A Fallen Hero - Video Inside

Isn't it funny how now that Christie is about to be put in the spotlight regarding what she did to the people of New York and 9/11 First Responders she suddenly starts pointing fingers at people like Rudy Giuliani who she says, "blocked her efforts to force WTC workers to wear respirators."

I'm reminded of the family members' call for the declassification of documents. Specifically the CIA Inspector General's report. If Tenet is pushed like Christie, don't you think he would crack as well?

To think of all of those alleged members of the movement who don't think it's important to support the families. That it's too "LIHOP." Makes me sick.

Former EPA Head Christine Whitman Talks About 9/11 Cleanup

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=203&aid=71047

June 24, 2007

Former EPA head Christie Whitman is stirring up controversy with former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's camp over the way cleanup was handled at the World Trade Center site.

In an interview on WNBC, Whitman talked about criticism she's received over the years – that the EPA didn't require cleanup workers to wear respirators. She says workers were asked to wear them, but refused because it was hot, and the large equipment made communication difficult.

Whitman says in any case, only the city could have forced workers to wear the respirators.

"It wasn't nearly as clear who was in charge. The city is the primary responder,” said Whitman. “And then you have OSHA can't enforce – interestingly enough OSHA regulations can't be imposed on public servants and those were mostly, by the time you started the real clean-up, firefighters, emergency responders. EPA was not in charge of being able to enforce that."

But in an angry response, former members of the Giuliani administration say Whitman is practicing revisionist history.

They say Giuliani and his staff repeatedly told workers to wear their respirators. He also says city officials never blocked the EPA from making this a requirement and says Whitman never voiced any of these concerns at the time.

Whitman defends Ground Zero statements

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2007/06/whitman_defends_ground_zero_st.html

by J. Scott Orr
Monday June 25, 2007, 1:54 PM

WASHINGTON - Former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christie Whitman relied on sound scientific data when she told residents of Lower Manhattan that the air around Ground Zero was safe to breath after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the former New Jersey governor told Congress this afternoon.

Testifying before a House Judiciary subcommittee, Whitman denied that the administration pressured her to present rosy air quality assessments, even though she knew the collapse of the twin towers after the attacks had released tons of hazardous chemicals into the air.

"I am disappointed at the misstatements, innuendo and outright falsehoods that have characterized the public discussion" over the EPA's post-9/11 behavior with regard to air quality assessment, Whitman said.

She defended the work of EPA and other federal agencies, saying they did everything possible to get accurate information to the public, even posting the results of air quality tests on a Web site.

"There are people to blame: They are the terrorists who attacked this nation," she said.

Recently Whitman has attempted to make a distinction between her statements regarding the smoldering rubble piles at Ground Zero and the residential neighborhoods nearby. Tests, she said, showed the air in the neighborhoods was relatively clean, but the air at Ground Zero was not and she lacked the power to force recovery workers to wear respirators.

"It is utterly false, then, for EPA critics to assert that I... set about to mislead New Yorkers or rescue workers," Whitman said.

But the committee's chairman, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who represents Lower Manhattan, suggested the White House pushed Whitman and the EPA away from sounding alarms about the air quality.

He said the administration continues in its "desire to cover up its misstatements and misdeeds in the days after the attack."

"We have accumulated a mountain of evidence that tens of thousand of people are suffering" because of exposure to the pollutants. "The deaths of at least two individuals," Nadler said, "have been linked unquestionably to World Trade Center dust."

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) recounted some of Whitman's many statements about the safety of the air in Lower Manhattan: "Those quotes were dead wrong, they were literally 'dead' wrong," he said.

Weiner dismissed Whitman's recent statements that she urged city officials to provide workers with respirators: "It looks very honestly like what it is an unseemly attempt to rewrite the public record."

Tina Kreisher, the EPA communication director at the time now director of communications at the Department of the Interior, confirmed Whitman's statement that the agency relied on appropriate air quality tests in communicating with the public.

"As a political appointee, I was not, and others were not, scientists. We relied on the professionals to guide us through the testing procedures and processes. When we were told the tests showed air quality within normal range, we accepted those findings," Kreisher said.

She added that, while the White House Office of Environmental Quality did "edit" some of her press releases on the topic of air quality, none were rendered false.

"While editing changes were made based on recommendations by the Council on Environmental Quality, I believed those changes to be upsetting in some cases, but not false. I still believe that to be true," she said.

Whitman served as Bush's EPA administrator for about two-and-one-half years ending in 2003. During that time she was frequently at odds with the White House and came under harsh criticism from environmentalists who had hoped she would be a more potent protector of the environment.

She was sharply criticized by the federal judge in a lawsuit brought by residents of Lower Manhattan, who charged that her pronouncements that the air was safe needlessly exposed them to dangerous airborne pollutants. A federal appeals court judge ruled that Whitman is immune from suit over her post-9/11 remarks.

Whitman on hot seat over 9/11 aftermath

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/attacks_health

By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer 57 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Ex-EPA chief Christie Whitman was bombarded by boos and a host of accusations Monday at a hearing into her assurances that it had been safe to breathe the air around the fallen World Trade Center.

The confrontation between the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency and her critics grew heated at times. Some members of the audience shouted in anger, only to be gaveled down by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., who chaired the hearing.

For three hours Whitman faced charges from Nadler and others that the Environmental Protection Agency's public statements after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks gave people a false sense of safety.

Whitman maintained the government warned those working on the toxic debris pile to use respirators, while elsewhere in lower Manhattan the air was safe to the general public.

"There are indeed people to blame. They are the terrorists who attacked the United States, not the men and women at all levels of government who worked heroically to protect and defend this country," Whitman said.

Since the attacks, independent government reviews have faulted the EPA's handling of the immediate aftermath and the agency's long-term cleanup program for nearby buildings.

A study of more than 20,000 people by Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York concluded that, since the attacks, 70 percent of ground zero workers have suffered some sort of respiratory illness. A separate study released last month found that rescue workers and firefighters contracted sarcoidosis, a serious lung-scarring disease, at a rate more than five times as high as in the years before the attacks.

Nadler, a Democrat whose district includes the World Trade Center site, called the hearing after years of criticizing federal officials for what he says was a negligent and incomplete cleanup.

He said the Bush administration "has continued to make false, misleading and inaccurate statements and refused to take remedial actions, even in the face of overwhelming evidence."

Whitman called such allegations "misinformation, innuendo and downright falsehoods."

Her responses were mostly calm and deliberate. But under questioning from Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., Whitman angrily raised her voice, saying she based her statements on "what I was hearing from professionals," not the whims of politicians.

Whitman pointed out that her son was in the World Trade Center complex that day, "and I almost lost him," at which point Ellison said he would not "stand here and allow you to try to obfuscate."

"I'm not obfuscating," Whitman shot back. "I have been called a liar even in this room today."

She has long insisted that her statements that the "air is safe" were aimed at those living and working near ground zero, not those who actually toiled on the toxic pile that included asbestos.

"Was it wrong to try get the city back on its feet as quickly as possible in the safest way possible? Absolutely not," she said, drawing catcalls from the crowd.

Dozens of activists and Sept. 11 rescue workers came to the hearing, and some in the audience hissed when Whitman said she felt former Mayor Rudy Giuliani's administration "did absolutely everything in its power to do what was right" in handling the health concerns.

Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary subcommittee, said he worried that assigning blame to Whitman could mean, in future crises, that "officials might default to silence."

Whitman Met by Boos and Catcalls as She Defends Post-9/11 Statements

http://www.nysun.com/article/57273?page_no=1

By DEVLIN BARRETT
Associated Press
June 25, 2007 posted 6:16 pm EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) - Ex-EPA chief Christie Whitman was bombarded Monday with boos, hisses, and a host of accusations at a congressional hearing after making assurances it was safe to breathe the air around the ruined World Trade Center.

The confrontation between the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency and her fiercest critics grew heated at times, with members of the audience shouting out in anger, only to be gaveled down by the hearing chairman, Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York who represents lower Manhattan.

For three hours Ms. Whitman faced repeated charges from Nadler and others that the EPA's public statements in the wake of the attacks gave people a false sense of safety.

Ms. Whitman stuck to her long-held position that the government warned those working on the toxic debris pile to use respirators, while elsewhere in lower Manhattan the air was safe to the general public.

"There are indeed people to blame," Ms. Whitman said. "They are the terrorists who attacked the United States, not the men and women at all levels of government who worked heroically to protect and defend this country."

Mr. Nadler, a Democrat whose district includes the World Trade Center site, called the hearing after years of criticizing federal officials for what he says was a negligent and incomplete cleanup after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

He charged the Bush administration "has continued to make false, misleading and inaccurate statements, and refused to take remedial actions, even in the face of overwhelming evidence."

Ms. Whitman, the main focus of much of that criticism, called such allegations "misinformation, innuendo and downright falsehoods."

Her responses were for the most part calm and deliberate, but she answered with anger to questions from Representative Keith Ellison, Democrat of Michigan.

"These were not whims, these were not decisions by a politician. Everything I said was based on what I was hearing from professionals," said Ms. Whitman, her voice rising.

"My son was in Building 7, congressman, and I almost lost him," she said, at which point Mr. Ellison jumped in and said he would not "stand here and allow you to try to obfuscate."

Ms. Whitman shot back: "I'm not obfuscating. I have been called a liar even in this room today."

She has long insisted that her statements that the "air is safe" were aimed at those living and working near ground zero, not those who actually toiled on the toxic pile that included asbestos.

"Was it wrong to try get the city back on its feet as quickly as possible in the safest way possible? Absolutely not... We weren't going to let the terrorists win," she said, which led to catcalls from the crowd.

Dozens of activists and Sept. 11 rescue workers came to the hearing, and some in the audience hissed when Ms. Whitman defended Mayor Giuliani's handling of the health concerns.

"I think the city of New York did absolutely everything in its power to do what was right by the citizens of New York," Ms. Whitman said.

Representative Trent Franks, Republican of Arizona, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary subcommittee, said he worried that assigning blame to Ms. Whitman could frighten future leaders from giving public statements after another crisis.

"Officials might default to silence," Mr. Franks argued.

Those who believe they were sickened by Sept. 11-related contamination found little in Ms. Whitman's testimony to change their opinion of her.

"It's probably one of the best dancing performances I've seen in a long time," said retired NYPD narcotics detective John Walcott, who now has leukemia.

"We are stunned that she's sticking to her story," said community activist Kimberly Flynn."

Since the attacks, independent government reviews have faulted the EPA's handling of the immediate aftermath and the agency's long-term cleanup program for nearby buildings.

A study of more than 20,000 people by Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York concluded that since the attacks, 70 percent of ground zero workers have suffered some sort of respiratory illness.

A separate medical study released last month found that rescue workers and firefighters contracted sarcoidosis, a serious lung-scarring disease, at a rate more than five times as high as in the years before the attacks.

House Judiciary Subcmte. Hearing on EPA Response to 9/11 Attacks

Click Here (real player)
6/25/2007: WASHINGTON, DC: 5 hr.

Christine Todd Whitman, former Environ. Protection Agency Admin., testifies about her agencies response to the 9/11 attacks. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), conducts a House Judiciary subcmte. investigation into due process violations by the EPA regarding air quality. Whitman directed the EPA from 2001–2003.

Nadler Chairs First Comprehensive Hearing on Federal Environmental Response at WTC

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny08_nadler/FedEnvironRespWTCWhitman062507.html

6/25/2007

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Jerrold Nadler (NY-08), Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, today gaveled in the first comprehensive House hearing on the actions of the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) and other federal agencies that may have harmed the health of individuals living and working in the vicinity of the World Trade Center on or after September 11, 2001. Congressman Nadler represents the district where the World Trade Center once stood.

"I sincerely hope today the truth telling begins," said Rep. Nadler. "Six years after 9/11, too many questions remain about who in the federal government was really responsible for key decisions about the handling of post-9/11 air quality. We owe it to the heroes and victims of 9/11 – especially those that have now become sick – to uncover what went wrong, and ensure that it never happens again."

At the hearing, Former EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and other key governmental actors in the federal government's World Trade Center response were sworn in to give testimony. Ms. Whitman's appearance marks the first time she has testified at a Congressional hearing dedicated solely to the EPA’s response to the World Trade Center attacks in New York.

Today’s hearing is the companion to one held last Wednesday by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health which focused on the lack of a proper testing and cleaning program for indoor toxins. Together, these hearings mark the first comprehensive Congressional oversight investigations into these environmental matters since the immediate aftermath of the attacks.

"The Republican-led Congress was quick to use 9/11 to score political points, but grossly failed to investigate what went wrong in the days, weeks and months after the attacks," Rep. Nadler added. "Together with Senator Clinton, I hope to bring the truth to light."

Rep. Nadler’s full opening statement follows:OPENING STATEMENT OF U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JERROLD NADLER (NY-08)

Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

Hearing on "Substantive Due Process Violations Arising From the Environmental Protection Agency’s Handling of Air Quality Issues Following the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001"

June 25, 2007Today, the Subcommittee begins its investigation into possible substantive due process violations arising from the Environmental Protection Agency’s handling of air quality issues following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

I want to welcome our witnesses and thank them for their willingness to participate.

This hearing continues the work begun in a hearing chaired last week by New York’s Junior Senator, Hillary Clinton, which also looked at the federal government’s failures in responding to the environmental crisis that resulted from the World Trade Center attacks.

This hearing will examine whether the federal government, by its actions, violated the "substantive due process" rights of first responders, local residents, students and workers. Specifically "[d]id the federal government itself, by responding inadequately or improperly to the environmental impacts -- knowingly do bodily harm to its citizens, and thereby violate their constitutional rights? And, if so, which government actors were responsible?" We will look into what was known about the quality of the air versus what was communicated to the public, and whether federal government "risk communications" properly communicated necessary and legal precautions.

So, why are we asking these questions about events that happened nearly 6 years ago?

These hearings represent the first comprehensive Congressional oversight investigations into these matters since the immediate aftermath of the attacks. Indeed, Congress and the American people have heard very little on the record from the key players in this controversy.

Today marks the first time that former EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman has testified at a Congressional hearing dedicated solely to the federal government’s response to the environmental and health dangers caused by the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center.

The heroes and victims of 9/11, and the families and workers who continue to live with the consequences of that environmental disaster, deserve to know the truth; to hear from the officials who provided the assurances on air quality, and to learn why, and on what basis those assurances were made.

Finally, we must address the future. What can we learn from the government’s response? How will our government respond to future environmental disasters like this? The Administration seems to be headed in the wrong direction already. For example, they have now mandated that public health communications during a terrorist attack be "coordinated" through the Department of Homeland Security and they are developing standards for toxic cleanups in national emergencies that may be weaker than current federal standards.

I represent the site of the World Trade Center and the surrounding communities. The World Trade Center collapse propelled hundreds of tons of asbestos, nearly half a million pounds of lead, and untold amounts of glass fibers, steel and concrete into a massive cloud of toxic, caustic dust and smoke which blanketed parts of New York City and New Jersey, and was blown or dispersed into surrounding office buildings, schools, and residences. In addition, fires that burned for many months emitted particulate matter, various heavy metals, PCBs, VOCs, dioxin, benzene and other deadly substances.

Tens of thousands of my constituents and others from around the country who responded to the call have already begun to suffer severe illnesses as a result of this environmental disaster. I have, unfortunately, had to spend the better part of the last five plus years attempting to cajole the federal government into telling the truth about 9/11 air quality, insisting that there must be a full and proper cleanup of the environmental toxins remaining in apartments, workplaces, and schools that, to this day, are poisoning people, and demanding that the government provide long term, comprehensive health care to those already sick -- be they first responders or area residents, workers or school children.

In the six years since the attacks, we have accumulated a mountain of evidence that tens of thousands of those exposed are suffering from chronic respiratory disease, and, increasingly, a variety of rare cancers. The sick includes 10,000 firefighters. And, the deaths of at least two individuals -- James Zadroga and Felicia Dunn-Jones (whose family joins us today) have been linked unquestionably by government medical examiners to World Trade Center dust. Nonetheless, the federal government still refuses to respond appropriately.

End Part I

The Administration continues to conceal and obfuscate its misstatements, its failure to follow applicable laws, and its failure to take standard protective actions in the days and weeks following the attacks. Even worse, the Administration still fails to act to protect the health of the community and our first responders. Whatever may have been known at the time, the evidence available today mandates action.

The Administration’s continuing lack of responsiveness stems directly, I believe, from a desire to cover up its misstatements and misdeeds in the early days after the attacks. The Administration has continued to provide false, misleading and inaccurate statements, and refused to take remedial actions, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, so that it would not have to admit that it failed to follow applicable laws and to utilize basic precautionary principles in the first place. It continues, to this day, to endanger the lives of American citizens, so it can deny that other White House concerns trumped its legal mandate to protect public health. That is why this hearing seeks to re-examine what happened back in those early days of September and October of 2001.

Following the attacks, Administrator Christine Todd Whitman repeatedly assured New Yorkers that the air was "safe to breathe." On September 14, 2001, the New York Times concluded from Administrator Whitman’s assurances that, "tests of air and the dust coating parts of Lower Manhattan appeared to support the official view expressed by. . .federal health and environmental officials: that health problems from pollution would not be one of the legacies of the attacks."

EPA’s Inspector General found that these statements were falsely reassuring, lacked a scientific basis, and were politically motivated. The IG said, "When the EPA made a[n] announcement that the air was ‘safe’ to breathe, it did not have sufficient data and analyses to make such a blanket statement." She called this EPA assurance, "incomplete in that it lacked necessary qualifications and thus was not supported by the data available at the time." She concluded that "EPA’s basic overriding message was that the public did not need to be concerned about airborne contaminants caused by the WTC collapse. This reassurance appeared to apply to both indoor and outdoor air."

I believe that the IG was quite generous here. In a March, 2002 "White Paper," I detailed how Administrator Whitman’s statements not only "lacked sufficient data" and "qualification," but how she also mischaracterized what data she did have, withheld critical data from the public, and ignored a wealth of information available at the time that directly contradicted those assurances.

The IG’s report described a process by which the White House, through the Council on Environmental Quality and the National Security Council, ". . . influenced . . . the information that EPA communicated to the public . . . when it convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones." It concluded that, "competing considerations, such as . . . the desire to open Wall Street, also played a role in EPA’s air quality statements."

Other observers have surmised that the cost of a proper government-financed cleanup of indoor spaces, given the scope of the potential contamination, and concerns about Manhattan real estate values, were other "competing considerations."

These EPA statements, and a series of subsequent EPA misdeeds, lulled Americans affected by 9/11 into a dangerously false sense of safety, and gave other government decision-makers, businesses and employers the cover to take extremely perilous short cuts which did further harm. After making those initial safety claims:

EPA continued to make materially misleading statements about air quality, long-term health effects, and EPA’s alleged lack of jurisdiction for remediating indoor contamination;

EPA illegally delegated its responsibility to clean indoor environments to New York City, which, in turn, dumped that responsibility onto individual home owners, tenants, and employers; and

EPA conducted two so-called "indoor cleanups" that the IG, EPA’s own scientific advisory panel, and, now, the Government Accountability Office, all found lacked a proper scientific basis and failed to ensure the proper de-contamination of tens of thousands of residences and workplaces.

The response of other federal agencies was similarly inadequate. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, for example, failed to enforce workplace safety regulations on the "pile" that it enforced at the Pentagon (where every worker was required to wear respirators and nobody has become sick). OSHA also allowed indoor workers to re-occupy workplaces that had not been properly tested and cleaned. FEMA refused to pay for testing and cleanup of indoor spaces, a cost that was much too prohibitive for most residents and small businesses. FEMA also denied payments to residents to stay elsewhere even when their homes were full of World Trade Center dust.

New York City and State government officials followed suit by allowing re-occupation of buildings (including schools) that not been properly tested and decontaminated, advising people to clean asbestos-containing dust in their homes and workplaces with a "wet mop and a wet rag" -- illegal and unsafe advice endorsed by EPA and posted on its website -- and failing to enforce local environmental codes for worker protection.

Based on EPA assurances, insurance companies refused to cover individual claims for proper indoor cleanups. And building owners and employers, citing the federal safety statements, did not properly test and clean the spaces for which they were ostensibly responsible.

Finally, hundreds of thousand of people, not wanting to imagine that their government could act with such reckless disregard for their welfare, believed the false assurances, and continued to work on the pile with inadequate Personal Protective Equipment and returned to their homes, schools and workplaces that had not been properly tested and cleaned -- and have still not been.

Six years later, we are just beginning to see the enormous consequences of these actions. Our government has knowingly exposed thousands of American citizens unnecessarily to deadly hazardous materials. And because it has never admitted the truth, Americans remain at grave risk to this day. Thousands of first-responders, residents, area workers and students are sick, and some are dead, and that toll will continue to grow until we get the truth and take appropriate action.

Those false statements continue to the present. Ms. Whitman herself has rationalized the White House’s soft-peddling of risk in EPA statements, proclaiming to Newsweek in 2003 that she did not object to the White House changing her press releases and that, "the public wasn’t harmed by the White House’s decision to adopt the more reassuring analysis." Even now, they try to rewrite history, arguing, for example, that their reassuring statements were "only talking about air on the ‘pile,’ not in the surrounding neighborhoods" or that they were "only talking about outdoor, not indoor air" or that they had "always told residents to get their homes professionally cleaned." The IG reached a different conclusion, and the statements speak for themselves. Governor Whitman has even gone so far as to blame the victims themselves for their illnesses.

Administrator Whitman has said, "There has never been a subsequent study that disproved what agency scientists told us all along." She omits to note that what agency scientists and others told her, was very, very different from what she communicated to the public. A September, 2003 statement of 19 EPA union local heads reads:

Little did the Civil Service expect that their professional work would be subverted by political pressure applied by the White House. . . .These workers reported to senior EPA officials their best estimate of the risks, and they expected those estimates and the accompanying recommendations for protective measures to be released in a timely manner to those who need the information. The public was not informed of all the health risks. . . .This information was withheld . . .under orders of the White House. The Bush White House had information released, drafted by political appointees, that it knew to contradict the scientific facts. It misinformed. And many rescue workers and citizens suffered. Some citizens now face the long-term risk of asbestos-related lung cancer as well as other debilitating respiratory ailments as a result.

I want to conclude with a pronouncement made by then-Administrator Whitman in September 2001. She declared then, "The President has said, ‘Spare no expense, do everything you need to do to make sure the people of this City. . . are safe as far as the environment is concerned.’"

It is my fervent hope that after some of the truth begins to come to light through these hearings; we will see that this promise, made to the victims and heroes of 9/11, is finally kept.

Thank you.

End

Really good opening statement by Nadler. I have to give credit where credit is due.

Gold9472 said:

House Judiciary Subcmte. Hearing on EPA Response to 9/11 Attacks

Click Here (real player)
6/25/2007: WASHINGTON, DC: 5 hr.

Christine Todd Whitman, former Environ. Protection Agency Admin., testifies about her agencies response to the 9/11 attacks. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), conducts a House Judiciary subcmte. investigation into due process violations by the EPA regarding air quality. Whitman directed the EPA from 2001–2003.

Click to expand...

I hope everyone takes the time to watch Whitman squirm.

Whitman: EPA Knew 9/11 Contamination Put Workers, Residents at Risk
News: At a House hearing, the former EPA head defends her decision not to warn the public; rescue worker says she should have "stood on the pile and told us how bad it was."

http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2007/06/whitman_rescue_workers.html

By Brian Beutler, The Media Consortium
June 27, 2007

The "rules of the House of Representatives" prohibit audience members from hoisting signs and from disrupting proceedings with applause, anger, or any other kind of outburst. To judge from his admonition to the crowd at the end of his opening statement, it seems clear that Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chair of the judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, civil rights, and civil liberties, suspected that Monday's proceedings might inflame emotions.

He was correct.

The hall was filled to capacity, largely with people—firefighters, police officers, and others—whose efforts atop the rubble of the World Trade Center ultimately devastated their health. Four attendees sitting near the back of the room tried to hold up pictures of relatives who had succumbed to their illnesses, but the rules prohibited even that gesture. They had come to hear Christine Todd Whitman, former head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), explain to the committee why city employees and volunteers were allowed to work amid the devastation without respirators, and why area residents were welcomed back into Lower Manhattan when evidence strongly indicated that harmful toxins still lingered both in the air and in the piles of dust and debris that had blown into apartments and businesses away from ground zero.

For nearly an hour, not a single Republican Congressman was present at the hearing, which was finally joined by ranking member Trent Franks (Ariz.) and, later, by Rep. Steve King (Iowa). Franks blamed the low turnout on the hearing's odd timing—a Monday afternoon.

The committee's inquiries focused on two main issues. Members quizzed Whitman about the EPA's efforts to inform volunteers and the public about the environmental hazard in the vicinity of the disaster site. Scientists had determined—and had informed EPA officials—that the air quality on the debris pile was harmful, and that dust from the site contained dangerous levels of asbestos and other carcinogens. But those findings were not reflected in the statements Whitman and other officials made at the time; instead, they reassured residents that the air in the neighborhood was safe, and that dust could be cleaned with wet wipes and HEPA-filtered vacuums.

Those statements were vetted by the White House (through the National Security Council), whose explicit interest was to allow commerce and investment to continue in and around Wall Street. At the hearing, Whitman downplayed the significance of a call she had received from a Bush economic adviser who was seeking to reopen the stock market in short order. "We weren't going to let the terrorists win," she noted, prompting the second of several illicit uproars from the audience, despite Nadler's order. She reiterated her contention that the area outside the rubble pile—enclosed by a so-called "green line"—was safe for inhabitants.

In response, Rep. Nadler suggested that since the law requires asbestos to be disposed of professionally, and that since the Occupational Safety and Health Administration had already concluded that dust in the area contained asbestos, implying that residents could safely dispose of that dust themselves might have been a "crime." Whitman ultimately did recommend the use of professional cleaners—in late October, a month and a half after the attacks.

The other point of contention concerned the workers themselves. Few of them were provided with the shoulder-borne respirators that would have protected them from asbestos, pulverized concrete and other contaminants.

John Henshaw, who headed OSHA at the time, testified that his office could not compel rescue workers in Manhattan to wear respirators because they were city employees—police officers and firefighters under the purview of Mayor Rudy Giuliani's office, which had not mandated respirators. According to experts at Mt. Sinai Medical Center, today nearly three-quarters of 9/11 first responders have contracted some kind of illness, usually respiratory and often chronic.

At one point, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) suggested that Whitman, who claims she knew how deadly the inhalants were, could have wrested control of the clean-up effort from the city and insisted that all workers use respirators, as was the standard at the Pentagon. Whitman struggled to address the point, suggesting that she wasn't then certain that she had a legal basis for such a drastic step. She added that she didn't believe the public would have accepted such an incursion from the federal government.

Outside the hearing room, I spoke with several members of the World Trade Center Rescuers Foundation; officers, firefighters, and EMTs who say they have been forced to retire by of debilitating illnesses caused by their work on the pile. None were impressed with Whitman's performance. Retired Lieutenant Bill Gleason of the New York Fire Department, thin and pale, told me he suffers from hyper-reactive airway disorder. He said he takes $7,000 worth of medication every month and has had seven surgeries—including on his sinuses, lungs, and appendix—since 2002. Detective Michael Valentine, who left the pile in early 2002 and was stationed in neighborhood precincts for three years thereafter, suffers from lymphatic tumors. Both men are under 50, and both claimed that, contrary to the testimony they'd just listened to, working with a full respirator would have been no trouble had they known just what was in the air. Valentine said he never saw an EPA representative during four months at the site, nor was he asked to take preventive measures.

"She blamed the victim," said Gleason. "If she had stood on the pile and told us how bad it was, she could have saved tens of thousands." Instead, Whitman—who emphasized at the hearing that in a war-like situation it was important "to speak with one voice"—toed the administration's, and Giuliani's, line. As a result, argued Suzanne Mattei, a former New York City Sierra Club executive present at the hearing, the EPA "encouraged people to ignore their own common sense. The air looked bad and smelled bad. Using common sense, many people would have guessed that the air was unsafe for themselves and their children. … The sad irony is that if the EPA had said nothing at all, the public would probably have been better off."

Ground Zero victims: 'A little too late'

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/ny-liair0626,0,940545.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

BY JASON DEL REY
[email protected]
June 25, 2007, 8:44 PM EDT

Reggie Hilaire wasn't too interested in tuning in to watch ex-EPA chief Christie Whitman testify before a House panel Monday. Neither were John Feal or Chris Baumann. They said they'd heard it all before.

The three area residents all worked at or near Ground Zero in the days or months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and each of the men said they didn't expect to learn anything new from Whitman's testimony.

"I think it's a little too late in the game," Hilaire said. "When it happened, or just after, she should have stepped up and become a leader."

Hilaire, 36, a New York City cop from Briarwood, Queens, battled through thyroid cancer but now suffers from multiple myeloma.

Hilaire worked more than 800 hours on security details near Ground Zero and in recovery efforts at the Fresh Kills landfill in Staten Island in the year after 9/11. He wore a protective suit and respirator at the landfill, he said, but wore no protective equipment when he worked near Ground Zero and said he was never told to do so. He said he believes his illnesses were caused by his work.

Monday, at the congressional hearing before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Whitman said the government instructed workers on the pile to use respirators.

Since Whitman's infamous comments that the "air is safe to breathe" on Sept. 18, 2001, she's insisted that she was referring to the air in surrounding areas -- not to conditions at the actual pile.

"She's playing with words," said Baumann, a retired NYPD traffic control officer from Lindenhurst. "The air quality down there was so bad to burn a couple of layers of my eye away. I cannot see how she, with any conscience at all, can say the air quality down there was fine."

Baumann, 44, said he was on the scene three minutes after a jet hit the North Tower and was partially blind for more than a year after the attacks. He said his lungs are scarred, there's a mass between them that doctors are monitoring and he has post-traumatic stress disorder.

Feal, 40, of Nesconset, briefly watched Whitman's testimony before becoming agitated by her "excuses." "There's not a word that comes out of her mouth that I believe," Feal said.

Feal was a demolition supervisor at Ground Zero from Sept. 12 to Sept. 17, 2001, when a steel beam fell on his left foot, and doctors had to amputate half of it, he said. He now runs the FeelGood Foundation, a nonprofit advocacy group for 9/11 responders.

Whitman stood up to panel bent on assessing 9/11 blame

http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070701/OPINION/707010305/1030

BY CARL GOLDEN
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 07/1/07

Agree with her or not. Like her politics or despise them. But former Gov. Christine Todd Whitman deserves points for going before a congressional panel last week to answer questions about her role and that of the Environmental Protection Agency that she headed in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001.

Whitman had to know she hadn't a friend in the room and that the hostile members of Congress were going to be pumped up by an audience stacked with people who were eager to continue to blame her for every health problem encountered since 9/11. Yet, she sat for three hours, answering questions and doing her utmost to fend off the snide comments and accusations that she had lied, failed and bore responsibility for the deteriorating health of hundreds of people who worked in or around the Trade Center rubble.

For most of the members of the panel, questioning Whitman was an opportunity they relished, even if it was nearly six years later.

First, they could be ferociously partisan while cloaking themselves in the self-righteous mantle of a quest for truth.

Second, it didn't require a high concentration of intellectual firepower to come up with questions about arguably the most cataclysmic event in American history.

Third, it was more high profile than the hearings or committee meetings any of them had ever been a part of.

To a person, their questions and accusations supported the belief that looking back and criticizing the actions of others in a crisis is far easier and more rewarding than looking forward toward finding answers and solutions.

After all, for some, their idea of a crisis is waiting an extra 10 minutes for a table in the congressional dining room at lunch hour, or getting a lousy tee time for a lobbyist-financed golf outing.

They were not at the center of a tragedy so immense it still sends shivers through one's body. None of them was called upon to make rapid and crucial decisions in the midst of unfathomable chaos. None of them was required to make judgments about whether additional and bloodier terrorist attacks were imminent. None of them was subjected to the mind-bending pressures of knowing that each decision could impact the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Whitman was part of an administration that was.

On Monday, committee members worked themselves into indignation overdrive, postured and played to the cheap seats by attacking her and claiming that she should be held singularly responsible for the illnesses and deaths that have befallen many of those who labored at Ground Zero.

It was an altogether pitiful performance, exposing some members of the panel as political hacks.

Whitman testified that her actions and comments with regard to the air quality in the immediate vicinity of Ground Zero were based on evidence and studies submitted by scientists whose expertise exceeded hers, not to mention the members of the committee.

Her accusers responded by citing medical studies demonstrating that serious respiratory ailments could be traced to the fouled air hanging over the rubble pile. If those studies are valid, the committee — and the public — would have been better served if the scientists advising Whitman had been called to justify their reports.

That wouldn't, however, have made for the kind of theater the committee obviously sought by calling Whitman and attempting to shift blame and responsibility to the Bush administration generally.

Whitman stood up under the congressional assault, responded with anger at some points and made clear that the decisions she reached and the actions she took relied on the best information available to her.

It is, of course, quite easy to look back six years later and argue that things could have and should have been done differently. But, that's what members of Congress are best at, particularly if they can put some cheap political points up on the scoreboard.

No one has suggested that every decision made in the hours and days immediately following the attacks was the best and correct one. Under the circumstances, that's an impossibility.

But, it's an insult to the memories of those who died on 9/11, to their families and to those who today suffer ill effects from the attacks to see members of Congress question as if the American government and some of its leaders undertook a deliberate and conscious effort to harm or kill its citizens.

No one — not President Bush, not Whitman, not members of Congress — is immune from being subjected to criticisms for their deeds. It is, however, the phony indignation, the snide comments, the feigned disbelief that undermine any claim to legitimate criticism.

Last week's hearing proved that.

Carl Golden, a Republican strategist and consultant, was director of communications for Gov. Christine Todd Whitman from 1994 to 1997.

"it's an insult to the memories of those who died on 9/11, to their families and to those who today suffer ill effects from the attacks to see members of Congress question as if the American government and some of its leaders undertook a deliberate and conscious effort to harm or kill its citizens."

Where have we heard that before?

Air of Truth

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/o.../08CInadler.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

By JERROLD NADLER
Published: July 8, 2007

IN her recent testimony before the House subcommittee that I lead, Christie Whitman, the former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, played a shell game intended to create confusion about the federal government’s failure to protect rescue workers and others in New York after the World Trade Center towers fell on Sept. 11.

In the days after the attacks, the agency repeatedly gave blanket assurances about air quality. For example, Mrs. Whitman said on Sept. 18, 2001, that she was “glad to reassure the people of New York” that “their air is safe to breathe.” Such broad assurances contradicted government tests Mrs. Whitman had showing dangerous levels of asbestos both on the World Trade Center site — the so-called pile — and in surrounding neighborhoods. She now says that her statements referred to air quality in Lower Manhattan generally, not to air quality on the pile where rescue personnel were working.

But Mrs. Whitman’s very first post-9/11 press release, issued on Sept. 13, stated that “monitoring and sampling conducted” had been “very reassuring about potential exposure of rescue crews and the public to environmental contaminants.” If the heart of her defense is that she warned workers of the dangers on the pile and at the same time separately and responsibly reassured residents, this statement undermines both claims. Frankly, the idea that there was a distinction to be made — that the toxic air and dust from the pile was somehow blocked from the residential and commercial buildings across the street — strains credibility.

Most important, though, her falsely reassuring statements were made at a time when she could not be sure that anyone, on or off the pile, was safe. Her pronouncements contradicted the scant scientific data available. Indeed, 25 percent of the agency’s own dust samples showed asbestos levels even above the 1 percent threshold that the E.P.A. had arbitrarily set, and that was later debunked by the agency’s inspector general who said that no level of asbestos was safe. In addition to the E.P.A.’s testing, the city’s Department of Environmental Protection was showing that 70 percent of ambient air samples contained dangerous levels of asbestos. And the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned on Sept. 12 that very little was known about other deadly substances likely to be in the air and dust.

With more testing, it became clear the air was far from safe, but pressure from the White House kept that information from the public. A Sept. 14 draft of an E.P.A. press release referred to tests showing elevated asbestos levels and expressed concern for workers at the cleanup site and for employees who would be returning to their offices “on or near Water Street” on Sept. 17. The White House deleted that warning and replaced it with: “Our tests show that it is safe for New Yorkers to go back to work in New York’s financial district.”

For average New Yorkers living and working downtown, it was an outright lie; for rescue workers, it was a lie of omission. Mrs. Whitman testified that while the E.P.A. consulted with the White House on all press releases, neither she nor her top staff members knew who in the White House gave final approval for the changes.

In her testimony, Mrs. Whitman attempted to further confuse the public by making spurious distinctions like implying that high levels of asbestos in dust would have no effect on the safety of breathing the air. But the record is clear: in instance after instance following the attack on the World Trade Center, Mrs. Whitman gave irresponsible reassurances, either over the objections of scientists urging her to wait for more data or in contravention of clear evidence before her.

No wonder the E.P.A.’s own inspector general concluded that the agency’s early statements about air quality were falsely reassuring, lacked a scientific basis and were motivated by White House concerns other than public health — and that, as a result, people were unnecessarily exposed to deadly contaminants. To this day, according to the Government Accountability Office, the E.P.A. cannot reasonably conclude that a single building in Lower Manhattan is free of pollutants from the collapse of the towers.

We must ascertain why the federal government failed to protect the public and worsened a calamity. And we must provide for a proper inspection and cleanup of indoor spaces contaminated by the World Trade Center collapse and for long-term, comprehensive health care for the thousands of people who are already ill as a result of exposure to the pollutants.

Perhaps the most shocking data Mrs. Whitman selectively ignored when she testified was a 2006 Mount Sinai Hospital study that shows 70 percent of the first 9,000 workers examined reported some kind of respiratory problem after working on the pile. Thousands of people are suffering, at least in part, because of our government’s failures following 9/11, yet those responsible ignore the outcome just as they ignored the warnings.

And, just days after our hearing, the Government Accountability Office reported that the Environmental Protection Agency used the same playbook of lies about asbestos and air quality in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, four years after 9/11.

We can’t change history, but it is our government’s responsibility to admit mistakes and plan better for the future. Mrs. Whitman’s refusal to assume any culpability for error does nothing to ensure the same won’t happen again. Indeed, it may already have.

Report: 9/11 Firefighters Battling Thyroid Cancer

http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=71482

July 08, 2007

A staggering number of FDNY firefighters are now reportedly suffering from a cancer that may be linked to their work at the World Trade Center site.

The New York Post reports at least eight firefighters have been diagnosed with thyroid cancer over the past five years.

The paper says another five have had their thyroids either fully or partially removed because of abnormal cell growth that could lead to cancer. Attorney David Worby tells the paper that many of the firefighters were 9/11 first responders.

The National Cancer Institute says usually only four out of every 100,000 men get diagnosed with thyroid cancer. It is a more common form of cancer in women.

The Post cites the United Firefighters Association as saying at least 125 firefighters who worked at the site have contracted some type of cancer since the attacks.

Doo Wop show for a great cause

http://www.queenscourier.com/articles/2007/07/06/news/news07.txt



BY MICHELLE VARGA
Thursday, July 5, 2007 4:51 PM CDT

Want to hear Doo Wop artists that make you “FealGood,” and enjoy a concert designed to help many 9/11 First Responders and their families?

Friend Entertainment, Ltd., along with the FealGood Foundation, will be hosting a “Doo-Wop for the First Responders of 9/11” concert at 7:30 p.m. on Saturday, July 21 at Queens College's Kupferberg Center for the Performing Arts/Colden Auditorium.

All of the profits from the show will go to foundations for the families of the First Responders of 9/11, said Norman Wasserman, creator of Friend Entertainment.

The concert will include performances by original Doo-Wop artists: Johnny Maestro and the Brooklyn Bridge, The Duprees, Frankie Lymon's “Legendary” Teenagers, Jay Siegel and The Tokens, Vito Picone and The Elegants and Cleveland Still and The Dubs, according to Wasserman, who began the fund-raising organization 19 years ago.

Friend Entertainment organizes concerts for all kinds of events from New York to Las Vegas with mostly Doo-Wop and Motown acts, but this one, held at Queens College's Colden Center is a perfect venue because of its size and its “central location” to New Jersey, Manhattan and Long Island, Wasserman explained.

John Feal, creator of the FealGood Foundation, is the mastermind behind the First Responders Concert.

Feal was a construction worker who began demolition at the World Trade Center site on September 12. On September 17, an 8,000-pound steal beam fell on and crushed his left foot. He was hospitalized for 11 weeks and lost his foot.

“For a year, I was depressed and suicidal,” like many others who were injured at Ground Zero, Feal, explained. He tried to get worker's comp and appealed to the 9/11 relief fund, but he was turned down.

In 2003, he decided, “To stop feeling sorry for [him]self,” and devoted his life to making sure that 9/11 victims and their families received the care that they desperately need.

“It's time for people to help each other,” said Feal, who will also be donating a kidney to a man he met through his organization. “As a country, we took one on the chin and moved forward,” he explained, “but we cannot forget who we left behind.”

The FealGood Foundation, a non-profit organization Feal created to educate the public about the health effects of 9/11 First Responders, and gives 100 percent of their donations to First Responders to victims and their families, was born out of that determination to help others.

First Responders are anyone that was at Ground Zero, said Feal, “cops, firefighters, EMS, EMT, even civilians that were effected by 9/11 - we don't discriminate.

“This is no way for heroes to be treated,” he said of the men and women who worked tirelessly at Ground Zero - many even giving their lives.

Feal contacted Wasserman about the concert, he explained, as a way for the organization to “step it up a notch and make it bigger,” to help all who were affected. Along with other apparel, the foundation will also be selling limited edition Doo-Wop t-shirts on its web site, www.fealgoodfoundation.com.

“We're at 6 years, and its catastrophic now,” he explained of the problems 9/11 victims and their families deal with, and of the lack of help they receive. “Usually fundraising is a lot smaller,” he said about the organization. “We wanted to help on a bigger scale.”

Feal plans to hold another concert in December, and next year make them a more regular event.

The July 21 concert will be held at the Colden Auditorium of the Kupferberg Center for the Performing Arts at Queens College. Tickets are $40, $45 and $50 and can be purchased through the Colden Center box office at 718-793-8080, the FeelGood Foundation at 631-724-3320 or Friend Entertainment at 631-698-9696.

For more information, visit www.friendentertainment.com or www.fealgoodfoundation.com.

Wield Your Mighty Pen for Us, Mr. President

http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/blog/2007/07/wield-your-mighty-pen-for-us-mr.html

By 9/11 first responder John Feal, founder of the FealGood Foundation

NEW YORK -- A pen in my hands could make some difference in the lives around me, and I work through the FealGood Foundation to make sure the documents I sign relieve some of the suffering of my fellow 9/11 responders. If I could, I would use my pen as you used yours last week. I would save my buddies.

In commuting the prison sentence of your friend Scooter, you said you believed the sentence imposed was too severe. Boy, can I relate.

When I look at the life sentences imposed on 9/11 responders suffering with acute illness, financial and emotional ruin and nearly six long years of neglect by their city, state and federal government leaders, I fill with rage and frustration. You've seen some of us in 'SiCKO,' so I know you are aware of our plight. My pen can only relieve tiny bits of their suffering. Yours could lift much more.

In an instant, Mr. President, you could use your mighty pen to affirm the faith you put in all of us in the hours, days, weeks and months after 9/11 to be what you called heroes and send a message to the world that Americans stand together in the face of threat.

With one stroke, you could issue and sign an executive order that would open clinic and hospital doors to 9/11 responders who are ill and without life-saving medical care.

Do you understand the betrayal of trust and confidence we feel? Just as Scooter took the hit for others in your circle of friends, my brothers and sisters took the dust and debris, the shock and the danger, the toxins and the smoke for everyone in America as we worked at ground zero so long ago.

We need you to feel for us – the folks you called out as heroes – the same passion and compassion that made you reach for your pen for Scooter. We need your help and we need it now. We have served a long sentence already. We have been punished for our actions on 9/11. We do not understand exactly what the crimes were in rushing in to help, nor do we understand how you can turn your back on us still. We were there with you. We believed what you told us. We trusted you with our lives.

So, Mr. President, won’t you please lift that pen again as you have done for Scooter Libby? The order could be simple, as a start:

“All 9/11 responders from this day forward shall be entitled to the care they need. A violation of this order will not be tolerated. These men and women are to be treated in every way as heroes, not unlike U.S. soldiers on the battlefield.” -- Signed...

A signature today would save lives. It would save dignity. It might even tell the world that you are a man of your word, and that a contract made with your nation’s heroes is not to be broken. Please use your pen today. Many lives depend on it.

A picture may be worth a thousand words, but your signature on this action may well be worth more than a thousand lives. Stand aside, Scooter, your president has some more commutations to issue. And the 9/11 responders are finally first in line.

Lawsuit Filed Against Company Overseeing 9/11 Insurance Fund
Sick Ground Zero Workers Want Their Money

http://www.myfoxny.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=3794216&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1

Created: Tuesday, 17 Jul 2007, 7:33 AM EDT

MYFOXNY.COM -- New York -- Ailing ground zero workers are going to court to demand that the company overseeing a $1B September Eleventh insurance fund spend the money to pay for their health care.

The workers have already filed a class-action lawsuit claiming the toxic dust from the World Trade Center site gave them serious, sometimes fatal diseases.

The latest action, expected to be filed today, seeks compensation from the company in charge of money appropriated by Congress to deal with September Eleventh health-related claims.

Attorneys for the workers argue that federal officials meant for the money in the WTC Captive Insurance Co. to be used as compensation for sick workers.

City officials have long said that the money must be first used to litigate claims before any are paid out.

WTC INSURE 'WA$TE'
$1B FUND SQUANDERS CASH: SUIT

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07172007/news/regionalnews/wtc_insure_wate_regionalnews_susan_edelman.htm

By SUSAN EDELMAN

July 17, 2007 -- The $1 billion insurance fund set up for the World Trade Center cleanup has violated its congressional mandate to pay legitimate worker-injury claims and "squandered" millions on expenses, an explosive lawsuit is charging.

Controlled by Mayor Bloomberg, the WTC Captive Insurance Co. and its agents have "unethically profited" from the federal fund, draining money available for ill workers, alleges the suit, to be filed today in Manhattan Supreme Court.

The WTC insurance fund has spent close to $74 million on overhead and legal bills so far - but paid just $45,000 to one worker who fell off a ladder.

While letting the fund pay fat salaries and fees to its employees, consultants and lawyers, the mayor has wrongly exploited the unit to fight claims by thousands of workers with illnesses blamed on toxic exposure, the suit says.

"Congress gave Bloomberg a billion dollars to cover for the mistakes he and his predecessor, Mayor Giuliani, made in failing to protect tens of thousands of workers," lawyer David Worby said. "Now, adding insult to injury, he refuses to use the funds intended for that exact purpose - to help the sick and dying 9/11 heroes."

The suit will be filed by Worby Groner & Napoli Bern, a law firm already battling the city in a class-action negligence suit on behalf of nearly 10,000 ill WTC responders.

The plaintiffs in the new suit are former NYPD Detective John Walcott, who has leukemia, NYPD Detective Frank Maisano, who has severe lung disease, and Mary Bishop, a St. Vincent's Hospital worker with cancer, lung and digestive diseases.

"If it wasn't for the rescue workers and volunteers, our city would be in chaos," said Walcott, 42, whose daughter was an infant when he was diagnosed in 2003. "How can Mayor Bloomberg justify not releasing the funds Congress gave us when he could save lives and homes and families?"

Besides the fund and Bloomberg, the suit names the outfit's five-member board of directors - all appointed by Bloomberg - and Christine LaSala, the company's president and CEO.

LaSala rakes in a salary of $350,000 a year, plus $20,000 in health benefits.

Citing city records, the suit traces the firm back to its origin to prove its claim that Bloomberg has twisted its mission.

In May 2002, the city made a request to feds, saying "toxic chemicals emanating from the WTC debris site" made insurance "absolutely vital to protect the city and its contractors."

Congress appropriated $1 billion through FEMA.

Then-Gov. George Pataki pushed a bill to create the nonprofit firm to manage the fund. "This legislation is necessary for the city to expedite the payment of claims," Pataki and Giuliani said in a 2003 press release.

At a meeting in December 2004, minutes show, LaSala declared the firm's main purpose was to disburse the fund "in an equitable manner that maximizes compensation to those parties who suffered damages as a result of the WTC debris removal program."

Overall, the WTC fund has spent $73.8 million as of March 31, including $45.7 million on law firms, records show.

Much of the money has been poured into an ongoing court battle in which the city contends it has immunity from all WTC suits because it was responding to a terror attack.

Other expenses include $8.5 million paid to GAB Robbins, a risk-management firm, for "claims adjusting." But the firm has done little adjusting, the suit says - WTC Captive Insurance has refused to review the medical records of sick workers.

LaSala has said the firm has a "duty to defend" the city and its WTC contractors, and has "faithfully followed its mandate."