<DOC>
[108 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:25152.wais]
S. Hrg. 108-883
AN OVERVIEW OF THE RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION PROGRAM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 21, 2004
__________
Serial No. J-108-90
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
25-152 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
JOHN CORNYN, Texas JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
Bruce Artim, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Bruce A. Cohen, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
DeWine, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio,
prepared statement............................................. 45
Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah...... 1
prepared statement and attachments........................... 49
WITNESSES
Bucholtz, Jeffrey S., Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil
Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; accompanied
by Dianne Spellberg, Acting Director, Radiation Exposure
compensation Program, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C... 3
Houghton, Helen Bandley, San Antonio, Texas...................... 16
Thompson, Jeffrey, Jacksonville, Arkansas........................ 14
Torres, Rita, Surprise, Arizona.................................. 12
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Responses of Jeffrey S. Bucholtz to questions submitted by
Senator Hatch.................................................. 22
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine A., a Delegate in Congress from the
Territory of Guam, prepared statement.......................... 28
Bucholtz, Jeffrey S., Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil
Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; accompanied
by Dianne Spellberg, Acting Director, Radiation Exposure
Compensation Program, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.,
prepared statement............................................. 29
Daschle, Hon. Tom, a U.S. Senator from the State of South Dakota,
prepared statement and attachments............................. 36
Houghton, Helen Bandley, San Antonio, Texas, prepared statement.. 72
Thompson, Jeffrey, Jacksonville, Arkansas, prepared statement.... 75
Torres, Rita, Surprise, Arizona, prepared statement and
attachments.................................................... 78
AN OVERVIEW OF THE RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION PROGRAM
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 2004
United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:52 a.m., in
room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Orrin G.
Hatch, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Hatch and Craig.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF UTAH
Chairman Hatch. Well, I want to welcome you all to the
Committee today. Today, the Committee will hear testimony on
one of my top priorities as Utah's senior Senator, the
Radiation Exposure Compensation Program, better known as RECA.
There are few issues in Washington, D.C., as important to my
fellow Utahns as the viability of RECA.
The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, which I authored,
was signed into law in 1990 and has compensated thousands of
individuals, government workers and civilians alike, who were
exposed to harmful radiation as a result of nuclear testing in
the mid-1950's and 1960's. Some of these individuals worked in
uranium mines. Many drove the trucks which transported uranium
ore, and many simply happened to live downwind from a nuclear
test site.
The original RECA Act of 1990 established a fund to provide
compensation to these individuals who were never informed about
the health hazards associated with radiation and who became ill
due to their exposure. Many of these individuals live in the
western United States, but as evidenced by today's second
panel, RECA claimants come from across the country.
In 2000, Congress approved and the President signed into
law the Radiation Exposure Compensation Amendments of 2000, S.
1525. This law made important changes to the original 1990 Act
by updating the list of compensable illnesses, primarily to
include cancers, as well as increasing the scope of individuals
and States eligible for compensation based on the latest
scientific and medical information.
In 2002, additional expansions were approved for the RECA
program, many of them based on technical comments which were
provided to the Committee through the Department of Justice.
Unfortunately, in 2001 a funding shortfall in the RECA program
resulted in hundreds of individuals not receiving their
compensation, even though their claims had been approved by the
RECA office and the Department of Justice.
Senator Pete Domenici offered an amendment which I strongly
supported to address this funding shortfall by providing capped
permanent appropriations through the Department of Defense for
a 10-year period beginning in fiscal year 2002 and totaling
$655 million.
Despite this effort, funding shortfalls persisted. A report
released by the General Accounting Office in April 2003
estimated that the funding levels appropriated to the RECA
trust fund would be insufficient to meet the projected claims.
Both the Congressional Budget Office and the Department of
Justice have confirmed that the RECA trust fund is running out
of money.
I am pleased to report that the administration took our
concerns seriously and the President's 2005 budget recommended
that the RECA trust fund be provided $72 million in
discretionary money to cover shortfalls in fiscal years 2003,
2004 and the projected shortfall in 2005. The Senate budget
resolution also included this money. More recently, the House
of Representatives passed H.R. 4754, the Commerce, State,
Justice appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005, and that
legislation contains $72 million to cover the shortfalls in the
RECA trust fund for fiscal years 2003, 2004, and the projected
shortfall for 2005. However, this money would still not resolve
the funding issues associated with the RECA trust fund.
According to the April 2003 GAO report, the fund would
require a total of $107 million through fiscal year 2011. So
while I am pleased that the administration and my colleagues in
Congress have recognized our obligation to these folks who are
owned compensation under RECA, we yet have more work to do.
We do not want to again experience the problems of 2001,
when claimants were told that they were eligible for
compensation, but then had to wait several months to receive
their monies. I do not want to put RECA claimants through that
again and I will fight tooth and nail for the funding to make
RECA whole once again.
Before I close my opening remarks, I want to raise another
troubling inequity that I hope the Department of Justice will
comment on in detail--the difference in compensation among
energy workers, on-site participants and downwinders. Energy
workers are compensated $150,000 and have all of their medical
bills paid. On-site workers are compensated $75,000, but do not
have medical benefits, and downwinders who were innocent
bystanders to atomic testing are only compensated $50,000 and
do not have any medical bills paid. I personally do not
understand this inequity and will not rest until it is
addressed.
There is positive news regarding RECA. In the omnibus
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002, I included funding
for a grant program for education, prevention and early
detection of radiogenic cancer and illnesses, to be
administered through the Health Resources and Services
Administration. Currently, four States--Utah, Colorado, New
Mexico and Arizona--have grantees.
In addition, my amendment provided funding so that the
Department of Health and Human Services could contract with the
National Research Council to review the most recent scientific
information related to radiation exposure and associated
cancers and other diseases. The study also would make
recommendations as to whether to expand RECA to cover
additional illnesses, as well as claimants from other
geographical areas or classes of workers. These recommendations
would be released in June of 2005 by HHS.
Further, the National Research Council's Committee
reviewing this program for HHS will conduct a public meeting
next week in Salt Lake City, Utah, on July 29. I strongly urge
anyone who believes he or she is eligible for compensation
under RECA to attend this meeting.
Finally, I want members of the Committee to know how
cooperative I have found the RECA staff to be. This staff has
come to my State at least three times in the last 3 years, and
each time they have patiently listened to the concerns of my
constituents who have been exposed to radiation. I am deeply
grateful to the entire staff, especially Jerry Fischer, who is
currently serving our country in Iraq, and Dianne Spellberg,
the acting director of the RECA program. We are grateful for
the work that has been done in Utah and I am personally looking
forward to that hearing. I may not be able to attend because of
other commitments, but we have made arrangements for the
Committee to be there.
On our first panel, we will have Jeffrey Bucholtz, who is
the Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Division of
the Department of Justice. Mr. Bucholtz is here to discuss the
Radiation Exposure Compensation Program.
We want to welcome you to the Committee and we appreciate
you being here today. We recognize you were recently married,
and we congratulate you for that and wish you the best as you
appear before the Committee.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY S. BUCHOLTZ, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL, CIVIL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON,
D.C.; ACCOMPANIED BY DIANNE SPELLBERG, ACTING DIRECTOR,
RADIATION EXPOSURE COMPENSATION PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Bucholtz. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear
before the Committee today to discuss the Radiation Exposure
Compensation Act on behalf of the Department of Justice.
This is the first Congressional hearing on RECA since
passage of the amendments of 2000 and enactment of the
Appropriations Authorization Act in 2002. Both enactments
changed the original RECA statute in many significant respects,
markedly expanding the scope of the Radiation Exposure
Compensation Program. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the
administration of the program by the Department of Justice, its
many successes and anticipated challenges. I will begin by
providing some background for the Committee.
From 1945 through 1962, the United States conducted
extensive atmospheric nuclear weapons testing as part of our
Nation's Cold War security strategy. Critical to this endeavor
was the processing of uranium conducted by individuals employed
in the uranium industry. Many of those individuals subsequently
contracted serious illnesses, including various types of
cancer, due to their exposure to radiation.
In order to make partial restitution to those individuals
for their sacrifices, Congress passed the Radiation Exposure
Compensation Act on October 5, 1990. RECA provides for
compassionate compensation to individuals who contracted
certain specified diseases as a possible result of their
exposure to radiation or to their surviving beneficiaries.
Eligible claimants included on-site participants who were
involved in above-ground nuclear weapons tests, downwinders who
lived or worked in specific geographical locations downwind of
the Nevada test site, and uranium miners who were exposed to
radiation in underground uranium mines.
On July 10, 2000, Congress passed the Radiation Exposure
Compensation Act Amendments of 2000 which made important
revisions to the Act. First, two new claimant categories were
added--uranium millers involved in the uranium extraction
process and ore transporters who typically trucked the uranium
ore from the mine or mill. The 2000 amendments also provided
additional specified compensable diseases, lowered the
radiation exposure threshold to make it easier for uranium
miners to qualify, modified medical documentation requirements,
removed certain lifestyle restrictions, and expanded the
downwinder geographic area. Further expansion followed with
enactment of the Appropriations Authorization Act in November
2002.
Since its inception, the program has received over 20,000
claims. Of these, nearly 12,000 have been approved, totaling
over $771 million in compensation paid. Of this amount,
approximately $200 million has been awarded to Arizona
residents, $187 million to Utah residents, $122 million to
Colorado residents, and $98 million to New Mexico residents.
The program is not limited to residents of those States,
however, and, in fact, has awarded compensation to individuals
from every State in the Union.
Since the 2000 amendments were enacted, the overall
approval rate has risen to 75 percent. In the first fiscal year
following enactment of the amendments, the program processed
almost 2,000 claims, representing $94 million in awards, an
increase of $68 million from the previous year.
The program is sensitive to the difficulties faced by
Native American claimants. Although Native American traditions
often do not provide for creation of certain identification
documents such as birth certificates and the like, several
tribes have offices that maintain this type of information.
Because the Act requires verification of a claimant's identity
and marital status, the program works closely with those
offices to assist Native American claimants in satisfying the
eligibility criteria of the statute.
Extensive time and effort have been devoted to public
outreach and educational activities. The program initiated an
aggressive outreach campaign in spring 2001, participating in
workshops, training sessions and public meetings. At the
request of Senators Hatch, Domenici and Daschle, program staff
have traveled to Utah, New Mexico and South Dakota to
participate in town hall meetings to answer questions about the
program.
An essential component of the program's outreach is to
establish a strong working relationship with the affected
Native American communities. Program staff have traveled to the
Navajo Nation to meet with tribal representatives and members,
and have participated in several Navajo chapter meetings. Staff
have also held training sessions for Navajo case workers to
enable them better to assist RECA claimants. This summer, the
program is sponsoring a case worker from the Office of Navajo
Uranium Workers as a RECA intern, and we are hopeful that this
experience will further reinforce what is already a productive
relationship.
Despite the success of the program, the 2000 amendments and
the Appropriations Authorization Act have presented some
significant challenges. Foremost among those is the fact that
the legislative expansion created a need for additional trust
fund resources. The Act's expansion resulted in a nearly five-
fold increase in claims received. Since the 2000 amendments
became law, almost 12,500 new claims have been filed and
funding requirements have grown dramatically.
Before fiscal year 2001, the RECA trust fund was subject to
annual discretionary appropriations. Unfortunately, the funding
provided in the appropriations bills during fiscal years 2000
and 2001 could not cover the onslaught of new claims being
filed and the funds were quickly depleted.
In an attempt to resolve this problem, the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002 made the RECA trust fund
a mandatory appropriation and established annual spending caps
for fiscal years 2002 through 2011 totaling $655 million. The
cap set by this Act assumed a sharp drop in the number of
claims filed and approved each year, and thus a correspondingly
sharp drop in the amount of funding necessary to cover awards.
However, the rate of decline has been slower than
anticipated. The immediate shortfall problem is reflected in
the President's fiscal year 2005 budget, which seeks a
discretionary appropriation of $72 million to supplement the
existing fiscal year 2005 spending cap of $65 million. This
amount would fund the shortfalls experienced in fiscal years
2003 and 2004 and projected shortfalls in fiscal year 2005.
This amount was approved in the House appropriations bill for
the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary.
Funding will not be assured, however, unless the Senate and the
conference agreement also approve this request.
Despite these challenges, the Department remains dedicated
to fulfilling the program's mission to provide compensation as
efficiently as possible to claimants who meet the statutory
eligibility criteria. The Department is confident that the
continued cooperative efforts of Congress and the Department
will position the program for sustained success into the
future.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today and
for the personal interest you have consistently demonstrated in
the program over the years. The Department is committed to
Congress's goal of administering a program that provides
humanitarian compensation to Americans who jeopardized their
lives and health in service to the Nation's security during the
Cold War. I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the RECA
program with the Committee and would be pleased to answer any
questions at this time.
Chairman Hatch. Well, we appreciate you being here. Is it
pronounced Bucholtz or Bucholtz?
Mr. Bucholtz. It is Bucholtz, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Chairman Hatch. I had better get that right. I think this
is the first time I have met you, but we are honored to have
you here and we appreciate the testimony that you have given
here today. Let me just ask a few questions.
Should RECA beneficiaries be concerned that they are going
to start receiving IOUs somewhere in the near future if funding
is not approved by the RECA trust fund? If the money is not
appropriated, when would RECA claimants start receiving the
IOUs?
Mr. Bucholtz. Well, Mr. Chairman, the administration is
very concerned about the possibility that the trust fund would
be exhausted. As I mentioned and as you mentioned, Mr.
Chairman, the administration's 2005 budget seeks the $72
million in additional appropriations to make sure that that
won't happen during fiscal year 2005.
If that $72 million is not enacted, in addition to the
existing $65 million cap, then, as we have said, the trust fund
would be exhausted, based on our projections, during fiscal
year 2005. That is precisely why we have made it a priority to
seek that $72 million in extra funding for 2005.
Chairman Hatch. How much money does the Department of
Justice believe is needed to make the RECA trust fund solvent
through 2011? For instance, an April of 2003 GAO report
estimates that number to be $107 million through 2011. Does the
Department of Justice agree with that number, and if not, would
you please explain any reasons why you do not agree with it?
Mr. Bucholtz. We do agree, Mr. Chairman, with the GAO that
a substantial shortfall is likely after fiscal year 2005
through fiscal year 2011. The most immediate and most precise
shortfall that we can estimate statistically is for the current
fiscal year and fiscal year 2005, which we have estimated to be
$72 million.
The farther into the future we attempt to estimate
shortfalls, the less precision, the less certainty that we
have. The GAO number, as you said, Mr. Chairman, is $107
million, total, which would be 35 in addition to the 72 that we
have requested for the coming year.
The Department of Justice is constantly updating our
projections, in light of claims receipts and claims paid, to
try to come up with the most accurate projections that we can
into the future. Our most current projections suggest that the
GAO estimate will be on the low side and that total shortfalls
through 2011 will be somewhat higher than the GAO estimated.
The GAO's estimate was done over a year ago, and just as
the caps that are in existing law were based on a projection
that claims received and claims paid would drop sharply over
the years, that hasn't happened to the extent predicted. The
GAO report estimated the outyear shortfall based on their own
projections of how claims receipts would decrease over the
years.
Even in the year and a couple of months since the GAO
report, we have observed that claims coming in have not
decreased as quickly as GAO had predicted. So as of now, we
would expect the GAO estimate to be on the low side and the
shortfall through fiscal year 2011 to be somewhat higher than
GAO had predicted.
I would like to emphasize, though, as I said, that the
farther into the future we attempt to estimate shortfalls, the
less precision and the less accuracy we have. That is the same
phenomenon that has occurred before in this program. So we
hesitate to try to put any specific number on it into the
future, but we do think the GAO's estimate will prove to be too
low.
Chairman Hatch. Could you give us kind of a rough number?
Mr. Bucholtz. Well, the GAO estimate again is $35 million
more than the $72 million appropriation that we have currently
requested. We don't think that that estimate is wildly off. We
think that it is likely to be higher than that. Whether it is a
total of $60 million in addition to the 35 or a total of 70 or
a total of 80, it is very hard to say. But we don't think it is
going to be wildly more than the GAO estimate.
Chairman Hatch. Tell us a little bit about the outreach
programs that you have and the education programs that the RECA
office intends to conduct, and tell us how many RECA claimants
have an opportunity to interact with the RECA office.
Mr. Bucholtz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased
to discuss the outreach that the program has engaged in. In
particular, the program has engaged in significant outreach, as
you mentioned, at the request of you, Mr. Chairman, and with
your office.
I would like to introduce, next to me, Dianne Spellberg,
who is the current acting assistant director for the RECA
program in Jerry Fischer's absence while he is on active duty
in Iraq, as you mentioned. Dianne Spellberg is doing a great
job of running the program in Jerry's absence. We are, of
course, all anxiously awaiting Jerry's safe return.
But as far as outreach and education efforts, on numerous
occasions program staff have gone to meet with constituents in
the affected communities in Utah and in other States, and we
think it is important to do that. We want everyone who is
eligible for this program to know about it, to know how to
apply and to be able to apply. So we have made it a priority to
engage in those kinds of outreach efforts.
I would like to let Dianne, who is personally engaged in
many of those outreach efforts, and who has worked very closely
with your staff over the years to do so, provide more details
about our past and our future plans for outreach, if I may.
Chairman Hatch. That would be great, and we appreciate the
help you have given to our staff and to me personally and to
the people who have suffered from this.
Ms. Spellberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for the opportunity to come here today and discuss the
radiation program. As Mr. Bucholtz stated, our outreach efforts
are incredibly important to the RECA program. This is how we
get the word out concerning the availability of compensation to
downwinders and the uranium worker and on-site participant
claimants.
Beginning in spring 2001, the program initiated an
aggressive outreach campaign. We traveled twice to Utah. On our
first trip--it was right around the time of the Olympics that
were going on in your State and it was an exciting time--we met
individual potential claimants in Richfield, in St. George and
in Salt Lake City. They were incredibly well-attended, and with
the help of Patty Deloche, they were very positive and very
successful. At each of those three events, there were anywhere
from 50 to 200 individuals that came. Some had questions about
their claim, some were there to learn about this program.
Our second trip out to Utah was focused, as well, on the
downwinder claimants, but also we were able to travel to
Montezuma Creek, to the Navajo Indian reservation, and met with
numerous claimants there, uranium miner, uranium miller and ore
transporter claimants. Again, attendance was very high. The
trips were very well-organized. We participated in these town
hall meetings.
Similarly, we have traveled to a former uranium milling and
mining town out in the Edgemont mining district in South
Dakota, and we have also traveled out to the Navajo Indian
reservation on several occasions in Shiprock, New Mexico, in
Kayenta, Arizona and Tuba City, Arizona. And we have worked
with the Office of Navajo Uranium Workers to meet with
claimants and participate in chapter meetings.
As you had stated in your opening statement, there is a
radiation exposure screening and education clinic on the Indian
reservation that covers the Shiprock, New Mexico, area. We have
been working with those individuals to help process the RECA
claims.
In addition, we have future outreach plans scheduled. As
you stated in your statement, we will be attending the Salt
Lake City meeting next week that the National Research Council
is having to hold a public hearing on RECA. We also intend to
travel to the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation in
September. That is out near Globe, Arizona, and we have plans
to go back to the Navajo Indian reservation near Shiprock.
Our office has sent on numerous occasions our case workers
out to train the case workers that the Navajo office has that
help the Navajo RECA claimants process their claims. These
training sessions have been able to really make claims
processing for these individuals much more efficient.
Chairman Hatch. That sounds good. I have taken enough time.
Senator Craig, let's turn to you.
Senator Craig. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am here to
listen and to better understand the issue. We have some
claimants in Idaho, very few, but it is an important issue and
I want to support you in your effort.
Chairman Hatch. Well, thank you. I appreciate that.
If I could just ask a few more questions, Mr. Bucholtz, I
really want you to get me a rough estimate for the record so we
at least have a better understanding. You don't have to do it
right now, but I am saying within the next week or so I would
like you to come up with the best estimate you can as to how
needs to be raised because we need to know that in advance. If
you would do that for us, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Bucholtz. Of course, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hatch. Now, in my statement I mentioned the
discrepancies between the compensation received by energy
workers, downwinders and on-site participants. Can you explain
the differences and whether we should do something about the
differences?
Mr. Bucholtz. Well, the differences, Mr. Chairman, are as
you mentioned. The energy workers program, called EEOICA or the
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act,
provides $150,000 in a flat payment, plus medical expenses
incurred after the filing of a claim. The RECA statute provides
for varying amounts of payment, depending on the type of claim.
But it is hard to compare the two programs, in a sense,
because they were enacted at different times, in different
statutes, with different purposes, and they are administered by
different agencies. The energy program is administered by the
Department of Labor's Office of Workers' Compensation, and the
RECA program, of course, is administered by the Department of
Justice.
The energy employees program was based on a workers'
compensation model and is administered by the Workers'
Compensation Office of the Labor Department. My understanding
of how the $150,000 plus medical expenses payment amount was
decided for the energy program was that that was designed to
approximate the workers' compensation awards that those
claimants should have been able to recover.
My understanding is that there were difficulties that those
claimants encountered in obtaining workers' compensation awards
that they should have been entitled to, and that the program
was designed to enable them to get what they should have gotten
through workers' comp through this program.
RECA was designed to, as the statute said, provide partial
restitution to people who suffered radiation exposure because
of our Nation's Cold War efforts. Of course, people who
suffered radiation exposure and contracted the diseases that
are compensable under RECA--no amount of money can provide
anything like full compensation to RECA claimants. What
Congress attempted to do is to provide partial restitution, as
the Act says. At the time the Act and amendments were passed,
the compensation amounts were chosen with that purpose in mind.
An additional difference that is important to understand is
that the energy program is--it is more complicated and more
difficult for a claimant to obtain compensation under the
energy program because under the energy program most claimants
have to go through what is called dose reconstruction. They
have to prove how much radiation they were exposed to and then
they have to prove causation. They have to prove that that dose
that they have been able to reconstruct is scientifically at
least as likely as not to have caused their disease.
Under RECA, no one has to prove causation. People only have
to prove that they were present in a covered downwind area or
that they were a miner for the required length of time or the
like. So the RECA program is entirely no-fault. There is no
need to prove causation. It is in that sense easier for
claimants to file claims and to recover than it is in the
energy program.
Chairman Hatch. We know that last year's appropriations
bill contained $1 million for administrative functions for the
RECA office. Is that amount sufficient as we go into the future
here? If it isn't, what are the office's future needs with
regard to funding?
Of course, Ms. Spellberg, you could answer that, too, if
you would like, but either one of you, or both.
Mr. Bucholtz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity
to address the administrative funding situation. First of all,
let me say that we are very grateful for the additional $1
million in administrative funding for the current fiscal year
that you mentioned. We have been trying to put that to the best
use possible in large part into two projects designed to
accomplish capital improvements where the costs are incurred in
this year and the benefits will be enjoyed long into the
future.
We are essentially trying to accomplish two infrastructure
projects. One is called the Closings Project. The RECA statute
requires claimants to submit identification and other
documentation to establish their eligibility, and it requires
original documents or certified copies. Understandably,
claimants want to get their documentation back as soon as they
can because many of them submit original documents.
The Closings Project is designed to expedite the closing of
claims files upon payment and to get claimants' original
documents back to them just as soon as we can, and also just to
improve the efficiency of the office by closing files promptly.
The second capital improvement project that we are trying
to do with the extra $1 million for the current year is to
create a paperless filing system. Again, the idea is to incur
costs this year while we have the extra $1 million in
administrative funding in order to enjoy efficiencies into the
future.
We would expect that once we are able to implement a
paperless filing system, that will increase the efficiency in
claims processing. Among other things, it will enable us to get
claims approved sooner, get claimants their money sooner, and
get claimants their documents back sooner because once we scan
them into our paperless filing system, we won't need to retain
the original documents.
Chairman Hatch. I understand that RECA limits attorneys'
fees to 2 percent for any claims that are filed after July 10,
2000. Has this provision limited access to attorneys, in your
opinion, for people who have genuinely needed legal assistance?
Have there been any violations of the 2-percent provision, and
if so, have there been any fines levied?
Mr. Bucholtz. I don't believe, Mr. Chairman, that the 2-
percent change in the 2000 amendments has limited claimants'
access to attorneys. I think that the vast majority of
claimants don't really need attorneys. It is a no-fault
program, it is a nonadversarial program, and the RECA staff
works very hard to assist claimants, whether they have an
attorney or not, in obtaining documentation, often in
brainstorming on ways to obtain documentation to substitute for
documentation that may no longer be available.
Because of the nonadversarial nature of the program, we
think that most claimants don't need attorneys and we think
that it is appropriate for as much of the award as possible to
end up with the claimant rather than going to pay attorneys'
fees. So in our experience, we do not believe that the 2-
percent attorneys' fees limitation has caused a problem for
claimants.
Less than a third of claims are filed by claimants
represented by an attorney. Over two-thirds of claims are filed
by claimants on their own, and the approval percentages are
just about identical after the 2000 amendments for claimants
with an attorney and without an attorney. So we don't think
that the 2-percent limitation is unduly limiting access to
needed legal services.
In response to the second part of your question, Mr.
Chairman, I am not aware as I sit here now of an example where
we have imposed the fine provided for by the statute on an
attorney who has attempted to collect more than the 2 percent
amount.
Let me add one clarification, which is that after the 2000
amendments the 2-percent limitation applies to new claims, but
the old attorneys' fees limitation of 10 percent still applies
to resubmitted claims. So when a claim is denied and then the
claimant resubmits it--and those, we think, would tend to be
the more difficult or more complicated claims--those claimants
are able to pay 10 percent of the claim amount to attorneys on
resubmitted claims. So we think that that does allow some
claimants who need attorneys to be able to find attorney
services more easily.
Chairman Hatch. Well, you have been very helpful to us.
This has been very interesting to me because, of course, we
have taken a tremendous interest in this. It took a long time
to get this through and the science we developed through the
hearings that I held on the Labor and Human Resources Committee
has become the science that has been adopted worldwide. So we
feel like we have come a long way, but we also feel like there
are some things that need to be corrected and we would
appreciate any suggestions that either of you or others in your
Department or in RECA would care to give us. So any suggestions
you have, we would love to get them in the future. Just put
them in writing and get them to us, okay?
Mr. Bucholtz. Yes.
Chairman Hatch. Well, thank you for being here.
Mr. Bucholtz. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It was my
pleasure and my honor, and I would like to thank you personally
on behalf of the RECA program for the leadership that you have
shown on this program and on these issues over the years. I and
the entire staff very much look forward to continuing to work
with you and your staff to provide suggestions and help in
whatever way we can.
Chairman Hatch. Well, I appreciate that. For a newly
married man, you have not been nearly as discombobulated as I
would have been. We are very happy to have you here.
Mr. Bucholtz. I have had two weeks to recover.
Chairman Hatch. You had better not say that around your
wife.
Well, thank you both for being here. We appreciate having
you here.
Mr. Bucholtz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hatch. We look forward to working with you.
Ms. Spellberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bucholtz appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Hatch. I would like to take the opportunity now to
invite our second panel to the table. First, we will have Ms.
Rita Torres, of Surprise, Arizona. Ms. Torres is from
Monticello, Utah, and her father, Jose Torres, was a uranium
miner. After Ms. Torres' father's RECA claim was approved, he
was given an IOU and, sadly, he never saw his RECA
compensation. Ms. Torres will talk about the hardships this
caused her father and other members of her family.
Next, we will have Mr. Jeffrey Thompson, of Jacksonville,
Arkansas. Mr. Thompson currently has a claim pending with the
RECA office and he will testify about the difficulties he has
encountered with the RECA office in having his claim processed
in a timely manner.
Finally, we have Ms. Helen Houghton, of San Antonio, Texas.
She is a downwind claimant who has been paid the $50,000. She
will testify about how she feels short-changed in comparison to
the energy employees and on-site workers who receive
substantial more money than downwinders and how the $50,000
does not begin to adequately compensate victims like her.
I would like to add that all three of these panelists have
Utah roots, and so we are particularly happy to have you all
here.
Ms. Torres, we will take your testimony first.
STATEMENT OF RITA TORRES, SURPRISE, ARIZONA
Ms. Torres. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Committee members. My
name is Rita Torres. I am a resident of Surprise, Arizona. This
testimony comes from me, since it cannot come from the person
who bore the brunt of his excruciating experience, my father,
Joe Torres. If I could, I would like to read my father's own
words from a letter that he sent to the President of the United
States in March of 2001, just before he passed away on March
21, 2001 from the cancer that he suffered as a result of his
many years as a uranium miner.
Dear President Bush, I don't mean to complain, but on the
other hand I do kind of have a bone to pick with the Federal
Government. You see, the Federal Government made a promise to
lots of folks in our part of the country. There was a problem
and they were trying to fix it. They passed a bill called the
Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. This sounds great, as we
have some serious health problems down here where we call home.
With all the politicians gathered, you might have thought
that they would have figured this part out. They did not attach
any funding to the program. Can you believe that? I couldn't
either, Mr. President. You see, they gave everyone an IOU. I
wonder to myself how forgiving and patient the IRS would be if
we all sent them IOUs come April 15th. And I don't know the
experience you have with cancer, but it is not very patient. It
eats away at your body, metastasizes into other places that
cause pain and all kinds of problems. It doesn't seem to want
to wait while I write my Congressman to see if he can work out
the pesky little funding details in subcommittees.
We believe in simple things, including if a man says he is
going to help you, you can bet he will. You won't have to go
chase him down and remind him. He will be there early and he
will stay late until he knows his services are no longer
needed. So I feel a little sheepish reminding you, Mr.
President, that approving a program and then not funding it is
sort of like offering help and then leaving town. It just isn't
right. My time here on Earth is now very short. I am very tired
now and would like to know that maybe some of what I do now
might make it so other folks will not have to wait and be
forgotten like I was.
It is hard to fight cancer and fight the Government. I
received an approval from the Department of Justice stating I
would receive compensation under the RECA program, because I
spent many years mining uranium when our country needed it.
When I received my approval, it was a happy day. It brought me
great relief just to know that I would be receiving help and
knowing that the Government hadn't forgotten about me. I was
also relieved to know that my wife of 55 years, Vicenta Torres,
might have some assistance to live on until she could join me.
Once, I was a strong man, glad to work hard all day. But I
am not match for the pain; it has brought me to tears. It has
brought my wife to tears as she struggles to make me
comfortable. It has brought my children to tears to see their
parents suffer so. I have exhausted all my means and I have
been waiting for some relief from my Government since the
approval letter arrived 7 months ago. To near the end with no
relief from my Government has saddened me very much.
I have spent a great deal of time lately filling out forms.
I wonder if doing paperwork is the last thing that I will
remember before I die. I am trying to understand why I received
approval 7 months ago, but have not seen a penny yet. Everyday,
another resident of Monticello, Utah, is informed they have
cancer. Have you had a son or a daughter die from cancer at a
young age? It will make you hope for heaven because you are
living through hell.
I chuckle to myself to think I am writing to the President
of the United States. I have nothing for you. I have no access
to money. I have no influential friends, but I grow weary. I
cannot continue with this letter, but please look into this
matter. There are people here, Americans that are as real as
those that we send money to in foreign countries whenever a
disaster hits there. I know you are busy, but everyone does not
have the luxury of too many tomorrows to know that maybe they
made a difference.
Thank you, Mr. President. Joe Torres.
Eight months after my father's death, my younger brother,
Gary Torres, was diagnosed with stomach cancer. This has
affected three generations of the Torres family. Please do not
allow the program to go unfunded. Many are awaiting your
decisions. We must move forward. IOUs would continue the
injustice already done to these victims of radiation exposure.
Many have stepped forward to serve our Government, and now I
ask you to support your people by not continuing with IOUs and
funding the RECA program.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask that my father's letter
to President Bush and the award letter sent to him approving
his claim and informing him that the program was not funded be
included as part of my testimony.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Torres appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Hatch. Well, it certainly will be, and I
appreciate your testimony.
Now, we have a vote on the Senate floor. We could try to do
our testimony, but I don't think that would be fair to you for
me to try and do it in the next seven or eight minutes. So I
think what I will do is recess, go over and vote, and then come
right back so that I can then have some time to ask questions
of you.
Your testimony, Ms. Torres, was very touching to me. As
somebody who has really had to work very, very hard to get the
RECA program up and running and to get that legislation, I
remember how difficult it was to get it done even though almost
everybody admitted that it was the right thing to do. I first
started on this in 1980 and we didn't get the bill passed until
1990.
I had to establish the science that now is adopted all over
the world with regard to radiation exposure cases, and I can't
even begin to tell you the difficulty it was to get that bill
passed. But I really empathize with you and your family for
what you have been through and for your father and what he went
through, and your brother.
I think it would be better for me to go vote so that I give
you adequate time. So if you will just take it easy until I can
get back, I will try and hustle over and hustle back. It will
probably take about 15 minutes or so.
So with that, we will recess until I can get back.
[The Committee stood in recess from 11:37 a.m. to 12:17
p.m.]
Chairman Hatch. I apologize for taking so long, but I was
caught by a Washington Post reporter and it took longer to
answer his questions than I thought it would take. We walked
over and walked back, too, so I thought that might be enough
time, but it wasn't. I always have stopped and tried to answer
reporters' questions, if I can.
Let's turn to you, Mr. Thompson. I am sorry you had to
wait, and you also, Ms. Houghton.
We will turn to you.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY THOMPSON, JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, my name is Jeff Thompson. I am
a resident of Jacksonville, Arkansas, which is located 15 miles
northeast of Little Rock. My father was a downwind radiation
exposure victim. My father, Ward Thompson, was born in 1918 in
Beaver, Utah, and was employed as an engineer on the railroad
for over 45 years. He lived in Melford when the Radiation
Exposure Compensation Act first became law in 1990. My father
would not have been able to receive compensation because the
type of cancer he had was not one for which compensation could
be paid.
My brother Kenneth, my sister Sue Ann and I are grateful
for the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments which
became law in the summer of 2000. These amendments added colon
cancer, which is what my father eventually died from in October
of 2003.
In February of this year, my brother Kenneth, my sister Sue
Ann and I filed a claim for compensation under the Radiation
Exposure Compensation Act. Several weeks after filing the
claim, we received a short letter from the Radiation Exposure
Compensation Program which told us that they had received the
claim and that they would begin processing it. The letter also
explained that under the law, the Radiation Exposure
Compensation Program had 1 year to make the decision if our
claim met the requirements necessary to quality for
compensation.
Several months after receiving the first letter from the
Radiation Exposure Compensation Program, my sister received a
second letter which told her that she needed to provide a copy
of the marriage license which showed her marriage to Cliff
Pace, who had passed away in 1990. My sister Sue Ann told the
claims examiner that she had the marriage license showing her
marriage to Cliff Pace, and she asked the claims examiner if
she needed to send a copy of her marriage showing her marriage
to Mr. Evan Skeem in 1965, which had ended in 1981.
My sister was concerned that the marriage license would be
hard to get, since the marriage had occurred almost 40 years
before and had happened in another State. She expressed these
concerns to the claims examiner. The claims examiner responded
that my sister should send the marriage license that she had in
her possession, but the examiner gave no indication that my
sister would have to send the certificate of the first
marriage.
On approximately June 15, my sister received a letter from
a different claims examiner which indicated that the Radiation
Exposure Compensation Program needed a copy of the marriage
license from my sister's first marriage to Evan Skeem in 1965.
My sister is in the process of getting that marriage license
from Nevada. We are concerned about the delay that may arise in
processing our claim due to the six weeks that passed between
my sister receiving the letter that asked for the marriage
license for her second, more recent marriage and the letter
that asked for the copy of the marriage license from the first
marriage.
We also have another problem with another aspect of the
claims process. I am not the biological child of Ward Thompson.
I lived with him for several years before I was legally adopted
by him in 1974 at the age of 10. I lived with him the rest of
my childhood years before I reached the age of adulthood. I
always considered him my father and he always held me out as
his son. The adoption papers were sealed by the county in which
the adoption had been finalized.
After my brother, my sister and I had filed a claim for
compensation, I received a letter from the Radiation Exposure
Compensation Program which told me that I needed to obtain
copies of the adoption papers in order to prove my adoption by
Ward Thompson. To my brother, my sister and myself, this was
difficult. We retained an attorney in Beaver, Utah, who filed
the proper action and was able to have the adoption papers
unsealed so that we could provide them to the Radiation
Exposure Compensation Program.
We have not yet received approval of our claim, but hope to
have it approved soon. It would mean a great deal to us. The
financial compensation would be very helpful and having the
Government acknowledge that it had a hand in causing the cancer
that required him to suffer. It would also be a comfort to my
brother and my sister and myself.
We have heard of other claims that have not been paid
because people could not find 50-year-old copies of electric
bills, rent receipts, or other documents proving the details of
their claims. We would ask you to make the Radiation Exposure
Compensation Act as easy as you can for the people who file
these claims.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Hatch. Thank you. We appreciate your testimony.
Ms. Houghton, we will takes your now.
STATEMENT OF HELEN BANDLEY HOUGHTON, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
Ms. Houghton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Helen
Bandley Houghton and I am a downwinder. I grew up in south
central Utah, in the community of Richfield, in Seveir County.
I lived in Richfield from 1946 to 1970, leaving the valley to
attend college and obtain my teaching degree.
While growing up in the 1950's and 1960's, we lived a life
that would be described as rural. There was one, maybe two
fast-food establishments in the community and families did not
eat out on a nightly basis. As a child, I worked in the garden,
ate fresh vegetables, drank milk fresh from the cow, and spent
hours in the city swimming pools. We would sit on the porch and
watch the clouds from the testing site in Nevada as they
dissipated over our mountains and streams. Living on Highway
89, Big Rock Candy Mountain, Zion Canyon and Bryce Canyon were
the destinations for family rides on a Sunday afternoon. We did
not know of the damage that was being done to our bodies at
this time.
For 3 months each year in high school, I would spend
mornings in the city pool teaching the children how to swim.
Needless to say, the other girl who spent those summers with me
also had cancer. Hers was breast cancer. I had colon cancer.
This was identified when I was 35 years old, and my doctor did
nothing except remove the tumors because I was just too young
to have colon cancer and I did not fit the profile.
Needless to say, this disease returned 5 years and 17 days
later. I was lucky enough to have changed school districts and
obtain cancer insurance. My life as I knew it was now over. I
could not continue with my Ph.D. in education because I was
unable to sit in class. I could not mow the lawn, attend
aerobic classes, or remember a great deal of information.
Being in education, this was a problem. I had to leave the
job that I had because I could no longer be under the stress,
nor could I count on not having problems with my colostomy. It
can take up to 5 years to get one working properly. I moved
back to second grade and have gradually worked back into
curriculum and staff developed. I lost 18 years of my dream
because of this disease that I did nothing to deserve, except
be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I was now unable to change school districts because of the
health insurance issues. No one would cover me because of
preexisting conditions. I could not get insurance on my home
because I was considered a high risk. I could no longer care
for my two daughters without a great deal of help from my
family, who had to come to Texas to help. I was unable to go to
Utah to live and had to stay close to doctors, who for the next
10 years were my best friends.
I cannot comprehend that the Government that I cherish had
decided to put an unequal value on my medical problems. The
trucker, the miner, the ground worker at the blast site knew
what they were doing and the risks they were taking when they
went into this project. The citizens of southern Utah were told
there would be no risk.
My mother died a very painful death from cancer. Hers was
pancreatic cancer. I have had 18 years of waiting for the other
shoe to drop and to be told that my cancer has returned. I have
been unable to retire from teaching after 37 years because I
must have insurance and I cannot get Medicare or Medicaid until
I am 65 or 67 years old. It was not unusual for my medical
bills to be $400 a month, in addition to my co-pay. There are
times when I have had to argue with my insurance company for
the tests that the specialists need to do if they are more than
once a year. This has happened often.
My 54-year-old brother is now in a hospice home in Orem,
Utah, waiting to die. They have lost their home, their credit
and their future. His medical bills have been over $10,000 a
month because his insurance would not pay for the shots that he
needed to continue the chemotherapy. Richard has been off work
for 8 months. He has been bedridden for the past 6 months. They
have lost everything they had. His soon-to-be widow must now
find a job at the age of 54 that will provide insurance and a
living wage, and she has been out of the job market for several
years. He also had colon cancer.
Mr. Chairman, my medical bills and expenses are just as
great as those who drove the trucks of ore through our
community. My cancer is just as real as theirs. I cannot
understand why the Government would decide that some people
would get $150,000, plus lifetime medical benefits, and others
would not only lose two or three members in a family, but their
homes, and leave their families with medical bills that seem
insurmountable.
I am asking you to please equalize these benefits so our
legacies will not be ones of despair and poverty. Cancer is an
expensive illness. You never get better. You go into remission
for a period of time or you die. Once you have the disease, you
are simply waiting for the tests to come back positive. I would
like to know that my mother and my brother will not have died
in vain. The information that was gained from these tests is
critical to our world as we know it today. People need to be
treated fairly and equally when it comes to this illness. The
cost of this disease has tripled over the past few years for
us. Please provide the same money for the people of southern
Utah as you have for the workers.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Houghton appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Hatch. Well, thank you. I appreciate the testimony
of all three of you and have great empathy for what you are
saying here. Let me just ask a few questions.
Ms. Torres, I will start with you. In your testimony, you
talk about your father's RECA claim being approved and the fact
that he had to wait months for it to be paid. Did your father
ever receive any reports during that time from RECA, from the
office, regarding the status of his claim?
Ms. Torres. No, he did not. My father and mother worked
with an attorney because they didn't understand the paperwork
process. When I went home, because my father's illness was at a
point that they needed help, I got involved and tried to make
phone calls, do paperwork, to inquire as to the status of the
IOU. Nobody knew what else to do, and this was when I started
the paperwork process--writing to the President, Justice
Department, Appropriation Committee members, Senator Hatch and
Attorney General Ashcroft.
Chairman Hatch. So I guess your recommendation would be
this process has to be improved and we need to find a way of
helping people.
Ms. Torres. Very much so, because most of the people are in
a position that the illness has taken over emotionally and
financially, and somebody has to basically figure out what to
do. The attorneys couldn't help anymore, we really didn't know
what to do. We made phone calls and we got transferred around
to a lot of different people/departments, but we never really
received anything other than you were approved and received the
IOU and that was it. No follow up letter.
Chairman Hatch. Ms. Houghton, in your testimony you talk
about the death of your mother and how she suffered
tremendously from the cancer that she contracted. You also
mentioned your brother, who is in a hospice facility in Orem,
Utah. I am assuming that both of them could be classified as
downwinders.
How many of your total family have wound up being diagnosed
with--
Ms. Houghton. There are three of us, Mr. Chairman. I was a
downwinder, my brother was a downwinder, and my mother was a
downwinder.
Chairman Hatch. I see. Now, do you believe it is important
for downwinders to be compensated for their medical services?
You want to have the same benefits for medical services as the
miners have?
Ms. Houghton. I feel like it should be, especially after--
Richard had excellent medical insurance. He worked for Kentucky
Fried Chicken in Utah, and they are self-funded and they have
paid everything that the insurance company has wanted them to
pay. But it is the $10,000 that he has needed each month for
the past 8 months for the vomiting and nausea shots that were
$3,000 apiece.
Chairman Hatch. Mr. Thompson, let me ask you this. What
will a downwinder's award mean to you personally?
Mr. Thompson. I didn't even know about the downwind until
my brother explained what it was to me. I mean, I was pretty
young then, you know, when it all happened. My dad--they
diagnosed him with colon cancer. He had stomach cancer and
prostate cancer, too. That is in the medical report where he
passed away. You know, just let the Government know that they
had a hand in causing a lot of people--one of my sisters passed
away from brain cancer and she was a downwinder. Her children
got compensated for it, too.
I have got a sister that is older than the one that passed
away and I have got a brother that is younger than the sister
that passed away. They haven't been diagnosed yet, but they
were in that area when it happened, so it is very possible that
they are downwinders, too.
Chairman Hatch. Ms. Torres and Ms. Houghton, what other
problems did you have in the process of filing and having your
claims processed? Do you feel like the staff of RECA responded
to your inquiries in a timely manner? Did they answer the phone
calls and written letters?
Ms. Houghton. We have gone through the process three times.
When we began with my mother, it was very difficult because her
cancer was pancreatic cancer and the evaluator, the adjustor
kept saying that she must be a coffee drinker; it was because
of her health or her way of life. And it took statements from
members of the church and doctors to explain that this little
old woman of 83 didn't drink 75 cups of coffee a day and didn't
smoke. When we finally got through with that, we have learned
some of the ways to get through.
My colon cancer was put in in 2000, when they changed the
list, and it sat for about 12 months because the gentlemen that
was supposed to be in charge was on active duty. He had been
called up and apparently nobody took anything off of his desk.
And they did not communicate with us, but once we got it going,
they couldn't have been nicer. They answered our phone calls,
they answered our questions. They were constantly on top of us,
but they couldn't do anything.
And then when Richard's went through, he got his in
probably six to eight weeks. We couldn't believe it. It had
come so fast. So we had been through the whole gamut, and I
never got an IOU. They just said, you know--they didn't send me
the notice. They just said, you know, just wait. But my problem
was the young man was on active duty. He had been called up and
his desk must have been a sacred shrine or something.
Chairman Hatch. They didn't get right after it.
Ms. Torres?
Ms. Torres. I think what happened for us was that we would
send letters and make phone calls and there was no response. It
took a long time before we got any information, and most of the
letters came from your office, Senator Hatch, responding to the
letters. Otherwise, the Justice Department did not respond nor
did the Appropriations Committee Members or the President's
office.
Chairman Hatch. Well, we know that you had some difficulty
with requests for documents, and so forth, and we are going to
try and do what we can to get the office to do a better job.
Ms. Torres. We also tried through the VA, and that just
started another process of paperwork.
Chairman Hatch. As I understand it, the awards that your
families have received--have they even come close in covering
the medical expenses, Ms. Houghton?
Ms. Houghton. No. My hospital stay alone just for my
initial surgery--and I have had eight operations since then
because of everything that needed to be done. My first bill was
$135,000 because I had to stay in the hospital for 18 days when
the surgery was done the first time in Texas.
The reason I was so aware of the 5 years and 17 days is
because the cancer insurance company did not want to cover me
when I moved to the new district in Texas. But because I had
been 5 years, they would cover me, and it was right after that
that found that it had come back. I am a single parent. It was
just absolutely astronomical. It still is. I still have side
effects. Because of all the time and the length of the surgery,
I had a lot of problems with the anesthesia.
And I would screw up my checking account and the bank would
call. It finally got to the point where--it was a neighborhood
bank in San Antonio and they would call to see if I was sick
again, because I was having trouble with subtraction and that
seems to be one of the areas that I don't do well anymore. Our
whole quality of life--I miss my daughters' lives. You know,
you have got to come home from the hospital because somebody is
going to the prom, and just everything. They really didn't do a
whole lot because mom couldn't do it. I would go to school and
come home and be really happy that I hadn't had to come home
from school because of problems with my colostomy, which did
happen. You know, it is pretty embarrassing when you are
dealing with that kind of stuff.
Chairman Hatch. I feel real badly about what you have gone
through.
Ms. Torres, do you have any comments about that?
Ms. Torres. Yes. A lot of the burden is financial, and with
the cancer there is a lot of pain involved. There were
thousands of dollars that went out especially in the last
several months to try to make Dad comfortable, and that is
probably one of the areas that most of the compensation would
go towards. Obviously, my father didn't have that to start
with, and he had a larger support system. There were nine of us
and we all helped with the medication, the bills, and other
expenses. I quit my job and came home to stay with my parents,
so I was unemployed for over a year. I exhausted my funds.
The family did what they could to help me out and to help
my parents. The financial burden isn't just the illness, it
does take an entire family's support and involvement. We looked
to the Government for some that support and there wasn't any.
Chairman Hatch. Well, we appreciate your testimony. It has
been very important here today, and we will see what we can do
about some of these things. I want to thank all of you for
testifying and bringing your experiences to bear here.
I think it is vital for both the Committee members and the
Department of Justice to realize how important it is to
guarantee the financial solvency of the RECA trust fund so that
all individuals exposed to radiation will be compensated in a
timely manner rather than go through what some of you have gone
through.
I never want any RECA claimants to receive IOUs once their
claims have been approved. That is ridiculous as far as I am
concerned. There just cannot be a repeat of what happened a few
years ago when claims were approved and instead of money,
claimants were given IOUs. Those people had to wait for weeks,
sometimes months, for their compensation, and that just isn't
right. So I will do everything in my power to provide
additional funding for the RECA trust fund.
In addition, I am going to continue my quest to provide
equity and benefits for downwinders, energy workers and on-site
participants. There is no reason why downwinders should not
have their medical benefits covered. That is easy to say, but
getting the monies to pay for that is going to be a very
difficult thing. I think there is no reason why downwinders are
only compensated $50,000. Of course, that is a lot more than
before, but it is still not adequate, and I know that.
I do know that the RECA office is making improvements
everyday and doing the best they can on processing claims,
public outreach and education. I have seen greater efforts in
the recent number of months and I sincerely appreciate
everyone's efforts. However, after listening to you folks on
this second panel, I believe that it would be wise for the RECA
staff to consider the suggestions of you panelists and how you
believe claims processes should be handled and claims should be
paid.
Finally, let me just say that the record will be kept open
for additional statements and questions of anybody on the
Committee for one week. I want to thank the three of you, in
particular, and all the witnesses who have testified here today
because I know that it takes time from busy schedules to come
and do this. But you are doing a service for a lot of people
out there who need to be treated better, and let's hope that we
can help bring that about. I just want to thank each of you for
being here and thank you for taking the time to be with us and
help others to benefit from what your experiences have been. I
know they haven't been good experiences, so let's see what we
can do to help change that.
With that, we will recess until further notice.
[Whereupon, at 12:43 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Questions and answers and submissions for the record
follow.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5152.063
<all>