U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

25–152 PDF 2006

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

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

BRUCE ARTIM, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

(III)

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

(1)

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 

2

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. Onsite 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 NaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:38 Jan 04, 2006 Jkt 025152 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\25152.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
3

tional 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 

4

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 

5

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 

6

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. 

7

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 

8

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 beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:38 Jan 04, 2006 Jkt 025152 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\25152.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
9

cause 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 

10

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 

11

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. 

12

[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. 

13

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 

14

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 

15

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. 

16

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 

17

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. 

18

[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 

19

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. 

20

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. 

21

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.]

22


25152.001
23


25152.002
24


25152.003
25


25152.004
26


25152.005
27


25152.006
28


25152.007
29


25152.008
30


25152.009
31


25152.010
32


25152.011
33


25152.012
34


25152.013
35


25152.014
36


25152.015
37


25152.016
38


25152.017
39


25152.018
40


25152.019
41


25152.020
42


25152.021
43


25152.022
44


25152.023
45


25152.024
46


25152.025
47


25152.026
48


25152.027
49


25152.028
50


25152.029
51


25152.030
52


25152.031
53


25152.032
54


25152.033
55


25152.034
56


25152.035
57


25152.036
58


25152.037
59


25152.038
60


25152.039
61


25152.040
62


25152.041
63


25152.042
64


25152.043
65


25152.044
66


25152.045
67


25152.046
68


25152.047
69


25152.048
70


25152.049
71


25152.050
72


25152.051
73


25152.052
74


25152.053
75


25152.054
76


25152.055
77


25152.056
78


25152.057
79


25152.058
80


25152.059
81


25152.060
82


25152.061
83


25152.062
84

Æ


25152.063