There's been a lot of discussion on this site and elsewhere about the strategy that Senate Democrats used to vote for or against John Roberts. Senate minority leader Harry Reid, one of the first to announce he would be voting no, explained why he wasn't calling for all Democrats to follow: "You can only go to the well so many times. This (Roberts vote) isn't a time I wanted to do that." That is an astute quote, Reid wants to follow Kenny Rogers' advice and "know when to hold them, know when to fold them."
However if there ever was a time to call for a party line vote, Reid missed it a week and a half ago when the Senate voted to overturn Bush's weakened rule on mercury emissions. It would have been both a policy and a political triumph to overturn the Bush rule, reduce mercury emissions (which end up in our waterways, our fish, and then our bodies) and a concrete way to stop the harmful Bush agenda.
Here's some background on this issue: Coal fired power plants are the major source of mercury pollution in our country. They emit almost 50 tons (100,000 lbs.)
of mercury annually into the air. Those mercury bits end up in our rivers and streams, then they end up in our fish. Mercury bioaccumulates, meaning that as bigger fish eat smaller fish, the mercury in the smaller fish builds up in the larger fish. Following the food chain one step up, the mercury that builds up in larger fish later builds up in humans who eat the larger fish. Mercury doesn't leave your body, every bit of mercury you've ever eaten is still in your body and will be there forever (unless you're a woman who gave birth, then some of the mercury gets passed onto your offspring.)
What kind of problems do mercury lead to in the human body? Mainly developmental problems: reduced IQ, neurological problems, increased likelihood for autism. Pregnant woman and fetuses are at the most risk. It seems that every few months there is new information about the health effects of mercury. The problem is so widely acknowledged that right now there are 44 states with partial or complete fish advisories. In my home state of Pennsylvania, there is a general statewide advisory not to eat more than one meal of locally caught fish each week. In many streams, rivers and lakes statewide there are more specific advisories, saying not to each fish caught there more than once or twice a month.
During the late Clinton Administration, the EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act meant that mercury from power plants would be reduced 90% within three or four years using "maximum available control technology." The Bush administration exempted mercury from the Clean Air Act and said that mercury emissions from coal fire power plants would be cut by 70% by 2018. The difference between 70% reductions and 90% reductions is the difference between 15 tons and 5 tons of mercury being released. And of course, if the Bushies had their way they would find another technique to stall this beyond 2018.
Earlier this month, the Senate voted to overturn Bush's EPA policy regarding Mercury. The vote was close: 51-47 in favor of keeping the shitty mercury rule. Bush had threatened a veto if the vote turned out differently. Nine Republicans broke rank to vote the right way, 6 Democrats voted the wrong way, one from each party were MIA for the vote.
This was clearly a situation for Frist to call for a party line vote. Aside from the overwhelmingly positive environmental and health effects of better mercury reductions, the political benefits would have been wonderful.
First, and most peripherally, there are 44.4 million people in the U.S. who fish. Many of them live in battleground or red states. Give them a concrete example of how better environmental regulations relate to their life and they will be more likely to vote for candidates with good environmental records.
More importantly, as Democrats in the minority, if all we can do is react to the Bush agenda, we have to pounce on serious chances to overturn his worst mistakes. More republicans broke ranks on this vote than Democrats, better party discipline on this issue could made the difference.
Let's look at the Democrats who voted no: Baucus, Mont.; Byrd, W.Va.; Conrad, N.D.; Dorgan, N.D.; Nelson, Neb.; Pryor, Ark. I don't much about any of these senators besides Byrd, but wouldn't voters in Montana, N. Dakota, Arkansas and Nebraska like it to be safer for them to catch and eat fish, and wouldn't they like fewer children in their state to have developmental problems?
Now, Byrd of course, has long been a shill for the coal companies and power plants that are against this measure. His W. Va. colleague, Sen. Rockefeller, was absent for the vote, conveniently pissing of neither environmentalists or coal lobbyists.
Can any of these Senators claim that they were protecting their constituents from higher energy bills? Well, they could claim that, but they'd be full of shit. A wonderful report by U.S. PIRG, (which is the source of a lot of my background info on this subject) points out that in the five states most dependent on coal would only see increases of one or two dollars on monthly household energy bills due to upgrading the pollution control technology.
Now let's look at the votes of Senators in the states that had the most mercury emissions from power plants in 2003: Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Alabama. In Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Alabama both Republican senators voted no, In Indiana the R voted no, but Democratic Sen. Bayh voted "yes". Isn't this evidence of 9 Republican senators clearly disregarding the best interests of their constituents?
Bush said he would veto a yes vote, Democrats should have forced him into that action and turned it into a political train-wreck. There is no defensible position for not supporting a strong mercury regulation. Some will argue that mercury contamination of large ocean fish (ex. swordfish, tuna) is an international problem and the US percentage of responsibility for this problem is incredibly low. That is true, but a red herring argument because the US is wholly responsible for the mercury pollution in the countless rivers and streams in its borders.
It's great for Bush's poll numbers to finally be slipping towards the level he deserves. But it doesn't mean shit if Democrats in office don't use every opportunity to overturn pieces of his irresponsible, dangerous corporate agenda.