"These stories hit you up front," says the senator's western
New York regional director. The staffer says the senator was so
outraged she charged the Buffalo office with documenting as
many cases as possible. It now has a stack of about 200.
Early on, Clinton tried pressuring agency heads to fix problems.
In May 2003, for example, she pushed for a provision calling for
NIOSH and the Labor Department to file a report with Congress,
explaining the delays in processing claims at Bethlehem, as well
as other New York facilities. The measure passed; the report has
yet to be drafted.
Then came the letters. In December 2003, she wrote to President
Bush, calling on him to implement long-ignored legal requirements
that would help Bethlehem claimants. "The longer the
Administration delays," she wrote, the "more workers will die
without having their claim resolved." Twelve months later, she
issued a statement demanding NIOSH review its methods. The
NIOSH audit, she said, "clearly indicates that claims that have
been denied need to be re-evaluated. . .
These days, Clinton has come to believe that the program is
broken, her staff says, and that legislation is the only way to
fix it. She's set to introduce a bill that would make it easier for
Bethlehem claimants to get paid. The measure would set
minimum standards for records needed to evaluate claims.
Under the bill, employees who did nuclear-weapons work at
plants without such records—as is the case at Bethlehem—would
join a "special exposure cohort . . ."
Because the measure mandates spending, Clinton's staff says,
it won't be attractive during a time of huge deficits and tax cuts. . .
For now, all the Bethlehem families can do is wait. Many, like
Dorothy Jaworski of West Seneca, see the senator's bill as the
only source of hope, the only way they'll be able to collect what
they deserve. Jaworski got a December 2003 letter from the Labor
Department announcing she qualified for the $150,000 because
her late husband "had sustained leukemia and pancreatic cancer
in the performance of his duty," only to have the offer rescinded,
an apparent "mistake," five months later. . .” (EXHIBIT 32)
Who, exactly, has confidence in and supports employee Larry Elliott’s and his “WE” cohort’s inappropriate and baseless opinions? USHHS Secretary Mike Leavitt should compile and release a public disclosure that lists any of