Another chipper Twitter message from Illinois’ 19th Distric Representative  John Shimkus, Big Coal’s guy in Washington, to his constituents: “the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

We continue to be bothered by Shimkus’ biblical tweeting, not because he is not within his rights to do so or because we don’t like Christians, but because we think it demonstrates profound insensitivity toward his constituents who are not followers of Christ. Shimkus was elected to represent all residents of his district, not just the Christians. His choice of passages continue to reflect, however, an attitude that his spiritual path is the only path with any legitimacy. Perhaps Shimkus could mix it up a bit. (Our Congressman, Shimkus’ buddy Peter Roskam, could sure use to hear some biblical wisdom on the practice of usury or on welcoming the stranger.)

Perhaps as troubling to us is that Shimkus is using his Christian religion to absolve himself from acknowleding the sound science that tells us that our continued dependence on fossil fuels is poisoning our environment threatening the possibility of leaving global ecological catastrophe as our legacy to our children and grandchildren. Shimkus’ warped theology gives him an out to keep on accepting big contributions from the electric utilities, oil and gas companies, and coal companies while using his vote in Congress to advance their interests rather than those of his constituents.

Don’t believe me? Have a peek at these videos U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment hearings in March, 2009 (preserved thanks to the outstanding progressive news site, Progress Illinois)

From the March 25, 2009 hearing of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Shimkus’ openening remarks using Genesis 8 and Matthew 24 to reassure us that we don’t need to worry about climate change because the “infallible word of God” tells us that only God will end the world:

Shimkus’ later with Christopher Monckton endorsing Monckton’s ridiculous conclusion that we are a “carbon-starved” planet and that cap & trade will starve plants of their food. Bear in mind as you listen to this drivel  that, in the Cambrian era, during which Monckton asserts our present “carbon shortage” did not exist, the world was a much warmer place and complex life was not found on land.  Shimkus concludes by again stating his biblically-justified belief that the “earth will not be destroyed by a flood”:

And, to wrap it up, because we couldn’t resist, here are the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity’s Clean Coal Carolers doing “Frosty the Coal Man”. ACCCE is a coal and utility industry astroturf group that thought this might be a good idea:

By the way, we understand Shimkus has a Democratic opponent, Tim Bagwell. We don’t know too much about him but 19th District voters might want to check him out.

“I’m for expanding domestic energy production now and investing in renewables like wind and solar.”

That’s what Peter Roskam had to say in his first campaign ad of 2008.  And Roskam had this to say in July 2008:

“Soaring energy prices place an enormous financial weight on our family’s budget today, far greater than any time in this nation’s history,” said Roskam. “Energy costs now consume nearly one-fifth of the after-tax incomes of low and middle-class families – double that of just 10 years ago. It has come time for a national energy policy that places us on a path to independence. This is a common goal to all Americans – Republican and Democrat. For our economic security, our national security and environmental security we must be energy independent within the next 15 years.”

And this:

Your friends and neighbors, constituents of our 6th Congressional District, are common sense folks that understand the dire situation we face, and our great need to transform into a new energy economy. They also recognize that we can’t completely drill ourselves out of our energy woes, and instead move toward our energy future with an “all of the above” approach, leaving nothing on the table.

And this:

I understand that advancing America’s energy security, and working to bring down gas prices, will require a comprehensive approach that promotes responsible domestic energy production, increased conservation and efficiency standards, and robust research and development to expand the use and application of alternative energy sources.

Roskam was given a chance to stand behind his statements and keep his promise last Thursday when the House voted on H.R.3585 – Solar Technology Roadmap Act. Roskam voted no. He broke his promise.

H.R. 3585 seeks to develop a coherent solar energy development strategy through public private partnership and to provide focused public investments that are guided by that strategy or roadmap – the goal being to develop the U.S. solar energy industry and make it more competitive globally producing green jobs here at home and ultimately increasing our energy independence while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Speaker Pelosi supplies more detail on the bill:

  • Roadmap for Solar Research and Development: H.R. 3585 establishes a comprehensive roadmapping process for solar technology research, development, and demonstration activities conducted by the federal government in partnership with the private sector. The Secretary of Energy is also directed to award grants to carry out these programs on a merit-reviewed basis, and specifically to provide awards to industry-led consortia for RD&D in solar manufacturing. The roadmap provision is modeled on the successful National (now International) Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors, which has been instrumental in helping semiconductor technology advance rapidly over the past two decades.
  • Roadmap Committee Make Up: The Secretary must appoint a Solar Technology Roadmap Committee, comprised of at least 11 members, within four months of enactment of the Act. At least one-third but not more than half of the members of the Committee must come from the solar industry. The Secretary must also appoint a Committee chair, who shall not be a federal employee.
  • Timeline and Mandate of Committee: H.R. 3585 requires that the Committee create a Solar Technology Roadmap within eighteen months of enactment of the Act. The Roadmap will present the best current estimate of the near-term (up to two years), mid-term (up to seven years), and long-term (up to 15 years) RD&D needs in solar technology. It must also provide direct guidance for solar technology RD&D activities supported by the federal government. The bill requires that 30% of DOE solar RD&D funding in 2012 is pursuant to the recommendations of the Roadmap, ramping up to 75% in 2015. The Committee must update the Roadmap annually as needed, and comprehensively review and revise it every three years.
  • Photovoltaic Provisions: The Solar Technology Roadmap Act authorizes DOE to conduct at least 10 photovoltaic demonstration projects ranging from one-to-three megawatts in size and three-to-five solar projects greater than 30 megawatts in size. DOE is also required to study the performance of photovoltaic installations and identify opportunities to improve the energy productivity of these systems. In addition, DOE must establish a program of RD&D related to the reuse, recycling, and safe disposal of photovoltaic devices.
  • Dedicated Funding for Solar Research and Development: The bill authorizes $350 million for DOE to carry out these activities in FY 2011, rising to $550 million in FY 2015.

H.R. 3585 passed by a a vote of 310-106 with 63 Republican members joining 247 Democrats to make it a truly bipartisan bill. Republican Representative Michael McCaul of Texas had this to say in celebrating the bill’s passage:

The Solar Technology Roadmap Act has potential to be landmark legislation. It doubles the available research and development funding currently available. Further, it provides the collaboration that the professors at Stanford, the University of Texas and other leading institutions need to further their research so they can effectively harness the sun’s energy. The challenges they must overcome include storage, transportation and transmission of solar energy. I am hopeful this is the step that allows us to vastly expand America’s investment in research and development and commercialization of our solar industry.

Long-term, it will give us the ability to more efficiently heat and cool our homes and offices and operate equipment. Energy will cost less and the air we breathe will be cleaner.

Companies in high-tech centers such as Austin and Silicon Valley are in position to compete globally to produce this technology, creating jobs in the United States rather than export them.

Sadly, our own Republican Representative, Peter Roskam, thought it was more important to continue his political game of obstructing the Democratic legislative agenda than it was to support his promise to invest in alternative energy sources and help put our nation on the path to energy independence.

On Friday, June 26, the House of Representatives passed the historic Waxman-Markley comprehensive energy bill by a vote of 219 to 212. H.R. 2454, formally titled the American Clean energy and Security Act of 2009 includes a market-based cap & trade global warming reduction plan designed to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 17% by the year 2020. This is not where we need to be. It is thought that we will have to reduce emissions 80% by 2050 in order to stabilize the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at a level that prevent the worst consequences of global warming. Still the bill is a start and it has won praise from environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC):

“The House of Representatives has made a dramatic breakthrough for America’s future by choosing to create jobs, move to clean energy, and reduce global warming pollution. The passage of this legislation, which was almost unimaginable six months ago, will help set our country in a new direction by shifting to a clean energy economy and reducing the carbon pollution that causes global warming.

“While passing the bill through the House took hard work and compromises on many sides, this is strong and vital legislation that Congress needs to deliver to the President’s desk this year. This bill will help create new jobs in manufacturing and clean technology. It will increase energy efficiency, help consumers save on energy bills, and protect lower-income families. And it will finally put our country on a course to limit the carbon pollution that causes global warming.

Sadly our own Congressman, Republican Peter Roskam, was not a party to that “hard work and compromise”. Roskam voted against the bill, choosing to support the narrow interests of his big campaign donors from the energy sector, who opposed the bill, rather than act to save the planet from an impending catastrophe that threatens the  welfare of our children and of generations to come.

OpenSecrets.org, a project of the Center for Responsive Politics, today released data demonstrating how the industries that have worked to oppose climate change legislation gave, on average, twice the amount of campaign contributions to legislators, Democrat and Republican alike, who, like Roskam, opposed the legislation, as they did to those voting in favor. The table below compares contributions received by industry for the average “yes” voter on H.R. 2454, the average, “no” voter, and for Peter Roskam. Bear in mind that while contributions are totaled back to 1989, Roskam has only been running since 2006.

Industry Yes Voters Avg No Voters Avg Roskam
Energy Sector $124,181 $274,021 $240,765
Oil & Gas $31,663 $120,566 $138,815
Electric utilities $67,013 $102,370 $73,800
Coal Mining $2,279 $12,004 $1,000
Construction $138,569 $241,079 $297,517
Automakers $10,603 $11,982 $0
Business PACs $1,380,210 $1,901,371 $,1529,147
Environmentalists $21,198 $3,088 $0
Alternative Energy $1,250 $869 $0

You can draw your own conclusions but in my estimation this speaks volumes about why Roskam votes as he does.

The climate bill will now have to be taken up by the Senate where the fight is likely to be even tougher than it was in the House. I predict that 6th District residents will be hearing a lot more lobbying against the bill by our Congressman.

roskam_plan

Peter Roskam has been conducting more of those taxpayer-funded dinnertime robo-calls, this time to roll out his new plan to address the threat of catastrophic global climate change.  You can expect to see a lot of Roskam around the district during the labor day recess, talking up his plan. RSR has a sneak preview for you.  The 8 part Roskam plan is staggeringly simple:

  1. Ignore it. Pretend global climate change does not present any threat.
  2. Burn more fossil fuels faster. Try not to be outpaced by China and India.
  3. Cut taxes on big business.
  4. Say no to anything President Obama or any Democrat in Congress proposes.
  5. Get reelected.
  6. Continue blind obedience to masters at U.S. Chamber and National Association of Manufacturers.
  7. Cut taxes on big business.
  8. Call Nancy Pelosi a threat to national security.

Jumping creepers, Peter, why didn’t we think of this.

Seriously Peter, saying no to anything anybody propses to address the problem of global climate change is not a plan.  If we listen to you, we’re all screwed.  You who would put the narrow  interests  of your corporate campaign contributors ahead of saving the planet – for your children.

Cap & trade may not be perfect and it isn’t going to solve all of our problems, but it is a start, a step in the right direction.  It may very well be expensive for us all. But nobody said saving the planet was going to be cheap. Its just something we have to do.

If you don’t want to do cap & trade, then you tell us how you’re going to save the planet, not just how you are going to save your donors on their taxes.  Put up or shut up.

“Throughout my life, I have been a consistent voice for preserving and promoting the environment. We all have to live and breathe the same air and drink the same water. We all want open space, vibrant wildlife and a healthy ecosystem. My dedication to the environment dates back to the 1980’s when my wife and I organized a curbside recycling program in my hometown of Wheaton, one that continues to this day.”

Peter Roskam, from his campaign website

Curbside recycling to protect the vibrant wildlife and healthy ecosystem of Wheaton. Isn’t that special.

Peter Roskam is fond of portraying himself as an environmentalist, but a close look at his record since coming to Congress paints a different picture.

The League of Conservation Voters last month released its 2007 National Environmental Scorecard. The scorecard, which has been produced every year since 1970, assesses members of Congress based upon their voting records on legislation related to the environment, clean energy, and global warming.

One would think that Roskam, with his “dedication to the environment” would have scored pretty high.

In fact, he did not. Truth is, Roskam’s score was was quite poor, a miserable 15%.

How did Roskam score so low? Essentially by doing what he always does – voting according to the wishes of the oil companies and other big corporations that fund his campaigns and whose interests he places above anything else. The full list of Roskam’s votes scored by the League is here.

Most notably, perhaps, Roskam voted against the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, H.R. 6, on 12/6/2007 . This bill raised Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for automobiles to 35 mpg by 2020, increased fuel efficiency standards for a variety of household appliances and industrial equipment, and promoted the production of clean renewable fuels. Roskam and other Republicans opposed the bill because of Democratic efforts to make it budget neutral by reimposing taxes on big oil companies previously cut by the Bush administration and also because it imposed a renewable sources requirement of 15% for utilities in power generation. It later passed and was signed into law with these provisions stripped out. Roskam has received substantial campaign contributions during the present cycle from both the electric utilities and oil and gas industries.

We are facing environmental catastrophe in the coming century and we cannot afford to retain legislators who resist efforts to promote change out of concern for corporate profits. Roskam must be shown the door this fall. Curbside recycling in Wheaton isn’t going to save this planet for our children.

The United States Chamber of Commerce recently honored Peter Roskam for proving in his first term to be “an effective ally to the business community”.

Sounds great until you realize what exactly “being an effective ally to the business community” means.

Put simply, it means consistently voting against the interests of the majority of citizens in your district and giving big business exactly what it demands.

It means means Roskam voting against reducing the dependence on fossil fuels that is threatening our national security and destroying our environment by requiring minimum standards for the percentage of electricity generated using renewable sources of energy.

It means Roskam voting against tax incentives for energy conservation and development of clean, renewable energy sources because they are funded by the repeal of tax breaks to big oil companies now enjoying huge profits at our expense every time we fill up our tanks.

It means Roskam voting against the Children’s Health and Medicare Protection Act of 2007 which would have insured that Illinois’ uninsured children receive the kind of health care that Roskam’s own kids get at taxpayer expense.

It means Roskam standing up for the interests of big drug companies rather than allowing the Medicare program to negotiate for better prices on prescription drugs.

It means Roskam voting against protection of his constituents right to equal pay for equal work. And their right to organize.

And it means Roskam voting against protecting middle class taxpayers from the Alternative Minimum Tax.

So congratulations on your big award, Peter, and thanks for nothing. Its time we had a new Representative in Congress who works for us and not for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Page 1 of 212