But lets get to the heart of the matter. We also know that the orginial University of Cincinnati proposal to the Pentagon, the contract between U.C. and the Pentagon and the first five reports about the project from U.C. to the Pentagon all describe the purpose of the project in terms of the Pentagon's needs particularly its need for a biological test of radiation exposure and not in terms of therapy for patients. Each of the first five reports (covering the period from February 1960 to April 1967) labeled the project as "Metabolic Changes in Humans Following Total Body Irradiation". "Theraputic Efforts" do not even become a part of the title of the reports to the Pentagon until 1968 when the title becomes "Radiation Effects in Man: Manifestations and Theraputic Efforts." Note also that this project was conducted while the contract with the Pentagon and the Pentagon's money continued. Whole body radiation under this project neither preceeded nor outlived the Pentagon contract. The two primary issues that I believe we need to resolve, Mr. Chairman, are (1) Did the patients knowledgeably consent to the experiments? And, (2) Was this type of treatment appropriate for the types of illnesses suffered by the patients. By this I mean, absent the $8,000 $10,000 per patient in Department of Defense funding, would whole body radiation have been an appropriate medical therapy? If we find that the answer to either of these questions is "no" then I believe we have no choice but to conclude that the radiation experiments were SIMPLY WRONG and that the government owes a huge apology to the victims, their families and the nation as a whole! Again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hard work you and your staff have put into preparing for this hearing. I believe that the testimony we hear today will enable us to craft a fair and just compensation bill in the weeks and months ahead. Thank you. Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Portman. Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you for coming to Cincinnati to hold this important hearing and also for including me as a panelist. As you noted, I am not a member of the subcommittee; however, I do have a long commitment to this issue. I have been heavily involved in the issue for the past several months, and also the issues impact the people who live in my district. In particular, some of the patients involved lived in what is now the Second District of Ohio. Many of the family members, including at least one who will be testifying here today, currently live in the district I represent. This matter has a long but unfortunately incomplete history of public scrutiny. There remain unanswered questions that relate not only to the critical aspect of how people and their families were treated, but also the role of the Federal Government in conducting such experiments on human beings. Although there are many issues that will be addressed by the various parties involved, in my mind, there are two cardinal issues that we, as Federal officials, can and must address. The first is the appropriateness of the Federal Government compensating the victims and their families. If it is determined that the patients involved were not clearly informed in accordance with the standards for informed consent in force at the respective times of the experiments, or that these experiments became vehicles primarily for testing, not treatment, then compensation, in my view, would be appropriate. This is so especially in light of the many potential legal barriers to recovery, including the statute of limitations under the Federal Tort Claims Act, sovereign immunity, and possible immunity of Government contractors. Chairman Bryant's subcommittee has jurisdiction over the compensation issue, and I understand that there is some precedent for compensation when the facts so merit it. Because I am not on the subcommittee or committee, I will not have the opportunity to vote upon this issue at the committee level. I believe that the second issue from the Federal Government's standpoint is one of disclosure disclosure by the Department of Defense and the Cincinnati General Hospital and all others involved-of all relevant information concerning these cases. In addition to reviewing the merit of compensating potential victims, I believe the Government and the Government contractors have an obligation to be fully forthcoming, to admit mistakes if mistakes have been made, and to ensure that safeguards are put in place with respect to any experiments that may be conducted today or in the future. The issues of full disclosure and safeguards may not be directly related to this forum. However, I have particular interest in these issues, and the Government Operations Committee upon which I serve has been exploring the possibility of having additional hearings on those two issues. Finally, I am here to listen and to continue to learn as much as I can about what happened two and three decades ago. This is not a court of law; we are not here to press charges. We are also not here to politicize what is a sensitive and emotional topic. I view our role as factfinders who want to ensure that the Federal Government acts responsibly and fairly with respect to the patients and their families, to the investigators and to the DOD officials involved in the study. I commend all of the witnesses for being here today. I commend you for agreeing to testify and very much look forward to your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Mr. Portman follows:] 1 STATEMENT OF HONORABLE ROB PORTMAN SUBCOMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS APRIL 11, 1994 Mr. Chairman, first, let me thank you for coming to Cincinnati to hold this important hearing and for including me as a panelist. Although I am not a member of the Subcommittee, the issues addressed here impact many people who live in the District I represent. In particular, some of the patients involved lived in what is now the Second District and many of the family members - including some we will be hearing from today constituents. are my This matter has a long, but unfortunately incomplete, history of public scrutiny. There remain unanswered questions that relate to not only the critical aspect of how people and their families were treated, but also the role of the federal government in supporting such experiments on human beings. Although there are many issues that will be addressed by the various parties involved, in my mind, there are two cardinal issues that we as federal officials can and must address. 2 The first is the appropriateness of the federal government compensating the victims and their families. If it is determined that the patients involved were not clearly informed in accordance with the standards for informed consent in force at the respective times of the experiments, or that these experiments became vehicles primarily for testing not treatment, then compensation, in my view, would be appropriate. This is so especially in light of the many potential legal barriers to recovery, including the statute of limitations under the Federal Tort Claims Act, sovereign immunity, and possible immunity of government contractors. Chairman Bryant's subcommittee has jurisdiction over the compensation issue, and I understand that there is some precedent for compensation when the facts so merit it. Because I am not on the subcommittee or committee, I will not have the opportunity to vote upon this issue at the Committee level. However, I would have the chance to consider any proposal for compensation on the Floor of the House of Representatives. - I believe the second issue from the federal government's standpoint is one of disclosure disclosure by the Department of Defense and the Cincinnati General Hospital and all others involved - of all relevant information concerning these cases. In addition to reviewing the merit of compensating potential victims, I believe the government and the government contractors |