|
|
Letters to the Editor - Environment
CHANGE IN CONGRESS |
CIVIL LIBERTIES |
DEBATES |
ECONOMY |
ENVIRONMENT |
GENERAL |
HEALTHCARE |
IRAQ |
ISRAEL |
SUBURBAN AGENDA
Kirk backs ANWH drilling
Winnetka Talk
August 17, 2006
A recent letter in the Pioneer Press stated that Mark Kirk has never voted for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In fact, Kirk has voted more than once in Congress for initiatives that would permit oil drilling there.
Kirk voted for the 2006 Budget Conference Report that included a backdoor maneuver to open the refuge for drilling. Kirk also voted for an appropriations conference report last December designed to open the refuge to oil drilling. Truly moderate Republican representatives voted to protect the refuge, but not Kirk- he was roundly criticized by many environmental groups for these votes.
Votes like these are part of the reason why Kirk received such an unacceptably low approval rating from the League of Conservation Voters in 2005 (only 39 percent).
Often, drilling proponents in the House of Representatives secretly insert into larger unrelated bills permission to drill in the refuge. Representatives who want to protect it must have the courage to resist these underhanded maneuvers. Too often, Kirk has not.
We need a representative in Washington who will consistently protect our environmental treasures. We will vote for Dan Seals in November. He has the courage to stand up to the anti-environmental House leadership. Please see Dan's excellent Web site, www.dansealsforcongress.com.
Jackie and Jim Holland
Wilmette
Vote to clean lake is a 'publicity stunt'
August 3, 2006
Pioneer Press
Recently, Congressman Kirk announced that after six years in office he is proposing a bill to clean up Lake Michigan. What a joke. This is his effort to suggest some semblance of an environmental record.
Not only has Congressman Kirk not used his seat to protect the environment, he has consistently voted with the administration to weaken environmental standards and support big oil. In 2005, the League of Conservation Voters gave him a score of 39%.
Congressman Kirk's proposed bill is a publicity stunt, not a solution. It would encourage the construction of a sewage infrastructure to end dumping raw sewage into the lake but carries no teeth. Enforcement wouldn't begin until 2025. As Assistant Majority Whip, Congressman Kirk is just following the Bush administration lead-and that is why he voted the administration's party line over 90% of the time.
It is time for a change. Dan Seals is an outstanding candidate for Congress. He has vision and will address environmental issues in a way that will ensure safe water and clean air. He understands that we cannot continue to build a debt which is at $30,000 for each person in America. He recognizes the importance of health insurance.
It is time for the people of the 10th District to stop being fooled that Mark Kirk is good on the environment, or anything else. He just represents a continuation of George Bush's policies-which are undermining the American values that made our country the envy of the world. These policies have lead to a less safe world which is becoming more environmentally contaminated.
Barbara A. Weiner
Highland Park
Kirk fails on environment
Winnetka Talk
July 20, 2006
This letter is in response to the letter (Kirk protects environment, July 13). Like the writer of that letter, I am also a college student and an environmentalist, and knowing the letter writer personally from high school, it saddens me to point out that he is dead wrong about Mark Kirk's record on the environment. While it is true Mark Kirk does occasionally take public stances that benefit the environment, it is far more significant what he doesn't do. Put most simply, the League of Conservation Voters, one of the nation's premiere environmental groups that has previously endorsed Kirk, has given Kirk a score of 39 percent on its latest environmental scorecard. Since the letter writer and I graduated together I'm sure he is as familiar as I that 39 percent is not just a failing grade, but a badly failing grade. Not even in calculus did I ever do as badly as that on a test.
Adding to his dismal record, Kirk has even cast some votes against the environment that in themselves shouldn't be tolerated by anyone who cares about the issue. Most significantly, Mark Kirk voted "YES" on the final bill that would have opened the Artic [sic] National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil drilling, an act that all major environmental groups object to. In fact, Kirk cast votes against the refuge twice, even though Kirk touts the fact he voted for the refuge once. Anyone who doubts these facts can check Kirk's environmental scorecard online at the League of Conservation Voters Web site. Because I won't settle for a 39 percent when it comes to the environment, I'm working for Dan Seals this summer- in my opinion we owe it to the environment to say that a failing grade isn't enough. With Dan Seals we can get an "A" on the environment, and a Representative who takes principled stands on issues such as ANWR, rather than saying one thing and doing something different.
Ben Struhl
Deerfield
Do the Research on Kirk
Winnetka Talk, Deerfield Review
July 20, 2006
In response to the letter (Kirk Protects the Environment, July 13) I have to respectfully disagree with the writer's opinion. Mark Kirk started off as a very moderate, pro-environment Representative, but things have changed. The League of Conservation Voters gave Kirk a respectable score of 79 percent for 2003-2004, but his 2005 score plummeted to 39 percent. He did vote against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge the first time it came up, but the next two times he voted for it. He also voted to end a congressional ban on the sale of public lands to mining companies, and in favor of the "Gasoline for America's Security Act" in a 212-210 vote, extending deadlines for ozone pollution cleanup and removing requirements for cleaner burning fuel.
Mark Kirk has received donations from Exelon, the parent company of ComEd, Altria, the tobacco company formerly known as Phillip Morris, Halliburton, the oilfield services conglomerate which recently lost a large government contract due to $1 billion in questionable spending, and the American Prosperity PAC, controlled by Duke Cunningham, the congressman who late last year plead guilty to accepting $2.4 million in bribes.
In times such as these, it is hard to garner an unbiased opinion on what exactly our representatives in Washington are doing. I recommend the Washington Post Votes Database for this purpose, found at http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/. As a fellow college student and environmentalist, I realize that doing the proper research takes time, but these days it is more necessary than ever.
Patrick Luckow
Deerfield
Kirk bad for environment
Winnetka Talk
July 20, 2006
Like a recent letter-writer, we support environmental protection. Unlike said writer, we see Congressman Mark Kirk as part of the problem. Kirk actively supports a Republican Congress that has reversed environmental progress in order to give tax breaks to oil companies, prevent meaningful fuel efficiency standards, protect polluters, weaken the EPA, and continues to deny the existence of global warming.
Kirk himself has cast votes that undermine environmental protection, deceptively voting once against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge but voting twice for bills in favor of drilling. He voted once for and once against the Republican energy bill that subsidized high-polluting industries instead of renewable energy production, for subsidizing oil companies, and against regulating oil refineries.
Not only does Kirk cast votes undermining the environment, he has also sent thousands of dollars in campaign contributions during the past five years to some of the most anti-environmental Congressmen. A few examples include Kevin Brady (R-TX), Pete Sessions (R-TX) and Rick Renzi (R-AZ). Each one received a zero percent approval rating in 2005 from the League of Conservation Voters, meaning they did not see fit to vote pro-environment when it came to any of the twenty bills that LCV was tracking.
We too are members of the next generation, a generation that will inherit high health care premiums and a huge federal deficit (caused by Bush budget bills that Kirk has never failed to support). We face a polluted environment and staggering college loans (Kirk voted twice for $12 billion cuts in student loans). Kirk’s opponent Dan Seals is committed to students and our future, a clean environment, and energy foresight. We plan to work hard and vote in order to make sure that Dan Seals wins in November.
Carolyn Kraemer and Elaine Meyer
Wilmette
Kirk has weakened environmental protections
Wilmette Life
July 13, 2006
Recently, Congressman Kirk announced that after six years in office he is proposing a bill to clean up Lake Michigan. What a joke. This is his effort to suggest some semblance of an environmental record. Not only has Congressman Kirk not used his seat to protect the environment, he has consistently voted with the Administration to weaken environmental standards and support big oil. In 2005, the League of Conservation Voters gave him a score of 39 percent.
Congressman Kirk's proposed bill is a publicity stunt, not a solution. It would encourage the construction of a sewage infrastructure to end dumping raw sewage into the lake but carries no teeth. Enforcement wouldn't begin until 2025. As Assistant Majority Whip, Congressman Kirk is just following the Bush Administration's party line over 90 percent of the time.
It is time for a change. Dan Seals is an outstanding candidate for Congress. He has vision and will address environmental issues in a way that will assure safe water and clean air. He understands that we cannot continue to build up a debt which is at $30,000 for each person in America. He recognizes the importance of health insurance. It is time for people of the 10th District to stop being fooled that Mark Kirk is good on the environment, or anything else. He just represents a continuation of George Bush's policies which are undermining the American values that made our country the envy of the world.
Barbara A. Weiner
Highland Park
Clean Lake bill too late
I am thrilled that my grandchildren- or is it my great grandchildren- will have a clean and safe Lake Michigan in 2026.
Congressman Kirk's bill to clean up Lake Michigan has no effect until 2026, and even then only addresses one cause of pollution. Should we really have to wait 20 years to stop dumping raw sewage into the lake?
I think it is time we elected a congressman who is more concerned with environmental issues that Mark Kirk. As a Republican Congressional leader, he is now assistant whip, Kirk has helped the Bush administration cut the Clean Water State Revolving Fund by 37.5 percent in the last few years, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. The revolving fund provides money necessary to build sewage facilities our lakefront cities need to stop dumping. In addition, Mark Kirk voted against legislation which sought to restore some of the funding. "Moderate" Republicans voted for that bill, but not Mark Kirk.
I am working to elect Dan Seals to Congress. He has taken a strong pro-environment stand, and will support effective legislation to protect our lake and other natural resources.
Gerri Kahnweiler
Winnetka
Kirk slashes cleanup funding
Pioneer Press
July 12, 2006
An editorial in last week's Winnetka Talk ("Make Lake Clean," July 6) noted that Mark Kirk recently introduced legislation that proposes to end sewage dumping into the Great Lakes by 2026. I was glad to read that the Pioneer Press supports legislation aimed at making our water supply clean and safe.
Still, your article was misleading in its suggestion that Kirk is committed to cleaning up Lake Michigan and protecting our water supply. During his two terms in Congress, Kirk voted for Republican sponsored Federal budgets that have significantly cut funding for environmental protection programs, including the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, leaving water quality protection projects, like the one he proposes, seriously under-funded.
Readers need to consider, why, after voting for federal budgets that undermine efforts to protect the quality of our water supply, Kirk is now introducing legislation to clean up Lake Michigan. Could it be an election year maneuver? Perhaps, as the November election approaches, Kirk wants to divert attention from the fact that he received an unacceptably low 39 percent approval rating from the non-partisan League of Conservation Voters in 2005 due to his large number of anti-environment votes.
If 10th District residents want a representative in Congress who they can count on to consistently support environmental protection, they must not re-elect Mark Kirk.
Laurie Kaplan Singh
Winnetka
Window Dressing
WAUKEGAN NEWS-SUN
July 8, 2006
With great fanfare last week Mark Kirk introduced the Great Lakes Water Protection Act. Sounds pretty good, doesn't it?
But the devil is always in the details. This bill would require cities to build the full infrastructure needed to prevent sewage dumping into Lake Michigan. But it gives those cities until the year 2026 to do it before any federal fines are imposed.
Twenty years. By then I'll be 70 and my beach-going days probably will be limited. How about you?
Also, this bill does nothing to clean up the already-polluted waters; it simply bans additional dumping.
Our congressman's big initiative is to suggest that we wait 20 years to make sure Lake Michigan pollution doesn't get any worse!
A phased-in reduction of sewage dumping over a much shorter time frame would take care of the problem in a reasonable period, as well as not unduly burdening the affected cities causing this dumping in the first place.
Given Kirk's record in Congress, his shell proposal is unlikely to become law anyway. He has only sponsored three environmental bills in six years and none of them made it through committee (despite the fact that he is the majority party's assistant whip!)
During the past five years, Kirk has voted against bills very similar to the one he now proposes, and he has consistently voted to cut federal spending on the environment.
We think our congressman should be able to do better for us. Twenty years is too late to start cleaning up our lake, and just freezing dumping at current levels is too little and way too late.
And we expect our congressman to actually get bills passed, not just to introduce window dressing at election time and then let it die.
Mary Clare Jakes
Waukegan
Kirk Bad for Environment
Wilmette Life
June 22, 2006
We recently received a letter from Mark Kirk proclaiming his supposed 'commitment to protecting our environment'. A close look at Kirk's record, however, reveals that his commitment to safeguarding the environment wavers according to the politics of the moment. As usual, Kirk's letter was long on self-promotion and short on facts about what is really happening in Congress.
Kirk states that he recently voted to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil development. But Kirk has flip-flopped on this issue. As recently as this year, Kirk actually voted to open the refuge to oil development.
Kirk also states that he's working on reducing mercury pollution. But Republicans have controlled the House of Representatives for 12 years now (Kirk has served for over 5 and one half years), and what do we have to show for the Kirk/Republican effort to reduce mercury pollution? Last year it was revealed that Chicagoland is one of the most mercury polluted areas in the nation. Republicans have had their chance to improve our environment-and they've failed. Kirk has done far too little to fight President Bush's efforts to weaken environmental safeguards.
Kirk's political alliance with Bush prevents him from standing firm for the environment. In fact, too often Kirk has actually voted against environmental protection. Proof of this is reflected in Kirk's unacceptably low 39 percent approval rating from the League of Conservation Voters.
We can advance the cause of environmental protection by electing Democrat Dan Seals to the House of Representatives in November. Dan understands environmental issues, and he will fight the Bush administration's effort to undermine established and beneficial environmental law.
Mark and Christine Kraemer
Wilmette
|
