I want to apologize on behalf of Illinois for afflicting the nation with John Shimkus. He doesn't represent most of us here, although he seems to be pretty popular with residents of his rural Illinois' 15th District and with polluters who want to poison our air and water without consequence.
A religious man, Representative Shimkus starts most days by Tweeting out a bit of scripture, and then proceeding to do the Lord's work from his seat on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Sub-Committee on Environment and the Economy which he chairs.
All that scripture reading has certainly helped Shimkus to more effectively carry out his his party's number 1 priority: burning every last gram of extractable fossil fuels and damn the consequences to the environment and the future of humanity. You may remember this priceless moment from a Committee meeting in 2009 when Shimkus quoted Genesis to dismiss the threat of global warming:
Lovely. A "theological debate" about global warming? We have no future.
I'm fairly certain, of course, that it is not just theology that informs Representative Shimkus' positions on environmental issues. Call me cynical, but I'd venture to guess that $987,613 in contributions from oil and coal companies might be influencing his understanding of the future of our planet. Sometimes it takes a little cash to grease the theological wheels.
So what is Shimkus up to these days? No good I'm afraid.
Molly Redden at Mother Jones reported today that House Republicans on Shimkus' Sub-committee are drafting a nightmare tentatively entitled the Chemicals in Commerce Act designed to aid frackers and other environmental polluters. Temporarily suspending their reverence for states rights, Republicans seek to block states and municipalities from regulating toxic chemicals if the EPA has acted on them under the guise of 'strengthening' the EPA, but knowing that the Toxic Substances Control Act, under which the EPA can regulate chemicals, has standards that make it an ineffective tool for regulating even lethal asbestos.
The point of this seems to be that most regulation of potentially toxic fracking chemicals takes place presently at state and local levels. Referring to such regulation to the EPA will certainly weaken it and give the Republicans in Congress further avenues to weaken it. The Sierra Club reports that at least 20 states have adopted or proposed requirements for fracking chemical disclosure, and this bill, if it became law, would nip those efforts in the bud.
Elliott Negin of the Union of Concerned Scientists writes that Shimkus should have titled the bill the "More Toxic Chemicals in Commerce Act":
"Throughout the draft, the bill gives greater weight to reducing the burdens on industry than to protecting the public and the environment," Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, explained in a March 5 letter to House members. "When chemical interests may face additional requirements, the bill gives them so many ways to evade or challenge them, that it reduces the Environmental Protection Agency's already insufficient authority to regulate toxic chemicals."
Rosenberg's letter pointed out other glaring problems with Shimkus' draft, including the fact that while it acknowledges that certain populations -- namely infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly, and people who live near chemical plants -- may be more vulnerable to chemical exposure, it doesn't require the EPA to do anything to protect them. In addition, Rosenberg said, the bill would allow Congress and the courts to ignore the recommendations of government and independent scientists.
Environmental groups seem to be applying a lot of pressure aimed at killing this in Committee but no doubt Shimkus' theological analysis will prevail and this nasty piece of work will make it to the House floor as yet another installment in House Republicans' "Jobs Plan".
Bills like this seem more frightening these days as we face the prospect of bicameral Republican control, with a President in office who is not unfriendly to fracking interests.