The Environment? Essay, Research Paper
Environmental science AP
Second Quarter Project
Through my research I have come to the decision that Senator Robert Torricelli stands negative on environmental issues and Representative Frank LoBiondo stands positive on environmental issues according to their voting records. It is my finding that Senator Robert Torricelli tends to vote for issues that are more people friendly such as laws that would keep or create more jobs. He cares about health issues such as clean water and air but when it comes to things like preserving environmental habitat he is hesitant on voting the environmentally friendly way. Therefore I can say I feel that Senator Robert Torricelli stands negative on environmental issues. I have also found that Representative Frank LoBiondo is quite different from Senator Robert Torricelli. While he cares about the cleanliness of our air and water he also cares about preserving our natural wildlife. Frank LoBiondo works hard to protect the indigenous animals and plants from this area and has voted accordingly. He stands positive on environmental issues.
In the project vote smart web site (http://www.vote-smart.org/profile) it states that for environmental issues Senator Robert Torricelli has changed in the past 6 years. It says that in 1994 he only voted the preferred environmentally friendly position 4 percent of the time. Now in the 1999-2000 year he has voted the preferred position of the League of conservation voters 89-94 percent of the time. I however find this not to be the case because on some issues his stand point was not even voiced for some important issues. Namely one the private property rights bill # s 2271 (http://www.vote-smart.org/vote-smart/votes) The bill stated that they were to vote allow property owners to appeal local land use decisions in federal courts and to establish an expedited process for land use disputes with the federal gov or state and local governments. Since Robert Torricelli?s position was unknown it was hard to see how he feels about how people should be allowed to develop their private property. This is an important issue and by not voting at all I believe that Robert Torricelli should have voted and perhaps my views would have been slightly changed in his favor.
To back up my statements about the fact that he cares about clean air and water I have found a few documents that he has voted in favor of healthy and safe standards. However he seems to be quite the cheapskate. In 1995 the clean water act revisions bill # hr 961 Robert Torricelli voted NO. (http://www.vote-smart.org/vote-smart/votes) The bill was said to authorize Clean Water Act program funding through the year 2000. It would give $2.3 billion a year to clean water act programs. It would change wetlands preservation criteria. Owners of wetland areas would have to be compensated for their land if the value of the wetlands they owned went down drastically. However in 1999 in the Energy and water appropriations bill # hr 2605 he voted Yes. (http://www.vote-smart.org/vote-smart/votes) This bill gave $21.3 billion for energy and water programs for the year 2000.
In 1999 many bills were passed concerning oil and the mineral management service. The oil royalty valuation system was one bill # hr 2466 (http://www.vote-smart.org/vote-smart/votes) This bill was to table and amendment preventing the Mineral Management Service from using a proposed oil royalty valuation system for drilling oil on federal lands. Torricelli voted No. I believe that this shows he would rather have mor jobs than protect our lands for all this excess drilling. However the this bills tabling motion failed.
Bob Torricelli does seem to care about the people and that they have jobs. The Steel Oil & Gas Guaranteed Loan Program bill # hr 1664 (http://www.vote-smart.org/vote-smart/votes) this gives 170 million to maintain the guaranteed loan programs for the steel oil and gas industries.
Bob Torricelli can?t be a total grouch. In 1997 he voted Yes to Reduce Funding for Forest Service Road Construction bill # hr 2170 (http://www.vote-smart.org/vote-smart/votes) this bill was said to reduce funding for forest service road construction. The unnecessary $47.4 million was cut down a full $10 million. Even though roads will still be built perhaps their will be less road construction. Animals are put in danger of dying when new roads are built because many animals die crossing roads every day simply because their habitat was interrupted and divided.
To find additional information I went to the sierra club. (http://www.senate.gov/~torricelli/personal.htm) the sierra club gives Bob Torricelli one of the top ratings of the Sierra club. They say he has fought against dumping off the NJ coast and wrote a section of the superfund bill to clean up polluted chemical sites throughout the state. He also authorized a bill to save the Sterling Forest which serves as a watershed for northern NJ drinking water.
I also went to the project vote smart web site to find out about Frank LoBiondo. The web site said that from the years 1997-2000 LoBiondo voted the environmentally friendly way approximately half of the time (http://www.vote-smart.org/vote-smart/profile) I actually found more evidence however to back up that he was more pro-environment. Such as the FY 2001 VA/HUD appropriations EPA bill # hr 4635 LoBiondo voted yes (http://www.vote-smart.org/vote-smart/votes) This was a bill that would allow the environment protection agency (EPA) to use funds for various projects. It also would remove a ban on the EPA using invasive techniques to clean polluted waterways and allow them to enforce the drinking water standards. I feel that this strongly shows that Frank LoBiondo does care a lot about the environment.
There is also anther bill that I feel shows his care for nature. The forest management bill -limiting the building of new roads bill # hr 2515 (http://www.vote-smart.org/vote-smart/votes) This bill would prohibit any funds in the bill from being used to build new roads in places such as natural forests and other places that were previously and currently not allowed to have any roads built through them. This bill was actually an amendment to a bill and it was passed in 1998. LoBiondo voted Yes.
On the issue of nuclear waste storage bill # s 1287 (http://www.vote-smart.org/vote-smart/votes) He also voted yes to let the EPA continue to set new radiation standards for the transportation and the storage of nuclear waste. This bill was passed in the year 2000 and is crucial to the health of all people in the area.
Senator Robert Torricelli isn?t the only one who cares about clean and safe drinking water. In 1996 Frank LoBiondo voted Yes on a Safe Drinking water act bill # s 1316 (http://www.vote-smart.org/vote-smart/votes) which states that it will adopt the joint house-senate conference committee report of a bill to reauthorize the safe drinking water act it allows for $7.6 billion for grants to help local communities meet safe water quality standards. This also requires large water programs to provide information to the recipients of their water about any contaminants that may be in that water.
LoBiondo has also shown that he cares about wildlife that you could also find locally in NJ the Dolphin. Dolphin protection bill # hr 408 (http://www.vote-smart.org/vote-smart/votes) Which is a binding international agreement for the protection of dolphins and other marine species in the eastern tropical pacific ocean. It protects dolphins from being killed while fishing for the yellowfin tuna and only allows 5000 dolphins a year to die with the idea of reducing that number in the future. If more than the allowed number of dolphins are killed in the nets used by the yellowfin tuna fisherman than there will be no more fishing of the yellow fin tuna for that particular year. This tuna can be labeled dolphin safe if it meets certain standards which is that no dolphins were killed on the ship these tuna were caught on.
Frank LoBiondo has to have a fall back and I believe it is this, the small business superfund exemption bill # hr 5175 (http://www.vote-smart.org/vote-smart/votes) This bill states that any small business, 100 employees or less, that dumps a limited amount of waste, which is less than 200 pounds or 110 gallons, would not have to participate in the cleanup of this waste. I think this is a total fall back for LoBiondo. I think that if you make the mess no matter how small you should have to clean it up. There can really be no limit to how big a mess someone else will be willing to always clean up for you . I think that if everyone downsized their waste so dramatically just to meet these standard we would have a lot of extra waste from these smaller companies that now has to be cleaned up.
However I found that LoBiondo was recognized by the wilderness society for his work to protect national wildlife refuges (http://www.house.gov/lobiondo/fl_bio2.htm) They also said that he has “maintained a strong commitment to protecting the environment , working to protect fragile wildlife and wetland areas and fighting for projects that will protect and restore the New Jersey coastline.”
In conclusion I feel that Senator Robert Torricelli stands negative on environmental issues and Representative Frank LoBiondo stands positive on environmental issues.
Комментариев на модерации: 1.