T he National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) currently supports natural, nature-based, or green infrastructure and other related types of features (hereinafter referred to as nature-based infrastructure) as part of its statutory mandates to support, research, restore, and conserve natural resources. Practitioners and decisionmakers have been using the term nature-based infrastructure and supporting nature-based infrastructure features since at least the late 2000s (although these types of features have been assigned various names over time). Nature-based infrastructure may continue to be appealing due to (1) stakeholder emphasis on infrastructure features that benefit both humans and the environment in multiple ways and (2) recognition that infrastructure may be longer lasting if it can adjust to changing environmental conditions in the short and long terms. Members of Congress may consider whether and how to support nature-based infrastructure activities at federal agencies, including NOAA, with these objectives, among others, in mind. This report describes how NOAA characterizes nature-based infrastructure and the agency's current activities supporting research and implementation of nature-based infrastructure. The report also discusses potential issues for Congress including (1) definitions of nature-based infrastructure in statute, (2) NOAA's authority to support nature-based infrastructure, (3) how NOAA coordinates with other federal agencies and nonfederal entities on nature-based infrastructure activities, and (4) how NOAA funds nature-based infrastructure activities and its total nature-based infrastructure-related expenditures. Nature-Based Infrastructure as Defined by NOAA NOAA has defined natural infrastructure and nature-based infrastructure in NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-117: NOAA National Habitat Policy. NOAA defines natural infrastructure as "healthy ecosystems, including forests, wetlands, floodplains, dune systems, and reefs, which provide multiple benefits to communities, including storm protection through wave attenuation or flood storage capacity and enhanced water services and security." Similarly, NOAA defines nature-based infrastructure as "engineered systems where natural features are combined with more hard or structural engineering approaches to create a hybrid system." However, across NOAA's publicly accessible documents and websites, the agency appears to use the terms nature-based infrastructure, natural infrastructure, and green infrastructure interchangeably. Table 1 lists several types of nature-based infrastructure features as identified by NOAA. According to NOAA, nature-based infrastructure projects may include features that are completely natural, such as open lands and trees, or may incorporate varying degrees of hard or "gray" steel and concrete structures, such as bulkheads ( Figure 1 ). Often, multiple types of nature-based infrastructure features are combined within a project. The selection of nature-based infrastructure features often depends on a combination of available funding, space constraints, land or roof availability, technical feasibility, hydrologic impact, and community acceptance, among other factors. According to NOAA, nature-based infrastructure can provide several benefits in addition to flood, erosion, and runoff management, such as improved water quality, wildlife habitat, opportunity for groundwater recharge, recreation uses, and aesthetic appeal, among others. The extent to which nature-based infrastructure features provide these benefits is partially dependent on the location and types of features used. NOAA's Nature-Based Infrastructure Activities NOAA's National Habitat Policy (NAO 216-117) directs the agency to protect, maintain, and restore ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems by "applying natural and nature-based infrastructure," among other activities. According to the agency, this work is supported by a variety of statutory mandates and authorities. Congress has not defined in statute nature-based or related terms for NOAA, nor has it explicitly directed NOAA to broadly support nature-based features or related activities across the agency. NOAA's nature-based infrastructure activities fall primarily under three line offices: the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Ocean Service (NOS), and Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR). According to NOAA, many of the agency's nature-based infrastructure activities are related to restoration and conservation projects; the projects are typically local or regional in scale and take place within coastal or Great Lakes states. NMFS's Restoration Center administers the community-based restoration grant program with congressionally appropriated funds to support nature-based infrastructure activities, among other restoration activities, implemented by institutions of higher education; nonprofit and for-profit organizations; U.S. territories; and state, local, and tribal governments. The NOAA Restoration Atlas, a project-tracking database, lists over 2,000 community-based restoration projects, many of which include nature-based infrastructure features and multiple benefits. For instance, the Restoration Center provided funds for the planting of marshgrass along the coast of Northumberland County, VA, to reduce shoreline erosion and improve fish habitat ( Figure 2 ). Several programs and activities under NOS support research and implementation of nature-based infrastructure. For example, the Coral Reef Conservation Program, National Coastal Zone Management Program, and National Estuarine Research Reserve System provide technical assistance and administer competitive grant programs to a variety of entities, such as institutions of higher education; nonprofit organizations; and local, state, and tribal governments, among others. Coastal scientists with NOAA's National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science have estimated the economic value of nature-based infrastructure to stabilize coastlines along the Pacific Northwest. Additionally, the Damage Assessment, Remediation, and Restoration Program, a program with components in both NMFS and NOS, supports nature-based infrastructure implementation through funds recovered in settlements or litigation. For example, it has supported the design and implementation of a living shoreline with breakwaters in Pensacola, FL, to (1) create and restore salt marsh and reef habitat and (2) protect and stabilize the shoreline, with funds from the BP Deepwater Horizon spill settlement ( Figure 3 ). Under OAR, the Climate Program Office and the National Sea Grant College Program (Sea Grant) both support research and implementation of nature-based infrastructure through competitive grant programs on a variety of topics, including nature-based infrastructure. For example, the Climate Program Office has awarded grants to institutions of higher learning and agencies within state government to support the development and application of methodologies to value nature-based infrastructure. Sea Grant also may support research or provide technical assistance for nature-based infrastructure projects. For instance, Alaska Sea Grant organized trainings in "Green Infrastructure for Coastal Resilience" for municipal and borough planners, designers, landscape architects, public housing authority planners, academics, and nonprofits. In another case, New York Sea Grant funded the monitoring of nature-based shoreline erosion management measures in various regions of New York. Additional NOAA programs may have roles related to nature-based infrastructure, such as reviewing projects that may use nature-based infrastructure and providing underlying data for decisionmaking. For example, the NMFS Office of Protected Resources is often involved in reviewing nature-based infrastructure projects that may affect protected species under NOAA's jurisdiction. NOAA may also direct appropriated funding to nonfederal organizations, such as the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, to support nature-based infrastructure activities. For example, NOAA provides funds and program oversight to the foundation's National Coastal Resilience Fund, which in FY2019 funded grants to "create, expand, and restore natural systems in areas that will both increase protection for communities from coastal storms, sea- and lake-level changes, inundation, and coastal erosion while also improving valuable habitats for fish and wildlife species," among other objectives. Potential Policy Issues for Congress Definitions in Statute Congress has not defined the term nature-based infrastructure , or similar terms, in statute for NOAA as it has for USACE and EPA. For example, in P.L. 114-322 Congress defined natural and nature-based features and directed USACE to consider the features when studying the feasibility of flood risk management, hurricane and storm damage reduction, and ecosystem restoration projects (33 U.S.C. Â§2289a). In P.L. 115-436 , which amended the Clean Water Act, Congress defined green infrastructure and directed EPA to promote green infrastructure use, among other activities (33 U.S.C. Â§1362(27) and 33 U.S.C. Â§1377a). Congress may consider whether and how to define the term and the types of nature-based infrastructure for NOAA. Some Members of Congress have proposed definitions within the context of new NOAA programs. For example, H.R. 1317 in the 116 th Congress would provide definitions for natural , nature-based , and nonstructural features to be used as criteria for new NOAA financial assistance programs. Two other nearly identical bills in the 116 th Congress, H.R. 3115 and S. 1730 , define the term living shoreline for the use within a new agency-administered grant program. A NOAA-specific definition of nature-based infrastructure and similar terms in statute may help the agency prioritize and manage its nature-based infrastructure activities. A definition also could potentially limit the types of nature-based infrastructure, by inhibiting the development and adoption of new designs and features that are not captured in a statutory definition. Further, a NOAA-specific definition may conflict with other federal agency definitions for nature-based infrastructure. Congress may consider whether one definition should be used among all federal agencies to minimize the potential for confusion. A single definition across all federal agencies, however, could conflict with the various missions and activities of the different federal agencies. Authorities for Nature-Based Infrastructure Congress has directed NOAA to support, research, restore, and conserve natural resources in a variety of statutes. Congress has not enacted authorities specifically for nature-based infrastructure activities; however, NOAA has interpreted some of its authorities to include support for nature-based infrastructure activities. For example, in 2009 Congress directed NOAA to create the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP) under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA; P.L. 111-11 , 16 U.S.C. Â§1456-1 and Â§1456d). Congress established the CELCP to provide grants to nonfederal entities to protect "important coastal and estuarine areas that have significant conservation, recreation, ecological, historical, or aesthetic values" (16 U.S.C. Â§1456d), which may include natural or open lands, identified by NOAA as nature-based infrastructure in Table 1 . Similarly, Congress instructed NOAA to conduct and support "activities to conserve coral reefs and coral reef ecosystems" (16 U.S.C. Â§Â§6401-6409). NOAA has identified coral reefs as a type of nature-based infrastructure ( Table 1 ); coral reefs have been shown to buffer waves and provide protection from shoreline erosion. Some stakeholders contend that NOAA is already authorized to support nature-based infrastructure features through its existing statutes. Others in Congress, however, have proposed legislation that would expand the type of nature-based infrastructure activities NOAA currently supports. For example, in the 116 th Congress, H.R. 1317 would direct NOAA to "improve the resilience of the built and natural environment to natural disasters and climate change" by using natural, nature-based, and nonstructural features, among other features. Another bill, H.R. 3115 , would require NOAA to administer grants for "designing and implementing ... living shorelines; and ... innovative uses of natural materials and systems to protect coastal communities, habitats, and natural system functions," among other provisions. Expanding NOAA's authority for nature-based infrastructure activities has been met with some opposition. For example, some in Congress have argued that a new NOAA grant program that H.R. 3115 would authorize "strays from the long-standing Congressional intent of providing eligible coastal states and territories the flexibility to design programs that best address local challenges by inserting federal priorities into a state-run program." Coordination of Nature-Based Infrastructure Activities NOAA often supports nature-based infrastructure activities alongside other federal and nonfederal partners. For example, the agency has provided financial and technical support to the aforementioned Pensacola Bay Living Shoreline Project, which also receives support from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. In addition, NOAA has been a part of several federal interagency and interorganizational efforts to better understand and support nature-based infrastructure. For instance, NOAA was a part of the federal Coastal Green Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services Task Force established in response to Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy recommendations. The task force was co-chaired by NOAA and the U.S. Geological Survey and resulted in the development of a 2015 report. Report recommendations focused on "coastal green infrastructure" metrics, production functions (e.g., how can the United States better track how ecosystem changes may impact infrastructure), ecosystem-service valuation, social factors, and decisionmaking support. NOAA also has been a member of the interorganizational Systems Approach to Geomorphic Engineering (SAGE) working group. SAGE includes representatives from federal and state agencies, academic and research institutes, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector. SAGE is a "community of practice" and aims to share advances in the science, engineering, policy, and financing of nature-based infrastructure across organizations. For example, organizations, including NOAA, have been a part of SAGE pilot projects in selected locations working to address issues such as shoreline loss using nature-based infrastructure. SAGE also brings organizations together to discuss technical, policy, and financial issues through periodic meetings and serves as a public resource aggregator by compiling links to technical guidance, conference proceedings, research, and other materials. Congress may deliberate whether and how to direct NOAA to manage nature-based infrastructure activities within the agency or with non-NOAA organizations in specific ways. For example, Congress may require NOAA to coordinate its nature-based infrastructure within an intra-agency working group or task force. Alternatively, Congress could establish an advisory board or similar group to provide recommendations for better intra-agency, interagency, and interorganizational coordination. For coordination with organizations outside of NOAA, Congress may authorize in statute an already established working group, such as SAGE, or create a new group focused on nature-based infrastructure. Some stakeholders may argue that a statutory requirement for NOAA to coordinate with federal and nonfederal partners may facilitate information sharing, promote the efficient use of available funding, and streamline permitting across federal agencies. Others may argue that unless Congress specifically authorizes NOAA to support nature-based infrastructure activities, the agency should (1) focus resources solely on meeting current congressional directives and/or (2) coordinate at their own discretion. Funding for Nature-Based Infrastructure Congress funds NOAA to support, research, restore, and conserve natural resources primarily through the annual appropriations process. NOAA reports its spending to Congress on a program-by-program basis, but nature-based infrastructure activities are not tracked specifically as line items in either the agency's annual budget request or in congressional appropriations bills and reports. For example, Congress appropriated $68 million to the National Sea Grant College Program in FY2019; however, NOAA does not track what portion of that funding was used to support nature-based infrastructure activities. Similarly, NOAA does not report the proportion of funding supporting nature-based infrastructure activities in other NOAA programs. Congress may consider requiring NOAA to track and/or report its spending on nature-based infrastructure activities. Other federal agencies also likely do not track spending related to nature-based infrastructure activities, and Congress may consider requiring all federal agencies to report their nature-based infrastructure expenditures. Congress has sometimes required federal agencies to submit crosscut budgets detailing individual agency expenditures (e.g., USACE water resources research and technology institutes expenditures as required under 42 U.S.C. Â§10303) as well as some interagency expenditures (e.g., Great Lakes restoration activity expenditures as required under 33 U.S.C. Â§1268a). Stakeholders hold different views about whether or how Congress should fund nature-based infrastructure activities. Congress could continue to appropriate funds that support NOAA's core capabilities and mission, without specifying they be used for nature-based infrastructure activities. Alternatively, Congress could, for example, appropriate funds for existing or new NOAA programs that provide grants to nonfederal entities explicitly for research and implementation of nature-based infrastructure. Several bills introduced in the 116 th Congress address funding for nature-based infrastructure activities in various ways. For example, H.R. 3115 would create a new grant program to fund the installation of living shorelines, a type of nature-based infrastructure feature. H.R. 1317 would (1) issue a U.S. Postal Service semipostal stamp and use some of its proceeds to fund prize competitions and research catalog development, and (2) authorize appropriations for capitalization funds to establish state community resilience revolving funds for the implementation of nature-based infrastructure, among other projects. S. 2284 would establish the Carbon Dividend Trust Fund with requisite fund transfers to federal agencies. As proposed in S. 2284 , NOAA's portion of the fund transfer would support several programs, including a coastal resiliency program that would be required to prioritize the consideration of natural and nature-based infrastructure. However, some Members of Congress have argued that the establishment of new grant programs, such as the living shoreline grant program in H.R. 3115 , are "duplicative and wasteful," as Congress already appropriates funding to NOAA that may be used to support nature-based infrastructure.


T he September 11 th Victim Compensation Fund (VCF) provides cash benefits to certain persons whose health may have been affected by the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the Pentagon, the World Trade Center, and the terrorist-related aircraft crash at Shanksville, PA. The VCF was most recently reauthorized on July 29, 2019, with the enactment of the Never Forget the Heroes: James Zadroga, Ray Pfeifer, and Luis Alvarez Permanent Authorization of the September 11 th Victim Compensation Fund Act ( P.L. 116-34 ). All VCF claims must be filed by October 1, 2090. There is no cap on total benefits that may be paid. This report provides an overview of the VCF, including its history, current law, and appropriations. It also provides an Appendix of current VCF program statistics. History of the VCF On September 22, 2001, the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (ATSSA; P.L. 107-42 ) was enacted into law. Quickly passed by Congress in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, this legislation provided various forms of relief to the American airline industry and affirmed Congress's commitment to improving airline safety. Title IV of the ATSSA also established the VCF to compensate persons injured or the representatives of persons killed in the attacks or their immediate aftermath. The VCF originally closed in 2003 but was reopened and expanded in 2011 to provide compensation to the 2001 terrorist attacks' responders and others, such as certain New York City residents, who may have suffered health effects in the aftermath of the attacks. The VCF was reauthorized in December 2015 and July 2019 and is currently authorized through the end of FY2092 with an October 1, 2090 deadline for VCF claims. Original VCF (2001) The original VCF, created by Title IV of the ATSSA, provided cash benefits to two groups of persons who suffered physical injury or death as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001: persons who were present at the World Trade Center, Pentagon, or aircraft crash site in Shanksville, PA, at the time of or in the immediate aftermath of the aircraft crashes at those sites on September 11, 2001; and passengers and crew of any aircraft that crashed on September 11, 2001, as a result of terrorist activity. The Attorney General appointed a special master to determine the benefit amount for each claimant. The benefit amount payable to each claimant was based on the individual's economic losses (such as loss of future earnings) and noneconomic losses (such as pain and suffering). The VCF statute specifically prohibited any payments for punitive damages. Benefits were reduced by certain collateral source payments, such as life insurance benefits, available to the claimant. There was no cap on the amount of benefits that any one person could receive or on total benefits paid. By filing a VCF claim, a person waived his or her right to file a civil action or be a party to such an action in any federal or state court for damages related to the September 11, 2001 terrorist-related aircraft crashes. This provision established the VCF as an alternate and expedited route to compensation for victims while providing some protection against lawsuits for damages that may have been brought by victims against the air carriers; airframe manufacturers; the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, who owned the World Trade Center; or any other entity. Congress provided funding for the VCF through an appropriation of "such sums as may be necessary" for benefit payment and administration. The VCF's special master was required to promulgate regulations to govern the program within 90 days of the law's enactment, and all claims had to be filed within two years of the regulations' promulgation, at which time the VCF would close. The original VCF received 7,403 claims and made awards totaling $7.049 billion to 5,560 claimants. Reopened VCF (2011) The original VCF closed to new claims in December 2003. However, concerns about injuries and illnesses incurred by persons involved in emergency response, recovery, and debris removal operations at the September 11 th aircraft crash sites led Congress to reopen the VCF with the enactment of Title II of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 (Zadroga Act; P.L. 111-347 ). The reopened VCF extended eligibility for cash benefits to persons who suffered physical injuries or illnesses as a result of rescue, recovery, or debris removal work at or near the September 11 th aircraft crash sites during the from September 11, 2001 to May 30, 2002, as well as for certain persons who lived, worked, or were near the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. The VCF was initially reopened for new claims through October 3, 2016. Total benefits and administrative costs were limited to $2.775 billion, unlike in the original VCF, which had no cap on total funding for benefits, allowing the special master to award benefits without considering the benefits' total cost. Under the reopened VCF, attorney fees were limited to 10% of the VCF award. VCF Reauthorizations 2015 Reauthorization The VCF was first reauthorized on December 18, 2015, which extended the claim period for five years, with the enactment of Title IV of Division O of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Zadroga Reauthorization Act of 2015; P.L. 114-113 ). Under this reauthorization, claims approved before the reauthorization date were considered Group A claims, which were subject to the same rules as claims under the reopened VCF and to the $2.775 billion cap on total benefit payments. All other claims filed before the December 18, 2020 deadline were considered Group B claims subject to additional rules and funding caps established by the reauthorization legislation including a $4.6 billion cap on benefits. The 2015 reauthorization created a total funding cap of $7.375 billion for Groups A and B benefits. 2019 Reauthorization The VCF was reauthorized again in 2019 with the enactment of the Never Forget the Heroes: James Zadroga, Ray Pfeifer, and Luis Alvarez Permanent Authorization of the September 11 th Victim Compensation Fund Act ( P.L. 116-34 ). Under this legislation, the VCF is authorized through the end of FY2092, with an October 1, 2090 deadline for all VCF claim filings. The 2019 reauthorization appropriates "such sums as may be necessary" for VCF benefit payments and administrative expenses for each fiscal year through the end of FY2092. Overview of the VCF Under Current Law VCF Eligibility To be eligible for VCF benefits, a person must have died as a passenger or crew member on one of the aircraft hijacked on September 11, 2001; died as a direct result of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes or rescue, recovery, or debris removal in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks; or been present at a September 11 th crash site in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and suffered physical harm as a direct result of the crashes or the rescue, recovery, and debris removal efforts. Physical Harm To be eligible for the VCF, survivors (individuals who did not die as passengers or crew members of the hijacked aircraft or as a direct result of the September 11 th terrorist attacks, including rescue, recovery, and debris removal), must have suffered physical harm as a result of the attacks. Physical harm is demonstrated by the presence of a World Trade Center (WTC)-related physical health condition as defined for the purposes of the World Trade Center Health Program (WTCHP). WTC-Related Physical Health Condition A WTC-related physical health condition is a physical health condition covered by the WTCHP. These conditions are those provided in statute at Sections 3312(a) and 3322(b) of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) and those added through rulemaking by the WTCHP administrator. Per Section 3312(a) of the PHSA, to be covered by the WTCHP and thus compensable under the VCF, a condition must be on the list of WTCHP-covered conditions and it must be determined that exposure in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks "is substantially likely to be a significant factor in aggravating, contributing to, or causing the illness or health condition." In most cases, the VCF requires that a person's condition be WTCHP certified for that condition to be compensable. The WTCHP provides standardized guidance to determine whether a person's condition was caused by exposure in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. This determination is based on a combination of the amount of time a person was physically present at a site and the specific activitiesâsuch as search and rescue, sleeping in a home in Lower Manhattan, or just passing through a siteâin which the person engaged. For example, a person who was engaged in search and rescue activities at the WTC site between September 11 and September 14, 2001, must have been present for at least 4 hours for the WTCHP to certify his or her condition and thus compensable by the VCF, whereas a person whose only activity was passing through Lower Manhattan during the same period, and who was not caught in the actual dust cloud resulting from the buildings' collapse, would have to have been in the area for at least 20 hours to be eligible for compensation. The WTCHP evaluates conditions that do not meet the minimum exposure criteria on a case-by-case basis using "professional judgement" and "any relevant medical and/or scientific information." WTCHP-covered mental health conditions may not be used to establish VCF eligibility, as the VCF does not include any provisions for benefit payments for mental health conditions. Cancer as a WTC-Related Physical Health Condition The WTCHP statute does not include any type of cancer in the list of WTC-related health conditions. However, the statute does require the WTCHP administrator to periodically review the available scientific evidence to determine if any type of cancer should be covered by the WTCHP and, by extension, the VCF. If the WTCHP administrator is petitioned to add conditions to the WTC-related health conditions' list, the administrator is required, within 90 days, to either request a recommendation on action from the WTC Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) or make a determination on adding the health condition. If the administrator requests a recommendation from the STAC, that recommendation must be made within 90 days of its receipt and the WTCHP administrator must act on that request within an additional 90 days. On September 7, 2011, Representatives Carolyn B. Maloney, Jerrold Nadler, Peter King, Charles B. Rangel, Nydia M. Velazquez, Michael G. Grimm, and Yvette Clarke and Senators Charles E. Schumer and Kirsten E. Gillibrand filed a petition, in the form of a letter to the WTCHP administrator, requesting that the administrator "conduct an immediate review of new medical evidence showing increased cancer rates among firefighters who served at ground zero" and that the administrator "consider adding coverage for cancer under the Zadroga Act." In response to this petition, the WTC administrator requested that the STAC "review the available information on cancer outcomes associated with the exposures resulting from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and provide advice on whether to add cancer, or a certain type of cancer, to the List specified in the Zadroga Act." On September 12, 2012, based on the STAC's recommendations, the WTCHP administrator added more than 60 types of cancer, covering nearly every body system and including any cancers in persons less than 20 years of age and any rare cancers, to the list of WTC-related health conditions, thus making these conditions compensable under the VCF. In a review of the decision to add cancers to the list of WTC-related health conditions, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the WTCHP administrator used a hazards-based approach to evaluate cancers. This approach evaluated whether exposures in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were associated with types of cancer but did not evaluate the probability of developing cancer based on a given exposure. A GAO-convened scientific panel indicated that the hazards-based approach the WTCHP administrator used was reasonable given data constraints and the fact that there is a certification process to determine if a cancer or other condition on the WTC-related health list meets the statutory requirement of being "substantially likely to be a significant factor in aggravating, contributing to, or causing the illness or health condition." The panel also indicated that this approach could have benefited from an independent peer review process. The WTCHP administrator stated that peer review was not possible given the statutory time constraints to act on the petition and the STAC's recommendation. One year later, the WTCHP administrator added prostate cancer to the list of WTC-related health conditions. In addition, the WTCHP administrator established minimum latency periods for certain types of cancer and maximum onset periods for certain types of aerodigestive disorders. VCF Operations The Civil Division of the Department of Justice administers the VCF. The Attorney General appoints the VCF special master and up to two deputies, who serve at the pleasure of the Attorney General. The VCF special master, currently Rupa Bhattacharyya, decides VCF eligibility and benefits. A claimant dissatisfied with the special master's decision on his or her claim may file an appeal and request a hearing before a VCF-appointed hearing officer. There is no further right of appeal or judicial review of VCF decisions. However, a claimant may amend his or her claim after a decision has been made if the claimant has new material relevant to the claim. Registration and Claim Deadlines All claims for VCF benefits must be filed by October 1, 2090. Before filing a claim, a potential claimant must have registered with the VCF by one of the following applicable deadlines: October 3, 2013, if the claimant knew, or reasonably should have known, that he or she suffered a physical harm or died as a result of the September 11 th attacks or rescue, recovery, or debris removal efforts, and that he or she was eligible for the VCF on or before October 3, 2011; or within two years of the date the claimant knew, or reasonably should have known, that he or she has a WTC-related physical health condition or died as a result of the September 11 th attacks and is eligible for the VCF. If a claimant has a condition that is later added to the list of WTCHP-covered conditions, then the two-year period begins on the later of the dates when a government entity, such as the WTCHP or a state workers' compensation agency, determines that the condition is related to the September 11 th attacks, or when a claimant's condition is added to the WTCHP-covered list of conditions. VCF Benefits Under current law, there is no cap on the total VCF benefit amount that may be paid, but there are limits on individual benefit amounts. The special master determines VCF benefits based on the claimant's economic and noneconomic losses. For noneconomic losses, there is a cap of $250,000 for cancer claims and $90,000 for all other claims. For cases in which a WTC-related health condition causes death, the presumed award provided in the VCF regulations for noneconomic loss is $250,000 plus an additional $100,000 for the person's spouse and each dependent. In addition, the special master may exceed the noneconomic loss limits if the Special Master determines that the claim presents "special circumstances." When calculating economic losses, the special master is permitted to consider only the first $200,000 in annual income when determining losses to past earnings and future earning capacity, which limits the amount of economic losses that can be paid. The special master is required to periodically adjust this amount to account for inflation. VCF benefits are reduced by certain collateral source payments available to claimants, such as life insurance benefits, workers' compensation payments, and government benefits related to the person's injury or death, including Social Security Disability Insurance and the Public Safety Officers' Benefits program. The 2019 reauthorization provides that any benefit award that the special master had previously reduced due to insufficient funding to pay all VCF awards is to be paid in full. Exclusivity of Remedy Congress established the VCF to be an "administrative alternative to litigation for the victims of the [September 11, 2001] terrorist attacks." As such, to receive a VCF award, a person must forfeit his or her right to bring any lawsuit in any state or federal court against any entity, such as the airlines, airframe manufacturers, or building owners, for damages related to the attacks or their aftermath and must withdraw any pending legal claims. However, a person may maintain his or her eligibility for the VCF and bring a lawsuit against "any person who is a knowing participant in any conspiracy to hijack any aircraft or commit any terrorist act," or bring a lawsuit to recover collateral source obligations such as life insurance benefits owed to the victim. In addition, the VCF statute grants the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York exclusive jurisdiction over any lawsuits related to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and establishes liability limits for the airlines, airframe manufacturers, airports, City of New York, and any person with property interest in the World Trade Center such as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The VCF statute caps attorney fees for claimant assistance at 10% of the VCF award amount. The special master has the authority to reduce any attorney fees it deems excessive for services rendered. Under provisions of the Justice for United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Act, a person who receives a VCF award is barred from receiving any additional compensation from the United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund. VCF Appropriations The 2019 VCF reauthorization appropriates "such sums as may be necessary" for FY2019 and each fiscal year through FY2092 for the payment of VCF awards, with all funds to remain available until expended. Thus, funding for the VCF will not require annual appropriations or be subject to the annual appropriations process. Appendix. VCF Award Data