On July 10, 2003, Sen. Diane Feinstein joined nine Republican members of the Judiciary Committee in voting SB 1125, the "Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution" Act, to the full Senate for its consideration. She had initially expressed many concerns about the fairness of SB 1125, particularly regarding the sufficiency of funding for the Bill's trust fund, delays in payments to claimants during set-up of the bureaucracy which would administer the trust, and the abrogation of pending settlements. Sen. Orrin Hatch, the Bill's sponsor, reached out to Sen. Feinstein repeatedly during the hearing leading up to the vote, essentially asking her to trust him that he would work with her to make the Bill fair. Observers felt that Sen. Feinstein broke party ranks, not only because of amendments which seemingly answered her concerns, but also because of Sen. Hatch's personal assurances.

Even though Sen. Feinstein was the only Democrat on Judiciary to vote to send SB 1125 to the Senate floor, her defection was a serious blow to opponents of the Bill and a victory for Sen. Hatch. Sen. Feinstein holds some stature nationally -- she is one of two female Senators from California, is the former Mayor of San Francisco, and has been mentioned as a suitable candidate for Vice-President. If she could be persuaded to break ranks with other Democrats and vote SB 1125 out of Judiciary, then perhaps enough other Democratic votes could be found in the full Senate for passage of the Bill. Or so it was thought.

Nine months later, on Friday, April 9, 2004, Sen. Feinstein issued a statement opposing the latest version of the Bill, now designated SB 2290. The statement, printed below, expresses her sense of betrayal that the concessions she had won in Committee on SB 1125 had been stripped from SB 2290, which has been scheduled for full Senate action this month without Judiciary Committee review.

For those who witnessed the courtship of Sen. Feinstein by Sen. Hatch nine months ago, and their "marriage" in support of SB 1125, the honeymoon is clearly over, and the marriage headed for divorce -- good news for people with mesothelioma and asbestos-related cancers. This latest version of asbestos legislation deserves the opposition of your Senator. Please click here to see how you can contact your Senator to oppose SB 2290.

http://www.senate.gov/~feinstein/04Releases/r-asbestos0409.htm

April 9, 2004

"I am greatly disappointed by the decision of the Republican leadership to introduce an asbestos bill at the 11th hour, and then push for its consideration on the Floor, without consultation and without Committee examination.

Last year, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed asbestos legislation after deliberation spanning many weeks. The Committee bill, while not perfect, reflects the best spirit of the Senate in its open bipartisan amendment process.

Ultimately, I voted for the Committee bill because I thought it approaches a fair solution to this asbestos liability crisis, which is delaying justice for victims and weighing down our economy. Put simply, it was the best we could do at the time to craft a compromise bill in Committee.

The Committee bill would ensure that the neediest victims receive fair compensation quickly, it has prudent financial reserves, and it would staunch the tide of asbestos bankruptcies that have beset corporate America. The problem was that there were still some issues that needed resolution, and in the resolution process, things appear to have fallen apart.

This new proposal, however, is a major step backwards. It leaves many issues unresolved, and resolves others in ways directly contradictory to the will of the Judiciary Committee. This new, 11th hour legislation undermines the bipartisan spirit that moved asbestos legislation to the Floor, and it is a substantively inferior proposal.

Specifically,

• It cuts the asbestos victims Trust Fund’s contingent reserve from $45 billion to $10 billion, making it more likely that the fund will run out of money.

• It eliminates a crucial amendment that guaranteed that asbestos victims would continue to have their legal rights until the Trust Fund is operational.

• It wipes out both final settlements and trial court judgments that grant victims awards. I specifically asked for changes after committee markup to ensure that all valid settlements and judgments be honored. This will adversely impact an unknown number of sick and dying asbestos victims who today have valid settlements.

• It prevents individuals from accessing the tort system until seven years after the Administrator starts processing claims. Therefore, if the fund runs out of money from in its first few years, the individual has no recourse.

• People compensated for non-malignant diseases under the Trust Fund will have a harder time filing a second claim in the tort system if their condition deteriorates and becomes cancerous.

If this bill is the only option, it is likely dead on arrival.

However, I remain convinced that we need a bill, and soon. But the only way to get a bill passed is for Senators themselves to sit down, be included in the process, on a bipartisan basis, and make the necessary decisions."

*** POSTED APRIL 12, 2004 ***