COL. BAILEY: Now we're going to have Cliff Honicker.

MR. BYRD: No.

MR. ENSIGN: Hi, Acie. Todd Ensign. Nice to meet you. It's been a few years.

Colonel, I think in all fairness I think you're being a little, playing it a little cute on this business of the litigation.

The first thing you learn in law school is over here is criminal and over here is civil. And I think if I may per permitted, what Ms. Nelson is saying or part of what she may be saying is how about criminal investigation about Cincinnati. How about administrative sanctions perhaps against them to ensure they don't receive any more DOD dollars. And I don't think that's assumed within a civil case for damaged that's pending in Ohio. So I think there's a frustration being expressed here and I'd ask that you talk a little about the criminal or administrative sanction and that aspect of the case.

MS. MARLOW: I'd like to apologize. Sandra Marlow, Sonny Marlow. I'd like to apologize for the Mengele statement that I made about the profession. If you'd been in the context about the Fernald State School where I was the librarian and the fact that it was very important in brain research in the United States, the Committee, because of the lack of equal participation by the members of people who were knowledgeable about survivors such as all of us who are here, lacked a lot of information in the report which we think we need to bring to their attention.

One was that at the Fernald School, the papers, the autopsy reports, were sent to a place called the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. And the person in charge of research before Dr. Clemons-Benda, was a man named Paul Yakolov who was a major brain researcher in the United States. And I believe he did some work at Brookhaven.

Thank you.

MR. BROWN: Cooper Brown. And I just want to raise a point of order that questions are being put on the floor that are being directed to representatives of the government and they're not being addressed.

COL. BAILEY: Is there an answer?

COL. BAILEY: What was the question again?

AUDIENCE PARTICIPANT: What are you going to do about criminal liability?

COL. BAILEY: Okay. I say again, I've got -- I see -- is that Pat Glenn in the audience? Do you want to address that, Pat?

MS. CAMPOS-INFANTINO: Pat Glenn is from the Department of Justice.

MR. GLENN: This is not going to be any more satisfactory -- this is Pat Glenn -- because I don't know of any administrative sanctions or criminal investigations that are underway or proposed. That answers the question.

MR. HONICKER: Cliff Honicker, American Environmental Health Studies Project. I just have one little comment to make on that. And that's back in November when Eileen Wellsome -- what year was it? 1993, November 1993 -- came out with her article and then it received the attention in December because of Hazel O'Leary's outrage, and it suddenly became an officially sanctioned news story.

The Simon Weisenthal Center, which is a very respected Jewish organization in America -- worldwide -- wrote Janet Reno and asked for a special prosecutor so that there would be an independent criminal prosecutor to go side by side with any investigation that would happen.

This was before the DOE Advisory Committee Human Search Team was created. This was before the President's Advisory Committee was created.

Janet Reno ignored the Simon Weisenthal Center.

COL. BAILEY: Does the Justice Department want to respond to that?

MS. CAMPOS-INFANTINO: This is Pat Glenn.

MR. GLENN: I'll respond the same way Claud did. If there's a letter that was written that was not responded to, I'll give you my name and address and number and you can follow up. I can see if I can find out what happened to the letter, why there was no response.

I don't know anything about the particulars of what you're saying until you just said it, but I promise to get you some response.

MR. BYRD: Let's go to Doris and then Dr. Egilman.

MS. CAMPOS-INFANTINO: Wait a minute, Doris. Just a second.

MR. CONN: Thanks. I'm Steve Conn. I'm from Alaska. I'm with the Alaska Public Interest Research Group. Since this is kind of a stakeholder session where stuff that doesn't fit to other things comes in, I wanted to make a couple of points. This seemed the only place to fit them in.

I came in looking exclusively at the situations involving Alaska natives. Those are covered very briefly in the final report and very unsatisfactorily. The report is not indexed, which will give you some sense -- which offended me, as a professor. But one can thumb through the Manhattan size telephone book and eventually find brief mentions of the Alaska natives' situation.

I must say my eyes have been opened in the last couple of days to the parallels. I though the Alaska natives were being abused because they were American Indians. It was typical. Now I find out how democratic the country really is.

And overarching question that I hope is pursued by a Congressional investigation is exactly what happened to the O'Leary inquiry. What happened to her outrage? I think it's gone beyond something DOE can handle.

But I want to make a couple of smaller subpoints. One is with the Department of Justice person in the room. Despite persistent requests, the preexisting trust responsibility was owed to indigenous populations, buttressed by Congressional acts that should have had a direct bearing on the Navajo uranium miners, the Pueblo open pit miners and the Alaskan natives whose food chain was poisoned by an American experiment and were given iodine 131.

That trust responsibility, as a preexistent legal duty, was totally ignored and with it, the complicity of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service under PHS.

Those two agencies were not asked the correct questions when the inquiry went in their direction. They were asked if they had participated in radiation experiments but not if they had facilitated in them. This has bearing on Recommendation 5, discussed this morning, because by their very existence there shouldn't be any question but that the health concerns of these people should be proceeded with by Indian Health Service. It's already a matter of law.

Not only them, but additional generations of people, the wives and children of the Navajo uranium miners, the wives and children of the Alaska natives.

The basic promise of Secretary O'Leary -- and here I'll finish -- there were many other things but time is tight.

The basic promise of Secretary O'Leary was to open the archives to give people who wanted the truth the truth. I hope that that is proceeded with tomorrow because that has not happened to this date. We are still seeking the truth.

MR. BYRD: Doris, then Dr. Egilman.

MS. BAKER: My name is Doris Baker. I still just want Colonel Bailey or either the gentleman from the Justice Department to please answer my question about the litigation with Cincinnati. When Ms. Nelson was asking him some questions and when I was asking some questions or seeing about the litigation, because we was in litigation in Cincinnati, and I didn't know we was in litigation with the government. I wouldn't have came a long time ago. I'd have stayed at home, because I'm scared.

MR. GLENN: I don't want to preempt Dr. Egilman because I'm sure he has something very interesting to say. This is my first expose to the doctor, too, and it is indeed memorable.

Ms. Baker, in response to Ms. Baker's question, I probably can't make this entirely clear. Simply put, there is pending litigation on behalf of the Cincinnati Radiation Experiment subjects in which the United States was brought in by the city. You all didn't sue us but the city did, so we're in the litigation. You all are represented by counsel, and as a matter of ethics, we can't talk with you and we certainly don't want to talk in a public forum about individual cases. It's highly inappropriate for me to start talking about any one person's personal situation as it affects a matter in litigation.

Anything I say would be viewed as self-serving and it's in appropriate. Anything you say and I take in is opportunistic on my part. So we can't talk about the matters, the substance of the matters in litigation.

What the Advisory Committee said about it in the recommendations and your views on that are fair but we can't respond and debate about the matters that are in litigation.

MR. EGILMAN: This is Dave Egilman. I have a suggested process change, suggested to me by Mr. Keller, who's on Dr. Glenn's -- Mr. Glenn's staff, the Senator. And it is that either at each of these sessions or certainly tomorrow that the facilitator, this one or another one, facilitate in a slightly different manner.

That is, record in some fashion and summarize in some fashion the comments from each session or the comments from the two days and try to come up with a list of agreed on points whether they be demands from us or information questions, whatever they are. That they should be written on some piece of paper and that we can discuss them. You can use today's notes and put them on big pieces of paper for tomorrow. And at the end of each session tomorrow, do the same thing and perhaps for the wrap-up, rather than have it a variety of people's comments that never get put together in any cohesive whole.

That's by way of trying to be creative.

Now, I also have a basic -- a point of agreement. If you -- which I don't agree with. If you agree with the ACHRE criteria of 1 in 1,000, et cetera, et cetera, and you analyze the experiments according to how ACHRE analyzed the experiments, then these three groups that we've talked about qualify for all of the things that ACHRE said people said qualify for.

That is, if you don't go the extra mile of coming up with a different creative excuse for each of the groups that fit their own criteria, you will find that these three groups qualify: the nasopharyngeal radiation group, the Vanderbilt group, the Cincinnati group. There may be another, because -- those are the main three.

Those three qualify by their criteria. One in 1,0000; they were harmed, no question about it. They were not given informed consent, no question about it. There was an organized conspiracy to cover up the records, which is another one of their criteria for apology and compensation. And that's evident here because there's a continuing conspiracy to cover up the report by itself, as I said, is evidence of continuing conspiracy.

And finally, last, just to explain the 1 in 1,000 in common every day language. If you think of a football game and you think the government flies over and sprays the place with a new chemical and the chemical is going to kill 50 people out of the 50,000, then what this report says is you don't have to notify those 50,000 people. That would psychologically upset them. It's okay to kill 50. That's a free ride. Fifty-one, now you've got to notify everybody.

So just in terms that I think everybody can understand, that's what the report says -- oh, unless it kills them different ways. That's a new exception. But that's just an exception they had to come up with because it fit the criteria.

And the last thing, just to disagree with Geoffrey Sea, it is not true that they said that they couldn't kill all the people in Cincinnati. That is not true. Dr. Gladstein said the first 20 were okay. It was after the first 20 that the experiment became bad and that's a quote of his.

Thank you.

MS. CAMPOS-INFANTINO: I'd like to respond for a moment. This is Doris Campos-Infantino -- to the request for a different format.

This is something that I thought about a lot because I was concerned that with six issues and an average of 8.5 panelists, not to mention questions and answers, there was going to be no way to actually respond to some of the issues raised and reach closure on them.

I have to say that I have a lot of experience in working with groups, negotiating with sides, labor and management groups in particular. And to negotiate through even one of these sets of recommendations, one of these panels, could take a week to reach that kind of closure.

Now, this is what we could do. And I'm willing to do this, if you'd like. If you'd like to see the words on paper so that the issues are named and validated, I'll be happy to record as people speak. But I do not think that this is a forum were there's enough time to go back to the issues and find out if there's agreement on each of them. Because there's not enough time for that kind of dialogue, as you've seen today.

Even what we had planned which was for each of the participants to speak, then have them respond to each other, then you ask questions, even that didn't work because there hasn't been enough time.

So that's just a basic logistical reality but I'll be happy to list concerns as they are raised if only to record what each individual says. But it is practically impossible to have dialogue around those issues and reach agreement.

MS. AZIM: And you should know that we're going to -- we're having all of this transcribed by a Court Reporter as well, so there will be opportunity for everyone to reexamine the record in about a week or two.

MS. CAMPOS-INFANTINO: Now, it's almost 5:00 o'clock and Pat has had her hand up as next to speak.

MS. BROUDY: Thanks. My name is Pat Broudy.

Last night we were up until the wee small hours doing our little personal inventory of things that we wanted to say today and none of us got around to saying it, so I'm going to say it now.

Number one. All radiation victims be compensated for the same illnesses and in the same amount regardless of site of exposure and that all illnesses be presumptive.

Two. A registry be established for the offspring of atomic veterans who may have developed genetic or mutagenic health problems as a result of his or her parents or grandparents.

Number three. The 11 other additional radiation risk activities revealed by the Veterans Affairs Committee on Environmental Hazards be included for compensation in the existing laws. That the time constraints in those laws be widened to include all atomic veterans exposed in any fashion to ionizing radiation and that they be candidates under those laws or any other laws promulgated in the future for the benefit of atomic veterans.

Number four. That the radio-epidemiological tables be updated by an independent non-governmental or quasi-governmental scientific panel. We recommend that all persons covered under RECA be awarded the highest sum, $100,000, now awarded only to uranium miners.

Number six. That there be no offset to any compensation awarded under RECA, social benefits, VA benefits or any other government benefits that this law currently requires be offset.

Seven. After all the radiogenic illnesses have become presumptive, that Public Law 98-542 be repealed. The contractors and personnel of NTPR have received over $110,098,939 for doing dose reconstructions and only a handful of veterans and widows have been awarded benefits.

Number eight. That survivors of atomic veterans be awarded monetary sums equivalent to the medical, hospital, burial and other expenses incurred in the veterans' final illness.

Number nine. On-site presence will be presumed sufficient criteria for compensation. That the Veterans Administration respect its commitment; i.e., presumption of correctness by veteran in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Ten. That 50 percent minimum service connected disconnected disability be granted with all attending rights and privileges to all atomic veterans.

Number Eleven. Nothing in this proposal precludes individual veterans or their families from pursuing any other remedies available to them.

Number Twelve. A process of fairness in the atomic veteran community that allows veterans to participate. We feel that we should have positions on the Bio-Ethics Committee and any future related committees.

MR. BYRD: I think we have one more and that's going to close it out.

MS. McCARTHY: Joan McCarthy. I'm a member of NAAV, National Association of Atomic Veterans and National Association of Radiation Survivors. I'm with the Taskforce for Radiation Human Rights.

Fifteen years ago on his deathbed, my husband told me about his participation in a nuclear test. He also asked me to find out what happened to the other men. This led to founding, with the help of the media, many good people, the New Jersey Association of Atomic Veterans. In the 15 years I've been at the deathbeds of many atomic veterans who -- and I feel this is side for the United States of America -- died thinking that their government wants them dead so the truth will be buried with them.

And I do believe that truth eventually surfaces and I hope that we're doing something about it now and it doesn't just get buried again.

But what I would like to say very quickly is a word about the Farris Doctrine because I cannot be here tomorrow and one of the veterans in New Jersey, Stan Jaffe, who I was on the speaking circuit with for a long time, took his case to the Supreme Court of the United States and was denied, due to the Farris Doctrine. He died two weeks after the Supreme Court denied this and he asked me if I would remember him. And I feel that right now I'm doing that.

I made a few notes here. I feel that to me, by interpretation we are experiencing a reversal of the basic principles of the constitution in which the citizenry grants certain limited rights to the government to one in which the government grants certain limited rights to the citizenry. And I think the Farris Doctrine, by interpretation, is a good example of this.

The Farris Doctrine prohibits atomic veterans from sharing their experiences with nuclear experiments in the Courts of the United States. And the Farris Doctrine was written by Chief Justice Jackson who, while on leave from the Supreme Court of the United States, -- he wrote the Farris Doctrine while on leave from the Supreme Court of the United States to sit in on the Nuremberg trials, which were crimes against human experimentation.

So I would like to go on record saying that we need to do something about the Farris Doctrine.

(Applause.)

MR. KELLER: My name is Robert Keller. I am on the staff of Senator John Glenn's Governmental Affairs Committee. As you probably well know, my boss has been deeply involved in this issue for many years and I'm proud to say that the hearings that we had -- was it two years ago? -- I feel led to the establishment of this committee that has been meeting for the past year. I won't say anything about them. I'm not trying to make a value judgment about the results.

As you also probably know, Senator Glenn is having a hearing coming up the March -- I believe it's March 12th. Thank you very much. And I will ensure that the full transcript of this meeting is incorporated in the record for that hearing and also, we will brief him on the salient points, on some of the salient points.

There are a couple of issues that popped up which I'm sure he's going to be interested in, and I would suggest that those who are responsible or involved with this issue make sure they have acceptable answers.

One is the validity of the exposure data. I'm a nuclear engineer. I've been trained in radiological safety. And I've seen the movies of the sailors in the white hats walking on the ships about a half an hour -- some short period of time after they had been bombed. It's incredulous to me to think about the lack of protection and the lack of monitoring.

I was talking to one of the survivors today. He said, well, we had a film badge but they took the film badge and we never heard any more about it. And what's happening is that you have a dose reconstruction which I believe -- I would not have any credence to the dose reconstruction on that radiation dose.

(Applause.)

And I believe -- that's my personal view, that that needs to be examined very carefully.

Other issues that I want to ensure that Senator Glenn is aware of is following up on the issue of secret experiments are still allowed and secret releases, green runs and so forth. And the issue of body snatching.

It's a serious issue and it was raised several years ago and I was not aware that it was not covered. I've read the report but I was not aware that it had not been resolved. And so I'm sure that we're going to want to follow up on it.

The other issue is post-1974 non-HEW experiments. I'm assuming that whoever was doing experiments after 1974, since that was the issuance of the guidelines, that people have been following those rules.

Now, I don't know whether the committee looked at that or not. I'm led to believe that they didn't.

That is not correct?

They did look at the post-1974 and they found that they were -- okay. All right. But I want to assure that that Senator Glenn is vitally interested in this and appreciate the opportunity to be here.

(Applause.)

MR. BYRD: I just want to ask that members of our Executive Committee who wrote the letter to the Veterans Administration -- I wanted to ask the Veterans Administration representatives here, can we find out more about that request? We have met with Secretary O'Leary twice or more and we've met with the DOD. We have not met with the Veterans Administration which is one of the key agencies that we should have met with.

But I want to say this in follow-up to what Mousso said. That we do want to cooperate with the Interagency Working Group and the Taskforce appreciates very much the initiatives taken by Secretary Hazel O'Leary. We think it was still a historic effort on her part. And we appreciate the President's apology and appreciate the fact that he wanted us to participate in this.

I want to say one last thing about that. I notice the Executive Order issued by the President, he had mandated that the Interagency Working Group pay particular attention to the victims and the subjects of radiation and their welfare. It also said, as I saw in the last part of the paragraph, that he thought that they should take into account the Advisory Committee report.

Unless I misunderstand the language, that tells me that we don't have to be wedded absolutely to that report. That is, you don't, the agency. So I would hope that we are able to get beyond just the Advisory Committee based on the President's Executive Order.

MS. CAMPOS-INFANTINO: Did you want someone to respond to the VA question?

MS. MATHER: This is Susan Mather with VA and I will just -- I'm not aware of the status of the letter asking to meet with Jesse Brown but I will go back and check on that and get back to you with an answer.

MR. BYRD: Thank you very much.

I want to also thank Colonel Bailey for his efforts here and I hope that we can work with him more closely. I hope this is just the first step in the long steps ahead.

COL. BAILEY: Thank you, Acie.

This completes our first day. Again, as I said this morning, I am thrilled to have participated in the spirited presentations. I learned quite a bit. And those who know me know that I listened and sometimes you have to be a little bit constructive and it happens. That's a part of this business. This is give and take. That's what it's all about.

As I said this morning, I feel very strongly about it. We can make a different. We have to keep working to identify the differences and try to find the common ground, and that's what we're about.

Tomorrow we come in at 0800. For civilians, that's 8:00 o'clock. We'll start right on time. Again, we've got to stay focused. But as your moderator, I'm going to be very firm. There's some areas that we can't go into. I'm going to call that.

But I want to particularly thank Dr. Egilman. I heard about him but he's a great guy. He's spirited. He's an advocate. Mr. Sea, I got a chance to meet the gentleman up in Alaska and I've met some other people.

We've got to be very careful tomorrow. Let's not personalize this thing.

Let me tell you something. My wife and my daughter breathe the same air that you all breathe. I'm a veteran. I'm concerned about the atmosphere. We all live in the same environment, so we've got to be very careful. We're all in this together.

I'm only going to be here four months unless I'm extended -- where's my boss? Four more months. For the last two years, you guys may know, I've been doing some extra hard work to make sure that the facts are out there.

And so, I'm not alienated. This is a great experience for me. I'm looking forward to tomorrow. Matter of fact, I might stay in the room until you all arrive tomorrow. That's the kind of person I am.

And again, I've got to apologize to my sister here, soul sister here. She knows where I'm coming from.

Have a good day and I'll see you tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, the proceedings were adjourned at 5:20 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday, February 27, 1996 at 8:00 a.m. in the same place.)