Heidi Heitkamp on Environment

LCV lifetime rating 52%

Farm bill is needed and is blocked by partisanship

"When we talk about gridlock, the gridlock we got was within the Republican Party," Heitkamp said. "You cannot look at any kind of activity that you had on the farm bill and claim any amount of success."

Berg said he has pushed repeatedly for a pre-election vote, including supporting a "discharge petition" that would compel a floor vote on the legislation. House Republican leaders have promised to have a vote on the farm bill by year's end, Berg added.

The farm bill includes money for a host of agricultural programs ranging from crop insurance to soil conservation, but the largest chunk of money, roughly 80%, is for food stamps

Protect North Dakota farm subsidies from Washington insiders

In most ads, Heitkamp is hammered as a stooge for President Barack Obama and Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who are portrayed as enemies of oil exploration and coal mining, which are significant industries in North Dakota.

Anti-Berg ads accuse him of wanting to cut spending on Medicare and farm subsidies, and claim that Berg has "gone Washington," a gibe the incumbent Republican congressman himself used against Earl Pomeroy in 2010.

Make responsible cuts in farm bill, except crop insurance

Heitkamp: "When I travel around the state talking to farmers and commodity groups, what I hear is that people understand it's time to make some responsible cuts in the farm bill, but that crop insurance is a key part of the safety net we need to protect and preserve. I will work to protect and preserve the crop insurance program that our farm community depends on."

Berg: "Crop insurance is the No. 1 priority for our farm program. Agriculture is a bright spot in our country right now, one that is creating jobs and new revenue. As a policy-making body, we need to encourage agriculture rather than put up barriers for its growth."

Sponsored no permits for legal pesticide runoff into lakes & streams.

Congressional Summary:Amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA) to prohibit the EPA or a state from requiring a permit for a discharge into navigable waters of a pesticide authorized under FIFRA. Excepts stormwater discharges and discharges of manufacturing or industrial effluent.

Proponent`s argument for bill:(Blue Ridge Times-News, April 2013): Sen. Kay Hagan announced a bill to eliminate a `redundant and burdensome` requirement that 365,000 pesticide users get a CWA permit before spraying in or near lakes and streams. Farmers and other chemical users already have to meet stringent requirements for pesticide application under FIFRA, Hagan said, and the CWA permit only adds a duplicative, unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. Hagan said the `overlapping regulations` have also forced some municipalities to cut down on spraying for mosquitoes `because they don`t have the manpower (to deal with the extra red tape), and they fear lawsuits.`

Opponent`s argument against bill: (Oregon Sierra Club newsletter Dec. 2012): Rachel Carson`s `Silent Spring` turned 50 this fall: it catalyzed the environmental movement [by focusing on pesticides like DDT]. Today we still face the issues she outlined in Silent Spring. Pesticide law and regulation in the US is a case study in corporate capture: beholden to the farm lobby in Congress, all the way back to the 1947 formation of FIFRA.

FACT: From 1988 to 1995, more than 65 bills were introduced in Congress to tighten pesticide regulations. None of them passed.

FACT: In the late 1990s, two separate investigations revealed that more than half of all former top-level pesticide regulators at the EPA subsequently went to work for, or were paid by, pesticide and chemical industry interests actively involved in fighting EPA efforts to protect the public from pesticides.

Keep restrictive rules for predator control in Alaska.

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.