[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 25, 2004)]
[House]
[Page H601]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        ENDING MERCURY POLLUTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, the Congress and the President are preparing 
for a major debate on reducing air pollution. In this debate, partisans 
for and against greater environmental protection are both right. And 
they are both wrong.
  The environmental community is correct in highlighting the growing 
danger of mercury pollution. Once considered an ``average'' pollutant, 
the EPA's Children Health Protection Advisory Committee warned last 
month that mercury is a powerful neurotoxin that accumulates in humans. 
Just one-twenty-fifth of a teaspoon of mercury can contaminate a 25-
acre lake. Blood tested from Illinois pregnant women showed that they 
averaged 14 times the naturally occurring level of mercury in their 
blood.
  Coal-burning power plants that have not yet been required to reduce 
their mercury emissions are the major source of this pollution. The 
Federal Government already requires all municipal incinerators and 
other sources of air pollution to scrub their emissions to remove most 
mercury. Raw political power and threatened litigation have delayed 
such requirements for coal-fired plants.
  Enough of the delays. We need to clean up mercury pollution today. In 
eastern States, downwind from the rest of the Nation, mercury levels in 
the water are rising. The National Wildlife Federation recently 
released a study showing that the rainwater falling on suburban Chicago 
communities contained three times the naturally occurring level of 
mercury. With higher levels of mercury poisoning than other regions of 
the country, New England and the Great Lakes are becoming mercury ``hot 
spots.'' This poses a threat to the Great Lakes, a critical ecosystem 
that is the source of drinking water for over 20 million Americans.
  The scientific debate about the danger of mercury poisoning is now 
over. The real question is, how quickly can we reduce such pollution? 
When the Clean Air Act was written, there was little thought to how 
best to control pollution. The act imposed a rigid set of 1970s 
controls on each source of pollution, with many opportunities for 
polluters to challenge any action by the government in court. The worst 
example of what followed is the Federal Superfund cleanup program. 
Today, over half of all Superfund environmental cleanup dollars have 
been spent paying lawyers and not protecting the environment.
  There is a better method. In the 1980s, the program to reduce acid 
rain was based not on endless court litigation, but on a system of 
tradeable credits that restrict the total output of pollution in a way 
that is more flexible than the litigious old regulatory system. The 
acid rain pollution credit trading system is a great success, leading 
to more environmental cleanup and less courtroom cost. This system cuts 
acid rain pollution in a way that is faster and cheaper than the old 
regulatory approach. President Bush proposes using such a system based 
on acid rain to also reduce mercury pollution. His approach could be 
effective but needs two major amendments by environmentalists here in 
the Congress.
  First, the President's proposal allows more mercury pollution under a 
trading system than the old regulatory approach. Trading credits can be 
allowed but Congress must reduce the supply of tradeable credits to 
dramatically cut mercury pollution to levels at or below which would 
have been allowed under the old system.
  Second, a flexible system also carries a danger for areas already 
contaminated with mercury. If credits to emit mercury can be purchased 
in an already polluted area, a trading system could worsen mercury hot 
spots that already exist. Congress should clearly define mercury hot 
spots, and we should allow emissions credits to be sent outside such a 
zone but not to be purchased to contaminate inside.
  These two changes, restricting the supply of mercury emissions 
credits and higher environmental protection for mercury hot spot zones, 
could make a program modeled after the acid rain program work to reduce 
mercury pollution in our country. This is the kind of bipartisan 
approach that takes the best aspects of both sides to focus taxpayer 
dollars on cutting pollution rather than killing time in court.
  Whatever the outcome of this debate, one thing should be agreed by 
bipartisan majorities in the Congress: the days of unregulated 
pollution from coal-burning power plants should be over. Period. The 
science is now clear and convincing that mercury pollution from such 
emissions represents a clear and present danger to the mothers and 
children of North America.

                          ____________________