        (Announcements)

MR. RUSSERT: And we are back. Kenneth Feinberg, welcome to MEET THE PRESS.

MR. KENNETH FEINBERG: Thank you.

MR. RUSSERT: After September 11, Congress passed the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund       which did what?

MR. FEINBERG: It created an administrative, a quick compensation scheme for eligible families, for
victims who were injured, that they could elect to take instead of going into the litigation system. You
have to choose, and Congress set this program up.

MR. RUSSERT: Why is it preferable that the families of the victims use this fund, rather than sue?

MR. FEINBERG: Certainty, speed. They will get paid, and they will get paid much quicker. They will
get paid within 120 days of submitting a final claim. And they will not have any uncertainty about
whether they’re going to get their money or not. They will not have to pay lawyers. They will not have
to go to court. The money is there for them. And they will get a sum degree of psychological closure,
instead of litigating for years and years and years with the uncertainty of the suit. Come in, collect a
Treasury check, close that chapter as best you can.

MR. RUSSERT: And Congress has also capped the liability of the airlines and the World Trade Center
and some other people who would be sued.

MR. FEINBERG: That’s right. So even if you sue and wait years, and even if you win—no guarantee—
the liability of the airlines and the World Trade Center, the Pentagon is immune. It’s unlikely that any
lawsuit will result in any compensation going to the claimant.

MR. RUSSERT: There’s a lot of debate about the guidelines you put forward. Probably the most
controversial is the announcement that there would be $250,000 for pain and suffering, non-economic,
if you will, injury. And the victims’ families, some of them have sent me e-mails. One said that the
Federal Aviation Administration, when doing a cost-benefit analysis of victims lost due to an explosion
of fuel tanks, said that the cost value of a human life is $2.7 million. And this widow said, “Either the
FAA has overvalued a life or you and the government is now undervaluing the lives of those who died
at the World Trade Center.” Why did you say $250,000 when the FAA said $2.7 million?

MR. FEINBERG: The FAA says $2.7 million after you litigate a case for about seven years and if
you’re fortunate enough to win the case, then give your lawyer 40 percent as a contingency fee of that
$2.7 million, try and get that win affirmed on appeal to a higher court and then maybe you’ll finally
collect some money. What I would suggest to that family now, take your total award, which will be on
average not $250,000 but well over a million dollars, bank it, in seven or eight years take a look at what
that check from the Treasury is worth that you get today, as opposed to rolling the dice, hoping you’ll
win in court, no guarantee you’ll win, and as you pointed out earlier, even if you do win, there’s not
going to be any money from the airlines to collect. To me, it’s not even a close call.

MR. RUSSERT: If you were someone who was well positioned, a financial trader making $500,000 a
year, and you died in the World Trade Center, you would get the $250,000 in terms of non-economic
injury, the spouse and the children would get $100,000 each. But then there—and also you would have
factored in your income, although that would be capped at $225,000.

MR. FEINBERG: No, no. No no. There’s no cap.

MR. RUSSERT: How much income you would make in your lifetime.

MR. FEINBERG: Economic loss...

MR. RUSSERT: Economic loss...

MR. FEINBERG: ...would be computed.

MR. RUSSERT: But there are offsets.

MR. FEINBERG: That’s correct.

MR. RUSSERT: And probably again one of the most controversial is life insurance. So if this person
had $3 million in life insurance, they would get how much from the government?

MR. FEINBERG: Well, there’s two points to make. That’s a very good question. First of all, in
computing the economic loss, if this person passed away, was killed, is 35 years old or 40 years old, has       three or four children and a spouse, chances are that the computation even with a $3 million life
insurance offset will be substantially in excess of a million dollars. But assuming that as a result of life
insurance offset, life insurance is either mandated by the statute passed by Congress to offset life
insurance, there’s nothing I can do about that. Congress said, “You shall, special master, offset life
insurance.” If, in a rare case, somebody is computed after everything is said and done to get, you know,        nothing, let’s say, because of the life insurance or what have you, in our final rule the other day, we did        announce that at a minimum, with very rare exceptions, everybody who comes into this program will get at        a minimum $250,000 tax free, and that’s an incentive to bring people into the program.

MR. RUSSERT: So someone who had the incentive, however, and the foresight to take life insurance,
could actually be penalized for having done that.

MR. FEINBERG: Well, you say penalized. If a person had the foresight to have $3 million or $4
million $5 million in life insurance, the question arises whether or not the taxpayers of the United States
should be providing income in addition to $3 million or $4 million or $5 million tax-free to the cost of
the taxpayer, and I think there’s at least a legitimate question raised about that.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you a photograph from People magazine, and this just tears you up, and
yet still gives you hope. Those are all the babies born to moms and dads who died in the World Trade
Center, to their other spouse who are holding them right there. Will those babies be taken care of?

MR. FEINBERG: Yes, babies are covered under our program. We look to the state law of the victim,
New York or Virginia or California or Boston or wherever—we look to state law, but in almost all state
laws, those babies, fetuses, unborns covered by our program, yes.

MR. RUSSERT: Will some of their Social Security benefits to children offset what they will get?

MR. FEINBERG: Social Security benefits to children will be offset under the law. It’s a fixed amount
till their 18. We will offset that. Social Security death benefits to the spouse will not be offset, because
it’s a speculative contingency, so we won’t offset that.

MR. RUSSERT: What about illegal immigrants who were working hard in the World Trade        Center? They are fearful that if they come forward and make a claim, they’ll be deported.

MR. FEINBERG: They will not be, and here the attorney general, as he has in so many of these

       are protected and I urge them to participate with no consequence.

MR. RUSSERT: People who were engaged to be married, fiances or gay domestic partners,         they’re left out of the program.

MR. FEINBERG: No, no—they’re left out of my program to the extent that their own state doesn’t
include them. I cannot get into a position in this program, which has a one-and-a-half or two-year life
start second-guessing what the state of New York or the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or the state
of Virginia or New Jersey, how they treat same-sex partners, domestic live-ins, etc. I simply say this:
What does your state law say about who is eligible? If your state law makes you eligible, I will honor
state law. If it doesn’t, I go with the state. Otherwise, Tim, I would find myself getting sued in every
state by people claiming that I’m not following how the state distributes money. I can’t get into that local        battle. I’ve got to rely on state law.

MR. RUSSERT: Before Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda destroyed the World Trade Center, they        attacked two U.S. embassies in Tanzania and in Kenya. Americans died. Those families got nothing and        want to be part of this program. Should they be included?

MR. FEINBERG: Well, I get a lot of e-mails like you do on that. Oklahoma City, African embassy
bombings, Pan Am. Congress carved out my jurisdiction, and I tell people all the time, my jurisdiction
is September 11. I don’t know why Oklahoma City or the Tanzanian bombing victims aren’t covered.
I see no real distinction, other than the statute that I’m operating under clearly defines my jurisdiction
only including September 11.

MR. RUSSERT: Would Congress consider opening up or expanding in order to include those people?

MR. FEINBERG: A very good question to ask Congress. I have enough trouble running this own
program without wondering how it ought to or whether it ought to be expanded.

MR. RUSSERT: What sense do you get in talking to members of Congress? Do they think that they
did the right thing in creating this compensation fund or is there some regret because of all the bickering
that it’s triggered?

MR. FEINBERG: I think both. I think, on the one hand, it was an unprecedented example of taxpayer
generosity to these people, these families. I think it—no other nation in the world would do what Congress        did or what our country did for these people.

MR. RUSSERT: A lot of...

MR. FEINBERG: And in that sense, I do think it’s a plus. I do think Congress recognizes that once
you open this whole issue up of taxpayer compensation in times of crisis, you lead yourself on a slippery        slope, and whether this will be unique or the beginning of a series of precedents, I don’t know.

MR. RUSSERT: Claims must be filed by when?

MR. FEINBERG: Claims are filed—you have until the end of 2003 to file a claim. Once we get that
claim and begin to process the final application, we are mandated to cut the Treasury check within 120
days of submission.

MR. RUSSERT: Ken Feinberg, the master—and I should tell our viewers you are doing this pro bono.

MR. FEINBERG: That is correct.

MR. RUSSERT: We thank you very much for joining us and taking on a very difficult job.

MR. FEINBERG: And thank you.