is to deliver on its promise of fairness, these criteria will need to be revised." Also opposing the bill were the American Public Health Association and the Asbestos Workers' Union. On June 14, 2006, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved an amendment to the act which would have allowed victims of mesothelioma $1.1M within 30 days of their claim's approval. This version would have also expanded eligible claimants to people exposed to asbestos from the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center, and to construction debris in hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Ultimately, the bill's reliance on funding from private entities large and small, as well as debate over a sunset provision and the impact on the U.S. budgetary process caused the bill to fail to leave committee. Since the bankruptcy filing of Johns-Manville in 1984, many U.S. and U.K. asbestos manufacturers have escaped litigation by filing bankruptcy. Once in bankruptcy, these companies typically are required to fund special "bankruptcy trusts" that pay pennies on the dollar to injured parties. However, these trusts do permit larger numbers of claimants to receive some kind of compensation, even if greatly reduced from potential recoveries in the tort system. Since 2002, asbestos lawsuits in the U.S. have included the following as defendants: Manufacturers of machinery that are alleged to have required asbestos-containing parts to function properly; Owners of premises at which asbestos-containing products were installed (which includes virtually anyone who owned a building prior to 1980); Banks that financed ships or buildings where asbestos was installed (on the grounds that no rational lender would take a security interest in an asset without studying the risks involved); Retailers of asbestos-containing products (including hardware, home improvement and automotive parts stores); Corporations that allegedly conspired with asbestos manufacturers to deliberately conceal the dangers of asbestos (e.g., MetLife, a well-known insurance company which worked with Johns-Manville); Manufacturers of tools which were used to cut or shape asbestos-containing parts; and Manufacturers of respiratory protective equipment. Defendants in the first category have contested liability on the grounds that nearly all of them either did not ship asbestos-containing parts with their products at all (that is, asbestos was installed only by end users) or did not sell replacement parts for their own products (in cases where the plaintiff was allegedly exposed well after any factory-original asbestos-containing parts would have been replaced), and either way cannot be responsible for toxic third-party parts