How Do Your Politicians Really Feel About

The Environment? Essay, Research Paper

Heather Anton

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 appropria