This page contains letters signed by elected officials, usually written to the President or relevant members of Congress.

04-SEN1 on Apr 1, 2004

Dear Administrator Leavitt:

We are writing to urge you to take prompt and effective action to clean up mercury pollution from power plants. The EPA’s current proposals on mercury fall far short of what the law requires, and they fail to protect the health of our children and our environment. We ask you to carry out the requirements of the Clean Air Act to protect our nation from toxic mercury contamination.

On January 30, 2004, EPA proposed two alternative rules to address mercury emissions. Unfortunately, both of these proposals fail to meet the Clean Air Act directives for cleaning up mercury. EPA's proposals permit far more mercury pollution, and for years longer, than the Clean Air Act allows.

The toxicity of mercury has been proven time and again by scientists around the world. The Agency's own scientists just released a study finding that approximately 630,000 infants were born in the US in the 12-month period, 1999-2000, with blood mercury levels higher than what is considered safe. This is a doubling of previous estimates.

The newest scientific studies show that controlling mercury emissions works. As we saw in Florida, sharp reductions in mercury pollution are mirrored by reductions in nearby fish populations. A study in northern Wisconsin indicated that reductions in the input of mercury from air corresponded with marked reductions in mercury fish tissue levels in the 1990s.

As the Administrator of the EPA, you have the legal authority and the responsibility to address mercury emissions and protect public health. We do not believe that EPA's current proposals are sufficient or defensible. We urge you to withdraw the entire proposed rule package and re-propose a rule for adequate public comment that meets the terms of the 1998 settlement agreement and is promulgated by the December 15, 2004 deadline.

Participating counts on VoteMatch question 8. Question 8: Human needs over animal rights Scores: -2=Strongly oppose; -1=Oppose; 0=neutral; 1=Support; 2=Strongly support.
• Topic: Environment
• Headline: EPA must do better on mercury clean-up (Score: -1)
  
  Participating counts on AmericansElect question 8.
• Headline: EPA must do better on mercury clean-up (Answer: C)
• AmericansElect Quiz Question 8 on Environment: Which of the following statements comes closest to your personal view?
  • A: Natural resources exist for the benefit of humanity
  • B: Natural resources exist for the benefit of humanity, but should be somewhat protected
  • C: Natural resources should be mostly protected, but also exist for the benefit of humanity
  • D: Natural resources exist on their own and should be completely protected
  • E: Unsure
  
  
  
• Key for participation codes:
• Sponsorships: p=sponsored; o=co-sponsored; s=signed
• Memberships: c=chair; m=member; e=endorsed; f=profiled; s=scored
• Resolutions: i=introduced; w=wrote; a=adopted
• Cases: w=wrote; j=joined; d=dissented; c=concurred
• Surveys: '+' supports; '-' opposes.