U.S. SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY

Vermont's U.S. Senators Decry Bush Administration's Flawed Mercury Proposal

Witnesses Tell Senators Mercury Pollution Will Increase Under Bush Plan

WASHINGTON (Friday, July 9) – Vermont’s U.S. Senators Patrick Leahy and Jim Jeffords Friday led a hearing to examine the Bush Administration’s proposal on mercury emissions from power plants.  The nation's 1,100 coal-burning power plants emit about 48 tons of mercury each year, the largest unregulated U.S. source.  Witnesses, including former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials, testified that the Administration proposal allows for more mercury pollution than current law and is much less protective of public health.

Jeffords, the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee said, “Sadly, the Bush Administration’s proposal on mercury pollution from power plants appears to do little to protect public health, especially in the short term.  The proposed Administration rule calls for a permanent delay in serious reductions and would achieve far less in cleanup than is possible with today’s technologies and is required by the Clean Air Act.  Also, it lets more than 200 power plants buy their way out of controlling these toxic emissions for 20 years or more.” 

Leahy said, “Forty-five senators, 184 House members, 10 state Attorneys General, almost 500 sportsmen’s groups, the National Tribal Environmental Council, state air officials, and EPA’s own Children’s Health Advisory Committee all believe the Bush proposal falls way short of protecting public health or the environment.  As far as I can tell the only people happy with this proposal are the polluters and their lobbyists.  Some industry lobbyists have even said that it goes farther than even they had hoped.”

Legislation authored by Jeffords and cosponsored by Leahy would reduce mercury emissions by 90 percent by 2008.  The Bush administration plan would cut mercury emissions by 29 percent by 2010, and by 70 percent by 2018.

In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control found that one in twelve women of childbearing age has mercury levels above EPA's safe health threshold – due primarily to consumption of poisoned fish.  This totals almost five million women, and results in almost 300,000 newborns with increased risk of nervous system damage from exposure in the womb.

Earlier this year, it was disclosed that parts of the Bush Administration mercury rule were written verbatim from memos and proposals from lobbyists working for Midwestern power plants.  At the request of the Vermont Senators, the EPA Inspector General is conducting a review of industry influence on the drafting of the rule.

Witnesses at today’s hearing included: Bradley Campbell (Commissioner of Environmental Protection, State of New Jersey), John Paul (Regional Air Pollution Control Agency, Dayton, Ohio), Lynn Goldman (Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health), David Foerter (Institute for Clean Air Companies), and Scott Sparlin (New Ulm Area Sportfishermen in Minnesota).

# # # # #

Opening Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy
Hearing On Administration’s Mercury Proposal
Democratic Policy Committee
Friday, July 9, 2004

Thank you Senator Jeffords.  I am glad to see you chairing this hearing since the Environment and Public Works Committee abdicated its oversight responsibilities by not calling any hearings to examine the Bush Administration’s mercury proposal, or the questionable role that special interests and White House spinmeisters had in drafting the Bush plan.

The outcry over the Administration’s decision to abandon aggressive plans to cut toxic mercury emissions from power plants and instead let industry off the hook for another 15 years is stunning.  No wonder the Republican leadership has ignored the issue.

More than 600,000 public comments were submitted – the most ever for EPA; that’s more than the entire populations of some of our states – and in those comments the public is overwhelmingly opposed to the Bush proposal. 

Forty-five senators, 184 House members, 10 state Attorneys General, almost 500 sportsmen’s groups, the National Tribal Environmental Council, state air officials, and EPA’s own Children’s Health Advisory Committee all believe the Bush proposal falls way short of protecting public health or the environment.  I will put the joint letters from all of these groups into the record, but the list goes on and on. 

As far as I can tell the only people happy with this proposal are the polluters and their lobbyists.  Some have even said that it goes farther than even they had hoped.  

In Vermont, all you have to do is look at this map to see why we are especially outraged. 

This is an EPA map that shows mercury levels across the country.  You can barely even see Vermont.  For decades, we in the Northeast have been the dumping ground for the coal-fired power plants in other parts of the country. 

EPA’s new proposal to reduce mercury emissions from these plants was supposed to bring these power plants into the 21^st Century and to clean up their emissions.  It doesn’t do that.  It falls far short of what is possible and what is necessary.

I have heard from mothers, doctors, sportsmen and others in Vermont who are all concerned that the Bush plan will do little to reduce the mercury in our lakes, rivers and ultimately in our bodies. 

Instead, their plan asks everyone to wait. 

Wait, while the corporate polluters – the kind of wealthy special interests who the late Senator Paul Simon euphemistically called “the financially articulate,” for their robust political contributions -- make billions of dollars and escape from the very clear requirements of the Clean Air Act.

Wait, while more than 630,000 infants are exposed to unsafe mercury levels each year.  Wait, while one in six pregnant women is left to wonder if their unsafe mercury levels are damaging their babies.    

To this Vermonter, that is too much to ask. 

Instead, we should be asking the Bush Administration to follow the Clean Air Act.  Follow the law as it is written.  We should be asking the giant utilities that own most of these dirty plants to finally clean up their operations.  Most of them have had more than 30 years to do it.   

We should also ask the Bush Administration how sections of industry memos found their way almost verbatim into the mercury proposal. 

Why did the White House feel compelled to water down the final language in the proposal to downplay the health risks from mercury exposure?  Why has the Administration refused to do analysis of alternatives that could cut mercury emissions deeper?

Since the Republican leadership doesn’t think these issues are worthy of the Senate’s time, I hope this hearing will shed some light on them. 

We have a solid and distinguished panel today that represents the broad range of interests with a stake in this rule.  I look forward to hearing from each of you.   

# # # # #