“Congress Is Again Weighing Aid for Ground Zero Rescuers”

The New York Times quotes my testimony to the hearing on H.R. 847.

Unfortunately, the story incorrectly refers to AEI as a “lobbying organization,” which it is definitively not. It is unimaginable how the Times could have made this mistake, given that just three weeks ago, they had to correct an identical mistake; the senior editor has promised me a correction.


  • The difference between a “lobbying organization” and a “conservative policy research group” is less than meets the eye. The Brits are more honest, using the term “pressure group” for groups like AEI.

  • One difference is the status that the group enjoys with the IRS.

  • Mr. Frank was absolutely right, as he usually is, that provision of more aid to first responders would irresistibly tempt individuals and their lawyers to seek undeserved money.

    The basic truism is that after the collapse of the World Trade Towers, the air cleared. Then the natural action of winds replaced the air at the site many times a day. The public apply coal mine logic to an open air site.

    The Times article says: “Lawyers for the city said last year that a review of the plaintiffs’ medical records showed that many were not as sick as they claimed to be and some were not sick at all.” That confirms Mr. Frank ‘s claim. Mr. Franks’s employment status would be irrelevant at that point in the story.

    We owe thanks to Mr. Frank for speaking up on this matter and his taking on the Grand Theft Auto class-action scam.

  • @1: AEI doesn’t spend money on campaign contributions, and has no army of voters backing it up. All we have are the power of our ideas, so it would seem “pressure group” would be a misnomer.