http://www.silive.com/news/advance/index.ssf?/base/news/1141136104156200.xml&coll=1

WASHINGTON -- Bowing to the wishes of New York's congressional delegation, the Bush administration has appointed a 9/11 health czar to coordinate the screening and treatment of the rescue personnel who were exposed to toxic fumes at Ground Zero.

Dr. John Howard, the director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), was named yesterday to the newly created post by Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt.

In a letter to Rep. Vito Fossella (R-Staten Island/Brooklyn), Leavitt said he agrees there "is a critical need to ensure programs addressing the health of WTC responders and nearby residents are well coordinated."

Leavitt's move was good news for Thomas Byrne, a police officer from Tottenville who visited Ground Zero almost nightly for five months after Sept. 11, 2001, to help in the cleanup effort and look for the remains of his brother Patrick, a firefighter.

PHYSICIAN AND ATTORNEY

"I am glad to hear it," said Byrne. "Everybody I know who was down there has complained about something."

Byrne said he came away with a cut leg that is still discolored, a recurring deep cough and occasional bouts of severe laryngitis that render him barely able to speak for weeks at a time. "I sound like Al Pacino and Marlon Brando," he said.

Howard took the reins of NIOSH in June 2000. The agency, which has about 2,000 employees, was established in 1970 with the goal of making workplaces safer.

Howard, who is both a physician and an attorney, previously headed California's occupational and health agency, and served as a professor of occupational medicine at the University of California at Irvine.

"He is one of the most competent people I have met in government," said James Bartis of the Rand Corp., the author of a study of Ground Zero responders. "It is a long time coming that somebody of John's stature was assigned to do something about this problem."

Howard's appointment came one month after Fossella and Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-Manhattan/Queens) held a press conference in Lower Manhattan.

In a statement yesterday, Fossella said he looks forward to working with Howard.

'MISSING IN ACTION'

Rep. Maloney said she is encouraged by Howard's appointment because "until now, the federal government's response to the health impacts of 9/11 has been missing in action."

Fossella said Howard's first order of business should be an assessment of the current efforts to screen WTC responders, followed by ensuring adequate federal funding and developing an overall plan for helping the workers.

City health officials have warned that Ground Zero rescue and cleanup workers were exposed to a "witches' brew" of carcinogens and other toxic fumes at Ground Zero, and now face elevated long-term risks of contracting cancer, heart disease and other debilitating and deadly illnesses.

Two years ago, Congress approved $90 million for a program to screen and provide regular medical checkups for the estimated 40,000 rescue workers, among them a large number of volunteers as well as city and state employees.

The screening is being carried out by doctors at Mount Sinai Medical Center and by the city Fire Department.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--sept11-health0228feb28,0,2673325.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

Without long-term monitoring and screening, doctors will be unable to determine if their patients will develop cancer, heart and lung disease or other conditions, they told a House subcommittee hearing testimony on Sept. 11 health issues.

At least $320 million is needed to maintain current health programs monitoring Sept. 11 health effects, said Dr. Stephen M. Levin, co-director of the World Trade Center Work and Volunteer Screening Program, which monitors about 14,000 ground zero workers.

"We are much more interested in trying to intervene so people's health can be protected and improved," Levin said.

Dr. Kerry J. Kelly, chief medical officer for the New York City Fire Department, said treatment must include help for mental health issues as well.

"When we asked people about their health concerns, people truly believed that their lives would be shortened by their exposure" to ground zero, Kelly said. "This is a health and mental health issue."

Dr. John Howard, who was named Monday as the Sept. 11 health coordinator for the federal government, said his first priority would be developing a plan to make sure anyone with a Sept. 11-related illness can get treatment. New York Reps. Vito Fossella and Carolyn Maloney pushed for a federal health coordinator.

In other testimony, Marvin Bethea, a New York City paramedic who left his job in 2004 due to health problems, said all the bureaucratic red tape needed to be simplified to truly help people, and cited a complicated workers compensation system that has delayed health claims for many workers.

Ronaldo Vega, an architect employed by the city of New York, said he doubted he would live another 10 years. Vega volunteered for 10 months at ground zero.

The program started in June 2003, but shut down after doing medical exams on just 394 people in six months.

Now the program is back in operation, but it has identified just 1,700 workers to participate. Critics say there has been scant notification to eligible federal workers.

"It's like they said let's put a Post-it note on a turtle and then sit back and say we did our duty," said Jon Adler, the national executive vice president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.

The program was funded with $3.74 million, about $200,000 of which was spent by the Health and Human Services Department on the first exams. Since then, an additional $500,000 has been spent building the list, which includes less than a fifth of those federal workers who responded after the terror attacks on the World Trade Center.

"We waited more than four years for this?" said Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-Manhattan), who announced yesterday that the government is appointing a point man for 9/11 health issues in hopes of doing better.

A spokesman for Health and Human Services said the agency restarted signing up workers in December, and has done 202 exams since Jan. 13. An additional 128 people have asked for tests.

The Daily News reported in August that the program had vanished, leaving federal workers no systematic way to monitor health ills from the toxic debris of the twin towers.

Maloney and others say it's good that the federal program has resurfaced, but noted it only offers a one-time screening. "If you are actually sick, all they can do for you is tell you to go and see your doctor," Maloney said.

http://www.upi.com/ConsumerHealthDaily/view.php?StoryID=20060228-122003-1076r

"The issue with exposures -- the more you have, the more you're affected," Deputy Commissioner Jessica Leighton responded when asked at a City Council meeting if the dust health threat is over, the New York Post reported.

"Is there still dust around? I can't say for sure. Is that dust going to be breathed by people? I can't say for sure," Leighton said.

Separately, a federal judge has approved class-action status for a 2004 lawsuit filed by New York residents against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on grounds it misled the public when it said Ground Zero was safe for residents and workers to return to.

 © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved

http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/64358.htm

Asked at a City Council hearing, "Is the threat over?" Dr. Jessica Leighton, a deputy commissioner for environmental health at the city's Health Department, responded, "The issue with exposures the more you have, the more you're affected.

http://ny.metro.us/metro/local/article/Council_experts_WTC_dust_plan_weak/1303.html

The group called on the EPA to expand the current testing of residences south of Canal Street to include workplaces and parts of Brooklyn. EPA officials declined City Councils invitation to attend the hearing.

The EPA failed, and continues to fail, to develop and implement a comprehensive and systematic testing and cleanup program that meets federal standards to rid Lower Manhattan and surrounding areas of WTC contamination, said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, who represents Lower Manhattan.

Nadler said the city could put pressure on the EPA in several ways. The city could initiate legal action or join the existing class action lawsuit brought on by residents, students and workers in Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn charging top EPA officials, including former administrator Christine Todd Whitman, with making statements that knowingly placed people in the path of contamination.

Decision

    Back to Top

For last summer's hurricanes alone, the American Red Cross raised more than $2 billion. It also received millions in reimbursements from federal coffers for services provided in lieu of government agencies.

But the iconic and well-connected disaster-relief organization has been under fire in recent years for mismanagement of funds and inadequate recovery plans. Now, US lawmakers are asking whether the agency can handle emergency response and recovery operations when the next disaster arrives.

The US Senate Finance Committee, which oversees nonprofit organizations, released thousands of pages of internal Red Cross documents yesterday that some lawmakers say demonstrate the agency's inability to effectively manage billions of dollars in donations.

US Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), who chairs the committee, asked the organization to provide meeting minutes, financial documents, internal evaluations and e-mails, some of which focus on disputes among board members. In a letter to Red Cross Chair Bonnie McElveen-Hunteron Monday, Grassley expressed discomfort at information he gathered from volunteers who complained about misuse of funds and property, and possible criminal activity within the organization.

"The volunteers [said they] were ignored, told to leave or otherwise made to feel like the skunk at the picnic," Grassley wrote. "This type of culture – a culture that discourages people from coming forward, management that does not want to hear the bad news and is more concerned about good press than good results – is a theme that I am hearing too often from Red Cross volunteers."

Two House members from states affected by the storms, Bennie Thompson (D-Mississippi) and Jim McCrery (R-Louisiana), said the Red Cross is unable to fulfill its role as the government's de facto disaster relief agency. They accused the organization of neglecting low-income areas and remote Gulf Coast communities, refusing to cooperate with local relief agencies and failing to set up an adequate system for dealing with the massive number of phone calls from people seeking help.

The lawmakers' concerns echo those expressed by survivors of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita along Louisiana's Gulf Coast in interviews with The NewStandard last year. New Orleans residents, as well as those in more remote Louisiana bayous, recounted spending hours on the phone, repeatedly calling the Red Cross for help, to be greeted only with busy signals. In the small, predominately Native American community of Dulac, southwest of New Orleans, residents told TNS that the Red Cross did not start providing supplies until nearly a month after Hurricane Rita flooded their homes.

At a House Ways and Means Committee hearing last December, McCrery said: "It was clear from the beginning that the Red Cross simply did not have the sheltering capacity to meet immediate needs. Small, independent shelters began popping up by the dozens across Northwest Louisiana.At the peak, there were over forty shelters in my district, while fewer than ten of those were operated by the Red Cross."

In addition to what critics see as the organization's chronic inefficiency in distributing supplies, volunteers and former employees accuse the Red Cross of misusing donor funds on expensive hotel rooms, excessive travel costs and unnecessary food.

The largest relief organization in the US, the Red Cross lost two chief executive officers over the last five years due to internal turmoil and harsh criticism of its operations. Marsha Evans quit after Hurricane Katrina, citing problems with the board of directors.

Her predecessor, Bernadine Healy, resigned in the face of accusations that she mismanaged Sept. 11 relief efforts by diverting hundreds of millions of dollars earmarked specifically for families of people killed in the terrorist attacks to other programs. After a congressional investigation, Red Cross officials said it would reapply the funds to benefit the victims of the terrorist attacks.

Critics slammed the organization yet again yesterday, charging that the Red Cross spent a half-million dollars over the last three years on public relations and celebrity endorsements – all while cutting staff.

According to Charity Navigator, a watchdog group that provides information on charities to potential donors, the organization spent more than $170 million on administrative costs and about $111 million on fundraising expenses in 2004. Interim CEO Jack McGuire makes a salary of $416,010. The organization spent about $2.8 billion on programs.

In its response to Senator Grassley, the Red Cross disputed allegations that it had poor working relationships with community relief groups, but acknowledged "challenges in working with local charity leaders to best deploy resources to meet community needs." Also, in a statement issued Monday, the organization admitted its response was "not perfect" and pledged to improve volunteer recruitment, communication mechanisms and collaborative partnerships with local nonprofits and governments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/nyregion/28rebuild.html

Senator Schumer said the mayor's proposal to build apartments and a hotel at ground zero instead of office space "does not make sense" and reflected a "lack of confidence in downtown." He called on the Bloomberg administration to commit $1.75 billion in tax-exempt financing, known as Liberty Bonds, to commercial development at ground zero.

Mr. Schumer also demanded that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey move its offices to the Freedom Tower, the most symbolic and expensive of five proposed office towers, and abandon its efforts to move to another tower at ground zero, which he said was better suited for corporate tenants.

Reacting to Mr. Schumer's remarks, Mr. Bloomberg immediately rejected the suggestions, using the more combative tone that has become a hallmark of his nascent second term.

"We're not going to put Liberty Bonds into something that would, two or three years from now, come to a grinding halt," Mr. Bloomberg said at a City Hall news conference. "And I think the time to address this issue is before construction starts, right now, not when you're halfway done."

Mr. Bloomberg said that the fundamental problem at ground zero would remain even if the Port Authority became the anchor tenant at the Freedom Tower: not "enough money to make this project move forward."

The city recently issued a report concluding that Larry A. Silverstein, the developer who controls the lease at the World Trade Center site, would run out of money for the project in 2009, then default on his lease and walk away with hundreds of millions of dollars in profit.

Neither Mr. Bloomberg nor Mr. Schumer has a seat at the table in the bitter negotiations under way. But Mr. Bloomberg has increasingly moved to insert himself in the debates about the rebuilding of downtown, which is largely controlled by Gov. George E. Pataki and the Port Authority, which owns the site.

To that end, Mr. Bloomberg also opened up another front yesterday in his critique of the progress of the ground zero rebuilding effort, saying he hoped that the people involved in the fund-raising for the memorial there were up to the ambitious task of raising what may be $1 billion for the project.

"The city has lots of obligations," he said, "and if the plans require the city to come up with money, we're going to have to work through that."

The sparring between the mayor and the senator came as something of a surprise, considering that the two have enjoyed a good relationship despite belonging to different parties. The mayor's transportation commissioner, Iris Weinshall, incidentally, is married to Mr. Schumer. Mr. Schumer has long argued that the trade center site should remain a commercial center.

"We are at yet another point where all parties must put aside their differences, come together to find a solution that will allow Lower Manhattan to get back on its feet, and become an economic engine once again for this great city," Mr. Schumer said yesterday to a breakfast forum sponsored by the Association for a Better New York.

His comments came just slightly more than two weeks before the March 14 deadline, imposed by Governor Pataki, for Mr. Silverstein and the Port Authority to resolve their differences over who will build what at the site, and when.

Mr. Pataki, who is considering a run for president when his term ends in December, has insisted on an April groundbreaking for the Freedom Tower, which is expected to cost more than $2 billion.

Behind the scenes, John P. Cahill, the governor's chief of staff, has been trying to broker a deal in time for the deadline, although Port Authority executives say that little progress has been made so far.

In a statement released yesterday, Lynn Krogh, a spokeswoman for the governor, embraced Mr. Schumer's proposals. "We're glad that Senator Schumer agrees that all the remaining Liberty Bonds should be dedicated to ground zero, that it is appropriate to house government offices in the Freedom Tower and that construction should commence on an expedited basis," she said.

Mr. Schumer did not spare Mr. Silverstein from criticism either. He called on Mr. Silverstein to slash his development fee in half, a notion that could cost the developer more than $150 million, and adhere to strict construction deadlines for building five towers there. At the same time, he called for an independent auditor to assess Mr. Silverstein's ability to complete rebuilding.

As he was leaving the breakfast meeting where Mr. Schumer spoke, Mr. Silverstein, who contends that he is willing and able to build four towers at ground zero, said he could not be more supportive of recommendations that he get all the remaining Liberty Bonds to rebuild the towers and that the Port Authority should serve as the anchor tenant for the Freedom Tower.

Anthony R. Coscia, chairman of the Port Authority, with support from Mayor Bloomberg, has proposed his own solution for speeding up the rebuilding process and dealing with the financial shortfalls at the site.

He said Mr. Silverstein should proceed with building the 2.6-million-square-foot Freedom Tower and a second tower but relinquish control of two other building sites on Church Street and a major portion of the site in exchange for a drastic reduction in rent, which is now $140 million a year.

Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt will visit Libby on March 10th.

Senator Max Baucus says Leavitt will discuss options for providing health care to Libby residents exposed to asbestos.

Asbestos, released into the air from the now-closed W-R Grace vermiculite mine, is blamed by some health authorities for killing about 200 people and sickening one of every eight residents of Libby.

This will be Leavitt's second trip to the northwestern Montana town. He traveled to Montana in 2004, when he was administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Baucus asked Leavitt to return to Libby during the secretary's confirmation hearings last year. The meeting will take place March 10th at 2:30 p-m in the Ponderosa Room at Libby City Hall.

Baucus: Libby's remoteness one reason asbestos bill stalled, World News Now, Montana, February 28, 2006, 10:44 AM EST

Washington, D.C.

Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

There are more than 1.4 million tons of debris from the World Trade Center site in the Fresh Kills Landfill in Staten Island, the equivalent of 92,000 truck loads. Despite this, there is a movement in the New York and New Jersey state legislatures to take the material out of the landfill and possibly return it to the place of its origin.

Believing that there are human remains in the material, Rockland County Assemblyman Ryan Karben, a Democrat, and Sen. Thomas Morahan, a Republican also of Rockland County, co-sponsored a bill that would transfer the material from the landfill to a "suitable site," to properly honor the victims. However, repeated tests performed before and after the remains were moved, have not shown there to be human remains in the material. Meanwhile, the unidentified remains of 1,200 victims are being kept by the Medical Examiner’s Office.

If the bill passes, the destination for the remains would be decided upon by the governors of New York and New Jersey. Introduced on February 6th, the bill is currently in its third reading and is expected to reach the floor soon. Previous versions of the bill have been introduced, and while they have always passed in the senate, they have lacked the votes to move out of the assembly.

Citizen groups such as WTC Families for Proper Burial support returning the remains to the WTC site. Spokeswoman Diane Horning, appearing on a CBS news program, said, "The ultimate insult is to be denied burial. I think we have the right to a proper burial."

Downtown support for the move is low. David Stanke, co-director of BPCUnited, commented "Everything possible has been done to remove remains from WTC debris. What's left at Fresh Kills is the hope of finding something that doesn’t exist. The impact and cost of moving 1.4 million tons of toxic debris to an active neighborhood is not realistic and not necessary as a symbolic gesture".

Martin Connor, Lower Manhattan’s representative in the state senate, has voted against the bill each time it went to the floor. Speaking through his aide, Matt Viggiano, Sen. Connor said he was "not going to vote for it ever," at the same time expressing a desire "to see a memorial that takes into account the needs and wishes of the families but also follows the guidelines of the community board."

NY Sept. 11 Health Coordinator; Health coordinator named to oversee Sept. 11 health impacts, by Donna De La Cruz, Associated Press, February 27, 2006

John Howard, director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), will serve as the Sept. 11 health coordinator for the federal government, said New York Reps. Vito Fossella and Carolyn Maloney.

Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt made the appointment.

"It is essential that the federal government have one individual who is directly responsible and accountable for overseeing the massive response to those who are sick or injured from ground zero," said Fossella, a Republican from Staten Island.

Maloney, a Manhattan Democrat, said "the federal response to the health impacts of 9/11 has been missing in action."

The lawmakers said Howard's first priority must be to ensure that an exhaustive medical screening and monitoring program encompassing a large pool of responders and residents is working.

Howard also will oversee the distribution of federal funds for programs administered through NIOSH to enhance medical screenings and monitoring programs, and bring together medical and scientific experts to develop a plan to help those with Sept. 11-related illnesses.

The two lawmakers called for a Sept. 11 coordinator after three World Trade Center responders died in 2005 and in January. They said it is believed that tens of thousands of first responders, federal employees and lower Manhattan residents and workers continue to suffer from health problems likely caused by exposure to toxins at or near the trade center site.

Ground zero health advocates have long argued that the full scope of illnesses from toxic debris and dust will take years to fully develop, even though doctors caution it will be very difficult to prove the hazards caused specific deaths.

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/NY1ToGo/Story/index.jsp?stid=203&aid=57420

John Howard, the current Director for Occupational Safety and Health, was named Monday as the September 11th Health Coordinator. Howard will oversee the health impacts of working at Ground Zero, and will distribute funding for medical screenings and monitoring programs of first responders.

Manhattan Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney and Congressman Vito Fosella of Staten Island appealed for the position after three first responders died last year, and another passed away in January.

The co-sponsors of legislation to create a $140 billion asbestos victims' compensation fund are trying to gather 60 senators' signatures on a letter asking for another vote on the bill, Senate aides said on Friday.

Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter and Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy began circulating the letter this week after Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist demanded pledges of support from at least 60 members -- enough to overcome procedural hurdles -- before bringing the embattled legislation back to the Senate floor.

The bill would remove from the courts the injury claims filed by people sickened from exposure to the fibrous mineral. It would pay the claims instead from a $140 billion fund financed by asbestos defendant companies and their insurers.

The asbestos bill was shelved earlier this month after it failed, 58 to 41, to get the 60 votes needed to clear a budget point of order raised on the Senate floor by a member concerned the proposed fund might end up costing taxpayers money.

The letter being circulated for signatures asks Frist, a Tennessee Republican, to schedule a revote on the budget point of order. Senate aides who spoke about the letter on condition of anonymity said they did not know how many signatures had been collected so far.

"Because this may be our last best chance to enact meaningful asbestos reform, we are hopeful that you share in our sense of urgency to resolve this important unfinished business of the Senate," said the letter, a copy of which was provided to Reuters.

However, the document does not say how senators signing it would vote on any possible filibuster of the bill -- a delaying tactic that would also require 60 votes to overcome.

Frist said on Feb. 17 that he wants assurances that 60 senators would vote to end any filibuster, as well as defeat the budget point of order, before bringing the bill back to the Senate floor.

The unusual request from Frist for public assurances reflected the difficulty the bill's sponsors have had building a dependable base of support for the legislation.

Although it has backers in both parties, the bill also has critics that fear the fund will not have enough money, or, alternatively, that it will require too much money from companies paying into the fund. The proposal has divided business as well as labor unions. Asbestos victims' groups say they do not want to give up their right to sue in court.

The chief hope for reform lies in a Senate bill that would shift asbestos claims from the courts to a $140 billion compensation fund run by the federal government. Sick people, including those excluded from compensation by the tort lottery, would be entitled to payments. Lawyers' fees would be capped at 5 percent of settlements. The fund would be financed by companies responsible for asbestos, with no direct burden on taxpayers. But the bill was defeated last week in a vote that was technically about the budget impact of reform; "I believe this bill is fiscally irresponsible to the taxpayers and the future," intoned Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), who forced the so-called budget point of order. Mr. Ensign's charge was false, but 30 Democrats and 10 Republicans accepted it.

The bill's opponents cite a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office, which forecast that the compensation fund would pay out $64 billion over 10 years while taking in only $58 billion. This complaint overlooks the fact that the fund would run a surplus in later years, so that, in the CBO's judgment, reform "would be deficit-neutral over the life of the fund." The critics also say that the fund wouldn't take in as many contributions as expected, because would-be contributors would go bust. Maybe, but the chances of firms going bust and leaving asbestos sufferers uncompensated are far higher in the tort system. Besides, the bill stipulates that if the compensation fund ran out of money, taxpayers wouldn't be on the hook; instead, unsatisfied claims would revert to the tort system.

Although asbestos legislation has stalled in the Senate, the bill’s advocates are not yet counting it dead. The measure would set up a $140-billion trust fund to compensate victims of asbestos exposure. On Feb. 14 supporters fell two votes short of the 60 needed to override a budget point of order.

But the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), claims he has the two votes ­those of Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), who didn’t vote Feb. 14 because his wife was sick, and Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), who originally voted with Specter but switched so he could bring up the bill in the future "We have just begun the fight," Specter says.

Before last Tuesday’s vote, the bill’s lead sponsor, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), and Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) both indicated that the two-week floor debate on the measure represented a do-or-die moment for those seeking an alternative to the torts system for victims of asbestos exposure.

Lobbyists working to pass, change or kill the bill likewise treated those two weeks as possibly the final chance to act on asbestos litigation reform.

When the measure’s supporters fell short of the 60 votes they needed to overcome a budgetary point of order by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), the matter seemed settled for the year despite Specter’s defiant vow to revisit the legislation.

The point of order was sustained by a 58-41 vote after Frist switched his vote to "nay? for procedural reasons.

Advocates for those with an interest in the bill got a reminder late Friday afternoon, if they needed one, that the nettlesome asbestos-reform issue has not been so easily done away with.

In a written statement, Frist announced a plan to bring the bill back to the floor. His strategy to return to the measure seems to put the onus on Judiciary Committee Chairman Specter and ranking member Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) to do what they have not been able to so far: secure solid promises from senators.

"I have told Chairman Specter and Senator Leahy that 60 members must signify their commitment to support both the motion to waive the pending Budget Act point of order and end any filibuster of the bill,? Frist said. "Once that public assurance is given, I will look to schedule the bill at the earliest possible opportunity.?

The bill would establish a $140 billion industry-financed fund that would replace the tort system as the source of compensation for people injured by asbestos exposure.

By setting aside floor time early in the year for the asbestos bill, Frist fulfilled a promise to Specter that had been delayed by the Senate’s response to last year’s Gulf Coast hurricanes and the drive to confirm John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, Frist’s statement notes.

Frist has expended precious floor time during and busy legislative session in a risky midterm election year ­ as well as considerable political capital ­ in his efforts to help Specter advance a bill that never had uniform support within the GOP conference.

Nevertheless, a Senate Republican aide maintained that Specter would continue to enjoy the continued assistance of the GOP leadership in amassing public commitments from senators.

K Street sources from all sides of the debate emphasized that the measure continues to face formidable challenges, ranging from a paucity of floor time in the Senate to basic differences about the content of the bill itself.

These lobbyists also agreed that they could not afford to take their eyes off Specter, Frist and their allies. "As John Paul Jones said, ‘We have just begun to fight,’? Specter remarked in a written statement after last week’s vote.

"The bill is not dead,? said Tom O’Brien, the chairman of the Coalition for Asbestos Reform, which is made up of small and medium-size businesses that oppose the trust fund.

"There’s no denying this chairman’s successes in the past year on many things,? said one lobbyist who has worked on asbestos issues for years.

"There’s sure to be a lot of lobbying back and forth,? said former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas), who opposes the bill. Armey has lobbied against the measure as co-chairman of the conservative group FreedomWorks. Armey also is employed by DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary, which represents Equitas Ltd., an offshoot of the insurance giant Lloyd’s of London.

Asked when lobbyists working on asbestos could let down their guard this year, AFL-CIO Legislative Director Bill Samuel responded, "Adjournment sine die.?

In the meantime, "everyone’s taking stock? after the aggressive and expensive campaigns fought in recent weeks, Samuel said. Armey agreed: "No one knows for sure? whether the bill can come back.

"We need to encourage the senators that voted correctly,? Armey said. He suggested that the grassroots efforts of FreedomWorks members had been influential in cementing some opposition from Republican senators.

Fiscal conservatives and tort-reform advocates oppose the bill on the grounds that the trust fund could become insolvent, potentially leaving taxpayers to foot the bill for unpaid claims. Ensign’s point of order was based on the same concern.

If the trust-fund bill were to be irretrievably defeated, the asbestos liability issue would remain on the radar screens of lawmakers and K Street. Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) surprised some conservatives after the vote last week by seemingly opening the door to an older proposed model of asbestos litigation reform that would establish specific medical criteria for people who bring lawsuits.

Because of Durbin’s ties to the trial attorneys who opposed the trust fund, Armey remarked that his comments were a hopeful signal.

Legislation to create a compensation fund for victims of asbestos exposure was pulled from the Senate floor last week after supporters were unable to overcome a procedural vote.

Backers of the bill (S 852) say they are confident they can win a vote to reconsider the motion, but it remains uncertain if they will get another chance.

Bill:

S 852 ­ To create a system to resolve claims for bodily injury caused by asbestos exposure.

Latest Action:

Senate voted, 58-41, on Feb. 14 against waiving a budget point of order against the bill.

Next Likely Action:

It is unclear whether a vote to reconsider the motion on the point of order will be rescheduled.

Reference:

Senate floor consideration, CQ Weekly, p. 437; markups, 2005 CQ Weekly, pp. 1386, 1317, 1151; ore-related cases, p. 1954.

Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., may opt against taking up the legislation, which could require weeks of additional floor time. Frist warned before the Feb. 14 vote that there would be no second chance for the bill in 2006. "If we are unsuccessful this week in addressing asbestos, that’s it for the year," he said.

Frist fulfilled his pledge to the bill’s chief supporter, Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter, to try to bring it to the floor when he carved out two weeks for consideration this month.

The legislation would establish a $140 billion trust fund financed by defendant companies and their insurers. Most lawsuits seeking compensation for the health effects of asbestos exposure would be removed from federal and state courts.

Dozens of companies have been driven into bankruptcy by lawsuits brought by people exposed to asbestos, a fire-resistant, cancer-causing substance that was used through the 1970s in products such as insulation and automobile brake linings.

Senators who backed Specter’s bill essentially fell one short of the 60 votes required to waive a budget point of order raised by Nevada Republican John Ensign. He based his motion on a prohibition against legislation that would authorize more than $5 billion in spending during any 10-year period starting in 2016. The final vote actually was 58-41, but only because Frist switched his vote to "no" so that he could move to reconsider the motion. (Senate Vote 21, p. 500)

Specter said he remains confident that the lone senator who did not vote, Democrat Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii, will support waiving the budget point of order if the Senate votes again. With Frist’s and Inouye’s votes, backers would have the 60 they need to advance the measure if no other senators switched sides.

Specter acknowledged that votes could change on both sides in the interim. "Whenever you have a re-vote, you have a flexible situation," he said.

Even if the Senate votes to waive the point of order a second time around, supporters still have a long way to go to attract enough allies to pass the bill.

Deep Divide

The Feb. 14 vote showed the depth of opposition on both sides of the aisle. Excluding Frist, 10 Republicans ­ including Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg of New Hampshire ­ joined 30 Democrats in voting against waiving the budget point of order.

Specter’s bill has divided both the Republican caucus and its business allies who would pay into the fund. A bloc of large companies, such as Honeywell and General Electric, has stood behind the bill. But smaller companies complain that they would be forced to pay more than they would owe in the court system, and the trusts representing bankrupt asbestos companies say taking $7 billion of their assets would be unconstitutional.

Moreover, many conservative lawmakers fear that taxpayers would ultimately foot the bill if the fund became insolvent.

The lack of consensus has resulted in little progress since the legislation reached the Senate floor the week of Feb 6. Except for a manager’s package of amendments, no substantive proposals have been debated.

As the second week of debate began Feb. 13, Specter struggled to persuade senators to waive the point of order. "The fact is there’s no federal money, so there’s no substantive merit to the point of order," he said in his final floor speech before the vote. "Give us the benefit of the doubt."

But his arguments did not win over enough conservative Republicans.

Several GOP senators who supported the waiver, including John Cornyn of Texas, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Jon Kyl of Arizona, have made clear they oppose the asbestos bill.

Such underlying opposition would make it all the more difficult for Specter to attract the 60 votes needed to cut off debate and succeed on a cloture motion to end any filibuster.

Prepared to Fight

Cornyn, Coburn and Kyl are all members of the Judiciary Committee and stand ready with amendments that would substantially alter the bill in the event it returns to the floor.

And Cornyn continues to elicit support for an alternative that would scrap the trust fund approach and instead subject asbestos lawsuits to stricter medical criteria. It is a concept that is mirrored in a House bill (HR 1957) introduced last year by Chris Cannon, R-Utah, that has gained 60 Republican cosponsors. In the House, resistance to a trust fund is even greater.

The Senate voted, 70-27, on Feb. 9 to table, and thus kill, a Cornyn amendment that would have substituted the medical criteria approach in place of the compensation trust fund.

Cornyn said he is exploring the possibility of a similar amendment or a separate bill. He said he has spoken with several Democrats and Republicans who were receptive to a modified version of his earlier amendment.

"We have an opportunity to do a medical criteria bill that can get 75 or 80 votes," said South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham, who voted against waiving the point of order.

But Cornyn acknowledged that the window for action is closing. "My suspicion is the leader may pull it down because we have run out of time," he said.

Source: CQ Weekly

The definitive source for news about Congress.

© 2006 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/nyregion/19tower.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Eager to counter claims that the rebuilding effort had lost momentum, Mr. Pataki declared that the 1,776-foot tall tower would be the first building finished, in 2008, and the governor's office would be the first tenant to move in.

"For the first time since the attacks, we have not only the vision for redevelopment but also a comprehensive timeline," Mr. Pataki said at the time. "It's an ambitious plan for swift action that leaves no room for error or delay."

Officials no longer put any stock in a 2008 completion date. Indeed, under the current schedule, Larry A. Silverstein, the developer who controls the lease at the trade center, would not finish building and leasing the tower until the end of 2011.

But the Freedom Tower and the decisions made in 2003 loom large today over the very public slugfest involving Mr. Silverstein, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the land, over what is going to be built, who is going to build it and when.

The governor, who is considering a presidential run, has insisted on an April groundbreaking for the Freedom Tower, which is sure to attract national attention.

But many urban planners, downtown real estate executives and civic leaders contend that the $2.3 billion, 2.6 million square foot Freedom Tower is planned for the wrong place, too big and would be unlikely to attract tenants other than government agencies, though few are willing to say so publicly for fear of offending the governor.

There are even suggestions that Mr. Silverstein may offer to return the Freedom Tower site to the Port Authority as part of a restructuring of his lease at ground zero, according to people involved in negotiations on the site's future. Mr. Pataki, for his part, has said Mr. Silverstein must have resolved his disagreements with the Port Authority by March 14 or face losing hundreds of millions of dollars in government subsidies.

"It's really important that we accelerate development on the entire site," said Kathryn Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City. "Many people say the Freedom Tower is not a viable economic proposition even with Liberty Bonds and insurance money. It stands in the way of the development of the balance of the site, which would otherwise be quite feasible."

John Cahill, the governor's chief of staff who oversees downtown rebuilding, counters that the Freedom Tower is infused with meaning that goes far beyond an ordinary real estate project. Besides, he said, alternative building sites at ground zero would not be ready for construction to begin for 18 months to two years.

"The Freedom Tower will serve as a testament to our resiliency as a people, a city and a country in the wake of the horrific attacks of Sept. 11, 2001," Mr. Cahill said. "The 1,776-foot tower will reclaim our city's skyline and is emblematic of the enduring spirit of New Yorkers and our nation."

Mr. Bloomberg and Anthony R. Coscia, chairman of the authority, have publicly supported the governor's push for the Freedom Tower. But they have also called for a restructuring of Mr. Silverstein's lease and a viable financial plan that would allow construction to move more quickly.

"Silverstein would run out of money in about four years and we would be left with a half-built project and a construction site for the foreseeable future," Mr. Bloomberg said at a news conference on Wednesday. "The way you solve that problem is you have multiple developers doing multiple kind of buildings simultaneously."

Mr. Coscia has proposed that Mr. Silverstein yield two building sites on Church Street and a major portion of the trade center property in return for a substantial reduction in his annual rent of $140 million. They say that it would cost more than $7 billion to build a total of five towers at ground zero, but Mr. Silverstein would have only $2.9 billion of insurance money available.

"It's clear that if you don't go ahead now with the Freedom Tower, you'll have no construction on the site for a year and half," said Deputy Mayor Daniel L. Doctoroff. "That's not acceptable. The solution we proposed will enable us to get all four buildings plus the retail up, and hopefully, occupied by late 2011."

Under the proposal, Mr. Silverstein would proceed with the Freedom Tower and a second building, while the Port Authority would become the anchor tenant for a third tower on Church Street, build a retail mall, and sell the fourth site to a developer for a hotel, office space, and according to the mayor, about 700 apartments.

In contrast, the architect Daniel Libeskind's original plan for the trade center was to build the memorial to the victims of Sept. 11 first, the Church Street towers second and what became known as the Freedom Tower in the third phase. But the governor put the tower in first place. Knowing that he had few friends at City Hall or at the authority, Mr. Silverstein followed Mr. Pataki's lead and abandoned his effort to move the Freedom Tower from the northwest corner to what the developer thought was a more logical spot on Church Street, next to the new transit center.

"He had one ally, the governor, and the governor wanted him to build the Freedom Tower first," Kevin M. Rampe, a former senior redevelopment official appointed by the governor, said of Mr. Silverstein.

In any event, Mr. Bloomberg has repeatedly called on Mr. Silverstein to put aside his desire "to maximize the profits of his investment" and do the right thing for the city.

A City Hall analysis of ground zero says that Mr. Silverstein and his investors took back most, if not all, of the $137 million he and his investors put into his 2001 leasing deal with the authority. Mr. Silverstein has also proposed that he get a 5 percent development fee, which could add more than $100 million to the cost of the Freedom Tower.

Mr. Silverstein has responded angrily to the mayor, saying that the attacks on him "hurt all of downtown," by increasing the uncertainty over ground zero and scaring away potential tenants. As the feud escalated, Mr. Silverstein borrowed a phrase from the cold war, saying that the proposal that he give back the two sites best suited for corporate tenants amounted to "Soviet-style confiscation."

The developer has argued that the Port Authority should move to the Freedom Tower, along with other state and city agencies.

"We believe the two towers on Church Street are perfect for large, private-sector employers such as the financial institutions that are key to the city's economic future," said Janno N. Lieber, senior vice president of Silverstein Properties.

Mr. Silverstein says that he has the insurance money and is in the best position to build the first four towers with a combination of cash and Liberty Bonds.

But there is a clear sense at the Port Authority and elsewhere that Mr. Silverstein cannot do everything, no matter what he claims.

"There's a feeling by many commissioners at the port that he will run out of money and be unable to build it all," said Charles A. Gargano, the state's top economic development official and vice chairman of the authority. "The port is willing to work with the Silverstein group to complete the development of the site in an expeditious way."

Although the talks among Mr. Silverstein, Mr. Cahill and the authority are being conducted in secret, officials who have been briefed on the negotiations say that there has been informal discussion in the last week about Mr. Silverstein ceding the Freedom Tower to the authority. But they also say that the authority would be unlikely to take on that project unless Mr. Silverstein also agreed that the Port Authority would get most of the insurance money, as well as control of the two Church Street sites.

Officials say that the negotiations are likely to go right up until the March 14 deadline imposed by Mr. Pataki. Mayor Bloomberg, who is not directly involved in the talks, has sought to use his influence to strengthen the authority's negotiating position.

But his repeated suggestions that residential development could take place at ground zero has driven some downtown business and real estate executives to support Mr. Silverstein. They argue that there are no other sites for office towers left downtown and fear that the mayor is more concerned with promoting commercial development on the recently rezoned Far West Side.

At the same time, residents and local politicians demonstrated Friday against the mayor's recent decision to eliminate funding for two schools that would serve the growing residential population in Lower Manhattan.

Still, there is a widespread feeling that it is time for change in the plans for downtown.

Many are suffering from lung ailments, and the recent deaths of three first-responders have heightened fears of broader mortality. While those deaths have not been scientifically linked to Ground Zero, the concerns are understandable, and they must be addressed through an authoritative review of why each man died.

At the same time, there is a pressing need to give 9/11 responders and their families up-to-date information on WTC-linked illnesses as well as expert advice on treatments. Both are now sorely lacking, and the vacuum is often filled by misinformation.

Distraught family members talk of black-lung disease and of brains being destroyed by mercury poisoning. Some have endorsed rare medical procedures for identifying infections and leaching heavy metals from the body. Trouble is, occupational and environmental health experts say these conclusions are likely wrong, and the proposed treatments can be dangerous. Making matters worse, the experts say, many private physicians aren't up to speed on recognizing or treating illnesses triggered by toxic exposure.

Dr. Stephen Levin, co-director of Mount Sinai Medical Center's World Trade Center Medical Monitoring Program - which tracks the health of about 25,000 people exposed to Ground Zero - says his patients include asthma sufferers whose doctors didn't know how to treat what amounted to chemical burns in their lungs. He also says some physicians have leaped to conclusions about the presence of harmful mercury because they ordered blood tests rather than urine tests. Proper screening has found no exposure to heavy metals, including mercury, say Levin and Fire Department doctors.

Along with Mount Sinai, the Fire and Health departments are monitoring the effects of 9/11 toxins, including such respiratory ills as World Trade Center cough. Dr. David Prezant, head of the FDNY program, says his doctors see a trend toward improved health among their patients; Mount Sinai has not seen similar healing.

Meanwhile, the Health Department is largely in the dark. Its role for the moment is limited to a long-term study of what happens to the health of more than 70,000 people who filled out questionnaires in 2003. Followup surveys, including one this year, will produce invaluable data 10 years down the road. But not today, and that's why Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden and his staff must do more.

Reps. Vito Fossella and Carolyn Maloney have called for a 9/11 health czar. Frieden should properly fill that role. His department has the largest database on 9/11 exposure and has both the expertise and the clout to evaluate and disseminate the latest information gleaned by FDNY and Mount Sinai doctors.

The death toll of the Ground Zero heroes firefighters, cops, EMTs, construction workers, immigrant laborers and others is climbing, and a growing number are dying of heart attacks and cardiovascular disease.

Researchers who have studied Ground Zero air samples initially called "safe" by the EPA are not surprised at illnesses surfacing in many who worked without respirators or safety suits at the hugely hazardous site.

"These people have been screwed," said Thomas Cahill, a scientist at the University of California-Davis who has studied the finely pulverized airborne poisons that WTC workers "inhaled deep into the lungs" for months.

"They're as much victims of 9/11 as those killed in the buildings."

Doctors monitoring 13,000 WTC workers are investigating a possible link between the heart problems and the respiratory ailments so common among the tens of thousands of Ground Zero workers and nearby residents.

"There is an increased risk of heart problems from lung disease," said Dr. Stephen Levin, of the WTC medical monitoring program at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in Manhattan.

"There is also evidence that people exposed to micro-fine particles which was certainly the case at the World Trade Center are at increased risk for heart disease."

Researchers will soon consult top cardiologists on possible blood tests to detect the hidden danger, Levin told The Post.

The new focus comes two weeks after James Doyle, 54, a retired transit worker from Staten Island, died of a heart attack.

Active and athletic before 9/11, Doyle developed lung disease after weeks of digging at Ground Zero and had to use an oxygen pump.

Last month, Kevin Lee, 31, a seemingly healthy NYPD cop, collapsed and died while chasing a suspect, raising questions about the effects of his many hours at Ground Zero.

And last June, Tim Keller, 41, an FDNY emergency medical technician and father of four, died of a heart attack after going on disability for post-9/11 asthma, bronchitis and pulmonary emphysema.

"By the end, he couldn't walk two steps without taking a breath," said his son David, 19.

"One day, he just went his lungs stopped pumping enough blood into his heart."

Doctors told the family Keller's death was "directly related to his days of search and rescue down at Ground Zero," the son said.

David Worby, a lawyer representing 6,000 WTC workers in a class-action lawsuit, said about six men in their 30s or 40s with no family history of coronary disease have died of heart attacks so far.

"Hundreds more will die prematurely," he predicted. "This is scratching the surface of all the diseases linked to these toxic exposures that people must be tested for and treated."

So far, at least 24 of the 6,000 workers have died from inhaling, ingesting or absorbing WTC dust and fumes rife with thousands of pounds of pulverized mercury, lead, asbestos, dioxin, benzene, cadmium and PCBs, the suit argues.

The dead include men in their 30s, 40s and 50s from cancers of the esophagus, throat, pancreas, and kidney, Worby said.

Such cancers normally take years longer to develop, but Worby contends they struck sooner because of a "synergistic effect" of the deadly toxins a theory Levin said is under study.

Others have died or suffer from lymphoma and leukemia blood cancers that can develop several years after exposure to toxins.

After working 12-hour days for three months, digging for body parts and doing security at Ground Zero, NYPD detective Ernie Vallebuona, 40, is fighting lymphoma.

Since a recurrence, he has undergone a second round of chemotherapy and blood stem-cell transplants and will learn this week whether it worked.

Weakness and fatigue after 9/11 "I couldn't pull my kids in a wagon to the beach" led doctors to discover a large mass in his abdomen.

The disabled vice cop, bald from the treatment and on many medications, is so vulnerable to deadly infection he can't eat out or play with his two sons.

He couldn't root for them at the recent Boy Scout Pinewood Derby because of the crowd.

"It breaks my heart," Vallebuona said. "I'm just holed up in the house. I feel like such a lump."

Fellow detective Rich Volpe, 38, "spit up blood and black stuff from my lungs for months" during 12-hour shifts at Ground Zero and the Fresh Kills landfill.

Volpe was diagnosed with kidney disease in 2002, and has lost 50 percent of function in both kidneys.

He will eventually need a transplant to survive. Doctors have told the bachelor he may never have kids.

Speaking between loud gasps and coughs, ironworker John Sferazo, 50, recalled inhaling "green gases" bubbling up from Ground Zero for 30 days after the terror attacks.

"There were times I couldn't wear any type of respiratory protection because the air was so bad you had to inhale whatever you could to try and pull some oxygen out of it," he said

Sferazo, a father of three, has lost a third of his lung capacity. Last week he attended the funeral of a fellow Local 361 worker and Ground Zero partner, Michael Kendrick, who died of lung cancer.

"I saw his daughter kiss his corpse goodbye. It was tragic," he said.

While "cancer is a continuing concern," among firefighters, cancer and heart attacks have not risen above normal since the terror attacks, said Dr. Kerry Kelly, the FDNY's chief medical officer. She did not give numbers.

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=203&aid=57214

According to The New York Post, doctors are seeing a growing number of heart attacks and heart related deaths among first responders and construction workers who spent time at the World Trade Center site after the terror attacks.

Traces of Mercury and Benzene were found in the air at the site, but the EPA had deemed the air safe to breathe days after the attacks.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2006/02/15/65431.htm

On a procedural budget vote, the U.S. Senate yesterday killed a proposed $140 billion private asbestos victims fund that has been years in the making. The final vote was 58 to 41, with 60 votes needed to keep it alive.

The bill is designed to remove asbestos cases from the civil courts and speed payments to victims of asbestos exposure from a private fund paid for by manufacturers, suppliers, insurers and other businesses affected by asbestos litigation, which has bankrupt 80 firms. Under the act, the Department of Labor would administer payments.

Just last week, the Senate voted overwhelmingly 98 to 1 to proceed to consideration of S. 852, The Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act, as opponents of the measure went along with the majority because they lacked sufficient votes to defeat it.

However, yesterday's vote saw some conservative Republicans join Democrats in refusing to support the bipartisan measure. Some opponents fear that the fund may not be sufficient to cover all the claims and will eventually require a taxpayer bailout, while others object to it as a bailout of large corporations that could shortchange victims.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D- Vt.), the panel's ranking Democrat, who are co-sponsors of the bipartisan measure, vowed to try to bring the measure back for another vote.

Specter has tried for years to forge a compromise among insurers, asbestos manufacturers, labor and the trial bar. He has asserted that the trust fund is necessary to "solve the worst litigation crisis in the history of the American judicial system."

Nevada Sen. John Ensign, a Republican, raised the budget technicality issue that defeated the fund. A Senate rule requires at least 60 votes on bills that are expected to cost more than $5 billion over a 10- year period. Ensign argued that the rule applied because if the fund falls short, the government budget would be affected.

Sen. Leahy and other supporters argued that the measure does not affect the federal budget because the funds come from the private sector and it is adequately funded. Leahy cited a new Congressional Budget Office report.

"This point of order is a procedural mechanism intended to promote fiscal discipline. In light of CBO's explicit statement that "CBO concludes that the legislati