MR. GLENN: I will try to keep this, to a three­sentence answer. This is Pat Glenn, with the Justice Department.

First, a statement. If I misled you. When the question was raised, in light of the plutonium disclosures, about the concealment, for purposes of liability, or embarrassment, there was a secondary request, to the entire Justice Department. Does anybody have any information, any source of records, that could relate to this? And we came up, negative. So we did ask the question, you said, and it is a fair question, a very important question. Were we consulted on the liability/embarrassment issue? And there was a zero hit on it.

MR. HONICKER: So there are no human experiment files, in the Justice Department, in terms of, dealing with people, in the past, on this issue, that you turned over to the Committee?

MR. GLENN: Correct, to the best of my understanding, based on a department-wide directive, to look for such things. Correct.

MS. CAMPOS-INFANTINO: Does anyone have a need for a five­minute stretch break? No?

Okay. The next speaker, was, and that means that, if people need to get up, and leave.

MS. AZIM: No. We want to keep going.

MS. CAMPOS-INFANTINO: Okay. That means individuals may come and go, and it may be a little disruptive.

MS. AZIM: I don=t think so.

MR. BROWN: Cooper Brown. What I want to do, is, I want to get something onto the record. It was brought up, yesterday, by Janet Gordon. I want to make sure that this is on the record. I am going to state it, initially, as a question. It does not require an answer, at this time. And then, I will make the point.

The question is, AWhat is the government=s proposal, for investigating and disclosing radiation experiments that took place, after 1974?@

All right. And, now, the reason I am asking that, is because, the Executive Order, that charged the Advisory Committee with the review of the radiation experiments, designated the period 1944 to 1974. The reason why, as some of you know, and some of you don=t, was, the cut­off date was, the cut­off date they used, HEW=s regulations, that adopted the common rule, which is, you have got to go get an IRB, and a few other protections, for the experimental subject. But it also said, that, there would be further investigation of experiments after 1974, if the Advisory Committee, in conjunction with the Interagency Radiation Working Group, determined that it was warranted.

Now, I asked the executive committee, or the executive director of the Advisory Committee, at one point, what was happening, with the stuff, after 1974. For example, Mettler=s piemiesan experiments. We have heard about it. We have heard some testimony. We don=t know what happened.

He says, AOh, there are the files, up on the shelf,@ but we have not had time to look at it, we don=t have the resources, and besides, it all took place after 1974.

All right. Now, the Advisory Committee report says, at page 171, 1974 was the upper bound for the period of the Advisory Committee=s historical investigation. They cite HEW=s regulations, that adopted the common rule.

Now, I have just recently learned, actually, I learned it, at the tail end of the Advisory Committee, when we saw one of the final drafts. And now, if you look at page 172 of the Advisory Committee=s report, it clearly states, HEW=s rules and regulations of 1974, quote, Aapplied only to that agency.@ And then, if you read further, on page 172, what you find out, is, if you look over at Chapter 14, they will give you the history of the other agencies= adoption of the common rule. Well, the other agencies, if you look at page 697, the other agencies did not adopt the common rule, until 1991, due to the implementation of a government-wide federal policy.

So it seems, to me, that there is a great big chunk of time, that should be looked at, and I have heard nothing, in terms of the government=s implementation proposals, about what they are going to do about it, and certainly, the Advisory Committee did not make any recommendations.

MS. AZIM: Does anyone want to respond to that?

MR. BROWN: As I said, it does not necessarily require a response, but if someone from the government chooses to respond, I would be grateful.

MS. AZIM: Does anybody want to respond? No?

All right. Go ahead. State your name.

MS. MARLOW: My name is Sandy Marlow. I am the daughter of an atomic veteran. I come with CARS, an atomic veterans group, and, like many people, I am affiliated with many groups. However, I noticed the couple of the little go­betweens, and I appreciate, Cliff, what you had said, about the expertise that we have.

I did my master=s thesis, in library science, on the effects of radiation on people. I did it, because I noticed that the people I had been working with, emotionally, had no understanding of libraries, and that, many professional librarians have difficulty, in working with the people, who know about the subject, and have personal need to know. And so, it almost is a different kind of translator, or expertise, that they need, and should have.

I offered to work, for the Committee, as a researcher, part­time. I wrote an article, and I will just give the two articles, and then, I am going to give you some free information, at no charge. But I am a consultant.

I wrote, in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, called, AA Daughter=s Story,@ about my search for truth. In 1986, Library Journal published an article of mine called, ASuppression of Nuclear Information.@ So I guess I am an expert, besides living 20 years with this, professionally, and personally.

I noticed, and thank you for having us, here, because openness can come, with dialogue, and even with passion, can come intelligence, and understanding.

The book you have published, and the citations are important, but the people in our committee could add, and maybe that is what we need, is, Book 2. On the citations, on the research, at Fernald, and on children, one of the citations mentioned, was the American Journal of Pediatrics, and a particular case, that I think the president and his wife would be interested in, that took place, in Arkansas, where something like over 40 newborn infants were fed radioactive isotopes.

The young people, and probably some professional librarians, just look for that citation. I found the citation, in a book that was neglected, by an English doctor, called Packworth, and I suggest you all find it, in your libraries, and the title is, Human Guinea Pigs. And it cites the Walter E. Fernald State School, as an example, where research was done, with no purpose to help the people, the research was done.

But the other part, of that journal, which, I will have to find out the date ­­ I think it is 1956 ­­ was an editorial, in the American Journal of Pediatrics, on the dangers of giving children radioactive isotopes. The editorial, I think, is significant and important, and it, somehow, those of us, with this quest, find, or spot, some very important items, that might not have been classified, but may need to be shared, and made known.

I have one more recommendation. And that is, an oral history, and human history, because this is human history, and human rights history. The Committee has put together an oral history, on human radiation experiments. But, I am glad I am an officer=s daughter, because I can justify my saying, I care about people, without being a radical. It is the history, from the point of view, of the perpetrators. And that same amount of money, I think, we should have, in a select group of semi­professional experts, to put together an oral history, of the people who have been involved. And, together, those will really contribute to the history of the Cold War, and its impact on people. Thank you.

MS. CAMPOS-INFANTINO: I need to revise, when we need to be out of here. The official meeting will end, at 4:30, because the transcriptionist has to leave. The agenda was scheduled through 3:45, and the meeting will officially be over, when that goes off the record.

MS. AZIM: It is still an hour longer. We have got to hold the line. We will get to you, I promise. Geoff?

MR. SEA: Yes. Geoffrey Sea. I wanted to first say, that, I don=t mind being called a Astakeholder,@ because, what I think of, when I think of stakeholder, is the person who holds the stake, while you are trying to kill a vampire. And we are talking about a vampire, here. We are talking about a set of institutions, that have stalked people, shed a lot of blood, and are very difficult to kill.

And I want to address some of the points Cliff has raised. I think the general problem, here, is that, we have had two major attempts, to shed light on these experiments. The first, happened, in a Congressional investigation, that had subpoena power, but where there was no administration or agency willingness to comply. And so, we had all the problems that Cliff talked about.

Now, we have the reverse situation. We have the new DOE, and I think we all recognize that the DOE is not the same, as it was, in the Reagan Administration, or it has gone through three changes, so maybe it is the ANew, improved DOE, with brighteners!@ But, we have a new DOE, but, we have had an investigation, with no subpoena power.

Now, it is very strange, and one of the problems with the earlier investigation, that we should have mentioned, is that, there was no attempt to get documents that were in the hands of private parties. There was only an attempt, then, under Markee, to get documents that were government documents. The vast majority of documents were in the hands of private parties, and still are. And we have to recognize that. And that is not addressed, by the Executive Order to the federal agencies.

Now, it is a very strange investigation, of alleged criminal activity, that has no subpoena power. I mean, if you believe that atrocities went on, violations of the Nuremberg Code, it is very strange that you send out letters, saying, APlease, please, you private parties, and please, you government agencies, please provide us with all the incriminating evidence you can, that will show that you are guilty of violating the Nuremberg Code, and of killing people, without informed consent,@ and et cetera and so on.

So you can see our cynicism, why we don=t believe that all the information has been produced, and why we don=t believe that the real investigation has started, yet. And that is why our number one demand, is that, the real investigation, with subpoena power, begin. That is the obligation of the Justice Department, and I want to ask, directly, to the representative from the Justice Department, AAre you willing, now, to begin an investigation, toward issuing criminal indictments, where you subpoena the documentary evidence, behind these experiments?@ And that may mean subpoenaing yourself, first of all.

MS. AZIM: Well, Pat has got to answer the question, first. If he wants.

MR. GLENN: I am just going to tell Mr. C., he well knows, as a paralegal, in addition to his other responsibilities, the question is impertinent, and directed to the wrong party.

DR. O=TOOLE: This is Tara O=Toole. I as going to say something similar, Geoff. When we worked with Cooper Brown, and Acie, and others, to try and get this meeting together, we tried to make clear, that, this was not going to be a decisionmaking meeting, in the sense that, we do not have the people in the room who have the power to commit those kinds of acts.

And, you know, putting us on the spot, like that, I think, basically, abrogates the rules that we all agreed to, when we came together.

MR. SEA: I don=t want to be impertinent, so just let me make one follow­up.

I don=t want to be impertinent, so just let me follow up.

I am sorry. Let me rephrase.

Is the IWG willing to recommend, that the Department of Justice initiate a criminal investigation, with subpoena power, leading to indictments?

MS. AZIM: I am Phil Donahue.

DR. O=TOOLE: No. It is the same question. No one of the government, here, is going to make commitments or decisions, today. This is input into those kinds of commitments and decisions. We have to go back and talk to our principals, discuss it, among ourselves, as we made very clear, in the meeting with Secretary O=Leary, and Acie, and Cooper, and others.

MR. SHAMOO: I am Adil Shamoo, from the University of Maryland. This question may not be within the purview of the Task Force. Please forgive me, if it is not. Since you represent the government, I think anything within the United States is within the purview of this Task Force. That is how I look at it.

There is a huge private industry, submits data, in support of a license, or a drug approval, that is, to EPA, to National Toxicology Program, or to the FDA. This is a huge amount of data. This data, as proprietary information, remains secret, forever. So, if there is a problem, of thousands of peoples, damaged ­­ brain, liver, you name it, long range cancer ­­ the public will never see this data. Patents usually have 17 years lifespan, and the public can see everything. These data are kept, locked, secret, because they are considered proprietary. Is this Task Force ever going to think, or do, something, or is it within its purview?

MS. AZIM: Does anybody want to respond? Can anyone respond? Are there any of the right people, here?

I don=t think there is anyone here, from FDA, or anyone here, who can address your particular question, but it will be noted, in the record. We will see if you can get an answer.

I have got one person, for you.

Remember, I am trying to hit everyone, so I will, hopefully, at some point.

MS. BYRD: I am Acie Byrd, and I just have a statement from the three veteran groups that are here, that they want, in the record. And the letter was addressed to Colonel Bailey.

AThe Atomic Veterans Working Group respectfully requests the following, from the DOD, and the Veterans Administration. One, a working meeting to take place, within 90 days, between the atomic veterans, DOD, and the VA. Secondly, the meeting should be designed to facilitate full participation, and cooperation, between the principal agencies, and the veterans community, in resolving the issue of radiation experiments, and exposure, to iodine, and radiation of atomic veterans. Three, that the DOD and the VA provide resources to guarantee an effective participation of the veterans.@ Signed, by myself, Acie Byrd, Oscar Rosen, Pat Brodie, Anthony Caruso, Lincoln Graffis, and Bill Bires. Thank you.

MS. AZIM: Keep it short.

MR. FARBER: Sure.

MS. AZIM: Identify myself.

MR. FARBER: Hi. Stuart Farber, Radium Assessment Project. In regard to access to records, and government openness, I have had some recent interactions that relate to the radium issue, the nasal radium issue, that was highlighted, in the final report, as the major risk to health of the experiments examined, and it is an important example of the ongoing problems with access to information.

One government vet, who has filed a claim against the VA, had filed the normal request for information from St. Louis, for information, on several occasions. The routine request came back, ADestroyed in fire,@ as far as his personal records. He finally filed a request, through his congressman, and got some limited records. He then had his son pursue a request, through the base, at Westover, where he was part of the initial radiation experiment, that has been identified by the Advisory Committee, and they certified that all records ­­ and there were substantial records, on nasal radium irradiation, because 1562 men were treated, in Westover, in 1944/45 ­­ were sent to St. Louis, in 1975, after the fire in 1974. Therefore, the convenient excuse of, ADestroyed in fire,@ was nothing more than a smokescreen, so to speak.

I think it is clear, I think it is clear, that ­­ and Senator Chafee=s office told me the same thing ­­ if the government does not want to investigate something, ADestroyed in fire@ becomes a very convenient excuse.

In the recent VA statement, by Dr. Kaiser, about nasal radium, and gamma, he raised the issue of ADestroyed in fire@ for the Army/Air Force records. And it is true, a large number of surnames, for the time period in question, were destroyed in the fire. But, if you go back to the articles about the fire, 90 percent of those records were backed up by microfilm, which were not destroyed in fire.

The government, if it wants to, can get records. It just becomes too convenient to use the excuse, ADestroyed in fire.@

MS. AZIM: Who is next?

DR. EGILMAN: I just want to make a process comment, because there have been some questions about our not understanding the process. I called Dr. Seligman, on Friday, before the meeting, who chaired my panel, and asked about the process, what the purpose was, what the format was, what the, et cetera. And he had no idea. So, I had no guidance. So, if I made a mistake, on process, I talked about medical care, or somebody else made a mistake on process, excuse me. But, as far as I know, the meeting was called, on short notice. We did the best we can. I sought guidance. I could not get any.

And, so, I don=t think it is, certainly not, our fault. I don=t think it deserves any kind of repercussions, or any kind of attack, either way.

Yes. Yes, that. Yes, that Dan. That Dan.

Okay. And I also don=t, I am concerned about something else, and that is, that, Mr. Glenn made a ­­ Glenn, that is the Justice Department fellow, here? ­­ made a comment about me, and we have never met, before yesterday, and it was a pejorative comment, and he just now made a reference to Mr. C., and his employment. And that has not come up at the meeting, at all, either.

And, to me, those are implicit threats, that Mr. Glenn is watching us, and watching what we are doing. And I would like to make a personal statement, that I don=t like that. I am offended by that. It does not make any, have any impact, on me, as you would all expect, but I don=t like it.

And I also have an ethical problem, since ethics has been raised. Mr. Glenn frequently met with Feinberg and King, at the meetings, of ACRE. And he pulled them out of the room, and consulted with them, on many occasions.

COL. BAILEY: Dr. Egilman?

DR. EGILMAN: And this, apparently, was not an ethical conflict.

COL. BAILEY: Dr. Egilman? Dr. Egilman? We are about to.

DR. EGILMAN: That is all I have to say. I would like to ­­

COL. BAILEY: I have got to intercede, here, and say some comments, here.

I think that is pure demagoguery. I have to, I have got to say this, while you are, I think there is demagoguery, throughout this process. You have personally attacked people, through innuendo, et cetera. So I feel offended, number one, that you make those comments, in this body, because everybody sitting here knows that you have been, in fact, disruptive, disrespectful, gone beyond the pale.

I have got to talk, right now, okay. I have got to talk. It is important that we do that.

Doctor, you have had, you have talked, more than anybody in this session. You have had your say. I want to tell you where I am coming from, now, not to representative of the government, but Colonel Bailey.

I am offended, for a number of reasons. Somebody, Mr. C., and somebody, is questioning my integrity, when they talk about the fact, that my research, my search effort, has not met the doggoned requirements. That offends me.

And we will not get anywhere, in this group, if we, both the government, and you guys, with the kind of attitudes that I am seeing, continue to prevail. Everything that we have done, in this session, will be for naught. We have got to get beyond that, and whether it be Pat Glenn and you having a tLte-B-tLte, it does not make any difference. We are not about that. And whether or not you had the specific instructions, that does not make a difference, with me.

You all, and you two gentlemen ­­ and you are aware of what you have been doing, in this session ­­ you have an agenda. We have an agenda. Our agenda is to try to get the doggoned job done. Your agenda is trying to get the job done. And whether or not we agree, or we get into these little tLte-B-tLtes, does not mean anything to me. It should not mean anything to anybody, in this group.

We have got to get beyond these kinds of personal type attacks. We have got to recognize that we do indeed have an opportunity, to make a big step, and start doing things, collectively, to make a different.

And whether or not you agree with the government, or whether or not we agree with you, is irrelevant. We have got to get our heads together, and stop pointing our fingers at each other, and stop getting into these tLte-B-tLtes, and make things happen.

MS. AZIM: Okay.

COL. BAILEY: I want to see things happen, in my lifetime. I am a citizen, just like you are. My wife, and my family, breathe the same air that you breathe.

I am going to by e retiring, pretty soon, going out, and fighting the same bureaucracy that you are fighting. So we have got to come together, brother! We have got to come together! Give me a hug.

(Applause.)

MS. AZIM: Amen!

DR. EGILMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, that was not a personal attack. I just want you to know that. This is Dr. Egilman, and that was not a personal attack.

COL. BAILEY: We have got to get, let me, we are going into the last session, now. The last session.

(Discussion was held off­microphone.)

COL. BAILEY: I have got to take some major intervention. I have heard you. I know what you are talking about, but I have got to go back, and feel confident, that I am going to be able to support you folk. I understand what your concerns are. I have got the task of directing the follow­on task, and where we go, next. And I want you all to feel that we care about you. We do care about you. We have got to put this stuff, that has happened, years ago, that affects you. We know it affects you. We are trying to make a difference. And I get really upset, when people tell me, that Colonel Bailey does not care. That is unadulterated bullshit.

(Applause.)

COL. BAILEY: We have got to get together, here, ladies and gentlemen.

MS. McLEOD: I told Colonel Bailey, this morning, I was his conscience.

(Laughter.)

MS. McLEOD: Okay. All right. Listen, though.

COL. BAILEY: We have got to stop. Hey, you have got to trust somebody.

MS. McLEOD: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Wait. You wait.

Okay. I am your conscience.

MS. AZIM: We need to know the conscience=s name.

MS. McLEOD: Okay. Dot McLeod. Okay. While the Task Force may have made their snide comments, and whatever these, whatever you want to refer to them as, some of the government people have, too, because I have heard them. They have not been as many, but you all have done it.

COL. BAILEY: Well, we have got to get beyond that. Nobody is without blame. We have got to get beyond that, and I am asking.

Okay. I got you. Follow­up. I mean, it is ugly. It is ugly.

I got you. I got you. I am the next panel!

(Laughter.)

COL. BAILEY: Hello! I am the next panel! I am going to do some talking, now.

MS. AZIM: Claud, Geoff, the both of you, wait! Stop!

COL. BAILEY: No, no. Let me talk to Brother Sea. Let me talk to him. Come here, and give me a hug!