MS. McLEOD: I have another one. Reverend Hamm.

REV. HAMM: Fine. Thank you, very much, for this opportunity. I want to thank those of you who worked hard, to get this meeting together, and I appreciate getting to come and speak before you, and I will not belabor a lot of things, here. I do want to address a question to Fred, and then, I have a proposal.

Fred, I seem to gather, through your presentation, and even in Cliff=s presentation, that, after all the testimonies that we gave, in front of the committees, the Advisory Committee, some of the things that we hear are things that we don=t want to hear. I deal a lot with counseling, and there are people who store things away, that they don=t want to face, and a lot of wish this would go away. And when I hear Peter, this is my second time to hear him, he has to, he makes me nervous, because I lived in the same country, at the same time. It makes me nervous, and it has got to make a lot of other people nervous.

Did I, am I reading you, right? Do you not feel, and maybe even Cliff, do you not feel that we are being taken, or were being taken, seriously, that maybe there were those who looked at our testimony as being fabrications?

MR. ALLINGHAM: I think there are two things that have happened. One of them, I overheard two, I am presuming they are government officials, yesterday, refer to some people on this panel as Aradiation pimps,@ just as we used to hear the term, Apoverty pimps.@ And I think that there is a sense, anytime there are people out, fighting for justice for somebody, that the people that are the advocates are somehow making money, and that is why they want to perpetuate the issue.

In our case, that is not true. I think, except for maybe one or two people, almost everybody on the Task Force has either been directly exposed, themselves, or, is a family member of one. I am the son of an atomic veteran, who died, in 1948, after being in Japan. He died of leukemia, and his doctors said it was because he was in Japan.

I don=t make money, doing what I do. My wife supports me, so I can do it. And most of us are going broke, doing this.

So, yes. I resent, when they call us, Aradiation pimps.@ I resent, that they reject the collective information that we have, that would probably save a lot of people a lot of time, and effort, and a lot of survivors a lot of pain, if they would just, listen to us, look at the information that we have, that is real, and take us seriously.

MS. MELAMED: Could I remind people to say their names, so? No. It is okay.

MR. HONICKER: That was Fred Allingham, and this is Cliff Honicker. It is funny that a preacher is asking this question, and it made me think about something going back to Jesus, which is back during the times of Jesus. The people, when they exchanged money, what they would do, is that, they would take a coin, and they would drop it, on a stone floor. And, if it was gold, it had a certain ring to it, and that ring was unlike any other ring, and that was the ring of truth. It was gold. You could tell. You could tell it was not a fake, lead, piece of lead.

And I think that, that, having been involved in this issue, personally, directly, with the people, struggling, in 1984, to try to get the truth out, and struggling, ever since, to get the truth out, I see that there are people, diligently, in government, trying to achieve this goal of accountability and openness. But it is like a million-dollar barn, that you build, and you build this very incredible, sophisticated barn, with whistles and bells, and things like that, but it has no doors. And you cannot keep animals in a barn, if it has no doors.

And they talk about the 250,000 records donated. They talk about this system, that has been put in place. And, my God, it seems like the government has finally changed!

Well, the problem is, we are not going back, and asking, are the documents that we are getting, like Professor Kong said, earlier, who is a professor, and who knows administrative history, when we look at these documents, having had experience looking at these documents, it is not the whole truth, and we have to ask the painful, difficult, personal, question: AHave crimes been committed?@ 18 U.S.C. ' 1001, which deals with government officials, who knowingly withhold information, provide fraudulent information, in any manner of government jurisdiction. It involves five­year penalty, go to jail, $10,000 fine.

This Espionage Act. National security. In my opinion, people committed espionage on this country, when they used the national security act, in order to withhold information that was not of national security to this country, but information solely to protect the interest of the government officials, who committed the wrongdoing.

These are very difficult questions, but those kinds of questions, gentlemen, ladies, those kinds of questions, were never asked, in the president=s advisory search, and Hazel O=Leary=s search. Those questions were not asked, because you folks, you wonderful folks, who have been fighting this issue, for 20 years, who know the inner working of DOE, the Department of Energy, Defense Nuclear Agency, who know what goes on, better than these kids who just graduated from college, with degrees in philosophy, who were hired, as staff, to be on this advisory committee, to do the search, you folks were not allowed in, on an equal playing field, to ask these most difficult questions. And, as a result of that, the people who could have been President Clinton=s, could have been this advisory panel=s strongest, strongest supporters, now have to come to you, in a situation of contention, and conflict.

Having had a sister, whose life was saved by human radiation experiment, let me tell you, I don=t like that. I could have been your biggest cheerleader. I could have been right behind you, saying, ABy God, we don=t need to sacrifice medical science, the development of medical science, because of wrongdoing done in the past!@

But we should have honestly, openly, dealt with it. And we did not. And, because we did not, you guys are here, and I am here. We are like a bad headache. We just keep coming back.

So, that is all I have got to say.

MS. MELAMED: Reverend Hamm, do you have some more to say?

REV. HAMM: I am ready to, I would like to make a proposal, if I may?

MS. MELAMED: Sure.

REV. HAMM: I have a plaque. I was in administrative work, for 12 years, for my organization. I dealt with lots of committees, et cetera. My wife gave me a plaque, to set on my desk, to keep me kind of focused. It said, AFor God so loved the world, he did not send a committee.@

(Laughter.)

REV. HAMM: However, in the interest of moving forward, and I am a hard charger, when it comes to that. I believe in it. I dislike stalemate. I dislike static anything. And, in the interest of moving forward, I would like to propose the following, for consideration. I hope this proposal will be presented to Ms. O=Leary, to Mr. Gore, a fellow Tennessean, and Mr. Clinton.

I humbly propose that a Victim and Survivor Committee be put in force, to deal, and that a member of each group of the victims that have been identified be on this committee, that this, that the Task Force, and others, would serve as our advisers. Let us work among ourselves, then have a joint meeting, with the Interagency Working Group.

I further propose that an independent arbitration group be provided, so that we may move forward, together. As long as we are trying to butt heads, sling arrows, shoot at one another from the hip, have a showdown at the O.K. corral, we are not going anyway. I think it is a good idea, if we sit down with an arbitration board, and let someone who is, as much as possible, a disinterested party, tell us where we can go.

We have a set of goals, on the Task Force. I represent the Vanderbilt victims. They are, I have to account for them, when I get home. At any rate, what we need to do is, have a group of people who have lived this thing, sit down with those of you who are trying to help us, who lived this thing, and let some outside arbiter help us reach some level playing field, some common ground.

You have already heard enough testimony to know that we are not pleased with the Advisory Committee=s report. It is unacceptable to us. How do we get from there, to where we need to be?

You cannot ignore us. We will not go away. So, let=s clear the playing field. Let=s level it out. Let=s sit down, together. Let=s talk to one another. That is the American way. That is the way it is supposed to be. We need to establish this level playing field, wherein, the litigants, and nonlitigants, may speak, without jeopardizing their particular positions.

We can only move forward, if we come together. We cannot move forward, as separate forces.

So I would like to propose that. Do with it what you will, but I firmly am convinced, that, from this day forward, from this day forward, those who have fought this fight, those who are victims. I am a newcomer to the fight. I stand in awe of Cliff, and some of these other folks, who been at this, for 20 years, and I am going, AMy God, where were we all at? Why didn=t somebody listen to these people, years ago?@ But, I stand in awe of them, but, I thank them, a great debt of gratitude for them, but, we have reached that point, now, where the impasse is here. We have got to get on with it. That is my proposal. It is the only way I know, that we can all win, in this situation, and we are not enemies. We are not enemies. We are Americans. We are shoulder to shoulder.

And my friend said it, wonderfully, up there. We are not black. We are not Indian. We are not white. We are not Alaskan. We are American. My God, let=s sit down together, learn to live one another, learn to help one another, and let=s get on with this thing let=s go forward.

That is the only way I know how to do it. That is the only, best proposal I can give you, and I thank you for your time. I have an early plane to catch, and I am going to have to leave, but thank you, so very much.

(Applause.)

MS. MELAMED: Thank you, very much.

May I? If someone will indulge me, to make a quick suggestion? I am hearing, from everyone, out here, that some people have to get on planes. We have got some other things going on, and we are running out of time. If people could just hold up their hands, if they have to get on a plane, and if everybody could just maybe?

MS. AZIM: Well, I have got two more, and I will let them decide, that I had, already, that wanted to speak, that had told me, beforehand, that they wanted to speak.

MS. MELAMED: Sure. No. I am not suggesting that ­­

MS. AZIM: Okay.

MS. MELAMED: ­­ anyone not be allowed to speak. I am just hoping that everyone can be gracious, and let those that get on a plane, have the opportunity, first. Is that a problem?

Do you want to ask your folks?

MS. AZIM: The other two were Harold Bebeau, and Cooper Brown. So.

MS. MELAMED: Is that okay?

MR. BOYCE: Yes. My name is Fred Boyce, from the Fernald School. I will make it real quick.

The Fernald School had a lot of grants for experiments, various types. They had mongoloids, there, that they did a lot of experiments on, and I would like to, if you have any information in reference to that, could you send it to Senator Markee=s office, so he can give it to the proper people to look at?

The other thing is, the archives, I believe, has films, too, don=t they? And a picture is worth a thousand words. So you have got films, in reference to experiments, maybe some of the people would like to kind of critique them. And thank you, very much.

MS. MELAMED: Thank you.

Here you go, Doris. Don=t forget to say your name, and who you are with.

MS. BAKER: Thank you. My name is Doris Baker, and I am with Cincinnati Families of Radiation Victims organization. And I have a question, that, it was not fully answered for me, yesterday, by Colonel Bailey, and the gentleman from the Department of Defense. Because, it seemed like, my great-grandmother=s records are being defended, but what they did to her, is not being defended. When I asked you about the litigation. And I don=t think that it was explained to me, right.

COL. BAILEY: About the litigation?

MS. BAKER: When Ms. Nelson had said, in her statement, yesterday, about the Barrett Hospital, in Cincinnati, Ohio, where Dr. Sanger had donated the money, to that hospital. And she was interrupted. She said, because of the litigation, and something, with Cincinnati, that the question could not be answered. It could not be talked about.

COL. BAILEY: Well, what I said, yesterday, is.

MS. BAKER: Explain to me, what do we have to do, with the litigation? That is what I wanted to explain, well, probably, because the way that it was explained to me, yesterday, is saying it like, we are in a suit, with you all, with the government. So would you please explain that to me?

MR. GLENN: I will try, again. This is ­­

MS. BAKER: Thank you.

MR. GLENN: ­­ Pat Glenn, from the Justice Department, now.

MS. BAKER: Yes.

MR. GLENN: If you have a question, I think you did have a question about requesting your grandmother=s records, and you ­­

MS. BAKER: Right.

MR. GLENN: ­­ got some forms, that is fair game for you to ­­

MS. BAKER: Right.

MR. GLENN: ­­ ask the Colonel to follow up on.

MS. BAKER: Okay. Where the problem came, was, when Ms. Nelson started talking about Barrett Hospital, in Cincinnati, Ohio, it is a cancer center, where Dr. Sanger worked at, where one of the DOD=s contracts was.

MR. GLENN: Now, I don=t know the Barrett Hospital, by name. I know that the folks in Dr. Sanger=s experiments, at the University of Cincinnati Hospital, have a lawsuit pending ­­ that is what I said, yesterday ­­ have a lawsuit pending, against the doctors, and the hospital, the city. They brought the United States in the case, too. So, since there is an ongoing case, in which we are both involved, we cannot talk, I cannot take advantage of having you tell me more about your case. You have got a lawyer. I have got to talk to your lawyer. And, in a public forum like that, we cannot talk about the merits of what Dr. Sanger did, to your grandmother, or what the evidence is, of what happened to your grandma. That is something that is in a lawsuit, so it is unethical for us to talk about that, at a public forum, here. The lawyers.

And, I am going to tell you, I am trying to keep you from saying too much. I am going to write down, listen to what you are saying.

MS. BAKER: Well, I have ­­

MR. GLENN: I am trying to keep you from talking.

MS. BAKER: ­­ well, I talked to my lawyer. My lawyer said I can say what I want to say, because it was not hurting my case.

MR. GLENN: Well, okay. Let me just say. I want you to understand me. If you have something to say, say it, but I have been trying to tell you: I will not be commenting, and I don=t want the Defense Department commenting, on the matters that are in litigation, right now. And I think it is unfair of me to let you go forward, and say your piece, if it hurts you, in some way.

MS. BAKER: Well, that is what I am trying to understand. Are you saying, that, along with Cincinnati dragging you all into the lawsuit, the City of Cincinnati, then you are saying, that? I am trying to understand. The way you are saying, that?

MR. HONICKER: Can I take just a quick swing at it?

MS. BAKER: Yes. Swing at it, for me, because I don=t understand. I don=t understand it.

MR. HONICKER: I think what Pat, what Pat, what. I am not a lawyer. First of all, my wife, who is an attorney sitting there, going, AOh, God! What are you doing, Clifford?@

As I understand it, if I hear you, right, Pat ­­ and I am just going to try to feed back what you are saying, so, help me out, here ­­ what he is trying to say, is that, you may say something, in the course of your talking that would hurt, that he would go back and say, AHey, I got this information, from this lady. And so, we are going to use it against you, and you will lose your case, because of what you said, in here, without your attorney present to advise you, on what you should say.@ So he is saying, he is taking a benevolent attitude, towards you.

MR. GLENN: And you are too nice to me. I am just trying to be ethical, here.

MR. HONICKER: Okay. Ethical. Benevolent, schmelevolent.

So I think the real critical question, while I have got Pat on the cold seat, and it may start rapidly going hot.

VOICE: That is Doris. Are you talking about Doris?

MR. HONICKER: Pat.

VOICE: Oh, Pat.

MR. HONICKER: Pat.

VOICE: Okay.

MR. HONICKER: The Department of Justice, in this whole human radiation experiments, were the Department of Justice files, were the legal department files, of all the agencies, were those files opened up, with clear and complete access, to be reviewed, in terms of these human radiation experiments?

MR. GLENN: And I don=t want to forget Ms. Baker. She has got ­­

MS. BAKER: No, because I have something else I wanted to ask you.

MR. GLENN: Okay. I am not going to, I want to answer this one. I am not, I don=t want you to get forgotten in the shuffle, here.

The answer, as far as I understand your question, would be, ANo,@ in the sense, we did not attempt to go look through all litigation files, that could have anything to do with the human radiation experiments.

MR. HONICKER: The specific ones that had to do with human radiation experiments, because I believe it was Judge Christiansen, in the Bollett case, that said that it was the Justice Department, and the legal department of the Atomic Energy Commission, that perpetuated fraud upon the government, in the fallout cases. On the court, perpetuated fraud upon the court.

So, it seems to me, that, if you go back to 1940, to the Hayward memo, and you can even go back to 1943, when Stafford Warren first wrote the negotiating contracts of getting involved in the Manhattan Project, that liability and litigation drove the furnace, that dealt with how to deal with the exposure victims, how to tell them, what to tell them, how to deal with them, how to deceive them. So it seems to me that the Justice Department files should have been the very first files. The legal files, it is AEC­6, the legal files, should have been the very first ones that the President=s Advisory Committee should have gone to, and nothing like attorney/client privilege should have been invoked, or any other excuse, because we see, we sitting here, talking about, ALitigation! Litigation! Litigation!@

And it is not the issue, and the issue is not protecting the government, because what goes back, again and again and again, and, God, it may sound trite, but we are the people. The government is, we are the people. And you say, AYou are protecting the government, by holding these files.@ Why, Pat? Did the Justice Department not willingly open their files to this issue?

MR. GLENN: It was a fair question, and that is not a correct characterization.

When I read the case to which you referred, which was actually chemical warfare, and it was atrocious, what happened, in 1952, in that chemical warfare circumstance, where someone with the government apparently ­­

MR. HONICKER: Janet, was it chemical warfare, in the Bollett case?

MS. GORDON: No.

MR. HONICKER: No, it was not. It was a shoot case, so you can read about that, in Howard Ball=s book, Uranium Mine Factories, is that not right?

MR. GLENN: In any event, I asked that they issue.

MR. HONICKER: Justice downwind. I am sorry. No. I just wanted to establish one point, and the point that I was asking, for instance, these plutonium injection cases, the cases that have fueled and driven a $22 million search, on 4,000 tests, now, did the Justice Department, and were the legal department, who were the prime architects, if you can imagine, they are building the house, and the prime architects, and deciding, what information to give out, what to tell the American public. It was not national security. It was liability concerns.

It seems to me, that the Justice Department, and the legal files, should have been looked at, first, and I am almost scared of even saying, AThis is what they should do,@ you know, you guys may call, tomorrow, or next week, and say, AHey, we are coming over,@ and there go the files, again.

So, where in the world are we going to get?

We are not. The answer is, I am sorry, I am on a soapbox. I was like on this horse, galloping down the mountain, when you all cut me off.

MR. GLENN: Whoa, Buck! Whoa, Buck!

MR. HONICKER: Now, I had a solution. I had, I wanted to say something.

(Discussion was held off­microphone.)

MS. MELAMED: We have a little concern, here.

MR. HONICKER: Thirty seconds.

MS. MELAMED: Could I just speak something? I think one of the big issues, that everybody is speaking to, we have moved away, we are talking openness, but we are really talking about next steps. I mean, I think one of the things that is driving all our discussions, right now, is, what is going to happen, next? Where are we all going to go, from here? And we have a lot of time, for that discussion, but we are eating away at that time. So, if people would agree, I think it might be useful to close the openness panel, and to move into a discussion of next steps.

MS. BAKER: No. Let my finish me two questions, then I have to leave, because they keep getting, I am talking about Cincinnati. I am not talking about anyplace else.

Now. I just came from the DOE. There is nothing in there, about Cincinnati. Period. Okay? It is in another state. I would like to know why.

I was told, I could go there, and I would find this, and find that. There is nothing there about Cincinnati.

VOICE: No, there is not.

MS. BAKER: And DOD. We were in the Department of Energy. Yes.

COL. BAILEY: Let me speak to that. No. I am from the Department of Defense. We have about 5,000 copies of documents, pertaining to Cincinnati.

MS. BAKER: Well, you take me there.

(Laughter.)

COL. BAILEY: I wish I could. You ready to go?

MS. BAKER: Well, I will go get ­­ I am serious.

COL. BAILEY: Okay.

MS. BAKER: I came here, for that. My alternator went out. It was $207 to fix. The money, I did not have. I drove, 24 hours. I have been coming here, since 1994, and it took me a whole 24 hours to get here, from Saturday to Sunday. I did not come here, just to sit in these meetings. I have not heard one thing, a whole lot, about Cincinnati, Ohio. I have not seen one book, with Cincinnati in it, or on the cover, except for that little bitty peek, in that blue book, the Advisory Committee book. They did not even have the decency enough, after they butted me, for two years, to put my name under my statement, that they took, that I did not even give them permission to take.

Now, would you please take me there? To your building? I appreciate it. I think you, to answer me.

COL. BAILEY: No. Right now, I cannot go to the building, but I will tell you what I can do, I will do, for you. I gave you my number, I believe, my address. If you call me, personally, I could assure you, that, you identify whatever documents you want, and Mr. will make sure you get those.

MS. BAKER: Oh, I don=t know. I don=t know. That is the point. And you all are having a meeting, in March? Send me an invitation, so you can see that I get here.

COL. BAILEY: Okay.

MS. BAKER: Me, and Ms. Nelson.

COL. BAILEY: Okay.

MS. BAKER: All right.

COL. BAILEY: I will talk to you, about that, okay?

MS. BAKER: You told me that, for two days.

COL. BAILEY: Well, I will talk to you about it. Really. Sincerely. You call. I gave you my number. You call me, and I will, personally, and, if you, once you get back, try to determine, specifically, what kind of documents you are looking for. I have got 5,000. We will home in on the documents you want, and I can assure you, if I have to Federal Express them, that you will get them. Is that fair enough?

MS. BAKER: That is fair enough.

COL. BAILEY: Ooh­ah!

MS. BAKER: Bye.

(Applause.)

MS. CAMPOS-INFANTINO: Here is the reality check. I am Doris. We need to leave here, by 5:00. We need to be out of this room, by 5:00. So we have until then. We are willing to extend the agenda.

Now, the two issues, are, people want to speak, on this openness issue, and close out this panel; and then, have the next steps discussion. The longer we spend on the panel, the shorter that discussion is going to be. So it is going to be your individual choice, when you raise your hand, to speak, and the amount of time that you use, you are going to be impacting that decision, for everybody. That is something to keep in mind, and it is time, so you decide how you want to spend it.

Now, there is a number of people. Is your list exhausted?

MS. AZIM: Cooper was not ­­

VOICE: No.

MS. CAMPOS-INFANTINO: No?

MS. AZIM: ­­ the only other one that I had.

MS. CAMPOS-INFANTINO: Okay.

MS. AZIM: Cooper Brown.

MS. CAMPOS-INFANTINO: Cooper was next.

MS. AZIM: Can we just, I just want to double-check, this is Lori, to make sure that nobody else has to get on a plane, that needs to come first? No?

All right. Cooper was next.

The government wants to answer a question.

VOICE: ­­ yesterday, that we would answer the questions, after the panel.