Jeanne Shaheen on Environment Democrat Sr Senator; previously Governor

Coastal New Hampshire at risk from climate change

Coastal New Hampshire at risk from climate change

Bipartisan support for making animal cruelty a federal crime

"Callous cruelty towards animals is abhorrent, and it's time for the punishment to reflect the seriousness of the crime," U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., said of the action. "I'm glad to see this bipartisan legislation signed into law so that those who needlessly harm animals are held accountable."

"This new law is vital not only to help prevent the horrific crime of animal torture, but also because such cruelty against animals can often be a precursor to violent crimes against humans," U.S. Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., added. "I'm grateful to my colleagues from both parties, and the president, for coming together to support this landmark measure."

Protect NH clean air from upwind polluters

Supports Land and Community Heritage Investment Program

Manage growth & avoid sprawl

Eliminate mercury releases by 2003.

• WHEREAS, the Conference of New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers (NEG/ECP) is well on its way to meeting the 50% reduction goal outlined in its 1998 Mercury Action Plan before the target date of 2003, and that a sustained, coordinated effort continues to be necessary to achieve the ultimate goal of “virtual elimination of anthropogenic mercury” releases into the environment, including the identification of other potential sources of mercury releases and their appropriate controls; and.
• WHEREAS, the New England states each have freshwater fish consumption advisories and recent information suggests a parallel need for salt-water fish advisories for certain species of fish; and
• WHEREAS, success in keeping anthropogenic [from human sources] mercury out of the environment depends on ensuring that stockpiled and recovered mercury is retired from the market in a safe and permanent manner;
• NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the NEGC recommends that each state commit to working with their respective legislatures toward the goal of “virtual elimination” of anthropogenic mercury as expeditiously as feasible, and to evaluate new reduction targets beyond the 50% reduction by 2003 [and new targets for 2010]; and
• BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the NEGC make every effort to work constructively and efficiently with industry, EPA, and other state and federal agencies as needed to ensure that large quantities of stockpiled or recovered mercury are permanently retired in a manner that safely and securely avoids reintroduction of that mercury into the marketplace or, potentially, into the environment.

More state autonomy on brownfields & Superfund cleanups.

The Issue

NGA’s Position

Support State Revolving Loan Fund for flexible Clean Water.

The Issue

NGA’s Position

Rated 60% by HSLF, indicating a mixed voting record on animal welfare.

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.

No EPA permits required for forest road runoff.

Congressional Summary:Amends the Clean Water Act to prohibit the EPA from requiring permits for a discharge of stormwater runoff resulting from silviculture activities.

Opponent`s argument against bill: (Evergreen Magazine and Washington Forest Law Center): In Aug. 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that polluted stormwater generated by logging roads is subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act. [The ruling meant] that rain runoff from forest roads constituted an industrial (not forestry) activity, which should be considered a `point source` discharge under the CWA. The lawsuit was brought because forest roads have been dumping sediment into rivers that support myriad species of salmon and resident trout, all of which are at risk from the pollution. The ruling will require State agencies to issue permits and ensure that road construction and maintenance practices limit or eliminate such discharges.

In March 2013, the US Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit: permits are not required for stormwater discharges from pipes, ditches and channels along logging roads. [This legislation supports the Supreme Court ruling, against the Ninth Circuit conclusion].

Proponent`s argument for bill: (Press release by sponsors):

Sen. WYDEN (D-OR): `We need a healthy timber industry to provide timber jobs and to do the restoration work that ensures healthy forests. The way to do that is to stop litigating questions that have already been answered.`

Sen. CRAPO (R-ID): `The jobs and economic activities relating to the forest products industry are critical to the Pacific Northwest. The Clean Water Act was not intended to regulate stormwater runoff on forest roads.`

Rep. HERRERA BEUTLER (R-WA): `At the heart of our efforts are the moms and dads employed by healthy, working forests--and passing this law will help make sure they have jobs, and will help make our forests healthy.`

Require labeling genetically engineered food.

Congressional Summary:

• [Require labeling] any food that has been genetically engineered or contains genetically engineered ingredients.
• Defines `genetically engineered` (GE) as a material intended for human consumption that is an organism produced through the intentional use of genetic engineering, or its progeny, without regard to whether the altered molecular or cellular characteristics of the organism are detectable.

Discussion of pro/con (Huffington Post 4/25/2013):

Polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans--over 90%--supports mandatory labeling of foods with GE ingredients. 64 other countries already require such labels. However, strong opposition from the agriculture and biotech industries has scuttled proposals for GMO (Genetically-Modified Organisms) labeling laws in the past. The most recent and high-profile of these failed attempts at a GMO labeling requirement was California`s Proposition 37, which was narrowly defeated after opponents spent $50 million lobbying against it. `Unfortunately, advocates of mandatory GMO labeling are working an agenda to vilify biotechnology and scare consumers away from safe and healthful food products,` a Biotechnology Industry Organization spokeswoman wrote.

Argument in opposition (Food Democracy Now 5/26/2012):

Exactly 20 years ago today, the first Bush administration declared genetically engineered foods to be `substantially equivalent` to foods that farmers had traditionally bred for thousands of years. With this single policy, the US government radically altered the food supply, introducing novel genes into our food that had never before been consumed by humans. Corporate executives at Monsanto colluded with elected officials to make sure that their new `products` were placed onto the market as quickly as possible. Two decades later, Americans are still denied the basic right to know what`s in their food because of this infamous policy.

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.