What: All Issues : Environment : Renewable Energy : S Con Res 13. (Fiscal 2010 budget resolution) Stabenow of Michigan amendment that would allow for future climate change legislation that would incentivize clean technology and energy efficiencies/On agreeing to the amendment (2009 senate Roll Call 141)
 Who: All Members
[POW!]
 

To find out how your Members of Congress voted on this bill, use the form on the right.

S Con Res 13. (Fiscal 2010 budget resolution) Stabenow of Michigan amendment that would allow for future climate change legislation that would incentivize clean technology and energy efficiencies/On agreeing to the amendment
senate Roll Call 141     Apr 02, 2009
Progressive Position:
Yea
Progressive Result:
Win

This vote was on an amendment by Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., that would stipulate that future climate change-related legislation should create new jobs related to “clean technology,” diversify domestic energy supplies, provide cost-savings incentives via energy efficiencies, and provide voluntary opportunities for agriculture and forestry industries to reduce greenhouse gases.  The amendment was offered to the budget resolution that serves as the blueprint for Congress’ budget priorities in fiscal 2010.  The budget resolution sets overall spending targets for the Appropriations committees and outlines other budget rules.

Stabenow’s amendment was offered against the backdrop of Republican attempts to add language to the budget resolution that would make it easier to defeat future climate change legislation that cost more money than what was allocated for it in the budget resolution.  The jockeying over climate change was spurred by a proposal put forth by President Obama that would implement a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions that would raise $646 billion in revenues over 10 years.  A “cap-and-trade” system would basically cap the amount of climate change-affecting pollution that an industry- could emit, and then set up an “emissions allowances” system whereby industries that need to purchase more than their cap can buy allowances from those who fall below their cap.

Stabenow said the Senate has taken “a number of votes that indicated what we should not do as it relates to a climate change policy. This is about what we should do. I believe, just as with any piece of legislation, if it is done right, it can be very positive,” Stabenow said.  “I believe it can be about creating jobs and revitalizing the economy.”

Republicans did not speak against Stabenow’s amendment, except to suggest that they preferred their own amendments on the subject. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., responded to Stabenow’s amendment by saying that he prefers his own amendment, which “shoots with real bullets.”

Bond’s amendment would make it easier to defeat future climate change legislation that cost more money than what was allocated for it in the budget resolution.

By a vote of 73-25, Stabenow’s amendment was adopted.  All but one Democrat present voted for the amendment.  Of Republicans present, 17 voted for the amendment and 24 voted against it.  The end result is that the bill went forward with language that would stipulate that future climate change legislation should create new “clean technology” jobs, diversity energy supply options, and incentivize energy efficiency.

Issue Areas:

Find your Member of
Congress' votes

Select by Name