Liza's Note:
Please welcome to our humble blogdobe the fierce Ms. Debra Cooper, NYSDems Comittee Chairwoman for the Upper East Side.

She attended yesterday's now infamous "insult to truth" testimony on how she didn't for a minute mislead the public in believing that there was no potential harm in the toxic dust spread about New York City by the collapse of the Twin Towers.

Debra does and amazing job at capturing more than just the soundbites. As she said to me in the email that came with this post, not only did Todd Whitman dance "around her statements about the City government's responsibility for the safety of the first responders, especially in terms of their use of respirators. Unlike her prior statements, today in the hearing she did not make any direct accusations that the City and Guiliani did not do the right thing."

An observation that, as Debra noted later and asked me to share with you, points to Whitman's further coverup in an attempt to help Giuliani's bid for President.

Thanks Deb for covering this for our readers.

House Judiciary Hearing
June 25, 2007

12:58
Well the Judiciary wiFi keeps going in and out so this may not be live logged after all. You’d think congress could afford decent WiFi access in all its hearing rooms.

A few minutes ago Christie Todd Whitman entered and was mobbed by photographers. For a little history, she was the moderate Republican in Bush’s first cabinet, who was the EPA administrator when 9/11 happened. She was the voice and the putative decision maker when she declared the air in downtown Manhattan was fit to breathe.

1:02
Hearing brought to order by Cong, Nadler.. He says no demonstration. Welcomes a series of New Yorkers firefighters, Cong. Michael Arcuri, Ass. Linda Rosenthal, who was his chief of staff when 9/11 occurred and was intimately involved with all the issues arising and organizing community groups to get answers. Anthony Weiner and Cong Pascrell of NJ is going to be allowed to ask questions. John Conyers is also here.

NADLER'S STATEMENT
Whether the federal govt responded improperly by knowingly do harm to its own populace. Violate the substantive due process rights of first responders etc.

Why now? This is the first real congressional investigation since 9/11. Her first public testimony

Hundreds of pounds of asbestos, fires burning for many months with deadly heavy metals…benzene etc were released to the air... Many are already subject to deadly illnesses.

James Adrova, Felicia Dunn Jones have died from these illnesses.

The federal govt refuses to do the right thing because that would have been an admission that in the early days they lied to us back then.

Christie Todd Whitman assured us that the air was safe to breathe. Quotes an Inspector General of EPA? The actual data did not support that statement.
EPA air quality statements were determined more by opening the stock market and the value of Manhattan real estate the motivating factor and not the health of its citizens. EPA illegally delegated its own responsibility onto ill equipped home owners.

FEMA and OSHA were also derelict. Workers were told to reoccupy sites that were not properly cleaned. FEMA did not properly test or clean residential homes. Because of the govt false statements, insurance companies would not cover the cleanup of these places.

Whitman says no subsequent tests show the EPA tests were wrong, but that is not what the EPA told the public. On orders of the White House the EPA misled the public.
END STATEMENT

The Ranking member is not here yet so his opening statement is delayed

Chairman Conyers of full committee makes a statement. . He welcomes Whitman. He says to her then when she felt it was necessary she has been an independent voice. He implies she should do so now. Cong. Nadler has a direct and vital connection. This has moved into the psyche of all Americans. Air and exposure to hazards are now ill and dying. There’s been a lot of injury and deaths as a result of dastardly attack on this country. This oversight of this subcommittee gives us, the American people, and the first chance to know what happened. Through the coordination of EPA, Natl Security Council…..It is important that ALL witnesses testimony be as candid as possible. He hopes the ranking member shows up.

Cong. Weiner. He thanks Nadler for confronting the danger in the air, others gave up.
Sept 13th EPA –Air quality is unlikely to cause concern. Same on the 16th, the 18th. Those quotes were unambiguous but dead wrong. The IG said they were wrong as did a judge who said this shocked the conscience. EPA administrator knew they wrong because she was already told that 25% of asbestos ----a danger zone. She now says that at the time she was quietly whispering to city officials that don’t believe what I say in public. Now is the time to accept responsibility so those harmed can now be helped with health care.

WITNESSES BEGIN
CHRISTIE TODD WHITMAN EPA Administrator
JAMES HENSHAW HEAD OF OSHA

Nadler swears in the 2 witnesses

WHITMAN STATEMENT
EPA staff had friends in those buildings. FEMA charged EPA to assess the quality of the air. Thousands of samples taken over the years. EPA secured critical protective gear. 22000 filters, 1000 hard hats etc…….. The Inspector General said EPA did a good job. 2003 report says EPA did not conceal any of its test data. Statements made on the days after 9/11 were based on the advice of EPA scientists. They said o long term change to air quality. Though they noted the air near ground zero was different. They urged workers to use protective equipment. There are people to blame ---the terrorists.

(I guess she’s not taking up Conyer’s on his offer.)

HENSHAW STATEMENT
OSHA has jurisdiction over private sector, not public sector, workplaces and workers, i.e. they have no jurisdiction of police, fire and EMT. They were housed in Bldg 6 which collapsed due to the other bldgs. Their own employees were traumatized that day. They distributed equipment. They coordinated site leadership they collected 6000 air and water samples, over 24000. Personal air samples were done around the clock. Near the site and workplaces. OSHA samples showed the samples were all below their own standards of what would cause harm. A high level of protection was chosen for the sites. He said it was difficult to distribute the respirators needed by first responders.

QUESTIONING
NADLER: Why as early as Sept. 12th did the White House and the National Security council insist all statements be cleared through them. Video of Whitman making public statements saying there is no need to have concerns for air quality within 10 blocks. Words used…..good news, safe to breathe, … Ms Whitman: Do these words convey a sense of danger or caution or even a caution. To Henshaw the same? Do you regret making any of these statements. They say no ….but keep saying the pile was different. Did any scientist tell air was safe or unsafe.

Quotes Whitman “there is not a reason for public to be concerned CDC person Dr Kilborn said EPA was basing their statements to the public on faulty and inadequate samples and they were sampling the wrong things.

Nadler 9/14 EPA began sampling. The City took samples prior to 9/14 and their samples showed 70% of samples above the safe asbestos level.

Whitman: dust or air samples.

Nadler: EPA showed asbestos 210-300% over trigger and not as stated just barely above the 1% trigger. Was this not misleading.

Ccnyers: to Henshaw. Quotes him as saying our test results show it’s safe to go back to work. Again showed the 2.1 to 3.1 environment and so how could this statement be true.

Henshaw:
If it’s in a bulk it’s not hazardous unless it gets into the air. Their air samples showed they were well below those fibers in air was below. The fibers in air were not asbestos. The key is what is in the air.

Me Please note that so far there is no Republican showing up. Will they protect her or not?

Conyers continues. Henshaw says he was referring to bulk sampling, not the air. Certainly bulk concentrations of asbestos above 1% is something to worry. They monitored to see if there is something in the air and it didn’t get into the air.

Ranking Member Mr. Franks shows up. This hearing is putatively to examine the legal issues. This has been to court. This official conduct must be outrageous and egregious to satisfy substantive due process. (Some theory that substantive due process is an insufficient standard.) This is an attempt to influence the courts.

Fear of liability should not be there to keep the govt from dutifully responding to emergency. Nadler held a press conference to say the bad guys are now in the White House and not the terrorists. Well Frank says the enemies are the terrorist, not the govt.

Conyers assured them of their motive. Nadler says Congress can not abdicate its oversight function until a case finishes its way through the court. He says he did not equate the govt with the terrorists. Conyers seeks the ranking member’s cooperation. Franks says 1PM Monday is bad. Nadler says it was in deference to witnesses.

Cong Ellison:. Why did the EPA clean its own bldg if it was not unsafe? Whitman said it was not an extraordinary cleaning. She said the EPA recommended it to all.

Cong. Ellison: Newsday on Sept 16th said there was an unsafe level of asbestos. Why was this okay if the EPA said there was no safe level of asbestos in the air? Fact is on Sept 18th press release that we are pleased the air is okay. Do you agree that language she used gave people a false sense of safety? No I don’t agree. “I am glad to reassure the people that the air is safe to breathe and water to drink”

She and Ellison argue as she goes to say that her son was almost lost that day. She said it’s personal. Ellison it’s personal to everyone here.

Mr. Franks: The IG report found no evidence that EPA misled the public. He asks her about the website they had up on the 10th day. Any scientist could come to another conclusion based on the data. She defends herself from other conclusions could be drawn. “It’s like climate change.” Anyone could come to other conclusions

Franks: why was White House involved in the press releases? She says there were many organizations that needed to have synthesized and coordinated information.
NYC commissioner Oct 2001. Quote EPA recommends that air filters be used.

Cong Scott: Questions on professionally cleaning apartments. The White House recommended that a sentence be removed from a press release about professionally clean apts. She admits this was the only time that anything of substance was removed. She let it go because she was going onto TV and told people to use it and always said it afterward

Questioned henshaw Do you know that those working on the pile should use air filters. Did you mandate that? Knowing that was unsafe and dangerous to life and health. Henshaw said they had no control over public sector like fire and police. (MY question so the City govt should have enforced those rules. Guiliani was Mayor)

Cong Cohen: Was it appropriate for the White House to make changes to the press releases. Jocularly refers to the sheriff lying in jaws that it was safe to go into the water. She uses this as an excuse to say the WH didn’t act frivolously like that. The WH had financial reasons to hurry the safety of the site. She did acknowledge a phone call from them telling them the importance of opening the stock market.

My observation is that for the extra time to have this hearing, she has done nothing to prepare but to come here to prepare to stonewall. Her lack of preparation in terms of data, meetings, and press releases allows her to to not have to respond to pointed factual questions.

Cong Pascrell of NJ Do you think the City of NY acted responsibly. Yes she said. He asks of the reports on ill people from Mt. Sinai. She says she hasn’t read them. He said these people aren’t making this up. She says she would never have said that. Quotes judge in lawsuit that her misstatements “shock the conscience” no one could have sent people back to those locations in disregard for their health. Amusing colloquy over the fact that neither she nor Pascrell are lawyers.

WASSERMAN SCHULZ Questions about non enforcement of use of respirators on firefighters and police. The EPA under emergency order could have stepped in if the City was not doing it utmost to safely enforce the use of respirators. Oct. 15th the contractors were responsible for the enforcement of the use of respirators. The contractors did not do what they wee supposed to do.

Whitman’s answer re not imposing emergency order. Because there was NO substantial or immediate danger. Wasserman Schulz is credulous that this standard was not met. Whitman did have conversations. She felt the public would be upset if she took the city to court. (MY question why didn’t the city just agree and why didn’t the city enforce respirators on police and fire. City enforce on private contractors)

NADLER: Henshaw wrong on 70%. Not caught in plume. 70% of first responders are now sick. To Whitman: No statements or press releases saying there should be use of professional contractors... She will get him Oct 26th MSNBC tape to use professional cleaner, but that’s 6 weeks later.

AHA!!! Isn’t true that EPA prosecutes people for illegal removal of asbestos and Mr. Henshaw said all material had asbestos in it and therefore their advice to let private persons to remove it was to encourage people to engage in illegal removal. Henshaw says this was not an illegal waste site. Nadler contends it was. Henshaw says no.

FRANKS Hasn’t the 9/11 commission looked into this and said the White House did not pressure EPA to misstate in order to prematurely open the markets. Whitman agrees.

CONYERS; The city as the primary responder was responsible for the safety of site and workers on site. He asks if she thinks the city was negligent in their care for the workers. She says no. We should look at the ease and weight of respirator use, less warm hazmat suits. Better equipment so that they will be used. He quotes Guiliani saying that Whitman assured us the air was safe. (The reporter next to me says she won’t endorse Guiliani) She says don’t reply to the press. I don’t think he said that about me relevant to the pile.

CONG KING(R) Looking at that pile we should know we are at war. Battle of Bull Run and the cannon battery did not fire against the confederates. Asks how can Congress be a Monday morning quarterback.? (My answer that is exactly what congressional oversight is for. Monday morning quarterback.) This is a litigious society. We refrain from investigating stuff that may go before a court. ( Me…King is saying …god let’s never investigate, someone could always go to court) Henshaw says that they were not trained to use negative pressure respirators. Can’t do that at the time. We need to change that (Why haven’t they changed it yet?)

CONG SCOTT(D) Is it your testimony that people were not exposed after the initial exposures. NO but afterward there wee acceptable levels. What are acceptable 0.55cc 1986 says there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos. Henshaw: Now we know that’s not true. There are safe levels ( The Bush administration says so???) EPA is not responsible for indoor air, but they worked with the city. Whitman: Not finding levels in the air that that unsafe

CONG ELLISON: Do you agree that there are persons who have been made ill by working at the site. She says that is not for her to decide, but for science and scientists. Are you saying that people who contracted illnesses did not do so after the initial buildings coming down.

CONG SCOTT(D) Were there scientist involved in making these decisions. She says yes. When the press release changed in the White House were there scientists there. If there were scientists involved in your initial decision. Why did you not object even once to the fact that the White House changed it. She felt comfortable to leaving the wordsmithing to the White House. Why were you never alarmed. Press releases were not the only way to communicate she said

He asks how she defined the pile. She says she doesn’t know?????? Henshaw “We enforced the same standard, just a different way”!!!! Because they had no enforcement authority for police, fire.

CONG PASCRELL: Who was the highest White House official you spoke to about this issue. She says that she spoke to the president about this. Did she ever have a conversation with anyone about invoking the EPA takeover authority. No she never spoke to anyone at White House she said. He plans to read from 9/11 Commission report. He asks why the EPA ombudsman office was shut down. She said that it was in response to Superfund experiences. NADLER interrupts to ask why when in feb 02 when the EPA ombudsman held a hearing in NY, she refused to attend and said no one else should attend. She says she doesn’t remember. He says he chaired it and he does remember.

She thought it would be a mistake to apply new standards in the middle of an emergency. Pascrell reads 9/11 report that the response was chaired at the white house bu The office of Financial ?management?

SECOND PANEL
Samuel Thernstrom Statement, Am. Enterprise Institute, at White House Environmental Quality. He did oversee the EPA on 9/11 and did influence the press releases. Quotes 9/11 report. Materials on EPA website was not coordinated with White House. The WH did make editorial changes but did not alter the substance of the meaning.

TINA KREISHER COMMUNICATIONS INTERIROR DEPT Was at EPA in 2001 as communications. She only had the 9/11 report not her own files. (Why not…amazing lack of preparation on the witnesses parts) Lots of personal reports of friends and family. Administrator Whitman wanted complete press transparency so there was a website with test results. She goes to press releases. Questions were with WH Office of Environmental Quality. Could EPA speak to health risks??? ( What a question)

DAVID NEWMAN New York committee for Occupational Health and Safety Level of asbestos was 1.1 to 4.9 times the acceptable levels of exposure.

Dioxin levels after people returned to residential apartments were 6 times higher than any recorded level EVER. This was not released until 1 year later. EPA’s statements gave permission to workers not to use respirators.

EILLEN MCGINNISS Asst to EPA admin Whitman
Marianne Horink

NADLER TO THERNSTROM "Who appointed you and who did you reported to. Who made the decision to have the NSC be in charge. Did he speak to Whitman personally. We were on daily conference calls. Asks re McGinniss can’t take ownership of press releases because Sam was in charge. He needed approval from NSC before they were released.

To McGinniss: did the EPA have final signoff on EPA releases. NSC had to clear. McGinniss said Andrew Card sent memo telling them they had to clear it with NSC.

What expertise does the NSC have in regard to public health issues that EPA doesn’t? She doesn’t know. Does she know who was the final decision maker in the White House on these press releases. She said no.

CONG FRANKS(R) Asks Thernstrom if EPA tried to mislead. Gee Thernstrom says no!!!

CONG SCOTT(D) We are not saying there was intentional exposure, just unnecessary exposure. Did you make any substantive change in the science….the use of professional cleaners. He said the change related not to science but the question of jurisdiction who had the responsibility to tell people what to do. They felt it was the responsibility of NYC. Kreisher agreed there was no substantive changes by Thernstrom except re professional cleaning.

Asked Newman about respirators

MATTEI OF SIERRA SAYS THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PILE AND AIR IS A SPECIOUS DISTINCTION. THERE WAS NO DOME OVER THE WTC SITE

SECONDLY IN THE REAL WORLD THE DUST THAT WAS IN PEOPLE’S HOME WOULD OF COURSE ENTER THE AIR IF IT’S DISTURBED. EVER DUST A BOOKCASE? WHERE’S YOUR NOSE?

CONG COHEN(D) Asks Mr. Newman re the press release in which it is said that the paper dust masks could be used instead of respirators. He said there were not protection; they were no more than a fashion accessory. Newman states that EPA had the expertise, the track record and the emergency warranted the invocation of the emergency regulation.

Nadler interrupts re wearing the protective equipment after the first 3 days it was not a rescue operation but a recovery one. So does Horinko contend everyone used protective gear.

CONG PASCRELL: Quotes the first press release of Sept 14th in which the words replaced the sentence that there was danger with the reworked press release Took out “Even at low levels asbestos is hazardous” to have it say “the EPA administrator say she is glad the air is safe”

NADLER intervenes. “Dust levels are from 1% to 3% are dangerous” to these is “Slightly above” .. The language changed from a warning to a reassurance. Thernstrom equivocates.

Nadler continues to ask whether Thernstrom warned in an email that posting raw data on EPA website would put material on that political enemies could use to their advantage and administration detriment.

CONG FRANKS: Is there any evidence that there are long term health risks from 9/11. Is there any incontrovertible evidence? Didn’t the IG report find that it was NYC who was responsible for debris removal. IG said that NYC did not want the EPA’s help in the the debris removal plan.

CONG SCOTT: He asks Ms. mattei What could people have done if they were properly warned. They could have had their homes professionally cleaned for example. She says there were peer reviewed health risks about 9/11 health risks. There are respiratory peer reviewed illnesses. There is evidence of genetic damage. She is flabbergasted that there is a safe level of exposure to asbestos as it is said nowhere on the EPA website.

CONG NADLER IG said 2002 cleanup was totally inadequate. So can we not deduce that there are indoor and outdoor areas that are still contaminated. Why did the EPA pick the boundaries that they picked. The Panel thought the EPA using the photo of the dust cloud was inadequate in ascertaining the spread of invisible particulate matter.

To McGinniss “Is it your testimony that there were other considerations than health and safety in issuing press releases?” She had to say that security and financial matters were also considered.

CONG FRANKS: To Thernstrom: did the White House have other

The draft press release 9/14. Thernstrom struck the language “I’ll get the exact words from someone> Thernstrom said he struck that sentence indicating hazard because the next sentence was a reassurance. He thinks that was good editing. ( Me what is was actually were scientific statements that were qualifying statements. That meant stop and think. This was manipulated just like the data/intelligence on WMD. The qualifiers that raised questions were deleted)

Newman said that the press releases were constructed to show that things were ok and not that there were hazards. The questions were brushed aside.

Mattei the constant emphasis on asbestos was disingenuous by EPA --- there were many other dangerous chemicals found on the windowsills 1 mile from ground zero.

Nadler asks Thernstrom re 9/13 press release. “ The collapse of WTC unlikely to cause significant health risks.” WH still stands by what the press releases said. Thernstrom I don’t have the expertise to assess the scientific evidence ( Me but he does have the expertise to remove scientific language indicating that one should pause to consider there is some danger)

Why did the EPA use the PLM test technique…the wrong test which will guarantee that they won’t find what they are looking for.

Quotes a reassuring press relelase saying that they are pleased that rescue workers were ok. Does this not refer to the air quality on the pile. So therefore the reassurances that the air vs. pile differences were not valid.

CONG FRANKS There was no deliberate effort by the Bush administration to harm people. It was jihadist terrorists that did this to you (addressing the audience) not your govt.

CONG SCOTT: There is no need to find an intentional conspiracy to hold the govt accountable for lack of due care. Asked about indoor cleanup. Ms Mattei has particular concern for toddlers who roll around on carpets in apts which were not adequately or not at all. Newman says there is zero attempt to deal with internal cleanup now.