Floor Statement on the
Omnibus Mercury Emissions Reduction Act of 1998 (S 1915)
April 2, 1998
Mr. President, today I am introducing the 'Omnibus Mercury Emissions Reduction
Act of 1998.' As United States Senators, we all have a responsibility to build
a nation for our children. As a recent grandfather, this commitment has never
been more real for me. I am introducing this comprehensive piece of
legislation to eliminate mercury -- one of the last remaining poisons without a
specific control strategy -- from our air, our waters and our forests. By
eliminating mercury from our natural resources, we will protect our nation's
most important resource -- our children and grandchildren.
As we learned from the campaign to eliminate lead, our children are at the
greatest risk from these poisons. I often ask myself how many Albert Einsteins
have we lost in the last generation because of the toxics they have been
exposed to? Just as with lead, we know that mercury has much graver effects on
children at very low levels then it does on adults. The level of lead pollution
we and our children breathe today is one-tenth what it was a decade ago. That
figure by itself is a tribute to the success of the original Clean Air Act.
I want to achieve the same results with mercury.
Mercury is toxic in every known form and of utterly no nutritional value. At
high enough levels it poisons its victims in terribly tragic ways. In Japan,
victims of mercury poisoning came to be known as suffering from Minimata
Disease, which took its name from the small Minimata Bay in which they caught
fish for their food.
For years, the Chisso Company discharged mercury contaminated pollution in the
Bay, which was taken into the flesh of fish and then the people who ate them.
Their disease was frightfully painful, causing tremors and paralysis, and
sometimes leading to death. Thankfully, discharges of mercury like those in
Minimata Bay have been eliminated. But a torrent of air pollution still
needlessly pours this heavy metal into the air of North America, poisoning
lakes and streams, forests and fields and -- most importantly -- our children.
Mercury control needs to be a priority now because we know, without a doubt,
of the neurological damage it causes.
This is not to say that men, women and children are doubled over in agony as
they were three decades ago in Japan. But wildlife are being killed -- we know
that endangered Florida panthers have been fatally poisoned by mercury and
that loons are endangered as well. In Lake Champlain we now have fish
advisories for walleye, trout and bass even though we have relatively no
mercury emissions within our own state borders.
Instead, we Vermonters are exposed to mercury and other pollutants that blow
across Lake Champlain and the Green Mountains every day from other regions of
the country. The waste incinerators and coal-fired power plants are not
accountable to the people of Vermont and therefore a federal role is needed to
control the pollution.
That is part of the reason voters send us here. They expect Members of the
Congress to determine what is necessary to protect the public health and the
environment nationally, then require it. And in many cases, perhaps most, we
have done that. But not with respect to mercury.
Mr. President, what I propose is that we put a stop to this poisoning of
America. It is unnecessary, and it is wrong. Mercury can be removed from
products, and it has been done. Mercury can be removed from coal-fired
powerplants, and it should be done. With states deregulating their utility
industries, this is the best opportunity to make sure powerplants begin to
internalize the cost of their pollution. We cannot afford to give them a free
ride into the next century at the expense of our children's health.
So, too, should mercury be purged from chlor alkali plants, medical waste
incinerators, municipal combustion facilities, large industrial boilers,
landfills, lighting fixtures and other known sources.
My bill directs EPA to set mercury emission standards for the largest sources
of mercury emissions. The bill requires reducing emissions by 95 percent, but
it also lets companies choose the best approach to meet the standard at their
facility whether through the use of better technology, cleaner fuels, process
changes, or product switching.
We will hear a lot of rhetoric about how much implementing this bill will cost.
In advance of those complaints I want to make two points. First, when we were
debating controls for acid rain we heard a lot about the enormous cost of
eliminating sulphur dioxide. But what we learned from the acid rain program,
is that when you give industry a financial incentive to clean up their act
they will find the cheapest way. More often than not, assertions about the
cost of controlling pollution grossly overestimate and distort reality. If you
look at electricity prices of major utilities since the acid rain program was
implemented, their rates have remained below the national average and some
have actually decreased -- even without adjusting for inflation.
Secondly, and most importantly, the bottom line here should not be the cost of
controlling mercury emissions, but the cost of NOT controlling mercury. While
we may not be able to calculate how many Einstein's we have lost, if we lose
one the price has been too high.
As printed in the Congressional Record.
