N000511
Friday, December 21, 2001 1:43 PM
Comment on Interim Rule
December 21, 2001
Special Master Kenneth Feinberg
U.S. Department of Justice
Main Building, Room 3140
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530
Comment on the Interim Final Rule of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund
The interim rules issued by the Special Master appear to violate the law passed by Congress in setting up the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund.
Specifically Section 405(b)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, requires the Special Master to determine the "extent" of both of the economic and non-economic harm suffered by the claimant. The rules of statutory interpretation indicate that in determining the congressional intent, the language of the statute should be construed according to its ordinary meaning. The ordinary meaning of the word "extent," as given by Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, is "the range over which something extends to its fullest length."
By its very terms, capping consideration of the economic loss suffered at the 98th percentile of individual income is not considering the full range of the economic loss of those who earned more than this sum.
Second by establishing a single uniform amount of compensation for non-economic harm, the Special Master has again violated Section 405(b)(1)(B)(i) by failing to consider the "extent" of non-economic loss. Congress specifically instructed the Special Master in Section 405(b)(1)(B)(ii) to award compensation based on "the harm to the claimant, the facts of the claim and the individual circumstances of the claimant."
Presuming a single uniform amount of compensation for non-economic loss does not fulfill Congresses mandate to consider the "individual circumstances of the claimant." Moreover the Special Master's proposed process for considering "extraordinary circumstances," falls short of the Congressional language of "individual circumstances." Nothing in the Act indicates that victims should be required to demonstrate that their individual losses are extraordinary.
The Special Master, Mr. Feinberg, has said publicly in this regard that "I cannot make those distinctions, I will not make those distinctions." Yet the law clearly requires him to make such distinctions. If Mr. Feinberg publicly refuses to follow the explicit instructions of the law, then perhaps Mr. Feinberg should find other employment.
Finally, the Special Master's determination that the total non-economic harm suffered by a child whose parent was murdered on September 11th is to be valued at $50,000 is nothing more than a sick joke upon these children. There is nothing in the Act that requires the Special Master to play a tight fisted Scrooge to these victims. Quite the contrary, Congress's gift of $15,000,000,000 to airline stockholders contained in the Act, demonstrates the generous mood which animated Congress when passing this law. A generosity that is obviously lost upon Mr. Feinberg who values the lost love and guidance of a parent to be worth a mere pittance.
Bah Humbug to you Mr. Feinberg. A Merry Christmas indeed!
Individual Comment