for names and addresses of people that are working. I can give you names, Mr. Udall, but they all got one address: Cemetery. There's no--me and Mr. Butler are the only ones alive that I know that knew about that mercury still, and why I'm still around, I don't know. After that, Mr. Silver came up with a couple more publications by Dr. Harriet Potter on mercury poisoning. Anybody that knows anything about mercury should read it. She even enlightened me. I guess she really dug in to her research. And in this--the other one is Challenging Manmade Decisions by Harriet Potter. I'll read you just one paragraph here. On page 54 it tells about the year 1948 in Los Alamos, nonradioactive acting hazard material in use in Los Alamos. ``An example will make this clear. Very soon after I began active duty, a worker came to the nurse in H-2 complaining with bleeding gums and skin rash.'' That's me. ``In taking his job history, I found he and three other men were engaged in cleaning dirty mercury, an element widely used. ``Next, I visited the job site. And even though I had no engineering skill, I knew from my Massachusetts Department of Occupational Hygiene experience that the mercury hazard was great in this dirty, shed-like building.'' I could go on, but I haven't got time, but you get the drift. And I don't know where to go from here. I know mercury is not covered in the Act. Like I say, I'm asking you to amend it to include mercury. Thank you very much for listening to me. I'm probably out of time. (Applause.) Mr. LEYBA: The next person will be Phil Schofield. Mr. SCHOFIELD: Thank you for coming, Beverly Cook and Congressman Udall, Senator Bingaman, Mr. Turcic, Mr. Elliot. I'll try to keep my time short here. I worked for Los Alamos National Lab for 2 years. I suffer from several severe health problems, multiple chemical sensitivities, HO cervical syndrome, respiratory problems, severe dermatology problems, swelling of my extremities. I have short-term memory and concentration deficits, and plus I lost almost half my hearing. Mainly what I would like to address is some problems with the reconstruction of people's dosages. I can give you two quick examples where personnel worked in the same room. One was a--it depended on your job. You *.*.* -- Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the Energy Workers Compensation Act of 2002, EWCA. During the Cold War, workers employed at the Department of Energy sites across the country served our country by helping to make nuclear weapons. But, for over 50 years of manufacturing these weapons, we now know that the Department of Energy consistently sacrificed health and safety of the workers and placed them in harm's way without their knowledge. Many of these workers subsequently became ill due to their work with radioactive and toxic substances at the sites. In 2000, Congress passed legislation, the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, EEOICPA, to establish compensation programs for Department of Energy workers who became sick as a result of their work. The bill addressed compensation for illnesses caused by the workers' exposure to radiation, beryllium, and numerous toxic substances. EEOICPA created two separate programs: Subtitle B of the law provided a program administered by the Department of Labor that would give a lump sum $150,000 payment to workers exposed to radiation and beryllium; and, subtitle D of the law provided a program administered by the Department of Energy that relied on State worker compensation programs to make compensation payments to workers exposed to toxic substances. Subtitle D is what the EWCA legislation addresses. Currently, under subtitle D the Department of Energy uses a physician's panel to review workers' claims and determine whether a worker's illness is related to work at a Department of Energy site. Upon a positive finding, the panel relies upon individual State worker compensation programs to make payments for wage loss and medical benefits. The Department of Energy, however, has admitted that nearly half of the claimants will not be able to pinpoint a responsible payor who will be able to honor the Department of Energy Physician Panel finding because many contractors no longer are associated with DoE. Congress intended a uniform and equitable Federal compensation program for these employees who worked to serve our country. The Government should not sit idly by and let this problem fester knowing that so many claimants will not receive any compensation. Introduction of the Energy Workers Compensation Act of 2002 will fulfill the original legislative objectives of Congress to assure compensation to all of our country's energy workers who were made ill due to their work with toxic substances. The legislation would correct subtitle D by making the Department of Labor responsible for paying those sick workers who are determined eligible to receive compensation. We are only now beginning to realize the dangers that the energy workers faced. These workers thought they were serving our country and were unaware of the risks they took to win the Cold War. We must do all we can to protect the energy workers to make sure they receive just compensation for the illnesses and disabilities they incurred from their jobs at the Department of Energy nuclear weapons sites.
2A) Missile Defense [Page: E1685] GPO's PDF
According to an article in the September 25 issue of the Times of India by Rashmee Z. Ahmed, Iraq possesses some of the deadliest weapons of mass destructions and missile infrastructures thanks to the illicit help of Indian companies. One such company, NEC Engineers Private Limited, has ``extensive links in Iraq,'' according to the article. Although such transactions violate India's export control laws, they are apparently taking place with a wink and a nod from the Indian government. Earlier I exposed India's oil transactions with Iraq, which violates UN sanctions. In spite of this, according to the September 18 issue of the Times of India, the United States and India are conducting joint naval exercises. On January 2, the Washington Times exposed the fact that India is sponsoring cross-border terrorism in the province of Sindh in Pakistan. India's leading newsmagazine, India Today, reported that India created the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which the United States government calls a ``terrorist organization.'' The U.S. State Department reported that the Indian government paid 41,000 cash bounties to police officers for killing Sikhs. According to the Indian newspaper Hitavada, the late governor of Punjab, Surendra Nath, received $1.5 billion from the Indian government to forment terrorism in Punjab and Kashmir. The book Soft Target shows that the Indian government blew up its own airliner in 1985 to blame Sikhs. This has been discussed many times. If India is practicing and sponsoring terrorism and helping to build Saddam Hussein's war machine, why are we conducting joint naval exercises with India? Isn't this like conducting joint exercises with the enemy? I call on the Defense Department to call off these exercises. Mr. Speaker, we can help bring freedom to South Asia and end India's flirtation with terrorist enemies of the United States. The time has come to impose sanctions on India, cut off its aid, and openly declare our support for self-determination for all the people of the subcontinent. This is the best way to help see to it that everyone in that troubled region can live in freedom, dignity, prosperity, stability, and peace. I am inserting the articles from the Times of India into the RECORD.
LONDON: Britain has alleged that Saddam Hussein's Iraq is able and willing to deploy some of its deadliest weapons of mass destruction in under one hour from the order being given and that it possesses missile infrastructure produced with the illicit help of Indian companies. The British claims of Indian involvement are contained in a 55-page dossier controversially and uniquely published by Tony Blair on Tuesday on the basis of what he called ``unprecedented and secret'' intelligence information. The dossier, received by largely skeptical political, press and public opinion here, tries to make a case for a Gulf War II-type operation to disarm Saddam and ``regime change''. Repeating US and UK claims that Baghdad continues to improve its missile capability, the dossier names names when it comes to alleged Indian support for Iraqi missile production. The document, which only obliquely blames ``Africa'' for supplying uranium to Saddam's secret nuclear weapons programme, pinpoints India as part of the supply chain for banned propellant chemicals destined for ballistic missiles. One of these, ammonium perchlorate, the dossier says, was ``illicitly'' provided by an Indian company, NEC Engineers Private Limited, which had ``extensive links in Iraq'', particularly to its al-Mamoun missile production plant and Fallujah 2 chlorine plant. Analysts added that in an intriguing insight, the dossier appeared to indicate that much of this had been known to New Delhi for some time. ``(The) Indian authorities recently suspended its (the company's) export license'' after ``an extensive investigation'', the dossier says, ``although other individuals and companies are still illicitly procuring for Iraq''. In what defense experts suggested was yet another indication of a host of ``front companies'' in India and elsewhere, the dossier further says the machine tools and raw materials supply chain crucially remains in place for Iraq's al-Samoud and longer-range missile systems. Even as Iraq refuted the dossier's claims as ``totally baseless'' and a ``Zionist campaign'', Blair went before a heated emergency session of the British parliament to declare, ``regime change would be a wonderful thing''. Blair's dossier, which precedes Washington's promised evidence on Iraq, was greeted by boredom and yawns among sections of the pundits and politicians, who said it crucially lacked the so-called killer fact. Commentators said the dossier, which Blair described as primarily for the British people, may do little to persuade opinion further afield, notably India. India has long said that it is opposed to military intervention in Iraq and that ``regime change'' is an issue for the Iraqi people.
Responding to the allegations in Blair's dossier, Navdeep Suri, spokesman for the Indian High Commission confirmed that the case against the company, NEC, had been charged and the matter was currently sub-judice. He said, ``such actions are in violation of India's export control laws and whenever such a violation comes to the government's attention, firm action is taken''. He declined to comment on what he called ``speculative statements'' about ``other (Indian) individuals and companies'' continuing to procure illicit material for Iraq.
Wolverhampton, September 23.--A senior ruling Labour Party MP has supported a demand for a separate Sikh state of Khalistan if the move is made ``peacefully and democratically''. Rob Marris, Labur MP, expressed his support at a meeting organized by a pro-Khalistan group in a gurdwara in Wolverhampton Sunday. At the same meeting a senior shadow minister of the Conservative Party expressed support for Sikhs in Britain to register themselves as Sikhs and not Indians. Rob Marris, who is treasurer of the All Party Panjabis in Britain Parliamentary Group, expressed strong support for the Sikh Agenda that the Sikh Secretariat has produced. The agenda calls for Sikhs to be registered as separate from Indians in Britain, and calls for self-determination in Punjab. Marris addressed specifically the demand for Khalistan raised at the meeting. ``That is an issue dear to your hearts I can see by looking down the hall. Those in the Indian subcontinent, who peacefully and democratically push for self-determination for that part of the Indian subcontinent, their opinion for self-determination, their right for an independent Khalistan should not be suppressed.'' The comment was followed by loud cries of Khalistan zindabad. Marris said it would not be right for parties in Britain to decide whether there should be self-determination in that part of the subcontinent. ``But it would be right for people to democratically and peacefully express their opinions.'' A senior shadow minister of the Conservative Party declared at the meeting of Khalistanis Sunday that the Conservatives will give Sikhs the option to register as Sikhs and not Indians when the party comes to power. The announcement follows backing to the Khalistanis' demand by two senior shadow ministers of the Conservative Party earlier. The developments at the meeting Sunday mark rapid strides the Khalistani group has made in Britain in recent weeks. There has been little evidence of support for the Khalistanis among Sikhs, but strong Conservative Party backing to this group pursuing what they call the ``Sikh agenda'' has given them new prominence. The Sikh Secretariat, which organised the meeting in Wolverhampton, had said 10,000 would attend. Only a few hundred came, most of them brought in coachloads from London and Southampton. Caroline Spelman, shadow cabinet minister for international development and women's affairs, told the meeting that the Sikhs are a distinctive group, ``and yet we have very little idea how many Sikhs there are''. Spelman said: ``At best that is discourteous, at worst it deprives you of proper monitoring of what your needs are.'' She said it was ``extraordinary'' that an opportunity to find out had been missed in the 2001 census. She said the Labour government should monitor Sikhs separately and ``if they fail, then that will be a task for a Conservative administration to deliver on''. The move is politically loaded. It would give Sikhs the option to declare themselves Sikhs and not Indians. It would mean that the estimated 1.2 million Indian population in Britain could fall to about half of that on the records. Marris supported the demand for separate listing of Sikhs in Britain. He said there would be many opportunities to do so before the 2011 census. Amrik Singh Gill, who heads the group that called the meeting, said Khalistan ``is the only way out'' for Sikhs and that ``we will get our own rule''. Posters of separatist leader Bhindranwale lined the walls of the hall where the meeting was held.
WMD TERRORISM *************************** 3A) To Deter Iran from Furthering its WMD Program
SECTION 1. IMMEDIATELY ENDING THE UNITED STATES IMPORTATION OF IRANIAN GOODS.
SEC. 2. CONDITIONS FOR THE RESUMPTION OF UNITED STATES IMPORTATION OF IRANIAN GOODS.
CHEM/ BIO WEPAONS ***************************
HOMELAND SECURITY *************************** 5A) The Dictator Saddam The one thing he has asked is that he be given an agency that is workable. The distinguished majority leader has pointed out there have been a number of cloture votes and we have not gotten cloture, so by that he suggests that somehow this side of the aisle is the problem. I believe it was June of this year that the majority leader promised he would not fill up the tree. For those who may be listening at home, that is a means of adding a number of amendments so that the other side cannot offer any amendments for a vote. Well, they filled up the tree to keep the President from getting an up-or-down vote on his proposal. As a result, we have opposed cloture because it would have prevented us from getting to the President's proposal. If we get to the President's proposal--and I hope we will--the majority leader may have the votes to defeat it. But I think, since we are dealing with this subject in wartime, where we need to reorganize Government to make it flexible, to make it responsive, to make it effective in defending the homeland, we ought to give the Commander in Chief at least a vote on his proposal. [Page: S9682] GPO's PDF I believe my colleagues who have been working on the bipartisan bill that reflects the President's proposals have taken some 25 different amendments to accommodate the interests of Congress and various bodies. The distinguished junior Senator from Georgia and the senior Senator from Texas have worked with the Senator from Tennessee on this measure. They have gotten to the point where they have made compromises. It comes down to the point where the President believes, and most of us on this side agree, that he could not manage the Department effectively if his hands were tied. Whether my colleagues want to vote on it or not, I think it makes sense, out of common courtesy, if nothing else, to give the Commander in Chief an up-or-down vote on his proposal. As has been pointed out, the Senate bill does not include the managerial flexibilities the President needs to run the Department. His representative, Dr. Falkenrath, stated we think the bill, as reported by the Governmental Affairs Committee, would create an extremely rigid bureaucracy. There would be a huge gap between the responsibilities of the Secretary to integrate the units as to what it says in article 102 and actually do that in practice. What it means is we set up a new Homeland Security Department that is supposed to be fast and responsive, assimilate the information that comes in from all the varying intelligence sources, and then develop an appropriate response. Unfortunately, too many elements of the Governmental Affairs bill tie the President's hands and keep him or his Secretary of the Department from taking a responsive action to make sure the Department is responsive and effective in searching out and trying to stop direct threats to the health, safety, and, frankly, the lives of people in America. It was surprising to me that the bill even moved backward from where this President, the previous President, the previous President, the previous President, and so forth down the line, had the ability, in national security interests, to make some of the changes in terms of promoting and rewarding exceptional employees, assigning them to the right duties and getting rid of employees who do not want to or are not able to do the service expected of them. When we are talking about national security, it has been the long accepted practice that commanders have to be able to command their troops. They are still protected by some 65 to 68 different provisions assuring there is no discrimination and a whole other range of protections, but to give the managers the flexibility to manage the Department of Homeland Security is simply consistent with what previous Presidents have exercised for decades. The Presidents can use the power of Commander in Chief to make sure the military works. If somebody slacks off in the Army, does not show up for a job as a sentry, they do not get 30 days of pay and a year and a half of appeals. They have real problems right now, and that is because they are dealing with national security. I believe it is time we move on with homeland security. I was delighted to know that the majority leader is committed to moving this bill prior to our adjournment. I want to go home as much as anybody else, but the very simple way to do that would be to give us an up-or-down vote on the Gramm-Miller, or Miller-Gramm, substitute, as amended, which reflects the President's views to accommodate the interests of the reasonable requests made by Members of Congress and others who wanted to see changes in it. We can pass this bill. All we ask for is an up-or-down vote. If we have an up-or-down vote, those who favor the system that has been reported out of the Governmental Affairs Committee may win or we may win, but we certainly ought not hold up the bill simply to prevent a vote on what the President said is a critically important issue for national security. I believe the time has come to stop filling up the trees, trying to invoke cloture to prevent a vote, trying to lock in an amendment that would undercut the President's power before he has an opportunity to have a vote on his proposal. That does not make any sense. This body ought to show not only concern for the Commander in Chief's request but ought to respect the needs of the American people who must be assured we are doing everything in our power to move forward on homeland security with the Department that is effectively constituted and set up to carry out the responsibilities. USE OF FORCE AGAINST IRAQ We also have another important issue before the Senate. Before we get out of here, I hope very shortly, we will be moving toward a resolution authorizing the use of force against the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Let's be clear about the intent. The resolution, that I trust the House will adopt and we will adopt, should send a clear message to the world community and the Iraqi regime that the demands of the United Nations Security Council must be followed. Saddam Hussein must be disarmed. Previous administrations, both President Clinton and Vice President Gore, have outlined the dangers that Saddam Hussein has posed. President Clinton made a very forceful statement in 1998 and then on May 23 of 2000. The Vice President, Al Gore, said we must get rid of Saddam Hussein. Regrettably, the situation has gotten worse. Without inspectors, there has been no check on the development of weapons of mass destruction. We know from defectors and other intelligence sources he is moving forward on these issues. We know the Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. It is rebuilding the facilities to make more. According to the report we received from British Prime Minister Tony Blair, he could launch a chemical or biological attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has longstanding and continuous ties to terrorist groups. We know there are terrorists operating inside of Iraq. Members of al-Qaida and the Iraq Government have been in contact for many years. This regime is seeking a nuclear weapon and the delivery capability to go with it. Unfortunately, he has readily available other weapons of mass destruction such as biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi dictator has answered a decade of resolutions from the United Nations with a decade of defiance. In the southern and northern fly zones over Iraq, coalition aircraft continue to be fired upon and coalition pilots continue to put their lives on the line just to enforce these resolutions. Unfortunately, some elected officials went to Iraq this past weekend and said: We trust Saddam Hussein; we do not trust our President. They should have watched what we have seen on television, the firing on the coalition aircraft by Iraqi forces. In the last 2 weeks alone, coalition aircraft have been fired on 67 times. Saddam Hussein claims to be willing to accept inspections. He wants to work with us. However, 67 times he has tried to kill our pilots who are flying to enforce the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. As President Bush stated this past weekend, the Iraqi regime is led by a dangerous and brutal man. We know he is actively seeking the destructive technologies to match his hatred. We know he must be stopped. The dangers we face will only worsen from month to month and year to year. To ignore these threats is to encourage them. When they fully materialize, it may be too late to protect ourselves and our allies. By then, the Iraqi dictator will have had the means to materialize and dominate the region and each passing day could be the one in which the Iraqi regime gives anthrax or VX nerve gas or a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group. The mantle of leadership requires this body to act. We have seen the United Nations speak loudly and carry a soft stick too long. I am pleased to be able to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I believe we made reasonable accommodations in the resolution the President has recommended. I hope we can have hearings on that resolution. We see the final words, get it passed by the House, and pass it out of this body by a very significant majority vote of both parties. That is the clearest message we can send to the United Nations, to our allies, to those on the fence, and to the malefactors of great evil who lurk in our world today. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. CANTWELL). The Senator from Georgia.
5B) The President's Policy on Iraq Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, on September 11, the world watched with horror the terrorist attack on the United States. Congress acted by granting President Bush authority to mount a strong response. Congress appropriated money to rebuild New York and the Pentagon and roused popular support for the President as we took each step against terror. Congress and the President jointly exercised their constitutional responsibilities. Our efforts required and received the support from the community of responsible nations. The strong backing of our allies was a reassuring sign that our international partners stood beside us as we faced this new danger. The President now wants to reposition our efforts from fighting a war on terrorism to fighting a war against Saddam Hussein, to reposition our longstanding national policy of containment and deterrence to a policy of unilateral preemption. Over the last few weeks Members of Congress have questioned the President on this change of focus. Sadly, some in his party have said that to question the President is unpatriotic. I disagree. To question the President sends an unequivocal message to those who would attack America that our democratic system is alive and well. Like many of my colleagues, I held a series of town hall meetings in August across my district. Virtually without dissent I heard New Mexicans express their strong concerns about a possible war with Iraq. From Gallup to Santa Fe to Clovis, it was clear that the overwhelming majority were opposed to a unilateral invasion by the United States. Some told me they believed the President should involve the Congress in a decision to go to war. Others were concerned about getting support from our allies around the world. Others were concerned about the rush. Not surprisingly, I have continued to hear from my constituents, and their questions need to be answered. I am pleased that President Bush has taken the initial steps to seek the approval of both the Congress and the United Nations before engaging in preemptive strikes on Iraq. I firmly believe that Congress has a vital role to play and a constitutional responsibility to act on matters of national security. However, I also believe there are several questions that must be answered before we rush into war. Was Iraq involved in the September 11 attack on the United States? I have seen no evidence that it was. A tough and strong war against terrorism in response to September 11 does not reasonably extend to launching a war against Iraq. Indeed, attacking Iraq may be a distraction from the war against terrorism, not a continuation. Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein are natural enemies, not allies. The al Qaeda terrorist movement is based on the belief that secular regimes in the Arab world are antithetical to the fundamental teachings of Islam. Does Iraq pose an immediate and independent threat to the United States and our allies? The President has identified the key threat from Iraq as its development of weapons of mass destruction and the potential for Iraq to transfer these weapons to the terrorist groups it sponsors. I agree with this concern. However, what weapons of mass destruction does Iraq now have at its disposal? Does Iraq now have the capability to deliver and use these weapons against the United States? The answer is we do not know. Without reinserting the U.N. weapons inspectors, we may never know. Why do we not allow the inspections process to take place? Why do we not allow the United Nations to work its will? The first resolution the President sent to Congress would allow him to use all means he determines to be appropriate, including force. Giving the President a blank check to act alone will increase the danger of unilateral military action by others in the future. It will undermine our broader foreign policy goals. It will divert much-needed resources from our pressing domestic needs. The President has submitted a second draft resolution. Although it is an improvement, I still have serious reservations. While I am confident that the leadership of both parties can work together to draft a more balanced resolution, we need more diplomacy, we need more information, and we need more international allies. I have no doubt that our military can defeat Saddam Hussein in a war. My doubts lie in what happens after we remove Saddam from power. Without the backing of the international community and, most importantly, the Arab world, the aftermath will be uncertain and precarious. Other questions must be answered before we vote. How much will the war cost? How many American soldiers will be seriously wounded or lose their lives? How many innocent Iraqi civilians will perish? I am disheartened that we appear to be following this course. If we take politics out of this decision, our voice will be stronger. I believe that we should not vote on this before this election. We should take politics out of it, and I think if we do that, our message to the world will be clearer. The decision is ours.
5C) Use of Force Against Iraq |