Two articles will illustrate my concern. In January, a paper back in his district interviewed Shimkus about his new role as chairman of the subcommittee on Environment and Economy. He expresses a concern for defending real science.
"I’ll mostly deal with the EPA, making sure that what they claim is real science actually is real science, and that their restrictions are focused on the health and welfare of the public, not just a political agenda," Shimkus said.
That sounds good! We need environmental policy based on science and public health and not written by those with just a political agenda.
But then something odd happened when Shimkus' committee held hearings in Washington about the clean air act.
"Do you find it strange that at this hearing of this importance we have no scientists?" asked Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), the subcommittee's ranking member.
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) swept aside such critiques, telling ClimateWire, "This is about jobs. This isn't about science. The science committee may turn it into that and get into these issues, but we want to address how this affects jobs."
EPA administrator Jackson, held her ground, pointing out, "Chairman Upton's bill would, in its own words, 'repeal' the scientific finding regarding greenhouse gas emissions."
Back in his district Shimkus said he would focus on science and public health. But the impostor Shimkus in Washington doesn't include real scientists in the discussion. Not only that, but many of those chosen to testify before Shimkus' committee represent organizations who place their company profits and political agenda ahead of public health needs.
Shimkus then suggested that EPA might regulate plumes of dust behind tractors. No one has ever proposed anything remotely like that so its something he just pulled out of his ass.
Also, the real John Shimkus should know that most of the new energy jobs being created back in Illinois are from wind farm construction and energy efficiency projects, not coal mines.
Shimkus often speaks about his Christian faith, so I know he wouldn't tell his constituents he was going to do one thing and then do the exact opposite. That would be hypocrisy. Or a lie. The only logical explanation is that the man in Washington is an impostor. Someone please look into it!