Congress.org
Motion to Waive CBA; Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2005
Rejected: 58-41
By 58 yeas to 41 nays (Vote No. 21), three-fifths of those Senators duly chosen and sworn, not having voted in the affirmative, Senate rejected the Specter motion to waive section 407, limitation on long-term spending proposals, of H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006, with respect to the bill and Frist (for Specter/Leahy) Amendment No. 2746 (listed above). Subsequently, the Ensign point of order against the bill is sustained, pursuant to section 312(f) of the Congressional Budget Act, the bill is recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary; provided further, that the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on Frist (for Specter/Leahy) Amendment No. 2746, and the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the bill were vitiated.
What the hell happened here? I assume from the name, Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2005, that said “fairness” was pro-industry, probably suppressing those “frivolous” lawsuits that help restrain capitalist cruelty when government won’t. But the act was of 2005 and the vote was last week. And our Senators split. Does it clarify that Domenici voted ‘yea’ and Bingaman ‘nay’ — that is, Domenici wanted to stop a filibuster, but on what matter? mjh
Update 2/21/06: A Washington Post Editorial adds a little to my understanding (if you read the whole thing). Here’s a piece:
The chief hope for reform lies in a Senate bill that would shift asbestos claims from the courts to a $140 billion compensation fund run by the federal government. Sick people, including those excluded from compensation by the tort lottery, would be entitled to payments. Lawyers’ fees would be capped at 5 percent of settlements. The fund would be financed by companies responsible for asbestos, with no direct burden on taxpayers. But the bill was defeated last week in a vote that was technically about the budget impact of reform; “I believe this bill is fiscally irresponsible to the taxpayers and the future,” intoned Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), who forced the so-called budget point of order. Mr. Ensign’s charge was false, but 30 Democrats and 10 Republicans accepted it.