Scott Brown on Environment
Republican Jr Senator
A. Senator Brown is a long time conservationist and has advocated strongly for conservation efforts in the U.S. Senate, including full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). For example, Senator Brown opposed the Cape Wind project due to conservationist concerns that the Cape in Massachusetts would be irreparably harmed by the energy project. Senator Brown recognizes that Massachusetts is home to some of the most beautiful locations in the world and we must protect our natural resources.
Vote on overriding the governor's veto of the following section: The division of urban parks and recreation in the department of conservation and recreation shall assume the sole responsibility for the delivery and the performance of services for all maintenance and repair work, including snow and ice control, for the roads and bridges previously under the control of the Metropolitan District Commission. No MDC assets or services may be transferred either in whole or in part to any other agency, without the express prior approval of the general court.
Relevant platform section: "We believe in the value of public parks and beaches in our Commonwealth that are clean, safe, well maintained, and which offer a wide range of recreational choices."
Source citation: Veto Override ; vote number 447
Co-sponsor's explanation: (Rep. Walter B. Jones, Dec. 16, 2011): H.R. 3061 would allow the 10-year time period for rebuilding fisheries to be extended under certain common-sense circumstances. In allowing such flexibility, the bill would provide for timely restoration of healthy fisheries while also preventing fishermen from being put out of business because of the rigid, arbitrary timelines contained in the Magnuson Act.
Opponents' explanation Pew Environmental Group, April 7, 2009, www.endoverfishing.org): This bill is designed to weaken the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), the nation's primary law governing management of US ocean fish. This bill would:
Congressional Summary:Amends the Animal Welfare Act to define a "high volume retail breeder" as a person who, in commerce, for compensation or profit: has an ownership interest in or custody of one or more breeding female dogs; and sells more than 50 of the offspring of such dogs for use as pets in any one-year period. Considers such a breeder of dogs to be a dealer.
Promulgates requirements for the exercise of dogs at facilities owned or operated by high volume retail breeders, including requiring daily access to exercise that allows the dogs to move sufficiently in a way that is not forced, repetitive, or restrictive; and is in an area that is spacious, cleaned at least once a day, free of infestation by pests or vermin, and designed to prevent the dogs from escaping.
Opponent's Comments (GSDCA, the German Shepherd Dog Club of America):In the past, legislation has excluded home/hobby breeders. This bill would, for the first time, require home/hobby breeders to follow the strict USDA requirements, such as engineering standards designed for large commercial kennels and not homes. Such regulations would exceedingly difficult to meet in a home/residential breeding environment. If passed, PUPS would disastrously reduce purposely-bred pups for the public.
There is nothing in this bill that changes the status of already known substandard kennel violators. There is no increase in funding for additional inspectors, nor is increased inspection evaluation education included.
Dogs purposely bred for showing, trialing or other events often are not bred for several years due to many different reasons. Some of these dogs may never be bred, yet are included in the count.
Working kennels maintain a large dog population while they are evaluating dogs; if the dogs do not work out for the purpose for which they were intended, they are often sold as pets. This could bring those working/training kennels under USDA regulations.
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.
|Other candidates on Environment:||Scott Brown on other issues:|
Retiring in 2014 election:
Retired as of Jan. 2013:
Senate Vacancies 2013:
MA:Gomez(R,lost special election)
Senate races Nov. 2014:
AK:Begich(D) vs.Miller(R) vs.Treadwell(R)
AL:Sessions(R) vs.(none yet)
CO:Udall(D) vs.Buck(R) vs.Hill(R)
GA:Gingrey(R) vs.Nunn(D) vs.Perdue(R) vs.Handel(R) vs.Broun(R) vs.Kingston(R)
IA:Braley(D) vs.Whitaker(R) vs.Ernst(R)
ID:Risch(R) vs.(none yet)
KS:Roberts(R) vs.(none yet)
KY:McConnell(R) vs.Bevin(R) vs.Grimes(D)
NH:Shaheen(D) vs.Martin(R) vs.Brown(R)
NM:Udall(D) vs.(none yet)
OK:Inhofe(R) vs.(none yet)
RI:Reed(D) vs.(none yet)
SC-2:Scott(R) vs.(none yet)
SC-6:Graham(R) vs.Stamper(D) vs.Mace(R)
TX:Cornyn(R) vs.(none yet)
VA:Warner(D) vs.McDonnell(R) vs.Radtke(R)
WV:Capito(R) vs.Raese(R) vs.Tennant(D)
Senate Votes (analysis)
Email Contact Form
Senate Office SR-317, Washington, DC 20510