Debbie Stabenow on Environment Democratic Jr Senator; previously Representative (MI-8)

Reverse cuts to Great Lakes funding

John James (R): No overall statement found, but a likely yes.

Debbie Stabenow (D): No, especially cuts to bipartisan Great Lakes funding, that she helped reverse.

Authored ban on Great Lakes drilling

STABENOW: I authored the first ban on Great Lakes drilling. You can’t live here and not love the Great Lakes. We have a serious set of issues on our hands -- we’re tackling a 10 year plan to protect endangered species.

BOUCHARD: Water diversion shouldn’t happen. We need to protect that. We don’t need a lot of money to protect against carp - only $20M. We need someone who will actually get something done to get results.

Rated 84% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes.

The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) is the political voice of the national environmental movement and the only organization devoted full-time to shaping a pro-environment Congress and White House. We run tough and effective campaigns to defeat anti-environment candidates, and support those leaders who stand up for a clean, healthy future for America. Through our National Environmental Scorecard and Presidential Report Card we hold Congress and the Administration accountable for their actions on the environment. Through regional offices, we build coalitions, promote grassroots power, and train the next generation of environmental leaders. The 2003 National Environmental Scorecard provides objective, factual information about the environmental voting records of all Members of the first session of the 108th Congress. This Scorecard represents the consensus of experts from 20 respected environmental and conservation organizations who selected the key votes on which Members of Congress should be graded. LCV scores votes on the most important issues of the year, including environmental health and safety protections, resource conservation, and spending for environmental programs. Scores are calculated by dividing the number of pro-environment votes by the total number of votes scored. The votes included in this Scorecard presented Members of Congress with a real choice on protecting the environment and help distinguish which legislators are working for environmental protection. Except in rare circumstances, the Scorecard excludes consensus action on the environment and issues on which no recorded votes occurred.

EPA must do better on mercury clean-up.

To: Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Dear Administrator Leavitt:

We are writing to urge you to take prompt and effective action to clean up mercury pollution from power plants. The EPA’s current proposals on mercury fall far short of what the law requires, and they fail to protect the health of our children and our environment. We ask you to carry out the requirements of the Clean Air Act to protect our nation from toxic mercury contamination.

On January 30, 2004, EPA proposed two alternative rules to address mercury emissions. Unfortunately, both of these proposals fail to meet the Clean Air Act directives for cleaning up mercury. EPA`s proposals permit far more mercury pollution, and for years longer, than the Clean Air Act allows.

The toxicity of mercury has been proven time and again by scientists around the world. The Agency`s own scientists just released a study finding that approximately 630,000 infants were born in the US in the 12-month period, 1999-2000, with blood mercury levels higher than what is considered safe. This is a doubling of previous estimates.

The newest scientific studies show that controlling mercury emissions works. As we saw in Florida, sharp reductions in mercury pollution are mirrored by reductions in nearby fish populations. A study in northern Wisconsin indicated that reductions in the input of mercury from air corresponded with marked reductions in mercury fish tissue levels in the 1990s.

As the Administrator of the EPA, you have the legal authority and the responsibility to address mercury emissions and protect public health. We do not believe that EPA`s current proposals are sufficient or defensible. We urge you to withdraw the entire proposed rule package and re-propose a rule for adequate public comment that meets the terms of the 1998 settlement agreement and is promulgated by the December 15, 2004 deadline.

Sponsored bill for commission to examine Katrina response.

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: To establish a congressional commission to examine the Federal, State, and local response to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Region, especially in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and other areas impacted in the aftermath, and make immediate corrective measures to improve such responses in the future.

EXCERPTS OF AMENDMENT:

There is established in the legislative branch the Katrina Commission:
• The Commission shall be composed of 10 members, with not more than 5 members from any one political party.
• Individuals appointed should enjoy significant depth of experience in such professions as natural disaster and emergency response experience.
• The duties of the Commission are to ascertain, evaluate, and report on the information developed by all relevant governmental agencies regarding the facts and circumstances related to Hurricane Katrina prior to striking the United States and in the days and weeks following;
• build upon concurrent and prior investigations;
• planning for future cataclysmic events requiring a significant marshaling of Federal resources, mitigation, response, and recovery to avoid significant loss of life;
• an analysis as to whether any decisions differed with respect to response and recovery for different communities, neighborhoods, parishes, and locations and what problems occurred as a result of a lack of a common plan, communication structure, and centralized command structure; and
• make recommendations for immediate corrective measures so that future cataclysmic events are responded to adequately.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Rollcall vote #229; lost 44-54.

Grants for beach water pollution under Clean Water Act.

Beach Protection Act of 2008 - Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (popularly known as the Clean Water Act) to include among eligible grant activities the development and implementation of programs for source tracking, sanitary surveys, and prevention efforts to address the identified sources of beach water pollution. Requires grant recipients to identify:

1. the use of a rapid testing method;
2. measures for communication within 24 hours of the results of a water sample concerning pollutants to specified officials with authority to require the prevention or treatment of the sources of beach water pollution;
3. measures to develop and implement a beach water pollution source identification and tracking program for the coastal recreation waters that are not meeting applicable water quality standards for pathogens; and
4. a publicly accessible and searchable global information system database with information updated within 24 hours of its availability, organized by beach and with defined standards, sampling plan, monitoring protocols, sampling results, and number and cause of beach closing and advisory days.
5. Legislative Outcome: Related bills: H.R.2537, S.1506. Senate Reports: 110-414. Source: Beach Protection Act (S.2844) 08-S2844 on Apr 10, 2008

   Inter-state compact for Great Lakes water resources.

   Stabenow co-sponsored inter-state compact for Great Lakes water resources

   A joint resolution expressing the approval of Congress to an inter-state compact regarding water resources. In the Great Lakes--St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact the Congress finds that:

   • The Waters of the Basin are precious public natural resources shared and held in trust by the States;
   • The Waters of the Basin are interconnected and part of a single hydrologic system;
   • The Waters of the Basin can concurrently serve multiple uses. Such multiple uses include industrial, agriculture, mining, navigation, energy development and production, recreation, and the maintenance of fish and wildlife habitat.
   • Future Diversions and Consumptive Uses of Basin Water resources have the potential to significantly impact the environment and economy.
   • Purposes of the inter-state compact: To act together to protect, conserve, restore, improve and effectively manage the Waters and Water Dependent Natural Resources of the Basin under appropriate arrangements for intergovernmental cooperation and consultation;
   • To remove causes of present and future controversies;
   • To promote interstate and State-Provincial comity; and,
   • To promote an Adaptive Management approach to the conservation and management of Basin Water resources, which provides adjustments for the uncertainties in scientific knowledge concerning the Basin`s Waters and Water Dependent Natural Resources.
   • Legislative Outcome: Passed Senate by Unanimous Consent.
   Source: Great Lakes Water Resources Compact (S.J.RES.45) 08-SJR45 on Jul 23, 2008

   Make tax deduction permanent for conservation easements.

   Stabenow signed H.R.1831 & S.812

   Amends the Internal Revenue Code to make permanent the tax deduction for charitable contributions by individuals and corporations of real property interests for conservation purposes. Known in the Senate as the Rural Heritage Conservation Extension Act of 2009.

   Source: Conservation Easement Incentive Act 09-HR1831 on Mar 31, 2009

   Rated 0% by HSLF, indicating an anti-animal welfare voting record.

   Stabenow scores 0% by the Humane Society on animal rights issues

   112th Mid-Term Humane Scorecard: The Humane Society Legislative Fund has posted the final version of the 2011 Humane Scorecard, where you can track the performance of your federal lawmakers on key animal protection issues during last year. We rated legislators based on their voting behavior on measures such as agribusiness subsidies, lethal predator control, and the Endangered Species Act; their cosponsorship of priority bills on puppy mills, horse slaughter, animal fighting, and chimps in research; their support for funding the enforcement of animal welfare laws; and their leadership on animal protection. All of the priority bills whose cosponsorships we`re counting enjoy strong bipartisan support; in the House, each of the four now has more than 150 cosponsors.

   The Humane Scorecard is not a perfect measuring tool, but creating some reasonable yardstick and allowing citizens to hold lawmakers accountable is central to our work. When the Humane Scorecard comes out each year, it helps clarify how the animal protection movement is doing geographically, by party affiliation, and in other categories. It helps us chart our course for animals by seeing where we have been effective, and where we need to improve.

   Source: HSLF website 12-HumaneS on Jan 13, 2012

   Keep restrictive rules for predator control in Alaska.

   Stabenow voted NAY Disapprove Subsistence Hunting Rule on ANWR

   Library of Congress Summary: This joint resolution nullifies the rule finalized by the Department of the Interior on Aug. 5, 2016, relating to non-subsistence takings of wildlife and public participation and closure procedures on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska.

   Case for voting YES by House Republican Policy Committee: The Fish and Wildlife Service rule--which lays claim to more than 20% of Alaska--violates ANILCA (Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act) and the Alaska Statehood Compact. Not only does [the existing 2016 rule] undermine Alaska`s ability to manage fish and wildlife upon refuge lands, it fundamentally destroys a cooperative relationship between Alaska and the federal government.

   Case for voting NO by the Sierra Club (April 6, 2017):

   • President Trump signed H.J. Res. 69, overturning the rule that banned `predator control` on federal wildlife refuges in Alaska unless `based on sound science in response to a conservation concern.`
   • Any rule mentioning `sound science` is in trouble under a Trump administration.
   • So what kinds of practices will the Trump administration now allow on our federal wildlife refuges? Activities that include shooting or trapping wolves while in their dens with pups, or hunting for grizzly bears from airplanes.
   • It`s all about ensuring a maximum yield of prey species like elk, moose, and caribou for the real apex predator: humans. So if having more elk requires killing wolf pups in their dens, then so be it.
   • The Obama administration`s rule (which Trump revoked) never tried to stop all hunting. Subsistence hunting was still allowed. What`s changed is that the predators on federal wildlife refuges are now under the control of the state of Alaska. And that makes them prey.
   Legislative outcome: Passed Senate, 52-47-1, March 21; passed House, 225-193-12, Feb. 16; signed by Pres. Trump April 3. Source: Congressional vote 18-HJR69 on Feb 16, 2017

   Strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting.

   Stabenow co-sponsored strengthening prohibitions against animal fighting

   Sen. CANTWELL. I reintroduce today the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007. This legislation has won the unanimous approval of the Senate several times, but unfortunately has not yet reached the finish line.

   There is no doubt, animal fighting is terribly cruel. Dogs and roosters are drugged to make them hyper-aggressive and forced to keep fighting even after suffering severe injuries such as punctured eyes and pierced lungs. It`s all done for `entertainment` and illegal gambling. Some dogfighters steal pets to use as bait for training their dogs, while others allow trained fighting dogs to roam neighborhoods and endanger the public.

   The Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act will strengthen current law by making the interstate transport of animals for the purpose of fighting a felony and increase the punishment to three years of jail time. This is necessary because the current misdemeanor penalty has proven ineffective--considered a `cost of doing business` by those in the animal fighting industry which continues unabated nationwide.

   These enterprises depend on interstate commerce, as evidenced by the animal fighting magazines that advertise and promote them. Our bill also makes it a felony to move cockfighting implements in interstate or foreign commerce. These are razor-sharp knives known as `slashers` and ice pick-like gaffs designed exclusively for cockfights and attached to the birds` legs for fighting.

   This is long overdue legislation. It`s time to get this felony animal fighting language enacted. It`s time for Congress to strengthen the federal law so that it can provide as a meaningful deterrent against animal fighting. Our legislation does not expand the federal government`s reach into a new area, but simply aims to make current law more effective. It is explicitly limited to interstate and foreign commerce, so it protects states` rights in the two states where cockfighting is still allowed.

   Source: Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act (S.261/H.R.137) 2007-S261 on Jan 4, 2007

   Click here for definitions & background information on Environment. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of Debbie Stabenow. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of Debbie Stabenow. Click here for SenateMatch quiz answers by Debbie Stabenow. Click here for a summary of Debbie Stabenow's positions on all issues. Click here for issue positions of other MI politicians. Click here for issue statements from MI primary archives. Click here for issue statements from MI secondary archives.
   Other candidates on Environment:		Debbie Stabenow on other issues:
   [Title7] MI politicians MI Archives	Senate races 2024: AZ: Kyrsten Sinema(I,incumbent) vs.Ruben Gallego(D) vs.Kari Lake(R) vs.Mark Lamb(R) CA: Laphonza Butler(D,retiring) vs.Gail Lightfoot(L) vs.Steve Garvey(R) vs.Barbara Lee(D) vs.Katie Porter(D) vs.Adam Schiff(D) CT: Chris Murphy(D,incumbent) vs.Robert Hyde(R) DE: Tom Carper(D,retiring) vs.Eric Hansen(R) vs.Michael Katz(I) vs.Lisa Blunt Rochester(D) FL: Rick Scott(R,incumbent) vs.Debbie Mucarsel-Powell(D) HI: Mazie Hirono(D,incumbent) vs.Bob McDermott(R) IN: Mike Braun(R,retiring) vs.Marc Carmichael(D) vs.Jim Banks(R) MA: Elizabeth Warren(D,incumbent) vs.Shiva Ayyadurai(R) vs.John Deaton(R) MD: Ben Cardin(D,retiring) vs.Larry Hogan(R) vs.Robin Ficker(R) vs.Angela Alsobrooks(D) vs.David Trone(D) ME: Angus King(I,incumbent) vs.Demi Kouzounas(R) vs.David Costello(D) MI: Debbie Stabenow(D,retiring) vs.Leslie Love(D) vs.Peter Meijer(R) vs.James Craig(R) vs.Mike Rogers(R) vs.Elissa Slotkin(D) MN: Amy Klobuchar(DFL,incumbent) vs.Royce White(R) vs.Steve Carlson(DFL) MO: Josh Hawley(R,incumbent) vs.Karla May(D) vs.Lucas Kunce(D) MS: Roger Wicker(R,incumbent) vs.Dan Eubanks(R) vs.Ty Pinkins(D) MT: Jon Tester(D,incumbent) vs.Tim Sheehy(R) vs.Brad Johnson(R,lost primary) ND: Kevin Cramer(R,incumbent) vs.Katrina Christiansen(D)	NE: Peter Ricketts(R,incumbent,2-year seat) vs.Preston Love(D) Deb Fischer(D,incumbent,6-year seat) vs.Dan Osborn(I) NJ: Bob Menendez(I,incumbent) vs.Andy Kim(D) vs.Curtis Bashaw(R) vs.Tammy Murphy(D,withdrew) NM: Martin Heinrich(D,incumbent) vs.Nella Domenici(R) NV: Jacky Rosen(D,incumbent) vs.Jim Marchant (R) vs.Sam Brown(R) NY: Kirsten Gillibrand(D,incumbent) vs.Mike Sapraicone(R) vs.Josh Eisen(R,withdrew May 1) OH: Sherrod Brown(D,incumbent) vs.Frank LaRose(R) vs.Bernie Moreno(R) PA: Bob Casey(D,incumbent) vs.David McCormick(R) RI: Sheldon Whitehouse(D,incumbent) vs.Patricia Morgan(R) vs.Allen Waters(R,withdrew) TN: Marsha Blackburn(R,incumbent) vs.Gloria Johnson(D) vs.Marquita Bradshaw(D) TX: Ted Cruz(R,incumbent) vs.Colin Allred(D) vs.Roland Gutierrez(D,lost primary) vs.Carl Sherman(D,lost primary) UT: Mitt Romney(R,retiring) vs.John Curtis(R) vs.Trent Staggs(R) vs.Brad Wilson(R) vs.Caroline Gleich(D) VA: Tim Kaine(D,incumbent) vs.Scott Parkinson(R) VT: Bernie Sanders(I,incumbent) vs.Gerald Malloy(R) WA: Maria Cantwell(D,incumbent) vs.Raul Garcia(R) WI: Tammy Baldwin(D,incumbent) vs.Eric Hovde(R) vs.Phil Anderson(L) WV: Joe Manchin III(D,retiring) vs.Don Blankenship(D) vs.Jim Justice(R) vs.Alex Mooney(R) vs.Glenn Elliott(D) WY: John Barrasso(R,incumbent) vs.Reid Rasner(R) vs.Scott Morrow(D)	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles Social Security Tax Reform Technology War/Peace Welfare Other Senators Senate Votes (analysis) Bill Sponsorships Affiliations Policy Reports Group Ratings
   [Title9]

   
   
   
   
   
   Page last updated: Jun 09, 2024; copyright 1999-2022 Jesse Gordon and OnTheIssues.org