Speeches
|
|
Print this page |
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN ON THE ENERGY BILL
November 21, 2003
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN ON THE ENERGY BILLFor Immediate Release
Friday, Nov 21, 2003
Mr. President, I had an opportunity earlier this week to speak briefly about this bill, but there is so much that is objectionable in this legislation that I am compelled to expend a little more energy on it.
I have listened to my colleagues’ statements, and I have yet to hear any plausible, substantiated argument in support of ethanol. Even my colleagues from corn-producing states who have indicated they support this bill haven’t been able to identify one benefit that ethanol provides the American taxpayers that pay dearly for it – including the taxpayers in those corn-producing states.
Ethanol is a product that would not exist if Congress didn’t create an artificial market for it. No one would be willing to buy it. Yet thanks to agricultural subsidies and ethanol producer subsidies, it is now a very big business -- tens of billions of dollars that have enriched a handful of corporate interests - primarily one big corporation, ADM. Ethanol does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase our energy independence, nothing to improve air quality. Let me repeat for emphasis; ethanol does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase energy independence and nothing to improve air quality.
As far as reducing fuel consumption, it requires 70% more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than it provides when combusted. There is actually a net energy loss from the use of ethanol. There is also nothing about ethanol that will increase our energy independence. More energy is used in the production of ethanol, and it has reduced the amount of gasoline consumed in the U.S. only by 1%. Ethanol does not improve air quality. In fact, doubling the amount of ethanol, as required by this bill, will most certainly degrade air quality. A National Academy of Sciences report in 2000 found that “oxygenates”, meaning ethanol and MTBE, can lead to higher nitrous oxide emissions, which contribute to higher ozone levels in some areas.
This means that in large cities, like Phoenix, air quality degradation would actually be increased under this legislation. Mr. President, the residents of my state of Arizona, as you know, already suffer due to the impact of the lingering brown cloud. I dread the effects of this bill -- doubling our national use of ethanol -- on my town, and communities across this nation.
And finally, the American public has to pay a lot of money, not only in taxes, but at the pump, for all these negative impacts on the national economy, the country’s energy supply, the environment, and public health. The total cost of ethanol to the consumer is about $3.00 per gallon. And the Highway Trust Fund is deprived of over $1 billion dollars per year to the ethanol producers. Plain and simple, the ethanol program is highway robbery perpetrated on the American public by Congress. I maintain: you cannot claim to be a fiscal conservative and support the profligate spending and corporate welfare in this bill.
One of the other problems that I have with this bill is the way in which it was developed. This secretive, exclusive process has lead to a 1200 page monstrosity that is chock full of special interest giveaways and exemptions from environmental and other laws that frankly can’t withstand the light of scrutiny. I mentioned one such provision earlier that’s a glaring example of corporate favors.
Section 637 carves out a very special deal for a consortium of energy companies, predominantly foreign-owned, called Louisiana Energy Services, which would allow it to construct a uranium enrichment plant in a small town in New Mexico at taxpayers’ expense -- to the tune of $500 million to $1 billion. This isn’t just your ordinary pork project. It is almost in a class by itself.
Louisiana Energy Services has had some serious difficulties getting a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And for good reasons. One major British partner of this group was fired by DOE from a $7 billion clean-up contract due to safety and financial failures. Even more disturbing, the major French partner, Urenco, has been associated with leaks of uranium enrichment technology to Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Pakistan. One high level U.S. nuclear security administrator stated, “to have this company operate in the U.S. after it was the source of sensitive technology reaching foreign powers does raise serious concerns”. There is significant reason to believe that the NRC would not issue a license to this group of companies. And, communities in other states did not want the LES facility in their backyard.
Sec. 637 of this bill gives LES a helping hand in New Mexico. The criteria for NRC licensing and the time period for review have been modified to make it easier and quicker for LES to get a license. Opportunities for challenges on environmental or other grounds would be severely restricted. And if you are wondering how sweet it could possibly get for this company, the uranium waste from the plant would be reclassified as low-level radioactive waste, and the cost of disposal would be borne by the Department of Energy – the federal taxpayers. Furthermore, there isn’t any disposal method or site currently available. Mr. President, this provision, which was inserted in conference, at the eleventh hour, is the epitome of corporate welfare. Allowing foreign companies with questionable reputations to circumvent longstanding environmental and nuclear regulations is just simply wrong.
Mr. President, let me quote from a few of the many editorials opposing this bill. I’ve never seen anything quite like this level of agreement in papers representing all regions of the country. In fact, Mr. President, I’ve yet to see a single editorial in favor of this bill.
From The Philadelphia Inquirer.... “what most Americans were looking for was an energy bill that protected their interests ...Instead they got this unbalanced shameful mess.”
From the Chicago Tribune.... “Neither the contents nor the process for cobbling it together suggest this is the type of energy legislation this country needs”.
From The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.... “If passed, the bill would dole out goodies to industries like so much Halloween candy. Too bad the trick is all on the taxpayers.”
From The Denver Post.... “the most pernicious pork got added in conference committee....Congress should start over next year.”
From The Arizona Republic... “this overstuffed bill has it all-except a coherent national policy.”
From the Houston Chronicle... “the energy bill unshrouded by congressional Republicans is, at best, half a loaf that’s been dropped repeatedly in the dirt”.
Mr. President, what this bill represents is a huge wasted opportunity. We could have established a much-needed national energy policy that would benefit our country’s security, economic and environmental interests. But, sadly, that is not what we have before us today. We can and must do better. The American public deserves no less.
- end -
|