April 2002

Table of Contents:

U.S. House of Representatives 107th Congress Second Session

Fairness for Foster Care Families Act (HR 586)
Farm Security Act
The Child Custody Protection Act (HR 476)
Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001(S. 565)
Pension Security Act of 2002 (HR 3762)
Two Strikes and You're Out Child Protection Act (HR 2146) 
Class Action Fairness Act of 2002 (H.R. 2341)
Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (House Resolution [H. Res.] 365) 
Economic Security and Recovery Act of 2001 (HR 3090)

U.S. Senate 107th Congress Second Session

National Laboratories Partnership Improvement Act of 2001 (S. 517)
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001 (HR 2356)

National Laboratories Partnership Improvement Act of 2001 (S. 517)

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Murkowski Amendment No. 31323), the Senate turned aside the argument that oil was needed for the nation’s security and rejected President’s Bush’s plan for oil exploration in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) by a wide margin.  The vote took place on April 18, 2002.

Repeatedly citing the development of ANWR, a centerpiece of Bush’s energy policy, the vote was a blow to the administration.

The size of the anti-drilling vote in the Senate may doom any prospect for a drilling measure in Congress this year although the House has already approved legislation to allow development of the oil-saturated coastal plan of ANWR.

Of the required 60 votes to break a Democratic filibuster and allow a vote on putting the refuge provision into a broader energy bill, the Senate Republicans fell 14 votes short, 54-46.  (To see how your senators voted, visit: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/vote1072/vote_00071.html )

Disappointment was expressed by Alaska’s two Republican senators, Senator Frank Murkowski and Senator Ted Stevens, who had led the fight for drilling.  However, their amendment was not formally withdrawn by the senators.

Senator Frank Murkowski, insisted, “It’s not over yet.”  Other amendments involving the refuge were also planned by the two senators but details were not given.

Senators who succumbed to pressure from “reactionary, radical environmentalists” and ignored jobs that drilling in the refuge would produce were blamed for the defeat by Senator Stevens.  The votes played into the hands of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and other Middle East oil producers said Murkowski.

If the President certifies to Congress that exploration and production are in the economic and security interests of the nation, the bill offered by Senator Frank H. Murkowski, would allow drilling in ANWR.  In addition, the measure would ban exportation of the oil to all other nations except Israel, designate 1.5 million acres of land as wilderness, and limit surface disturbance to 2,000 acres.  This represents only one one-hundredth of one percent of the 19.5 million acres of ANWR that would be explored for oil. 

(H. Josef Hebert, “Arctic Drilling Plan Fails in Senate,” The Associated Press, April 18, 2002)

BACK TO THE TOP

Fairness for Foster Care Families Act (HR 586)

An action both Republicans and Democrats said would echo loudly in this year’s Congressional campaigns was voted on in the House of Representatives on April 17, 2002, to prevent President Bush’s tax cut from disappearing after 2010.

The $1.35 trillion tax cut package was made permanent by Republicans, who prevailed in the House on a largely party-line 229-198 vote. (To see how your representative voted, visit: http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2002&rollnumber=103)  By removing the threat of a huge tax increase if the package expires as scheduled after December 3, 2010, the measure would give taxpayers greater certainty, clear up estate planning and bolster the economy.

Also, the measure allows for greater deductibility of student-loan interest, eliminates the death and gift taxes, increases the limits for Individual Retirement Account (IRA) contributions from $2,000 to $5,000, eliminates the “marriage penalty” that causes married couples filing a return jointly to pay more in taxes than if they were living together unmarried and filing separately, and raised the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000.

Several taxpayer rights and protections, one of which would give people who file electronic tax returns an extra 15 days past the April 15 deadline to file income tax returns, were included in the measure that passed.

(Curt Anderson, “House Makes Tax Cut Permanent,” The Associated Press, April 18, 2002)

BACK TO THE TOP

Farm Security Act (HR 2646)

In a non-binding vote that supporters said demonstrated growing momentum for such limits, the House of Representatives on April 18, 2002, overwhelmingly endorsed a $275,000-per farm cap on agricultural subsidies.

These new payment limits were part of the Senate-passed agricultural bill.  However, subsidies for cotton, grain and soybeans would continue essentially unlimited under the House-passed bill.

According to House members in their talks with the Senate on a compromise bill, the lead House negotiator, Representative Larry Combest (Republican-Texas) said on April 18, 2002, that the 265-158 vote would “have no bearing.” (To see how your representative voted, visit: http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2002&rollnumber=100)

According to a count by the Environmental Working Group, which supports the measure some 78 of the House members who voted for the subsidy cap on April 18, 2002, voted last fall against adding a similar provision to the House’s farm bill.

The group’s Susanne Fleek said the Senate’s payment cap would “ease the burden on smaller family-run farms by cutting the flow of money to corporate agribusinesses and steer it to those who need it the most.”

Congressional budget analysts predict that the subsidy limit would save an estimated $1.3 billion over 10 years.

According to critics, subsidy caps unfairly penalize efficient, highly productive farms and are especially unfair to cotton and rice, which cost much more to grow than corn, wheat and soybeans, the other major commodities the government subsidizes.

Currently, farmers are allowed to bypass the normal limit subsidies by borrowing money against their crops and repaying the loans at below cost by a program approved by the Clinton administration.  In the past six months, farmers collected $1.5 billion through that program.

One of a number of issues dividing the House-Senate conference committee that is trying to merge the House and Senate bills is the subsidy crop.  After a series of private discussions failed to produce an agreement, the negotiations returned to public sessions on April 18, 2002.  On a range of issues, members of the conference committee traded proposals.

Negotiators are also divided over commodity price guarantees, known as loan rates negotiators.  Compared with $1.95 for the Republican-controlled House, for example, Senate Democrats want a $2.02-a bushel minimum for corn.  Currently, $1.89 is the rate.  To offer the best assistance to farmers, Republicans say that more money should go for subsidies that are not tied to a farmer’s annual production.

(Philip Basher, “House Passes New Farm Subsidy Limits,” The Associated Press, April 18, 2002)

BACK TO THE TOP 

The Child Custody Protection Act (HR 476)

The Child Custody Protection Act (HR 476) was passed by the House of Representatives on April 17, 2002, by a vote of 260 to 161(To see how your representative voted, visit: http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2002&rollnumber=97 ).

For anyone other than a parent to take a girl age 17 across state lines for an abortion, the House measure would make it a federal crime.

Prior to an abortion being performed on a minor, more than 30 states already have laws requiring consent or notification of at least one parent.  However, so minors can avoid their own state’s requirements and obtain an abortion without parental notification as adults routinely transport minors to states that do not have parental involvement laws.

(“House Approves Abortion Limit on Minors,” Reuters, April 17, 2002)

BACK TO THE TOP

Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001 (S. 565)

To correct problems exposed by the 2000 Presidential election by overhauling each state’s voting machines but also giving them new tools to crack down on voter fraud, the Senate on April 11, 2002 overwhelmingly passed the Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001 (S. 565).  The Senate bill will have to be reconciled with the House bill but passed on a 99-1 vote.  To see how your senators voted, visit: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/vote1072/vote_00065.html)

If workers determine that the error is with election officials, states would be allowed provisional voting-letting those who have been left off voting lists to cast temporary ballots that are counted by the measure.  Also, a central computerized registration list,  both to help check provisional voting and to help eliminate duplicate registration for the same person, would be required by all states.

Additionally, anti-fraud provisions were agreed upon by both Democrats and Republicans which had originally threatened to sink the entire bill.

The measure would require those who register by mail to show identification-a driver’s license or another pre-printed form with their name and address-before they vote for the first time.  However, Oregon and Washington, both of which have popular vote-by-mail programs, are excempted.

The House bill sets minimum standards and leaves most decisions to the states to meet them while the Senate bill requires the states to take certain steps.

To encourage states to buy out punch-card voting machines, the Senate bill authorizes $3.5 billion over five years.  For buying out machines and encouraging poll-worker training, the House bill authorizes $2.65 billion over three years.

(Stephen Dinan,” Senate Oks revamping state voting systems,” The Washington Times, April 12, 2002) 

BACK TO THE TOP 

Pension Security Act of 2002 (HR 3762)

Republicans said that on April 11, 2002, the House passed a pension-law overhaul that would substantially improve safeguards for employees.  However, it offered only limited changes and would actually scale back some existing employee protections complained many Democrats.

The first floor vote on a bill prompted by the collapse of Enron, was approved by a 255 to 163 vote. (To see how your representative voted, visit: http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2002&rollnumber=92)

Earlier in the day a Democratic alternative was rejected by a 232-187 vote.  (To see how your representative voted, visit: http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2002&rollnumber=90)

Through the measure, employers are required to give workers 30 days’ notice before freezing trading in their 401 (k) accounts, and executives are restricted from selling shares in such “blackout” periods.  Also, after three years, it would eventually allow workers to sell shares of stock obtained from matching 401 (k) contributions.  Workers would be allowed by the bill to use pre-tax wages to pay investment firms for advice about their pension choices which was the most hotly debated provision of the measure.

(Richard A. Oppel Jr., “G.O.P. Pension Overhaul Is Approved by the House,” The New York Times, April 12, 2002)

BACK TO THE TOP 

Taxpayer Protection and IRS Accountability Act of 2002 (HR 3991)

Charging that the bill actually would undo some campaign finance regulations, House Democrats defeated the Republicans’ tax-day “gimme” on April 10, 2002.

Around April 15, the day when individual income tax returns are due, lawmakers traditionally like to pass a taxpayers-friendly bill.  However, on a 219-205 vote the Taxpayer Protection and IRS Accountability Act failed.  (To see how your representative voted, visit: http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2002&rollnumber=85)

Across-the-board support was given for the main thrust of the bill which would have allowed the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to waive penalties for first-time violators who have a history of compliance, would have given taxpayers more time to contest a levy the IRS imposes on an account, and reformed the way interest is applied to estimated tax payments and penalties.

Also, for electronic filers it would have allowed an April 30^th deadline, to file and for an IRS employee to browse, unauthorized, through taxpayer records, it would have made it a firing offense.

The controversial section of the bill referred to “527 organizations,” named after the section of the tax code that governs them.  Formed by political committees and candidates these political organizations, until recently, were not required to disclose fund-raising information as they ran federal election ads.

These organizations are required to disclose officers, donations and expenditures by a law passed in 2000.  Surprised to find they were affected were both Republicans and Democrats.  Some complained that they already filed the information with state officials.

The measure just corrected that double reporting claim Republicans.

Representative Bill Thomas, (Republican-California) and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee said, “I’m for disclosure.  I’m not for unnecessary, duplicate disclosure.”

Some organizations are burdened according to campaign finance reform proponents; however, there are other ways to correct it said Republicans.

(Stephen Dinan, “Democrats defeat the tax measure,” The Washington Times, April 11, 2002)

BACK TO THE TOP 

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001 (HR 2356)

After years of deadlock on Capitol Hill, the Senate on March 20, 2002, approved a bill on campaign finance regulation that restricts fundraising by political parties and election advertising.

The measure was approved by a 60-40 vote.  (To see how your senators voted, visit: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/vote1072/vote_00054.html )

On March 20, 2002, the President turned down calls from conservatives to veto the measure.  He said in a statement after the passage of the bill, “The reforms passed today, while flawed in some areas, still improves the current system overall, and I will sign them into law.”

However, the measure does not take effect until after this year’s November election.  It also still faces a round of court challenges.

The measure would restrict interest groups from running advertisements using soft money in the weeks prior to a primary or general election, prohibit uncapped contributions that are spent on issue ads and organization activities, and prohibit national political parties from collecting soft money.

Hard money contributions, which are regulated closely by law, would be doubled by the measure.  In election cycles, these contributions would increase the total amounts individuals are allowed to give in an election cycle.

Senator Mitch McConnell, (Republican-Kentucky) said, “There won’t be a single penny less spent on issues and campaigns in America after this becomes law.”

He also said that it will eviscerate parties by shifting donations to less regulated special-interest groups instead.

He added, “The real loser under this legislation is the American voter, who can no longer rely on the political party as an indicator of what that candidate stands for.”

The soft-money ban would end national political conventions as they are now run with 80 percent of the money that stages them coming from soft money said the senator.

Everyday conversations between candidates and outside groups could be crimilized by the new rules prohibiting coordination between them said the senator.

The real winner in the measure is the media-particularly newspapers which do not have the same restrictions on running ads in the weeks prior to an election that broadcast stations will face said Senator McConnell.  It is not surprising the New York Times and The Washington Post have editorialized in favor of campaign finance changes an average of more than once a week overtly the last five years said the senator.

In the suit challenging the measure, Senator McConnel said he will be the lead plaintiff and said he will announce his legal challenge and the date he will file the suit.

The senator believes both the soft-money restrictions and the regulations on how outside groups may run ads in the weeks prior to elections are unconstitutional.

The vote to prevent a filibuster was 68-32.  (To see how your senators voted, visit: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/vote1072/vote_00053.html).

(Stephen Dinan, “Senate Oks measure on campaigns,” The Washington Times, March 21, 2002)

BACK TO THE TOP 

Two Strikes and You're Out Child Protection Act (HR 2146) 

For two-time federal child sex offenders, the House of Representatives passed Two Strikes and You’re Out Child Protection Act (HR 2146) on March 14, 2002, mandating an automatic life sentence.

By a 382 to 34 vote, the “two strikes” measure passed the House. (To see how your representative voted, visit: http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2002&rollnumber=64 )

The bill’s sponsor, Representative Mark Green, (Republican-Wisconsin)said,  “Take these sick monsters off the streets.  End the cycle of horrific violence that is every child’s nightmare.”

If the defendant was previously convicted of a federal or state sex crime involving children, life sentences would be mandatory for any federal child sex offense.  Crossing state lines or committing the action on federal land is among the criteria for a federal sex crime.

A scourge of repeat offender pedophiles who he said needed to be locked up was described by Representative Green.  However, a different picture of a high school senior boy sentenced to life for touching his freshmen girlfriend was painted by some lawmakers because engaging in a sexual act with a minor between the ages of 12 and 15, if the two are at least four years apart in age is another sex crime covered in the bill.

Representative Robert C. Scott, (Democrat-Virginia) said, “Two strikes, you’re out is not even good baseball policy.  Why would we think it’s good crime policy.”

Congress shouldn’t “expose countless teenagers to life sentences for being involved in consensual relationships,” said Representative John Conyers Jr., (Democrat-Michigan) and member of the House Judiciary Committee.

That argument misses the point of the measure said Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., (Republican-Wisconsin)  Sensenbrenner, the committee chairman said, “This is not some post-adolescent whose hormones have run amok.  It is someone who is preying on someone 10 or 15 years younger.”

The Congressmen’s amendment to give judges the discretion was defeated by the House.  However the requirements to hand down life sentences for two-time offenders was passed.

In 1999 and again in 2000, the House passed “two strikes” legislation.  However, the Senate ran out of time to consider the bill in these session.  This year no senator introduced a companion bill.

The California kidnapping and murder of 12-year old Polly Klaas by a repeat sex offender in 1993 inspired Representative Green’s measure.  On a two strike bill that became state law in 1998 Representative Green worked with Polly’s father as a state representative.

California was also prompted to pass a “three strikes” law that let judges sentence defendants to 25 years to life for any felony conviction if they already had been convicted of two serious or violent felonies by Polly’s case.

(“House approves ‘two strikes,” The Associated Press, March 15, 2002)

BACK TO THE TOP 

National Laboratories Partnership Improvement Act of 2001 (S. 517)

Voting instead for a measure that would give the Bush Administration two years to develop its own mileage rules, the Senate - on March 13, 2002 - defeated an effort to increase fuel efficiency standards for cars, sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks by 50 percent over 13 years.

Legislation sponsored by Senators Carl M. Levin (Democrat-Michigan) and Christopher S. Bond (Republican-Missouri) was passed in the Senate by a 62-38 vote.  (To see how your senators voted, visit: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/vote1072/vote_00047.html )

The standards ruling came in the form of an amendment on a broader energy bill designed to wean the nation from its dependence on Middle East oil.

Plans to offer a rival amendment - supported by environmentalists - that would raise fuel economy standards for the nation’s automobile fleet from 24 to 36 miles per gallons in 2015 was abandoned by Senators John F. Kerry (Democrat-Massachusetts) and John McCain (Republican-Arizona) after the vote.

Thousands of jobs would be lost, safety compromised, and consumers deprived of the cars they want to drive, forcing manufacturers to produce lighter and smaller vehicles.

Furthermore, the earlier corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards may have been responsible for between 1,300 and 2,000 highway deaths in 1993 as a result of reductions in vehicle weight and size concluded a National Academy of Science study.

Also, U.S. manufacturers, whose product lines contain a larger share of sport utility vehicles than some foreign competitors are discriminated against because the standards are based on fleet averages.

(John Lancaster, “Mileage Booster Derailed Automakers Prevail in Vote Against 50 percent Efficiency Rise,” The Washington Post, March 14, 2002) 

BACK TO THE TOP

Class Action Fairness Act of 2002 (H.R. 2341)

A bill explicitly intended to protect corporations against the high cost of class-action lawsuits in state courts was pushed through by Republicans after a partisan battle over the nation’s civil system reached the floor of the House of Representatives.

On a 233 to 190 vote, the measure was approved on March 13, 2002. (To view how your representative voted, visit: http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2002&rollnumber=62)

Class action lawsuits provide courts an efficient way to resolve similar claims filed against the same defendants or hundreds of plaintiffs.

However, attorneys who file nationwide class actions in state courts known to be favorable to plaintiffs misuse the device say Republicans.  Individual plaintiffs receive little money while their attorneys make millions in fees.

For defendants to shift such lawsuits from state courts to federal courts where rules of evidence and procedure are often viewed as more favorable to defendants, the measure would make it easier.  If at least one plaintiff and one defendant were from different states it would give federal courts jurisdiction over any class-action lawsuit with claims totaling more than $2 million.

“To protect responsible companies and other institutions against class actions in state court,” is one purpose of the bill, indicates the legislation.  However, the legislation would also protect corporate wrongdoers who had defrauded consumers, spoiled the environment, or sold dangerous defective products said Democrats.

“Class actions of national importance should be heard in federal court by a federal judge, not by a state or county court judge in one region of the country,” said Representative Robert W. Goodlatte (Republican-Virginia), the author of the bill.

Even though they “harbor prejudice against out-of-state defendants, a handful of local courts were making law for the nation,” said Representative Christopher Cox (Republican-California).

One of the poorest counties in one of the nation’s poorest states is Jefferson County, Mississippi cited Representative Cox.  For attorneys suing makers of prescription drugs, cigarettes, lead paint, and asbestos products the county became a popular venue.

(Robert Pear, “Class-Action Bill Favorable to Business Passes House,” The New York Times, March 14, 2002)

BACK TO THE TOP 

Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (House Resolution [H. Res.] 365) 

House GOP leaders shepherded through legislation on March 12, 2002, that would allow some illegal immigrants to remain in the United States (U.S.) while applying for permanent residency, overcoming resistance from within their ranks.

Its passage marked a victory for President Bush, who had campaigned on the issue and pressed lawmakers to pass the measure in the House of Representatives by a 275 to 137 vote.  (To view how your representative voted, visit: http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2002&rollnumber=53)

Section 245(i) program, which expired last April, would be revived by the House bill.  If undocumented immigrants pay a $1,000 fee and have a close relative or employer to sponsor them, the program allows undocumented immigrants to seek a visa that would grant them permanent residency.  Without this program, illegal U.S. residents would have to apply for visas from their home countries, where U.S. officials could delay them for up to 10 years.

An immigrant’s visa application would not trigger a government deportation effort under the bill.  However, if such immigrants were apprehended for other reasons, the government could still deport such immigrants.  Some immigration advocates have called the legislation flawed because of that.

Since the measure was included in the day’s “suspension calendar,” generally reserved for non-controversial matters, the bill barely received the two-thirds majority it required.

Supporters say it will represent the most significant pro-immigration bill of this Congress if it becomes law.

Mindful of the message the measure sends to Mexico and to many U.S. Latino voters, speedy passage was pushed for by Democratic and Republican leaders.

The number of potential new applicants is unknown although many of those seeking visas under the 245(i) program have been Latinos.

Opponents of the measure contend it would merely encourage lawbreaking although President Bush and several congressional allies say a more open immigration policy would stimulate the U.S. economy and the GOP’s standing among Latinos.

Representative Tom Tancredo (Republican-Colorado), who chairs the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus said, “September 11^th brought home in the sharpest way possible that we have no control over our borders.  The White House is convinced this kind of pandering will actually result in a higher percentage of votes from minority communities.  I adamantly disagree with them.”

The measure would threaten national security said several Republicans.  It would undermine “this country’s ability to find and deport the terrorists among us,” said Dana Rohrabacher, (Republican-California).

Illegal immigrants would be allowed to apply for residency if they had been in the country since December 20, 2000, and had entered into a qualifying relationship with a close relative or employer before April 15, 2001, under the House measure.  After the attorney general issued regulations on the policy, they could apply in four months or after November 30, whichever date came first.

Support for the visa-security bill was expressed by lawmakers from both parties.  Immigration officials would be required by the measure to track foreign students more closely, create a database of suspected terrorists, and issue tamper-resistant and biometric visas.

(Juliet Eilperin, “House Allows Illegal Immigration Leeway Bill Requiring Sponsor for Residency Passes Despite Concerns About Terrorists,” The Washington Post, March 13, 2002)

BACK TO THE TOP 

Economic Security and Recovery Act of 2001 (HR 3090)

The Senate passed an economic stimulus plan (Economic Security and Recovery Act of 2001; HR 3090) on March 8, 2002, that extends unemployment benefits and provides billions of dollars in tax breaks to businesses despite the U.S. recession is ending.

A day after the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved it, the Democrat-controlled Senate voted 85-9 for the bill (To see how your senators voted, visit: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/vote1072/vote_00044.html). The measure was signed into law by the President on March 9, 2002.

In light of Democratic resistance to more far-reaching business and individual tax relief included in previous Republican-supported measures passed by the House, the scaled-down legislation was the best that could be achieved at this time.

Amid partisan bickering over tax cuts and measures to help unemployed workers pay for health insurance, the broader Republican-supported bills stalled in the Senate.

Unable to resolve differences over health care, the package does not include health benefits for unemployed workers Democrats expressed great disappointment with this decision.

The measure would allow businesses to write off 30 percent of the cost of computers and other equipment, a provision that should assist high tech firms that have been hit hard by the economic downturn in addition to extending unemployment benefits.

Also, businesses are allowed to use current losses to reduce tax payments for the previous five years by the bill.  A number of business tax breaks would also be extended that otherwise would expire including a tax credit for electricity production, from chicken waste, biomass and wind.  Economic aid for New York was also included.

About $51 billion this year and $43 billion next year in tax relief would be provided by the measure.  And over ten years the cost would be $42 billion.  Since businesses write off more of their expenses and losses earlier, they have less to write off in later years causing the long-term cost to be less.

(“Senate Overwhelmingly Passes Stimulus Plan,” Reuters, March 8, 2002)

BACK TO THE TOP 

Economic Security and Recovery Act of 2001 (HR 3090)

On March 7, 2002, the House of Representatives passed a bill to extend unemployment insurance and provide billions of dollars in tax breaks for businesses ending a long-running debate over how best to help unemployed workers and revive the economy.

The bill passed the House by a 417 to 3 vote allowing both parties to claim a degree of victory.  (To see how your representative voted, visit: http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2002&rollnumber=52 )

For example, to spur investment, $43 billion in tax relief was emphasized by Republicans.  Though some Democrats supported that level of tax relief they said they had averted deeper corporate tax cuts while helping the unemployed.

Although some recipients would receive less if their state program ran for a shorter period, the compromise package provides up to 13 weeks in additional unemployment benefits.  Small businesses would be permitted to write off expenses more quickly by the bill.  Also, it provides tax incentives for investment in New York City to compensate for the September 11^th terrorist attacks and extends several expiring tax breaks like one allowing financial service companies to defer on overseas profits tax payments.

The length of time that people spend on unemployment will lengthen with the extension of unemployment benefits by 13 weeks.  Economists have found that the probability of finding employment increases when an unemployed person’s benefits are about to expire.  Therefore, the increased weeks of benefits may result in delaying reemployment.

(Juliet Eilperin,” House Ends Fight Passes Stimulus Bill 417-3 Vote Backs Aid To Jobless Tax Cuts,” The Washington Post, March 8, 2002)

BACK TO THE TOP

National Laboratories Partnership Improvement Act of 2001 (S. 517)

Instead of an alternative route mainly through Canada, the Senate voted 93-5 on March 6, 2002, to require any pipeline that would carry natural gas from Alaska’s North Slope to pass along a southern route through Alaska. (To see how your senators voted, visit:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/vote1072/vote_00041.html)

Also, in an attempt to spur construction of the pipeline, the proposal would provide $10 billion in loan guarantees.

There has been no rush by the industry to start construction because of current, relatively low, gas prices although lawmakers have called on Alaska’s natural pipeline key to meet the nation’s energy requirements.

The pipeline would cost $15-$20 billion to build and was not economical concluded one industry report.  However, for building the line, the energy bill still seeks to provide incentive.

To counter those who argue that jobs are key in opening the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil drilling is the gas line, which would take seven years to build and produce tens of thousands of jobs.

Also, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, (Democrat-South Dakota) has proposed that the government provide tax credits on the Alaska gas if the price falls below a certain level in addition to the loan guarantees.

Such subsidies have been questioned by a number of Western GOP senators from gas-producing states that argue it would put gas producers in the lower 48 states at a disadvantage.  When senators consider energy tax issues, the tax subsidies will be expected to be taken up later.

Restricting the route was voted against by Senator Don Nickles, (Republican-Oklahoma) who said he questioned the $10 billion in proposed loan guarantees and said neither provision has been adequately studied.

Contending that the route is less expensive and would bring more Canadian gas into the lower 48 states, a consortium has proposed taking the line under the Beaufort Sea and south across Canada through the Mackenzie Delta.  If it is built, Alaska’s Republican Senators Frank Murkowski and Ted Stevens wanted to make certain it takes the Southern route through Alaska.

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle offered an amendment directing the southern route after a call from Alaska Governor Tony Knowles, a Democrat.  A provision that would assure Alaska’s industry would have access to some of the gas should the line be built was added by Senator Murkowski.

The U.S. demand for natural gas will grow over the next two decades by 40 percent indicate energy experts.

(H. Josef Hebert, “Senate Oks Alaska Pipeline Changes,” The Associated Press, March 6, 2002)

BACK TO THE TOP