Scorecard Links
Introduction | How the Votes are Scored | Key House Votes | Key Senate Votes
FL Delegation | GA Delegation | NC Delegation | SC Delegation | TN Delegation
Key Senate Votes
Tax Credits for Clean, Renewable EnergyVote #1:
Although a broad coalition of businesses, investors and non-profits urged an extension of renewable energy tax credits as part of the 2007 Energy Bill, Congress failed to include that critical measure in December 2007. In the 110th Congress’ second session, the Senate attempted to extend these soon-to-expire tax credits on multiple occasions. In February, Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced an amendment (S.Amdt. 3983) to a housing bill (H.R. 5140) for tax credits that supported research, investments in solar and fuel cells and extended production tax credits for wind and other renewable energy sources. The Senate failed to pass the amendment on February 6 by a vote of 58 to 41 (Senate Roll Call vote #8) as a two-thirds majority was required to end debate and hold an ‘up or down’ vote. YES was the clean energy vote.
Vote #2:
Later that summer, Sen. Baucus (D-MT) introduced legislation, S. 3335 - Jobs, Energy, Families, and Disaster Relief Act of 2008, which included measures considered by the Senate before as well as new provisions for new clean energy technologies such as marine and hydrokientic. On July 30, the motion failed in the Senate by a vote of 51 to 43 (Senate Roll Call vote #192) as a two-thirds majority was required. YES was the clean energy votes. [These tax credits were finally extended on October 1, as a small part of the $700 billion dollar “Financial Bailout Bill,” through the Dodd Amdt. to H.R. 2095 (Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (Senate Roll Call vote #210).]
Energy Efficiency & Clean Energy
Vote #3:
The sudden financial sector crash and subsequent volatility in stock markets led Congress to draft an emergency supplemental appropriations package (S. 3604) to support economic recovery for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008. This legislation would have included provisions to extend the oil shale moratorium in western states while investing in clean energy and energy efficiency, hybrids, home weatherization and public transport throughout the country. On September 26, the Senate rejected the legislation by a vote of 52 to 42 (Senate Roll Call vote #206) as a two-thirds majority was required. YES was the clean energy vote.
Vote #4:
Increasingly higher energy prices have a disproportionate affect on low-income families, small businesses and any operating on set budgets. In anticipation of high winter heating bills, Sen. Sanders (I-VT) introduced S. 3186 to provide $2.5 billion in emergency spending for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). These funds would have simultaneously helped alleviate high-energy costs while providing resources to insulate and weatherize homes to reduce energy consumption moving forward. On July 26, the Senate rejected this motion by a vote of 50 to 35 (Senate Roll Call vote #187) as a two-thirds majority was required. YES was the clean energy vote.
Global Warming
Votes #5 & #6:
Global warming is causing some of the greatest challenges ever faced by humankind, threatening our environment, our health, our economy and our national security. Our society’s addiction to fossil fuels has resulted in increasing levels global warming pollution for the planet, greater energy insecurity for our nation and higher energy costs for our citizens and energy consumers. In June, the Senate considered S. 3036, the Climate Security Act, introduced by Sens. Lieberman (I-CT) and Warner (R-VA), and the accompanying manager’s amdt. [Boxer] S. 4825. Although this legislation would have been a first step in reducing global warming pollution in the United States [17-19% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 57-63% below 2005 levels by 2050] while diversifying America’s energy sources, it would have fallen short of reductions scientists say are necessary (25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020) to avert the worst impacts of global warming that include increasing hurricane intensity, forest fire frequency, storms and sea level rise.
After the legislation was offered on June 2, the Senate agreed to a Motion to Proceed for a debate by a vote of 74 to 14 (Senate Roll Call vote #141). YES was the pro-global warming action vote. However, and despite bi-partisan support from the original co-sponsors, the Senate failed to gain enough support to pass the measure and rejected the bill on June 6 by a vote of 48 to 36 (Senate Roll Call vote #145). YES was the pro-global warming action vote. [Note: Six senators not present for this vote issued statements of support for this legislation, bringing the unofficial total of senators supporting a comprehensive climate policy to 54.]
High Carbon Fuels
Vote #7:
While the Senate was considering the National Flood Insurance and Modernization Act (S.2284) in the spring, Sen. McConnell (R-KY) introduced an amendment (S. Amdt. 4720) that would have encouraged further development of a range of high-carbon energy options: opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’s coastal plain to oil drilling, permitting oil and gas development along the Outer Continental Shelf, encouraging coal-to-liquid technologies and facilitating oil shale mining in public lands in the Western US. On May 13, the Senate rejected the amendment by a vote of 42 to 56 (Senate Roll Call Vote #123). NO was the clean energy vote.
Vote #8:
Since 1981, a federal moratorium has protected our offshore coastal waters from environmentally destructive drilling. However, during Senate debate on the 2009 fiscal year budget, Sen. Vitter (R-LA) introduced a Motion to Instruct Conferees (S. Con. Res. 70) that sought to expand drilling in offshore coastal waters by delegating the decision to governors and state legislatures. On May 24, the Senate rejected the motion by a vote of 44 to 51 (Senate Roll Call Vote #134). NO was the clean energy vote.