Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) negotiated some concessions for his home state's corn ethanol industry before he signed on to a bill last week that would bar U.S. EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions -- but not as many as he won two years ago before agreeing to support a climate change bill.

In 2009, the then-chairman of the House Agriculture Committee was instrumental in adding language to a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade bill that would have allowed corn ethanol to qualify for a larger share of the renewable fuel standard by tweaking the way the carbon footprint of various fuels is calculated.

The RFS was expanded in 2007 to require the use of 36 billion gallons of biofuels annually by 2022, including 21 billion gallons from advanced fuels, which are defined as at least 50 percent less carbon-intensive than gasoline.

The 2007 energy law requires EPA to consider land-use changes in other countries that result from fuel production when calculating a fuel's carbon footprint. But before he agreed to support the climate change bill sponsored by then-Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Peterson convinced them to include a provision that would have put a five-year stay on that rule.

The stay, which might have been extended, could have allowed corn and soy-based ethanol to qualify as an advanced fuel for the purposes of the mandate.

"Corn alone will not feed the RFS, but it allows then an open opportunity for all technologies to contribute to it," said Matt Hartwig, a spokesman for the Renewable Fuels Association.

But no such provision was included in last week's EPA greenhouse gas pre-emption bill (H.R. 910) before Peterson agreed to become one of three House Democratic co-sponsors of that measure. Peterson's office declined to say whether he had requested it.

Instead, the bill's sponsors -- Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) in the House and Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) in the Senate -- added language clarifying that their bill's prohibition on EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions would not prevent the agency from implementing and enforcing the renewable fuel mandate.

That was welcome news to the biofuels industry. Some opponents of Upton-Inhofe, including EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, had warned that the bill could undermine RFS in future years, because the 2007 legislation included greenhouse gas targets.

Jackson testified before an Energy and Commerce Committee subpanel last month that "the bill likely would prohibit EPA from taking further actions to implement the renewable fuels program, which promotes the domestic production of advanced biofuels."

"This would create great uncertainty in the alternative fuels market and potentially remove one of the most significant drivers for alternative fuels development in the United States," agreed Waxman, who is now ranking member of the committee, in a February analysis of the bill.

Hartwig said that while the ethanol industry would still like to see the indirect land-use requirement repealed, producers appreciate that Peterson had negotiated an exemption in Upton-Inhofe that would preserve their mandate.

"Remember, he doesn't get to draft these bills anymore," Hartwig said. "His place at the table isn't as prominent as it was when Democrats controlled that House. So [indirect land use] may be negotiated down the road, I don't know. But that might be the dynamic that probably limits Collin Peterson's influence on legislation."

In addition to Peterson, Reps. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) and Dan Boren (D-Okla.) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) have signed on as co-sponsors of Upton-Inhofe.

"It's time that the EPA realizes it cannot regulate what has not been legislated," Manchin said in a statement Friday. "Our government was designed so that elected representatives are in charge of making important decisions, not bureaucrats. The simple fact is that the EPA is trying to seize more power than it should have, and must be stopped. I hope that Democrats and Republicans can come together to stop the EPA's jobs-destroying power grab."

The four Senate Republicans who have not signed onto the bill are Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Mark Kirk of Illinois.

In addition to the RFS exemption, Upton and Inhofe inserted a provision in the bill specifying that it does not apply to regulation of ozone-depleting pollutants under the Montreal Protocol. But Joe Mendelson, director of global warming policy for the National Wildlife Federation, said this so-called exemption was meaningless because it would not allow EPA to move ahead with its current efforts to phase out hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).

"It has the appearance of an exemption, but it really closes down action," Mendelson said.

HFCs are an alternative to ozone depleters, but they contribute greatly to climate change.

"When you determine there are alternatives to the ozone depleters, you judge their environmental characteristics of what is the best substitute. The administration has been looking at a lot of ways you could reduce HFC use through the ozone depleting substance program," Mendelson said. "Essentially, the ability to do that, to essentially reduce and eliminate HFC use because of its climate change potential ... could not happen under the Upton bill."

Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) has said he plans to move Upton's measure through committee quickly, but he has not yet set a date for the subcommittee markup.

Last week he granted Waxman's request to hold a hearing this week on the science of climate change. The panel will hear tomorrow from seven scientists on whether the evidence is conclusive that climate change is happening and linked to man-made gases.

Schedule: The hearing is tomorrow at 10 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.

Witnesses: John Christy, director, Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville; Christopher Field, director, Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, Stanford, Calif.; Knute Nadelhoffer, director, University of Michigan Biological Station; Roger Pielke Sr., senior research scientist, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder; Donald Roberts, professor emeritus, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md.; Richard Somerville, professor emeritus, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego; Francis Zwiers, director, Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium, University of Victoria, British Columbia.

Senators this week will begin consideration of two measures related to energy efficiency.

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee meets Thursday to discuss the two bills introduced last month.

The first item under scrutiny at the legislative hearing is S. 398, a bipartisan energy efficiency bill sponsored by the panel's chairman and ranking member, Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).

"Greater energy efficiency saves consumers money, strengthens our economy, enhances our national security, creates jobs, and reduces environmental impacts," Bingaman said in a statement when the bill was introduced. "No single program or policy is going to completely end our nation's waste of energy or restore our economic competitiveness, but increased energy efficiency through cost-effective energy standards for appliances and consumer products remains one of the most powerful tools for meeting these goals."

The measure would strengthen and improve energy efficiency standards for consumer products like furnaces, air conditioners, heat pumps, refrigerators, freezers, clothes washers and dryers, and dishwashers. It also would create new standards for certain outdoor lighting, pool heaters, drinking water dispensers and commercial food cabinets, among others.

The legislation is similar to language included in the broad energy bill moved through the committee last Congress. And it expands on a separate measure that narrowly failed in the Senate late last year.

The bill has broad support from appliance manufacturers, consumer advocates and environmentalists, and lawmakers likely will hear ringing endorsements from witnesses including Steve Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.

The group has said the legislation proposes enough energy savings each year to power 4.6 million households.

The second item under consideration at the hearing might not fare as well.

S. 395 from GOP Sen. Mike Enzi of Wyoming and 27 other Republicans would prohibit Congress from phasing out the use of incandescent light bulbs.

The measure would repeal light bulb standards included in a broad 2007 energy law that eliminate traditional incandescent bulbs in favor of more energy-efficient compact fluorescents, halogens and LEDs. The law requires the phase-out of 100-watt bulbs by the end of this year, and it would ultimately end the use of 40-watt bulbs by the end of 2013.

Republicans say the language is an example of government overreach.

"I think it's fine if someone wants to fill their home or business with the light from the new bulbs. I also think it is fine if someone wants to buy an old-fashioned bulb because it works better for them," Enzi said in a statement. "If left alone, the best bulb will win its rightful standing in the marketplace. Government doesn't need to be in the business of telling people what light bulb they have to use."

The light bulb issue has become contentious among lawmakers in recent months. Similar GOP measures have been introduced in the House by Reps. Joe Barton (R-Texas) and Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.). The issue played a factor in the hotly contested race for the House Energy and Commerce gavel last fall, which Barton lost to Michigan Rep. Fred Upton. Upton was chided by more conservative members of his party for having supported the measure when it originally passed in 2007.

"The issue for me is freedom for Americans to purchase whatever light bulb they like," Bachmann told reporters last week after introducing her bill.

Enzi is not a member of the Energy Committee, but six of the panel's 10 Republicans are co-sponsors of his legislation, and they could clash with some of the panel's more liberal Democrats. Still, the attention to the issue from Bingaman, a moderate Democrat known for working with Republicans, could mean he is willing to consider approving the measure.

Schedule: The hearing is Thursday, March 10, at 9:30 a.m. in 366 Dirksen.

Witnesses: Kathleen Hogan, deputy assistant secretary of energy efficiency, Department of Energy; Steve Nadel, executive director, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy; Joseph McGuire, president, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers; Kyle Pitsor, vice president of government relations, National Electrical Manufacturers Association; Stephen Yurek, president and CEO, Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute; and Mark Cooper, director of research, Consumer Federation of America.

Senate and House appropriators will get their turn this week to explore the Interior Department's 2012 budget request, which proposes a major boost in conservation funding and new fees on mineral extraction industries.

The agency's $12.23 billion proposal -- a slight $10 million increase over current levels -- also seeks to slash $1.1 billion in spending on information technology, procurement reform and travel, among other things. It would also impose significant cuts on construction at agencies including the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar tomorrow and Wednesday will be asked to defend the agency's proposal to impose new fees on offshore oil and gas drillers to help offset the cost of regulating activity in the Gulf of Mexico in the wake of BP PLC's massive oil spill last April.

The agency is proposing raising inspections fees and establishing new fees on nonproducing oil and gas leases both on and offshore. The lease fees are projected to raise $25 million in 2012 and $874 million over the next decade, the agency notes.

The proposal gained support from leading Democrats in both chambers last week, including Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, who introduced legislation with Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) that would authorize the proposed leasing fee.

Republicans and industry groups have bashed the fee-raising proposals and have suggested new funds should come from the billions of dollars in royalties operators already pay.

"The intent is to incentivize the beginning of activity, and if not, put it back so others can move forward with leases," Interior Deputy Secretary David Hayes said last week of the fee on nonproducing leases.

Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), who chairs the House subcommittee that funds Interior, last month told E&E that he was not opposed to raising fees on offshore oil and gas drillers but has not taken a position on the agency's specific proposal.

All told, the budget seeks $358 million for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, a $134 million bump over current funding levels, in order to strengthen oversight and complete the restructuring of the former Minerals Management Service.

Simpson may also ask Salazar how he plans to address concerns raised by Government Accountability Office officials last week that Interior has failed to accurately track billions of dollars in royalties owed by companies that drill for federal minerals (Greenwire, March 1).

"It's a concern obviously for everyone on the committee," Simpson said. "I don't have the ideas to fix it, but it is certainly something we will ask the secretary about when he testifies before us."

Conservation funding

Interior's budget also requests a significant boost for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the federal government's main vehicle for purchasing new lands and assisting states in buying lands and promoting recreation.

The requested $900 million -- the maximum allowed for LWCF -- would roughly double current funding levels and is a critical part of the Obama administration's Great Outdoors initiative to improve public lands access and connect youth to the outdoors.

But it faced opposition from the House Natural Resources Committee last week and, while supported by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), drew jeers from the ranking member of the committee, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).

Simpson is viewed as an ally of public lands but will be hard-pressed to grant the administration's request given the broader opposition in his caucus to enlarging the federal estate.

Even under Democratic control in the last Congress, the Interior appropriations subcommittee proposed $518 million for LWCF for fiscal 2011, a $72 million cut from the president's request. The proposal was never made law.

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), chairman of the Senate subcommittee that funds Interior, has not spoken publicly about the agency's request for land acquisition. But he issued a statement earlier this year indicating that, despite tough fiscal times, he would place a high priority on funding for parks and museums.

Also up for debate

Appropriators may also debate other proposed changes in Interior's 2012 budget request, including a new leasing and royalty program for hardrock mines, which are prevalent in many Western states including Simpson's Idaho.

Western lawmakers have also criticized the administration's proposal to end funding to some states to cleanup abandoned coal mines and charge a new fee on hardrock mining companies that could be used to clean up mines in Eastern states (E&E Daily, Feb. 16).

Western lawmakers may also question a proposal to raise fees on BLM inspections on oil and gas wells on public lands. The proposal is expected to raise nearly $40 million a year and was also proposed for fiscal 2011.

Schedule: The hearing is tomorrow at 1 p.m. in 2359 Rayburn.

Witnesses: Ken Salazar, secretary, Department of Interior; David Hayes, deputy secretary, Department of the Interior; and Pamela Haze, deputy assistant secretary of budget, finance, performance and acquisition at Interior.

Schedule: The hearing is Wednesday, March 9, at 3 p.m. in 124 Dirksen.

Witnesses: To be determined.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood will continue his congressional tour this week to discuss the administration's six-year, $556 billion surface transportation plan outlined in the fiscal 2012 budget request.

LaHood will face two of the panels crafting the Senate version of the transportation program -- Environment and Public Works, which oversees highway policy, and the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which handles road safety and freight. He will also testify before the Appropriations Committee, which is reviewing the proposed budget.

The secretary was scheduled to meet with the EPW and Commerce committees last week, but both hearings were postponed.

The White House plan for a surface transportation reauthorization would give greater weight to public transit and rail projects, putting them in the renamed Transportation Trust Fund alongside highway projects. The proposal also creates a National Infrastructure Bank and sets aside $4.1 billion for livability projects.

The $556 billion price tag represents a 66 percent increase in transportation funding, committing roughly $270 billion more over six years.

If last week's hearing with the Senate Budget Committee is any indication, LaHood will face serious questions about the administration's lack of a defined funding source. The administration left funding decisions for the bill up to Congress, although LaHood, a former House member, has said he will participate in discussions.

Budget ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) poked fun at the administration's proposed "not gas tax tax" and said that without a funding source, he saw a "zero percent chance" of passage.

The surface transportation program is currently funded through a gas tax that has not been increased since 1993. President Obama has said he will not increase the gas tax during difficult economic times and is committed to finding another funding source for transportation.

An aide for the EPW Committee said the hearing would focus on "building consensus" for the new bill. Commerce Committee members will also look at new safety regulations in the bill.

EPW Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and ranking member James Inhofe (R-Okla.) are said to be working on their own six-year reauthorization to replace the existing bill, which expired in September 2009 and has now been extended until Sept. 30.

Obama wants to use the transportation bill as a job-creation tool to spur more investment and economic activity.

LaHood may also face questions about the proposal's focus on transit and high-speed rail and the creation of the infrastructure bank.

Schedule: The Commerce, Science and Transportation hearing is tomorrow, March 8, at 2:30 p.m. in 253 Russell.

Witness: Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

Schedule: The Environment and Public Works hearing is Wednesday, March 9, at 2:15 p.m. in 406 Dirksen.

Witness: LaHood.

Schedule: The Appropriations hearing is Thursday, March 10, at 9 a.m. in 138 Dirksen.

Witness: LaHood.

The Senate Commerce Science and Transportation Committee on Thursday will consider a quartet of presidential nominees who have been selected to help shape the nation's environmental, energy and science agendas.

All four will be considered on the same panel before the Senate committee Thursday morning. The fact that no one panelist will appear on his or her own is usually a sign that the proceeding will be fairly smooth.

Frances Gulland, who has served as the director of veterinary services at the Marine Mammal Center in Sausalito, Calif., since 1994, has been tapped to join the three-member Marine Mammal Commission.

The commission was created as part of the 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act to review international agreements, regulations and the condition of marine mammal stocks. The panel makes recommendations on how the government can conserve species under the Endangered Species Act and reviews permits sought by research groups and others whose actions might harm or harass marine mammals.

It was the commission that, earlier this year, recommended that the Pacific walrus be listed as threatened or endangered due to the shrinking of ice cover that the animals use for foraging and birthing.

Also up for confirmation is Kathryn Sullivan, who President Obama has nominated to be assistant secretary of Commerce at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Sullivan is a former astronaut who holds the distinction of being the first American woman to walk in space. She was one of the first six women selected to join NASA in 1978 and spent 15 years with the agency. More recently she served as president and CEO of the Center of Science and Industry (COSI) in Columbus, Ohio, which is one of the nation's leading science museums. Before her stint at COSI, Sullivan served as a chief scientist overseeing research and technology programs for NOAA.

Philip Coyle, who has been working as an associate director in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) since his recess appointment last July, is looking to be officially confirmed by the Senate. Coyle has been working on security and international affairs issues for OSTP. In 2005 and 2006 he was nominated by the Democratic leaders and appointed by then-President George W. Bush to serve on the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission.

The final nominee will be the one who is most familiar to committee members and is not likely to get much pushback from the GOP members of the committee.

Ann Begeman currently serves as Republican staff director for the panel. She was nominated by Obama in December to serve as a member of the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB), which has regulatory authority over freight railroads.

According to the legislation that created STB, no more than two of the three STB board members may be from the same party. As such, when a vacancy occurs in the minority member spot, the president usually nominates someone recommended by that party's Senate leader.

The other two members of the STB are both Democrats.

Schedule: The hearing is Thursday, March 10, at 10 a.m. in Russell 253.

Witnesses: Ann Begeman, Frances Gulland, Kathryn Sullivan and Philip Coyle.

Is overfishing really over? A Senate panel will examine the question this week as it evaluates the success of the Magnuson-Stevens Act in preventing overfishing and rebuilding depleted fish populations.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act, the nation's fisheries law that Congress reauthorized in 2007, sought to end overfishing by a series of 2011 deadlines.

Last month, one of the nation's top fishery scientists said that for the first time in at least a century, none of the United States' fish species has been overfished.

"As far as we know, we've hit the right levels, which is a milestone," said Steve Murawski, who had just retired the week before as chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Fisheries Service.

Regulators say that last year, 37 of the stocks living exclusively in U.S. waters were being overfished. Ten of those were in New England (Greenwire, Jan. 10).

Overfishing occurs when a species is caught at a rate believed to be too fast to allow for a fishery to rebuild and remain healthy.

In the hearing tomorrow morning, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee will focus on the Magnuson-Stevens provisions that were added in 2007, according to a committee aide.

Specifically, the panel will look the effectiveness and impacts of new requirements that all fisheries management plans include a mechanism for specifying annual catch limits that will prevent overfishing from occurring, including measures to ensure accountability, the aide said. The panel will also review requirements that management plans for overfished fisheries specify a rebuilding timeline that is as short as possible, generally a period of a decade or less, according to the aide.

Schedule: The hearing is at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow in 253 Russell.

Witnesses: TBA.

Senators on both sides of the aisle are expected to offer a warm reception to President Obama's pick to lead the Energy Department's Nuclear Energy Office this week.

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is holding a hearing on the nomination of Peter Lyons for assistant secretary for nuclear energy at DOE, and Republican and Democratic leadership on the panel say the nomination will likely advance smoothly.

The White House nominated the former Senate aide last year to replace Warren "Pete" Miller, who stepped down on Nov. 5 during a flurry of Obama administration departures (Greenwire, Dec. 10, 2010).

Lyons has been serving as DOE's acting assistant secretary for nuclear energy at the agency since Miller left in November and prior to that was principal deputy assistant secretary since September 2009. He also served a full term as a commissioner on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 2005 to 2009.

The nominee is inheriting a formidable responsibility in overseeing DOE's nuclear research arm, especially as funding cuts for nuclear energy research are on the table in budget discussions on Capitol Hill. Lyons will oversee a push to improve efficiency of reactors, extend reactor life beyond 60 years and solve concerns plaguing the long-term storage of nuclear waste.

House Republicans have recently peppered DOE with questions about Yucca Mountain, and why the agency pulled the plug on the project without offering a "viable alternative" (Greenwire, Feb. 24).

House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), who leads the Environment and Economy Subcommittee, asked last month whether DOE has any information after 20 years of research to prove the site in Nevada is not safe to serve as a permanent repository for nuclear waste.

Some Republicans have also raised the potential of continuing to develop the site as a repository, but the effort is unlikely to move far as long as Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), a leading critic of the project, remain in office.

Lyons will also oversee the department's development of advanced reactors including small modular reactors. The Obama administration is seeking a spending boost in its fiscal 2012 budget for the construction of these reactors, and lawmakers are closely eyeing development of such facilities as a means of reducing costs for construction, operation and upkeep.

Schedule: The hearing is tomorrow at 10 a.m. in Room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Witness: Department of Energy acting Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Peter Lyons.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson's whirlwind tour of Capitol Hill will continue Friday, when she is scheduled to justify President Obama's proposed budget for fiscal 2012 during a visit to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

It will be her third trip to discuss the request with lawmakers, following last week's appearances before a House Appropriations subpanel and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

EPA is seeking $9 billion, which is a drop of more than 10 percent from the agency's current budget but still nearly $2 billion more than it received at the end of the George W. Bush administration. The administration is hoping to steer EPA resources toward regulations and enforcement, which Jackson has described as key to the agency's core mission of protecting people from harmful chemicals, air pollution and contaminated water.

On Friday, Jackson will appear before two panels that have been the most critical of EPA in the new Congress. It is a joint hearing of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), and the Environment and Economy Subcommittee, led by Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.).

In previous hearings, both lawmakers have challenged Jackson on the agency's new air and water regulations, as well as rules on coal mining. Whitfield, who joined House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) last week in introducing a bill to stop EPA from limiting greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, will likely use the hearing to get more details on the agency's climate program, which would see a boost of $56 million to $252.9 million under the president's request.

Neither side of the aisle has been content with the proposed budget. On both sides of the Capitol, Democrats have argued that the agency would pull too much money from grant programs, while Republicans have said the agency should be spending less money on new regulations.

Though the agency's own research and programs would see percentage cuts in the low single digits under the president's request, funding to the states would drop by more than 20 percent, Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) said during a hearing last week.

"The demand for 2012 is simple," he told Jackson. "Cut more and regulate less."

Simpson also accused the president of "playing politics with his budget" by slashing funding from popular programs that support water infrastructure upgrades and reduce air pollution from old diesel trucks. Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, predicted Congress will restore funding for the programs.

When Senate appropriators proposed their version of a spending bill for the rest of fiscal 2011 on Friday, it contained no major cuts to the water grant programs, which would lose $1.9 billion under the continuing resolution that passed the House last month. Though neither side has yet unveiled a proposal for next year, the divide suggests that one flashpoint in the battle over federal spending will be the grants, which consume about a third of EPA's budget.

"We've got to fix the nation's budget challenges, but no American would try to balance their household budget by skimping on their kids' safety, and just the same, Congress should not be putting austerity ahead of public health," Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) said during the hearing (E&E Daily, March 3).

At a time when the Obama administration's environmental policies are a subject of intense debate on Capitol Hill, the annual gauntlet of budget hearings has also given lawmakers plenty of opportunities to press Jackson on specific topics. She took questions last week on a wide range of issues, including a recent New York Times series that suggested political concerns may have prompted the agency to narrow its study of the impacts of natural gas drilling on water quality.

Schedule: The hearing is Friday, March 11, at 10 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn.

Witness: EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.

House lawmakers during five separate hearings this week will take a fine-tooth comb to the Obama administration's budget request for land management agencies, including proposed boosts for land acquisition and cuts to construction projects.

A top concern among Republicans is the administration's desired $900 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which supports land purchases and assists states in promoting recreation. The request would provide full funding to the program for only the second time since its creation in the 1960s, according to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

Both House and Senate Republicans have made clear their opposition to land acquisition at a time when Interior agencies face nearly $20 billion in deferred maintenance projects, a number estimated in a Government Accountability Office report issued last week.

"The government has a responsibility to maintain and care for our existing lands before spending money we don't have to acquire more and more and more land," said Rep. Doc. Hastings (R-Wash.), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. That panel's public lands subcommittee will hear testimony on the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service and Forest Service budgets this week.

The House Appropriations subpanel that oversees Interior also will hold hearings on the three agencies this week.

The land acquisition proposal has support among leading Democrats in the Senate and was warmly received by conservation groups when announced in mid-February.

"We're pleased that in a challenging budget year the administration has prioritized investments in our national parks," Tom Kiernan, president of the National Parks Conservation Association, said in a statement.

The budget request includes roughly $2.9 billion for NPS, an increase of nearly $138 million over current funding levels. The agency's operations budget would receive about $2.3 billion, an increase of $35 million over current spending, but not enough to address an operations shortfall of more than $600 million, Kiernan said.

"We're grateful that our national parks would have the funding they need to keep visitor centers open and park rangers on the ground," he said.

Notably, the $900 million for land acquisitions -- which includes $73.7 million for NPS -- contrasts sharply with a House GOP proposal last month to cut LWCF funding by $348 million under the White House's fiscal 2011 request (E&E Daily, Feb. 10).

Funding for BLM includes a proposed $20 million boost for land acquisition and an additional $30 million increase for programs under the White House's Great Outdoors initiative to improve public lands access and connect youth to the outdoors. But the Obama budget would cut BLM's construction budget by more than 50 percent.

"The president's budget certainly attempts to make tough choices, but it recognizes that Americans want access to our public lands," said Kevin Mack, National Landscape Conservation System campaign director for the Wilderness Society.

NLCS -- BLM's primary conservation program that includes wilderness, national monuments and scenic rivers -- would receive a $15 million boost under the Obama proposal, but was the target of an amendment by Utah Republican Rep. Rob Bishop last month to strip all funding for the program. That amendment was withdrawn before receiving a vote.

House Republicans also are likely to press Salazar on his administration's "wild lands" proposal to provide temporary protections for wilderness-quality lands across BLM's roughly 250 million acres.

Bishop, chairman of the House's public lands subcommittee that will review the NPS and BLM proposals this week, is an outspoken critic of the policy. So is Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), who leads the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and last month inserted language to defund the policy into the House's long-term continuing resolution that would keep federal agencies running for the remainder of fiscal 2011.

The BLM budget also proposes cutting $17 million from a program to convey federal lands to Native Alaskans, a cost-cutting pitch that drew opposition last week from Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski at a budget hearing.

"I am very concerned that the department has recommended a 54 percent reduction in the Alaska Conveyance Program," Murkowski told Salazar on Wednesday during a the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing. "Given that most of those people waiting for their conveyances will now have to wait 40 to 50 more years at this proposed funding level, I'm not only going to ask you to explain this choice here today, I'm also going to ask you to come to Alaska and explain to the people who have waited patiently for so many years why they should now wait 40 or 50 more."

Environmental groups and renewable energy proponents have praised the administration's proposed $73 million to permit wind, solar and geothermal energy both onshore and offshore in hopes of tripling to 10,000 megawatts the amount of renewable energy on public lands by 2012. The request is an increase of $14 million above current levels.

Forest Service management

A hearing Thursday before Simpson's subcommittee will include testimony from government oversight officials on major management challenges at the Forest Service.

A March 2009 report by GAO found the agency lacks strategies for using its wildland fire management funds effectively and recommended development of a cohesive, long-term strategy that includes improved selection of hazardous fuel reductions.

The report also highlighted deficient data on program activities and costs at multiple land management programs, including timber sales, the rehabilitation of burnt lands and administrative functions. More broadly, GAO warned that the Forest Service has persistently failed to provide accurate financial information and report how it is spending its appropriations.

According to Andy Stahl, executive director of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, a likely sticking point among Republicans on the subcommittee will be whether environmental laws have blocked the Forest Service from effectively carrying out its programs.

"The big management challenge that the current majority has railed against is conflicting environmental laws," Stahl said. "The notion that the Forest Service, if not encumbered by environmental rules, would do a better job of managing the forest."

"We've seen the laws win out over the past 20 years," Stahl added. The result: Timber cutting has been reduced from about 12 billion board-feet per year to less than 3 billion board-feet per year, he said.

"That's beyond the expectation of even the most radical environmental groups," he said.

Schedule: The Natural Resources BLM and Forest Service hearing is tomorrow at 10 a.m. in 1324 Longworth.

Witnesses: Bob Abbey, director, BLM; Tom Tidwell, chief, Forest Service.

Schedule: The Appropriations NPS hearing is Wednesday, March 9, at 9:30 a.m. in B-308 Rayburn.

Witnesses: Jon Jarvis, director, NPS; C. Bruce Sheaffer, comptroller, NPS; Margaret O'Dell, deputy director of operations, NPS.

Schedule: The Appropriations BLM hearing is Thursday, March 10, at 9:30 a.m. in B-308 Rayburn.

Witness: Abbey, director, BLM.

Schedule: The Natural Resources NPS hearing is Thursday, March 10, at 10 a.m. in 1324 Longworth.

Witness: Jarvis, director, NPS.

Schedule: The Appropriations Forest Service management hearing is Thursday, March 10, at 2 p.m. in B-308 Rayburn.

Witnesses: Anu Mittal, director, natural resources and environment team, GAO; and Phyllis Fong, inspector general, Department of Agriculture.

Fresh off passing a 2011 spending bill that would pull science funding from U.S. EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, House lawmakers are slated to meet Thursday to examine President Obama's 2012 spending request for the two agencies that have faced controversy over their research on climate change.

Members of the House Science Committee will question NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco and Paul Anastas, EPA's top research official, on their funding requests for fiscal 2012 that would keep EPA's science spending mostly flat and shift more resources to NOAA.

Under the proposal, EPA's science and technology efforts would see $860 million, $3 million more than in fiscal 2010 but $20 million less than it is getting under the current levels.

The request would provide $3.45 billion for NOAA research and operations, a $37 million increase from fiscal 2010 and 21 percent more than the $2.85 billion those efforts would receive under the House-passed spending bill for the rest of the current year. A competing spending bill introduced by Senate appropriators Friday would set the agency's research and operations budget level at $3.2 billion through the end of fiscal 2011.

Climate science likely will be a major topic of discussion at Thursday's hearing, a Democratic committee aide said. The cuts to research programs in the House spending bill were "indiscriminate," the aide said, adding: "We hope to be able to defend the need for investment in science."

An amendment from House Science Chairman Ralph Hall (R-Texas) in the continuing resolution passed by the House last month would block NOAA from using funds for its planned "climate service." Though the agency says the reorganization would create a central information source to help governments and businesses adapt to climate change, Hall is concerned that the effort would weaken the agency's existing scientific mission, a Republican committee spokesman said last month (ClimateWire, Feb. 16).

Though it has not faced as much pressure as the offices that develop new regulations, EPA's science and technology program also faces budget cuts proposed by the new Republican leadership of the House. The stopgap spending bill would bring the agency's science budget to $790 million, an 8 percent decrease.

Schedule: The hearing is Thursday, March 10, at 10 a.m. in 2318 Rayburn.

Witnesses: NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco and Paul Anastas, assistant administrator for research and development, U.S. EPA.

Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee will grill U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson this week on how her agency's regulations are affecting the country's farms.

Jackson is slated to appear before the full House panel Thursday.

Tamara Hinton, a spokeswoman for the Republican-controlled committee, said the hearing will provide an opportunity to question Jackson about a host of agriculture regulations EPA is considering.

"All of the things we've been discussing over the last two years will be on the table," Hinton said.

That includes several regulations EPA is weighing, including controls on the amount of dust kicked up into the air on farms and tighter limits on pesticides and nutrient use.

Hinton said the committee will focus on broad questions.

"In light of these issues, it's kind of hinging on a few simple questions," she said. "Is EPA following the law? Are they making regulatory decisions based on sound science and data? Are they conducting adequate cost benefit analyses?"

EPA regulations have become a top target for farm state legislators recently. In February, House Republicans urged Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to represent their interests and push back against possible EPA regulations (E&E Daily, Feb. 18).

One pesticide that is likely to come up at the hearing is atrazine. EPA is currently evaluating the health effects of the commonly used herbicide. In 2009, EPA said it was focusing on whether atrazine causes cancer, as well as any effects it has on the human hormonal system. That review immediately drew criticism from agribusinesses, who claimed the review was politically motivated (Greenwire, Nov. 4, 2009).

The agency is also considering regulations on "spray drift," when pesticides stray from their targets.

Schedule: The hearing is Thursday, March 10, at 2 p.m. in 1300 Longworth.

Witness: Lisa Jackson, U.S. EPA administrator.

Members of Congress hope to unearth the truth about federal employees' salaries Wednesday, when a House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee holds a hearing on how government compensation measures up to the private sector.

Federal pay has been a contentious issue for months, with some conservatives demanding a salary freeze for federal workers whom they consider overpaid.

The Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and Labor Policy will hear testimony from both sides Wednesday. Subcommittee Chairman Dennis Ross (R-Fla.) chose the title of the hearing -- "Are Federal Workers Underpaid?" -- to "cut against the grain a little bit because people aren't really sure," said Ross' chief of staff, Fred Piccolo.

Some reports place government salaries as much as 30 percent lower than their private-sector counterparts; others depict federal workers as grossly overpaid.

"That kind of fight has been playing out in media, and we just want to sit everybody in the same room and ask each side where they're getting their numbers, how they're comparing federal employees to the private sector," Piccolo said. "Are they comparing apples to apples, apples to bananas or apples to steaks?"

Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry will be the first witness to testify, followed by a second panel that includes the Heritage Foundation's senior policy analyst in labor economics James Sherk, American Enterprise Institute resident scholar Andrew Biggs, Partnership for Public Service director Max Stier and National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley.

Piccolo said the purpose of the "fact-finding" hearing is to ask both sides where they are getting their numbers and find out whether they are making any faulty assumptions. The office of the subcommittee's ranking member, Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), did not return a request for comment by publication time.

"If the conclusion is that federal workers are overpaid, that's something that we can highlight in a report, and if they are underpaid, then we can set the record straight," Piccolo said.

Schedule: The Federal Workforce hearing is Wednesday, March 9, at 1:30 p.m. in 2154 Rayburn.

Witnesses: Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry; the Heritage Foundation's senior policy analyst in labor economics James Sherk; American Enterprise Institute resident scholar Andrew Biggs; Partnership for Public Service director Max Stier; and National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley.

The steady drumbeat of House Republican inquiries into government red tape continues this week with a pair of hearings on the economic impacts of government regulations.

The first hearing will take place tomorrow when a Judiciary subcommittee considers the "Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act."

The bill, which was introduced by Rep. Geoff Davis (R-Ky.), would require all rules that have an economic impact of $100 million or more be approved by Congress before they take effect.

Republicans who argue that Congress has delegated too much of its authority to the executive branch believe that Davis' bill -- also known as the REINS Act -- is the first step for the legislative branch to take its power back. GOP leaders have specifically cited recent U.S. EPA rules on climate change as prime targets for the proposed legislation.

But in a previous Judiciary Committee hearing on regulatory policy, Democrats on the panel raised questions about the constitutionality of the bill, saying that Congress could not block rules without changing the laws that prompted them. Tennessee Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen said in that January hearing that the REINS Act promotes the belief that almost all regulations are bad and ignores the benefits of rules from EPA and other agencies.

It is a safe bet that many of those same arguments will be made again tomorrow in the Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee hearing.

Last week, Davis said he was pleased by the progress that his bill, which was first introduced last Congress, has made this year.

"After this hearing I'm confident [Judiciary] Chairman [Lamar] Smith [R-Texas] will schedule a markup," Davis said. "Once the REINS Act has passed out of committee, I'm hopeful that [Majority] Leader [Eric] Cantor [R-Va.] will schedule the bill for consideration by the full House expeditiously."

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) continues to work companion legislation through the Senate.

"We both continue to discuss the issue with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle," Davis said. "We will take it one step at a time."

On Wednesday, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will again hear from industry leaders about their experiences with the federal regulatory system.

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) began that effort in one of his first full committee hearings, and now subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) is taking it up in the Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus and Government Spending Subcommittee.

A news release from the committee last week said the hearing will "continue the Committee's dialogue with private-sector job creators and assess the cumulative impact that regulation has had on American manufacturing."

Among those who have been invited to testify are Michael Kamnikar, the incoming president of the Forging Industry Association; Donna Harman, CEO of the American Forest and Paper Association; Michael Wells, who handles regulatory affairs at the American Chemistry Council; and Aris Papadopolous, chairman of the Portland Cement Association.

But despite a new cast of witnesses, one Democratic committee staffer said Friday that the hearing is likely to follow the same script as Issa's first hearing.

"It's just another hearing where they'll basically talk about how bad regulations are. ... Bring in witnesses that agree with you and let them talk for a few hours," the staffer said.

Due to their anti-regulatory mindset, the staffer said, Republicans are missing a real opportunity to do some real good for the American people.

"The only way you find out what's good and what's bad is to look at them comprehensively and systemically, and they just are not willing to do that," the staffer said. "The president is coming out and saying, 'What can we do better as a government to create jobs?' That's what [Republicans] should be doing."

House Judiciary schedule: The hearing is tomorrow at 4 p.m. in 2141 Rayburn.

Witnesses:TBA.

House Oversight and Government Reform schedule: The hearing is Wednesday, March 9, at 9:30 a.m. in 2154 Rayburn.

Witnesses: Michael Kamnikar, Donna Harman, Michael Wells and Aris Papadopolous.

Climate science and budget disputes will likely loom large this week as House lawmakers have the chance to grill National Science Foundation and National Institute of Standards and Technology officials on their 2012 research requests.

The two science agencies, along with the Energy Department's Office of Science, have had budget boosts in recent years to fund R&D through the America COMPETES Act, and both are set up to be in the center of partisan tug-of-war matches over 2011 and 2012 spending (Greenwire, Nov. 3, 2010).

On Thursday, the House Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee will meet to hear from NSF Director Subra Suresh on that agency's budget for next year. Likely to be at issue: its 13 percent requested spending increase over fiscal 2010 levels, and the potential effects of the 10 percent cut in the House-passed 2011 spending plan compared to 2010 levels.

The president's fiscal 2011 spending plan would have boosted NSF spending by 8 percent over the previous year.

Research at NSF has been included by the White House in the administrationwide push for innovation, especially on clean energy technology, to be boosted rather than slashed as a means for the country to grow its way out of the current economic doldrums. GOP lawmakers do not necessarily see it that way, and those spending increases have been a point of budget contention.

But appropriations subcommittee Chairman Frank Wolf (R) of Virginia has been a strong supporter of science spending in the past and spokesman Dan Scandling said he will do his best to shield NSF from painful cuts. The chairman "has been very supportive of the sciences through the years and continues to be," Scandling said. "They'll try and keep the sciences at a level that's not devastating."

NSF and NIST are likely to face a tougher reception Friday from Science, Space and Technology Chairman Ralph Hall (R-Texas).

Hall has been critical of the administration's multi-agency support for climate science programs and says he personally is not convinced that man-made global warming has been proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" (E&E Daily, Feb. 18).

In late votes on the House-passed 2011 spending bill, Hall was successful in blocking funds for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to establish a planned climate service.

Hall has also gone on record as being skeptical of the White House's plan to significantly expand R&D funding, noting that "increases in federal spending are not the same as prudent investment and do not necessarily lead to innovation."

That could put NSF programs for climate and energy research in the firing line later this week.

Other areas of NSF and NIST funding are likely to receive broader committee support.

Several NIST programs support technology manufacturing, an issue that attracts bipartisan support as lawmakers worry that inventions first developed in the United States are increasingly likely to be commercialized overseas. Other areas in NIST's jurisdiction, like coordination of standards for the smart grid, have similarly broad appeal.

Schedule: The Appropriations Committee hearing is Thursday, March 10, at 10 a.m. in Capitol room H-309.

Witness: Subra Suresh, director, National Science Foundation.

Schedule: The Science, Space and Technology Committee hearing is Friday, March 11, at 10 a.m. in 2318 Rayburn.

Witnesses: Subra Suresh, director, NSF; Ray Bowen, chairman, National Science Board; and Patrick Gallagher, undersecretary of Commerce for standards and technology and director, NIST.

Already facing steep budget cuts, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers brass will go before two Republican-led House panels this week to answer questions anticipated to center on the agency's spending and regulatory priorities.

Army Corps, Tennessee Valley Authority and Natural Resources Conservation Service officials will go before the House Transportation and Infrastructure's water and environment subpanel for a budget oversight hearing tomorrow afternoon whose name says it all: "Finding Ways To Do More With Less." House appropriators will then get their turn asking similar questions at a Wednesday morning hearing.

Questions for Army Corps leaders are also expected to center on the agency's role in wetlands regulation. Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Jo Ellen Darcy and Chief of Engineers Lt. Gen. Robert Van Antwerp are tentatively scheduled to testify at both hearings.

Agribusiness, homebuilders and other industry groups have been lobbying aggressively to derail EPA and Army Corps efforts to reinterpret the Clean Water Act with a soon-to-be-released policy that would broaden the scope of the 1972 law regulating pollution discharges and filling of wetlands from the more narrow stance taken under the George W. Bush administration.

House Appropriations Chairman and Idaho Republican Mike Simpson announced he inserted language into a House-passed spending bill that would prevent the agencies from spending any money on those controversial efforts, which environmentalists have championed (E&E Daily, March 2).

Simpson said last week that EPA "ought to get the message, that there is concern about what they're doing and the impact it will have on jobs in this country."

On the budget front, President Obama has already proposed slashing funding for the Army Corps by 17 percent, or $913 million, from 2010 levels, the last year that a budget was completed. Under that proposal, the Army Corps construction budget would take a 27 percent hit, dropping from $2.02 billion to $1.48 billion. Money for Mississippi River programs -- primarily flood control and dredging -- would be cut 39 percent, from $342 million in fiscal 2010 to $210 million in fiscal 2012.

Altogether the president's proposal would reverse a trend of increasing outlays in recent years (Greenwire, Feb. 14).

Republican proposals in the debate over how to fund the government through the end of 2011 would make even deeper cuts than the president's budget proposal for next year anticipated. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) last week agreed to pass a temporary spending measure to see the government through another two weeks beyond March 4 that would sap $300 million from the Army Corps budget.

House Republican leaders are expected to press Army Corps officials on areas where additional cuts can be made.

"The subcommittee will be interested in hearing how these agencies can operate more efficiently and with increased cost savings," said Justin Harclerode, spokesman for the Transportation Committee Republicans.

Schedule: The Transportation subcommittee will meet at 2 p.m. tomorrow in 2167 Rayburn.

Witnesses (tentative): Jo Ellen Darcy, secretary of the Army (civil works); Assistant Lt. Gen. Robert Van Antwerp, chief of engineers, Army Corps; John Thomas III, chief financial officer, Tennessee Valley Authority; and Thomas Christensen, regional conservationist, central region, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Schedule: The hearing is Wednesday, March 9, at 10 a.m. in 2362-B Rayburn.

Witnesses: Darcy, secretary of the Army (civil works); and Van Antwerp, chief of engineers, Army Corps.

A House panel this week will review opportunities to bring in private-sector investment for passenger rail with the aim of speeding up construction of rail lines and reducing the cost to the federal government.

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials will meet Friday to discuss ways to bring in private-sector competition to the nation's passenger rail program. Although states are currently eyeing private companies to operate their high-speed rail lines and offer more financing, there is no formal system in place.

Privatizing rail has long been a pet project of subcommittee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) and T&I Chairman John Mica (R-Fla.) as a way to move the expensive systems along. Most proposals would have private companies taking financial risk off governments by maintaining or operating the lines while also covering cost overruns.

The two fought to include measures that would open up intercity rail to private-sector competition in a 2008 passenger rail law, but the language did not make it into the final draft.

According to a T&I Committee spokesman, the witness list, which had not been finalized at publication time, will include representatives from Amtrak, the Federal Railroad Administration, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the Association of Independent Rail Operators and an academic expert on rail competition that will draw on international models.

The hearing comes just a week after Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) killed a long-awaited high-speed rail project in his state that supporters, including Mica, had hoped would include hefty private-sector involvement.

Schedule: The hearing is Friday, March 11, at 10 a.m. in 2167 Rayburn.

Witnesses: TBA.

Officials from the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement will likely face tough questions from lawmakers with respect to several controversial proposals in the president's new budget blueprint during a hearing Thursday by the House Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee.

The president's request for fiscal 2012 cuts OSM spending by $17 million. At the same time, it proposes an increase in funding for state oversight and stream protection.

OSM's work on a stream protection rule has drawn ire from lawmakers, who say it will devastate coal state economies. OSM Director Joseph Pizarchik and other Interior Department officials have said the effort is still in its early stages.

"There is no draft EIS that has been out yet. It has not been approved by the department. We've made no judgment about what the final rule will look like," Interior Deputy Secretary David Hayes said at a hearing last week.

Hayes faced tough questions from Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), whose amendment to the long-term continuing resolution passed in the House would block OSM from moving forward with a new stream protection rule (E&E Daily, March 2).

"I'm just concerned why OSM is in such a rush to finalize this rule," Johnson asked.

"We are not in a rush," Hayes responded.

Another point of contention is a proposal to rework abandoned mine reclamation efforts. The budget blueprint cuts $8.1 million from the reclamation fund. It calls for creating a competitive grant program and eliminating mandatory payments to states and tribes that have finished restoring their abandoned coal mines.

"This proposal allows mandatory funding to be focused on the highest-priority abandoned coal mine sites to eliminate public health and environmental hazards across the Nation," Pizarchik said in a statement about the budget. It would save taxpayers about $1.2 billion over the next decade, according to the administration.

But Western lawmakers have contributed to the proposal's failure before. They worry about tax money from their states going to cleanup efforts back east (E&E Daily, Feb. 16).

The president's budget also includes a new fee on hardrock mineral production to help pay for the reclamation of abandoned hardrock mines.

Schedule: The hearing is Thursday, March 10, at 11 a.m. in B-308 Rayburn.

Witnesses: OSM Director Joseph Pizarchik, Deputy Director Glenda Owens and OSM Budget Officer Ruth Stokes.

Reporter Phil Taylor contributed.

In an era of flat and falling appropriations, House Republicans are expected to scrutinize the Obama administration's request to modestly increase the 2012 budget of the U.S. Geological Survey at a Natural Resources subpanel hearing Wednesday.

The administration's fiscal 2012 budget for the agency, which provides much of the Interior Department's scientific expertise, would run to $1.1 billion, a rise of $6.1 million from current levels. The agency has proposed cutting its administrative costs by $23.4 million, repurposing those funds toward several research priorities.

Lawmakers on the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee are likely to focus their attention on newly proposed satellite spending in the USGS budget, along with funding set for several of the agency's climate-related initiatives. USGS's director, Marcia McNutt, will appear to defend her agency's request.

The largest spending increase proposed by USGS would fund its Landsat satellites, used to provide data for land use and climate change research. The agency has requested an additional $48 million for the program that would go toward maintaining operations of two existing satellites, a mission set to launch in December 2012 and development of two additional satellites.

Legislators also will examine Interior's ongoing WaterSMART initiative, which aims to tackle the problem of climate-induced water shortages in the American West. USGS contributes to the initiative by studying the changing amount, quality and use of water resources across the country. Several lawmakers have questioned whether this work is being conducted effectively.

USGS's 2012 request also would increase the budget for its network of eight climate science resource centers by $8 million from current levels. The boost would be used to establish centers in the country's Northeast and South, along with the Pacific Islands.

The agency stressed that to make these increases, significant cuts had to occur, including the elimination of projects designed to develop the backbone of Interior's national climate monitoring network, along with geochemical analysis of soil samples collected across the United States between 2006 and 2010, among other research areas.

Schedule: The hearing is Wednesday, March 9, at 2 p.m. in 1324 Longworth.

Witnesses: Marcia McNutt, director, U.S. Geological Survey; Jonathan Price, director, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology; John Palatiello, executive director, MAPPS; Richard Aster, president, Seismological Society of America; and Craig Schiffries, director for geoscience policy, Geological Society of America.

A week after being grilled over the Obama administration's environmentally focused Western water policies, Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Michael Connor will appear before another Republican-led House panel to answer tough questions about the agency's budget.

The House Appropriations subpanel on energy and water development will hear testimony Thursday from Connor and Reed Murray, director of the Central Utah Project Compliance Act Office, which oversees the Central Utah Project, one of the largest and most complex water resource development projects ever undertaken by Reclamation.

Republicans are expected to look for ways to make a deeper cut in Reclamation's budget than the 10 percent reduction sought by the Obama administration for fiscal 2012.

But last week's Reclamation budget hearing strayed far off the numbers course, veering into a philosophical debate over what was more important: the administration's environmental goal of reviving the imperiled delta of the San Joaquin and Sacramento rivers with additional water flows or providing greater water deliveries to the thirsty, sprawling farms of California's Central Valley (E&E Daily, March 3).

Those discussions may be revived by House appropriators Thursday.

Chief among the questions posed by California lawmakers are why the agency has delivered just 50 percent of farmers' water allocations following a massive snow season. Connor defended Reclamation's decision, noting that the Central Valley farms have not received their full water allocation in more than 20 years and that a 50 percent allocation at this point in the year represents an above-average delivery. Typically, 46 percent would have been delivered this time of year, Connor told lawmakers.

"We're a conservative bunch over at the Bureau of Reclamation," he said.

Schedule: The hearing is Thursday, March 10, at 10 a.m. in 2362-B Rayburn.

Witnesses: Commissioner of Reclamation Michael Connor; and Reed Murray, director of the Central Utah Project Compliance Act Office.

As the discussion on transmission cost allocation heats up in Washington, what are the effects of legislation that would curb the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's reach? During today's OnPoint, Joseph Welch, president and CEO of ITC, the largest independent electricity transmission company in the United States, explains how legislation recently introduced in the Senate would affect independent operators. He also discusses why he believes the legislation could block new transmission construction. Today's OnPoint will air at 10 a.m. EST.