League of Conservation Voters Congressional Candidate Questionnaire
2016 Congressional Election
Attached is LCV Action Fund’s Candidate Questionnaire. After you return it, I would be happy to discuss next steps. I will be out of the office in Philadelphia but happy to talk in August.
Q.1 – Endorsement: Do you want an LCV endorsement and how would you use it?
Q1 Answer – YES, to radically contrast my pro-Environment stance and feature my campaigns efforts and intentions in protecting and preserving our natural world with the pro-fracking, pro-unrestricted-development policies of my opponent, who feels that the 720 psi “Southern Reliability Link” is a matter of National Security, and is willing to shunt aside many decades of ecological preservation efforts, but also, suspiciously, felt that relaxing export restrictions on fossil fuels, put in place over 40 years ago AS A MATTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY, is perfectly acceptable. This disconnect clearly demonstrates his loyalty to his personal wealth over the will of the people and protecting our environment (proven by an over-doubling of that wealth in the few short, ineffective months he’s been in office.)
I’m an outdoorsman. My opponent “plays outside”. I would prefer that the voters know this, and travel to the polls in November as fully-informed on these critical issues, and on our differing stances, as possible.
I don’t only intend to legislate in Congress – I intend to LEAD.
COMBATING CLIMATE CHANGE & PROMOTING CLEAN ENERGY
Q.2 – Climate Change – Executive Action: Climate change is the most pressing environmental challenge facing our planet. Communities are already experiencing the impacts of climate change in the U.S. and across the globe. Severe droughts, more powerful storms, flooding, and sea level rise have and will continue to threaten the health of this and future generations. 2014 was the hottest year on record and the decade between 2001 and 2010 was the warmest the planet has seen since record keeping began. Taxpayers are already paying a steep price for unchecked climate change. Hurricane Sandy alone cost $70 billion in direct damages and lost economic output. We have an obligation to our children to take immediate action to address climate change’s threats to our economy, health, and environment.
One of the most significant steps that the United States can take to address climate change is to implement Environmental Protection Agency safeguards that would curb carbon pollution from power plants – the single largest source of emissions in the country. The vast majority of this pollution comes from power plants that are powered by coal. The EPA has the authority and responsibility to reduce this harmful pollution under the Clean Air Act – an authority affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Do you oppose all legislative efforts to roll back, block, or delay EPA regulations on carbon emissions from both new and existing power plants?
Q.2 Answer– YES – I am for even stronger protections. Green Energy efforts have been specifically and strategically hobbled, to include “Straw-man failures” like Solyndra. A perfect example of a well-run private sector solar farm exists in a County adjacent to my district. I have visited the Tinton Falls Solar Farm, a 100-acre facility generating nearly 20 MEGAWATTS of electricity from 85,000 stanchion mounted solar panels. The project was completed, to include land acquisition and site engineering, for a little over 84 million dollars.
Contrast that with an in-District community boondoggle, foisted on the taxpayers of Lacey Township. For 19.8 Million Dollars BONDED, they received 7200 ROOF-Mounted panels, each with less than ¼ the generating power of the panels used in the Zongyii project in Monmouth County. Incidentally, it appears that they may not in fact be connected to the grid, as the electrical expense for the School Board annually is virtually unchanged except with the market, and there is no notation on the electric utility bill indicating any “net-metering”.
Q.3 – Climate Change: While we strongly support efforts by the Obama administration to reduce the pollution causing climate change, we will also need complementary action by Congress and an international agreement to confront this global challenge. The solutions to climate change can also help revitalize our economy and ensure that the U.S. leads in the 21st century clean energy race.
Do you support legislation reducing carbon pollution by at least 28% by 2025 and 80% by 2050, investments in climate change preparedness in the U.S. and abroad (including through the Green Climate Fund), and a fair and ambitious global climate change agreement that supports these goals?
Q.3 Answer – YES, and then some.
I believe becoming fossil-independent as a matter of “Political Will, rather than Political Won’t”, so, I would agree with the goals of your stated targets, but I would be willing to discuss a “sooner, rather than later” effort, to include bringing manufacturing jobs right here to CD3 for the construction of solar panels, as our mine-able sands (unprotected by present environmental regulations) are of a sufficiently high quality to produce the clean silica needed for gallium arsenide doped panels AND in the production of longer-lived energy frugal LEDs. I’m for your position, and see an opportunity to create jobs right here in NJ CD3 in making them a reality.
Q.4 – Clean Energy: One critical way to reduce America’s dependence on fossil fuels and cut carbon and other forms of air pollution is to increase our use of renewable energy sources, like wind, solar, and geothermal. Investments in the clean energy industry also create good-paying domestic jobs and grow the U.S. economy.
The 2015 budget deal temporarily extended critical clean energy tax incentives like the wind production tax credit (PTC) and the solar investment tax credit (ITC), but they face an uncertain future. Do you support extension and expansion of clean energy incentives, such as through legislation permanently extending the PTC and the ITC?
Q.4 Answer – YES, Absolutely – in fact, our Ocean County Office location was selected specifically because of it’s clean energy design.
Q.5 – Federal Renewable Electricity Standard: Another way to move towards a clean energy economy is to create a federal standard for renewable electricity. More than 25 states have enacted policies requiring that a gradually increasing percentage of the state’s electricity come from renewable sources.
Do you support federal legislation that would establish renewable energy requirements for utilities, with the requirements being that 40% of electricity is produced from clean, renewable energy sources like wind, solar and geothermal by 2035?
Q.5 Answer – YES, and I can expect severe backlash for it with campaign dollars invested by present stakeholders in opposing my election, but I’m no shrinking violet.
FIGHTING DIRTY ENERGY
Q.6 – Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline: The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would transfer Canadian tar sands oil through the American heartland to be exported at an international shipping port on the Gulf of Mexico. The pipeline is not a credible jobs plan, as it would create only 35 permanent jobs. Since oil companies plan to export much of the oil, it would not improve our energy security, but it would worsen climate change and present major risks to public health and farmers. Tar sands oil production yields significantly greater carbon pollution compared with traditional crude oil – at a time when we need to be reducing those emissions to avoid the national security and environmental risks of climate change. Moreover, the company behind Keystone XL has a very poor safety record, and any spills would present a serious threat to our air, drinking water, and agricultural lands because tar sands oil is more toxic – and harder to clean up – than conventional crude. On November 6, 2015, the President rejected the permit to build this pipeline, citing concerns about its impact on climate change.
Do you oppose the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and will you oppose any legislative attempts to approve it?
Q.6 Answer – YES. I have been a very visible and very vocal opponent of such fossil foolishness.
Q.7 – Fossil Fuel Subsidies: There are many ways in which our government continues to subsidize the production and use of fossil fuels, which threaten our health and are causing dangerous climate change. Taxpayers currently subsidize the oil industry with special tax breaks to the tune of billions of dollars every single year. Because of outdated federal rules around energy resource extraction from public lands, American taxpayers are losing out on significant revenues from onshore oil, gas and coal development. Across the West, royalty payments for oil and gas on federal lands are drastically lower than royalties that are charged on state lands. Additionally, major coal companies have taken advantage of outdated regulations for federal coal extraction, specifically in the Powder River Basin of Montana and Wyoming, and are pocketing billions of dollars at the taxpayer’s expense. These are particularly indefensible at a time when concerns about our federal debt are prompting harsh cuts to a range of critical government services and programs, including ones that protect our environment and health.
Do you support ending taxpayer subsidies for large oil companies and other giveaways for fossil fuels, including updating royalty rates, rental payments, and transparency for federal oil, gas and coal development to ensure that companies are paying the true market-based rate?
Q.7 Answer – YES. Transition those subsidies to encourage green-energy investment as an alternative. Jobs need not be lost, and let’s tell the truth – those subsidies largely end up in the fund balances of the executives, not in the workers’ pay envelopes.
Q.8 – Offshore Drilling: The risks inherent in offshore drilling were vividly manifest when the BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded on April 20, 2010, tragically killing 11 rig workers and sending an estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. The 87-day uninterrupted flow of oil devastated tourism and fishing businesses as well as coastal and marine ecosystems, with lingering effects still being felt to this day in the Gulf. In the wake of the spill, Congress has failed to enact a single reform to the way offshore drilling is regulated. The Department of the Interior announced a draft leasing plan in January 2015, in which it proposed expanding risky offshore production into new areas such as the Atlantic Ocean and the fragile and remote Arctic Ocean. Oil industry allies in Congress want to go even further, even though U.S. oil production has already surged to levels not seen since 1973.
Do you support protecting coastal economies that rely on clean oceans, attractive beaches, and healthy fisheries by limiting offshore drilling to areas already impacted by oil and gas production?
Q.8 Answer– YES. I have yet to see a safe way of extracting offshore petroleum reserves that doesn’t have a potential for catastrophic failure. I can live with windmills off the Jersey Shore. I will not see drilling platforms there. (Naturally, I am not only concerned with NJ, but some of these projects are slated for right in our back yard – and the exploration in preparation for such has been thinly veiled as geological research over climate change. The very nature of that testing (Sonic Blasting), is proven to cause harm to the littoral environment.
Q.9 – Natural Gas & Oil Production: The process of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, for oil and natural gas has led to an energy boom in the U.S. However, natural gas is still a dirty fossil fuel that is accompanied by many environmental problems posed by the fracking process itself and increased methane pollution. Fracking involves injecting a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals into rock fractures at high pressure to dislodge trapped oil and gas reserves. Communities across the country are alarmed at the impacts of this under-regulated process, which enjoys exemptions from many of our major federal environmental laws. Some of the risks from the lifecycle of fracking include: local and global air pollution, contamination of groundwater and surface water, secrecy around the use of toxic chemicals, and disposal of hazardous fracking waste. In March 2015, the Obama administration released its final rule to start limiting fracking’s impacts on public lands, and legislative efforts to close loopholes in our environmental laws exist in both chambers of Congress.
Do you support legislation that closes loopholes for the fracking industry in our major environmental laws, including the Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act?
Q.9 Answer– YES – YOU BET. Protecting our aquifers is critical to the survival of our species (and, by extension, those who are in our trust, as caretakers of our planet).
Q.10 – Transportation: Transportation policy has far-reaching impacts, including on oil consumption, carbon pollution, national security, land use, public health, and quality of life. The transportation sector accounts for roughly two-thirds of U.S. oil consumption, nearly one-third of annual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and between 1990 and 2012 was the country’s fastest-growing source of climate change pollution. In recent years, the transportation program has invested about 80% in highways, less than 20% in transit and fewer than 2% on bicycling and walking. The next reauthorization of transportation legislation presents a significant opportunity to reduce carbon pollution and oil dependence.
Do you support a transportation bill that maintains dedicated funding for and increases investments in more transportation choices (such as transit, rail, biking, and pedestrian access), sets a national goal for reducing oil consumption in the transportation sector, reforms transportation planning to better support public health and environmental goals, and prioritizes fixing our nation’s crumbling infrastructure?
Q.10 – YES. The changes we need are choices that must be directed/mandated from the top down. As to infrastructure – Asphalt re-re-recycling is workable, for now, but I would like to see a focus on transitioning from paving technology that relies, again, on fossil fuels – largely because the breakdown of that material over time puts organic pollutants into the water cycle. Concrete recycling works, also, and I am in touch with a company who has done so successfully for years. (Their operation could be cleaner than it is, however.) I support expansion of ELECTRICALLY OPERATED RAIL using caternary-provided electricity, sourced from renewable resources. Expansion of diesel-electric rail is not a sufficient fix. Expansion of rail transportation requires improving the existing infrastructure. I hear many folks clamoring for new routes, but no one wants the tracks laid in their own back yard. I believe we are reaching a point, however, that much of the white-collar “intellectual” employment will have transitioned to “work-from-home” over time. Expanding research in battery technology and H2 tech are also worthy of examination.
Infrastructure investment is a pillar of my jobs programs for Congressional District Three.
PROTECTING PUBLIC HEALTH
Q.11 –Toxic Chemicals: Decades worth of science links serious health problems to toxic chemicals, many of which are used in our everyday consumer products, workplaces, schools, and homes. The federal system has failed to protect Americans from toxic chemicals, as evidenced by increasing rates of asthma, diabetes, childhood cancer, infertility, and learning and behavioral disorders.
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), our nation’s main chemical law, is one of the most outdated and broken environmental statutes on the books. Of the 85,000 chemicals available for use, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required testing of only a few percent, and the uses of only 5 chemicals have ever been restricted. In the absence of strong federal regulation, states have taken the lead in protecting their citizens from toxic chemicals, with 169 policies enacted in 35 states so far. Consumer backlash against dangerous chemicals has succeeded in shifting the market towards safer chemicals, as happened with the hormone-disruptive chemical Bisphenol A (BPA). A fully functioning chemical regulatory system in the U.S. would include a strong federal system, uphold the role of states to go above and beyond federal standards, initiate immediate action on the most hazardous chemicals, and hold the industry accountable for demonstrating chemicals are safe for use.
Do you support legislation that would achieve the goals outlined above to reform the U.S.’s approach to toxic chemicals so that vulnerable groups, including children and pregnant women are fully protected?
Q.11 Answer – YES, of course. If you review my C/V, you will find I was one of the folks who set up the original NJ Database tracking birth defects caused by non-genetic (environmental) factors, the purpose of which was to identify potential pollutants/polluters responsible. In the more industry-friendly years of the first Bush presidency, much of that data was merely collected and never applied, unfortunately. I left that industry in 1988 with a job well-begun, that has stagnated since.
Q.12 – The Clean Water Act: When the Clean Water Act was passed by Congress in 1972, 60% of waters across the United States did not meet baseline standards for use as set by the EPA. By 2001, that number was down to 40%, and many of those waters were cleaner than they were before. These results were among the reasons that the Clean Water Act was long considered one of the country’s most successful environmental laws.
However, Clean Water Act enforcement fundamentally changed as a result of Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006 and ensuing misguided administrative directives. Today, lack of clarity on the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act has left more than 60% of the nation’s streams and 20 million acres of wetlands vulnerable to pollution, including sources of drinking water for 1 in 3 Americans. Although the best way to restore the historic Clean Water Act protections is for Congress to pass legislation that supersedes the Supreme Court decisions, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers have used their authority to propose a Clean Water Rule that will restore protections to these important waterways. Opponents of this rule, including the oil and gas industry, developers, and other polluters, and their allies in Congress are attacking this critical rule. These attacks are being waged through standalone legislation and policy riders that would block or delay the rule.
Do you support restoring the historic scope of the Clean Water Act through legislation as well as upholding the EPA and Army Corps’ Clean Water Rule and the administration’s authority to protect our waterways, including seasonal streams and wetlands?
Q.12 Answer – YES, but there is an important “But”. There are some infrastructure projects needed along our coast that will involve removal of some present environmental “time-bombs” – older bridges with hydraulics over flowing streams and rivers, and such. Remediation should be part of the clean water act, not just prevention. We also have to look hard at both stormwater runoff pollution and storm surge control. These projects can be green in their completed state, but will involve construction efforts that incorporate some short-term environmental risk. Responsible and well-monitored efforts to these ends are a necessary part of any long-term plan. (I speak specifically to the potential for “gating” our inlets, as has been done on the Thames in London and along the Zuider Zee).
Q.13 – Environmental Justice: Some communities in America, especially communities of color and low-income communities, suffer disproportionate impacts from proximity to sources of pollution and environmental degradation. Evidence of environmental disparities includes: higher incidences of childhood lead poisoning among African-American and low-income children, higher rates of asthma in Latino and other communities of color, higher penalties for violations of federal environmental laws levied in white communities compared to minority communities, among many others.
Do you support legislation to strengthen compliance with Executive Order 12898, the President’s Order on Environmental Justice (2/11/94), which mandates that each federal agency make achieving environmental justice part of its mission, by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations?
Q.13 Answer – YES, but there is a further concern, and targeting specific economic criteria rather than the actual presence of pollutants can be a misdirection. The buzzwords “low-income” and “minority” are probably unnecessary – and let me explain why. Pollutants in the ground are no respecter of race or socio-economic class. What we DO find are past polluters having taken advantage of those less financially able to fight back – and these examples are both blatant and egregious – but the subtle polluting that has happened in areas of the Nation you would least expect – hospital waste, including radiographic waste, being stored in old buildings and abandoned, for example, or other potential hazards that only turn up when someone notices our earth responding (The Tritium issue in the wells of Lacey Township, for example – a result of ternary fission, not pollution from a Fission Reactor – a clear indicator that “other radioisotope pollutants” responsible for alpha-decay are present where they never occurred naturally).
LAND, WATER & WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
Q.14 – Oceans Policy: Oceans, coasts, and rivers contain ecosystems that sustain and improve our economy. According to the National Ocean Economics Program, the U.S. ocean and coastal economy contributes more than $258 billion to the nation’s annual GDP from living marine resources, tourism, recreation, transportation, construction, and mineral extraction. Additionally, over 2.7 million jobs in the U.S. depend on the marine environment. Yet, two blue-ribbon commissions have detailed declines in ocean health ranging from depleted fish populations to acidification and other detrimental impacts from climate change. For many years, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which is currently up for reauthorization, has helped to halt overfishing and rebuild many of our fish stocks. However, many scientists and stakeholders, as well as both blue-ribbon commissions, have called for a fundamental shift in how the federal government manages America’s oceans: from a single-species approach to a more comprehensive approach known as ecosystem-based management.
Do you support a reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that protects the law’s core conservation requirements to end overfishing and rebuild depleted fisheries, while also updating the law to have a more science driven ecosystem-based management structure that will fully restore the health of our fisheries and marine ecosystems?
Q.14 Answer – YES, I do, but Mr. Runyan’s quiet addition of exceptions to catch limit rules needs to go. I would also see further funding for monitoring efforts. This creates jobs, and will provide the meaningful data necessary for choosing future courses of action.
Q.15 – Land Conservation: Protecting public lands and natural areas strengthens our economy by boosting outdoor recreation and tourism. A key federal program to protect public lands, urban parks, working forests, and battlefields is the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which uses federal revenues from the depletion of one natural resource—offshore oil and gas—to support the conservation of another valuable resource—our lands and waterways. LWCF funding has supported outdoor recreation projects in all 50 states, ranging from expansions of iconic National Parks like the Grand Canyon to building local parks, trails and playgrounds in our own backyards. Yet despite bipartisan support for LWCF, nearly every year Congress diverts much of the $900 million authorized for this program and spends it on things other than conserving natural open spaces and public lands. Additionally, LWCF is facing a critical deadline when its authorization expires in September 2018, putting in jeopardy this popular and longstanding program.
Do you support legislation to fully fund and permanently authorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund?
Q.15 Answer – YES – Environmental Stewardship is my idiom.
Q.16 – Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one of our nation’s crown jewels and is among the most spectacular and remote areas of the entire world. It supports the most diverse wildlife in the Arctic and is home to caribou, polar bears, muskoxen, gray wolves and more than 200 species of birds. Following several years of public engagement and using the best available science, in January 2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a Comprehensive Conservation Plan which recognizes the Refuge’s unparalleled wild character and recommends that more than 12 million acres— including the Refuge’s biological heart, the Coastal Plain—be formally protected as wilderness by Congress. A wilderness designation is the highest level of protection available to public lands.
Do you support legislation to permanently protect the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by designating it as wilderness?
Q.16 Answer – YES…while there are some who live there who would prefer to enjoy the short-term economic gains of exploitation of mineral and fossil-fuel resources in that region, the potential for permanent harm and habitat destruction is too great a risk. These companies who would exploit such only do so because “Moose have no lawyers”.
Q.17 – The Endangered Species Act: For more than 40 years, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has helped prevent the extinction of our nation’s wildlife treasures, including the bald eagle, the Florida manatee, and the California condor. But despite the ESA’s outstanding success, there have been numerous attempts in recent years to significantly undermine the ESA. These include legislative proposals to make it more difficult to list species, weaken habitat protections, establish arbitrary land boundaries where species protections would not apply, interfere with scientific decision-making, inappropriately transfer management of listed species to the states, and undermine citizens’ ability to enforce the ESA in the courts. In addition, there also have been recent attempts to block or lift protections for particular species such as the sage grouse, which would set a dangerous precedent of interference and micromanagement by Congress.
Do you oppose congressional interference with science-based ESA decisions and support maintaining the strong protections of the Endangered Species Act?
Q.17 Answer – YES – ESA trumps donor profiteering – at least on our team.
Q.18 – National Environmental Policy Act: The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was passed into law in 1970 with overwhelming bipartisan majorities. At its core NEPA is about public disclosure and public participation. NEPA requires that for all major proposed federal projects and actions environmental impacts are disclosed, potential alternatives are presented, and the public is given a chance to comment. NEPA gives citizens a voice in projects that impact their communities and can lead to the selection of more effective and less expensive projects. Despite its track record of success, there is a sustained effort in Congress to weaken or gut this bedrock environmental statute by those who falsely claim NEPA impedes development, takes too long, and costs too much.
Do you oppose all legislative efforts to undermine NEPA?
Q.18 Answer – YES, absolutely. NEPA compliance is specifically what has been avoided by County and State Government agencies in the “Southern Reliability Link” fight right here in my district, and I will use that as one of many tools to defeat that project.
Q.19 – Trade: Today’s trade deals go beyond simply eliminating tariffs—they are massive agreements that have enormous implications for environmental policies and protections around the world. Trade deals have the option of being approved by Congress under expedited procedures (also called “fast track”), which includes limited debate and no amendments. Given their scope, Congress and the American public have a right to know what’s in these deals before negotiations are finished. However, the current trade agreement negotiations process is severely lacking in both accountability and transparency.
Many provisions within trade deals have environmental impacts. For example, the two trade deals currently under negotiation, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), include: provisions that would automatically approve natural gas export permits to countries in the deal, concerning language on chemical regulation, regulatory coherence language that could result in a regulatory “race to the bottom,” and provisions to would allow multinational corporations to seek damages in private tribunals for domestic environmental and public health laws they allege are hurting their investments. Furthermore, even when recent trade deals have included strong environmental provisions, like a prohibition on trade in illegally harvested timber and wildlife, enforcement has proved to be a major challenge.
Do you only support trade deals that result in real, enforceable progress on environmental and public health issues, are negotiated in a transparent way, and do not include the harmful provisions listed above?
Q.19 Answer – YES – if we don’t have time for rational discourse, then we should be passing on advancing such legislation. “You have to pass it to see what’s in it” is a highly irrational statement, and denigrates our roles as representatives of the PEOPLE. I do, however, oppose any action that makes our sovereign government subject to any outside body. I am wholly un-fond of the present trade proposals for that reason, and am also not against tariffs, at all…in fact, I view them as the stick with which any acts of economic terrorism can be brought to heel. We can control our destiny only so long as we hold the reins.
Q.20 – Corporate Money in Politics: The dramatic increase of corporate money in politics stemming from a series of disastrous Supreme Court decisions, including Citizens United vs. FEC, has allowed special interests to hijack our democracy and drown out the voices of the American people. Prominent among these special interests are the big corporate polluters seeking to spew unlimited amounts of carbon and other pollution into our air and water at a time when climate change-fueled extreme weather is impacting Americans all across the country. It is time for legislation that will ensure the American people hold the power in our elections, not corporate polluters. Do you support efforts to limit the influence of corporate money on our political system, including through legislation that would increase the influence of low-dollar campaign contributions and a Constitutional Amendment that would reverse the Citizens United decision and restore Congressional authority in determining campaign contribution limits?
Q.20 Answer – YES, and I have a way of reducing the efficacy of such spending to insignificance. It is voluntary, and can be used to weed out the self-servatives in our government over time. It is a non-justiciable application of the Rules of the House and Rules of the Senate, as drafted at the beginning of each session, (non-justiciable meaning SCOTUS cannot interfere). Once I have taken office, you will assuredly hear much with respect to the “Change the Rules” pledge.
In summation: (additional information offered)
“We welcome you to elaborate on what your top environmental priorities would be in Congress and to offer any additional feedback you would like to supplement your answers above”
In my district, a large part of our jobs program will be investment in remediation and remediation technology, and an effort to bring manufacturing jobs back “on-shore”. Some of these jobs were past “polluters”, however – for example, I would see our circuit boards and microprocessors for our military MADE HERE, as a matter of security, but those processes are inherently fraught with a risk of environmental contamination. Design and engineering of safe facilities will be a part of any such proposal. We have many, many sites in dire need of remediation – especially on the grounds of the Joint Base – Maguire/Dix/Lakehurst. Rather than just sending in a team of folks in MOPP suits, I would prefer that we expand the mission of the facility to training for such remediation efforts, and use the present sites as the training ground/test bed.
To review our other efforts with respect to Environmental Responsibility and Stewardship, I invite you to visit http://www.fjl2016.org
I humbly hereby request your endorsement and financial support for this upcoming election, to insure THIS SEAT gives our environmental efforts the affirmative voice it most assuredly lacks at present.
Frederick John LaVergne, Democrat for Congress, NJ Congressional District Three.