dojP000622.xml

dojP000622.xml

born-digital

email

yes

no

2001-01-24

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Washington, DC 20575-0701

January 24, 2001

Special Master Kenneth R. Feinberg
The Feinberg Group
1120 20th Street, Northwest
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Special Master Feinberg:

I am writing today to share the concerns of &nbsp , one of my constituents who
lost
her husband on September 11. I have enclosed a copy of her correspondence for your review.

&nbsp husband, &nbsp , worked in the &nbsp but
tragically was in the World Trade Center on September 11 and was one of the victims of the
terrorist
attacks. &nbsp objects to the interim final regulations governing payments under the
September 11
Victim Compensation Fund. She feels that they do not conform to the language and intent of the
Air
Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, P.L. 107-42, which created the fund. Mrs. believes that the method of alculating economic damages is flawed and does not adequately compensate families for their actual economic losses.

While we can do nothing to bring back lost loved ones, I am sure you agree that we can ease some of the financial burden placed on these families by these tragic events. Therefore, I would strongly urge you to take Mrs. 's concerns into account as you promulgate the final rule.

Thank you for your attention to this very important matter. With best regards, I remain

Sincerely,

COMMENT BY:
JOHN B. LARSON
Member of Congress
Washington, DC




cc: Attorney General John Ashcroft



Dear, Mr. Larson,

My husband &nbsp worked for &nbsp . He was associated with the &nbsp office
located
in the &nbsp . &nbsp however located him at the World Trade Center on
September 11, 2001 and he was one of the many victims on that day. &nbsp and I were high school
sweethearts and just celebrated our 25th wedding anniversary. He has been a part of my life for
the
past 31 years and now I find my life altered forever. He had discussed several times with me
how you
held a consulting position with the firm prior to your election to Congress. He had nothing but
good
things to say. I hope this email finds its way to you.

I am writing to express my serious concerns and objections to the Department of Justice's (DOJ)
"Interim Final Regulations Governing Payments Under the September 11th Victim
Compensation
Fund." The airline bailout act gave the airlines $15 billion in cash and loan guarantees and
capped the
airlines's liability for the September 11 crashes at the limits of their insurance coverage. Because
of this
cap, the damage caused by the crashes greatly exceed the private fund available to compensate
victims
and their families. Thus for the vast majority of victims and families, the cap has the effect of
eliminating
the right that they would otherwise have to sure the airlines Congress set up the fund to ensure
that the
airline bailout would not come at the expense of the victim's families. The act mandates full and
fair
compensation to victims and their families for their actual economic and non-economic damages.
DOJ
has ignored this mandate and instead has written arbitrary regulations that will result in
compensation
levels far below the losses actual suffered by the victims and their families. In fact, many
families' total
compensation from the fund and all collateral sources combined will not even fully replace lost
income.
In effect, these families will not receive any of the non-economic compensation required by the
statute.
After collateral sources are deducted, as required by the statute, some families would receive
nothing
from the fund under the interim final regulations. DOJ's formula allows for non-economic
awards at
only one-tenth the level paid in comparable cases, even though Congress explicitly enumerated a
broader range of non-economic damages than could be recovered in any single jurisdiction.
DOJ's
formula for non-economic damages is $250,000 for the person killed and $50,000 for the spouse
and
each dependent. In a wide variety of air crash and terrorism cases, however, judges, juries, and
mediators commonly have proved non-economic damages awards well into the seven-figure
range.

Independent economists have found serious flaws in DOJ's method of calculating economic
damages,
including use of outdated and inapplicable worklife and life-cycle earnings data. DOJ greatly
underestimates promotions and other increases in earning for victims. If relies on civil service
and
military retirement system actuarial data that track federal worker incomes and pension
requirements,
not the higher-paying private sector career paths followed by the bast majority of the victims.
The
interim final regulations also arbitrarily cap a victim's income at $231,000 a year. Combined
with the
faulty methodology described above, the income cap would result in some families receiving
compensation for less than 25% of their actual economic losses. Under DOJ's rules, a family's
award
may be increased above the "presumptive" award only by a showing of "extraordinary
circumstances"
beyond those suffered by other victims or victims' families. This high burden of proof makes a
charade of the right to a hearing provided by the statute. DOJ should fulfill the act's intent by
revising
the rules to compensate victims and their families for the types of damages specified by
Congress, at
levels comparable to those provided in the tort system the fund was designed to replace. While
DOJ
has a shown flexibility on some aspects of the rules, it is resisting the victims' and families'
requests for
significant changes. If the proposed regulations are not changed significantly, victims widows
will have
to sell their homes, deplete their children's college funds, and give up their plans of being
full-time
parents while their children are young. Many families, anticipating little relief from the fund,
will decide
to sue the airlines and others, despite the handicap of the liability limits. We do not believe these
are the
outcomes Congress intended.

Please contact Attorney General John D. Ashcroft and Special Master Kenneth R. Feinberg and
tell
them your concerns that the interim final regulations fail to conform to the language and intent of
the act.
With the regulations soon to become final, I believe that only the swift and strong support of
Congress
can avert unnecessary financial and emotional damage.
Thank you for giving this matter your immediate attention.

Sincerely,


Individual Comment
Marlborough, CT

2001-01-24