[House Report 104-546]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                     104-546
_______________________________________________________________________


 
                            LLOYD B. GAMBLE

                                _______


May 1, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered 
                             to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


Mr. Smith of Texas, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 1009]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 1009) for the relief of Lloyd B. Gamble, having 
considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment 
and recommend that the bill do pass.

                                Purpose

    H.R. 1009 would authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to 
pay Lloyd B. Gamble $253,488 for damages suffered after being 
given LSD while he served in the United States Air Force.

                               Background

    Lloyd Gamble enlisted in the Army in 1944 and subsequently 
transferred to the Air Force in 1950. In late 1957, he 
volunteered to participate in a program he thought tested the 
effectiveness of protective clothing and equipment as defenses 
against chemical warfare. He was then transferred to the Army's 
Chemical Warfare Laboratories at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds 
in Maryland.
    During the program, Mr. Gamble was secretly administered 
doses of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) under an Army plan to 
study the effects of the drug on human subjects. Gamble claims 
he suffered severe personality disorders as a result of the 
tests: periodic blackouts, unexplainable periods of deep 
depression and/or acute anxiety, suicidal urges, and violent 
behavior. He attempted suicide in 1960. The Air Force canceled 
Gamble's ``top secret'' clearance after the attempted suicide, 
thus limiting Gamble's opportunity for promotion. He took an 
early retirement from the Air Force in 1968. He did not find 
out that he had participated in LSD experiments until 
Congressional investigations that took place in 1975. The 
Justice Department ruled a 1981 claim by Mr. Gamble to be 
barred by the statute of limitations. The Veterans 
Administration found no evidence of permanent disability and 
thus no basis for compensation.
    Mr. Gamble claims that he was denied promotions, lost 
friends, and lost his marriage as a result of the changes LSD 
made in his personality. His claim is for physical, emotional, 
mental, and financial injuries as a result of the Army's 
administering LSD without his knowledge.
    Mr. Gamble's claim is based upon an estimate of his 
economic losses which include damages for active duty pay 
losses and past and future retired pay losses. The economic 
damages are based on the assumption that, but for the LSD 
tests, Mr. Gamble would have been promoted three times in the 
years after the tests (from E-5 to E-6 in 1957, from E-6 to E-7 
in 1960, and from E-7 to E-8 in 1963).
    His claim also includes non-economic damages for mental 
anguish, such as unexplainable periods of deep depression, 
severe personality disorders with periodic blackouts, suicidal 
urges, and violent behavior. The non-economic damages also 
include loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life, and 
alienation from family and friends.

                            Committee Action

    H.R. 3344, an identical bill, was passed by the House of 
Representatives in the 103rd Congress; and H.R. 3590, also 
identical, was passed by the House in the 102nd.
    A similar bill, H.R. 808--For the relief of James Stanley, 
passed and became law in the 103rd Congress. However, there was 
insufficient time left in the session for H.R. 3344 to be 
considered by the Senate.
    In the 104th Congress, on December 13, 1995, the 
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims favorably recommended 
the bill H.R. 1009, to the Judiciary Committee.
    On March 12, 1996, the Committee on the Judiciary favorably 
ordered reported by voice vote H.R. 1009, a quorum being 
present.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports 
that the findings and recommendations of the Committee, based 
on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

         Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings

    No findings or recommendations of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight were received as referred to in 
clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of House rule XI is inapplicable because 
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or 
increased tax expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets 
forth, with respect to the bill, H.R. 1009, the following 
estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                    Washington, DC, April 15, 1996.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
reviewed H.R. 1009, a bill for relief of Lloyd B. Gamble, as 
ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary on 
March 12, 1996. The bill would require the Secretary of the 
Treasury to make a payment of $253,488. We expect this outlay 
would occur in fiscal year 1996. Because the bill would 
increase direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures apply.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact in John R. 
Righter.
            Sincerely,
                                           June E. O'Neill,
                                                          Director.

                              Agency Views

    The comments of the Department of Justice and the 
Department of Defense are as follows:

                        U.S. Department of Justice,
                             Office of Legislative Affairs,
                                  Washington, DC, October 13, 1995.
Hon. Lamar Smith,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, Committee on the 
        Judiciary, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for giving us the opportunity 
to comment on H.R. 1009, a bill for the relief of Lloyd B. 
Gamble. For the reasons contained herein, the Department of 
Justice recommends against enactment of this legislation.
    Mr. Gamble's private relief bill is premised on his 
assertion that he was exposed to LSD while he was in military 
service. It appears that he was one of 740 service members who 
were given LSD under medical supervision as part of an Army 
research program conducted in 1957. It does not appear that Mr. 
Gamble has ever applied to the VA for benefits to compensate 
him for residual disabilities attributable to his participation 
in such research. Compensation is available if such 
disabilities were incurred or aggravated during military 
service. Also, we have not been provided any independent 
verification that the problems Mr. Gamble attributes to the 
research were caused by the research.
    As you are aware, the Federal Tort Claims Act is a limited 
waiver of sovereign immunity. It was passed by Congress largely 
because the legislative process is ill-suited to resolve 
individual personal injury claims. Through the Federal Tort 
Claims Act, Congress gave the courts the responsibility to 
apply the law uniformly to all claimants and assure that each 
claim is decided on its factual and legal merits. In granting 
this limited waiver, Congress provided very specific terms and 
conditions applicable to the government's consent to suit, and 
the courts have uniformly held that the Federal Tort Claims 
Act's limited waiver of sovereign immunity should be strictly 
construed. If enacted, H.R. 1009 would effectively bypass the 
Supreme Court decision in Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 
(1950), which holds that the United States has not waived 
sovereign immunity from suits by members of the military 
allegedly injured incident to their military service. The Feres 
Doctrine has recently been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 
United States v. Johnson, 481 U.S. 681 (1987), and in United 
States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669 (1987).
    The proposed bill for the relief of Lloyd B. Gamble would 
establish an unwarranted precedent of preferential treatment 
for favored litigants. Singling Mr. Gamble out for special 
treatment would undermine the well-established principle of 
American jurisprudence that requires the uniform application of 
the law to all persons. If he believes his service records do 
not accurately reflect the administration of LSD to him or his 
resulting disability, and if that were to present a problem in 
terms of his qualifying for service-connected disability 
payments from VA, he may petition the Army Board for Correction 
of Military Records. However, the case has not been made which 
would justify a private bill or relief for Mr. Gamble.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Department of Justice 
recommends against enactment of H.R. 1009.
    The Office of Management and Budget has advised this 
Department that there is no objection to the submission of this 
report from the standpoint of the Administration's program.
            Sincerely,
                                               Andrew Fois,
                                        Assistant Attorney General.
                                ------                                

              General Counsel of the Department of Defense,
                                                    Washington, DC.
Hon. Barney Frank,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Governmental 
        Relations, Committee on the Judiciary, House of 
        Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: This responds to your request for 
comments on possible private relief legislation for Mr. Lloyd 
B. Gamble to compensate him for economic losses allegedly 
incurred as a result of his participation in the Army's LSD 
experimentation program in the late 1950's.
    A private relief bill was introduced on Mr. Gamble's behalf 
in the 95th Congress, H.R. 6369. The Chairman of the Committee 
on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, requested the views 
of the Department of the Army with regard to the bill. The 
Department of the Army opposed the bill.
    Mr. Gamble's personnel and medical records indicate that he 
participated in the experimentation program in December 1957 
when he was a staff sergeant in the Air Force. His records also 
include a ``volunteer's participation agreement,'' identical to 
the agreement signed by Mr. James B. Stanley. Mr. Gamble's 
medical records indicate he received LSD on two occasions; 
however, he recalls having participated in only one experiment. 
Before this experiment, Mr. Gamble was asked to form a drill 
team and conduct standard drill routines. They were told they 
would receive a chemical compound, the effects of which would 
be similar to those experienced from being intoxicated by 
alcoholic beverages. After receiving the LSD, the team was 
unable to drill. Mr. Gamble has indicated that he was also 
asked to enter and remain in a darkened room. He entered the 
room, became apprehensive and asked to leave, which he was 
permitted to do. He also experienced unusual dreams the night 
after the experiment.
    During a follow-up study in November 1975, Mr. Gamble 
indicated that several months after the experiment he noticed a 
personality change in himself. He said he began to withdraw 
from others and experienced multiple episodes of depression. In 
June 1959, Mr. Gamble was assigned to Tripoli, Libya. Because 
of the inability to obtain adequate housing, his wife remained 
in the United States. During this period, Mr. Gamble 
experienced marital difficulties. During his overseas tour, Mr. 
Gamble returned to the United States to attempt a 
reconciliation. Mr. Gamble has stated that, when the attempted 
reconciliation failed, he contemplated suicide. He was admitted 
for inpatient psychiatric care at Andrews Air Force Base. 
Although the symptoms of depression abated within twenty-four 
hours of his admission, Mr. Gamble requested to stay in the 
hospital until he could resolve his marital problems. After 
eventually reconciling with his wife, Mr. Gamble returned to 
Libya.
    Mr. Gamble has stated that he believes his military career 
suffered because of his hospitalization. After he left Libya, 
Mr. Gamble was assigned to Chanute Air Force Base as a desk 
sergeant. He believes he was placed in that position because of 
his hospitalization and that it was not a career enhancing 
position. Mr. Gamble's medical records, however, reflect a 
medical profile, dated March 26, 1964, that indicates he had no 
psychiatric disease and was psychiatrically cleared for missile 
duties and a top secret clearance. Also, he retained the same 
service classification and duty title after his 
hospitalization.
    Upon retirement in 1968, Mr. Gamble became a police officer 
for the Capitol Police Service.
    As with the private bill for Mr. James B. Stanley, we 
believe there is an insufficient factual basis for private 
relief legislation for Mr. Gamble. The underlying assumption 
for the economic analysis presented on behalf of Mr. Gamble is 
most speculative.
    The economic analysis is based on the assumption that but 
for his participation in the experimentation program, Mr. 
Gamble would have been quickly promoted to the grade of E-8 and 
retired in that grade. We are unable to provide the statistical 
possibility of the promotions on which the economic analysis is 
based, as we were able to do for Mr. Stanley. It appears that 
Air Force enlisted promotions were not centrally managed as 
early as the Army and, thus, specific promotion statistics for 
the Air Force are not available. As a general rule, an airman 
had to serve two years in grade to be eligible for promotion to 
a higher grade. There are many factors, however, that would 
have affected the actual time in grade for promotions, such as 
the person's speciality and vacancies for promotion.
    As with Mr. Stanley's claim, we believe that Mr. Gamble 
should seek a review of his case before his service's Board for 
the Correction of Military Records. As noted in our report on 
Mr. Stanley's private relief bill, the Boards have broad 
statutory authority to correct any military record ``to correct 
an error or remove an injustice.'' If the Air Force Board 
determined there was a casual relationship between Mr. Gamble's 
participation in the experimentation program and his promotion 
record, they could correct his records to reflect appropriate 
promotions and, thus, allow for compensation for any resulting 
difference in pay. Because of the speculative nature of the 
facts involved, we believe a review by the Air Force Board for 
the Correction of Military Records is necessary to evaluate Mr. 
Gamble's claim.
            Sincerely,
                                                Terrence O'Donnell.