Posted on 11/06/2001 7:19:53 PM PST by JohnHuang2
ASHINGTON, Nov. 6 — The American Red Cross came under scathing criticism today from members of Congress who expressed outrage and astonishment over the agency's recent decision to withhold more than $200 million in charitable donations from the families of the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Representative W.J. Billy Tauzin, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, accused the nation's largest disaster relief organization of siphoning millions of dollars away from thousands of victims' families, misleading millions of donors and using bad judgment that could imperil the fund-raising efforts of all charities. "Something's wrong," Mr. Tauzin, a Republican from Louisiana, said angrily.
One after another, brandishing newspaper clippings and quoting from contradictory internal Red Cross documents, House members from both parties dressed down Dr. Bernadine Healy, the president of the American Red Cross, who established a special fund-raising account, called the Liberty Fund, days after the attacks. So far, Americans have pledged $564 million to the fund, almost half of the unprecedented $1.2 billion in charity raised in less than two months.
The lawmakers' central complaint concerned the Red Cross's decision last week to hold some $264 million from the Liberty Fund in reserve, as money that is to be used in part for the victims of future terrorism attacks. One House member suggested that the Red Cross had willfully trampled on the intent of those who gave money out of a heartfelt desire to help victims and their families. Another accused Dr. Healy of engaging in just plain spin.
But the most damaging charge of all came from Representative Bart Stupak, a Democrat from Michigan, who accused the Red Cross of opportunistically seizing on a horrendous act of terrorism to further its own longterm, institutional needs, such as improving its telephone and technology systems and building its reserve of blood.
"I think," Mr. Stupak said, "you took advantage of a very tragic situation."
Throughout today's hearing before a House oversight committee, Dr. Healy, who last month announced she would step down at the end of the year, held her ground with characteristic certitude.
"Let me respond," she said repeatedly, attempting to cut into questions. She asserted that most Americans understood from the start that their donations were not simply for the victims of Sept. 11 but also for the victims of future terrorist attacks.
"This is a new war," Dr. Healy said, noting that donations collected by the Red Cross after Pearl Harbor were not used only for the victims of that attack. The Red Cross must have money on hand to prepare for future attacks, she said, insisting that it would be fiscally irresponsible to simply divide the $564 million by the number of victims and then send each family a check.
The assault on the Red Cross came on a day when the committee raised a series of pointed questions about the distribution of $1.2 billion in charity, hearing from widows, charity watchdog groups and government officials. Committee members and witnesses questioned the adequacy of coordination efforts, the speed of charity distribution and the fairness of how money is being spread among families.
But the most wrenching testimony came from two widows, each of whom described a baffling and vast network of charity that, for all its good intentions, still left survivors feeling overwhelmed and, at times, like wandering beggars.
Liz McLaughlin, a widow from Pelham, N.Y., with a 10-month-old son, held up an 18-page spreadsheet she has had to compile to keep track of all the different charities and nonprofit groups who, so far, are mostly offering aid with little coordination.
"Why, then, haven't these charities been able to get together and agree on one uniform application," she asked, pausing at times to fight back tears as she described the pressures of trying to navigate so many unfamiliar bureaucracies at once.
Russa Steiner, a widow from New Hope, Pa., described having to wait in line after line at a family assistance center, each time telling her story to a new official. And yet at the Salvation Army line, she said, the only offering of aid was a free holiday meal.
Still, the focus of congressional ire was the Red Cross and Dr. Healy, who was recently forced to relinquish day-to-day control over the organization in part because of internal disagreements over the creation of the Liberty Fund.
Despite the disagreements, though, she and other Red Cross leaders remain in agreement that a substantial portion of the Liberty Fund should be withheld from the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, at least until it is clear that the nation is secure from other major terror incidents.
Already, she noted, cash awards of up to $30,000 have been offered to a handful of families of those stricken by anthrax, just as similar gifts have gone out to some 2,300 families who lost relatives in the hijacking attacks.
But members of Congress said that while such concerns were valid, the Red Cross had failed to make its intentions clear in its fund-raising appeals. Indeed, a review of the advertising materials provided by the Red Cross today shows no explicit statements that some donations would be set aside for victims of future acts of terrorism.
Print ads for the Liberty Fund, for example, all depicted people who said they were responding to the Sept. 11 events by making a donation to "help save lives." In small print, the advertisement said the fund was "for this tragedy and the emerging needs from this event."
Dr. Healy and other Red Cross officials, though, said that the use of the phrase "emerging needs" clearly suggested to donors that the money would be used for victims of other attacks. "I don't know why they didn't get it," Dr. Healy said of the House members who repeatedly insisted that this was not the understanding of either them or their constituents. "I think they went in with their own spin."
Well, she couldn't be more wrong about that. I don't think any American, save for Dr. Healey, ever thought that.
I knew what would happen to the money they took in and it had nothing to do with the victims of 9-11. That Healey woman and her gang have stolen the money. I dare say we could search the country over and not find a single person who gave money who thought it was was going into the "future terrorism" coffers, or any other project. That money was given from the very hearts and souls of Americans who wanted and needed to help those who have suffered such great loss in the 9-11 attacks. They gave it and deserve to have it go to the intended victims. I'm Pi$$ed off beyond comprehension.
During one session at the pool, which he managed, I was startled as I heard him shouting (screaming would be more like it) at one of the Red Cross representatives.
Apparently she had asked him if he would allow her to sell refreshments to the staff and students.
"I had my left leg shot to pieces and was staggering and dripping with blood." He said to her in a furious tone. "My whole platoon was either dead or on stretchers and you wanted to sell us doughnuts for 25 cents apiece?!!!"
The coach even raised his arm and shook it over her head, he was that fired up. "F*ck the Red Cross!! You built a reputation serving soldiers in war, but you really didn't deserve it. You--out there in the middle of no-man's land among the dead and the dying--tried to make a buck off wounded soldiers!"
The coach began to walk away, to my relief, and then wheeled abruptly about to the awestruck Red Cross Lady.
"F*ck the Red Cross!!" He yelled so loudly that everyone turned to listen---it was a pure "pregnant silence." (200 people).
My point: Then I was too young (ca. 18 yrs.) to fully comprehend fully all the reasons for his outrage, but this recent controversy is too close to the same M.O. that the Red Cross has been accused of before.
Then, I thought my coach to be a hard-assed jerk. Now, I'm thinking I might have been wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.