This is Pearl Harbor Day . . . a perfect day to remember those who sacrificed at their personal risk and expense to assist their nation following the then worst attack by foreign nationals on the United States. Those who sacrificed on December 7, 1942, and in the weeks afterwards are no different than the responder heroes of September 11, 2001, the now worst attack on the United States, whose fate now rests with the Senate.

In their labor to respond to the carnage of the World Trade Center attack, to retrieve bodies and remove the debris left by the now worst attack on the United States, people were exposed to high doses of toxins. Now the responders and nearby residents are sick after being given wrong information by the EPA that the air was safe to breathe.

In this context and as a staunch conservative, it was difficult to understand the editorial position taken by the magazine opposing the 9/11 bill yesterday. Clearly, I have a stake in the outcome of this legislation. But I believe in it and hope that you will reconsider your editorial position.

Beyond the heroes who personally sacrificed their health, five huge contracting companies and 100s of subcontractors need the United States to acknowledge its moral obligation to help them in the comprehensive manner offered by the 9/11 bill. The companies are now left shouldering a huge potential liability with 50,000 additional responders and volunteers (in addition to the 10,000 plaintiffs that recently settled cases).

The 9/11 bill — in addition to a health program (for enumerated 9/11 illnesses only) and a victim compensation fund (so people don’t have to sue the 9/11 contractors and force them into bankruptcy) — also contains a cap on contractor liability.

The cap is something that those who actually consider the provisions of the bill have realized is a huge victory for conservative policy. For example conservatives like former-attorney general and now Congressman Dan Lungren negotiated the cap and 10% attorney fee limitations. He voted for the bill, as did a handful of other ACU rated members, even after the more controversial pay for tax was added.

For those who reflect on the situation, there is a clear federal responsibility here: our government did not prevent the attacks on its citizens; then when its citizens did the right thing and came to help with an inherent government responsibility after the attack on (the rescue and recovery) the citizens who did that were exposed to toxins; those citizens are getting sick from that exposure.

For the contracting companies that will face a second and third wave of litigation (thousands of additional lawsuits) and financial ruin, what is the United States going to say to them? Companies will not be willing able to help us the next time our nation is attacked if we do not make them whole.

What the editorial does not mention . . .

(1) The entire cost of the bill ($7.4 billion) is proposed to be paid for up front. Some did not like the “pay-for,” so five different options to pay for it were put on the table more than a month ago.(2) There is no 9/11 health program authorized now. The “program” is only a series of grants through appropriations bills since FY 2002. (3) The bill adds numerous levels of accountability to prevent waste, fraud and abuse. (4) The Bill does not propose a permanent new entitlement like Social Security. It is a limited multi-year appropriation (justified by the clear federal responsibility) that is limited in duration, dollars available for it, and in terms of numbers of people eligible. (5) Coverage for health conditions is limited to certain 9/11 illnesses only.(6) Some $400 million of the captive fund (federal money) has already been used for plaintiff and defense attorney fees, and an equal amount will go to the responders and volunteers. The alternative proposed in the bill, a Victim Compensation Fund, limits attorney fees to 10 percent, far less than the 35-40 percent, plus costs, taken by lawyers in the litigation.Conservatives need to rethink knee-jerk reactions that the government should not legislate when there is a fundamental governmental responsibility so clearly shown by more than 20 Congressional hearings on the subject.

— Robert Livingston is a former Republican member of Congress and a founding partner of the Livingston Group, a Washington, D.C., lobbying firm.