Last year, in his ongoing struggle to remain relevant, Senator
John Kerry (D-Mass) took the legislative reins on the contentious
issue of climate change. Now Kerry, against the backdrop of an
oil-soaked Gulf, is hoping to ride the current crisis to push his
American Power Act to the top of the Democrats’ legislative
agenda and propel himself back into the national spotlight.
Tuesday’s White House meeting with key administration
officials and senators presents Kerry with his best chance to
convince the Democratic leadership that his APA will end U.S.
dependence on foreign oil while simultaneously encouraging
economic growth and job creation.
Kerry has campaigned unusually hard for the bill, berating
Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle, often cornering and
lecturing them on the imminent perils of climate change and the
necessity of his bill. “He’s so obsessed,” one beleaguered
Democratic senator told Politico.
“Clearly it’s all climate, all the time with him.” A former
Senate Democratic aide was asked if he knew the source of Kerry’s
persistence. “He’s not the centrist who normally does the kinds
of deals like this,” the aide responded. “It’s unclear why he’s
emerged as a central player on climate other than his interest in
the subject.”
The APA propaganda touts the bill’s carbon-pricing measures
with a pledge to cut carbon emissions 17% by 2020. As William
Yeatman and Jeremy Lott pointed
out earlier this month, the APA’s
“global warming pollution reduction scheme” and its “linked fee”
for transportation costs will dramatically increase energy costs,
destined to fall heavily on consumers. But what separates the APA
from other energy reform proposals is its lavish subsidies to
large energy firms to help them develop alternative energies,
particularly nuclear.
Senator Kerry’s belief in nuclear energy, a dirty word
among liberals, signifies a break from his usual party line and a
willingness to work with big businesses to spur alternative
energy creation — the “centrist” position to which the former
aide referred. The APA would grant large energy firms between
$1.3 billion and $3 billion in subsidies per nuclear reactor and
would extend $54 billion in guaranteed loans “to spur the
domestic production of nuclear parts,” according to a study by
EarthTract. As Yeatman and Lott put it, “These businesses stand
to make a killing if the bill passes.” But they’re not the only
ones. As Senator Kerry’s recently released financial disclosure
statements reveal, he too will get a big piece of the action if
his legislation succeeds.
According to Senator Kerry’s statements for the last fiscal
year, as of December 31, 2009, he and his wife owned large stakes
in numerous prominent energy companies, many of which are
currently lobbying Congress for legislation aimed at energy
reform and stand the most to gain from passage of the APA.
Yeatman and Lott singled out GE, BP, ConocoPhillips, Dupont, and
Exelon as among the big winners in the APA scheme. GE in
particular has been a staunch advocate of the APA. Surprisingly,
or not, Kerry holds about $20 million worth of investments in all
of these companies, among a slew of other energy sector
giants.
For example, Senator Kerry reported owning up to $750,000
in GE; BP shares valued between $350,000 and $750,000; upwards of
$350,000 in Petrobras (the state-owned Brazilian oil powerhouse);
$100,000 in Suncor Energy; $500,000 in Rio Tinto; $650,000 in
ConocoPhillips; $750,000 in Total (an offshore oil, natural gas,
and alternative energy company); $500,000 each in Dresser-Rand
Group and Consol Energy; and as much as $1,000,000 each in Ultra
Petroleum Corp, Chicago Bridge and Iron, Newfield Exploration
Inc., Noble Energy Inc., Roper Industries, Smith International
Inc., Thermo Fisher Scientific, Ansys Inc., and Praxair
Inc.
From these investments Kerry accrued anywhere from $753,000
to roughly $5 million in unearned income from dividends and
capital gains in the last year alone. In one instance, Senator
Kerry sold his stake in Apache Corp. for a nifty dividend of up
to $1 million. Kerry was not available for comment on this
story.
Such investments among lawmakers are all too common. The
Washington Post recently
reported that almost
across the board, congressmen hold a disproportionately high
amount of assets in those industries they directly regulate or
craft legislation for. For example, those on the House
Agriculture Committee held larger than average holdings in
agriculture. Key members of the Senate Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs Committee, the House Homeland Security Committee,
and the House Energy and Commerce Committee held above average
holdings in the industries under their jurisdiction.
As the Post points out, “The patterns are
important because committee chairmen and ranking members have
more power than their colleagues to raise questions, hold
hearings and push through targeted legislation that in some cases
governs the industries in which they have investments.”
It may be business-as-usual in Washington, but it also
raises the question of the need of greater transparency in
Congress in order at least to expose if not prevent such blatant
conflicts of interest. It’s hard to believe
anyone can feign ignorance of or claim
ambivalence toward $20 million in investments in corporations
that stand to profit handsomely from the very legislation one is
pushing. Not even if you’re John Kerry.
