dojN002677.xml

dojN002677.xml

born-digital

email

yes

no

2002-01-23

Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-3004
January 23, 2002




Mr. Kenneth Feinberg, Special Master
September 11th Victims Compensation Fund
The Feinberg Group
1120 20th Street, Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Mr. Feinberg:

Enclosed please find a copy of the letter I have sent to Attorney General Ashcroft on
behalf of my constituents who remain very concerned about the proposed regulations for the
administration of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund.

In compliance with the comment period, I have cosigned other congressional delegation
letters that underscore the concerns with the proposed rules for the fund. The major objections,
as you know, are centered on the low figure suggested for non-economic loss compensation for
families and the offset from collateral sources. However, given the sentiments you expressed at
the forum held last Wednesday at the East Brunswick Hilton, I felt it was important to not only
share these concerns with you but also directly with the Attorney General. I am hopeful that I
will be able to meet with the Attorney General to discuss this matter, shortly.

In the meantime, you know the statute gives you great discretion in some areas and
specifically directs you in others. I have drafted legislation to set a minimum for the non-
economic compensation and to repeal the collateral offset. Your support for both of these
provisions will be critical to improving the original statute either through the legislative process,
the rulemaking, or both.

The surviving family members have neither the time, the emotional strength, nor, in some
instances, the expertise to navigate this process. They are counting on us to ensure that the fund
is established and administered equitably. Regrettably, with its mandate on the collateral offset,
PL 107-42, falls short in this regard. Thus, I am hopeful that you will use the latitude Congress
gave you to be as generous as possible and at the same time work with me, and like-minded
members of Congress, as we move to reform the statute.

I thank you for your heartfelt commitment to the surviving family members. I look
forward to working directly with you to achieve fairer compensation through the fund.

Sincerely,

COMMENT BY:
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH
Member of Congress



CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Washington, DC 20515-3004
January 17, 2002


The Honorable John Ashcroft
Office of the Attorney General
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
Room 1145
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530

FAX: (202) 514-4482

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

I am writing to request a meeting with you and several of my constituents who are surviving
widows of the horrendous attacks of September 11th. They are particularly interested in meeting
with
you to express their grave concerns about the September 11th Victims Compensation Fund.

As you know, the Special Master for the September 11th Victims Compensation Fund, Ken
Feinberg, has been meeting both privately and publicly with those expected to be eligible for
compensation through the fund. Still, I believe it is critical that you meet personally with the
victims as
there is widespread dissatisfaction regarding the limitations set in the proposed rules for the fund.

For instance, at a meeting this week Mr. Feinberg explained that the inadequate amount
proposed for non-economic compensation for surviving widows ($250,000) and children
($50,000 per
child) for pain and suffering was reached in consultation with you and top officials at the Office
of
Management and Budget. Mr. Feinberg said he would like to see the non-economic
compensation
amount universally increased. We are hoping you can agree with him.

Similarly, there is confusion and concern about the proposed regulations as they pertain to the
offset required for life insurance payments made to some of the victims. It seems grossly unfair
to
penalize those who tried to act responsibly for their families by purchasing life insurance. As
you may
know, I have drafted legislation to repeal the collateral offset provision of the fund. In the
meantime,
however, Mr. Feinberg stated that he is committed to finding ways to minimize the "harshness of
the
collateral offsets." We would like to sit down with you to discuss some creative proposals that
we
believe meet the current requirements of the statute, without harshly punishing the victims'
families.

I have enclosed, for your review, a letter written by whose husband,
, a portfolio manager, was murdered in 2 WTC on September 11th.
thoughtful letter articulately expresses the views and concerns of many of the widows who have
attended and spoken out at the meetings in New York and New Jersey.

I know you agree that those who lost loved ones on September 11th have suffered
enormously.
Sadly, there is a growing sentiment among the victims that the Department of Justice and the
Bush
Administration do not yet fully appreciate the pain these widows endure and the overwhelming
personal
and economic challenges they now face - many as single parents. I am confident that after
meeting with
you, the victims will know that their government is listening, is responsive, and working to
establish a
fair and equitable program to help them.

Sincerely,

COMMENT BY:
Christopher H. Smith
Member of Congress

enclosure


January 15, 2002

Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,

I am a widow at the age of 30, left alone to raise my 2-1/2 year old daughter. On the morning
of September 11, 2001, my husband left for work as a portfolio manager for
on the floor of 2WTC. Six minutes before the second plane hit his building, he phoned me
to tell
me of the horror he was witnessing outside his window. He told me that he was ok, that he had
been
told to stay at his desk and not evacuate, and that he loved me. I never spoke to him again.

It has been over four months since September 11th, and my daughter no longer walks around
the house asking for her "daddy". She smiles and points to him in photographs, but the word
"daddy"
has all but left her daily vocabulary. Any shred of her dad and who and what a "daddy" "is" has
been
erased from her memory and her mind forever.

Because of my daughter's tender age, I am fortunate in that I don't have to explain to her the
"why" and "how" of September 11th. Many of my widow friends do not have that luxury.
Somehow
they must come up with answers and explanations on a daily basis. They have to talk to their 5,
7, and
10 year olds. They have to try to make them feel safe and secure. They have to hold them and
rock
them back to sleep when they wake up in the middle of the night screaming for their dads. This
is the
legacy my friends and I are left.

I am writing to you because I do not think that you have heard our voice. I do not think that
you have even attempted to walk in our shoes. And I think that it is time that you do listen to our
voices, hear our needs, and understand our nightmare. I think that you need to do all these things
so
that you can more fairly address the Victim's Compensation Fund.

This country failed each and every one of our children, our spouses, and us on the morning of
September 11th. Quite simply, September 11th should have never happened.

I often ask myself where our government was that morning. I know that President Bush was
reading to a group of kindergartners both before and after the first plane hit. And, with the fact
well
known that there was a plane bearing down on the White House, I can all but imagine what the
remaining governmental officials were doing that fateful morning. Its unfortunate that my
husband and
the thousands like him were not given the same warning or the same opportunity to run.

These are some facts that bother me:
1. In August 2001, the FBI was given tips from two flight schools about the possibility
of terrorists using American airplanes as trajectory missiles. They were told that foreign
men were taking flight lessons, did not speak English, could not pilot even a small plane,
and only wanted to learn how to pilot a large plane mid flight.
2. In August of 2001, Zacarias Moussaoui was arrested and held in custody under some
degree of probable cause.
3. On the morning of September 11th, a flight attendant from the first airplane was on the
phone with her supervisor for 45 minutes prior to that plane crashing into Tower 1. Her
supervisor knew that the plane was hijacked, knew that they were flying above water, and
knew that the men on board were particularly ruthless. That phone call equates to 45
minutes of notice with regard to both Towers. The flight attendant's final words were,
"my god, we are way too low, we are way too low."
4. After the first plane barreled into building 1, my husband was told by the Port Authority
and his company to not evacuate his building. Sixteen minutes later, the second plane
barreled through the floors immediately below him. (Sixteen minutes on an express
elevator would have put him below the floors of impact.)
5. Less than 2 days after September 11th a videotape of Mohammed Atta was released to the
press showing him at an ATM machine in Maine and the airport check-in at Logan
Airport. It took the NJ state police 4 months to locate a video of one of the hijackers who
actually received a written citation on the NJ Turnpike, and yet the FBI quite
miraculously produced a video of Mohammed Atta at an ATM machine in Maine less
than 48 hours after September 11th. (With all the millions of ATM machines in the
country, how could you locate such a video in such a short time? Could a possible
explanation be that Atta was already under FBI surveillance, and the FBI watched him get
on that plane?)

The fact is that those murderers should have never been allowed to get on those planes.
Furthermore, the Twin Towers should have been evacuated 45 minutes before that first plane
plowed into Tower 1. The FAA should have been promptly notified by that supervisor who was
on the phone with that flight attendant, and the FAA should have alerted the Twin Towers to
evacuate
immediately. And, any death caused as a result of the plane hitting Tower 2 is absolutely
inexcusable and wholly unacceptable since there was even more notice and time provided to
evacuate that building. There is simply no excuse for it.


And what is this government's response? Three days after the 11th, the airline industry
lobbies Congress who turns around and shields them and their fault. Congress enacted the
Airline Bailout Bill that capped the airline's liability at its insurance levels. As an outgrowth of
the Bailout Bill, the Victim's Compensation Fund was created. Reading the Congressional
Record from that day, some comments that were made about the Victim's Compensation Fund
are the following:

1. It is paradoxical to fully support the airline industry by limiting
their liability to their insurance levels, and yet reduce support for
the families by requiring collateral deductions.(Jones)
2. Congress has provided a method whereby the victims of those who
have died will have full recovery for their economic and non-
economic damages. The Treasury of the United States has been
opened by the members of Congress to ensure that every family
will receive just recovery.(Turner)
3. The families deserve everything we can do for them.(Delahunt)

My husband's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness were taken from him on the morning
of September 11th. All I am asking for is justice-fair and equitable justice. And, the Victim's
Compensation Fund is not providing it.

While I know that Congress enacted the Victim's Compensation Fund (hereinafter, the
"Fund"), with the collateral deductions attached, I think you must strongly reconsider them. It is
completely unprecedented in any personal injury case to require such deductions.

The Fund's collateral deduction rewards those for irresponsibility and penalizes those for
responsibility. People like my husband paid into life insurance policies, pension plans, 401k's,
and social security because they were responsible, family men. They were fathers who had
children and a wives. They planned for their future and wanted to ensure their family's financial
security within that future. My husband and all of those beside him were brutally targeted and
murdered on September 11th and now you, our own government, is stealing one of the few
pieces that remain of these family men-the financial security that they left for the ones they
loved.

We have been wronged enough, through enough, and had enough. The collateral
deduction's impact must be softened. This government has done enough taking away from our
families. It is time to talk about giving back.

Clearly, this entire nation recognizes the unfairness of the collateral source deduction.
Quite frankly, it is precisely why many of us will not even consider entering the Fund. So why
not lessen the impact of the collateral source deduction. I know that you cannot eliminate it (Ken
Feinberg has made that abundantly clear), but how about softening its edge by capping it at
$250,000, the value Mr. Feinberg has placed on each human life.

Playing the devil's advocate, I am sure your argument against this will be that in doing so
the government will yield a much lower return, and , therefore, the actual cost of the Fund will be
raised. My response is two-fold. First, I have read the Congressional Record. There is no cap on
this Fund, and there was never any Congressional intent to cap this Fund. Recall from the floor
of Congress that, "the United States Treasury has been opened to ensure that every family
receives a just recovery." Hence, saving money should not be one of your goals in carrying out
the rules and regulations of this Fund.

Secondly, if the non-economic number (set at $ 250,000) provided by the Fund is deemed
by you to be sufficient enough to compensate me for my husband's pain and suffering while he
burned alive for 45 minutes, then certainly, it should be enough for the government as a collateral
source deduction. After all, this was the most unprecedented attack in US history.

The families would like you to set the collateral source deduction to a limit no higher
than $250,000. This limit should be applied across the board, to every party involved. In doing
so you are not only providing an incentive for families to enter the fund, but you are also
alleviating some of the unfairness that lurks behind the rules and regulations of this Fund. Our
Senators, Congressmen, and the Special Master, himself, have commented about this unfairness.
We think you should do something about it. Limiting the collateral source deduction to a
maximum of $250,000 is that particular something.

Another topic that the families would like to address with you, President Bush and the
Office of Management and Budget is the non-economic recovery. We have been told by the
Special Master that this number was chosen since the men and women who were killed on
September 11th are being likened to military men killed in the line of duty.

Understand this, our husband's and wives in no way, shape, or form "signed up" for the
morning of September 11th. Our husband's worked in finance; they were not federal employees,
civil servants, or members of our armed forces. They were stock brokers, stock traders, portfolio
managers, etc. In short, they were businessmen, not servicemen. They were innocently
murdered when an airplane crashed into their civilian office building and to apply a military
award to this case is absolutely and utterly wrong.

We would suggest that in setting the amount for the non-economic recovery provided by
the fund, you look towards personal injury recoveries in airline crashes. These victims were
civilian men and women who went to their office building on the morning of September 11th.
They did not knowingly assume any risk that fateful morning. When we married our spouses we
were not knowingly assuming any risk of them being killed. We were not marrying a fighter
pilot, a navy SEAL or even a fireman. We were marrying a broker, a trader, or a portfolio
manager. We were not given the luxury of ever planning for our husband's to be killed because
the worst-case scenario for a trader, a broker, or a money manager does not include a plane flying
into their office building.

Moreover, the non-economic recovery must be raised to a more respectful number. To be
offering $50,000 for each dependant child is essentially telling an entire generation of children
that their entire life without their parent is worth less money than their therapy bills, alone.
These children will grow up with the raw horror of September 11th in their face every single day.
They will, much like the Kennedy children, have to witness the exact moment of their parent's
death over and over again. They will see it on television shows, learn it in history class, and read
about it in books sold at Barnes & Noble.

Americans across this country, who are not even directly affected by September 11th are
claiming post-traumatic stress disorder; all of these people talk about how their lives have
irrevocably changed. Think about these children and what they will have to endure over their
lifetime, the pain and suffering they will endure day in and day out. Think about the older
children who walked out their back doors for 10 days following September 11th and actually had
to smell Ground Zero burning. Think about the children waking up in the middle of the night
screaming for their fathers-the burning birding falling to the ground. Just think about these
things, and know that I cannot even begin to explain the absolute horror these kids must endure.
And, $50,000 is what they get-$50,000, less money than a luxury SUV. It is wrong. It is
unconscionable. And, for the sake of these children, you must prove to them that their life and
their pain and suffering is worth more than $50,000.

Another issue that I would like to address is the top 2% money earners; those individuals
who earned more than $225,000 per year. We have been assured by the Special Master that
individuals who made above this amount will be entitled to their full economic recovery. I trust
the Special Master, and I believe that he does speak the truth when he says that there is no $6
billion dollar cap on this fund. However, I would like to note some comments that can be lifted
from the floor of Congress the day the Airline Bailout Bill was passed. There was much debate
when apparently confusion arose as to whether or not the airline executive's salaries would be
"capped" at $225,000. Various Congressmen spoke and the end result was that it was made clear
that if an airline executive made $3, 5 or 15 million dollars in 2001, he will be entitled to earn
that income in 2002, he just could not earn any more that amount.

I would suggest to you Mr. Attorney General, that if it is "ok" for the airline executives to
be compensated up to and beyond $15 million per year by the American taxpayers, when these
men are at fault for my husband's death, then the Compensation Fund should best not "cap" my
husband's or nay other victim's income, regardless of how high that income may prove to be.

In closing, I would welcome the opportunity to speak with either you or President Bush.
It would be extremely nice to know that you care about people like myself. We have requested
numerous meetings with each of you and have been repeatedly told that you are unwilling to
meet with us. Please keep my daughter and myself and the thousands of others like us in your
thoughts. And again, I implore you to listen to our voices, hear our needs, and understand our
nightmare so that you can better understand why we so desperately need the Victim's
Compensation Fund to work for us.

Sincerely,
Individual Comment

2002-01-23