---------------
QUESTION: By October 12, 2005, why do the majority of the members of Congress laud the 15,972 approved claims — with only 10,832 existing workers’ claims approved — as an “acceptable USDOL performance?” The findings of fact reveals that only about 3 percent of the 600,000 workers that have been identified by the USDOE have been recognized by their government as “courageous American patriots.”
NOTE THE INCREDIBLE DIFFERENCES: According to the USDOL’s Program Statistics:
(1) received 47,602 claims by October 23, 2003, as compared to 45,804 claims reported March 9 and 10, 2005, nearly 1 ½ years later;
(2) given final approval to 10,249 applicants by October 23, 2003, compared to only 10,832 paid claimants October 12, 2005, 2 years later;
(3) denied 13,765 applications by October 23, 2003, compared to 26,237 nearly “doubled” denied claims by October 12, 2005; and
(4) paid out more than $674 million by October 23, 2003; by comparison to the GAO’s contrary $65 million by September 2004; by comparison to the nearly “doubled” expenditure of $1,246,967,879 by October 12, 2005,
2 years later.
---------------
QUESTION: Since the EEPOCPA was overwhelmingly approved by Congress on October 30, 2000 (five years ago), was it ever the intent of Congress to waive accurate accountability regarding the USDOL employees Program Statistics? According to their own accountability, the USDOL employees fail to observe the descrepencies from one release to the other.
Obviously, the USDOL’s poor performance and statistics have not been thoroughly investigated or audited by the Congressional oversight entities — the Government Accountability Office (GAO) or the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board (DNFSB). An ombudsperson has been appointed after the approval of Subtitle E in October 2004. “The USDOL oversight shall report irregular findings to the members of Congress.”
---------------
QUESTION: Has the ombudsperson reported any of these irregularities to the members of Congress since October 2004?
---------------
