[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 114 (Friday, July 30, 2010)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1511]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         JAMES ZADROGA 9/11 HEALTH AND COMPENSATION ACT OF 2010

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. STEVE KING

                                of iowa

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 29, 2010

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, we all agree that those who heroically 
responded to the 9/11 terrorist attacks should get the treatment, 
compensation, and liability protection they need. The American people 
are grateful to those the ground zero workers and the emergency 
responders that worked heroically, day and night, for months in rescue, 
recovery and cleanup efforts at the World Trade Center site. 
Unfortunately, the approach this bill takes to accomplish these goals 
is unreasonable and irresponsible.
  During committee hearings on reenacting the 9/11 Fund, I expressed 
the view that if the fund is reenacted, it must be done in a manner 
that properly compensates the victims while at the same time protecting 
the taxpayers.
  First, I asserted that if the Fund is reenacted it must provide 
adequate compensation to the victims without handing the keys to the 
U.S. Treasury to trial lawyers. Unfortunately, this bill does not 
contain these protections. Rather, the bill allows trial lawyers to 
request compensation from the fund for work that is not directly 
related to their clients' recovery from the fund.
  Second, I stated that if the Fund is reenacted it must include 
provisions that will protect the U.S. taxpayers. However, instead of 
protecting the taxpayers, this bill abdicates Congress' legislative 
authority to the unreviewable and virtually unbounded discretion of the 
Special Master.
  Third, I counseled that if the Fund is reenacted it should be for a 
reasonable, but limited, period of time. Once again the authors of this 
legislation did not listen to my advice; rather, they propose to keep 
the fund open for 21 years despite congressional testimony by Special 
Master Ken Feinberg that ``no latent claims need such an extended 
date.''
  Finally, I suggested that if the fund is reenacted it should be paid 
for. Apparently, the bill's authors listened to me on this count, but 
unfortunately, rather than choosing a pay-for that protects U.S. 
taxpayers, they have chosen one that will actually cost American jobs.
  We could be considering a reasonable consensus proposal to reenact 
the 9/11 Fund today. Instead, I have to urge my colleagues to oppose 
this legislation because not only does it fail to protect the 
taxpayers, but it also fails to ensure that those REAL victims that 
answered the call of duty on September 11, 2001, will actually get the 
care that they deserve. Unfortunately, we have brought a bill to the 
floor today that will cost American jobs and creates gimmicks to hide 
the bill's true cost.
  The taxpayers and those who responded to the 9/11 attacks deserve 
better.

                          ____________________