Stabenow, D Sen

---

an common dr 5 24

echoing early May criticism of U.S. House Republicans' blueprint for the next Farm Bill, anti-hunger and green groups on Friday fiercely condemned the GOP's discussion draft text of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024.

Released by U.S. House Committee on Agriculture Chair Glenn "GT" Thompson (R-Pa.), the draft is competing with a Democratic proposal—Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow's (D-Mich.) Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act.

While Thomspon claimed that his bill "is the product of extensive feedback from stakeholders and all members of the House, and is responsive to the needs of farm country through the incorporation of hundreds of bipartisan policies," Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.), the panel's ranking member, said that the draft "confirms my worst fears."

"House Republicans plan to pay for the farm bill by taking food out of the mouths of America's hungry children, restricting farmers from receiving the climate-smart conservation funding they so desperately need, and barring the USDA from providing financial assistance to farmers in times of crisis," he warned, referring to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The economic impact of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) cuts alone "would be staggering," Scott emphasized. "A $27 billion reduction in food purchasing power would not only increase hunger, but it would also reduce demand for jobs in the agriculture, transportation, manufacturing, and grocery sectors."

Leaders at advocacy groups on Friday similarly slammed the Republican bill. Ty Jones Cox, vice president for food assistance at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, reiterated her previous condemnation of GOP attempts to cut the benefits of hungry families, saying that "this is unacceptable; Congress should reject it."

"Every SNAP participant would receive less to buy groceries in future years than they would under current law, putting a healthy diet out of reach for millions of people. This would be the largest cut to SNAP since 1996 if enacted and these cuts would grow even deeper over time," Jones Cox explained, debunking Thompson's description of the changes.

"And the cut to future SNAP benefits isn't the only harmful policy in this bill. For example, it would allow states to outsource SNAP administration to private contractors. But prior privatization efforts delayed benefits for people in need, worsened errors, and increased costs," she continued. "Congress should reject Chair Thompson's harmful proposal and instead work to pass a farm bill that truly protects and strengthens SNAP." Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, executive director and CEO of MomsRising, argued that "at this time when skyrocketing food prices have increased hunger and food insecurity, forcing tens of millions of U.S. families to make impossible choices between food and other essentials, it would be mean-spirited and shameful for Congress to cut the SNAP benefits moms and families rely on; and it also would be damaging to our economy."

Describing the benefits, formerly called food stamps, as "the nation's first line of defense against hunger," Rowe-Finkbeiner highlighted that "more than 42 million people count on SNAP benefits each month and nearly four in five of them are children, seniors, people with disabilities, or veterans."

"In contrast, the bipartisan Senate Farm Bill—the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act—aids farmers and treats hunger in America as the emergency it is," she noted. "It is a bold bill that would protect SNAP benefits and increase access to this essential program for groups that have long been excluded, reducing barriers to participation for older adults, military families, some college students, and others. It is an easy choice. Without question, the Senate Farm Bill is the version that should become law." The GOP's efforts to restrict food assistance aren't limited to the United States, as Gina Cummings, Oxfam vice president for advocacy, alliances, and policy, pointed out Friday, declaring that "at a time when over 281 million people are suffering from acute hunger, any proposal to undercut crucial international food assistance programs is damaging."

As Cummings detailed:

The resilience-building programs housed in Food for Peace are vital to preparing frontline communities for future shocks that could impact their food security—whether it be from climate change, conflict, or economic downturns.

Oxfam has raised concerns about the American Farmers Feed the World Act, which is where many of the cuts to Food for Peace originate from—since its introduction last summer. The bill has proposed gutting funding for resilience-building activities that ensure communities can build up their local markets, withstand the next drought, flood, or conflict, and not go hungry. The House Farm Bill as it is currently written includes some of the most concerning provisions of the bill and would render these vital interventions inoperable, resulting in as many as 3 million fewer people being reached by these programs based on their current scale.

The House must reject the provisions of the American Farmers Feed the World Act included in the House Farm Bill draft as the bill goes for markup. The inclusion of such provisions is a threat to global food security and a shift towards a less-efficient model of international aid by the United States.

The AFL-CIO said on social media that it "strongly opposes" the Republican proposal, adding: "Families rely on Food for Peace—and also SNAP, SNAP's Thrifty Food Plan, and other federal nutrition and food security programs. We cannot support making harmful policy changes or funding cuts to any of them."

In addition to calling out the GOP for trying to leave more people hungry, advocates denounced Republican efforts to gut climate-friendly requirements from the Inflation Reduction Act and enact the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act.

"The Farm Bill is a seminal opportunity to reform our food and agriculture sector away from factory farms and corporate greed," said Food & Water Watch managing director of policy and litigation Mitch Jones. "Instead, House Republicans want to double down."

"Some of leadership's more dangerous proposals would take us backwards on animal welfare, and climate-smart agriculture—both the EATS Act and support for factory farm biogas must be dead on arrival," he asserted. "It's time Congress put the culture wars aside and got back to work on a Farm Bill that puts consumers, farmers, and the environment above politicking and Big Ag handouts." Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said that "weakening safeguards that protect people from pesticides, slashing protections for endangered species, and recklessly expanding industrial logging should have no place in the Farm Bill."

"It's unfortunate that chairman Thompson has put forward such a destructive farm bill to appease the most fringe members of Congress," Hartl added. "This bill can't pass the House and it's a waste of everyone's time."

In a joint statement released Friday after a meeting with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Democrats on Thompson's panel, Scott and Statenow stressed that members of their party are "committed to passing a strong, bipartisan Farm Bill that strengthens the farm and family safety nets and invests in our rural communities."

"America's farmers, families, workers, and rural communities deserve the certainty of a five-year Farm Bill, and everyone knows it must be bipartisan to pass," the pair said, blasting divisive GOP proposals. "Democrats remain ready and willing to work with Republicans on a truly bipartisan Farm Bill to keep farmers farming, families fed, and rural communities strong."

==

==

6 22

a deal between Democratic and Republican committee leaders would help school meal providers facing higher food costs as well as ease a transition from federal government policies that provided universal free meals to many children during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Senate Agriculture Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., and ranking member John Boozman, R-Ark., and House Education and Labor Chairman Robert C. Scott, D-Va., and ranking member Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., announced an agreement and legislation that would provide higher lunch and breakfast per-meal reimbursements for the 2022-23 school year.

The bill would provide 40 cents in federal reimbursement per lunch and 15 cents in reimbursement per breakfast meal above the annual adjustment for inflation. The next adjustment is July 1.

The two committees have jurisdiction over child nutrition programs, including the national school lunch and breakfast programs. To pay for the policies, more than $3 billion would be rescinded from three pandemic relief bills.

Foxx said the deal balanced costs and needs to “uphold our responsibility to taxpayers and abide by the principle that aid should be targeted and temporary while also helping students truly in need.”...

http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/30/senate-dark-act-gmo-label/

Despite Vermont’s historic GMO labeling bill coming into effect July 1, Senate Agriculture Committee chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and ranking member Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) are vigorously lobbying to get their industry-approved GMO labeling deal passed before Congress’s summer break.

img

According to POLITICO’s Morning Agriculture blog, the Senate Ag leaders are using “every part of the lobbying playbook,” with “letters being sent, staffs briefed, reports and FDA assessments flaunted, and farmers and consumers are being encouraged to inundate lawmakers with phone calls.”

Roberts has been reportedly distributing a flier touting that the bill will nullify the “dangerous”Vermont law and stop other states from passing similar legislation.

img

Even though Vermont’s mandate comes into effect Friday, the Senators’s bill still has a small window of passage as Vermont’s attorney general will not start forcing producers to label their food products containing genetically engineered ingredients until the start of 2017.

A confident Stabenow told POLITICO that enough votes will be secured for the deal to move forward, while Roberts said, “We had 46 [Republicans] last time, and we’re hoping to get a few more.” Last March, the Senate voted down Roberts’s previous bill that would have prohibited states from requiring genetically modified food labels. The bill required 60 votes for passage but failed 48-49.

Roberts said his latest GMO bill will be the first order of business next week and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will set up a cloture vote, according to this tweet from Agripulse senior editor Philip Brasher....

Environmental policy experts say the GOP opposition stems from concerns that the Democratic administration is enforcing regulations more strictly than the George W. Bush administration did. The pushback against the EPA also can be seen in the ongoing fight by lawmakers over greenhouse gas emissions. In April, the GOP-controlled House passed a measure that would bar the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases, a day after the Senate defeated the measure.

A group of Republican senators — led by Pat Roberts of Kansas and including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Thad Cochran of Mississippi — recently sent a letter to Sen. Deborah Stabenow, D-Mich., the chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, calling on her to bring up the Senate version of the pesticide regulation bill.

"We write to address the continued regulatory overreach by the Environmental Protection Agency that is a growing concern of farmers, ranchers, foresters and agribusinesses throughout the nation," the Republican senators wrote. "Agriculture producers, forestry interests, public health officials, states, municipalities and other impacted stakeholders have told us they are in imminent need of certainty for what may be required of them in the near future. State and local officials have made clear that this is not merely a regulatory burden but could endanger public health as we enter mosquito season."

http://www.alternet.org/environment/senates-first-biotech-hearing-decade-was-lopsided-pro-industry-affair

...

Central to the hearing is the the issue of labeling food products containing GE crops. Senator Stabenow called for the adoption of legislation on GE food labeling, presumably with language that will preempt the authority of states to adopt more stringent labeling standards. Senator Stabenow said that she wants labeling that “doesn’t stigmatize biotechnology.” The GE food industry is urging Congress to act to override state labeling before the Vermont label lawgoes into effect in July 2016.

RELATED: How Monsanto Solicited Academics to Bolster Their Pro-GMO Propaganda — Using Taxpayer Dollars

The committee heard government and industry witnesses on the federal regulation of agriculture biotechnology, with limited input from consumer critics. Two panels (one representing agencies, the other industry) received questions from the 20 committee members on GE crops, biotechnology, ad labeling. The agency panel represented “business as usual,” discussing administrative procedures at length, while the industry panel stressed the science of GE. The Just Label It group, a coalition of organizations advancing labeling, called for the public’s right to know. Environmental groups not invited to testify criticized the lopsided hearing and the government’s opposition to GE labeling of food.

While Senators spent two of the three hours questioning agency officials on their regulatory procedures of GE crops and biotechnology, no answers were given that address scientific studies needed to ensure their safety. When asked by Senator John Hoeven (R-ND) if there was anything that made GE crops harmful to the environment, all of the members of the regulatory panel said “no,” despite impacts of GE crop production on the environment, reliance on hazardous weed killers in herbicide-tolerant crops, and the associated decline of monarch butterflies.

EPA’s Office of Pesticide Program indicated that it registers “plant incorporated protectants” (PIPs) in 86 GE crops and acknowledged pest resistance problems. Insects that are the target of the engineered plant, incorporated with a pesticide, develop resistance, putting farmers’ crops at risk because of their dependency on the technology. Organic agriculture identifies genetic engineering as an “excluded method” and prohibits its use in certified organic production.

As the GE technology advances, farmers are increasingly threatened with crop loss, as was the argument made by Texas cotton farmers last year when 3 million acres of GE cotton was threatened by weed resistance to Monsanto’s herbicide-tolerant Roundup. The state of Texas, on behalf of the farmers, requested that EPA allow the use of a triazine herbicide not registered for use on cotton under an emergency exemption (Section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act), but EPA denied the request because it said that exposure to triazines, linked to hermaphroditism in frogs, “already show[s] unacceptable risk levels.”

RELATED: Orwellian Nightmare: Congress May Block States from Requiring GMO Labeling

In 2012, Washington State University researcher Charles Benbrook, Ph.D. found that the use of herbicides in the production of three genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant crops (cotton, soybeans and corn) has increased, contrary to industry claims that biotechnology will reduce pesticide applications. According to a series of studies in the journal *Weed Science*, at least 21 different species of weeds Monsanto’s “Roundup-Ready” crops, which leads to an increased pesticide use to try to combat resistance, escalating the pesticide treadmill effect. The latest herbicide tolerant GE corn and soybean plants are engineered to be used with the herbicide 2,4-D, one-half of the mixture of Agent Orange and linked to non Hodgkins lymphoma. Experts expect increased public exposure to 2,4-D through the food supply and in the environment, leading to weed resistance.

At the Agriculture Committee hearing, the first panel included of officials from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Center for Food Safety and FDA’s Director of Applied Nutrition, Susan Mayne, Ph.D., took opposing positions on GE labeling with the government witness arguing that mandatory labeling is unnecessary because the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) does not recognize a “material” difference between GE and conventional crops. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), a long-time member of the committee, cited the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s interpretation of GE crops as “novel for patent purposes” and asked the panel why agencies were in disagreement about the differences between GE and conventional crops. Dr. Mayne responded that, if there were a material difference in the food safety and nutrition between GE and conventional crops, FDA would support labeling.

The second panel consisted of five members of the agricultural, production, and consumer industry. Joanna Lidback, producer and farmer from the Farm at Wheeler Mountain, voiced her concerns about the costs associated with GE crops used to feed her dairy cows. She calculated an increase of $48,000 per year on her farm if GE feed was ever banned, but no calculations for the costs of the proposed GE label. With economic hardships in mind, organic farmers are threatened with adverse economic impact due to the contamination from GE pollen drifting onto their crops. Organic farmers also report losses due to a need to establish buffer zones.

In opposing labeling Daryl Thomas, Senior Vice President of Herr Foods, Inc., stated, “Mandatory labels on food products are reserved for critical information about nutrition and safety. GMO ingredients don’t change the nutritional profile or safety of our products.”

...

==

==

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) is using the budget amendment vote-a-rama to troll Sen. Tom Cotton with an amendment that would:

[E]stablish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to probability the purchase of stationary [sic] or electronic devices for the purpose of members of Congress or congressional staff communicating with foreign governments and undermining the role of the President as Head of State in international nuclear negotiations on behalf of the United States.

Well, that's pretty specific. It's also a fun reminder for those vulnerable Republicans who signed on to Cotton's letter to Iran's leaders trying to scuttle nuclear negotiations that they're a bunch of idiots who will continue to regret having anything to do with Cotton, much less signing onto his letters.

It's unlikely to pass, and wouldn't be binding anyway, since the budget is a blueprint rather than actual law. But, hey, might as well get Republicans on the record about whether they agree that they should be able to undermine the nation's foreign policy.

==

No matter how you slice the information on the congressional disclosure forms for Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), for instance, her net worth is below zero. Her maximum net worth is a negative $15,000, while her minimum net worth is a negative $50,000.

Debbie Stabenow, a Democrat, is the junior Senator from Michigan since 2001.

Record and controversies

General information about important bills and votes for can be found in Congresspedia's articles on legislation. You can add information you find on how Debbie Stabenow voted by clicking the "[edit]" link to the right and typing it in. Remember to cite your sources!

Iraq War

Stabenow voted against the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq in Oct. 2002.

For more information see the chart of U.S. Senate votes on the Iraq War.

Indian casino

In 2002, Stabenow introduced S. 2986, a bill designed to allow the Bay Mills Indian Community (Brimley, Mich.) tribe to develop a casino off-reservation almost 350 miles away in Port Huron, Mich. In 1996, the Bay Mills Indians made claims to lands in Michigan including more than 100 acres in the Charlotte Beach area on Michigan's Upper Peninsula. (Bay Mills Tribal Leader Jeff Parker gave a good account of this at a House Resources Committee Hearing)[1] The Bay Mills claims were rejected by both state and federal courts at the time on administrative grounds and have never been officially heard or validated. Nevertheless, then Michigan Gov. John Engler entered into a settlement agreement with the Tribe in which it would agree to extinguish claims to the Charlotte Beach lands in exchange for the right to build a casino in Port Huron. [2] Michigan casino syndicates Marian Ilitch and Michael J. Malik, Sr. bankrolled the tribe’s pursuits. According to records on file with the Federal Election Commission, Ilitch Family members and Malik contributed more than $113,000 toward Stabenow's 2006 re-election -- significantly more than they gave to any other federal candidate in either the 2004 or 2006 federal election cycles. Neither Ilitch nor Malik contributed to Stabenow’s previous campaigns.[3]

Bio

Background

Deborah Ann Stabenow was born April 29, 1950 in Gladwin, Michigan and grew up in Clare, Michigan. She received a Bachelor of Arts from Michigan State University in 1972 and an M.S.W. magna cum laude from Michigan State University in 1975. While in graduate school, Stabenow won her first election, to the Ingham County Board of Commissioners, a position in which she served from 1975-1978. She has also worked as a social worker, and a leadership training consultant. She served in the Michigan State House of Representatives from 1979-1990, where she became the first woman to preside over the House. She also served in the State Senate from 1991-1994. She was elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1996 from Michigan's Eighth District and served two terms.

Congressional career

She did not seek reelection to the House of Representatives in 2000, but was elected to the U.S. Senate. She defeated the Republican incumbent, Senator Spencer Abraham (whom George W. Bush later named Secretary of Energy). She was the first woman from Michigan elected to the U.S. Senate, and along with Washington's Maria Cantwell, the first woman to defeat an incumbent senator. Stabenow was considered the underdog for much of the Senate race, but rallied in the final weeks of the campaign to unseat Abraham by a narrow margin. Abraham's wife Jane was rumored to be a Republican candidate for Stabenow's 2006 reelection, but opted out of the race.

Stabenow became the third-ranking Democrat in the U.S. Senate on November 16, 2004, when she was elected by her colleagues to be secretary of the Democratic caucus. As caucus secretary, she assists Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, to set the Democrats' agenda and priorities. Reid was elected to replace Minority Leader Tom Daschle, who lost a re-election bid in South Dakota.

2006 elections

In 2006, the Republicans nominated Michael J. Bouchard to face Stabenow in her November 2006 bid for reelection. (See U.S. congressional elections in 2006) [4] Stabenow retained her seat. Following the elections, she was named chairperson of the Democratic Steering Committee for the 110th Congress.

Money in politics

This section contains links to – and feeds from – money in politics databases. cid=N00004118&cycle=2006

• Revolving door profile for Debbie Stabenow from the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org website.
• 2006 privately funded travel profile for Debbie Stabenow from the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org website.
• Personal finance profile for Debbie Stabenow from the Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org website.

Committees and affiliations

Committees

• Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
  • Subcommittee on Nutrition and Food Assistance, Sustainable and Organic Agriculture, and General Legislation
  • Subcommittee on Domestic & Foreign Marketing, Inspection, & Plant & Animal Health
  • Subcommittee on Rural Revitalization, Conservation, Forestry and Credit - Chairman

• Senate Committee on Finance
• Senate Committee on the Budget

Committee assignments in the 109th Congress (2005-2006)

• Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
  • Subcommittee on Marketing Inspection and Production Promotion
  • Subcommittee on Research Nutrition and General Legislation

• Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
  • Subcommittee on Financial Institutions
  • Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation
  • Subcommittee on Securities and Investment

• Senate Committee on the Budget

Coalitions and caucuses

• Senate Auto Caucus
• Democratic Economic Security Task Force
• Steering Committee
• Senate Centrist Coalition
• Secretary, Senate Democratic Conference
• Senate New Democrat Coalition

Boards and other affiliations

• Member, Grace United Methodist Church

More Background Data

• Background information on Debbie Stabenow from Project Vote Smart

• Interest group scorecard ratings for Debbie Stabenow from Project Vote Smart

• Voting record for Debbie Stabenow from the Washington Post database

• Information on Debbie Stabenow from Congress Merge

Wikipedia also has an article on Debbie Stabenow. This article may use content from the Wikipedia article under the terms of the GFDL.

Sector Totals

http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/stabenow-criticizes-tea-party-but-says-farm-bill-is-on-track/

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mercury_and_coal

Pro-life evangelical group calls for mercury regulations

In 2011, the Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN) began airing 60-second radio commercial urging U.S. Sens. Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow to embrace new EPA rules aimed at reducing mercury emissions from power plants. In the radio ads, Rev. Tracey Bianchi, an evangelical pastor and mother from suburban Chicago, argues mercury poisoning is a pro-life issue because it can cause permanent brain damage and developmental disabilities in the unborn. The campaign also includes billboards in Arizona, Pennsylvania and Ohio and emails to nearly 10 million evangelicals and Catholics. "One in every six babies in the U.S. are born with harmful mercury levels in their blood," said the Rev. Mitch Hescox, EEN president.^[9]

farm bill: I always expect the worst from the House Republicans when it comes to SNAP (food stamps) and the Farm Bill. So while much attention and anger has been focused on the $20.5 billion cut proposed by the House Agriculture Committee — which would take food stamps away from nearly 2 million people and result in several hundred thousand low-income children no longer receiving free school meals — my reaction was more along the lines of… yeah, what did you expect?

I was actually more disturbed that the Democratic Senate Agriculture Committee would vote for a $4.1 billion cut in food stamps — even though the average benefit is about $1.46 per person, per meal, and a recent Institute of Medicine report demonstrates that benefit levels are already too low to stave off hunger. The cut “would mean $90 less a month for 500,000 families already struggling to make ends meet,” according to Joel Berg, executive director of the New York City Coalition Against Hunger. Berg noted that an amendment by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand would have prevented the SNAP cuts “by instead cutting subsidies for crop insurance companies, many of which are foreign owned.” 

Unfortunately, the committee failed to pass Sen. Gillibrand’s amendment, and Senate Democrats proved yet again that the party’s commitment to those who are the most economically vulnerable is about as thin as Republican cut proposals are deep.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) has joined the pro-polluter frenzy sweeping the U.S. Senate, introducing legislation to permanently cripple Clean Air Act rules on global warming pollution. The small business legislation, the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011 (S. 493), introduced by Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), is being used as a vehicle for senators who wish to prevent regulation of greenhouse pollution from oil refineries, coal-fired power plants, heavy industry, and other major emitters. Stabenow has added her amendment to three others intended to hamstring the Environmental Protection Agency on behalf of carbon polluters.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has introduced amendment 183 [PDF], the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, first introduced by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.). The amendment is cosponsored by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), and Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.). The amendment calls for:

• The permanent prohibition on Clean Air Act regulation of greenhouse gases, other than the existing motor vehicle rules
• Repeal of the greenhouse gas endangerment finding and reporting requirements
• Preventing any future California waiver for tailpipe greenhouse emissions

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) has introduced amendment 215 [PDF], the EPA Stationary Source Regulations Suspension Act, cosponsored by Sens. Jim Webb (D-Va.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), and Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). The amendment calls for:

• A two-year suspension of stationary source regulations of carbon dioxide and methane.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) has introduced amendment 236 [PDF], which has three elements:

• Forbidding regulation of greenhouse gases from a emitter that doesn't also produce other regulated air pollution
• Codification of the EPA tailoring rule that establishes a 75,000 ton CO2e/year threshold for regulation
• Excluding regulation of biofuel greenhouse emissions related to land-use changes, or of any greenhouse emissions from other agricultural activities

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) has introduced amendment 265 [PDF], which has four elements:

• A two-year suspension of stationary source greenhouse gas regulations
• Preventing any future California waiver for tailpipe greenhouse emissions
• Excluding regulation of biofuel greenhouse emissions related to land-use changes, or of any greenhouse emissions from other agricultural activities
• Allocating $5 billion to the Advanced Energy Project tax credit

Votes on some combination of these amendments is expected as early as Thursday afternoon.