Peter Roskam Votes Against Chemical and Water Security Act

On November 11, 2009, in Homeland Security, Peter Roskam, Peter Roskam's Corporate Agenda, Terrorism, by RSR
0

More than 8 years since the 9/11 terrorist attacks,  the House on Friday, November 6th, the House passed by a vote of 230 to 193 the Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2868), a bill to to enhance security and protect against acts of terrorism against chemical facilities, to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to enhance the security of public water systems, and to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to enhance the security of wastewater treatment works.  The bill, if enacted, will enhance the safety of 100 million Americans who live in proximity to high-risk chemical plants.  The legislation must now be considered in the Senate.

Despite the fact that, according to the Congressional Research Service, there are 53 such plants in Illinois that each put more than 10,000 people at risk, the 6th District’s Republican Congressman, Peter Roskam, voted against the bill.

Among the provisions of H.R. 2868 are the following:

  • Conditionally require the highest risk plants to use safer chemical processes where feasible and cost-effective and requires the remaining high risk plants to “assess” safer chemical processes;
  • Eliminate the current law’s exemption of thousands of chemical facilities, such as waste water and drinking water plants and port facilities;
  • Involve plant employees in the development of security plans and provides protections for whistleblowers and limit background check abuses;
  • Preserve state’s authority to establish stronger security standards;
  • Provide funding for conversion of plants, including drinking water facilities and wastewater facilities, and
  • Allow citizen suits to enforce government implementation of the law.

The bill was endorsed by a coalition more than 50 environmental, labor and health groups including Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, the United Auto Workers, Steelworkers, Teamsters, Fire Fighters, Sierra Club, Physicians for Social Responsibility, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Environmental Defense Fund and Greenpeace.

That endorsement meant little to Peter Roskam, however, because the bill was opposed by his owners: the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber.

Republican opposition to this important security measure seems to have been based in its requirement that manufacturers take action rather than be allowed to proceed at their own pace. But according to Greenpeace, while more than 200 chemical facilities have converted to safer chemical processes since 9/11, eliminating poison gas risks to more than 30 million Americans. Yet 300 other chemical plants together put 110 million Americans at risk.

The Republicans are also opposed to the provision for citizen lawsuits. This is just another part of their project to end democracy in favor of corporate rule. The tort reform that Peter Roskam is always peddling and the tightening of consumer bankruptcy regulations are other key elements. That is the Republican plan in a nutshell: deregulation for big corporations and take away the rights of consumers to fight them. We’ve already seen the horrible results of deregulation in the present economic crisis. I don’t want to be around when they take away our right to redress in the courts.


Tagged with: • • • • • • • •
 

Peter Roskam Casts Anti-Family Vote to Oppose Paid Parental Leave

On June 10, 2009, in Executive Compensation, Healthcare, Middle Class, Peter Roskam, Peter Roskam's Corporate Agenda, by RSR
1

If I don’t have much good to say about Peter Roskam these days, I can at least credit him for being consistent. Roskam is quite consistently opposed to anything that might possibly benefit an ordinary working man or woman at the expense of the giant corporations and wealthy individuals whose interests he uses his seat in Congress to represent.

It was no surprise when Peter Roskam voted against the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2009 on June 4, 2009. Congressman Roskam has been a fierce advocate of unlimited pay for corporate executives, but God forbid any working mother or father should be given the time and the financial wherewithal to care for a new child. Why that would make us no different than those Commie countries like… like Canada!

H.R. 626 provides for 4 weeks of paid parental leave to federal employees surrounding the birth or adoption of a child. Federal employees currently receive 12 weeks of unpaid leave (as do all employees subject to the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993). The bill further provides that the employees can use accumulated sick time and vacation time to convert some or all of the balance of that 12 weeks into paid time. Finally, the Office of Personnel Management would be enabled to extend the paid period to 8 weeks. The measure applies only to federal employees and would be at best a weak immitation of pro-family policies in place in many Western countries. Hell, even Zimbabwe gives mothers 90 days at 100%.

Roskam, of course, in addition to not wanting to spend a dime of our federal tax dollars on a working family, fears that the bill will be a foot in the door for future further enhancements to FMLA, something that Roskam’s corporate overlords at the U.S. Chamber and at the National Association of Manufacturers virulently oppose.

Despite Roskam’s vote, along with those of most of his Republican colleagues, H.R. 626 passed by a vote of  258-154. It will now have to be taken up by the Senate.

Peter Roskam deserves to be shamed for his anti-family vote. Please contact him today.  You can reach him at (202) 225-4561 in Washington or at (630) 893-9670 in Bloomingdale.

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
 

Peter Roskam Gives Only Lip Service to Safety

On June 2, 2009, in Peter Roskam, Workplace Safety, by RSR
0

On May 19, 2009, Peter Roskam introduced H.Res.459, expressing support for the dedication of June as “National Safety Month”.  Roskam’s resolution states, in part, that the House

(1) supports the designation of ‘National Safety Month’;
(2) recognizes the contributions of the National Safety Council and its ongoing commitment to raising awareness about the need for the implementation of safe practices in our schools and jobs; and
(3) encourages citizens to observe the ‘National Safety Month’ with appropriate ceremonies and educate themselves about the importance of implementing safe practices in our schools and on our jobs to prevent unintentional injury and death.

The National Safety Council is based in Itasca, in Roskam’s district, explaining his sponsorship. It will, not doubt give him a few photo ops with which he will attempt to burnish his rep among his constituents and cover up his history of bad votes in the realm of safety.  “Appropriate ceremonies” and self-education is about all we are likely to get from Roskam. He is not a believer in government protection of workers from occupational hazards. Roskam’s corporate clients and his masters at the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) don’t approve of OSHA.

Roskam had at least two good opportunities during the 110th Congress to stand up for the safety of workers in the workplace. In both cases he refused.

One was in H.R. 5522, Worker Protection Against Combustible Dust Explosions and Fires Act of 2008. Roskam voted against this measure to require the Secretary of Labor to issue interim and final occupational safety and health standards regarding worker exposure to combustible dust, and for other purposes. You can read my post about Roskam’s vote here.

The other was H.R. 2693: Popcorn Workers Lung Disease Prevention Act to direct the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to issue a standard regulating worker exposure to diacetyl. You can read my post about Peter Roskam and the Popcorn Worker here.

Please give Peter Roskam a call and let him know that “appropriate ceremonies” don’t cut it when it comes to workplace safety and that the 6th district needs a Congressman who will stand up to protect workers when it really counts. You can reach him at (202) 225-4561 in Washington or at (630) 893-9670 in Bloomingdale.

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
 

Peter Roskam Throws Hissy Fit on House Floor Over Taxes on Dead Rich Folks

On May 22, 2009, in Economic Justice, Estate Tax, Middle Class, Peter Roskam, Poverty, by RSR
0

Received a Tweet from Peter Roskam  wanting to know what I thought about his floor speeech regarding the estate tax, which Peter and other wingnuts like to call the “death tax”.

Well. I always want to do my part to help my Congressman so here goes.

First off,  I was  pleased to hear him name publicly one by one the interest groups to which he is beholden: U.S. Chamber, National Association of Manufacturers, etc.

I was also impressed by Peter’s emotion, the passion that this issue arouses in him. Thought his hairpiece was going to fly off at the end ;) .

What troubles me deeply, however, is that it it is only taxes on rich people that can get Peter aroused this way.  Not homeless veterans on the streets of DuPage County, not children in Wood Dale without adequate health care, not torture and illegal detention authorized by the President and Vice President in Washington. Nope. Just taxes on rich white people in Wheaton, or in this case, rich dead white people in Wheaton.

The truth about the estate tax, which Peter Roskam is unwilling to share with you, is that the estate tax will affect only 0.24 percent of all people who die in 2009, individuals who die with an estate valued at $3.5 million or more or married couples (heterosexual) with an estate of $7 million or more. What’s really sad is that Peter Roskam has chosen to use his seat in Congress, OUR seat in Congress, to represent the financial interests of only that tiny fraction of the residents of his district.

Repealing the estate tax, as Roskam, would have us do, would cost billions in reduced revenue, necessitating either increased taxes on the poor and middle class or major reductions in spending. Cuts to the bloated defense budget, of course, are off limits, to Peter and his Republican colleagues, so cuts would have to be made for things like college financial aid, food stamps, Medicare, veterans services, childrens’ health care – all those programs to help poor and middle class families that Peter has fought against so vigorously during his time in office. More than likely, it would be a combination of both increased taxes and reduced services that would be required to give this expensive gift to a few very wealthy dead people.

So, thanks, Peter for letting me know about your speech.  I honestly have to say though that I didn’t care for it much.

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
 

Peter Roskam’s 8 Part Plan to Halt Global Climate Change

On May 21, 2009, in Energy, Environment, Global Warming, Peter Roskam, by RSR
0

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.

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
 

Hyper-partisan Peter Roskam Whines About Dysfunctional Congress

On June 2, 2008, in Congressional Elections, Energy, Peter Roskam, Peter Roskam's Corporate Agenda, by RSR
1

Peter Roskam was on NBC 5′s City Desk this past Sunday morning for a softball interview with host Mary Ann Ahern. Roskam opened with his usual complaints about a dysfunctional (read that as Democratic) Congress. He wants you to believe that he’s a reasonable guy who just wants to get thing s done for you but he’s stymied at every turn by less responsible members who are only interested in partisan politics and serving the needs of special interests.

Roskam is not telling you the truth. He is not only one of the most partisan members of Congress but also one of the most slavishly devoted to special interests.

During the current Congress, Peter Roskam has voted with his party 93.2% of the time. There are only 17 out of a total of 435 members, Republican or Democrat, who have voted more consistently with their party than Roskam. They are:

  1. Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA), 93.9%
  2. Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), 93.8%
  3. Rep. David Davis (R-TN), 93.8%
  4. Rep. Gary Miller (R-CA), 93.8%
  5. Rep. Stevan Pearce (R-NM), 93.8%
  6. Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH), 93.8%
  7. Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR), 93.7%
  8. Rep. David Dreier (R-CA), 93.6%
  9. Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), 93.6%
  10. Rep. Jim McCrery (R-LA), 93.6%
  11. Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA), 93.6%
  12. Rep. Zachary Wamp (R-TN), 93.6%
  13. Rep. John Mica (R-FL), 93.5%
  14. Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL), 93.4%
  15. Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT), 93.3%
  16. Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-SD), 93.3%
  17. Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA), 93.3%

It should be noted that only 4 out of 17 of these are Democrats. So Roskam is among the most hyper-partisan representatives and a member of the most hyper-partisan party. He is upset, not because of partisanship, but because his party is in the minority. He should be reminded that this is the case because his party proved to be massively corrupt in the previous Congresses and because it launched a preemptive aggressive war against a sovereign power which posed no real threat, sent a few thousand brave American men and women to their graves in that cause, and mortgaged our children’s future to pay for it all.

As for special interests, Roskam has compiled an impressive record, voting the position of the National Association of Manufacturers 100% of the time during his first term. Doing this has meant voting against the interests of the residents who live in his district on issues like equal pay for equal work, Medicare prescription drug price negotiation, and parity in mental health benefits for members of group health plans.

Roskam also spent a good deal of time on the show talking about high gasoline prices and the need for alternative energy sources. Roskam’s record however is one of obstructing Democratic efforts in this regard and voting instead in favor of protecting the big oil companies who are currently gouging us, all the while accepting substantial campaign contributions from the energy sector.

So 6th District residents, it is not Congress that is dysfunctional. It’s your Congressman. But don’t worry, we’re going to replace him this fall.

[Progress Illinois has a post today about Roskam's attempt to justify his vote against the new GI bill on the same program]

Tagged with: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
 
Page 1 of 212