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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

41–582 PDF 2008

PAYING WITH THEIR LIVES: THE STATUS OF

COMPENSATION FOR 9/11 HEALTH EFFECTS

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, 

AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION,

CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 1, 2008

Serial No. 110–82

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES,

BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairwoman

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas

UR MENDOZA JADDOU, Chief Counsel 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Minority Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chairman 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

ROBERT C. (BOBBY) SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

DAVID LACHMANN, Chief of Staff 

PAUL B. TAYLOR, Minority Counsel 

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

APRIL 1, 2008

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, 

Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ........................................... 2

The Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Iowa, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, 

Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ........................................... 3

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil 

Rights, and Civil Liberties .................................................................................. 8

The Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil 

Rights, and Civil Liberties .................................................................................. 10

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, and Member, 

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties ............. 11

WITNESSES 

Mr. Kenneth R. Feinberg, former Special Master, Victim Compensation Fund 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 13

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 15

Mr. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, City of New York 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 19

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 20

Ms. Ann-Marie Lasowski, Acting Director, Education, Workforce, and Income 

Security Issues, Government Accountability Office 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 23

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 25

Mr. Michael A. Valentin, former NYPD Detective 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 38

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 39

Mr. Theodore H. Frank, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute, Director AEI Legal Center for the Public Interest 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 42

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 44

Mr. James Melius, Administrator, New York State Laborer’s Health and 

Safety Trust Fund 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 58

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 61

APPENDIX 

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record .......................................................... 101

(1)

PAYING WITH THEIR LIVES: THE STATUS OF 

COMPENSATION FOR 9/11 HEALTH EFFECTS 

TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 2008

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,

CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES

BORDER SECURITY, AND

INTERNATIONAL LAW

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION,

CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in 

Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Zoe 

Lofgren (Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law) and the 

Honorable Jerrold Nadler (Chairman of the Subcommittee on the 

Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Conyers, Nadler, Lofgren, Scott, Watt, 

Jackson Lee, Waters, Cohen, Weiner, Davis, Wasserman Schultz, 

Ellison, Franks, Goodlatte, Issa, Pence, King, Gohmert, and Jordan. 

Also present: Representative Maloney. 

Staff present: Blake Chisam, Majority Counsel; Lou Debaca, Majority Counsel; David Lachmann, Subcommittee Chief of Staff; Andres Jimenez, Majority Professional Staff Member; Caroline Mays, 

Majority Professional Staff Member; Paul Taylor, Minority Counsel; and Jennifer Burba, Minority Staff. 

Mr. NADLER. I call to order this joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, 

and International Law and the Subcommittee on the Constitution, 

Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. 

Welcome, everyone. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess, 

just in case there are any votes on the floor. 

Let me note that Congresswoman Lofgren, who is the Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, 

Border Security, and International Law, will be co-chairing this 

hearing with me, as I am the Chairman of the Subcommittee on 

the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. This is a joint 

hearing in which we will both be chairing, both to serve as coChairs. 

2

I will now recognize the co-Chair of this hearing, Ms. Lofgren, for 

an opening statement. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, although it is not in the title, the very long title, of our Subcommittee, the Immigration Subcommittee also has jurisdiction 

over claims made against the Federal Government, which is one of 

the reasons why I am pleased to be co-chairing this hearing with 

you. 

I will ask unanimous consent to put my full statement into the 

record, but I would just summarize by saying that when we created 

the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund, we created a very successful 

program, very ably administered as far as it went. It was a bipartisan effort, and it provided the means to compensate in a very 

short period of time the survivors of the 2,880 people killed in the 

attacks and the 2,680 people injured in the attacks or in the rescue 

efforts immediately following. 

The Special Master Fienberg, one of our witnesses today, noted 

in his final report that 97 percent of the families of deceased victims who might otherwise have pursued lawsuits for years received 

compensation through the fund. So this was a stunning success, 

and we thank the administrator for his, really, very able effort. 

Unfortunately, however, the specter of tort litigation is with us. 

Over 10,000 lawsuits have been filed in the City of New York by 

first responders, building and trades workers, volunteers—who rallied to the World Trade Center to help, who were not compensated 

by the victims’ fund. They didn’t know they were sick in time to 

file, and they are suffering tremendously. 

I think there is broad agreement that these individuals are sick 

and will continue to get sick because of their exposure to the World 

Trade Center’s noxious dust. And from the city’s testimony today, 

it seems clear the city agrees. 

So the question at the hearing, the beginning, is our quest to answer the question: What do we do? 

I want to thank Chairman Nadler for his leadership on these 

issues. The Bill 3543, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2007, authored by Chairman Nadler along with 

Representative Maloney and Representative Fossella, represents a 

good first attempt at addressing these issues. 

I believe this hearing is going to help us to begin to answer the 

question: What do we do? And I believe we will leave here today 

with a better sense of the problems that people are facing. 

From there I am hopeful that we can begin to structure a fair 

and just program to compensate those who continue to bear the 

deep scars from that terrible day in September almost 7 years ago. 

And I thank Chairman Nadler for yielding to me and yield back. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

And before I recognize the next opening statement, let me simply 

note the presence here of a non-member of the Committee, Representative Maloney of New York, who has been instrumental in 

this whole area and who along with Congressman Fossella and myself is the co-author of the legislation, the Zadroga Act, which includes reopening the VCF, the Victims Compensation Fund, which 

is the subject of this hearing. 

3

And let me thank her for all the wonderful work she has done 

and note her presence here. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Iowa, who is the Ranking 

Minority Member on the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law, for an 

opening statement. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you holding 

this hearing. 

Almost 7 years ago, terrorists carried out mass murder of innocent Americans on our own soil. The attacks were carried out by 

radical Islamists who hate America and the freedoms we represent. 

They ripped away our security and devastated thousands of families. 

My heartfelt sympathies go out to those who suffered in the 

wake of the 9/11 attacks. All of America identified with New York, 

with Washington, D.C., and the Pentagon and Pennsylvania as 

never before. An attack on any one is an attack on us all. 

One of the groups that suffered in the aftermath is the Ground 

Zero workers who worked heroically day and night for months in 

rescue, recovery and cleanup efforts at the World Trade Center 

site. For the most part, these workers went in without contracts, 

insurance policies or knowledge that there were toxins in the air. 

Today, many of these of these workers are having health problems 

as a result of their work at Ground Zero. 

In addition to the Ground Zero workers, people who lived and 

worked in the proximity of Ground Zero have also now developed 

respiratory problems that appear to be related to toxins in the air. 

Understandably, the Ground Zero workers have looked to the construction companies that hired them for compensation for their 

health problems. These companies along with the City of New York 

are now being sued by some 10,000 plaintiffs who allege they were 

injured from the contaminants in the debris. These victims are 

being forced to sue because they do not qualify for relief under the 

9/11 Victims Compensation Fund. 

The companies and the city are being forced to vigorously defend 

against these lawsuits because they were unable to obtain insurance to cover injuries arising out of the Ground Zero cleanup efforts. 

We are here today to examine what we in Congress can do to 

help compensate those that are now experiencing respiratory ailments due to the air quality in or around Ground Zero. 

We are also here to ensure that whatever is done to compensate 

the victims does not financially cripple the construction companies—that is some of the largest in the world and best in New York 

City. They stepped up as corporate and good Samaritans and 

cleaned up the terrorist disaster at a moment’s notice at Mayor 

Giuliani’s plea without having protected themselves by obtaining 

contracts or insurance. 

Because they had the right equipment and construction experts, 

these companies were asked to mobilize within hours of the Towers 

falling, and they did so as volunteers. The companies cleared the 

debris for emergency personnel. They dug for survivors in the huge 

pile of rubble. They worked for 9 months until the site was clear. 

They did it 24/7, and they did so without a profit motive. 

4

These companies and those executives who made the decisions to 

help on 9/11 are heroes, too. Just as the firefighters, the emergency 

responders and the workers who toiled for weeks and weeks at the 

World Trade Center site, these corporate heroes should not be forgotten by our government when they face the liability nightmare 

that they now do. 

If we in Congress do not address their liability exposure, we cannot expect to call on these and other companies in the future if 

tragedy strikes. In order to address the compensation owed to those 

facing health problems from the toxins in the air around Ground 

Zero and the liability exposure of the companies that came to the 

aid of our Nation after the Towers fell, the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund has been suggested as a blueprint. That suggestion 

makes a lot of sense. 

However, if we are to follow the 9/11 Fund as a blueprint, we 

must make sure that we follow it studiously. We must make sure 

that we provide adequate compensation to the victims without 

handing the keys of the U.S. Treasury to the trial lawyers. And we 

must make sure that we provide liability protections to New York 

City and the companies that came to the rescue of the victims. 

The bipartisan legislation establishing the original 9/11 Fund 

had these types of protections. The liability of airlines was capped 

at the levels of their insurance coverage. The liability of other third 

parties such as New York City and the Port Authority of New York 

and New Jersey were also capped. Moreover, the legislation required 9/11 Fund claimants to waive their right to file a civil action 

or be the party to an action in any Federal court or State court 

that damages sustained as a result of the Federal-related aircraft 

crashes of September 11, 2001. 

With these liability protections in place, the 9/11 Fund was successful in providing compensation to the victims or their families. 

In fact, 97 percent of the victims or their families chose to file 

under the 9/11 Fund instead of seeking redress in the courts. 

The 9/11 Fund model is one we should consider for victims that 

are able to come forward with proof that they were in general proximity of Ground Zero during the cleanup period and are able to 

medically document that they have an illness as a result of exposure to the air around the site. We should provide these victims 

with a better path than the inefficient and expensive litigation they 

are currently pursuing. 

But if we pursue this path, we must do so in a manner that limits the liability of construction companies that were instrumental 

in the efforts at Ground Zero and places a reasonable cap on recovery through litigation outside the fund. Thus, while we owe it to 

the victims to provide a reasonable means to seek compensation, 

we must make sure that any expansion of the 9/11 Fund is proportionate to the original terms of the legislation creating the fund. 

So I would ask the unanimous consent to enter into the record 

a statement by the five major contractors that is submitted on behalf of these five major contractors that participated in New York. 

Unanimous consent requested, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. NADLER. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:]

5


C-1.eps
6


C-2.eps
7


C-3.eps
8

Mr. KING. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I would conclude my statement. Thank you for holding this 

hearing. 

I thank the witnesses in advance, and I look forward to your testimony. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

I will now recognize myself for an opening statement. 

This joint hearing of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil 

Rights, and Civil Liberties and the Subcommittee on Immigration 

etcetera, will investigate the status of compensation for the tens of 

thousands of people who are suffering because of the collapse of the 

World Trade Center on 9/11. 

I want to thank the distinguished Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Immigration for her agreeing to hold this joint hearing with the Subcommittee on the Constitution. It is both timely 

and important. 

Other hearings have focused on the ongoing health crisis, and 

this Committee has previously investigated the disastrous response 

to the environmental catastrophe. 

This is the first hearing in the Congress that will examine the 

issue of providing compensation to the many first responders, construction workers, volunteers and other affected individuals. They 

are the true heroes of September 11, and they need our help, not 

more salutes. 

I want to welcome our witnesses and thank them for participating. We are fortunate to have an expert panel with us today to 

discuss the past successes, current challenges and proposed solutions to the ongoing struggle to provide proper compensation to the 

victims of 9/11. 

I would also like to recognize those individuals who have traveled to Washington today to attend this hearing and thank them 

for coming. Many are the very people who have been denied proper 

compensation thus far. And I hope that we can learn today about 

why the system has failed so many. 

Last June, Senator Clinton and I held companion hearings on 

the actions of the EPA and other Federal agencies that allowed 

workers to work in a toxic environment without proper protection 

and gave them false assurances as to their safety. 

Obviously, none of the injuries we are talking about would have 

occurred were it not for the terrorists, who are ultimately to blame. 

But many or most would have been avoided if the Federal Government had acted in a responsible manner. The Federal Government, 

therefore, has a moral and legal obligation to compensate the victims of 9/11 and to provide for their healthcare. 

Many hearings have examined the health issues, and we have 

heard from many who are too sick to work, and we must assume 

that many more will become sick in the future. Which brings us to 

today’s hearing. 

We have with us the former special master of the Federal Victim 

Compensation Program, who was responsible for providing approximately $7 billion in compensation to the families of those who lost 

their lives and to those injured in the immediate aftermath of the 

attacks. He paid claims to about 2,900 families of the deceased and 

9

to 2,500 people with physical injuries, including respiratory illnesses. The funds he distributed were tax free, and every award 

took into account the recoveries from collateral sources such as private insurance, pensions and workers’ compensation. Claims payments were halted because of a statutory expiration date. 

We will also hear from Mike Valentin, a police officer and 9/11 

first responder who can no longer work and who long ago exhausted his prescription drug coverage and is now fighting to keep 

his family financially afloat. Unfortunately, his case is all too typical. 

New York City Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo will discuss 

the World Trade Center Captive Insurance Company, which established with a $1 billion congressional appropriation has spent millions of dollars in administrative and legal costs to contest rather 

than to pay claims filed by first responders and other individuals 

whom Congress intended to assist. 

Only a handful of claims have been paid, and none of those have 

been related to the respiratory problems that so many suffer. I look 

forward to hearing from him how many claims have been paid out, 

what he sees as the challenges to compensating 9/11 victims. 

I assume he may discuss last week’s Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision denying New York City and its contractors immunity 

from World Trade Center-related lawsuits. Close to 10,000 victims 

have filed suit claiming that they ‘‘suffered respiratory injuries due 

to the failure of the city and the Port Authority to monitor those 

conditions and to provide them with adequate safety equipment 

and/or warn them of the hazards.’’

Finally, I look forward to the testimony of Dr. Jim Melius, who 

is an expert on the proposed legislative solutions to reopen the Victims Compensation Program and to provide for the long-term 

health needs of those affected by the attacks of 9/11. 

I would like to note that my colleagues Congresswoman Carolyn 

Maloney and Congressman Vito Fossella and I have introduced the 

9/11 Health and Compensation Act, which would provide comprehensive medical treatment to any person whose health was affected and would reopen the Victim Compensation Fund so that 

people can be compensated for their economic losses. 

The pain and suffering of the living victims of 9/11 is real and 

cannot be ignored. I think it is clear that we as a Nation must do 

more than we have. 

During the final months of the Civil War, President Lincoln in 

his Second Inaugural Address noted that the Nation had to go beyond mourning the dead and needed to look toward what could be 

done to help the Nation recover and reconstruct. Nearly 7 years 

after 9/11, we are in the same position. We must, as Lincoln remarked, ‘‘bind up the Nation’s wounds and care for him who shall 

have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan.’’

I hope that as we continue to bring the truth to light through 

these hearings we can do a better job of repaying a debt that can 

never fully be repaid to the victims and heroes of 9/11. 

I yield back. And I now recognize the gentleman from Arizona, 

the Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, for an opening statement. 

10

1The reports submitted by Mr. Franks are not reprinted in this hearing but can be accessed 

at the following links:

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2004/RANDlMG264.pdf

http://www.oig.dol.gov/public/feca/reports/

GAO%20PERSPECTIVES%20ON%20FOUR%20PROGRAMS%202005.pdf

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you Mr. Chairman. 

First, let me just say, like so many others here today, that my 

heart does go out to everyone who toiled and suffered in the tragedy of 9/11. Those attacks were met with the very noblest of responses. I still remember the reports of firemen running up the 

stairs to try to help people from the burning Towers. 

Today I hope we all rededicate ourselves to doing what is right 

and just for all Americans harmed by the terrible act of terrorism 

on 9/11. 

Among those heeding the call to respond to the 9/11 attacks were 

private contracting firms that were asked by the City of New York 

to immediately begin cleanup efforts after 9/11. They did so even 

though they and the City of New York were unable to secure liability insurance that they normally would have before starting a recovery project. 

Other major entities affected by the 9/11 attacks including the 

airlines, the World Trade Center and port authorities were protected by bipartisan Federal legislation from excessive and unwarranted liability exposure following the attacks. The cleanup firms, 

however, whose liability issues did not arise until many months 

after the attacks were not so protected. 

In the administrative compensation program created to help the 

immediate victims of 9/11, called the September 11th Compensation Fund, does not cover those exposed to subsequent site contaminants. That fund, administered by Mr. Kenneth Feinberg here, was 

administered within set parameters. 

As the non-partisan RAND Institute for Civil Justice pointed out 

in its 2004 report, ‘‘pre-commitments by government programs reduced the ability of government and society more generally to allocate resources to meet those pressing needs after an attack.’’

And the Government Accountability Office in 2005 also cautioned 

that ‘‘because these compensation programs may expand significantly beyond the initial cost estimates, policymakers must be careful in considering the cost and precedent-setting implications of establishing any new Federal compensation programs, particularly in 

light of the current Federal deficit.’’

And I would like to submit both of those reports,1 Mr. Chairman, 

for insertion into the hearing record today.

Mr. NADLER. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. FRANKS. Private contracting firms should not be driven out 

of business by these lawsuits or deterred from responding to future 

crises for fear of unlimited and potentially bankrupting liability. 

The model Congress created on bipartisan basis after 9/11 worked 

well as it was intended to do. Under that model, if a person chose 

not to obtain relief through the compensation fund but decided, 

rather, to sue the court, the liability the airlines, the World Trade 

Center and the airports, who were also victims of the 9/11 attacks, 

would be limited to the extent of their insurance coverage at the 

time of the attacks. 

11

The Aviation Security Act conference report put reasonable limits 

on the otherwise potentially infinite liability innocent Americans 

would have faced as a result of litigation surrounding the attacks. 

Consequently, the vast majority of victims opted to seek compensation through the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, and 

Americans were spared decades of costly and wasteful litigation regarding damages that the terrorists themselves would be responsible for. 

As the non-partisan RAND Corporation concluded, it is difficult 

to imagine that the Victims Compensation Fund did not resolve 

claims much faster and more efficiently than the tort system would 

have given the size of the losses, the parties primarily responsible 

for the attacks, and the complicated liability issues surrounding the 

events of 9/11. 

As we move forward today, I want to make sure that whatever 

compensation fund might be created to cover new claims treats current victims in the same responsible manner as those who were injured in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. 

That is something that justice demands, Mr. Chairman, and I 

will do all that I can to see that the victims of 9/11, whoever they 

are, receive a fair and just result. And I look forward to hearing 

from all of our witnesses today. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

And I will now recognize the distinguished Chairman of the full 

Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, for an opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Nadler and Co-Chairwoman 

Zoe Lofgren, the two distinguished Ranking Members of the Subcommittees that are holding a joint hearing, Steve King and Trent 

Franks. 

Please note how democratically this Committee operates. We finally get down to the Chairman of the Committee after a half a 

dozen people have already articulated their opening statements. 

I am going to just make a couple comments that will let all of 

these distinguished witnesses know, all six of you, we are proud 

that you are here. We think this is an important element of understanding how we react to attacks of terror in our country. 

Now, in the wake of the World Trade Center attacks, then-Governor Pataki and then-Mayor Giuliani, let us face it, took a do-ityourself attitude toward the victims of this unprecedented disaster. 

Instead of respirators and professional cleanup, first responders, 

construction workers, volunteers, were sent into this disaster without protection. And the public got instructions, believe it or not, to 

just wipe their apartments and offices down with a wet rag. And 

now cancer and lung disease are ravaging these survivors. 

Now, the current mayor has worked hard to fix this mess and 

has taken—but the city is really in an adversarial stance. And I 

leave it to all of our New York people here—Mrs. Maloney, Mr. 

Weiner, Jerry Nadler and others here. But they have taken an adversarial stance against the victims of the environmental tragedy. 

Now, in my opening statement, let me give you the bottom line 

here. We need to sit down and start settlement negotiations that 

will get these victims the help they deserve. And the way we do 

it is get beyond—you know how many people have received relief 

12

under this World Trade Center Captive Insurance Company? Five. 

Five victims—8,600 claims pending. And we have got something 

like a billion dollars to account for what is going on. What has really turned out to be the case is that the lawyers are suing the victims against allowing them to get recovery. That is where the 

money is going. 

So this unique hearing with two Subcommittees—and we have 

got another Ranking Member of Crime, Bobby Scott, here. We have 

got the former Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, Mel 

Watt, here. We need to, after we hear from the witnesses, let us 

do something here. And we have got all the players here, and this 

is the right time to do it. 

And I will put the rest of my statement in the record, Mr. Chairman. And thank you both. 

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman. 

We have a distinguished panel of witnesses today. Ken Feinberg 

served as the special master of the Federal September 11th Victim 

Compensation Fund of 2001. He is currently the managing partner 

and founder of the Feinberg Group, LLP, and has had a distinguished teaching career at the Georgetown University Law Center, 

University of Pennsylvania Law School, NYU School of Law, University of Virginia Law School and Columbia. Why did you ever 

leave Columbia and NYU? He has been listed by the National Journal as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America, and was 

named lawyer of the year by the National Law Journal in 2004. 

Mr. Feinberg received his J.D. from New York University School of 

Law. 

Michael Cardozo has served as the corporation counsel and chief 

legal officer of New York City since January 2002. He serves as 

legal counsel for the mayor of New York, elected officials, the city 

and its agencies, and also heads the Election Modernization Task 

Force. Prior to becoming corporation counsel, Mr. Cardozo was a 

partner at Proskauer Rose where he served as co-chair of the firm’s 

150-person litigation department. He is a graduate of Columbia 

Law School and served as a law clerk to the late Judge Edward 

McLean in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. 

Ann-Marie Lasowski joined the U.S. Government Accountability 

Office in 1988. She currently serves as acting director in GAO’s 

Education Workforce and Income Security Issues Team where she 

leads work and worker protection issues. In recent years, she led 

a body of work on defense trade issues covering topics such as the 

U.S. export control system, foreign military sales and militarily 

critical technologies. Ms. Lasowski began her career as an analyst 

in GAO’s Philadelphia field office, performing evaluations and orders on topics including transportation safety, housing programs, 

environmental contracts, and defense contract management and financing issues. 

Detective Michael Valentin was a detective with the New York 

City Police Department and is now retired on medical disability as 

a result of his exposure to toxic dust and particulate matter while 

working at the World Trade Center site for 3 months. 

Ted Frank is the resident fellow and director of the American 

Enterprise Institute Legal Center for the Public Interest where he 

13

manages the institute’s research and studies liability reform. His 

research areas include product liability, class actions and civil procedure, corporate regulation, antitrust and patent litigation, lifestyle litigation, medical malpractice, and judicial selection—a rather wide field. Previously, Mr. Frank was a litigator in private practice. His litigation experience includes defending the 2003 California gubernatorial recall election against an ACLU constitutional 

challenge; Vioxx and automobile products liability cases; class action defense; and antitrust and patent cases. 

Dr. James Melius is an occupational physician and epidemiologist. For the past 10 years, he has worked with the Laborers International Union of North America and currently is administrator of 

the New York State Laborer’s Health and Safety Trust Fund and 

director of research for the Laborers Health and Safety Fund of 

North America. He currently Chairs the steering committee for the 

World Trade Center Medical Monitoring and Steering Committee 

which oversees this program for World Trade Center responders. 

He received his M.D. from the University of Illinois in 1974 and 

his Dr.P.H. in Epidemiology from the University of Illinois School 

of Public Health in 1984. 

Before we begin, I want to formally acknowledge all of the people 

who have come down from New York in buses who are now here. 

They have come down to show their support for all those who are 

still suffering after 9/11. 

I want to acknowledge those in the overflow room as well. Thank 

you for your service. We welcome you all. 

Without objection, the written statements of the witnesses will 

be made part of the record in their entirety. We would ask each 

of the witnesses to summarize his or her testimony in 5 minutes 

or less. To help you keep time, there is a timing light at your table. 

When 1 minute remains, the light will switch from green to yellow 

and then to red when the 5 minutes are up. 

Before we begin, it is customary for the Committee to swear in 

its witnesses. If you could please stand and raise your right hand 

to take the oath. 

Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best of your 

knowledge, information and belief? 

Thank you. 

Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

We will now recognize our witnesses in order. First, I recognize 

for 5 minutes for statement, Mr. Feinberg. 

TESTIMONY OF KENNETH R. FEINBERG, FORMER SPECIAL 

MASTER, VICTIM COMPENSATION FUND 

Mr. FEINBERG. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

This is the first time since the 9/11 Fund expired almost 5 years 

ago that I have had a chance to come here and personally thank 

this Committee, the House of Representatives, the Congress, the 

Administration, for their absolute, unstinting support for the 9/11 

Fund. It was truly bipartisan. I had the complete support of the 

Administration, Attorney General Ashcroft, and the Congress, 

14

Members from both parties. And it would have never worked without that bipartisan support, and I am very grateful. 

I also particularly thank the Chairman of the full Committee, 

Chairman Conyers, who I first worked with in 1975 when I was a 

Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee staff. And it is good to 

see him. 

The statistics concerning the 9/11 Fund speak for themselves if statistics are any indication of success. Over $7 billion in taxpayer 

funds was paid to 5,560 eligible claimants. Families of 2,880 victims received almost $6 billion in compensation. In addition, 2,680 

physical injury victims were paid over $1 billion by the 9/11 Fund. 

As the Chairman pointed out, and others, some 97 percent of all 

eligible families who lost a loved one on September 11 voluntarily 

agreed to enter the 9/11 Fund rather than litigate. 

The real irony here that brings me here today to testify is that 

there are almost 11,000 current litigants who, had they manifested 

an injury, a physical injury, before the fund expired by statute on 

December 22, 2003, they would have been paid. The only reason 

they weren’t paid under the 9/11 Fund is that they didn’t manifest 

any injury from their exposure at the World Trade Center site until 

after the fund was dissolved. 

So we are asked here today to consider: What do we do? Not only 

about the 11,000 individuals who have already brought suit, but it 

is estimated that there may be over the next 5, 10 years an additional 25,000 or 30,000 people who now have latent in-residence illness that may manifest a physical injury in the next decade. And 

again, the only reason they weren’t paid by the fund is they weren’t 

‘‘sick’’ at the time the fund expired by statute. 

Now, in my testimony I have proposed for your consideration two 

alternate ways to move forward in this matter. 

Option one is to simply reenact the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund. But there are two major challenges if you decide 

to reenact that fund. 

First, if it is reenacted, I would recommend that it be reenacted 

with a one-line extension. There are some well-intentioned amendments to that fund that have been circulating. I have been asked 

to comment upon them. I suggest for your consideration it would 

be a mistake in reenacting the fund to change the rules and regulations of that fund. 

If you want to reopen the fund to cover 11,000 people or more, 

that is an option. But I suggest that amendments designed to 

change the way the fund worked would be a mistake and would 

probably be the political death knell of any attempt to simply reauthorize the fund to deal with these current claims. 

The second challenge with reauthorizing the fund is a philosophic dilemma which I raised in my testimony: Why reauthorize 

the 9/11 Fund? There was no 9/11 Fund for Oklahoma City. There 

was no 9/11 Fund for the victims of Katrina. There was no 9/11 

Fund for the African Embassy bombings. There was not even a 9/

11 Fund for the first World Trade Center attack in 1993. Those 

people aren’t eligible under the fund. 

So if you reopen the fund—and there is a strong, basic fairness 

argument for reopening the fund to deal with people who are legitimately ill but who weren’t around legitimately ill at the time that 

15

the fund expired—understand that there are real philosophic questions as to the wisdom of the Congress again singling out for special public compensation certain victims of life’s misfortune while 

failing to do so for others. 

I leave that philosophic conundrum to the Committee. But I just 

want everybody to understand that that is a problem that I heard 

repeatedly in administering this fund. ‘‘Mr. Feinberg, my son died 

in Oklahoma City. Where is my check?’’ ‘‘My son died in the basement of the World Trade Center in 1993. Why aren’t I eligible?’’ 

That is a serious dilemma. 

I also say, finally, in my testimony that if this Congress decides 

not to extend the 9/11 Fund, I urge all parties currently involved, 

directly and indirectly, in the litigation currently pending in Manhattan to come together and settle and resolve all of the litigation. 

There is a captive insurer with substantial resources, there are 

other defendant companies with extended insurance that might or 

might not be available to add to that captive amount. But it is certainly an option that I lay out in my testimony is vastly preferable 

than continuing this ongoing litigation with all of its uncertainty, 

with all of the roll of the dice that goes with litigation, the time 

and money it will take, without anybody knowing in advance what 

the result will be. 

So if the 9/11 Fund is not to be extended, I urge this Committee 

to do what it can to encourage the private parties to sit down and 

resolve that litigation. It should not be that difficult. 

Finally, I want to just thank not only this Committee for inviting 

me to testify. Michael Cardozo is here from the City of New York. 

The City of New York, when I administered the 9/11 Fund, the 

City of New York and the Department of Defense discussed with 

me practically every day—Michael Cardozo was on the phone with 

me at least three, four times a week—how can we best administer 

the program to help eligible claimants? 

So I just want to publicly thank the city and the mayor, and the 

Defense Department and the secretary, for all they did as well in 

helping make this 9/11 Fund work. 

And, finally, I just point out, Mr. Chairman, Deputy Special Master Camille Biros is here today, who worked so closely with me and 

others in helping to administer the 9/11 Fund, and I thank her for 

her service as well. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Feinberg follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KENNETH R. FEINBERG

Mr. Chairman, 

My name is Kenneth R. Feinberg, and I served as the Special Master of the Federal September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001. Appointed by the Attorney 

General of the United States, I was responsible for the design, implementation and 

administration of the 9/11 Fund. I served in that capacity for 33 months, until the 

Fund expired by statute on December 22, 2003. 

If statistics are any barometer of success, the 9/11 Fund served its purposes in 

providing an efficient and effective administrative no-fault alternative to tort litigation against alleged domestic tortfeasors. Over $7 billion in public taxpayer funds 

was paid to 5,560 eligible claimants. Families of 2,880 victims received 

$5,996,261,002.08 in compensation; in addition, 2,680 physical injury victims were 

paid $1,053,154,534.56 by the 9/11 Fund. Some 97% of all eligible families who lost 

a loved one on September 11 voluntarily agreed to enter the 9/11 Fund rather than 

litigate. The average award for a death claim was $1,267,880.49; the average award 

16

for a physical injury claim was $392,968.11. And all of this was accomplished with 

9/11 Fund administrative and overhead costs of less than 3%. I point with pride to 

the fact that this was one of the most efficient, streamlined and cost effective government programs in American history. 

It was also totally bipartisan. During the thirty-three months that I served as 

Special Master, I had the complete cooperation of the Department of Justice, Office 

of Management and Budget, the Administration, and the Congress. I also received 

unqualified support from various state and local governments, including, particularly, the City of New York and the Department of Defense. All government entities 

worked at my side to make sure that the 9/11 Fund was a success and that prompt 

payments were made to all eligible claimants. 

I also worked closely with Federal Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who continues to preside over all the federal 9/11 related cases in Manhattan. Judge Hellerstein worked 

tirelessly with me in coordinating the litigation and the 9/11 Fund claims in an effort to maximize the number of individuals who elected to enter the Fund rather 

than litigate. I am in his debt for his extraordinary work, then and now, in coming 

to the aid of families and victims in distress. 

When the Program expired, in December of 2003, only 94 lawsuits were filed by 

families of deceased victims who decided to litigate rather than enter the 9/11 Fund. 

It is my understanding that almost all of these wrongful death lawsuits have since 

been settled and that there are currently only a handful of cases still being litigated 

in federal court in Manhattan. 

The same cannot be said for the 9/11 physical injury victims, particularly the responders working after September 11 during rescue and clean-up operations at the 

World Trade Center. As already indicated, the 9/11 Fund paid over $1 billion to 

2,680 eligible physical injury claimants. The vast majority of these physical injury 

victims were responders suffering various respiratory ailments at the World Trade 

Center site in the days, weeks and months following the September 11 attacks. Almost all of these responders were compensated by the Fund for respiratory ailments 

rather than traumatic physical injuries. The 9/11 Fund eligibility criteria recognized 

that these respiratory ailments were often latent, that physical manifestations of injury often did not occur until months or years after first exposure to hazardous substances at the World Trade Center. That is why the 9/11 Fund modified its eligibility criteria to permit the valid filing of claims years after the terrorists attacks, 

when these physical manifestations first appeared and became apparent. 

However, as already indicated, the 9/11 Fund expired by statute on December 22, 

2003, before thousands of responders, and possibly other individuals exposed to the 

toxic air at the World Trade Center site, manifested any physical injury. This large 

group of individuals could not be paid from the 9/11 Fund since there was no longer 

any Fund to process and pay their claims. Accordingly, they have exercised the alternative option of litigating before Judge Hellerstein. It is estimated that 11,000 

responders will file suit by the end of this year, and that as many as an additional 

29,000 individuals may yet manifest physical injuries in the next few years. It is 

anticipated that these affected individuals might file suit as well. 

I take no position on the merit of these lawsuits, which involve complex issues 

of liability, legal immunity of governmental entities, medical causation, and valuation of individual damage claims. But I do believe that these lawsuits should be 

resolved, that protracted and uncertain litigation is in nobody’s interest. That is why 

the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund was established by Congress in the first place, 

a recognition that a prompt and efficient alternative to tort litigation constituted a 

better way. 

It is ironic that these very individuals who have filed lawsuits seeking compensation are the same type of individuals who received payments from the 9/11 Fund; 

had these thousands of individuals manifested a physical injury before the 9/11 

Fund expired, they, too, would have received compensation without litigating. It is 

perfectly understandable, therefore, why they seek to be treated the same way and 

in the same manner as their brethren. It is my understanding that their decision 

to litigate is directly related to the fact that there is no longer a 9/11 Fund to process their physical injury claims. 

What should be done to resolve this problem, and the costly and uncertain litigation, and provide prompt compensation to eligible claimants physically injured in 

the aftermath of the September 11 attacks? I offer two proposals for your consideration, both of them controversial and challenging and neither easy to achieve. But 

I believe that either of my proposals are preferable to the existing uncertainty and 

expense associated with the ongoing litigation. 

17

I. RENEW AND EXTEND THE FEDERAL SEPTEMBER 11TH VICTIM COMPENSATION FUND

One option would be simply to reenact the law establishing the Federal September 11th Victim Compensation Fund for an additional period of years in order 

to provide the same public compensation to eligible physical injury claimants. This 

could be justified on grounds of basic fairness; Congress would simply declare that 

the same eligibility criteria and compensation should be made available to those 

currently suffering respiratory injuries who were not paid by the earlier 9/11 Fund 

solely because they did not manifest a physical injury until after the earlier Fund 

had expired. Congress could simply reopen the 9/11 Fund to encompass all such 

claims during a ‘‘window’’ of five years during which time all September 11 related 

respiratory physical injuries could be evaluated and processed. (medical evidence 

would need to be considered by Congress in deciding how long this ‘‘window’’ would 

be open, permitting the filing of such physical injury claims). 

But one should not underestimate the philosophical, political, and practical problems associated with reenactment and extension of the 9/11 Fund. 

First, any attempt to reenact and extend the 9/11 Fund should be initiated with 

the understanding that there would be no changes in the rules and regulations governing the original Fund, that the new law would simply be a ‘‘one line’’ reaffirmation of the law which established the original 9/11 Fund. This will not be easy. Various interested parties, while championing the reenactment of the 9/11 Fund, have 

called for statutory modifications and additions, e.g., indemnity protection for contractors at the World Trade Center site; compensation for claimants suffering mental trauma without accompanying physical injury; elimination of the collateral offsets rule which was an integral part of the original Fund; and subsequent Fund 

payments for eligible claimants who received compensation from the earlier Fund, 

but whose physical condition has subsequently worsened resulting in a demand for 

additional compensation. These and other well intentioned requests have all been 

asserted in connection with any attempt to reenact and extend the original 9/11 

Fund. But I suggest that any attempt to modify the statutory provisions and accompanying regulations of the original Fund will lead to the type of controversy and 

disagreement that will undercut political consensus and prevent reenactment of the 

Fund. 

Second, even a ‘‘one line’’ extension of the original 9/11 Fund poses fundamental 

philosophical and political questions of fairness. Why should Congress be reenacting 

the 9/11 Fund, providing millions in additional public compensation to the physical 

injury victims of the September 11 attacks, while no such Fund exists at all for the 

victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, the victims of the African Embassy bombing, 

the victims of the first World Trade Center attack in 1993 or, for that matter, the 

victims of the unprecedented disaster associated with Hurricane Katrina? Why 

should Congress, which has already enacted legislation authorizing over $7 billion 

in public compensation to the families of those who died on September 11, or who 

were physically injured as a result of the attacks, now authorize additional millions 

or even billions in compensation for the remaining September 11 victims, while failing to do anything similar to the other victims of life’s misfortunes? It is a fundamental question posed to our elected officials in a free democratic society. Why some 

victims but not others? On what basis should such distinctions be made? Are some 

victims more ‘‘worthy’’ than others? 

I have maintained that the original 9/11 Fund was the correct response by the 

American people to the unprecedented terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. It 

was sound public policy, reflecting national solidarity towards the victims and expressing a national sense of compassion not only to the victims, but to the rest of 

the world. The September 11 statute was an expression of the best in the American 

character. It could be justified, not from the perspective of the victims, but, rather, 

from the perspective of the Nation. But whether or not it should be reenacted instead of being considered a unique singular response to an unprecedented national 

tragedy is a fundamental question better left to the consideration of Congress. 

II. SETTLEMENT OF THE CURRENT AND FUTURE PHYSICAL INJURY LITIGATION

Even if Congress decides not to extend and reenact the 9/11 Fund, this does not 

mean that the current litigation should continue. Fortunately, there is a path open 

for the comprehensive resolution of the litigation, while protecting all defendants 

against the likelihood of similar future litigation. 

As I understand it, Congress created a September 11 related captive insurance 

company for the City of New York and its contractors in an amount approximating 

$1 billion. This money is readily available at the present time to resolve the physical 

injury claims currently pending in federal court against the City of New York, the 

contractors, and other defendant entities. Two problems have been raised, however, 

18

about the availability of these funds and the challenges posed in securing a comprehensive settlement of the litigation. First, is the obvious question as to whether or not the $1 billion is sufficient to resolve all of the pending claims? After all, it is noted, the 9/11 Fund paid over $1 

billion in resolving just 2,680 physical injury claims; how can $1 billion be sufficient 

to resolve some 11,000 current similar claims? A fair question. But there are answers. Nobody knows how many of the 11,000 pending claims are eligible for compensation, what the eligibility criteria might be, or what the compensation levels 

should be for valid physical injuries. In addition, how many of the existing plaintiffs 

are already receiving health related reimbursement? What role will collateral offsets 

play in any settlement negotiation? Most importantly, it is not clear to me that the 

$1 billion is the sole source of compensation in the event that a comprehensive settlement is sought. What about financial contributions over and above the $1 billion 

from other defendants and their insurers? If settlement negotiations do commence, 

to what extent is it possible and likely that all defendants, not just the City of New 

York and the captive insurer, will contribute settlement proceeds in an effort to secure ‘‘total peace’’ through a comprehensive resolution of the dispute? These are important questions that can only be answered in the context of meaningful settlement 

negotiations. 

Second, creative settlement terms and conditions can be negotiated which might 

provide additional financial security to eligible claimants over and above immediate 

compensation. For example, plaintiff attorneys involved in the litigation have been 

meeting with officials of the insurance industry to determine whether some type of 

individual insurance policy might be made available to each eligible plaintiff. Premiums would be paid from the captive insurance fund; in return, each eligible plaintiff would receive an insurance policy to be paid by the insurer if and when the individual plaintiff develops a future cancer or some other related illness. This approach, and other similar creative ideas, might be advanced during settlement negotiations to maximize financial protection for plaintiffs while taking advantage of relatively limited settlement dollars. 

Third, is the perplexing and legitimate problem of future physical manifestations 

resulting in additional litigation. I agree with the City of New York and other defendants that it makes little sense to settle all 11,000 current cases only to find that 

additional lawsuits are filed by future plaintiffs who do not manifest a physical injury until years after a current settlement. But, again, there are answers to this 

vexing problem which should help ameliorate defendant concerns. For example, it 

might be possible to set aside a portion of all available settlement proceeds, to be 

used if and when additional individual physical injury claims are presented for payment. Alternatively, it might be possible for all current eligible plaintiffs to be paid 

in installments, with additional funds due and owing depending upon the filing rate 

of future claims; this is exactly what Federal Judge Jack B. Weinstein did in reorganizing the Manville Trust involving individual asbestos claims. A down payment 

was made, with future payments depending upon the filing rate of subsequent individual asbestos claims. Another idea is to provide some type of claims registry; an 

eligible individual exposed to toxic fumes at the World Trade Center, but not yet 

manifesting any physical injury on the date of the settlement, might receive a modest payment immediately and ‘‘register’’ for participation in the settlement. This potential future plaintiff would immediately receive the available insurance policy in 

addition to the modest down payment; in return, the individual would surrender all 

future rights to litigate. 

These are just some personal concepts which may be supplemented by other similar creative settlement terms and conditions. Some may work, others may not. What 

is important is that all interested parties come to the negotiation table with the 

flexibility, creativity, and determination to secure a comprehensive settlement. This 

approach is vastly preferable to the ongoing costly and uncertain litigation lottery. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe that either of the approaches which are the focus of my 

testimony today, are better alternatives than the existing litigation currently proceeding in federal court in New York City. Whether Congress decides to reenact the 

Federal September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, or whether it encourages all 

interested parties to commence intense negotiations designed to resolve all current 

and future September 11 related physical injury litigation, I am convinced that the 

courtroom is not the best place to resolve these disputes. I am prepared to assist 

the Congress and the parties in any manner requested, and to do so pro bono. What 

is important is that the litigation be brought to an end and that eligible claimants 

receive the compensation necessary to move on with their lives as best they can. 

We do not have the power to change history and prevent the September 11 terrorist 

19

attacks. But it is the responsibility of the Congress and the American people to try 

and bring some degree of financial security to the victims of September 11. I hope 

I have offered a blueprint and some food for thought to all interested parties. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify here today.

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Feinberg. And we join with you in 

thanking the deputy special master and the corporation counsel. 

We will now recognize the corporation counsel for a statement. 

Mr. Cardozo? 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL A. CARDOZO,

CORPORATION COUNSEL, CITY OF NEW YORK 

Mr. CARDOZO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. 

I particularly want to thank the members of the New York delegation and their staffs who have long made the question of health 

of the workers and the other people at Ground Zero and area residents a prime area of concern. 

Needless to say, the City of New York strongly supports the bill 

that we are discussing today, introduced by Chairman Nadler and 

Representatives Maloney and Fossella, and particularly supports 

what we are talking about today, a reopening of the Victims Compensation Fund. 

Six and one-half years ago, 90,000 people from every State in 

this country responded to the attack on this Nation and participated in the Ground Zero rescue and recovery effort. Today, over 

10,000 of those people report that they suffer from a wide range of 

ailments. And, unfortunately, it is anticipated that many, many 

more may claim and report accurately that they are also sick as a 

result of 9/11. 

Now, medical care for these people is being provided by the city, 

the Mount Sinai Consortium and others, and enactment of this bill 

would provide the stable funding required to ensure that, as Mayor 

Bloomberg has committed, everyone who was hurt as a result of 

the 9/11 attacks has access to medical care at no cost. 

But in addition to these health problems, many of the people are 

unable to work, and some have other losses. Those individuals who 

rushed to the scene of the devastation without a thought for their 

personal safety, New York City and the contractors who provided 

aid to the city without a written contract and without adequate insurance, are now battling against one another. Some of those people are sick, and others may become sick. 

But New York City and the contractors do not believe that they 

committed a wrong that makes them liable for these illnesses. And 

in any event, the amount of money available in the captive insurance company, $1 billion—a congressionally authorized insurance 

company, not a victims’ compensation fund—that money is not sufficient to resolve the claims of those who claim to have become ill 

let alone future claimants. 

And as a result, we are locked in a litigation. And regardless of 

the result of that litigation, no one is going to win. If the city and 

the contractors prevail, people who became sick as a result of 9/11 

will receive nothing. And if the plaintiffs win, many of the contractors will face very, very substantial financial jeopardy, since as I 

20

have noted the available insurance may not be adequate to cover 

them. 

Reopening the VCF, therefore, offers the means of resolving this 

terrible dilemma. As you have just heard from my very good friend 

Ken Feinberg, who so ably administered the 9/11 Fund, that fund 

allowed for compensation to injured people without any need to establish fault. And it worked just as Congress intended. 

But the critical limitations on the VCF that Mr. Feinberg just 

noted have made it unavailable to the more than 10,000 people 

who are now suing the city and the contractors. If someone became 

ill as a result of 9/11 exposure even days after September 15, 5 

days after the attack rather than 4, that person was not eligible 

for a VCF payment. If someone manifested an illness weeks after 

December 2003 when the fund statutorily expired, she was not eligible to recover. And if someone was cleaning buildings three 

blocks from Ground Zero, that person, too, was ineligible to recover. 

There is no just reason for these people to receive nothing while 

many others who were in essentially the same position, but who 

met the strict eligibility requirements, were compensated. Reopening the VCF would deal with these problems. 

Now, I do want to note that if this Committee and the Congress 

reopens the VCF as we urge, there will undoubtedly be some, hopefully few, who will nevertheless decide to pursue a claim through 

the courts. If the Congress would provide an indemnity to the city 

and the contractors in the event of such claims, it would mean that 

the $1 billion presently in the captive insurance company could be 

used to help fund the VCF. Without it, the captive would have to 

continue. 

In conclusion, let me just note as I have explained in detail in 

my written statement, the VCF would provide fair, fast and certain 

relief. And providing compensation through the VCF will help ensure that if, God forbid, we have another attack the response from 

the contractors, the relevant city and the area workers will be as 

generous and robust as it was after 9/11. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cardozo follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL A. CARDOZO

Good morning, Chairman Nadler, Chairwoman Lofgren, ranking members Franks 

and King, and committee members. My name is Michael A. Cardozo and I am the 

Corporation Counsel of the City of New York. I want to start off by thanking the 

members of the New York delegation and their staffs who have long made the issue 

of the health of the responders and the area residents to the attack on the World 

Trade Center a top priority. I also want to thank you for holding this hearing on 

compensation for the responders and community members affected by the September 11 attack. 

The federal government contributed substantially to New York City’s economic 

and physical recovery from the 9/11 attacks. Mayor Bloomberg and the people of 

New York City are grateful for the federal government’s strong support. 

The federal government has also provided some funding through annual appropriations for screening, monitoring and treatment of responders and community 

members and for that we are also grateful. But what is needed is long-term, stable 

funding and a method to address compensation for non-health-related concerns. The 

City of New York strongly supports H.R. 3543, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and 

Compensation Act of 2007 introduced by Chairman Nadler and Representatives 

Carolyn Maloney and Vito Fossella. That bill would provide the stable funding required for health issues. 

21

But I am here today to testify in support of the provision of that bill that would 

re-open the Victim Compensation Fund, thereby providing a fast, fair, and efficient 

way to compensate the Ground Zero workers and area residents who report that 

they were injured as a result of the terrorist attack. I am also going to recommend 

a very important addition to the bill: that the City and its contractors be indemnified for the claims of any person who does not accept an award from a reopened 

Victim Compensation Fund. 

Approximately six-and-a-half years ago, over ninety thousand people took part in 

the rescue and recovery effort—including workers and volunteers who came from all 

50 states and are constituents of every member of these subcommittees, and indeed 

of virtually every member of the House. In addition, some residents, students and 

area workers were exposed to the dust and fumes. 

While many who were at or near the site and who reportedly fell ill have recovered, others continue to report a range of ailments. The most commonly reported 

are respiratory illnesses, such as asthma, and mental health conditions, such as 

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and depression. We do not yet know the extent to which these conditions will remain or will be successfully resolved with 

treatment. 

We also do not yet know whether late-emerging conditions, like cancer and pulmonary fibrosis, will arise in the future; but concern about these illnesses developing was raised time and again in discussions with responders and residents alike. 

We know that we must build the capacity to detect and respond to any conditions 

that may reveal themselves in the future. 

In addition to the health effects reported by these individuals, many report other 

losses. Some report they are unable to work, some have out of pocket medical expenses or other losses. Simply providing medical care, as important as that is, would 

not compensate them for these types of losses. 

Some of these people are City employees, particularly members of the FDNY and 

NYPD. Others worked for the contractors the City retained in the rescue, recovery 

and clean-up efforts in this attack upon our country. Many of these contractors 

began work on September 11 itself. They came forward out of patriotism and a 

sense of civic duty without having a contract in hand or insurance to cover their 

liabilities. 

As you are aware, almost 10,000 of those who worked on the rescue, recovery and 

clean-up efforts have sued the City and the contractors seeking compensation. Resolving these issues through the courts is not in anyone’s interest. It is especially 

not in the nation’s interest, if we want to assure that the next time—if God forbid 

there is a next time—that people and companies will once again step forward. 

We have a model of how we can proceed in a way that will quickly, efficiently 

and fairly resolve these issues—the Victim Compensation Fund of 2001, which was 

enacted shortly after September 11. 

THE VCF WORKED WELL

In the aftermath of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, Congress established a Victim Compensation Fund (VCF). When Congress created the VCF in 

2001, it chose a no-fault compensation program—those injured were compensated 

without any need to establish negligence or fault. As ably administered by Kenneth 

Feinberg, the VCF worked exactly as Congress had intended. Determinations were 

made promptly and without the delays, litigation risks or rancor that lawsuits inevitably engender. Approximately 5,500 claimants opted to accept awards rather than 

to pursue a lawsuit. 

LIMITATIONS OF THE VCF

Unfortunately, the VCF had some limitations on it that made it unavailable to 

most of the workers at Ground Zero. For example, to be eligible for the fund, a 

claimant had to have been present at Ground Zero within four days of the attack. 

And claims had to be filed by December 2003. 

Because of these limitations, there are now many rescue and recovery workers, 

not to mention those in the community, who report injuries, but have no option for 

compensation other than litigation. More than 10,000 of those people have sued New 

York City and/or its contractors. Most of them say they did not develop symptoms 

of their injury until long after the filing period for the original VCF passed. Also, 

many of them were not present at Ground Zero within four days of the attack and 

were therefore not eligible for compensation from the fund. These individuals, however, if they were hurt as a result of their work helping their country recover from 

a terrorist attack, or exposure to dust and fumes from the attack, deserve to be compensated by their country for their losses. There is no just reason for them to get 

22

nothing while many others, who were in essentially the same position, but who met 

the strict eligibility requirements for compensation, were compensated. 

THE DOWNSIDES OF LITIGATION

Regrettably, these individuals have been relegated to the tort system to obtain 

compensation for their injuries. The many downsides of litigation are well known. 

First, the outcome is uncertain for all concerned. Each plaintiff, in order to prevail, must prove:

1. that the City or its contractors are not entitled to the civil defense immunities provided by law, and

2. that the City or its contractors were negligent, a difficult standard for them 

to meet.

Needless to say, we believe we are entitled to civil defense immunities and we do 

not believe that we or our contractors were negligent. 

Second, even today, some six-and-a-half years after the attacks and since the first 

suits were filed, we may still be years away from an end to the litigation. To be 

prepared for trial on plaintiffs’ claims, which they say total billions of dollars, both 

sides must engage in extensive discovery, which has barely begun. Finally, as with 

any litigation, if the plaintiffs are successful, much of the compensation awarded 

will not go to them, but to their lawyers. 

Even more regrettably, because the plaintiffs must prove that the City or its contractors were at fault, the lawsuit necessarily pits the City and the patriotic companies, which rushed to the City’s aid without a written contract or adequate insurance, against the heroic workers, who rushed to the scene of the devastation without 

a thought for their personal safety. Holding the City or its contractors liable because 

of their response to an attack on our nation runs the risk that the next time there 

is a similar disaster, cities and contractors will hesitate to provide the needed help. 

In the wake of September 11, because of these lawsuits and the inability to obtain 

insurance, a number of the contractors experienced business difficulties and continue to do so. The defendants all face very substantial potential monetary exposure. 

To try and alleviate this burden, Congress used a portion of the assistance provided 

to New York City after the attacks to create an insurance company for the City and 

the contractors to protect them from the very large potential exposure they face in 

the lawsuits. The $1 billion provided was used, as the legislation required, to set 

up a captive insurance company. This is an insurance company set up under New 

York State law and regulated by the insurance commissioner of New York to provide insurance to the City and its contractors for liabilities relating to the rescue, 

recovery, and debris-removal efforts following the September 11 attacks. It is not a 

victim compensation fund. 

Some have suggested that all that needs to be done is for this one billion dollars 

of insurance be used to settle the claims brought by the 10,000 plaintiffs. But this 

approach overlooks two critical factors. 

First, the plaintiffs’ attorneys have said in open court that the $1 billion, which 

would amount to about $60,000 per plaintiff when standard plaintiff’s legal fees and 

costs are factored in, will not be nearly enough to settle all of the current claims. 

So, according to the plaintiffs’ attorneys, the $1 billion held by the captive insurance 

company would be nothing more than a down payment on their claims. The contractors would remain exposed to billions of dollars of additional liability without the 

benefit of the insurance that Congress explicitly provided for them and the City. 

Second, even if the Captive were able to settle all of the current claims for $1 

billion that would leave the contractors vulnerable to any claim that might be filed 

in the future. New cases are literally being filed every week. And there is concern 

that there are some potential diseases, like cancer, that could arise, but would not 

develop for years. Without the protection of indemnity, which I will speak about 

shortly, settling all of the cases currently pending will not solve the problems faced 

by the City and its contractors. 

REOPENING THE VICTIM COMPENSATION FUND

Fortunately, there is a better way: re-opening the Victim Compensation Fund. 

Compensation from the fund will be prompt and certain and there will be no need 

to assign blame to anyone. In addition, there will be no need to marshal the services 

of hundreds of lawyers and experts in a pitched battle between the plaintiffs and 

the City and its contractors. And there will be no need to use the valuable resources 

of the federal judiciary. 

23

INDEMNITY

But simply re-opening the Victim Compensation Fund will not be enough. Under 

the original VCF, individuals could opt not to accept the award from the fund and 

instead pursue a claim through the court system. Some did so. Under the Zadroga 

Act, there would be a similar option and some will undoubtedly avail themselves 

of it. That means that the need for the captive insurance company, although diminished, will continue. The plaintiffs’ lawyers have estimated that their claims are 

worth billions of dollars. And they have asserted that there are many claims that 

have yet to manifest themselves, like cancer, and that may not develop until years 

in the future. Thus, the contractors remain exposed to potential liability for their 

patriotic actions. 

The way to eliminate this highly undesirable outcome is to provide for an indemnity for any remaining claims for those who decide not to pursue a VCF award. I 

emphasize that this indemnity would only cover the claims of those who do not opt 

for the VCF. Past experience leads us to believe that most will take the award from 

the reopened VCF. And medical costs would be covered under another part of the 

bill. Moreover, once an indemnity is in place, the captive insurance company would 

no longer be needed and the funds it holds would be available to fund the reopened 

VCF. 

We all hope and pray that 9/11 will remain a unique event in this nation’s history. But if it is not, and if we do not resolve these difficult issues fairly, the next 

time there is a major disaster, we are concerned that the response will not be as 

robust as it was after 9/11. Workers will be reluctant to pitch in because they won’t 

know if they will be taken care of if they are injured on the job. Companies will 

be slow to bring their resources to bear until they are satisfied that they are not 

sacrificing their very existence by helping out. I have been told that, because of the 

lessons the contractors learned from 9/11, many engineering firms were reluctant 

to participate in the recovery following Hurricane Katrina. 

The solution I have outlined ought to take care of every party’s concerns. Re-opening the Victim Compensation Fund will provide fast, fair, and certain relief to the 

workers and area residents. And providing indemnity for the companies involved in 

the response to 9/11 will give them the peace of mind, and the protection against 

possible financial ruin, they deserve. 

I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

I will now recognize for her statement Ms. Lasowski. 

TESTIMONY OF ANNE-MARIE LASOWSKI, ACTING DIRECTOR, 

EDUCATION, WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY ISSUES, 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Ms. LASOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking 

Members and Members of the Subcommittees, I appreciate the invitation to talk to you today about our prior work on Federal compensation programs. 

Compensating victims is one of the key issues Congress continues to face in light of those injured from the terrorist attacks at 

the World Trade Center. As you well know, the Federal Government has played an increasing role in providing benefits to individuals injured from exposure to harmful materials ever since 1969 

when the Black Lung Program was established. Since then, Congress has established other such programs. Most recently, legislative proposals have been introduced regarding the September 11th 

Victim Compensation Fund. 

My remarks are based on work GAO reported in 2005 on four 

Federal compensation programs including Black Lung, the Vaccine 

Injury Compensation Program, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program and the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program. 

Today I will focus on three key areas: first, the structure of these 

programs; second, the initial cost estimates and the actual cost of 

24

benefits paid; and, third, claims filed and paid. We did not review 

the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund as part of this report. 

First, all four Federal programs we reviewed are structured very 

differently, including who administers the program, how they are 

funded, the benefits provided and who is eligible for benefits. Now, 

to address each of these points. 

In terms of administration, several Federal agencies are responsible for administering these four programs including the Departments of Labor and Justice along with other agencies. 

In terms of funding, funding of the four programs varies. For example, the Black Lung Program is funded by a trust fund that is 

financed by an excise tax on coal and supplemented with additional 

funds. In contrast, the Energy Employees Compensation Program 

and the Radiation Exposure Program are fully federally funded. 

In terms of benefits, benefits vary among the four programs. 

Some of the benefits they provide include lump sum compensation 

payments and payments for lost wages, medical and rehabilitation 

costs, and attorney fees. 

In terms of eligibility, the groups who are eligible for benefits 

under the four programs and the proof of eligibility required for 

each program vary widely. It is also worth noting that in terms of 

structure, the Federal Government role has increased since the inception of these programs, and all four have been expanded eligibility to additional categories of claimants, cover more medical conditions, or provide additional benefits. 

Second, as the Federal role of these four programs has grown 

and eligibility has expanded, so has cost. In addition to the costs 

associated with expanded eligibility, rising medical costs have increased the cost of the programs. 

Actual costs for benefits paid through fiscal year 2004 significantly exceeded the initial estimates for the Black Lung and Radiation Exposure Programs. For example, for the radiation program, 

the cost of benefits paid through fiscal year 2004 exceeded the initial estimate by about $247 million because the original program 

was expanded to include additional categories of claimants. 

Third, regarding claims: the number of claims filed generally exceeded initial estimates. For example, at the end of fiscal year 

2004, actual claims filed for the energy employees program exceeded the estimates by over 46,000. Furthermore, factors that affect 

the amount of time it takes agencies to finalize claims includes 

statutory and regulatory requirements for determining eligibility, 

changes in eligibility criteria, the agency’s level of experience in 

handling claims, and the availability of funding. In addition, the 

approval process and the extent to which programs allow appeals 

can affect the time it takes to process claims. 

In conclusion, the Federal Government has played a growing role 

in providing benefits to individuals injured by exposure to harmful 

materials. As the four programs we reviewed changed and grew, so 

did their actual costs. In addition, the programs varied in their 

ability to handle claims, and in some cases took years to compensate claimants. 

In designing a Federal compensation program, it is important to 

consider how the program is to be structured. Decisions about how 

25

to structure compensation programs are critical because they ultimately affect the cost of the program, an important issue in light 

of the Federal deficit, and they affect how quickly those injured are 

compensated. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lasowski follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANNE-MARIE LASOWSKI


AML-1.eps
26


AML-2.eps
27


AML-3.eps
28


AML-4.eps
29


AML-5.eps
30


AML-6.eps
31


AML-7.eps
32


AML-8.eps
33


AML-9.eps
34


AML-10.eps
35


AML-11.eps
36


AML-12.eps
37


AML-13.eps
38

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Detective Valentin is recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL A. VALENTIN,

FORMER NYPD DETECTIVE 

Mr. VALENTIN. I would like to thank everyone here for inviting 

me to speak, and I apologize for my informality. 

My name is Michael Valentin. I was born in the Bronx. I am 43 

years old, and I am the son of a New York City police officer. My 

father retired with 24 years of service. I am married for 23 years 

to a wonderful and understanding wife. I have three beautiful kids. 

I joined the police department in 1995 and retired with a line of 

duty disability on January 2007—11 years of service to the City of 

New York. I remember the academy like it was yesterday. It was 

the longest academy in NYPD history—111⁄2 months. I remember 

being able to run five to eight miles per day. Now I lose my breath 

walking up a flight of stairs or walking a short distance. 

On September 11, like so many others, I responded to the attacks 

on the World Trade Center. For the next few months I worked on 

or around Ground Zero. I assisted in bucket brigades, searching for 

human remains, transporting supplies, and perimeter security. I 

don’t like talking about these things. I saw too many bad things, 

and it brings bad memories to me, and I would really like to try 

to forget them. 

There are so many people like me, sick or dying with terminal 

illnesses, that first responders need the help of this Congress. I suffered health problems after 9/11, and on my 40th birthday I was 

told that I possibly had lymphoma. The doctors found a four-centimeter mass in my chest. Subsequently, my partner also, approximately 2 or 3 months later, was diagnosed with B-cell lymphoma; 

so was my lieutenant, a year before, B-cell lymphoma, blood cancer. 

I just find that a little strange that that would happen to one unit. 

This was the beginning of something that I did not expect. I went 

through four operations. They had to biopsy the tumor twice because it got larger. Then they removed my gall bladder and found 

a lymphatic tumor under it. I have been lucky that none of my tumors were cancerous. 

The doctors at Long Island Occupational and Environmental 

Health in Hauppauge, Long Island, along with my family doctor diagnosed me with the following: RADS, restricted airways disease 

syndrome; GERD; sinusitis; pleural thickening, which is indicative 

of asbestos exposure; pleurisy, very painful to breathe. They attribute my illnesses to the exposure of toxins and particulates from 

Ground Zero. I need to use my nebulizer every 4 to 6 hours and 

to take over 10 medications a day, including oral steroids. 

I get all my pulmonary medicine through Long Island Occupational, which is part of Mount Sinai, which saves me a lot of 

money. And I, please, hope that you guys keep that funded. There 

are over 1,000 police officers that attend that one unit in Long Island, and at least 3,000 first responders from all the building 

trades. 

I am presently more than $160,000 in debt. Due to my illnesses, 

I have recently depleted my 401K plan to catch up with my bills. 

I feel embarrassed talking about these, but I know that I am not 

39

the only one like this. There are hundreds of us like me, in the 

same situation, and many cases much worse than me. I consider 

myself fortunate to have the help and support of my family. 

I would like to talk about the captive insurance fund. It is my 

understanding that Congress gave the City of New York $1 billion. 

It is a disgrace that the city is using the money for a legal defense 

fund. I am sure that it was not what the Congress intended this 

money to be used for. I still can’t understand why Christine 

LaSala, the CEO of Captive, is paid $350,000 a year and $20,000 

a year in benefits. That is sad when I pay my own insurance, 

which costs me $250 a month. 

What has she done for the money? So many families are struggling with illnesses and deaths of loved ones? When men and 

women who stand in my shoes and cannot pay their bills or purchase medication, we need to take care, take control of that money. 

I am tired of hearing about the city law firms making hundreds of 

millions of dollars just to defend against us. 

It is my understanding that the city exhausted their appeals, and 

yet they claim that victory will be theirs on the backs of police, firemen, and all the building trades and volunteers. 

Does this make any sense? Just like September 11, none of it 

makes sense. 

I am proud to have served the City of New York as a police officer. I love my city. I love my country. I love my work. If I had a 

chance to go back, I would go back in a New York minute. Thank 

you. [Applause.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Valentin follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL A. VALENTIN

Chairwoman Lofgren, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member King, Ranking Member 

Franks and Members of the Committee, good morning. Thank you for giving me the 

opportunity to speak with you today about my experiences, and those of so many 

others of my colleagues, following the World Trade Center attacks on September 11, 

2001. 

My name is Michael Valentin. I was born in the Bronx, and I am the second generation of my family to serve as a New York City Police Officer; my father retired 

in 1988 as an NYPD Detective after 24 years of service. Today, at the age of 43, 

I am retired on medical disability from my work as a New York City Police Detective. Although I loved my work for the NYPD, I have been forced to retire as a result of my exposure to toxic dust and particulate matter while working at the World 

Trade Center site beginning on September 11, 2001 after the towers fell, through 

mid-December of 2001. Although it is difficult for me to relive those terrible memories, I am here to speak to you today because it is important that this committee 

fully understands why its work here is so important to so many brave and hardworking men and women who—without thought for their own safety—ran to their 

City’s aid in its darkest days. 

In September of 2001, I was a New York City Police Officer working undercover 

for the Manhattan South Vice Unit. I was subsequently promoted to Detective in 

April of 2002. On the morning of September 11th I was awakened by my wife, who 

told me that a plane had hit the World Trade Center. I turned on the television 

in time to see the second jet hit the South tower, and, like millions of other Americans, I realized immediately that we were under attack. I contacted colleagues who 

lived close by and we drove together to ‘‘Highway 3,’’ a police unit located by the 

Grand Central Parkway. There, we met my Lieutenant, who kept his department 

issued vehicle at that location, and we all proceeded to the 7th Precinct, located in 

Manhattan’s lower east side. As we drove, I remember seeing a convoy of police officers and firefighters who were all desperate to get to lower Manhattan, and we were 

no different. 

When we arrived at the 7th Precinct, a young woman was walking past the Precinct, covered with what looked like powdered cement. Her face was covered with 

40

powder except for circles around her eyes—but you could see the look of horror in 

her face. I asked if she needed help, and told her to come in so we could help her 

get cleaned up and check her for injuries, but she said no, she just wanted to go 

home, and that she was going to walk over the Williamsburg Bridge. As I entered 

the Precinct, I saw a sobbing firefighter who was being consoled by one of his colleagues. Realizing that the world we had known until that morning was suddenly 

in chaos, I was overwhelmed by a feeling of helplessness. 

When we arrived at the Trade Center site on the West Side Highway, one of my 

team members was visibly upset and crying uncontrollably because he could not get 

in touch with his father, an NYPD Police Chief. Although his father was later found 

alive and unhurt, he had every reason to believe at that point that his father had 

been caught in the collapse and there was no consoling him. We all had tears in 

our eyes as we stood there watching his heartbreaking attempts to contact his father. As we know now, many, many families of police officers and firefighters—and 

those of the thousands of innocent civilians who worked in the towers—had no 

happy relief at the end of that day, because their husbands, wives, fathers, mothers 

and children did not miraculously turn up safe and sound. 

Later that afternoon when 7 World Trade Center collapsed, I was standing only 

a block away. The scene was surreal—I remember feeling like I was watching a disaster movie. Quite simply, I could not believe what I was seeing with my own eyes. 

But if that scene was surreal, it did not begin to let me know what waited for me 

in the days and weeks to come. During the next few months, working in and around 

the World Trade Center site, I saw things that were unimaginable—the sights, 

sounds and smells of those months were burned into my memory for the rest of my 

life. Looking back now, my memory of 9/11 seems like one long nightmarish blur 

from beginning to end. 

Throughout the initial attempts at rescue and continuing through the recovery 

and clean up efforts in the months to come, my team and I were assigned to many 

posts in and around the site. We performed perimeter security, worked on the bucket brigade, did door-to-door searches, recovered human body parts from the surrounding roof tops, and transported equipment and supplies. 

In October or November of 2001, I had a physical examination that included a 

chest x-ray—my lungs were clear, and I was healthy, as I had always been up until 

9/11. Initially, during the time I was still working on the World Trade Center site, 

I began to suffer from chronic sinus problems and inflammation, and developed a 

hacking cough. I coughed so hard that I actually developed back spasms. In 2003 

and 2004 I began having intractable lung and sinus infections, and burning inside 

my ears. Throughout 2004, I suffered from night sweats, and in September 2004, 

on my 40th birthday, my doctors told me that they had found a four-centimeter 

mass in my chest between my aorta and trachea, and that it was most likely 

lymphoma. I underwent a surgery called a mediastinoscopy, to biopsy the tumor. 

The mass turned out to be benign, but when the surgeon and pathologist examined 

my lymph nodes, they found black particulates in the lymph node. Not long thereafter, I was diagnosed with gall bladder problems, and when I underwent surgery 

to remove the gallbladder, my doctors found another lymphatic tumor. I underwent 

a PET scan because of the continuing night sweats, and that scan revealed that the 

lymphatic tumor had grown. A broncoscopy failed to drain the tumor, so I underwent another mediastinoscopy. This was the fourth operation I had since 9/11. 

While I was in the hospital, they found that my lung function was diminished, and 

the doctors told me to have that checked. Since then, I have been diagnosed with 

reactive airway disease syndrome, gastro-esophogeal reflux disease, esophagitis, sinusitis, thickening of the pleural lining of my lungs, which is indicative of asbestos 

exposure, and pleurisy, which is a very painful inflammation of the lining of the 

lungs. I also have severe ankle swelling, and severe throat pain 24 hrs a day from 

the excessive stomach acid production. I need to use a nebulizer to inhale medication every 4 hours, and oral steroids so that I can breath. I take ten medications 

daily. 

I was lucky to find the Long Island Occupational and Environmental Health of 

Stony brook University Hospital located in Hauppauge, Long Island. They treated 

me for my pulmonary problems and tested me for other illnesses. I am fortunate 

to receive all of my pulmonary prescriptions through them. This is vital to my family and me because the average cost for these medications over the course of a year 

is about 8 thousand dollars that would have otherwise come out of my pocket. This 

Long Island Office has treated over one thousand New York City police officers and 

over three thousand first responders from firefighters to the building trades. It is 

my understanding that their funding is in danger. I hope that you can do something 

about funding for them. 

41

Because I am unable to work, I had to sell my house in 2005 and today, my wife 

and our children and I live with my parents. I’ve had to stop all of my physical activities, like going salsa dancing with my wife, bike rides with my kids, and my wife 

has taken over coaching my girls’ basketball team. I often feel as if I am married 

to my nebulizer, and today, as a result of my illnesses, I am more than $160,000.00 

in debt. I worry about my children’s future, and whether I will be around to see 

them grow up. I have no life insurance, and no long-term health care insurance. I 

am horrified at the thought of burdening my family with my illnesses. 

Two of my co-workers, Lt. William Serpe and my partner, Detective Ernie 

Vallebouna were diagnosed with B-cell lymphoma, a cancer that is usually extremely rare. The odds of two co-workers being diagnosed with this disease is infinitesimal. Another colleague, Sergeant Dave Moloney, suffers from reactive airway 

disease and had part of his palette removed so he could breath. Like me, they have 

bleak life expectancies and because of our grim prospects, insurance companies have 

labeled us uninsurable 

And we are not the only ones who have suffered. Literally thousands of my fellow 

police officers, firefighters, construction workers and laborers are all desperately ill 

and many have already died, including Detective James Zadroga, a HERO who died 

of 9/11 illnesses with his baby daughter by his side—only to have Mayor Bloomberg 

sully his memory with public statements implying that Zadroga had caused his own 

death by abusing his pain medications—pain medications that were kept under lock 

and key by his father to prevent even an accidental overdose. Detective Bobby 

Williamson died of pancreatic cancer leaving behind a wife and three beautiful children. Sergeant Mike Ryan, who lived only two miles from my home, died of 

lymphoma also leaving behind a wife and children. These men and many more died 

because they put their City and their duty ahead of their own safety. They died 

waiting for their government to do the right thing and provide for their health care 

and for the support of their families. 

Even now, many police officers are being denied the three-quarter salary line-ofduty pensions they should have received, and instead are only given ordinary disability. Even to get that much, we have to face a maze of bureaucracy that is frustrating, demoralizing and needless. These brave men and women are not asking for 

a free lunch—all they want is to be taken care of in their time of need. I was fortunate in that I received a line of duty pension. Thanks to the intervention of Congressman Israel I am also receiving social security disability benefits. But here’s the 

point—I should not have needed the help of a United States Congressman to get 

the social security benefits I am entitled to as a disabled police officer. Many of my 

colleagues have been denied Social Security disability benefits—and today I am here 

to ask for your assistance on their behalf. 

In 2003, you and your colleagues allocated a billion dollars through FEMA to provide the City of New York and its debris removal contractors with coverage for 

claims arising from debris removal performed after collapse of World Trade Center 

(WTC) buildings on September 11, 2001. You left it to the City to determine the 

best mechanism to administer those funds, and the City created the World Trade 

Center Captive Insurance Company. Today, we know that the Captive, and the 

city’s control of that mechanism, is a national disgrace akin to our nation’s treatment of Iraq war veterans under deplorable conditions at Walter Reed Hospital and 

its abandonment of our Viet Nam veterans. I don’t need to remind this committee 

that America has a poor record in assisting our national heroes, leaving them to 

fend for themselves after they’ve given unselfishly of themselves in the service of 

their country. 

I can’t believe that my Congress would have set aside a billion dollars to have 

that money go to pay insurance executives and law firms hundreds of millions of 

dollars to fight the very heroes that money should have been helping for these last 

five years. Surely you did not intend that money to be used as a legal defense fund 

or to pay for expensive dinners for the City’s lawyers. I find it incredible and offensive that my Mayor has the audacity to pay Christine LaSala, CEO of the Captive 

Insurance Company, a salary of 350,000 dollars a year and 20,000 dollars in benefits, while the men and women who stand in my shoes cannot pay their bills or purchase their medications. 

In the past week, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a decision 

of the District Court holding that the City of New York and its Contractors are not 

immune from litigation for their failure to provide adequate safety protections such 

as respirators and hazmat suits to those of us who worked in hazardous conditions 

at the World Trade Center Site. What is the City’s reaction to that decision? In the 

New York Times on Thursday, March 27, one of the City’s Senior attorneys was 

quoted as saying that this decision only means that ‘‘victory is going to take longer 

to achieve, and we’re going to have to get into the underlying facts of the case.’’ VicVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:22 Jul 01, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\040108\41582.000 HJUD1 PsN: 41582
42

tory? Let’s think about that for a minute. The victory that attorney was talking 

about is a victory over the men and women who put their lives in mortal danger 

to protect and serve this Country in its darkest time. Men and women who are mortally sick and dying and forsaken by their country. 

We had hoped that the Second Circuit’s decision would spur the City and the Captive to sit down and resolve our claims for medical care and lost income. Instead, 

the City’s lead defense attorney Jim Tyrrell told the New York Law Journal that 

‘‘the ‘net result’ of [the courts decision] . . . will be the extension of ‘this litigation 

for years.’ ’’ Congressmen, with all do respect, I don’t have years to wait. My colleagues and the other men and women who are sick and out of work because of 

their time at Ground Zero don’t have years to wait. What they do have is mounting 

frustration, worsening illness and disability, bills and mortgages they can’t pay and 

medications they can’t afford. They have children who may grow up without a parent, and spouses who will be left young and widowed. We don’t have the luxury of 

time to wait while our Mayor and his Captive Insurance Company pay their lawyers 

to fight us in court, and their claims administrators to do nothing but generate bills. 

We need you to take control of that money and see that it reaches the people you 

intended to help back in 2003. 

I am proud to have been a New York City police officer. Notwithstanding my comments here about the City’s control of the Captive Insurance Company, I love my 

city and I loved my work, and if my health would permit me, I would go back to 

that work in a New York minute. I still believe that New York is the greatest city 

in the world and I love it dearly. Don’t let the City and its lawyers discount my 

testimony here today by telling you that my colleagues and I are just disgruntled 

employees, because the NYPD treated me with decency and respect through my illnesses. It was, and it is, an honor to be a New York City police officer. We are only 

asking that our City and our country help us now in our own hour of need. 

Thank you for letting me speak with you today. On behalf of all of my colleagues—not just the police officers and the firefighters, but also the construction 

and building trades people and the volunteers, we appreciate all of your dedicated 

work and your continuing efforts on our behalf.

Mr. NADLER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Frank is recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF THEODORE H. FRANK, RESIDENT FELLOW, 

AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE, DIRECTOR AEI LEGAL 

CENTER FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST 

Mr. FRANK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ms. Chairwoman and 

Members of the Subcommittee for your kind invitation to testify 

today. 

The September 11 Victim Compensation Fund was a short-term 

administrative program to compensate victims of the terrorist attacks while limiting litigation against innocent third parties who 

had also been victimized. Unfortunately, H.R. 3543 fails to protect 

innocent third parties from unfair litigation, does not have the advantages that made the fund successful, and magnifies the disadvantages and fairness problems of the original fund. 

The original fund used a non-adversarial structure to compensate 

a limited set of claimants in time and place with relatively 

uncontroversial claims. This structure will not work for a longerterm compensation scheme involving a substantially larger set of 

potential claimants with injuries with much more ambiguous causation. For example, as the New York Times notes, there is no scientific evidence that exposure to World Trade Center dust leads to 

lymphomas or cancer. 

I discuss problems in much more detail in my written testimony, 

but let me touch on a few of them briefly. First, the largest problem is that reopening the fund creates a compensation program 

that is especially susceptible to error and fraud because the fund 

was not designed to resolve causation issues. A passenger on the 

43

September 11 planes or someone killed or injured in the Towers or 

Pentagon was plainly entitled to compensation from the fund. 

Thus, determining eligibility for compensation was largely a ministerial function. 

The fund structure was not designed to vet recipients’ claims. 

But it is not the case that anyone with a pulmonary or cancerous 

or psychological ailment in the greater New York area is an appropriate claimant. The fund is required by law to adjudicate claims 

within 120 days but has no provisions for independent medical review or testing of claims. This creates what is known as a Field of 

Dreams problem: ‘‘If you build it, they will come.’’

If Congress reopens a system where geographic proximity and a 

diagnosis are the only prerequisites for a large government check 

and an attorney’s contingent fee, attorneys will have every incentive to manufacture a fake diagnosis. The law firm behind many 

of the thousands of pending 9/11 lawsuits have plaintiffs eligible 

for reopened fund compensation has previously used questionable 

medical diagnoses to obtain huge sums in the fen-phen litigation. 

If the bill is passed in the current form, trial lawyers will steal 

billions from taxpayers. 

Second, expanding the program to include psychological injury 

will result in double recovery for thousands of claimants. Claimants who have already recovered millions, including hundreds of 

thousands in non-economic damages, will be permitted to doubledip and resubmit new claims for psychological injury. And the legislation is so broad that taxpayers could end up paying for psychotherapy for Woody Allen and half of Manhattan. 

Third, 3543 fails to protect innocent contractors who are faced 

with tremendous liabilities simply for volunteering to help New 

York City in its hour of need, often without pay. Calls for government indemnification are not a solution because they do nothing to 

stop the chilling effects on future volunteers. 

Prospective immunity is needed. And indemnification is fraught 

with peril for abuse of the government fisc if statutory language is 

not finely crafted to permit the government to protect its interest 

in the underlying litigation and if damages caps are not included. 

Fourth, 3543 fails to provide adequate protection to taxpayers 

that taxpayer money will be spent on compensation of victims rather than on attorneys’ fees. 

Fifth, 3543 compounds problems of unfairness in the original 

fund, as Special Master Feinberg noted, where victims of one terrorist attack received millions and those of another received nothing. The bill calls for a government bureaucrat to define the ‘‘New 

York City disaster area,’’ and those who lived or worked south of 

that cross street will be entitled to potentially millions of dollars 

in compensation and benefits, while those living and working to the 

north will do without. And if you think school boards get lobbied 

hard over the boundary lines between high schools, imagine what 

pressure the WTC program administration will face when she decides which Manhattan cross street is the dividing line for millions 

of dollars of government largesse. 

There are many, many more issues that outstrip the time I have, 

and I welcome your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Frank follows:]

44

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THEODORE H. FRANK


THF-1.eps
45


THF-2.eps
46


THF-3.eps
47


THF-4.eps
48


THF-5.eps
49


THF-6.eps
50


THF-7.eps
51


THF-8.eps
52


THF-9.eps
53


THF-10.eps
54


THF-11.eps
55


THF-12.eps
56


THF-13.eps
57


THF-14.eps
58

Mr. NADLER. Thank you for your statement. 

Dr. Melius? 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES MELIUS, ADMINISTRATOR, NEW YORK 

STATE LABORER’S HEALTH AND SAFETY TRUST FUND 

Dr. MELIUS. Thank you. 

Honorable Chairmen Conyers, Nadler and Lofgren, other Members of the Committee, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning. 

I think, as we know, in the period after September 11, over 

50,000 emergency responders and recovery workers were exposed 

during the initial rescue work at the site and in the subsequent 

cleanup and recovery activities. Tens of thousands of people living, 

working and going to school in the areas around the World Trade 

Center area were also exposed either in the immediate collapse of 

the buildings or in the subsequent weeks and months in their 

apartments, workplaces or schools. 

These people were exposed to a myriad of toxic materials including pulverized concrete, asbestos, lead and many highly toxic 

chemicals. I think as we all know, the failure of the Federal Government to properly inform and protect these people from these exposures added substantially to their subsequent health risks. Due 

to the incomplete monitoring of these exposures at the time, we 

will never know the full range of their exposures and still cannot 

predict with certainty all of the subsequent adverse health effects. 

However, we do know that these exposures and the subsequent 

accompanying psychological trauma have caused adverse health effects in thousands of those exposed. These are not rare isolated 

medical conditions. The proportions of those exposed who have become ill is quite alarming. In a recent Mount Sinai Medical Center 

study of responders and recovery workers, lower respiratory disease symptoms were found in 46 percent of those evaluated, upper 

respiratory problems in 64 percent, and mental health problems in 

approximately one-third. Similar studies have been found in other 

peer-reviewed studies of the exposed population. 

As we all know, the federally funded medical programs for responders and recovery workers sometime after September 11 have 

provided excellent medical care for thousands of these workers. 

Though it is difficult to document, I believe that these programs 

have prevented disability in many thousands of the people who 

have participated in them. 

However, the continuation of these medical programs alone is not 

sufficient to address all the harm being suffered by these individuals. Many of these rescue and recovery workers are no longer able 

to work because of the progressive disability caused by their health 

conditions. 

In my testimony, I offered two sources of information I compiled 

on the numbers of those currently disabled that are being treated 

in the medical program. Based on these, I can conservatively estimate at the present time that at least 2,000 World Trade Center 

rescue and recovery workers became disabled due to World Trade 

Center related illnesses, are no longer able to work, and are not 

currently covered by any compensation program. Many hundreds 

more are getting some assistance from Workers’ Compensation, SoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:22 Jul 01, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\040108\41582.000 HJUD1 PsN: 41582
59

cial Security, Disability and other programs, which do not adequately cover their income loss and other expenses due to their illness. 

In summary, I think the economic needs of several thousand people who willingly risked their health to respond to this terrorist attack are not currently being addressed. I think as we have heard 

from Mr. Valentin today, and I think there are many other people 

who have testified at other hearings, many other people I have 

talked to, the human suffering, including the suffering in their 

families, is quite devastating to the individuals involved. And I 

think the individuals like Mr. Valentin speak much more clearly 

than I can about the problems being experienced by these people. 

But where do they look to for assistance? 

One possible source of assistance for the people with World 

Trade Center related conditions is workers’ compensation insurance. It is supposed to be a no-fault system to provide workers who 

are injured or become ill due to job-related factors with compensation for their wage loss as well as full coverage for the medical 

costs associated with the monitoring and treatment of their medical 

conditions. 

For many reasons I have outlined in my testimony, including the 

long delays, the difficulty dealing with complex medical cases, and 

unresolved legal issues related to the compensation legislation, the 

multiple workers’ compensation systems currently covering World 

Trade Center and recovery workers are unable to provide timely 

and appropriate medical benefits compensation for economic losses 

for the World Trade Center responders. 

Although some steps have been taken in New York to try to address some of these problems, I think it is unlikely that this can 

be accomplished in time to provide significant timely relief for 

World Trade Center rescue and recovery workers through the current compensation systems. 

Another possible source of support is the World Trade Center 

Captive Insurance Company. In March of 2003 when the formation 

of that was being planned and was being announced, Mayor 

Bloomberg stated in his press release this legislation is necessary 

for the city to expedite the payment of claims related to this World 

Trade Center effort. For many people, including myself, we were 

hopeful that this would become the source that would address both 

the medical problems as well as the disability and economic losses 

being suffered by the many World Trade Center workers. 

Unfortunately, as we know, almost 4 years after its formation 

the fund has paid out less than five actual claims—four or five, I 

am not sure of the exact number. Meanwhile, thousands of rescue 

and recovery workers and community residents who have become 

ill have had to struggle without any compensation and without any 

assistance until Federal funding recently became available to at 

least help cover the medical costs involved. 

I am not an expert on insurance and cannot speak directly to 

legal issues involved; however, it seems obvious to me that the $1 

billion could have been better used to help these thousands of men 

and women with their medical bills and compensation for their inability to continue to work rather than being invested in a longterm legal battle in order to protect the city and its contractors. 

60

While I understand that the City of New York and the construction contractors have very legitimate concerns about their financial 

risks incurred in responding and recovering from the terrorist incident, denying medical benefits and compensation for the many rescue and recovery workers involved in this effort is a tragically misguided policy. Moreover, as Mr. Cardozo has stated, the Captive as 

currently funded does not appear to be adequate to cover all the 

medical and economic losses for the rescue and recovery workers 

and community residents. We certainly need, I think, a more comprehensive solution to this issue. 

As I have stated before, I believe that H.R. 3543, introduced by 

Representatives Maloney, Nadler and Fossella, provides a comprehensive legislative approach to accomplish this. In other hearings I have addressed some of the medical program issues related 

to this legislation. I would just like to offer two recommendations 

relative to the compensation portion of that legislation. 

First, I believe that reopening the Victims Compensation Fund 

is the best mechanism for addressing economic losses. I believe 

that it would provide the flexibility to properly handle claims from 

workers and community residents with varying circumstances and 

with varying degrees of economic loss. 

I think it is far preferable to relying on the many other compensation systems currently in place that are delaying compensation and lead to gross inequities among the ill claimants due to the 

specific processes used in each of those systems. 

I also believe that the VCF should develop a common mechanism 

for ensuring that all of the claims are for legitimate World Trade 

Center-related illnesses. For the most part, this could be based on 

the designation on mechanisms for World Trade Center medical 

program currently included in the medical section of the legislation. 

At the same time, I believe VCF could then provide an appropriate and equitable way of taking into account individual economic 

circumstances similar to the approach taken when the VCF was 

administering the earlier 9/11 claims. 

Secondly, I think the long-term medical monitoring and treatment for World Trade Center-related medical problems should be 

handled separately, as outlined in the currently legislation. 

I think that program is best handled in conjunction with the current centers of excellence, and that this approach would also reduce 

the problem in trying to take into the account the potential costs 

of future medical care for conditions that might later develop as 

part of the current economic compensation. 

We have already gone over 6 years after 9/11, and I think it is 

very important for all the people who volunteered and came to the 

assistance of our country at that time, and did that without hesitation, to now be properly cared for. These are unique circumstances, and I would hope that we could provide a quick and 

equitable solution for the economic losses and medical problems 

that these people will face in the future and that will help address 

what hopefully will not ever occur again which is another terrorist 

incident like this. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Melius follows:]

61

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES MELIUS

Honorable Chairmen Nadler and Lofgren and other members of the Committee. 

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning. 

I am James Melius, an occupational health physician and epidemiologist, who currently works as Administrator for the New York State Laborers’ Health and Safety 

Trust Fund, a labor-management organization focusing on health and safety issues 

for union construction laborers in New York State. During my career, I spent over 

seven years working for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) where I directed groups conducting epidemiological and medical studies. 

After that, I worked for several years for the New York State Department of Health 

where, among other duties, I directed the development of a network of occupational 

health clinics around the state. I currently serve on the federal Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health which oversees part of the federal compensation program for former Department of Energy nuclear weapons production workers. 

I have been involved in health issues for World Trade Center responders since 

shortly after September 11th. Over 3,000 of our union members were involved in 

response and clean-up activities at the site. One of my staff spent nearly every day 

at the site for the first few months helping to coordinate health and safety issues 

for our members who were working there. When the initial concerns were raised 

about potential health problems among responders at the site, I became involved in 

ensuring that our members participated in the various medical and mental health 

services that were being offered. For the past four years, I have served as the chair 

of the Steering Committee for the World Trade Center Medical Monitoring and 

Treatment Program. This committee includes representatives of responder groups 

and the participating medical programs (including the NYC Fire Department) who 

meet monthly to oversee the program and to ensure that the program is providing 

the necessary services to the many people in need of medical follow-up and treatment. I also serve as co-chair of the Labor Advisory Committee for the WTC Registry operated by the New York City Department of Health and as a member of the 

Community Advisory Committee for the WTC Environmental Health Center at 

Bellevue Hospital. These activities provide me with a good overview of the benefits 

of the current programs and the difficulties encountered by responders seeking to 

address their medical problems and other needs. 

HEALTH CONSEQUENCES OF SEPTEMBER 11

In the period after September 11, over 50,000 emergency responders and recovery 

workers were exposed during the initial rescue work at the site and in the subsequent clean-up and recovery activities. Tens of thousands of people living, working, 

and going to school in the areas around the WTC were exposed immediately after 

the WTC buildings collapsed or in subsequent weeks or months in their apartments, 

work places, or schools. These responders, recovery workers, and other people were 

exposed to a myriad of toxic materials including pulverized concrete, asbestos, lead, 

and many highly toxic chemicals. As we know, the failure of the government to 

properly inform and protect these people from these exposures added substantially 

to their health risks. 

Due to the incomplete monitoring of these exposures at the time, we will never 

know the full range of their exposures and still cannot predict with certainty all of 

the subsequent adverse health effects from these exposures. However, we do know 

that these exposures and the accompanying psychological trauma have caused adverse health effects in thousands of those exposed. These adverse health effects include lower respiratory disease (including asthma or asthma like conditions, pulmonary fibrosis, and significant loss of lung function); upper respiratory conditions 

including chronic sinusitis; gastrointestinal problems most commonly reflux disorder 

or GERD; and mental health problems including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder 

and depression. These medical problems have been documented in peer reviewed 

scientific publications of research studies done by several independent research 

groups. Similar health problems have been documented in fire fighters, other responders and recovery workers, and WTC community residents, students, and workers (to the extent that this latter group has been evaluated). 

There is no doubt that these disorders and others not listed above are occurring 

at a much higher rate than would be expected in this population and that these 

health problems are due to the toxic exposures and psychological trauma related to 

9/11. 

These are not rare isolated medical conditions found in a small number of those 

exposed. The proportion of those exposed who have become ill is quite alarming. In 

a recent Mount Sinai Medical Center study of responders and recovery workers, 

lower respiratory disease was found in 46% of those evaluated; upper respiratory 

62

health problems in 64%; and mental health problems in 32%. Similar results have 

been found in other studies of the exposed populations. New patients are continuing 

to come to the monitoring and treatment programs with these illnesses that were 

not evident before this time. Although many of these conditions do improve with 

medical treatment, the full scope and the ultimate medical outcome for the people 

currently being treated or who will become ill in the future is uncertain. Thousands 

are no longer able to work, and thousands more require lifelong medical monitoring 

and treatment. 

As you may know, the federally funded medical programs for responders and recovery workers some time after September 11 have provided excellent medical care 

for thousands of these works. Initially, only medical monitoring was available. However, two years ago, Congress also provided funding for medical treatment programs 

for those with WTC-related medical conditions. In December of last year, Congress 

also provided money for medical monitoring and treatment for community residents, 

workers, and students exposed after 9/11. These programs have been an immense 

help to those who have become ill from their exposures. Although it is difficult to 

document, I believe that without these program thousands more of these people 

would have developed much more serious health problems, and many more would 

have become permanently disabled. 

WHY MEDICAL PROGRAMS ARE NOT SUFFICIENT

However, the continuation of these medical programs alone is not sufficient to address all of the harm being suffered by these individuals. Many of these rescue and 

recovery workers are no longer able to work because of the progressive disability 

caused by their health conditions. We do not have an exact count of those who have 

become disabled, but I can provide some estimates. In the fire department, over 800 

fire fighters have received disability pensions because of health problems related to 

their 9/11 exposures. These are people whose illness is so severe that they are no 

longer capable of working as fire fighters. Over the past year, nearly 1800 hundred 

patients in the WTC treatment program at Mount Sinai Medical Center have been 

evaluated by their social work unit. Of these, 870 are no longer able to work because 

of illness. Of these 870 patients who are out of work, less than 40% are receiving 

any financial assistance from Workers’ Compensation, Disability Retirement, or Social Security Disability. In other words, over 500 of these ill police officers, construction workers, utility repair workers, and others are now without personal income 

and having to rely on their spouses, families, or other financial resources. Most have 

lost all health insurance coverage for their families, and many can no longer afford 

their mortgage payments and have lost their homes. These are, for the most part, 

blue collar workers without significant financial resources to fall back on. 

Another source of information on the number of disabled 9/11 rescue and recovery 

workers is the the NYC 9/11 Unmet Needs Roundtable, administered by New York 

Disaster Interfaith Services (NYDIS). Since 2002, the NYC 9/11 Unmet Needs 

Roundtable has brought together donor agencies and community-based case management agencies to financially assist persons impacted by 9/11, provide emergency 

assistance, and facilitate victims’ long-term recovery and return to self-sufficiency 

when all other means of assistance are no longer available. In 2007, these organizations provided assistance to over 2300 ill 9/11 responders who are disabled and suffering economic hardship due to their 9/11-related illnesses. Of those 2300 ill 9/11 

responders, approximately two thirds are currently unemployed due to their illnesses. The Roundtable used to be one of several charitable and governmental financial assistance programs available to 9/11-impacted persons, but is currently the 

ONLY program in existence that offers financial assistance to ill 9/11 responders 

and other 9/11 health-impacted persons while they await the receipt of long-term 

benefits, such as Workers’ Compensation, Social Security, and union disability pensions. 

Projecting these numbers to all of the people in the Monitoring and Treatment 

Program, I can conservatively estimate that, at the present time, there are over 

2000 WTC rescue and recovery workers who have become disabled due to WTC-related illnesses, who are no longer able to work, and who are not currently covered 

by any compensation program. Many hundreds more are getting some assistance 

from workers’ compensation, Social Security Disability, or other programs, most of 

which do not adequately replace the incomes that these disabled workers received 

before they became ill. The economic needs of these many people who willingly 

risked their health to respond to this terrorist attack are not being addressed. 

These statistics alone do not convey the economic hardship of the many individuals disabled by their WTC exposures. We will hear from one individual at this 

hearing and have heard from many others at other 9/11 related hearings. They have 

63

testified about about losing their homes, being unable to provide any assistance for 

their children to attend college, and relying on food pantries and community charities to feed their families while enduring a seemingly endless process to obtain compensation only to discover that this compensation is far less than what they were 

previously earning. The individual impact of this frustration on their lives and on 

their ability to care for their family cannot be conveyed in these statistics. 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

One source of assistance for people with WTC-related conditions is workers’ compensation insurance. Workers’ compensation is supposed to be a no fault insurance 

system to provide workers who are injured or become ill due to job-related factors 

with compensation for their wage loss as well as full coverage for the medical costs 

associated with the monitoring and treatment of their medical condition. 

The WTC program participants are covered by a variety of state, federal, and local 

programs with different eligibility requirements, benefits, and other provisions. 

Most private and city workers are covered under the New York State Workers’ Compensation system. New York City is self insured while most of the private employers 

obtain coverage through an outside insurance company. Uniformed services workers 

are, for the most part, not covered by the New York State Workers’ Compensation 

system but rather have a line of duty disability retirement system managed by New 

York City. A fire fighter, police officer, or other uniformed worker who can no longer 

perform their duties because of an injury or illness incurred while on duty can apply 

for a disability retirement which allows them to leave with significant retirement 

benefits. However, should a work-related illness first become apparent after retirement, no additional benefits (including medical care) are provided, and the medical 

benefits for even a recognized line of duty medical problem end when the person 

retires. Federal workers are covered under the compensation program for federal 

workers. Coverage for workers who came from out of state will depend on their employment arrangements with their private employer or agency. However, volunteers 

from New York or from out of state are all covered under a special program established by the New York Workers Compensation Board after 9/11 and supported by 

federal funding. 

A major difficulty with these compensation systems is the long delays in obtaining 

coverage. For example, the NYS Workers’ Compensation system is very bureaucratic. The insurer may challenge every step of the compensation process including 

even diagnostic medical testing. This challenge usually requires a hearing before a 

Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) administrative judge to evaluate the case, and 

this hearing may often be delayed for months. Even once the case is established, 

the insurer can still challenge treatments recommended for that individual even for 

a medication that the individual may have been taking for many months for a 

chronic work-related condition. Thus, it may be many years before the case of a person with a WTC-related condition is fully recognized and adjudicated by the compensation system. The average time for just having a claim established for a WTCrelated condition at the Mount Sinai clinic is over three years, and it may be many 

more months before reimbursement for medical costs or lost income is allowed. 

Meanwhile, the claimant may not be receiving any medical or compensation benefits 

or may have had their benefits disrupted many times. These bureaucratic systems 

are designed to address acute injuries. They are not flexible enough to provide the 

comprehensive medical support and income replacement needed for a WTC responder who has developed several medical problems requiring frequent medical visits and continual modifications in their treatment. 

There are many other difficulties in getting these claims accepted. Their medical 

circumstances are often quite complicated. Many are being treated for multiple 

WTC-related medical problems. Legal issues about causality, statutes of limitations 

for filing claims, and determination of disability are often raised in these cases and 

may take many months to adjudicate. Claimants are often confronted with a choice 

to accept lump sum payments or a limited weekly payment. The lump sum payment 

is often very appealing because of their backlog of unpaid bills and debt incurred 

while waiting for their claim to be processed. However, accepting the lump sum payment, usually means giving up their options to reopen their claim to cover future 

medical costs should their condition worsen. 

In order to alleviate some of the problems for WTC claimants, two years ago New 

York State implemented some new programs that were deigned to improve coverage 

for WTC responders. These included the availability of some medical coverage for 

people waiting for their claim to be adjudicated and an extension of the time to file 

a claim. New York is also in the midst of implementing major reforms in the overall 

workers’ compensation system that may also assist with WTC claims. However, all 

64

of these new programs will take some time to implement, and the changes will not 

alleviate the basic inadequacies of the system to provide support for WTC responders with significant medical problems. 

In summary, the multiple workers’ compensation systems covering WTC rescue 

and recovery workers are unable to provide timely and appropriate medical benefits 

and compensation for economic losses for the WTC providers. Although some steps 

are being taken to address some of the problems with these programs, it is unlikely 

that this can be accomplished in time to provide significant relief for WTC rescue 

and recovery workers. 

CAPTIVE INSURANCE

Another possible source of support for workers and community residents who have 

become ill as a result of their WTC-related exposures is the special captive insurance fund set up after the September 11. The World Trade Center Captive Insurance Company was formed in July of 2004 based on earlier Congressional legislation 

that allowed FEMA to provide up to $1 billion in coverage for the City and its contractors for claims arising from debris removal after the collapse of the World Trade 

Center buildings. In March of 2003, Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Pataki announced the introduction of state legislation to allow the implementation of the captive insurance arrangement. Mayor Bloomberg stated in his press release, ‘‘This legislation is necessary for the City to expedite the payment of claims relating to this 

effort.’’

For many people including myself who were becoming increasingly concerned 

about the growing number of responders and recovery workers who were becoming 

ill from their work at the WTC, it appeared as if this insurance entity would become 

the financial mechanism to assist these ill workers. However, as subsequently became very clear, the WTC Captive Insurance Company had little interest in ‘‘expediting claims payment’’. In fact, while spending millions of dollars in legal and consulting fees, the company has focused all of its efforts on attempting to fight the 

many thousands of WTC medical claims made against it. Almost four years after 

its formation, the fund has paid out less than five actual claims, all reportedly for 

orthopedic injuries related to 9/11 work. Meanwhile, thousands of WTC rescue and 

recovery workers and community residents who have become ill as a result of their 

exposures after September 11 have had to struggle to pay the medical bills related 

to these illnesses until federal funding recently became available to defray these 

costs. Hundreds more who can no longer work because of their WTC-related illnesses have struggled to support their families while trying to obtain workers’ compensation or other disability benefits. 

I am not an expert on insurance and cannot speak directly to the legal issues involved. However, it seems obvious to me that the $1 billion could have been better 

used to help these thousands of men and women with medical bills and compensation for their inability to continue to work rather than invested in a long term legal 

battle in order to protect the City and its contractors. That was the intent of the 

federal government providing this funding as Mayor Bloomberg apparently understood it in 2003. I believe that the current policy of the Captive to use all of its resources to challenge and fight claims is misguided and blatantly unfair to the many 

men and women who put their lives and health as risk to respond to the terrorist 

attack on our country on 9/11 and are now in need of assistance. While I understand 

that the City of New York and the construction contractors have legitimate concerns 

about their financial risks incurred in responding and recovering from a terrorist 

incident, denying (or at best delaying) medical benefits and compensation for the 

many rescue and recovery workers involved in this effort is a tragically misguided 

policy. 

Moreover, the Captive as currently funded does not appear to be adequate to 

cover all of the medical and economic losses for the rescue and recovery workers and 

community residents with WTC-related illnesses. Medical monitoring and treatment 

costs for the rescue and recovery workers alone are estimated to cost over $200 million per year. A more comprehensive solution is needed. 

WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE

I believe that we must develop a comprehensive solution to address the medical 

care and economic losses of the thousands of rescue and recovery workers, community residents, and students whose health has been harmed by exposures related to 

9/11. HR 3543 introduced by Representatives Maloney, Nadler and Fossella provides 

a comprehensive legislative approach to accomplish that. In other hearing, I have 

addressed the medical program outlined in that legislation. I will focus my recVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:22 Jul 01, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\040108\41582.000 HJUD1 PsN: 41582
65

ommendations on the aspects of the legislation related to compensation for economic 

losses. I would like to make several recommendations. 

First, reopening the Victims Compensation Fund (VCF) is the best mechanism for 

addressing economic losses. I believe that the VCF would provide the flexibility to 

properly handle claims from workers and community residents with varying circumstances and degrees of economic loss. Relying on the many other compensation 

systems for disabled workers and community residents for economic compensation 

would lead to continued long delays and gross inequities among the ill claimants 

due to the specific processes used for compensation in each of these systems. I also 

believe that the VCF should develop a common mechanism for ensuring that all of 

the claims were for legitimate WTC-related illnesses. For the most part, this could 

be based on the designations and mechanisms for designating World Trade Centerrelated conditions included in the medical program sections of the legislation. At the 

same time, the VCF would provide an appropriate and equitable way of taking into 

account individual economic circumstances (including payments from other sources 

of compensation) similar to the approach taken when the VCF was administering 

the earlier 9/11 claims. 

Secondly, the long term medical monitoring and treatment for World Trade Center related medical problems should be handled separately as outlined in the current legislation. I believe that medical care for these complex medical conditions 

would best be delivered in conjunction with the current Centers of Excellence. This 

approach would also reduce the problem of trying to take into account the potential 

costs of medical care for conditions that might develop in the future as part of the 

current economic compensation. 

Thank you again for allowing me to testify. I would be glad to answer any questions.

Mr. NADLER. Thank you Dr. Melius. [Applause.] 

We will now have a round of questioning. I will recognize myself 

to begin the questioning for 5 minutes. 

The first question is to Mr. Cardozo: While you have stressed 

that because the Captive is not a victims’ compensation fund the 

city must continue to litigate against virtually all claims, the 

mayor, back in 2003 stated that the creation of the Captive was 

necessary ‘‘for the city to expedite the payment of claims relating 

to this effort.’’

You can see why some of us in Congress are now surprised that 

5 years later we have made no progress toward this goal articulated by the mayor. In the same press release, Governor Pataki, 

then Governor Pataki, stated that the ‘‘the city explored various options and decided the formation of the captive insurance company 

was in its best interest for claims arising out of the cleanup effort 

at and near the World Trade Center.’’

Ms. LaSala, at a meeting of the board of directors—I think it was 

the first meeting or one of the first meetings back in December of 

2004—was reported, the minutes say she emphasized that the fundamental purpose behind creating and funding of the Captive is to 

‘‘conserve and disperse its assets in as equitable a manner that 

maximizes compensation to those parties who suffered damage as 

a result of the World Trade Center site debris removal program.’’

So in light of these—and I could also quote from a letter the entire congressional delegation from New York wrote back in 2002 

when we were considering this. It says that the coverage envisioned in this proposal ‘‘will ensure that sufficient resources will be 

available to satisfy legitimate claims by individuals affected by the 

recovery operations while safeguarding the fiscal health of the city 

and the contractors.’’

In light of this, it seems to me evident that the purpose of appropriating that billion dollars and setting up the Captive was to enable the swift compensation of victims, and that the city’s or the 

66

Captive’s policy of litigating every single claim would be sort of like 

my insurance company saying ‘‘We will never pay for your house 

burning down until you beat us in a lawsuit.’’

Mr. CARDOZO. Congressman, if we all knew in 2001 or 2003 the 

extent of the claims, we perhaps would not be here today. 

As I think all of us would agree at this table—although we may 

differ on other things—the extent of damage to the people who are 

now, unfortunately, suing us as well as, according to Mr. Feinberg, 

25,000 or 30,000 additional people, it was far, far greater than had 

been anticipated. 

And so given the fact that this captive is an insurance company, 

we are faced with the problem that, at least according to every estimate that we have seen, the billion dollars is not sufficient. 

Mr. NADLER. Sir, excuse me, sir, the billion dollars is clearly not 

sufficient—I think we all recognize that——

Mr. CARDOZO. And then——

Mr. NADLER. Given that fact, therefore, the conclusion is instead 

of using that billion and trying to get more money from Congress 

or somebody else, we should pay nobody? 

Mr. CARDOZO. Given the fact, Congressman, that this is an insurance company designed, if you look at the conference report and 

the other legislative history, to be an insurance company to protect 

the city and the contractors—it is what the appropriation bill says; 

that is what the conference report says; that is what the IG report 

for the Department of Homeland Security says. 

Given the fact that neither the city nor the contractors believe 

they did anything wrong and that this is to insure them against 

claims, there is really no choice that they face but to use—to defend against these claims. The analogy, if I may draw it, the analogy I would suggest is if you had, if someone had a car accident, 

and you are insured for a million dollars, and the claims against 

you are for a million-and-a-half dollars, you wouldn’t expect your 

insurance company to pay the million dollars——

Mr. NADLER. Let me—my time is running out, and I have some 

questions for Mr. Feinberg. First, let me just proceed with one 

more question. 

What, if anything, has the city done to ascertain the availability 

of other insurance from the Port Authority, the four major contractors, to see if there is enough insurance to perhaps enable a global 

settlement along the lines that was talked about? 

Mr. CARDOZO. That is a very good question, and Judge 

Hellerstein, who as you know is in charge of that litigation, has ordered that all the available information about insurance be produced right now in discovery on just that subject. It is going on 

right now. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. 

Mr. CARDOZO. The city obviously doesn’t know the individual——

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Feinberg, first of all I note—and you wouldn’t disagree with 

this, from your testimony in commenting on Mr. Frank’s testimony—that the VCF did compensate the victims who had pulmonary diseases that weren’t evident the day after. 

So let me ask you the following: You testified that the VCF did 

not have an indemnity. And I take it that you do not agree with 

67

Mr. Cardozo that if we reauthorize the VCF or reopen it that we 

should indemnify the contractors, and the city for that matter. 

Why? 

Mr. FEINBERG. Well, I think if you want to indemnify the contractors and hold hearings on the wisdom of that, that is entirely 

up to Congress. I think the VCF never had to worry about that on 

a simple one line re-extension because we were able, when we settled the claims, to get full releases from 97 percent of the people 

that were litigating. 

Mr. NADLER. But would you agree, or disagree, or have no opinion on the question of whether—granted that if we reopen the VCF, 

97, 98 percent of the people go through it; the other 2 percent 

might consider lawsuits—would it be as a matter of policy, should 

we indemnify the city and the contractors? If yes, why? If not, why 

not? 

Mr. FEINBERG. I don’t think you should. I don’t think you should. 

Mr. NADLER. Because? 

Mr. FEINBERG. The litigation system will take care of that. If 

there is—the point I want to emphasize is that that is really a separate issue. Indemnifying any defendant or any litigant from lawsuits is a separate issue from the question of whether or not public 

compensation should be available to compensate people who are in 

desperate need of help. 

I suggested a liability immunity will politically greatly slow down 

the likelihood that you will be able to get that type of compensation 

to the people that most need it. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. My time is expired. I now recognize the 

Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil 

Rights and Civil Liberties, the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. 

Franks. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Feinberg, I have been very impressed with your understanding of all this. It is got to be a challenge to do what you had 

to do given the grave circumstances that surrounded all of it. 

And some have proposed that the private contractors be fully indemnified by the Federal Government for claims arising out of the 

9/11 attacks such that any damage or awards or settlements resulting from private litigation would be drawn from the U.S. Treasury 

and paid by taxpayers. 

Given your experience, can you elaborate on what you think 

would be the advantages or disadvantage? What would be the outcome of such a policy? 

Mr. FEINBERG. I think that a compensation fund, like the 9/11 

Fund which was enacted, should be focused on compensating victims. If the fund works properly, as the 9/11 Fund seemed to have 

worked, at least statistically, issues concerning liability of wouldbe defendants become irrelevant because when you settle 97 percent of all the claims brought by the families of lost loved ones, 

they are waiving their right to litigate against anybody. We are 

getting a full release for domestic would-be tortfeasors. 

And I am suggesting that that solution guarantees compensation 

to people in need while at the same time avoiding the arguments 

over liability or no liability. Fault does not become an issue. 

68

Mr. FRANKS. Would you agree that—you mention in your testimony that the standards governing compensation under an expanded fund—if we expanded the fund and changed the rules that, 

you know, that would differ from those that governed the original 

fund so that there might be some indication on the part of Congress that they were fomenting ill will among the different categories of victims. If you agree or don’t agree, would you elaborate 

based your experiences in the fund that you were master of? 

Mr. FEINBERG. A strong argument can be made, substantively, a 

strong argument can be made that the original 9/11 Fund was not 

sufficiently expansive. 

It didn’t permit, by statute, compensating pure mental trauma 

without physical injury. It didn’t permit it. So I couldn’t compensate mental suffering from somebody who, through the grace of 

God, escaped from the World Trade Center without a scratch and 

then suffered disability. The statute prohibited me from compensating that individual. 

But if you decide to extend the 9/11 Fund and add as an eligibility claim mental trauma without physical injury, that is up to 

Congress. That could be millions of people that were not eligible 

under the 9/11 Fund. And my concern is not the legitimacy of those 

claims—those claims may be very legitimate. But it is pretty hard 

to reopen the fund and say those people are now eligible, whereas 

people before weren’t eligible. 

So Congress has to make that judgment. That is not a judgment 

for a special master administrator to make. 

Mr. FRANKS. Yes. Well, you bring a common sense and a logic to 

this environment that is more rare than it ought to be. 

Mr. Frank, the legislative proposal that we are talking about 

here, the H.R. 3543, does not limit the ongoing lawsuits against the 

private contracting companies. So, consequently, some have floated 

the idea that they should be indemnified, these companies should 

be indemnified, for their liability in these lawsuits by the Federal 

Government, much like I asked Mr. Feinberg. Under such a provision, the lawsuits against the companies would be allowed to proceed, but taxpayers would pay any damages that were assessed to 

the companies. 

Do you think that is sound policy, and if not, why not? 

Mr. FRANK. The problem there is that there will be a race to be 

who will be the most generous to the claimants. If the fund is not 

sufficiently generous to the claimants, people will stay within the 

litigation system because they have the ultimate deep pocket, the 

United States Treasury, to draw from. 

You will not get that 97 percent response rate that you got in the 

first compensation fund. And the reason you were able to get a 97 

percent response rate was because Special Master Feinberg was 

able to meet with many of the individual families and say, ‘‘Here, 

here is what you are going to do for you. You are going to get millions of dollars. Come over to us. You will get the millions of dollars 

immediately, and that will be that.’’

And that will not be possible in a reopened fund. You are not 

going to get the 97 percent response rate. You are just going to get 

a competing set of interests over who can be the most generous to 

claimants, and at great expense to the Treasury. 

69

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think all of this 

just underscores the importance of doing everything we can in this 

country to prevent such attacks from occurring in the future——

Mr. NADLER. Would the gentleman yield for a moment? 

Mr. FRANKS. Certainly. 

Mr. NADLER. I would just ask if the gentleman would ask Mr. 

Frank why he thinks that what Mr. Feinberg did with the first 

group of claimants couldn’t be done, individually meeting and so 

forth, to persuade the next group of claimants if we were to reopen 

the fund to come into the fund as opposed to sue people. In other 

words, why did you say that was impossible? 

Mr. FRANK. Well, it is possible if you just make it a blank check 

and anybody who shows up gets funding regardless of whether or 

not their injury was caused by September 11. And, you know, there 

are tens of thousands of lymphomas every year; there are tens of 

thousands of lung diseases every year. Not all of them were caused 

by the World Trade Center. And if all these of people are eligible, 

and they can just show up and say ‘‘Here is my diagnosis, and I 

will get the check,’’ then you will get a good response rate. 

But that is not going to be a few thousand people; that is not 

going to be ten thousand people; that is not even going to be 25,000 

people. That is going to be close to 100,000 people, perhaps more, 

because you are going to have Napoli, Kaiser & Bern with a van 

in New York signing up people to get compensation under the 

World Trade Center Compensation Fund. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

I now recognize the distinguished Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Immigration, the co-Chair with me of this hearing, 

Zoe Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

I just have a quick question. Mr. Feinberg, I don’t think you performed purely ministerial functions in your effort. Can you explain 

how the fund dealt with causation and give your thoughts on how 

the fund if reopened would deal with the causation issues? 

Mr. FEINBERG. Yes. The statute gave us general guidelines on 

causation that the death or the physical injury——

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Mr. FEINBERG [continuing]. Had to occur in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, et cetera. We had to develop regulations—which we 

publicized; we went around the country to meet with the families—

with interim regulations asking them what they thought of the regulations. Is there a way to improve the regulations? 

And we came up with a final set of regulations. And we constantly modified those regulations based on the quality of the 

claims. For example, originally our regulations, as Michael Cardozo 

correctly points out, originally our regulations required that within 

96 hours you not only had to be exposed to respiratory particles in 

the air, but you had to have manifested an illness and corroborated 

that illness with a medical visit. 

We quickly realized that there were thousands of people like Mr. 

Valentin who were exposed within 96 hours but didn’t manifest 

any injury, didn’t cough up blood, didn’t experience asthmatic attacks, until a year or more after the exposure. We quickly changed 

the regulation to say that anybody who was exposed within 96 

70

hours of the World Trade Center attacks but didn’t go to a doctor 

until 72 hours after the physical manifestation, they were eligible. 

So we adjusted the regulations to deal with the problem of causation. 

What the medical criteria would be if the 9/11 Fund were reauthorized, what we would require to constitute an eligible claim—

we will have to work that out with medical documentation. We rejected 2,000 claims. The idea that we simply rubber-stamped——

Ms. LOFGREN. Yes, you weren’t an ATM machine. 

Mr. FEINBERG. We rejected 2,000 physical injury claims while 

compensating 2,680 more. 

Ms. LOFGREN. You know, Mr. Chairman, I am very happy that 

we are having this hearing, and I am eager that we take action, 

especially listening to Mr. Valentin’s testimony—I mean, it is so 

moving. And we are so grateful to you and to people like you, that 

I would like to yield the remainder of my time to you. As not only 

are you co-chairing this hearing, but the Towers were in your district, so I yield the remainder of my time to you. 

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentlelady. 

Let me ask Mr. Feinberg, you heard Mr. Frank’s testimony that 

if we were to reopen the VCF it would be very difficult—there are 

thousands of lymphomas, ten thousands; there would be 100,000 

claimants; you couldn’t distinguish. Could you comment on that? 

Mr. FEINBERG. Well, Mr. Franks makes a good point when he 

says that if we reopen the fund there will probably be thousands 

of claims. I think that is likely. We had thousands of claims under 

the original 9/11 Fund. So I think you will probably have thousands of claims. 

The challenging question is whether or not those claims will be 

limited, like the original 9/11 Fund, to physical injury only. 

Mr. NADLER. Including respiratory. 

Mr. FEINBERG. That is right. 

And then the next challenge will be, assuming that we have an 

understanding from Congress as to what type of injury is compensable, what are the regulatory requirements—medical and evidentiary, not just medical but evidentiary as well—to justify the 

compensability of that claim? 

Mr. NADLER. And assuming that you had more or less the same 

regulations from Congress—if we just reenacted it, as you say, except eliminate the ‘‘you had to be there within 96 hours’’ because 

we know now that that was simply not right—do you think we 

would get a 97 percent——

Mr. FEINBERG. Yes. Well, I am often glib——

Mr. NADLER. We will allow you 96, but something in that neighborhood——

Mr. FEINBERG. I mean, I think—now, don’t forget as the Chairman well knows, the 9/11 Fund had no appropriation, none. Mr. 

Franks is right on that. The 9/11 Fund simply authorized the special master to authorize payments out of the United States Treasury. There was no appropriation. 

So insofar as Mr. Frank says, ‘‘You know, if you have no limitations, other than the good sense of the administrator and the Congress oversight, as to what amount will be used to compensate victims’’—it is a real challenge. 

71

But I suggest that if the Congress ever went to the limit of extending the fund with a one-line extension and said, basically, ‘‘Do 

what you did before,’’ I would like to think that success promotes 

success. 

Mr. NADLER. You would get roughly 97 percent again you think? 

Mr. FEINBERG. I would hope. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

My time has expired, or rather the gentlelady’s time that she 

gave to me is expired. I thank the gentlelady again. 

And I now recognize the gentleman from Iowa. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, again, I appreciate the witnesses’ testimony. 

I ask first, before I ask a question, if the staff could put the poster back up that shows the percentages of the people that were on 

the site. I want to make sure I am looking at those numbers because I have a question—thank you very much. 

And prior to that, I direct my first question to Dr. Melius. And 

that is, I would ask if you could quantify this for me. You gave 

some percentages on the particular types of illnesses that are 

there. Can you start with the universe of those that have some 

record of a claim, start with that number, and then break this 

down for me, in a sense, that I get a better understanding of the 

scope? And multiple different diagnoses per individual, as we heard 

in this testimony, can you give me a better sense of what we are 

really looking at here? I am really vague on the overall picture. 

Dr. MELIUS. Yes. First of all, I can’t give you the, sort of the percentages to deal with those that have claims against the Captive 

Fund because most of the public information that is available has 

to do, that I am familiar with, is related to those that are participating in the medical monitoring and treatment programs. 

And most of the information on that doesn’t deal as well with the 

number of people that have become disabled. I gave some figures 

in my testimony, but frankly we don’t have information to exactly 

pin down the number of those people with different illnesses. 

However, I think based on what we know from the medical monitoring and treatment programs, we would say that roughly 75-80 

percent of the people that are involved in that have a constellation 

of illnesses related to the respiratory system. They usually co-exist. 

So it is sinus problems, gastrointestinal problems and the respiratory health problems. 

Mr. KING. Okay. Now, am I hearing you say that of the universe 

of people who were there on site, 75-80 percent have some symptoms? 

Dr. MELIUS. No. No. I think we would say that of the——

Mr. KING. The universe of those——

Dr. MELIUS [continuing]. People that are in the monitoring program, approximately one-third of those have an illness that requires treatment right now through—they are usually referred to 

treatment within the medical monitoring program——

Mr. KING. Okay. About one in three of those——

Dr. MELIUS. One in three. 

Mr. KING [continuing]. That participated had some symptoms. 

Dr. MELIUS. Right. Correct. 

Mr. KING. That helps me. 

72

Dr. MELIUS. Okay. 

Mr. KING. I thank you, Dr. Melius. 

And then I direct to Mr.——

Dr. MELIUS. Then it is——

Mr. KING. Yes, go ahead. 

Dr. MELIUS. Then—allow me to just follow up—then about 

roughly about 80 percent of those have health problems related to 

respiratory, upper respiratory/sinus, lower respiratory/lungs, the 

asthma kind of problems that Mr. Valentin referred to that—and 

then approximately——

Mr. KING. The clock is ticking, and I do have the answer, and 

I appreciate that. 

I would like to, if I could, direct Mr. Frank’s attention to the 

poster that says ‘‘Police Officers 44.57 percent, Firefighters 10.76 

percent, Laborers 33 percent, and then the Other are 11.5 percent. 

In looking at that deployment, do you know, Mr. Frank, if we have 

a list of those who were required or authorized to be on site? Is 

there a full universe of those people that we could start with to 

start to address the scope of this in a fashion that is broader than 

we have here at this hearing? 

Mr. FRANK. I imagine Mr. Cardozo would have a better sense of 

that than I would. 

Mr. KING. I would then——

Mr. FRANK. I simply don’t know. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. 

Mr. Cardozo? 

Mr. CARDOZO. With respect to police officers and firefighters, I 

think that there is a universe. With respect, of course, to the laborers, that is going to—you would have to go to talk to each individual contractor. And, of course, there is at least a potential some 

claimants go beyond that——

Mr. KING. But let me ask as my clock ticks, and I am sorry about 

that. Is it possible to put together a list of those who were required 

or authorized to be on site? 

Mr. CARDOZO. I would say that firefighters and policemen—there 

are 44,000 people have signed up for the World Trade Center registry. It doesn’t mean they are sick, simply says they were there. 

Mr. KING. But do we know from their work records that they 

were required to be on site? Or as a volunteer, I understand as 

well, some of them came in and volunteered. 

Mr. CARDOZO. Congressman, I am not sure. I would be happy to 

find out and let you know. I don’t want to misstate the facts. 

Mr. KING. I would appreciate that. And if anyone has any information on laborers at all, so and I will submit some of those questions for the record as the clock ticks down here. 

Mr. CARDOZO. I will be happy to do that. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. 

And I just turn then back to Mr. Frank and ask if—I spent my 

life in the construction business. I look at the proportionality of 

that, and I understand the size and the scope of Ground Zero, and 

it takes a lot of security personnel. But we are not quite 2:1 in security personnel over the number of workers that were there on the 

site, too. 

73

The proportionality of the claims, does it come in proportion to 

those percentage of workers that we have? I mean, are we getting 

more claims from public employee workers than we are from private sector workers? It seems to me that we are, and if so, can you 

explain that? 

Mr. FRANK. There are several possible reasons for that. One is 

a legitimate reason, which is that the police officers were there at 

the earliest hours of the Ground Zero time, in which case exposure 

to toxins would have been greater than, say, workers who were 

there in February or March. 

Second, to the extent that the policemen have a union that is advocating on their behalf and signing them up for litigation, they 

might be more likely to sue. 

But I simply don’t know the ratios involved and to what extent 

they are medically legitimate. 

Mr. WEINER. Would the gentleman yield? Would the gentleman 

yield? 

Mr. KING. Yes, I would. 

Mr. WEINER. I just want to clarify something. Just because they 

are listed as police officers doesn’t mean they weren’t on the pile. 

It doesn’t necessarily mean they were only doing security. A lot of 

them came to the scene and started looking for their——

Mr. KING [continuing]. Their peers——

Mr. WEINER [continuing]. And were on the actual pile, not just 

doing security. So even though it says police officers, this universe 

of people is not just at the perimeter. Many of them were on the 

pile. 

Mr. KING. And I appreciate that, in reclaiming, and I absolutely 

recognize that. And I want to honor that as well. 

And I would ask the indulgence of the Chair and unanimous consent to ask one additional question. 

Mr. NADLER. Without objection. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I would like to direct it to Dr. Melius. And it is something 

that I hadn’t thought of, that is until I listened to Mr. Frank’s comments. Is the proximity to the, let me say, September 11—the closer you arrived there on the pile and worked, does that increase the 

likelihood of having a respiratory illness? Is it proportional in that 

fashion, and is it also proportional to the time spent on the pile? 

Have you got anything that measures that for me? 

Dr. MELIUS. Yes, it is actually proportional to both. The amount 

of time that you spent there increases your likelihood that you become ill, as well as how early you arrived and were involved in 

working on the pile. So it is the amount of hours spent early on, 

the total length of time that you worked there as well as, you 

know, which days you arrived. If you arrived early, you tend to be 

more likely to have symptoms. There is data on that from scientific 

studies. There is also a breakdown I can provide for you on the people in the medical monitoring program that breaks it down by their 

occupation and I think would address your earlier question also. 

Mr. KING. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman. 

74

I now recognize the distinguished Chairman of the full Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Chairwoman 

Lofgren. This has been fascinating hearing. But it is the American 

Enterprise Institute’s witness, Mr. Theodore Frank, that compels 

my attention most. 

With such minimal requirements for recovery and such potentially broad definitions of eligibility, taxpayers may find themselves 

paying for psychotherapy for Woody Allen and hundreds of thousands of other New Yorkers, many of whom are among the wealthiest people in the Nation. 

Well, I introduce you to the person on your right. A police officer 

is not one of those in that category, I hope not. 

Mr. FRANK. Well, I——

Mr. CONYERS. And that——

Mr. FRANK. Can I answer? 

Mr. CONYERS. When I recognize you to answer. When I finish. 

Mr. Feinberg, you have been around. What is this? Did you have 

a wide open policy? Were you letting every psychotic New Yorker 

that wanted to climb on board? Not that there are many of them 

in New York—don’t get me wrong. Mr. Wiener——

Mr. WEINER. I thank the Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. What is going on here? 

Mr. FEINBERG. The 9/11 statute, Mr. Chairman, did not allow, 

statutorily did not allow, any compensation for mental trauma 

alone. There had to be, under the 9/11 Fund, a physical injury: a 

broken leg, a burn, a respiratory claim, corroborated by doctors. So 

we didn’t pay any psychotherapy mental trauma claims. They were 

ineligible. 

Mr. CONYERS. Feeling better, Mr. Frank? 

Mr. FRANK. No, sir. Because section 203 of H.R. 3543 opens up 

the fund to precisely the injury the Stabilization Act forbid, which 

was physically or psychologically injured. And, given the fact that 

the New York City disaster area goes well beyond Mr. Valentin, 

who is perfectly entitled to compensation to the extent his injuries 

were caused the problems of working on Ground Zero—and I have 

no dispute with that, and I say that in my testimony—but that is 

not what H.R. 3543 does. It is——

Mr. CONYERS. But it——

Mr. FRANK [continuing]. Substantially broader than that. And if 

you want to fund vet Mr. Valentin, that doesn’t require you to open 

up section 203 to half of Manhattan. 

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. So you have got it in for people who may 

have psychological or mental injuries that are derivative from the 

basic claim. So you want to take all of them out. In other words—

do you have medical background? 

Mr. FRANK. Sir, I explain in my testimony why——

Mr. CONYERS. I just asked you the question. 

Mr. FRANK. I do not have a medical background——

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. I don’t either. 

Mr. FRANK [continuing]. Background, and I see what happens 

when you have broad——

75

Mr. CONYERS. Well, just a moment now. Here is the problem. I 

can agree with you to an extent. But who am I or you to determine 

that there are other kinds of injuries? 

It just so happened over the weekend—and this is a fortuitous 

circumstance—I spoke before the Detroit Chapter of the American 

Psychiatric Association. So as a disclaimer, I am not carrying any 

of their water or trying to help them in any way. But don’t you see 

a relationship, a possible relationship, between mental and physical injury? Is that conceivable? 

Mr. FRANK. Well, certainly. In the original 9/11 Fund, when people had physical injury and asked for compensation, they were also 

compensated for their non-economic mental injuries. And that was 

in the statute, and that was in the definition of how non-economic 

injury was defined in the Stabilization Act. And they were compensated for that. 

Mr. CONYERS. So you go along with that, but you think that this 

bill now has gone a little bit too far, or a lot too far? 

Mr. FRANK. You are holding up Mr. Valentin as who you want 

to help, but that is not who this bill helps. It helps many hundreds 

of thousands of people beyond that—helps in terms of just giving 

away taxpayer money——

Mr. CONYERS. Well, Carolyn Maloney has never given away a 

dime in taxpayers’ money, not even to New Yorkers who were psychos. But, I mean, the problem that we are faced with is how do 

we address your problem? Now, you are talking with some of the 

most veteran lawmakers, including my friends on the other side 

who may not be lawyers, but—and they have a little feeling and 

attitude about lawyers that we will talk about later—but the fact 

of the matter is, couldn’t you trust it in our tender hands to create 

a bill that would meet the objections? Because I don’t want to be 

giving out money in the fashion that you derive. I mean, Woody 

Allen, he ought to be helping us, not us helping him. 

Mr. FRANK. Well, that is what I try to do in my written testimony, sir, where I identify the problems in the existing legislation 

and what Congress needs to do to correct them. And even Mr. 

Feinberg agrees with me that opening up to psychological injury 

without proof of physical injury would be a huge can of worms. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, Mr. Feinberg, let me just close with this 

question: Do you see a relationship between mental and physical 

injuries? I mean, people can get hurt in a lot of ways. 

Mr. FEINBERG. Of course there is a relationship. Of course. 

The 9/11 Fund statute did not permit compensation for pure 

mental trauma without an accompanying physical injury. So if you 

reenact the 9/11 statute and add to it mental trauma without physical injury, that would be a major shift from the original statute. 

Mr. CONYERS. Would you accept an invitation from the American 

Psychiatric Association in my place next year when they meet? 

Mr. FEINBERG. Mr. Chairman, anything you asked me to do. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman. 

And now—— [Applause.] 

Mr. NADLER. I now recognize the gentleman from California. 

Mr. ISSA. I thank the Chairman. 

76

I am not a psychiatrist, psychologist, medical doctor or an attorney. I have got that off my chest real early. But I am a taxpayer. 

So I am going to make my line of questioning purely as a taxpayer 

from the state of California. 

Mr. Cardozo, how much money has the Federal Government put 

out in post-9/11, including the buckets of $10–$20 billion that we 

just threw at the State and the City of New York versus how much 

has been paid out by the city and the state of New York to the victims in direct aid? And we are talking about victims—direct, indirect—all the people that this bill is dealing with. What has been 

your end of the take? 

Mr. CARDOZO. Congressman, if you—I don’t know the precise answer, certainly. But including the pensions—and I think it is important, apropos of Congressman King’s question as to who would 

be covered here, that New York City as a matter of State law now 

gives firefighters and police and any other city worker who was affected by 9/11, who can show that he or she became ill as a result 

of the attack, gives them a three-quater pension basically meaning 

tax-free. So as a practical matter——

Mr. ISSA. Yes, and you are able to give Federal State tax-free because if you give somebody a medical tax-free status the IRS recognizes that, and they pay no federal. 

Mr. CARDOZO. That is right. The State legislature enacted that 

statute, and most of that money as a pension matter comes from 

New York City. 

The specific answer to your question is, as far as I have said before in response to the Chairman’s question, because of the fact 

that the $1 billion captive insurance fund is, based upon everything 

we know, not at all sufficient to cover the claims we have been 

talking about, and because neither the city nor the Captive believe 

they did anything wrong, we have no choice but to be litigating. 

And so the Captive has paid virtually none of the claims. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. Because, well, you know, my question from the 

dais is purely a Federal one. We voted in the wake of 9/11 huge 

amounts of money to the city and the state of New York. We have 

spent, arguably, between $1-$2 trillion related to the post-9/11, if 

you include going to Afghanistan and so on. 

I have to ask why damages from a fire that had no dirty bomb 

in it—it had no chemical munitions in it, it simply was an aircraft, 

residue of two aircraft, and residue of the materials used to build 

this building—why the firefighters who went there and everyone in 

the City of New York needs to come to the Federal Government for 

the dollars versus, quite frankly, this being primarily a State consideration. 

You know, it is very simple: I can’t vote for additional money for 

New York if I can’t see why it would be appropriate to do this 

every single time a similar situation happens, which quite frankly 

includes any urban terrorist. It doesn’t have to be somebody from 

Al Qaida. It can be somebody who decides that they don’t like animal testing at one of our pharmaceutical facilities. 

Mr. CARDOZO. Congressman, this was, I believe, an attack on the 

United States of America. It was located at Ground Zero, but it was 

an attack on America. The question which Congress answered right 

77

after 9/11 is because it was an attack on America, we should compensate these people. 

I am also suggesting to you if, God forbid, there is an attack, be 

it in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Houston, Seattle, the next time, 

if we do want the contractors, the city and the workers to give the 

same kind of response that they gave in New York City, which enabled us to be able to deal with the aftermath, if we want that to 

happen again we need this kind of an approach. 

Mr. ISSA. But we turned $20 billion over to the City of New York 

almost immediately after it. I think Hillary Clinton went to the 

White House and walked away, essentially, with the commitment 

from the President. 

Are you saying that this, whether or not we pay to the downwind 

hazard and anyone else who has alleged emotional problems as a 

result of the trauma of 9/11, that if we don’t do that firemen and 

police aren’t going to go to a fire regardless of how it is caused? 

Mr. CARDOZO. No, what I am saying is—and I think if you look 

at what happened in Katrina alone as an example, and a cautionary example—if you were running the largest construction companies in the world, as they were in New York, and you are faced 

with this kind of liability, and your government says there has 

been an attack in Los Angeles, please come in—we know from a 

fact that there were people slow to come in after Katrina because 

of that concern. 

And I think because this was—and certainly 9/11 was an attack 

on the Nation, and the only other alternative we all know is the 

tort system with the inadequacies that we have discussed today—

I would suggest to you that, yes, it is an obligation that the Federal 

Government should take——

Mr. ISSA. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. But I might note that we 

had Filipinos fighting with us in World War II, and we promised 

to give them full pensions as military personnel. As of today, we 

still haven’t done that. And I would say that we have to look at 

this and every other commitment of the Federal Government in 

light of that. And as a taxpayer, I would have to say that I would 

like to see my Filipine veterans——

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman——

Mr. ISSA [continuing]. Get that for——

Mr. WEINER [continuing]. Mr. Chairman, we request that the 

gentleman be given an additional minute to answer just a quick 

question, if we could. 

Mr. NADLER. Without objection. 

Mr. WEINER. Would the gentleman yield to a question? 

Mr. ISSA. Absolutely. 

Mr. WEINER. I just want to make sure an impression is not left 

here that you don’t mean to let. Congress passed the compensation 

fund. A Republican-controlled Congress. 

Mr. ISSA. And it is expired. 

Mr. WEINER. And, frankly, the gentleman voted for it. 

Mr. ISSA. I did. 

Mr. WEINER. The gentleman voted for it because we had the national sense that this was not an attack on New York City. This 

was an attack on our country. And remember something else, we 

78

also at the same time bailed out the airline industry. And we made 

a decision that there were two imperatives, that we should not—

that a lot of these decisions were made in the context of——

Mr. ISSA [continuing]. And I thank the gentleman. The answer 

to your question——

Mr. WEINER [continuing]. But I would just, if I could——

Mr. ISSA [continuing]. The answer to your question——

Mr. WEINER. The point that the gentleman seems to miss is that 

some extant body came in and did this to you. No, in fact, you 

voted for it because there was a reason to vote for it. And all this 

is is an extension of the very same conclusion. If you conclude it 

was then wrong, that is one thing——

Mr. ISSA. Right. And to answer the gentleman’s question, so that 

to be clear, I voted, this Congress voted, in order to stabilize markets, stabilize confidence throughout the country in the wake of 9/

11. We did a lot of those things, and I think they were the right 

things. 

I am now asking on the extension whether all the commitments 

and potential commitments, and we could choose to commit, whether this one rises to the extent of it. And right now I am not convinced. And I cited the Filipine veterans never having——

Mr. NADLER. I would—the time of the gentleman has expired. I 

hope the gentleman is not suggesting because we shamefully have 

not met our commitments to Filipino veterans—which we should 

do—therefore we should be as shameful and not meet our responsibilities to people who gave up their health and their lives—— 

[Applause.] 

Mr. ISSA. I just want to——

Mr. NADLER [continuing]. Who gave up their health and the balance of their careers because of an attack on this country. 

The time of the gentleman is expired. 

I now recognize the gentlelady from Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you to both Chairmen and to my 

Chairman of the full Committee. 

And I am glad that Chairman is sitting in front of the flag of the 

United States of America. I happen to be from Texas, but the last 

thing I recognize is Texas is in the Union, and I am an American. 

What that means is that America has an obligation to those who 

were on the front lines of a terrorist act that occurred in 2001 and 

risked their lives to save Americans. And as well in 1993, terrorist 

act. 

And might I add that we have, likewise, though it is not in the 

context of a terrorist act, failed badly the people in the Gulf Coast 

who suffered at the hands of an enormous natural disaster. Hurricane Katrina is a story yet unfinished. 

So I am quite quizzical about where we are today, and I thank 

Chairman Nadler for his legislation. I know that I am on the bill 

and look forward to not only supporting this bill, but I join him and 

all uncompensated heroes of America, the Filipino veterans and 

others. America needs to stand up and own these issues and respond to them. 

Mr. Cardozo, I just wanted to try and find out what amount of 

monies are left, to your knowledge, in the closed 2003 Fund? 

Mr. CARDOZO. In the Victim Compensation Fund? 

79

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes. 

Mr. CARDOZO. None. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. What are you utilizing to—there are 11,000 

claims, I understand. And how are you addressing those claims 

right now? 

Mr. CARDOZO. Well, as you know, there is a captive insurance 

company that Congress set up to defend the city and the contractors against that claim——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me have you stop for a moment. So what 

you are doing—even though it a breach of Congress—what you are 

doing is taking money and fighting claims of people who are in 

need? 

Mr. CARDOZO. I don’t agree with that characterization, Congressman, because the money as appropriated—as it said it in the Appropriation Act, as it said it in the Inspector General’s Report—was 

to create an insurance company. That insurance——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And is that the insurance company where the 

head of it was being paid $350,000 and $20,000 in health benefits? 

Mr. CARDOZO. And that, as the Inspector General’s Report notes, 

the reason that captive insurance company was set up was because 

neither the city nor the contractors could get private insurance. In 

the ordinary course, FEMA would have paid the premiums and you 

would have purchased insurance. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Cardozo——

Mr. NADLER. Would the gentlelady yield for a moment? Would 

the gentlelady yield for a moment——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I——

Mr. NADLER [continuing]. A very short moment? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE [continuing]. Would be happy to yield. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Cardozo keeps referring to the Inspector General’s Report. 

As far as I know, they haven’t issued their report yet. So I am wondering what he is referring to. 

Mr. CARDOZO. Well, you would know better than I. I am referring 

to the January 2008 Report of the Inspector General of——

Mr. NADLER. Well, let me just say that is a draft which was withdrawn as inadequate and inaccurate. It was never issued. 

Mr. CARDOZO. Well, was that your——

Mr. NADLER. I yield back. [Applause.] 

Mr. NADLER. Please, please refrain from cheering or booing, either one. 

The time is returned to the gentlelady. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Cardozo, there are often things that Congress does that I 

vigorously disagree with, and I certainly disagree with any premise 

or any—it is an interesting name, Captive, because you have really 

captured and hung out to dry individuals who have been on the 

front line by using those dollars to fight against, if you will, or defend against claims of individuals who probably legitimately deserve to be compensated. We have someone who, I understand has 

resigned, but formerly was making $350,000. 

I don’t know if Congress dictated that or not, but certainly we 

deserve an F grade if that is what we did, to give money to someone holding back on giving money to others. 

80

Let me try to ask Mr. Feinberg again to get that regulation, I 

understand it had to do with making sure that someone got to the 

doctor within 96 hours and then 72 hours. Is that accurate? 

Mr. FEINBERG. The regulations accompanying the original statute required exposure at the World Trade Center——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Right. 

Mr. FEINBERG [continuing]. Within 96 hours of the 9/11 attacks 

and within 72 hours of that——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Did it have any language in there about latent 

impact? 

Mr. FEINBERG. The subsequent regulations did. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Okay. 

Let me go to Mr. Valentin. Mr. Valentin, thank you for being 

here. I know that you struggle as well. When did you first sense 

the impact of your disease, or your diagnosis, and when did you get 

to the World Trade—within hours, within days? 

Mr. VALENTIN. I got to the World Trade Center by 11:30 that 

morning. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The day of? 

Mr. VALENTIN. The day of. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. All right, sir. And then when did you get this 

diagnosis? 

Mr. VALENTIN. Well, subsequently also, I was at No. 7 when it 

fell, a block away. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes. 

Mr. VALENTIN. I was in the plume dust there. 

I became sick in November, roughly November, 2 months later. 

I went and got a chest X-ray. And they thought I had a pneumonia, 

but my lungs were clear. But it was a progression of illness, and 

I didn’t really see it until 2004. And it just progressed until it got 

worse, and——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So you have a latent impact. And not only do 

you have a physical illness, but I imagine there is some mental 

trauma that goes on as you have been speaking about it. 

Mr. VALENTIN. Absolutely. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And so when did you file a claim? 

Mr. VALENTIN. I haven’t filed a claim with Captive for it. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And for what reason? 

Mr. VALENTIN. There is no way to file a claim. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So you are in essence barred from ever connecting your disease and your mental trauma to the actions of 9/

11——

Mr. VALENTIN. That is right. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE [continuing]. Of which you were present? 

Mr. VALENTIN. That is correct. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And you said that your surrounding colleagues also—and maybe some of them did not get to a doctor within 72 hours. Is that accurate? 

Mr. VALENTIN. That is accurate. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And I might just say to you, without making 

any humor out of it, some of you gentlemen who are in the firefighters and police and others who work every day, you are not apt 

to go to the doctor every 15 minutes. Am I honest to say that? Is 

your wife here to join me, understand it? 

81

Mr. VALENTIN. Exactly. That is exactly right. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You guys just hang in there, is that it? 

Mr. VALENTIN. That is right. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And some of the other workers? 

Mr. VALENTIN. That is correct. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I got him smiling. 

Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, I didn’t get a chance to talk to 

Mr. Frank, but the Chairman of the full Committee ably pointed 

out some inconsistencies in trying to address this question. 

There is no doubt that as we sit in this room and as we look at 

the flag of the United States, you are owed as Americans whether 

you are from New York, California, Texas, Louisiana—we owe you. 

This bill is a responsible addressing of the question of individuals 

who are now experiencing latent damage. How dare we deny the 

recognition of the tragedy of 9/11, Oklahoma, 1993 World Tower or 

Hurricane Katrina? We have to stop it now, and I hope that this 

bill moves quickly through this Committee. 

And I thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentlelady. 

And I recognize the gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. And I do appreciate the hearing. It 

has been very informative testimony, both written and oral has 

been helpful and very informative. 

I am not going to make any political speeches. I am just trying 

to gather information additionally. But I will say, I mentioned to 

some of my firefighters back in East Texas just this past week that 

with all of the horrors that came out of that evil attack on 9/11, 

I am glad that finally our first responders have begun to be appreciated as they should have been all along. But they have been 

taken for granted for so long. And after 9/11 people began to realize 

just what it is they put on the line every day. 

I want to ask about the insurance policies that were in effect covering first responders back at the time of 9/11 and whether or 

not—I guess, Mr. Feinberg, let me ask you—did those come into 

play at all in consideration in the awards or the compensation to 

people under the fund? 

Mr. FEINBERG. Absolutely. The statute passed by Congress creating the 9/11 Fund required me, once I made the calculations, to 

deduct from any gross award life insurance, disability insurance, 

State victims of crime payments. I was required by statute to take 

into account each individual’s insurance situation and deduct those 

amounts before providing a public check from the U.S. Treasury. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. Thank you. And that seems to me to make 

sense because that is dangers that insurance companies are insuring against. 

But in some of the written testimony I had also read that some 

of the first responders who had not been compensated under the 

original fund who now appear to be injured as a result have lost 

their health insurance and are not able to receive health insurance. 

Mr. Cardozo, you seem to want to respond, so I am curious about 

that. I mean, normally the unions have been pretty good about negotiating, I would hope, decent health insurance policies. Are these 

guys being left out in the cold from health insurance? 

82

Mr. CARDOZO. I am glad to answer that question. And I think 

there is a two-pronged answer. 

First of all, with respect to health insurance, once a union member has to retire because of some kind of disability, there is very 

good health insurance as a retiree, but it is as a retiree, and there 

is a co-payment and the usual. 

But as a result of both the help of this Congress and Mayor 

Bloomberg’s initiative in particular, every person who has been injured or thinks he or she may be injured is now entitled to free 

medical care at one of the centers of excellence that the city is 

funding and that is being funded in part by Federal dollars. 

Now, that was not in effect on September 12th, and so there are 

some people who had some out of pocket medical care. But as far 

as firefighters and policemen are concerned, they were covered by 

their insurance as long as they were policemen and firemen. If they 

needed to retire because of their health problems, they do get 

health insurance, but they did have to pay the usual co-pay. But 

now they are getting that for free. 

Secondly, and I think this is a very important point I just want 

to mention, that, again, as far as city workers are concerned, if you 

do become injured and have to retire or became ill, such as someone unfortunately like Mr. Valentin, you retire on a three-quarter 

pension which gives you three-quarters of your pay for the rest of 

your life tax-free. Now, that does not deal, obviously, with any past 

medical benefits, it does not deal with pain and suffering, but it 

does compensate you for the lost wages. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, you mentioned it wasn’t in effect on September 12th, are you saying there is a group now even under this 

new policy that does not have access to the free medical help? 

Mr. CARDOZO. Well, no. Today they can come in——

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. 

Mr. CARDOZO. Everyone is covered today. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Because that sure caught my attention because if 

these first responders went in there and then they were not at a 

point where they could retire and yet then were left in the lurch, 

that would be a huge problem——

Mr. CARDOZO [continuing]. The gap that I was talking about, 

Congressman, here——

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. 

Mr. CARDOZO [continuing]. Between September 12th, if you will, 

and the time these programs went into effect, policemen and firemen who had to retire may have had to put some money out of 

pocket. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, because of the lengthy answer, 

could I ask unanimous consent to ask one quick question of——

Mr. NADLER. Without objection. 

Mr. GOHMERT [continuing]. The master? 

I am also concerned—most tort systems allow for a discovery 

rule. And it seems like it would certainly be applicable here if you 

had firemen or policemen or workers out there who didn’t know 

until much later when the symptoms manifested themselves that 

they were injured, isn’t there some basis for coming in and filing 

a late claim based on the date of the discovery rather than the date 

83

of the injury so they still may have access to the original fund? Is 

that possible? 

Mr. FEINBERG. Absolutely. We had a regulation—we modified it 

when we saw this happening, Congressman. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. 

Mr. FEINBERG. We modified it and allowed anybody who had a 

latent injury to come in, and we would find them eligible if they 

had the requisite medical evidence, etcetera. But the statute expired on December 22, 2003. So all of these claims that are now 

being asserted in court——

Mr. GOHMERT. There is no ability for you to address those. 

Mr. FEINBERG. I had no ability to pay them because there was 

no longer a statute in existence. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Minnesota. 

Mr. ELLISON. I first of all, Mr. Chairman, want to thank you for 

this hearing and also want to thank and commend all of the New 

Yorkers who are here in support of their city. I agree that part of 

what it means to be a citizen of the country is that when one part 

of our country has a catastrophe, we all come to their aid. So I just 

want to restate the sentiments already expressed here that I will 

very gladly and proudly support the legislation. 

And with that, I want to yield back to you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. NADLER. Are you yielding me the balance of your time? Or 

yielding——

Mr. ELLISON. I am yielding—who wants to——

Mr. NADLER. No, no, no, I. Thank you. Thank you. 

I have two questions. I just want to see if anybody else wants 

it. 

Dr. Melius, first of all: Given what Mr. Cardozo just said—he 

painted a rather bright picture of benefits available to city workers 

who had to retire on disability because of the tragedy—why is it 

that we have people like Detective Valentin who have lost their 

homes, had to pay their 401Ks? Is it true, in other words, or is it 

a completely accurately picture, I should say, because it is true in 

come cases, that the city and State benefits now take care of this? 

Dr. MELIUS. I think what Mr. Cardozo has presented is a very 

rosy picture of what the situation is for the many city workers who 

have become ill and disabled because of their World Trade Center 

exposures. 

They have great difficulty obtaining coverage, particularly those 

that are disabled and can no longer work. There are long delays 

in getting compensation, typically 3 years or more before they can 

receive compensation, so they lose their homes and they have limited health coverage. They have limited ability to be able to pay the 

high co-pays and so forth that are needed for their medications and 

so forth. I mean, I don’t know whether it is city policy, but it is 

certainly very common for the city to oppose either the line of duty 

three-quarters pension disability or the workers’ compensation 

cases filed by other city workers. 

84

Full prompt compensation is just simply not reality and not what 

we see commonly among the many people that are being treated 

now in the medical programs. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

And Mr. Feinberg, how would you structure a settlement with 

the Captive Insurance Company and existing insurance funds if 

you were going to do that? 

I said how would you structure a settlement with the Captive Insurance Company and existing insurance funds if you were going 

to do that? 

Mr. FEINBERG. As I say in my testimony, Mr. Chairman, sit down 

with all of the parties and see if one can negotiate out a settlement 

that will take into account not only the Captive’s available funds 

but insurance funds that may or may not—I don’t know; I haven’t 

seen if there are policies, but would have to see that—other sources 

of contribution that would increase the overall aggregate amount. 

And then try and work out a settlement that would give some 

monies to those currently ill, put some monies aside for future 

claims—something of great legitimate concern to the city—and also 

perhaps find an insurer who might insure these claimants against 

the likelihood of subsequent serious disease. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

I have one quick question for Mr. Cardozo, then I will yield the 

balance of the time to Mr. Weiner. 

Given that you testified about how we have these programs in 

place now—they are funded to a large extent by the $160 million 

that Congress voted on a one-time basis in last year’s budget—if 

the President’s recommendation of—and the estimate is it cost 

$250 million, roughly, a year for the health care—if the President’s 

recommendation in this year’s budget to cut that $160 million to 

$25 million goes through, will this impact the ability to provide 

those medical services? 

Mr. CARDOZO. Well, it obviously has that potential, Congressman, which is why we strongly support the rest of this bill to deal 

with this. Mayor——

Mr. NADLER. And you would strongly support a higher level of 

appropriation this year? 

Mr. CARDOZO. Yes. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Now, would the gentleman from Minnesota yield the balance of 

his time to the other gentleman from New York, Mr. Weiner? 

Mr. ELLISON. Yes. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Mr. WEINER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thanks to the gentleman. 

And I am going to ask on my own time some substantive questions about the legislation, but I can’t allow the gentleman from 

California’s remarks about what led us here to go unchallenged. 

The notion that this is the City of New York asking for more benefits from the Federal Government because we were the point of attack on our country is patently absurd and, frankly, insulting to no 

end. The President of the United States, when he stood in our city, 

did not say New York City was attacked. He said our country was 

85

attacked. There are people, some of them in this audience, that are 

dying from that attack. That was an attack on our Nation. 

The efforts made by this Congress, whatever they might have 

been, were not the reflection of Congress’ generosity. It was a reflection of our national sense that it was New York City that came 

under this attack, and we had to do what we could to repair the 

breach in our Nation. 

You know, we frequently say that 2,800 some-odd citizens died 

in that attack. That is not true. There are people who are every 

single day, bit by bit by bit, who are dying from that attack. And 

all we are saying here is: How are we going to deal with our national obligation to make those people and their families as whole 

as is possible? 

Mr. NADLER. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

I now recognize the gentlelady from California. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I have sat here and listened with great interest to the debate and 

discussion about September 11 and the fund that was set up to 

compensate the victims. But I am really taken back by Mr. Frank’s 

written testimony that is here in the book. It is probably some of 

the most cynical testimony I have seen since I have served on this 

Committee. 

And I would like to ask Mr. Frank, how do you know that psychiatric treatment is more acceptable in New York than in other 

places in the country? 

Mr. FRANK. I am sorry. I don’t understand the question. It was 

a simple——

Ms. WATERS. Well, let us go back to your testimony where you 

talk about the likelihood that there will be claims for psychiatric 

care and where you say that ‘‘one strongly suspects that ratio is 

higher for a cosmopolitan area such as New York City where the 

stigma of psychiatric care is smaller than in the American population at large.’’ Where did you get that stat from? 

Mr. FRANK. That was praise for New York City and for its——

Ms. WATERS. I don’t care what it was. Where did you get it from? 

Mr. FRANK. That was just common sense, ma’am. 

Ms. WATERS. So you made it up. 

Mr. FRANK. That particular——

Ms. WATERS. You are making a case here——

Mr. FRANK [continuing]. Praise for New York City——

Ms. WATERS [continuing]. Why——

Mr. FRANK [continuing]. Was made up. You are correct. I made 

up——

Ms. WATERS [continuing]. The case—you made it up, that is 

right. You are making a case here why taxpayer money is going to 

be unwisely spent for psychiatric claims, and you are concluding 

that it is certainly going to be high in New York because everybody 

knows that it is more acceptable in New York to have psychiatric 

problems, and you have concluded that that is going to be costly. 

Mr. FRANK. Well, it is well known that New York is a more educated community than the United States at large, and more educated people are more likely to accept psychiatric——

Ms. WATERS. That is not what you said. Anyhow, let us also——

Mr. FRANK. Well, that is what I said. 

86

Ms. WATERS [continuing]. Go to the cynical statement about 

Woody Allen. What did you mean that taxpayers would find themselves paying for psychotherapy for Woody Allen and hundreds of 

thousands of other New Yorkers, many of whom are among the 

richest people in the Nation? What kind of testimony is this? 

Mr. FRANK. Well, if you look at H.R 3543 you will see that the 

definitions of psychiatric injury are very broad, that the definitions 

of eligible claimants are very broad, and the absurd example demonstrates how just broad it is. This is a bill intended to help heroes 

like Mr. Valentin, and it is in fact a giveaway for a much larger 

group of people that you might not be intending to give that money 

to. 

Ms. WATERS. Your extensive testimony, that probably was prepared by 20 or 30 people over at the Institute——

Mr. FRANK. No, ma’am. I prepared that by myself. 

Ms. WATERS. You shouldn’t be proud of it. This testimony that 

you have supplied here, making all kind of criticism about the bill, 

admit—well, at least you gave the master credit for being very responsible in the way that he managed the compensation funds. But 

then you oppose the master having that kind of authority in H.R. 

3543. Why is that? 

Mr. FRANK. Well, I don’t think the master should have had that 

authority in the original stabilization——

Ms. WATERS. But you said the master did a good job. 

Mr. FRANK. The master did a good job. 

Ms. WATERS. He did not abuse the authority. 

Mr. FRANK. The master did not abuse the authority he was 

given. He had the potential to abuse the authority, and I think——

Ms. WATERS. But that leads you to a conclusion that the master 

shouldn’t have this kind of authority in 3543, even though they did 

a good job in the original compensation fund. 

Mr. FRANK. Well, if you are going to put Special Master Feinberg 

back in charge of this, and if he is going to be as circumspect as 

he was the first time, but if he is as circumspect as he was the first 

time, then the policemen and firemen behind me aren’t going to be 

satisfied. 

You are talking about a much broader statute with much broader 

authority for the special master in the original situation. And I also 

don’t know whether Special Master Feinberg wants to spend another 5 years doing this. 

Ms. WATERS. Well, but he didn’t ask you to decide whether or not 

he would like to be the master of this fund. You have taken it upon 

yourself to talk about the fact that he could be good, and only if 

he had it would you be comfortable with the fact that a master 

could be as responsible as he was. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time that you have allotted 

to me. 

I would just like to say that I am certainly going to support 3543. 

I thank you for this hearing. We are spending a lot of time talking 

about whether or not psychiatric problems, mental health problems, are legitimate for compensation. 

And I want to tell you, I am surprised, based on what happened 

September 11 in New York City, that we don’t have more people 

who have been psychologically damaged than we appear to have. 

87

I think it was one of the most traumatic things that could have 

happened to anybody, any time, any place, anywhere. 

And whether or not we are talking about people who did not 

know the negative impact it was having on their health at the time 

or people who discover tomorrow, they deserve to be heard and to 

be considered. And I hope that the Members of Congress will do 

just that. 

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentlelady. And I thank the gentlelady 

for her important comments. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Feinberg, how many claims did you say you paid, and how 

many did you deny? How many claims did you pay, and how many 

did you deny? 

Mr. FEINBERG. We paid about 5,300 claims, and we denied about 

2,000 claims. All the denials were physical injury claims. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Now, let me just go through this a little bit the 

way the settlements work. When somebody settles, it is the final 

settlement—once you settle, that is it? 

Mr. FEINBERG. That is it. 

Mr. SCOTT. You can’t reopen it. And if you settled for the broken 

bone and give a release and subsequently have asbestos-related 

problems, that is too bad? 

Mr. FEINBERG. That is right. 

Mr. SCOTT. And you didn’t make partial payments—there is one 

payment, and that is it? 

Mr. FEINBERG. That is correct. 

Mr. SCOTT. And if someone was not satisfied with the offer, they 

could refuse it and go to court? 

Mr. FEINBERG. That is correct. 

Mr. SCOTT. And was the statute of limitation for the court case 

told while it was pending with you? 

Mr. FEINBERG. No. The statute wasn’t told, but the life of the 

fund was such that the statute of limitations never really entered 

into this. The fund expired. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, if they wanted to reject your claim and go to 

court, a lot of them would have exhausted the statute of limitations——

Mr. FEINBERG. No. Because the fund expired by its own terms on 

December 22, 2003, within the tort litigation statute of limitations 

period. 

Mr. SCOTT. So if they rejected the claim they would still, at that 

time, be within the statute of limitations——

Mr. FEINBERG. That is correct. 

Mr. SCOTT [continuing]. For a court case. 

We have heard about legal fees. My discussions with the fine 

lawyers in Virginia was such to lead me to believe that there was 

a lot of pro bono legal work being done. 

Mr. FEINBERG. Congressman, I am glad you raised that. Legal 

fees were never an issue in the fund. Virtually all families and 

physically injured victims who wanted an attorney were provided 

an attorney pro bono with no fees whatsoever. It just never arose 

as an issue. 

88

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. And you mentioned several of the collateral sources. Is workers’ compensation a collateral source? 

Mr. FEINBERG. It is a collateral source, and it was a very problematic issue. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, Mr. Cardozo, my recollection of workers’ comp 

says that you are eligible if your injury was arising out of in the 

course of employment. 

Mr. CARDOZO. That is right. 

Mr. SCOTT. And so that would cover the police officers and the 

firefighters and whatnot. Would it——

Mr. CARDOZO. No. Forgive me for interrupting, Congressman, but 

under New York law, neither policeman nor firemen are covered by 

workers’ comp because they get what we call line of duty payments 

instead. 

Mr. SCOTT. Which is the same thing as workers’ comp. Well, 

Mr. CARDOZO. Well——

Mr. SCOTT. Let me back up a step. Is line of duty pay a collateral 

source? 

Mr. FEINBERG. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay, now, what happens to the restaurant worker 

who was just working in the restaurant? Was his injury or death—

did that arise out of or in the course of employment? 

Mr. CARDOZO. Well, that would depend upon the workers’ comp 

of his private employer. That wouldn’t be New York City workers’ 

comp. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, it would be a collateral source——

Mr. CARDOZO. Oh——

Mr. SCOTT [continuing]. That Mr. Feinberg would look into. 

Mr. CARDOZO [continuing]. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Did anybody in that situation get workers’ comp—a 

restaurant worker in the World Trade Center? 

Mr. FEINBERG. I don’t—I assume so, but would have to go back 

and check our files to get an answer to that. I assume it would. 

Mr. SCOTT. And if you settled, could workers’ comp subsequently 

pay for some of the subsequent medical expenses? 

Mr. FEINBERG. Of private employees? I would assume that they 

would, yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. And that wouldn’t be a collateral source that you 

would want to get——

Mr. FEINBERG. Once the check was cut, we walked away. We 

would try, Congressman, and calculate what future workers’ comp 

benefits would be over the work life of that injured victim——

Mr. SCOTT. And you would have that——

Mr. FEINBERG [continuing]. And consider whether we had to deduct that or not at that time. 

Mr. SCOTT. How much is needed in the WTCC Insurance Fund? 

A billion isn’t enough, Mr. Cardozo? 

Mr. CARDOZO. Well, the plaintiffs have said in open court that as 

to the existing roughly 10,000 claims, a billion dollars is not 

enough. And, of course, as Mr. Feinberg said, we are faced with the 

additional possibility of 25,000-30,000 additional claims. 

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Feinberg, if you were to try to do an eligibility, 

the present requirement is injury had to be in the immediate aftermath of the attack—you are talking about hours—and you have 

89

some geographic limitations. There are some of these injuries—asbestos-related, for example—that you can show were clearly caused 

by the 9/11 attack. How would they be compensated or not compensated if we extend without amending the statute? 

Mr. FEINBERG. I think you would have to look at the existing, the 

regulations that we enacted in 2001, and decide whether or not 

those regulations are pertinent in all respects to latent claims that 

you are focusing on. And perhaps the regulations would have to be 

adjusted to determine different eligibility——

Mr. SCOTT. Well, if somebody could prove, convince by the fund 

as to evidence prove that their situation was caused by the 9/11 attack although they didn’t have the hours, and they didn’t have the 

proximity, would that be a compensable injury under, if we extended it? 

Mr. FEINBERG. We would have to examine that claim and decide, 

you know, whether or not the assertion is valid. If the assertion is 

valid, they would have a compensable claim, yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank the gentleman. 

And I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for holding 

the hearing. 

I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit for the record 

an e-mail from a constituent of mine, Jennifer Hovey, just for the 

purpose of demonstrating that this is not a situation that is only 

affecting New Yorkers. I am from North Carolina, and I would just 

like to lift a part of this just to make the point. 

She is talking about her father, a 35-year veteran of the New 

York Police Department Bomb Squad, who suffers from severe 

asthma and heart-related injuries due to his involvement as a first 

responder on 9/11. And she talks about some of the things that he 

could do prior to this response and a number of things that he is 

unable to do, speaking of her father, Detective Kevin Berry. So I 

would just like to submit this for the record for that purpose. 

Mr. NADLER. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:]

90


A.eps
91

Mr. WATT. Mr. Feinberg, could you quickly give me kind of a 

snapshot of the kinds of things that you rejected in the 2,000 

claims that you rejected? 

Mr. FEINBERG. The statute prohibited compensation for mental 

trauma alone. 

Mr. WATT. So, no, no. I thought you told me you rejected some 

things that were not prohibited under the statute. Is that not the 

case? 

Mr. FEINBERG. Well, of the 2,000 physical injury claims that we 

rejected, the overwhelming number of those were mental trauma 

only. The other reason——

Mr. WATT. Okay. So in the 2,000 physical injury claims, you are 

including emotional trauma claims, not physical injury in the sense 

that——

Mr. FEINBERG. That is right. 

Mr. WATT. Okay. 

Mr. FEINBERG. In addition——

Mr. WATT. Are there other kinds of things that you can quickly 

tell me about——

Mr. FEINBERG. Yes. 

Mr. WATT [continuing]. Aside from the trauma claims? 

Mr. FEINBERG. Yes. We rejected physical injury claims where the 

medical documentation did not corroborate the claim. 

Mr. WATT. Okay. I am just trying to get a picture of the kinds 

of things because that seemed to be a fairly high incidence of rejections. What portion of that would you say, the 2,000 that you rejected, were trauma claims, emotional claims, as opposed to physical claims, where you just didn’t have the substantiation of the 

physical connection? 

Mr. FEINBERG. I will have to go back, Congressman——

Mr. WATT. Approximate—I am not trying——

Mr. FEINBERG. I really don’t know. I would have to go back and 

provide you that information in the next few days. 

Mr. WATT. Now, you suggested that a simple extension, one-sentence extension, but that leaves me a little uneasy because I am—

it sounds to me like you all were at some level in your regulations 

defining a category of things that maybe should have been the 

province of the Congress. And because when I hear you say you redefined the regulations to fit circumstances, it sounds to me like 

you as a master were doing a lot of the things that you contemplated we should have done as—and that makes me uneasy as 

a lawyer and as a legislator when you start redefining this because 

that allows you to legislate. 

Talk to me a little bit about—help me through that uneasiness 

if you can, because shouldn’t we at least be amending the statute 

to incorporate the regulatory framework that you already acknowledge was legitimate? 

Mr. FEINBERG. Well, that is a loaded statement, Congressman. I 

agree with most of what you say. 

I did have the responsibility of trying to clarify some of the ambiguities in the statute. There was nothing ambiguous about mental 

trauma alone is not compensable. So there is nothing I could do 

with that. There was nothing ambiguous about collateral offsets 

92

had to be deducted—like comp and life insurance, etcetera. So in 

certain areas, I had no discretion. 

In other areas, what is the immediate aftermath of the attacks? 

How long is immediate? What is the immediate vicinity of the 

World Trade Center? Canal Street? South Ferry? Lower Broadway? 

We had to take regulations and try and clarify what we thought 

Congress meant when it passed that law. 

One problem now that you have, the statute having been initially 

enacted, the regulations having been initially promulgated, 7,300 

applicants having been processed, if Congress goes back now and 

decides to extend the statute and change the rules, you are going 

to run into this difficulty, I just—you know it very well——

Mr. WATT. Sure. 

Mr. FEINBERG [continuing]. People now will be treated ‘‘A’’ when 

people back then were treated ‘‘B,’’ and you will have a real problem——

Mr. WATT. So your recommendation actually is to extend the 

statute but incorporate your regulations. You are not saying don’t 

do at least that—because then you are going to have the same conclusion in the opposite direction. 

Mr. FEINBERG. I think that is right. Although Congressman 

Scott——

Mr. NADLER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The witness may answer this question briefly. 

Mr. FEINBERG. Congressman Scott raises a very good point, 

which is you had regulations back in 2001, 2002 and 2003. If in 

2008 there is somebody who can demonstrate medically that they 

were injured in a geographic area that might be a block away from 

our regulations but it is now demonstrable—it can be demonstrated 

and corroborated—I suppose you couldn’t ignore that claim, if it 

could be corroborated. 

But other than that, I am agreeing with you that if, if the statute 

is extended—a position that I discuss in my written testimony is 

a very difficult philosophic question—if it is extended, a one-line 

extension is the way to go. 

Mr. NADLER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

I have a statement from the husband of a victim who was killed, 

which I would like unanimous consent to insert into the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:]

93


Wolf-1.eps
94


Wolf-2.eps
95


Wolf-3.eps
96

Mr. NADLER. Before we go to our next questioner, I have to say 

that unfortunately I have a bill of mine under consideration on the 

floor imminently, and I need to briefly step out of the hearing. We 

tried to move the bill so it wouldn’t conflict with the hearing, but 

as you can imagine, trying to manage the schedules of 235 Members of Congress is not always possible. The situation was unavoidable. So you will forgive me, I have to leave. I will come back as 

soon as possible. And the other co-Chair of this hearing will Chair 

the hearing. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. [Presiding.] At this point I would recognize the 

gentleman, Mr. Cohen. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Cardozo—and I apologize, I had to be out of the room for a 

little bit, if you have answered this—but I understand that it is the 

position of the city that for a person to be paid, they have to sue 

and win a judgment. Is that accurate? 

Mr. CARDOZO. If we can’t—obviously, the best way to do this is, 

we believe, is the Victim Compensation Fund. Barring that, if we 

cannot settle this entire matter—because the city does not believe, 

I am talking to the city, that it did anything wrong, and the contractors do not believe that it did anything wrong, the huge liability that far exceeds the available insurance—that we have no 

choice but to be fighting with people who we don’t want to be fighting with. And the answer to your question, therefore, would be yes. 

Mr. COHEN. So you don’t believe that if somebody has a claim 

that you believe is a just claim that you could settle it without the 

necessity of having an adverse appearance? 

Mr. CARDOZO. Well, I don’t believe—I believe many people are injured, Congressman. But the fact that they are injured does not 

mean that the city’s civil defense immunities are not valid; it does 

not mean that the city was negligent in any way. And, therefore, 

I do believe, given the magnitude of what we are talking about that 

far exceeds the insurance, the city and the contractors have no 

choice but to say because we don’t believe we did anything wrong 

that we are going to have to litigate. 

Mr. COHEN. But don’t you sometimes have a claims commissioner 

or claims adjuster that settles claims even though the city has immunity? 

Mr. CARDOZO. Absolutely you do. But that is in a situation where 

your insurance ultimately will be sufficient to cover. In the analogy 

I drew before to Congressman Nadler—I don’t know if you were 

here—if you were in a car accident, and your insurance company 

settled for the full amount of your insurance policy with the first 

plaintiff and left you uninsured for the second plaintiff, when you 

don’t think you did anything wrong, you would be quite upset. 

Since the city does not believe it did anything wrong, it does not 

mean that these people are not injured, are not sick. But the city 

does not believe it did anything wrong. It believes that the captive 

insurance company was created, as it says, to insure the city and 

the contractors, that it has no choice therefore but to say we are 

not liable and you are going to have to prove your case in court. 

Which is exactly why the answer to this whole problem is what 

we have been talking about for the last 2 hours: the creation of a 

victims’ compensation fund. 

97

Mr. COHEN. Let me ask the doctor, please——

Thank you, sir. 

Dr. Melius, there were some 96 hours, a timeline placed in here 

in this statute, for immediate aftermath. Ninety-six hours and 1 

minute—just as exposed to injury or illness? 

Dr. MELIUS. Absolutely. And someone exposed after 96 hours, 

started their exposure after 96 hours, could also have developed as 

severe a respiratory health problem or other health problem as 

someone exposed during that time period. 

Mr. COHEN. Is there some period of time where the elements 

would have dissipated in the immediate area of where the health 

concern would not have been serious? 

Dr. MELIUS. As long as there was work being done on the pile 

or at Fresh Kills, the other areas, there was always the likelihood 

that people would develop (have had serious exposure), enough to 

develop illness. Now, that probably went down as time went by and 

the exposures might have decreased, but one can’t say that across 

the board absolutely for everybody. 

So during the time period of the work on the pile and the other 

affiliated or associated operations, almost any time someone could 

have had the exposure and developed disease. The problem was 

that people were not aware of the severity of the exposure and 

were not properly protected for most of the time period they were 

down there. 

Mr. COHEN. What would be an appropriate hour, if you could 

pick one—and it is difficult; there is no magic moment when something starts and stops—but when the likelihood of illness arising 

as a result of agents just on the pile, when would it have gotten 

to be considered to be safe? Or was it the whole time that it was 

there? 

Dr. MELIUS. I believe it was the whole time that it was there. 

It is defining terms of the medical portion of the bill in terms of 

eligibility for the medical programs for people that worked on the 

pile. There is a date when that work ended, basically, and that was 

the time exposure stopped. 

However, I will say that there were other people who did not 

work in the pile but who did some of the cleanup in residences and 

businesses in the downtown area surrounding there that occurred 

sometime after. People left buildings or didn’t bother to clean them 

and then came back to try to clean them. So there were even exposures occurring after that time. 

I think that can all be defined and constrained within eligibility 

terms. I don’t think that would be a significant problem. But it is 

a significant period of time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. COHEN. Wow, that was the fastest 5 minutes I have ever experienced. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Cohen. 

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Weiner, is now recognized. 

Mr. WEINER. Thank you very much. 

Let me just say, I agree, Mr. Cardozo, completely, that this is not 

the responsibility of the city. This is the responsibility of the Federal Government, and there was very little disagreement about 

that in the early days after September 11. The Federal GovernVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:22 Jul 01, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\040108\41582.000 HJUD1 PsN: 41582
98

ment has a responsibility to take care of the people that were 

harmed in this attack on the people of the United States. 

And I have to say that the arguments being made by Mr. Frank 

are evocative of the early days and the months that went on during 

the consideration. You know, while we have a certain level of history in our mind about this, let us not forget that the work of Mr. 

Feinberg was very controversial. Just about every single day, someone would say ‘‘Well, what do you do about this circumstance?’’

And we empowered the master to make decisions that were very 

difficult. If you think it is difficult trying to learn whether someone’s mental illness was a result of September 11, imagine trying 

to put a value on someone’s life. Imagine trying to be the master 

when you are coming and you have the victims of a family who was 

a dishwasher and someone who was a stockbroker and someone 

who was the CEO of a company and someone who was a police sergeant, and trying to come up with a dollar value. If you think these 

issues are controversial and are subject to difficult judgment calls, 

that is why we didn’t do it. We left it to the special master. 

And I think for all of the notion now that ‘‘Wow, that went great. 

Why don’t we do that again?’’ it was only because of the work of 

the master. And I just want to say publicly what I have said before, 

you know, Mr. Feinberg was in a difficult situation because to some 

degree we in the legislature said he could not do things that many 

people were demanding he do. For example, the difference between 

the attack in 1993 and the attack in 2001, you could make a pretty 

good argument there was no difference. Yet the legislature made 

it very clear we were going to cover some things and not others. 

So I am confident that a special master empowered by Congress 

will have to make difficult decisions and will make them. And I almost am absolutely convinced that it is true, this universe is going 

to grow—as was the testimony—this universe is going to grow. But 

that is a reason why you have to build, not a reason why you don’t. 

That is exactly the reason to take some level of the mystery out 

of how we are going to deal with this problem. 

We have too many people who are short of breath today, who are 

getting medical treatment today, trying to figure out what it is that 

they should be doing. We could very easily lawyer this for years 

and years and years. The imperative that we in Congress have is 

to try to find a way to solve this problem. 

And I think that the Victim Compensation Fund for all its imperfections, for all of its judgment calls, for all of its controversy, 

worked. We are here because we did this once before, and we 

found, frankly, a model that worked pretty well. It was not perfect. 

And I remember seeing articles about the disparities. And listening 

to Mr. Feinberg trying to explain to all of us the decisions—and I 

remember thinking as I read these stories, ‘‘Boy oh boy, I am glad 

I didn’t have to make that decision.’’

And the same might happen here. We might have controversy 

that emerges. We might have people that argue extreme cases and 

get extreme judgments. We might have people that have said, ‘‘You 

know what, you really have pretty good insurance from some other 

source, maybe you go elsewhere.’’

99

But the idea that this should be the subject of years and years 

of litigation between the city and the plaintiffs is what we need to 

stop. We need to make sure that that doesn’t happen. 

Mr. CONYERS. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. WEINER. I certainly would. 

Mr. CONYERS. That is why I suggested in my opening statement, 

Mr. Weiner, that this is a perfect opportunity for these parties to 

begin coming together to make the kind of agreement to work this 

out so that we don’t have lawyers or congressmen going through 

this, hashing this, rehashing this out for years. 

Mr. WEINER. Well, and I just wanted, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say one other thing. 

You know, another thing about the Victim Compensation Fund 

that we should remember in the fondest light is how bipartisanly 

we kind of came together around the idea that this was the right 

thing to do. I would hope that we kind of remember that spirit and 

we shouldn’t say to someone, ‘‘Well, because you are dying more 

slowly, we are going to turn our back on you.’’ Because that is really what is happening here. We have a group of victims that are just 

as much a victim of this attack as those people that were in those 

two buildings and those people that were around. 

You know, if you think about it, if we knew then what we know 

today, I ask all of my colleagues: Would we have not included this 

class? If someone said to us in 2002, in 2001, ‘‘Ladies and gentlemen of the Congress, we believe that we will know fully how many 

people suffered from this by looking at who developed respiratory 

diseases up until the year 2012. That is how we are going to do 

it.’’ We would have said, ‘‘Absolutely, put those people in,’’ because 

those are the people we wanted to help and to serve. 

That group of fact is no different than it is today. And let us not 

forget that a lot of this discussion we had, ruled on it, decided in 

a bipartisan way we wanted to cover, and so all we are saying with 

that one-line extension that Mr. Feinberg is suggesting is: Do Congress’ will again. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman yields back. 

And I believe we have exhausted the number of members wishing to ask questions. This has been a very helpful hearing. I think 

it has elicited issues that we might not have fully appreciated at 

the beginning. I think it is worth noting that the attack on 9/11 

was an attack on America. I was born and raised in California. The 

valedictorian of my high school class, Naomi Solomon, died in those 

Towers. We had firemen from California who, search and rescue 

specialists, the entire country responded just as we would expect 

a response today if there were a very serious issue for our country. 

So we want to thank all of the witnesses for their testimony here 

today. 

Without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to submit any additional written questions to any of you witnesses, which 

we will forward. And if we are forwarding questions, we would ask 

that you answer as promptly as you can so that the answers may 

be made part of the record. 

Without objection, the record will remain open for 5 legislative 

days for the submission of other additional materials. 

100

And, again, our thanks. People don’t realize that our witnesses 

are volunteers who have come here to help inform the Congress so 

that we can do the best job for our country. We thank you very 

much. 

And with that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:51 p.m., the Subcommittees were adjourned.] 

(101)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ZOE LOFGREN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRWOMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL

LAW

In the immediate aftermath of one of our nation’s greatest tragedies, Congress 

created the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund. By all accounts, the VCF was a stunningly successful program. 

At least as far as it went. 

The program, a truly bipartisan effort conceived hurriedly during what would become the long shadow of the attacks of 9/11, provided a means to compensate the 

victims of the 9/11 attacks and their family members. In exchange for consideration 

of claims through an administrative process of remarkable simplicity, those who 

elected to apply under the VCF agreed not to pursue lawsuits. 

Over the short, 33-month period during which the VCF was conceived and oper- ated, it distributed over $7.049 billion to survivors of 2,880 people killed in the attacks and to 2,680 people injured in the attacks or in the rescue efforts conducted 

immediately after the attacks. The average award for families of the dead exceeded $2 million. The average award for injured victims came to nearly $400,000. 

According to the final report of Special Master Feinberg, one of our witnesses 

today, ‘‘97% of the families of deceased victims who might otherwise have pursued 

lawsuits for years . . . received compensation through the fund.’’

As I said, a stunning success. 

And I look forward to hearing today from Mr. Feinberg. His able administration 

of the fund and his expertise regarding administrative alternatives to tort litigation 

will help the Committee greatly. 

I mention the specter of tort litigation for a reason. Over 10,000 lawsuits have 

been filed in New York City by people—first responders, building and trades workers, volunteers from around the country who rallied to the World Trade Center site 

to help locate survivors, recover the dead and clean up the debris from the fallen 

towers—most of whom have suffered illnesses resulting from their exposure to the 

toxic dust that covered so much of lower Manhattan and surrounding areas. 

These lawsuits—filed by people who, by no fault of their own, were not eligible 

to be compensated under the VCF because they discovered their illnesses too late, 

they didn’t know they could even apply because they thought the fund was only for 

those who died, or they came to site a few short hours after the 96-hour ‘‘immediate 

aftermath’’—are taking far too long to decide. 

The doctors and scientists seem to all agree. People are sick and will continue to 

get sick because of their exposure to the World Trade Center’s noxious dust. From 

the City’s testimony today, it seems clear the City agrees. 

The question is what do we do about it? Worker’s compensation has failed. Medical programs haven’t covered every one. The Congressionally-created Captive Insurance Fund has paid pitifully few claims—five to be exact—while the City defends 

every claim. 

Today’s hearing is the beginning of our quest to answer the question: what do we 

do? 

I want to thank Chairman Nadler for his leadership on these issues. The bill, HR 

3543, the ‘‘James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2007,’’ authored by 

Chairman Nadler, Rep. Maloney and Rep. Fossella represents a good first attempt 

at addressing the issues. 

I believe this hearing will help us begin to answer the question, ‘‘What do we do?’’ 

I believe we will leave here today with a better sense of the problems people are 

102

facing. From there, I am hopeful that we can begin to structure a fair and just program to compensate those who continue to bear the deep scars from that terrible 

day in September, almost seven years ago. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE

fJOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND

CIVIL LIBERTIE

In the wake of the World Trade Center attacks, a victims’ compensation fund 

(VCF) was put together quite quickly. That effort was a success, and we are happy 

to be joined today by the former Special Master in charge of that effort, Kenneth 

Feinberg. 

The VCF, and the legislation that created it, was a response focused on the immediate—the persons killed or injured that morning and those who went into the 

wreckage while the fires still raged. Those people and their family received assistance through the VCF. 

But there were others. Some didn’t know that there was a place for them in the 

VCF because outreach was focused on the families of the dead, rather than on the 

living. Some weren’t eligible for the VCF because they were on-site within the first 

96 hours after the planes hit. Others’ symptoms have been gradually manifesting 

themselves, and there is little recourse for them. 

What do we see now? 70% of the workers being monitored showing respiratory 

problems. Hundreds of people already stricken with cancer from airborne particles—

cancers so virulent that people have already died. Many of these victims bravely 

rushed in to help in an emergency. Others trusted their employers who sent them 

to do clean-up in the months that followed, even though they were sent into the site 

without protective gear. 

Even as the environmental disaster spread a dust of poison over the site and the 

surrounding area, the EPA, OSHA, the City, and State officials took a ‘‘do it yourself’’ approach to protecting the public. FEMA refused to relocate people from contaminated homes and apartments, and refused to pay for cleanup. The suggestion 

to just wipe things down with a wet rag was as ineffective a response to asbestos, 

lead, and PCBs as duct tape would have been to a chemical weapons attack. 

In 2003, we put a billion dollars into the World Trade Center Captive Insurance 

Company (WTCC) to handle continuing claims from debris removal. This was done 

through FEMA, which was supposed to be the place to go for emergency services. 

Since then, we have learned a lot more about how FEMA sees its mission, and how 

it is managed. 

The WTCC was supposed to serve these victims by providing a mechanism to pay 

claims. But instead, the WTCC spends most of its time challenging claims, and even 

litigating against the very people they were chartered to help! Sadly, instead of a 

duty to serve the victims, the WTCC has chosen to argue that they have a ‘‘duty 

to defend’’ against every claim. As a result, the WTCC has only compensated five

victims. While the WTCC fights and denies, the illnesses worsen. 

There are over 8,600 claims outstanding. Will there be any money left to compensate these victims once the WTCC has spent it all on attorneys fees fighting 

them? 

Compare this for a moment against what Mr. Feinberg was able to do with the 

VCF, where 97% of claimants were compensated. 

The WTCC needs to stop wasting the money we gave it, and start dealing with 

the thousands of people who they were created to serve. 

I want thank Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren and Chairman Jerry Nadler for having 

this joint hearing, and to congratulate Jerry Nadler for all of his hard work on H.R. 

3543, legislation that seeks to confront these hard issues. 

f

103

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JERROLD NADLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES


JN-1.eps
104


JN-2.eps
105

f


JN-3.eps
106

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

Chairwoman Lofgren, and Chairman Nadler, ranking members King and Franks, 

thank you for convening today’s very important hearing on ‘‘Paying with Their 

Lives: The Status of Compensation for 9/11 Health Effects.’’ In this hearing, will address past successes, as well as the current and future challenges of compensating 

people for illnesses and injuries that resulted from the tragic September 11, 2001 

attacks on the World Trade Center. 

The sad reality is that when the World Trade Center collapsed on 9/11, thousands 

of first responders, local residents, workers, students, and others inhaled a poisonous mixture of asbestos, lead, PCBs, and other contaminants. More than six 

years later, many of these people have become sick from the toxic dust, and there 

is currently no comprehensive federal program to provide them with health care or 

compensation. 

Existing health coverage for this population varies widely, and a number of people 

are either uninsured or under insured. The existing system of workers compensation 

has failed, and the World Trade Center Captive Insurance Fund, established with 

a $1 billion federal appropriation, has spent millions of dollars in administrative 

and legal costs to fight against rather than to pay claims filed by first responders 

and others whom Congress intended to assist. Only a handful of claims have been 

paid. 

Following 9/11, over 50,000 individuals responded to the call and engaged in 

clean0up activities at Ground Zero. Individuals were exposed to asbestos and other 

harmful chemicals at the site. 

Tens of thousands of people were living, working, and going to school in the areas 

around the World Trade Center. People were exposed to the harmful chemicals 

weeks or months after the buildings collapsed. There was no complete health monitoring of the risks of exposure to the dangerous substances that were present. 

These dangerous substances included hundreds of tons of asbestos, nearly half a 

million pounds of lead, and vast amounts of glass fibers, steel, and concrete that 

blanketed New York and the surrounding areas. This dust was blown into nearby 

buildings, schools, and residences. 

Fires burned for many months, in part due to the 150,000 gallons of oil stored 

in the buildings, which emitted heavy metals, PCBs and other toxic chemicals, like 

dioxin and benzene. Lower Manhattan had been turned into a 16-acre disaster zone, 

which resulted in an unprecedented environmental assault for the city. The air was 

hazardous and caused serious physical injury and death. 

A study prepared for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg estimates that the 

number of individuals most heavily exposed to the possible environmental hazards 

and trauma of the 9/11 attach amount to over 400,000 people. 

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Congress created the Victim Compensation 

Fund, a unique program designed to compensate people for losses sustained as a 

result of the attacks on the World Trade Center, and to limit litigation against the 

airline industry. 

Attorney General John Ashcroft appointed Kenneth Feinberg as the special master over the Fund. The fund was established as an entitlement for eligible individuals and was not subject to appropriation. Mr. Feingold has discretion to determine 

eligibility and the amount of compensation. In return for accepting these funds, recipients waved their right to sue the airlines. 

The fund had an application deadline of December 22, 2003. Over a 33-month period, the Fund distributed over $7 billion to survivors of nearly 2,880 people killed 

on 9/11, and to 2, 680 people who were injured in the attacks or the rescue efforts. 

Families of the deceased were paid in amounts from $800,000 to $6.5 million. Individuals were compensated for physical injuries from $500 to $7.1 million, and the 

Fund paid $1 billion in claims to people who suffered physical injuries. 

The Fund was successful because it provided an alternative to litigation. It was 

expedient and less costly. Ninety-seven percent of the families that participated in 

the program received compensation. 

There was an application deadline for people to file claims under the Fund. Most 

of the persons had filed claims with the Fund, but many individuals who were injured as a result of 9/11 were time-barred. The Fund’s regulations limited compensation to workers who were injured within the immediate 96 hours after the attack. 

Specifically, in 2003 Congress provided $1 billion in 9/11 disaster assistance to the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to establish a captive insurance 

107

company for claims arising from removing debris, which also included claims by city 

employees. 

The purpose of the Fund was to remove the financial burden from the City and 

provide compensation for those working at Ground Zero. In the five years since the 

fund has closed, thousands of individuals have claimed to be suffering from 9/11-

related health effects. Approximately, 8,000 plaintiffs are suing the City of New 

York and several contractors whose employees worked at Ground Zero. 

The City has expressed concern that if it begins paying claims, it would exhaust the $1 billion appropriated by Congress, and that it would be deemed to have 

waived its claims to immunity. In a recent ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Second Circuit held that ‘‘New York defenses are just that: defenses to liability, 

rather than from immunity from suit.’’

Congress has responded with a bipartisan bill, H.R. 3542, ‘‘9/11 Health and Compensation Act.’’ This bill introduced by Representatives Maloney, Nadler, and 

Fossella. I am a proud co-sponsor of this bill. 

This bill has two main components. First, it would provide comprehensive health 

care to everyone who was exposed to the toxins at Ground Zero. Second, it would 

provide compensation for economic damages and losses by reopening the 9/11 Victim 

Compensation Fund. These latter provisions are before the Judiciary Committee. 

Possible changes to the Fund have been suggested. These include, extending the 

date for people to submit claims; expanding the definition of ‘‘aftermath of 9/11’’ to 

cover a longer period; expanding the geographical boundaries to include more people 

that suffer respiratory ailments; expanding the Fund to include psychological harm; 

allowing second claims to be made in limited circumstances; expanding the pool of 

applicants to include residents, area workers, students, and others. 

I believe this legislation is taking us in the right direction. I welcome the opportunity to learn more information so that we can craft the best legislation that provides the maximum assistance to the most people. 

PREPARED

Thank you, I yield the balance of my time. 

STATEMENT OF THE H

fONORABLE DARRELL ISSA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE

CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing. It has been over six 

years since the tragedies of September 11, 2001 occurred, and I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the status of compensating both the victims of 9/11 as well as 

those individuals who risked their lives in rescue and cleanup efforts. 

As with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, we can all remember 

where we were when we first heard of the planes striking the World Trade Center, 

the Pentagon, and the plane downing in Pennsylvania due to the bravery of those 

onboard. It was one of the darkest days in American history. 

The country responded with a remarkable outpouring of unity and generosity. 

Americans from all states found some way to assist during the aftermath—everyone 

wanted to do everything they could to hold a shocked country together. 

In Congress, we acted to appropriate at least $20 billion to the City of New York 

alone for cleanup and rebuilding efforts. We tightened our security at airports and 

on personal identification, and we launched an unprecedented offense against terrorism worldwide. 

Today our country is safer than it was before September 11, but the scars from 

the attack still remain. Nearly 3000 people lost their lives on 9/11, and many more 

were injured. The Victims Compensation Fund of 2001 distributed approximately $6 

billion to the survivors of those killed on 9/11 and over $1 billion to individuals injured in the attacks or rescue efforts. However, many individuals who worked in the 

cleanup effort at ground zero were injured at the site, and not all of these injuries 

occurred immediately. 

The Victims Compensation Fund (VCF) is widely held to have been a success. 

This is in no small part attributable to the fact that the claimants were relatively 

easily identifiable. We knew who was hurt or killed in the attacks and rescue efforts, and we knew who their survivors were. 

H.R. 3543, the ‘‘James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2007,’’ is 

a well-intentioned but unrealistic attempt to expand the claimant base of the original VCF. The bill’s main goal is to compensate individuals injured by air contaminants in New York following 9/11, but the bill also opens up the pool to people who 

experienced emotional distress without physical harm. Additionally, the claimants 

include anyone who lived, worked, or attended school in the New York City disaster 

108

area, an area defined ambiguously at best. I cannot support H.R. 3543 in its current 

form for several reasons. 

While some individuals may deserve compensation for exposure to air contaminants caused by the 9/11 attack, opening the pool to an extremely broad geographic 

area would generate limitless claims. Also, as we have realized from the World 

Trade Center Captive Insurance Company established to compensate cleanup workers for injuries, it is extremely difficult to determine which injuries, especially respiratory injuries, were caused by working at and around ground zero. Along those 

same lines, allowing individuals with only psychological harm access to any compensation pool would exponentially increase the number of claimants. It is not that 

some people do not have genuine emotional distress and are in need of assistance, 

it is that it is incredibly difficult to wean out the fraudulent claims from the genuine 

claims. That is why so many states do not allow damages for emotional distress 

without physical harm. 

I supported past funding efforts for the City of New York following September 11, 

and I will continue to support efforts to assist individuals harmed during the attacks, rescue efforts, and cleanup. We should be able to work together to find ways 

to improve this legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on 

that effort. 

f

109


B-1.eps
110


B-2.eps
111


B-3.eps
112


B-4.eps
113


B-5.eps
114

f


B-6.eps
115

f


D.eps
116


E-1.eps
117


E-2.eps
118


E-3.eps
119


E-4.eps
120


E-5.eps
121


E-6.eps
122


E-7.eps
123


E-8.eps
124


E-9.eps
125


E-10.eps
126


E-11.eps
127


E-12.eps
128


E-13.eps
129


E-14.eps
130


E-15.eps
131


E-16.eps
132


E-17.eps
133


E-18.eps
134


E-19.eps
135


E-20.eps
136


E-21.eps
137


E-22.eps
138


E-23.eps
139


E-24.eps
140


E-25.eps
141


E-26.eps
142


E-27.eps
143

f


E-28.eps
144


F-1.eps
145

f


F-2.eps
146


GA-1.eps
147


GA-2.eps
148


GA-3.eps
149


GA-4.eps
150


GA-5.eps
151


GA-6.eps
152


GA-7.eps
153


GA-8.eps
154


GA-9.eps
155


GA-10.eps
156


GA-11.eps
157

f


GB.eps
158


H-1.eps
159

f


H-2.eps
160


I-1.eps
161


I-2.eps
162


I-3.eps
163

f


I-4.eps
164

f


J.eps
165


K-1.eps
166


K-2.eps
167


K-3.eps
168


K-4.eps
169

Æ


K-5.eps