Advertisement
The House passed the $21 billion Water Resources Development Act conference report last night, voting 381-40 to authorize more than 900 Army Corps of Engineers flood control and environmental restoration projects despite a veto threat from the White House.
The veto warning from the president did little to deter House members intent on passing the first WRDA bill since 2000. The ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), guaranteed a two-thirds House vote to override the veto if one is issued.
"I regret that we're in this situation," Mica said on the House floor yesterday evening. "But our job is to make certain that we build the infrastructure in this country and that we do it in a responsible manner.
"[Hurricane] Katrina should be a lesson to us all: either you pay now or you pay later," Mica added. "These are projects that will determine whether dams break, whether levees are secure, whether water resources for this nation are available and whether we do important environmental restoration that has been left behind."
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D-Minn.) reminded lawmakers that the cost of the conference report represents a backlog of seven years of project requests.
"Divide the cost by the number of years that have passed since we last passed this critical legislation, and the cost is understandable," Oberstar said.
Debate on the 828-page WRDA conference report was delayed late into the evening as Democrats and Republicans sparred over the $50 billion expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
The bill now heads to the Senate for a vote, though a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said it was unclear when. "[I] have no idea," Jim Manley wrote in a late-night e-mail exchange. "Depends on what Republicans do."
The office of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had not returned calls seeking comment at press time.
Lawmakers in both chambers yesterday vowed to override the surprise veto threat issued by the Bush administration just hours before the House started to debate WRDA. President Bush has used his veto pen just three times during his two terms -- twice on stem cell legislation and once on a war funding bill that included a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
In a letter sent yesterday to the House Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Environment and Public Works committees, Army Assistant Secretary John Paul Woodley said the WRDA price tag is too high to earn the president's support.
"It seems that a $14 billion Senate bill went into a conference with the House's $15 billion bill and somehow a bill emerged costing approximately $20 billion," Woodley wrote. "This is not how most Americans would expect their representatives in Washington to reach agreement, especially when it is their tax dollars that are being spent."
Senate Environment Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and the committee's ranking member, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), both vowed to fight Bush to get the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.
"This bill, while not perfect, has received overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress and goes a long way toward addressing our nation's water resource needs," Inhofe said. "I am not shy about voting for increased authorization and spending on national defense needs or public infrastructure."
The president found an unlikely ally in Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), who withdrew his support for the conference report because he says it weakens his Army Corps reform language.
"I welcome the administration's decision to veto this flawed version of the Water Resources Development Act," Feingold said yesterday. "The conference report significantly weakened those reforms and raised the price tag to $21 billion in pet projects."
The bill contains a compromise independent review provision that would trigger an outside evaluation of a project if its cost exceeds $45 million. While the Senate version of the bill included a peer-review requirement for projects that cost more than $40 million, the House review process would have applied to projects that cost more than $50 million. Reviews could also be requested by a governor or the corps in cases where a project is controversial.
Regardless of how many lawmakers support the bill, the president's veto promise could turn the public tide against the pork-laden bill, said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense.
"Controversy creates scrutiny," Ellis said. "It is going to increase the attention to a $21 billion bill that typically doesn't get a lot of attention or scrutiny, and it probably can't stand up to it."
Ellis also said that WRDA has become something of a "legislative urban legend" where lawmakers feel they need the water projects to get re-elected.
"But the vast majority of the country doesn't really care about a water project and doesn't benefit much from WRDA," he said.
Much of the debate on the House floor last night was dominated by the reported collapse of a bridge in Minnesota. At press time, seven had been reported dead following a collapse that saw as many as 50 vehicles fall into the Mississippi River.
The Interstate 35W bridge, a major link between Minneapolis and St. Paul, broke into several sections at 6:05 p.m. central time yesterday. According to press reports, the bridge was under construction and was being repaired by the Minnesota Department of Transportation at the time of the collapse.
"Once again we are reminded of the importance of infrastructure, whether it's bridges, dams or highways, that depend on Congress to protect them," Mica said.
The conference report would provide $1.9 billion for Louisiana Coastal Area restoration and $2 billion for the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway system. Some $1.6 billion would go toward ecosystem restoration work in the Upper Mississippi River Basin.
Rep. Kenny Hulshof (R-Mo.) said the money would go a long way toward weaning farmers off federal subsidies because it would boost their ability to transport crops to export markets via the Mississippi River. The bill authorizes long-delayed construction to build new locks on the upper Mississippi and Illinois rivers.
"If we fail to increase the size of our locks and if we were to allow river congestion to increase, farmers would lose $562 million a year," Hulsof said. "That income would need to be replaced by subsidy payments."
The $2 billion authorized in WRDA "is a hedge against the multiple billions of dollars against future farm subsidies and would allow farmers to farm for markets and not government checks," he added.
The Waterway Council estimates 3,000 to 6,000 jobs would be created to upgrade the locks.
WRDA also authorizes about $1.8 billion in Everglades projects, including the cleanups of the Indian River Lagoon and the Picayune Strand near Florida's southwest coast. The bill authorizes $81 million to build a 1,600-acre water storage reservoir for Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties.
More than $1.3 billion would go to the Indian River Lagoon project, to be split evenly between the state and the federal government. Restoration of the Picayune Strand ecosystem would get $375 million.
"Everglades restoration was talked about forever, even when I was back in the state Legislature in the 1970s," Mica said. "Tonight in this bill is the authorization for the first construction money to restore Florida's Everglades."
Since Congress authorized Florida Everglades restoration studies in 2000, project costs soared to nearly $11 billion -- a 30 percent increase from 2000 authorization levels. While the federal government promised to evenly split the cost of restoration with the state of Florida, the feds have been slow in paying their share (E&ENews PM, Sept. 25, 2006).
House Democratic leaders yesterday decided to scrap a highly anticipated showdown vote on vehicle fuel efficiency.
Both Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Baron Hill (D-Ind.) said yesterday they would not ask the House to vote on their respective corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) amendments, punting the issue at least until energy conference negotiations and possibly to a climate change bill expected to come up in the fall.
Markey said in a statement yesterday that he decided to pull his amendment after consulting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), even though he believed he had the votes to move the legislation. While Pelosi personally favored a CAFE standard of 35 miles per gallon, industry lobbyists said she did not whip votes on the legislation and it appeared Markey was not assured of the votes needed to pass the bill.
Supporters of the measure sponsored by Hill and Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) also decided yesterday not to pursue a vote on their amendment, which would require that the average standard for the overall vehicle fleet sold in the United States be no less than 32 mpg and no greater than 35 mpg by 2022. That legislation was framed in large part by its sponsors as an alternative to the Markey plan, and lobbyists on both sides of the issue said the lawmakers would likely not seek a vote on their bill if party leaders scrapped the vote on the Markey's bill.
Even so, Markey yesterday insisted his CAFE provision -- or something like it -- would survive conference negotiations with the Senate.
"I am satisfied that our strength in both the House and the Senate is sufficient to ensure that the progress we have made already to update our fuel economy standards will win out in conference," he said. "The country cannot afford to accept less than a 35 mpg standard if we are to wean ourselves off our addiction to imported oil."
Democratic leaders -- including Pelosi -- have said they may pursue the conference strategy on CAFE, and Pelosi again hinted yesterday that she may try to take such action.
"The American people -- in every region of the country -- overwhelmingly support stronger fuel efficiency standards, and we will have an opportunity to address this issue shortly," Pelosi said. "The Senate energy bill does contain a CAFE provision, which I support."
Indeed, the Senate energy package contains nearly the same language on CAFE as the latest version of the Markey proposal, calling for a mandate of 35 miles per gallon for passenger cars and light trucks a year later than the Markey bill. Both bills also contain the same language on CAFE increases beyond those dates -- applying a "maximum feasible" standard -- and contain exemptions for "work trucks."
For his part, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) -- himself a cosponsor of the Hill-Terry plan -- said he would like to pursue the issue in the fall as his committee drafts climate change legislation.
"I commend Ed Markey and Baron Hill for their decisions to withdraw their amendments on fuel efficiency standards in the interest of promoting passage of a consensus energy bill," he said. "I look forward to working on this matter with great care in the fall as part of an economy-wide system of regulating greenhouse gases."
Auto industry representatives yesterday said they will continue to press lawmakers to adopt the Hill-Terry plan in the coming months.
"There is strong, bipartisan, business, industry, labor and consumer support for Hill-Terry, and we will continue to work toward its passage," said Dave McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
Advertisement
Rep. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) intends to offer a scaled-back renewable power amendment to the House energy bill tomorrow that would require utilities to provide 15 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020, reducing the level from 20 percent to gather more votes.
An aide said Udall made the change because of "indications that 15 percent would better ensure we could get a [renewable electricity standard] for consideration in the conference report and through the House."
"The point is the House needs to put something in place. Inaction is not an option any more," said Udall spokeswoman Marissa Padilla. The congressman is proposing the standard with Reps. Todd Platts (R-Pa.) and Ciro Rodriguez (D-Texas), she said.
With the House Democratic leadership shelving plans for an auto mileage amendment (see related story), the national renewable power mandate becomes the marquee battle in the floor debate. Environmentalists, the wind energy industry, the National Farmers Union and others strongly back the renewables standard, which is not included in Senate-passed energy legislation.
A national renewables standard is a top priority for environmentalists, and they are supporting the scaled-back plan.
Marchant Wentworth, a lobbyist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the change would bring additional support and expressed confidence it would work. "I think this amendment appeals to a broad spectrum of people on the House floor," he said.
"We feel very confident that this is the winning formula for the House, and it will put us over the top when the bill comes to the floor," added Justin Tatham, assistant director for government relations with the National Audubon Society.
At the same time, a top U.S. Chamber of Commerce lobbyist yesterday predicted opponents would defeat the renewables standard. Investor-owned utilities and the chamber are fighting the plan, arguing that utilities in states -- especially in the Southeast -- that lack strong renewable resources will be penalized through having to buy credits or make federal payments.
Dan Riedinger, a spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, said the group remains against the plan at the lower 15 percent level. "Those are essentially fuel-use mandates that for the most part are unachievable," especially in some parts of the country, he said.
The renewables plan aims to help substantially expand wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and several other forms of renewable power, which today make up a very small fraction of overall electricity generation. The plan also allows a renewable credit trading system. Municipal utilities and rural electric cooperatives are exempt from the renewables mandate.
Padilla said the amendment also clarifies that states would retain authority to implement a higher standard and protects the higher standards already in place. Nearly half the states have some kind of renewables standard, though the levels, timelines and structures vary considerably. It also exempts Hawaii, she said.
Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, tried to attach a 15 percent standard to the Senate's energy bill in June. Republicans objected, and the measure never came up for a vote.
A climate change proposal that calls for caps on greenhouse gas emissions across nearly all major sectors of the U.S. economy is expected today from Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.).
The senators and their staffs have spent the last month examining 10 legislative proposals already introduced this year in an effort to curb the U.S. contribution to global warming. In an interview Tuesday, Warner stressed that their plan likely will change over the coming weeks once other senators have a chance to make suggestions.
"It is a working document of the thoughts that we have," he said. "In other words, we purposefully didn't put it into a bill because a bill looks too rigid. ... It's a composite of a lot of work. And it's an ongoing situation."
Warner did not offer much in the way of detail regarding the economy-wide cap-and-trade plan, explaining that talks with Lieberman would continue up until the release today. "I'm rather proud of all my marks on this thing," the five-term senator said as he held up a copy of the proposal with heavy pencil edits. "I'm changing quite a bit of the draft."
Like four other bills that seek to cut emissions across the economy, Warner explained that his plan would be structured around three of the largest sources of emissions in the United States.
"You've got to have the transportation sector, the industrial sector and the power plants," he said. "You can't let one group bear the whole burden."
And Warner also signaled the bill would outline a specific strategy for allocating the tens of billions of dollars in pollution credits required for the cap-and-trade system to operate. "I felt we had to indicate where we stand at the moment," he said. "There may be a compelling case brought to us by some sector of the private sector that would dissuade us, but you've got to have a starting point."
Warner did not say which direction his plan would take on allocations, but sources off Capitol Hill predicted it would offer free "grandfathered" allocations to industry, with manufacturers coming out in the best position. The Lieberman-Warner proposal also is expected to include an auction for industries to compete against each other for some of the credits. Some of the auction revenue would benefit research and development into new energy technologies, financial assistance to low-income consumers and adaptation to climate change.
Lieberman and Warner plan a 10:30 a.m. press conference today to go over the details of their plan. Before that, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) hosts a breakfast meeting where she has invited cosponsors of the different climate change bills.
Boxer wants to use the Lieberman-Warner compromise as a starting point to move cap-and-trade legislation out of her committee before the end of the year. That strategy will no doubt draw opposition from lawmakers concerned about the costs of a first-ever cap on U.S. emissions. For example, Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) said earlier this week he would resist a global warming bill with mandatory caps out of concern that new energy technologies won't be ready.
"I suspect I'll be submitting amendments to it over the time that it's being considered by the committee," he said.
The House is expected to wrap up debate on energy legislation before the end of this week, allowing the committee with primary jurisdiction on climate change a chance to return its focus to the cap-and-trade debate.
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) held more than a dozen hearings on climate during the spring, but the bulk of his attention over the last month has gone toward the Democratic leadership's "energy independence" package.
Dingell recently stirred up the Hill's climate debate with a plan to introduce legislation that would tax the carbon content of gasoline and energy. But Dingell has also said cap-and-trade would be the most likely option for his committee as it composes a broad response to global warming.
Next week, Dingell will host "town hall" forums on climate back in his district in Ann Arbor, Mich., on Tuesday, and Dearborn, Mich., on Wednesday.
Also during the congressional recess, Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), chairman of the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee, hopes to move closer toward the release of a cap-and-trade bill. Sources on and off the Hill say staff for Dingell and Boucher will begin writing their own climate legislation during the summer break.
Environmental Defense has its focus on the House too, feeding some of its well-stocked finances in recent weeks to a key constituency: swing votes on climate change.
Over the last month, the Washington D.C.-based group ran full-page print advertisements in the local districts of the 44 Republicans and seven mostly conservative Democrats who voted on the floor in late June in favor of a "Sense of Congress" resolution on global warming. That measure, added to U.S. EPA's annual spending bill, links human activity to climate change and puts lawmakers on record in support of "mandatory steps" to slow or stop the rise in U.S. heat-trapping pollution.
Earlier this month, the Valley Chronicle, a southern California newspaper, ran this ad: "Congresswoman Mary Bono [R-Calif.] deserves our thanks for her common sense vote recognizing the real threat of climate change."
Explained Tony Kreindler, a spokesman for the group, "The main message of the campaign is that climate change is a bipartisan issue and we'll need bipartisan support to pass a strong climate bill. We're giving credit to Republicans and Democrats who are doing the right thing."
The other Republicans who voted for the climate resolution: Roscoe Bartlett (Md.), Judy Biggert (Ill.), John Boozman (Ariz.), Ginny Brown-Waite (Fla.), Vern Buchanan (Fla.), Tom Castle (Del.), Tom Davis (Va.), Charles Dent (Pa.), Vernon Ehlers (Minn.), Philip English (Pa.), Michael Ferguson (N.J.), Jeff Fortenberry (Neb.), Luis Fortuno (Puerto Rico), Vito Fossella (N.Y.), Rodney Frelinghuysen (N.J.), Jim Gerlach (Pa.), Dave Hobson (Ohio), Duncan Hunter (Calif.), Bob Inglis (S.C.), Bobby Jindal (La.), Tim Johnson (Ill.), Walter Jones (N.C.), Peter King (N.Y.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Ray LaHood (Ill.), Stephen LaTourette (Ohio), Frank LoBiondo (N.J.), John McHugh (N.Y.), Tom Petri (Wis.), Todd Platts (Pa.), Jon Porter (Nev.), Deborah Pryce (Ohio), Jim Ramstad (Minn.), Dave Reichert (Wash.), Jim Saxton (N.J.), Christopher Shays (Conn.), Christopher Smith (N.J.), Patrick Tiberi (Ohio), Michael Turner (Ohio), Fred Upton (Mich.), Jim Walsh (N.Y.), Jerry Weller (Ill.) and Frank Wolf (Va.).
Click here for a copy of the Environmental Defense ad for Rep. Mary Bono (R-Calif.).
Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne and Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) continue to spar over plans to allow oil and gas drilling atop Colorado's Roan Plateau.
Salazar is seeking a moratorium on new leasing on the Roan Plateau until the state of Colorado has a "meaningful opportunity" to comment and various environmental concerns are addressed. To force Interior's hand, Salazar continues to block Senate consideration of Jim Caswell, the nominee for director of the Bureau of Land Management.
In a July 27 letter, Kempthorne said there would be additional opportunities for state and local input as BLM moves forward with Roan Plateau and oil shale development, but he declined to grant Salazar's specific requests.
"Given my experience and background in state and local government, as well as in the Senate, I am keenly aware of the need to solicit state and local input before making federal land-use decisions," Kempthorne wrote.
Salazar wants Interior to give Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter (D) 120 days to review and comment on the Roan Plateau resource management plan that BLM approved in June and refrain from any new leasing on the Roan Plateau until the state works its process. In addition, Salazar wants Interior to consider extending the public comment period for the draft Oil Shale and Tar Sands programmatic environmental impact statement, because Colorado only had two weeks to review the draft document.
"These issues are of utmost importance to the future of Colorado, and I must insist on greater clarity with respect to how we move forward on the Roan Plateau and commercial oil shale development," Salazar told Kempthorne in a letter yesterday.
Caswell is currently the director of Idaho's Office of Species Conservation, a post he has held since Kempthorne created the job as Idaho governor in 2000. At a hearing last month, Caswell said he favors a multiple-use philosophy for BLM lands.
In the meantime, Sen. Salazar's brother, Rep. John Salazar (D-Colo.), and Rep. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) have inserted language in the House energy bill that would prohibit surface occupancy for exploration or development atop Roan Plateau. The provision would still allow BLM to receive royalty and bonus bids, but industry groups say the prohibition would reduce interest.
BLM's plan would allow up to 1,570 new natural gas wells atop Roan Plateau as early as next year. The Colorado Oil and Gas Association claims the plateau could hold 9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas -- enough to power 4 million homes for the next 20 years -- but environmentalists have attacked the concept.
Oceans and climate issues topped the agenda yesterday at a Senate oversight hearing on the Commerce Department.
Members of the Commerce Committee grilled Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez on a host of issues, ranging from global warming to federal efforts to protect Klamath Basin salmon populations.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) was among several lawmakers who asked Gutierrez about ongoing concerns over the management of U.S. environmental satellites. "Loss of satellites and sensing systems threaten to blind us at the time when we need clear vision," Boxer said.
Gutierrez said he believed his department had addressed those concerns, arguing that the next generation of environmental satellites -- under the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) -- would be "well armed" despite recent cuts in planned satellites and sensors.
"We have had to reduce the number of sensors, but each sensor will be of a higher caliber," he said. "We believe we are well-equipped, well-armed. We have had to deal with some cost overruns."
Boxer, who said she intends to introduce a comprehensive oceans bill, also asked Gutierrez to detail for her staff the Bush administration's position on each recommendation of recent reports by the Pew Oceans Commission and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.
And she asked Gutierrez to produce a detailed breakdown of the $37 billion he said the Bush administration has spent on climate change-related programs.
For his part, Gutierrez said he believes "there is a general scientific consensus that climate change is in part caused by human activity," but added that he could not say how large the human contribution is.
Meanwhile, committee Republicans zeroed in on fisheries management issues.
Commerce Committee ranking member Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) asked Gutierrez to examine concerns about how the administration's offshore aquaculture proposal -- which the panel has introduced as a courtesy to the White House -- would affect finfish off Alaska's coasts.
"There's still great fear about the concept of aquaculture within our 200 limit and beyond," Stevens said.
And Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) raised concerns with management of salmon in the Klamath Basin, particularly federal policies to control sea lions that prey on the fish.
The California sea lion population has increased six-fold over the past 30 years, and in recent years more than 1,000 sea lions have started to enter the lower part of the Columbia River during the peak spring salmon run. Because the sea lions are protected by the Marine Mammal Act, the federal government is limited in its ability to keep the animals away from the fish.
A bill pending in the House would lift some protections on the sea lions, allowing officials to kill up to 10 or use "alternative measures" to keep them away from salmon.
"The states of Oregon and Washington and Idaho have filed for authority to control sea lions. Do you think states have a right to do more if we're serous about saving salmon?" Smith asked. "We don't run hydroelectric dams [to protect salmon], but we allow sea lion population to grow unmitigated."
Gutierrez said he would look into the issue. "We can always improve. If we're losing more salmon because of that, that's something we should be focused on," he said.
The House and Senate are poised this week to complete work on a $43 billion conference report that would create a special agency within the Energy Department to spur research into breakthrough energy technologies.
A conference report finalized Tuesday night would establish the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy as part of H.R. 2272, a measure aimed at improving the quality of U.S. research and science education to increase economic competitiveness.
The bill draws on reports by the National Academy of Sciences and the Council on Competitiveness. Both cautioned that the United States risks losing its position as a scientific leader as global economic development increases.
Both chambers expect to approve the conference report this week, conferees told reporters yesterday. The House will likely vote on the report today, with the Senate taking up the agreement tomorrow, said Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.).
While the White House has criticized several provisions included in the Senate version of the bill that survived in the conference report -- including ARPA-E -- the lawmakers said they do not fear a veto.
"The president, in his State of the Union, called on Congress to respond to this challenge. The White House and government agencies have worked closely with us," Alexander said. "I would be very surprised if the president doesn't sign this with a flourish."
And as the House prepares to take up Democrats' comprehensive energy bill later this week, Gordon said he believes the competitiveness effort "may be the most important energy bill we pass all year."
He added: "If we're really going to become energy independent, it's going to take a bump in technology and this is where that can occur."
As it now stands, the bill would authorize research funding and new education programs recommended by the president.
Lawmakers also revised ARPA-E language -- modeled after the military's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency -- to assuage White House and Republican concerns that the agency would divert money from the Energy Department's Office of Science.
Under the conference agreement, ARPA-E would be funded through its own budget request and Treasury account, separate from those for DOE, though its director would report to the Energy secretary. The bill authorizes $300 million for the agency in fiscal 2008 and appropriations as necessary for 2009 and 2010.
Conferees also agreed to an amendment by Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) that would require Senate confirmation for the ARPA-E director, rather than an appointment by the Energy secretary.
The agency would be required to submit an annual report to Congress detailing its activities. The bill also gives Congress the option to terminate ARPA-E after four years, based on the recommendation of the President's Committee of Advisers on Science and Technology.
Enactment of the competitiveness bill would essentially render moot similar ARPA-E language included in House Democrats' energy bill.
H.R. 2272 also would require new policies to prevent suppression or distortion of research at federal science agencies and includes provisions related to ongoing research at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Under the measure, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Office of Management and Budget and the heads of federal civilian science agencies would have 90 days after the bill is enacted to issue "an overarching set of principles to ensure the communication and open exchange of data and results ... and to prevent the intentional or unintentional suppression or distortion" of federal research.
Within 180 days after the bill is enacted, OSTP would be required to demonstrate that all federal civilian science agencies have developed agency-specific policies for public release of scientific research.
The provision comes after widespread reports of suppressed or distorted scientific results at federal science agencies, including NOAA and NASA.
The bill also directs NOAA, NASA and the National Science Foundation to establish a program aimed at developing "advanced technologies and analytical methods" to ensure U.S. leadership in basic and applied oceanic and atmospheric research.
A group of senators yesterday introduced a bill that would require U.S. EPA to limit public exposure to drinking water polluted by the degreasing solvent trichloroethylene, or TCE.
The same chemical was found in the contaminated water at the Marine Corps base Camp Lejeune in North Carolina and has been linked to birth defects and childhood cancers. EPA recently launched an investigation into whether TCE and the dry-cleaning agent tetrachloroethylene (PCE) were buried in the 1980s at the base.
The bill would require EPA to establish standards to limit TCE levels in drinking water and vapor. EPA classified the chemical as one of the most widespread contaminants in the country. It is sponsored by Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.) and Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Frank Lautenberg (N.J.) and John Kerry (Mass.).
The current level of TCE has not been updated since 1987 and the federal government does not plan to update it until at least 2010, according to Kerry's office.
"The current standard for TCE levels in drinking water is far outdated, and EPA has failed in giving this issue immediate attention," Kerry said in a statement. "In light of reports that TCE levels in drinking water caused sickness, birth defects and death, it is urgent it is that we update the standard today."
The bill, also known as the "TCE Reduction Act," would require EPA to issue a revised health advisory for TCE within six months of enactment, create draft health standards within 12 months of enactment and put out final drinking water standards within 18 months.
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee cast an eye yesterday toward clean coal and particularly the prospects for large-scale sequestration of its byproducts.
In the third such hearing this year, the committee learned that several carbon dioxide sequestration technologies were approaching their "adolescence," according to Jeff Phillips of the Electric Power Research Institute.
These include ultra-supercritical pulverized coal, integrated gasification combined cycle and oxy-combustion. Supercritical pulverized coal is the only one of the three that has reached commercial maturity, Phillips said.
One of the ultimate legal challenges, according to Phillips, is to determine "who owns the carbon dioxide once it goes into the ground."
Another issue is gaining the approval of the masses to site such projects in their backyards. The Capitol Power Plant, which would receive $2.7 million to shift from burning coal to natural gas under a House spending bill approved last month, is an example of "nice political feelgood" that would be better spent on getting popular approval and R&D funding for clean-coal technologies, according to Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho).
Craig yesterday drew a parallel between the public relations efforts needed to site a nuclear reactor and the likely local public opposition to a carbon sequestration project. "The issue of cleanliness is paramount," he said.
"You need uniformity, you need certainty," he added.
Jerry Hollinden of the National Coal Council presented a June report that found new capture and sequestration technologies could be commercially available within the power sector within the next 15 years, with advanced technical and financial support. As for integrated gasification combined-cycle technology, he said "significantly" more work would be required to integrate it into power plants and CO2 sequestration systems.
Donald Langley, vice president of Babcock & Wilcox Co., said his company is working on oxy projects with AEP and SaskPower that could prove cost-competitive with IGCC as long as R&D programs and incentives "are not structured to pick winners at the outset."
Hollinden also cited storage liability issues as a long-term question, noting that the FutureGen $1 billion clean-coal power plant would help address this and other uncertainties.
Carl Bauer, director of DOE's National Energy Technology Laboratory, said DOE would announce a third round of solicitations for the Clean Coal Power Initiative, which has already spurred nine projects worth $2.7 billion with $530 million from DOE. He said the department was trying to figure out how to structure the announcement to allow those eligible for grants on the basis of efficiency, environmental or economic improvements to incorporate CO2 sequestration field tests.
Frank Maisano, a lobbyist with Bracewell & Giuliani, said the Sithe Global and Dine Power Authority's proposed power plant on Navajo land in New Mexico would be interested in hosting such a large-scale test project. DOE has said it wants to test projects with a capacity of at least 1 million metric tons of CO2 per year.
In June, DOE announced it would push back the deadline for applying for advanced coal and gasification tax credits from June 30 to Oct. 31 to further spur the inclusion of carbon capture and sequestration in the project proposals (Greenwire, June 7).
| In the House | In the Senate |
|---|---|
No action. |
No action. |
| In the House | In the Senate |
|---|---|
Hearing on political influence on science at Interior
|
Markup of California waiver, asbestos, water infrastructure legislation and nominees
Safeguarding the Atom: Nuclear Energy and Nonproliferation Challenges
Hearing on renewable fuels infrastructure
|
| In the House | In the Senate |
|---|---|
The Department of Energy's Support for the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory (SREL), Part II
|
Hearing on advances in clean coal technology
Hearing on pending water legislation
|
| In the House | In the Senate |
|---|---|
Hearing on salmon predation act
Hearing on NPS centennial challenge
Dam rehabilitation markup
|
Hearing on NPS centennial challenge
|
| In the House | In the Senate |
|---|---|
No action. |
No action. |
Advertisement
Email this Story
Print this Story
