In an unexpected twist, two House committees may find themselves in a jurisdiction fight over dueling bills to reauthorize the country's program to secure chemical facilities against terrorist attacks and thefts.

Members of both the House Homeland Security Committee and House Energy and Commerce Committee introduced legislation last week to reauthorize the Department of Homeland Security's Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program, which requires chemical companies to develop and implement specific security plans for their facilities.

In addition to those two bills, Pennsylvania Rep. Charlie Dent (R) also introduced standalone legislation.

The multiple bills surprised some observers, who expected a straightforward process for reauthorizing the program, which was launched four years ago and will expire on March 18.

The Homeland Security Committee legislation (H.R. 901) was introduced by Cybersecurity, Infrastructure, Protection and Security Technologies Subcommittee Chairman Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) and is more substantial than the Energy and Commerce bill. It has seven Republican co-sponsors and would reauthorize the program largely as it exists now for seven years.

Significantly, Lungren's bill also moves the program from being on the general appropriations track to falling under the Homeland Security Act of 2002. That would align the CFATS program with the other programs under DHS's authority and would likely result in the direct oversight and funding of the program falling to the House and Senate Homeland Security committees.

That, according to multiple House aides, would effectively strip the Energy and Commerce Committee of its existing leading jurisdiction over the program.

Lungren said he did not insert the language because of a jurisdiction issue but rather because he thought it made for more sound policy.

"I just thought it made good sense from a standpoint of good legislation," he said in an interview. "If you're going to do it, you ought to do it right. And it ought to be in the Homeland Security Act."

Lungren's bill, like the other bills, does not impose any significant new requirements on chemical facilities.

The Energy and Commerce legislation (H.R. 908) touts bipartisan support as it was introduced by Republican Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania and Democrat Gene Green of Texas. The legislation is one paragraph long and simply calls for reauthorizing the CFATS program for six years through 2017.

"Under CFATS, our chemical plants and refineries have made significant advancements in keeping our communities safe," Murphy said in a statement. "And with the extension of the CFATS model, will continue doing so for consumers and industry."

A Republican aide to the Energy and Commerce Committee said Lungren's bill would not entirely strip the committee of jurisdiction over CFATS. It would, however, give the Homeland Security Committee a significant jurisdictional advantage.

"They would have to bless anything we do but we don't have to bless what they do in order for amendments to go to the floor," the aide said.

The Lungren bill, the aide added, would also "make us secondary on a program we have held as our own from the start." The Energy and Commerce Committee has had a long history of introducing CFATS legislation, dating back to the original language inserted into the 2007 appropriations bill.

The aide also touted the bipartisan support for the bill.

"Our members and staff have been involved with this issue from the beginning," the aide said. "The Murphy-Green bill is merely a continuation of that work. The fact that it's bipartisan reflects the tradition of this Committee taking full responsibility for the issues assigned to us by the House."

Other observers noted that the Murphy-Green bill may be a placeholder for amendments that will be offered down the road. Those could include Democrats seeking to add water and wastewater facilities under the CFATS program, which would fall under the Energy and Commerce Committee's jurisdiction and represent mandates that Democrats have long tried to implement.

Dent's bill (H.R. 916) is largely the same as Lungren's, though it only extends the CFATS program for five years. Dent's office indicated that if the Lungren bill gains momentum, he would be open to co-sponsoring it instead. Dent does not serve on either Homeland Security or Energy and Commerce -- though he is on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee.

Industry support

Industry groups appear to support both bills so far. Bill Allmond, the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates vice president for government relations, said they are both steps in the right direction.

"We're going to end up supporting both bills," Allmond said. "We would like to see more permanent CFATS reauthorization language but we understand why they put a date on it."

Allmond also praised the Murphy-Green bill for being bipartisan.

"For the first time ever, this bill has bipartisan support," he said. "We are quite thrilled that Democrats and Republicans were able to come together and introduce a bill."

Scott Jensen, a spokesman for the American Chemistry Council, echoed Allmond's sentiment.

"We're agnostic," he said when asked which bill he preferred. "For us, the main thing is that we want to see the program be reauthorized and we want to see the program made permanent."

Criticism from the left

Even though the Energy and Commerce bill has a Democratic co-sponsor, it is unclear how much Democratic support either bill will receive. In 2009, the Democratic-controlled House passed legislation that added water and wastewater facilities to the CFATS program. It also included an Inherently Safer Technology (IST) mandate, which would require chemical facilities to use less toxic alternative chemicals (E&ENews PM, Nov. 6, 2009).

Environmental groups have long pressed for those mandates, as well as shifting the burden of responsibility and cost for the security programs more directly to the chemical companies themselves.

Rick Hind, the legislative director of Greenpeace, said the Republican House bills fall far short.

The bills, he said, "are an attempt to create the illusion of forward movement when in fact their bills will continue the freeze on chemical disaster prevention that they imposed in 2006."

He added, "These bills are belated Valentines to the chemical industry and are an irresponsible distraction from a long overdue comprehensive security program. This legislation fails to require any disaster prevention at the highest risk chemical plants and continues to exempt hundreds of hazardous refineries and water treatment plants."

Paul Orum, a chemical security consultant for liberal advocacy groups, was equally unimpressed.

"I don't know of any serious analysis that merely extending CFATS has any chance of keeping terrorists away from chemicals," Orum said.

The House Energy and Power Subcommittee is poised to mark up a bill tomorrow morning that would permanently halt U.S. EPA regulation of power plants, refineries and other stationary sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

Although yesterday's final subcommittee hearing on the bill from Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) examined the scientific evidence of man-made global warming, Upton said Republicans are not moving the bill because many of them are skeptical of the science of climate change. Instead, he said Republicans are concerned about the cost of EPA's plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, which the GOP says will be considerable.

"I'm led to believe that if these greenhouse gas regulations go forward, you could see gas prices jump another 30 cents or so," Upton said. "That's not something that we need as we try to move into a recovery."

"It seems like the Obama administration is really bent on raising the citizens of this country's utility rates and raising gasoline prices," said committee Vice Chairman John Sullivan (R-Okla.). "If something like this were to go into effect, every household in America would be taxed more."

Upton said he and other Republicans were basing their cost estimates on analyses for the economywide cap-and-trade bill that cleared the House in 2009, sponsored by then-Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). Democrats and Republicans used different cost estimates at the time, and Democrats argued the scheme would be a net positive for the U.S. economy.

Upton said that in his view, EPA's current and planned regulations for greenhouse gas emissions would be virtually identical to the Waxman-Markey bill.

"We are trying to stop a regulated cap-and-trade bill, of which we view this," Upton said.

But EPA's current and planned stationary source regulations do not cap industrial greenhouse gas emissions and allow them to be traded, as the Waxman-Markey bill would have done. They regulate individual sources of emissions under the Clean Air Act by requiring the use of best available control technologies now, and the agency is planning to set New Source Performance Standards for electric utilities and oil refineries. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has ruled out using cap and trade for any of these.

The committee Republicans said they had not conducted an analysis of the cost of these regulations but had been told by refiners that they would be expensive.

"EPA did not do the economic analysis, so I think there is some missing information," said a Republican aide. "But I think it is very clear that these regulations are designed to achieve the same ends as cap and trade, so I think it is fair to assume that we would have the same if not worse ... consequences."

Many amendments are expected to be offered during tomorrow's markup, but Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) said he and Upton do not have any plans to tweak their bill between now and then.

"We feel pretty confident about this bill the way it is," he said.

The congressmen and Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) did make some changes to the bill compared with an earlier discussion draft, including the addition of language that would exempt the renewable fuels standard from all provisions of the bill. They also left in place an emissions reporting requirement for electrical utilities that would have been jettisoned under the discussion draft.

The bill is co-sponsored by three House Democrats and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), and Whitfield told reporters he still hopes more Democrats will support it in committee and on the House floor. At yesterday's subcommittee hearing, Waxman -- now ranking member of the full committee -- asked Whitfield not to hold a markup of the bill but to instead sit down with him and other Democrats to craft a compromise on energy legislation.

"I am not wedded to the language in last year's energy bill," Waxman said. "We can start from a blank piece of paper."

But Whitfield said that members had "significant disagreements" on climate and energy policy and promised an open committee process where members could offer amendments to Upton's bill.

House Republicans yesterday grilled Obama administration leaders in a confrontational budget hearing on plans to prioritize investment in environmental restoration projects over maintenance of the nation's ports and waterways.

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Jo Ellen Darcy and Lt. Gen. Robert Van Antwerp, chief of engineers for the Army Corps, faced a barrage of incendiary questions from Republicans on the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, signaling the protracted fight still to come over Army Corps spending and regulatory priorities for fiscal 2012, which starts in October.

GOP lawmakers assailed President Obama's 2012 budget for the Army Corps -- which cuts spending 17 percent, or about $913 million, from 2010 spending -- as a plan that places environmental goals above economic recovery by neglecting to invest more money in backlogged dredging and maintenance needs of the nation's waterway shipping lanes, locks and dams (E&E Daily, Feb. 15).

Administration officials countered that environmental restoration projects such as the multibillion-dollar efforts under way in the Mississippi River Delta and the Florida Everglades both create jobs and carry economic benefits in the form of healthy fisheries and robust water supplies.

The gaping partisan divide on these issues, exhibited in numerous hearings and debates across Capitol Hill in recent weeks, came into sharpest relief during a heated exchange between Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) and Darcy, when he asked her whether her priority was saving ecosystems, creating jobs or boosting the economy.

Darcy replied, "All of those things."

"Well, Madame Secretary, you can't have all of those things. Priority means one is number one and two is number two. Is it revitalizing the economy or restoring the environment?" he asked.

"I think by restoring the environment you can revitalize the economy," she said.

"Well, Madame Secretary, I disagree, but we're going to talk about that today," Harris replied.

Controversial regulations

The two-hour hearing continued with GOP lawmakers pressing Darcy and Antwerp over a soon-to-be-released policy expected to more broadly apply the Clean Water Act so that more of the nation's wetlands are regulated by the federal government (Greenwire, Feb. 17).

Both officials remained tight-lipped about the forthcoming, U.S. EPA-driven wetlands policy, which administration officials have declined to discuss prior to its release, even as several GOP freshmen baited them with questions.

The anti-EPA mood became most evident when freshmen Republicans called out urging the witnesses to respond to freshman Rep. James Lankford's (R-Okla.) question about which federal agency "slows down projects and drives up costs."

"You're welcome, for this question, by the way," Lankford said.

Darcy answered, "We work great with the agencies right here at this table," she said, referring to the panel of fellow witnesses from the Army Corps, Tennessee Valley Authority and U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service. "Quite frankly, at a year and a half in this job, I found the collaboration between the federal agencies better than I had hoped."

Republicans promised further hearings on matters such as EPA's controversial decision earlier this year to halt the largest-ever proposed mountaintop-removal mine in Appalachia by revoking the project's Army Corps-issued dredge-and-fill permit (Greenwire, Jan. 13).

"That sets a dangerous precedent, and we're going to have hearings on that, I guarantee it," said subcommittee Chairman Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio).

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund

Other questions centered on the $6.2 billion balance in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, which Republicans and waterways industry officials have increasingly called on spending to dredge waterways.

"Since only two of the nation's 10 largest ports are at their authorized depths and widths, the president's budget does nothing to ensure our competitiveness in world markets," Gibbs said.

Officials danced around the question at first, with Antwerp explaining that the Army Corps bases decisions on which waterways to dredge on usage statistics, hinting that the lack of maintenance dredging stemmed in part from a lack of barge traffic. Later, Darcy answered the question by saying there are "other federal needs at ports, things like security."

Ranking member Timothy Bishop (D-N.Y.) later rescued the officials from repeated questions about the unused money in the trust fund, noting that all recent administrations had opted not to spend more than the fund took in each year, so as not to increase the federal deficit.

After Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-Minn.) pressed Darcy to admit to the fund's "dirty little secret" -- that much of the $6.2 billion balance had been raided by Congress over the years for other purposes -- Bishop again intervened, saying he would be happy to co-sponsor bipartisan legislation to build a firewall around the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, so it could no longer be dipped into for other purposes.

"In all sincerity, many of us on this committee have long felt that the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund should be spent on harbor maintenance," Bishop said.

The latest House Judiciary Committee hearing on federal rulemaking pitted a current and former member of the Natural Resources Defense Council against each other in the debate over whether U.S. EPA and other agencies should be required to get a permission slip from Congress before enacting major new rules.

In his testimony before the Judiciary panel's Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law, David Schoenbrod, a former NRDC attorney who now serves as a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute think tank, argued that requiring all rules costing more than $100 million to be approved by Congress would force lawmakers to have a personal stake in things like updating obsolete environmental statutes and keep them from continuing to scapegoat civil servants.

Meanwhile, David Goldston, NRDC's current director of government affairs, said such a requirement would effectively create a "slow-motion government shutdown" that would inevitably leave the public less protected.

As they did with their first hearing on the legislation in late January, Republicans and Democrats left no doubt as to where they stand on H.R. 10, or the "REINS Act," which stands for Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act.

Subcommittee ranking member Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) yesterday said that the bill ignores the benefits of rules from EPA and other agencies. He dismissed the entire proposal as a political maneuver by the GOP.

"This act was not needed when George Bush was president," Cohen noted yesterday. "Apparently he did not need scrutiny."

Committee ranking member John Conyers (D-Mich.) said the legislation, which was introduced by Rep. Geoff Davis (R-Ky.), violates the separation of powers principle by infringing on the role of the executive branch to carry out laws.

But Republicans argue the bill is needed because Congress has delegated too much of its authority to executive branch agencies and needs to take that power back.

"The discussion must begin on the premise that agencies have rulemaking authority only because Congress has delegated it to them," said subcommittee Chairman Bob Coble (R-N.C.). "Why shouldn't their biggest and most important decisions be placed before Congress?"

Since Davis reintroduced his measure this year and got a hearing on it under the Republican-controlled House, several GOP lawmakers have cited EPA's climate rules as a prime target of the proposed REINS Act. Among them was House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who in the committee's first hearing on the bill said Congress needs to stop the agency's effort to "exercise authority it was never granted."

As the lone voice against the legislation on the three-member panel, Goldston was not shy about laying out the politics he believes are behind the REINS Act.

"The concern the bill's sponsors have with the current system is not that it doesn't work but that it does," he said. "The complaint is rather that those on the right end of the political spectrum do not always win."

When it comes to exercising its oversight of the regulatory system, Goldston said he believes Congress already has all the tools it needs. Those tools include blocking or amending rules, utilizing the Congressional Review Act and controlling the budgetary purse strings -- as Republicans have shown a willingness to do with amendments to the fiscal 2011 continuing resolution.

But despite the concerns laid out by Goldston and House Democrats yesterday, Cohen admitted in an interview after the hearing that there is not much Democrats can do if Republicans are intent on moving the REINS Act through the GOP-controlled House.

The hope, Cohen said, is that the Democrat-controlled Senate will be able to kill the bill.

"It's ironic that the Senate, which we've been concerned about for four years, has become our last line of defense," Cohen said.

Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, has given Mine Safety and Health Administration head Joseph Main until March 21 to turn over audit reports that could prove damaging to the agency.

In a letter, Kline asked Main to turn over "all reports, audits and post-audit reports" produced by MSHA's Office of Accountability since its establishment in 2007.

Main appeared before the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections last week to defend MSHA's rulemaking efforts in the wake of last year's Upper Big Branch mine explosion that killed 29 miners in West Virginia.

During the hearing, committee Republicans immediately seized on a March 2010 report from MSHA's accountability office to the Senate Appropriations Committee, just weeks before the Upper Big Branch disaster. The document outlines the results of field office audits showing regulatory lapses, including supervisors failing to properly review inspection documents (Greenwire, March 3).

Main said the agency had implemented training efforts to address the problems. Still, the report gave ammunition to industry leaders and skeptical lawmakers who suggest MSHA just needs to do a better job enforcing current laws instead of pushing for new safety legislation (E&E Daily, March 4).

"As you know, I have been concerned for some time by numerous reports of management problems plaguing the Mine Safety and Health Administration," Kline said in the letter. "In light of these and other problems previously identified by the Department of Labor's Inspector General, I was pleased to hear you are willing to consider internal reforms at MSHA to improve the efficiency and performance of the agency."

Journalists, particularly Ken Ward of The Charleston Gazette in West Virginia, who first reported on the March 2010 report, asked MSHA to release the individual field office audits.

In his letter to Main, Kline also asked for MSHA's policy on the public availability of documents and plans for better management at the agency.

Click here to read the letter.

Discussions on oil spill liability compromise language may be temporarily stalled until lawmakers sort out a budget for the current fiscal year, one of the lawmakers involved in the discussions said yesterday.

Democratic Sens. Mark Begich of Alaska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana have been working on legislation to raise the current $75 million liability cap for companies involved in an oil spill. The lawmakers have said for weeks that they were "days away" from floating a measure that would raise the cap while allowing smaller operators to remain in business.

But both senators yesterday said they had made no new progress on the measure this week.

"Since our last week, we haven't made any further discussions, only because we haven't put it on the agenda yet. We'll be back at it," Begich told reporters yesterday in the Capitol.

The Senate is currently embroiled in debate about a spending measure to keep the federal government in operation for the rest of the fiscal year. Asked whether he plans to restart negotiations with Landrieu once budget discussions are through, Begich said, "For sure, yes."

Some liberal Democrats have proposed eliminating the liability cap completely and included language to do so in an energy and oil spill-response package in the last Congress. But debate on that measure stalled as Begich, Landrieu and others raised concerns about the effect unlimited liability would have on smaller companies operating offshore.

Since August, Begich and Landrieu have been negotiating compromise language that bridges the gap between holding oil companies accountable for a spill and keeping smaller operators in business.

Their language will likely raise the initial liability cap to $250 million, after which a mutual industry-fed insurance fund would kick in. Landrieu also would like to see a provision added that ensures the federal government shares revenue from oil companies' spill penalties with the states where the spill occurred.

A bipartisan group of key senators yesterday introduced legislation to spur the development of modular nuclear reactors.

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), ranking member Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) offered the measure to establish a program to license modular nuclear units by 2021.

The legislation would direct the secretary of Energy to create a private-public partnership to develop a standard design for two reactors with a capacity under 300 megawatts, and one reactor with a maximum rated capacity of 50 megawatts. The designs would need to be certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by 2018 and receive a combined operating license by 2021.

The legislation also requires the Energy Department to obtain an early site permit for two sites for the reactors.

"I believe that it is appropriate for the Energy Department to work with utilities on the design and approval process for these reactors because nuclear power will play an important role in a carbon-constrained energy world," said Bingaman, who is retiring at the end of this Congress.

The three senators introduced an identical stand-alone bill in 2009 (E&E Daily, Dec. 14, 2009). But the measure stalled after reaching the Senate Energy panel because the "111th Congress did nothing on energy," said Bingaman spokesman Bill Wicker.

Udall said nuclear energy is one of the "few low-carbon, large-scale sources of baseload power that we know how to build today -- and small reactors have the potential to make nuclear power more cost-efficient and secure," he said. The bill will help get that technology to market, he added.

The senators are championing the reactors as less capital-intensive than larger 1,000-megawatt reactors NRC is currently licensing and say the technology could be built in phases, unlike current plants. Although no firm designs have materialized for mass production in the United States, nuclear modular reactors could potentially be built in factories and transported to different locations.

Under the bill, developers chosen to join the partnership would be selected under a competitive merit review process.

Republican Sen. Roy Blunt yesterday floated a measure that would address escalating gasoline prices by reducing the number of required specialty fuel blends.

At issue in the Missouri senator's legislation are the local and regional fuel blends created to meet emission standards. The Clean Air Act allows places with specific air quality issues -- such as cities or industrial areas -- to adopt unique clean fuel requirements and to sell specially formulated gasoline to meet air quality needs.

Oil refiners work with local and state air quality officials to create the fuels that meet local air quality needs, and U.S. EPA dubs such fuels "boutique fuels."

Blunt's legislation would allow for a reduction in the number of approved boutique fuels.

"Gas prices are skyrocketing while families and job creators nationwide are paying the price," Blunt said in a statement. "By allowing for a reduction in the number of approved boutique fuels and providing communities with more response flexibility during times of temporary shortage, the [bill] will help drive down costs for households and small business owners who are struggling to make ends meet."

During his tenure in the House, Blunt pushed to give EPA authority to waive fuel requirements during natural disaster-caused supply disruptions and to cap the number of boutique fuels in existence.

Story updated at 10:30 a.m. EST

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is questioning U.S. EPA efforts to impose financial assurance requirements on hardrock mining operations under the Superfund law.

In a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Murkowski asked whether EPA was overstepping its bounds. She said the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service have long required financial assurances for hardrock mines on federal land.

"Despite the maturity and effectiveness of existing financial assurance programs implemented by your agencies and the states, EPA is considering new regulations that may unnecessarily duplicate or preempt them," Murkowski said in the letter.

Murkowski, the top Republican on the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is asking Salazar and Vilsack about their dealings with EPA on the issue. She is also seeking more information about current rules.

"The EPA has repeatedly sought to duplicate or supplant the jurisdictional activities of other federal agencies and the states," Murkowski said in a statement about the letter. "In this case, either the EPA has failed to look at the facts, agencies with existing programs have failed to provide those facts, or both."

Murkowski described EPA's actions as an "intrusion." The press release about the letter also accused the agency of a "power grab."

"I believe the EPA plays a critical role in protecting the environment, but it is important to ensure that such protection is achieved by competent administration of sufficient authorities and not by burying projects in duplicative and expensive regulatory programs that restrict their ability to come to fruition," Murkowski's letter read.

Last July, EPA identified the hardrock mining industry as a priority for developing new financial assurance requirements, which the agency said would protect taxpayers from footing the bill for environmental cleanup. The agency plans to propose a rule by early next year.

The agency said it focused on hardrock mining first because of the "sheer size" of the mines and their negative effects on the environment, the press release said.

EPA's actions follow a federal court order in a lawsuit involving the Sierra Club.

"EPA has a court order issued by the United States District Court to identify priority industries for establishing financial assurance requirements," the agency said in a statement. "EPA is consulting with BLM, other federal agencies and states to evaluate their existing financial assurance requirements to minimize duplication."

"Hardrock mining sites are among the most expensive sites on the EPA's National Priority List," Ed Hopkins, the Sierra Club's environmental quality program director, said in a statement about Murkowski's letter. "When Sierra Club became involved in this litigation, roughly five years ago, 63 hardrock mining sites on the NPL list had estimated cleanup costs of $7.8 billion. Of that, $2.4 billion was going to have to come from taxpayers. Almost another 100 sites were being considered for the NPL at that time."

Stakeholder positions

Murkowski's letter echoes arguments from mining industry advocates.

In 2009, National Mining Association CEO Hal Quinn issued a statement accusing EPA of ignoring federal and state laws and using outdated mine information.

Quinn said the mines on Superfund's National Priorities List "are nearly all 'legacy' sites that were operated and abandoned long before the advent of detailed regulation at the federal and state level, including the requirement for financial assurance for closure and reclamation."

Environmental groups have long said the hardrock industry -- which mines for resources like gold, copper and uranium -- needs to bear a greater financial burden for cleanup and environmental protection efforts.

"It's essential to have financial assurances standards for hardrock mining and other industries to ensure that they do not skip out on costly cleanups by declaring bankruptcy, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill," Hopkins said. "Financial assurances standards result in better environmental protection because they provide an important incentive for industries to behave responsibly."

Hardrock mining operators have been fighting on several fronts in recent years. Environmental groups want to overhaul the Mining Act of 1872, which they say is too lenient on the industry. President Obama's budget blueprint includes a new fee on hardrock mineral production to help pay for the reclamation of abandoned hardrock mines. And the Interior Department is considering setting aside up to 1 million acres from new hardrock mineral exploration around the Grand Canyon for 20 years (E&E Daily, March 3).

Click here to read Murkowski's letter.

Story updated to include response from U.S. EPA.

Senators yesterday called for loosening catch limits on certain U.S. fisheries, arguing that overly strict limits were hurting fishermen.

The bipartisan calls came as administration officials told lawmakers in a hearing yesterday that they were on track to establish catch limits in all fisheries the agency manages by the end of 2011 that include timelines for rebuilding depleted species in a decade or less, as the 2007 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act dictated.

"We're making very good progress in meeting that mandate," Eric Schwaab, assistant administrator for the National Marine Fisheries Service, told the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee's subpanel on oceans, atmosphere and fisheries.

Senators from several coastal states questioned the quality and quantity of science being used to establish the catch limits and decried the impact that the limits were having on commercial and recreational fishing industries worth $163 billion and responsible for 1.9 million jobs, according to a 2008 report.

"We are still struggling," said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) "Our fishing folks in Massachusetts are really having a very, very difficult time right now."

Kerry said that although overall revenues may be rising for some of the largest fishing concerns, small fishermen were being hurt by limits and policies that lacked transparency and the data to support them. He called for increasing annual catch limits for the remainder of the season.

"I'm convinced we can do that in the short term without hurting any of the goals," Kerry said.

Maine Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe held up a can of sardines and lamented the recent closure of Maine's last sardine cannery, saying it stemmed from a 40 percent tightening of catch limits on herring, which "wasn't even overfished."

"That's devastating and it resulted in the loss of 130 jobs and an industry," Snowe said. "What would you suggest we do better to restore confidence and integrity in the data?"

Douglas DeMaster, acting director of science programs and chief science adviser at the National Marine Fisheries Service, responded that the limits were based on probabilities that overfishing might occur and that setting them any lower would create an undue risk that a population might be depleted.

Florida Sens. Marco Rubio (R) and Bill Nelson (D) took turns grilling administration officials over the science and data behind the catch limits, with Rubio saying the overly strict limits and last summer's oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico amounted to a "double whammy" for the state's struggling fishermen.

"Sustainable fisheries is a goal we all share," Rubio said. "In order to have a good management plan, we have to have good data. What we can't afford to do is arbitrarily shut down fishing based on incomplete or insufficient data."

Nelson pointed out that a third or less managed fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic had never had their stocks assessed.

"Let me say to you all that I'm distressed at the fact that we don't have updated data with which to make our assessments," said Nelson. Congress, he said, reauthorized the Magnuson-Stevens Act "on the assumption data would be complete, accurate and up to date."

"I think that your organization is interpreting the act in a way that was not intended," Nelson said.

DeMaster cautioned against basing judgments about whether or not a species was at risk of being overfished based on how many fishermen were catching it but also said the agency recognized that in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, "we need to improve our throughput" and that more stock assessment scientists were being sent to the region.

"We are moving to entirely revamp ... the whole data-crunching process," NMFS's Schwaab said.

Although legislators have praised the scope of President Obama's six-year, $556 billion transportation proposal and its inclusion of high-speed rail and transit funding, questions continue to swirl about how the non-highway initiatives will be funded.

At a hearing of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee yesterday, legislators raised concerns about the Transportation Trust Fund, a proposal in the administration's fiscal 2012 budget request that would replace the existing Highway Trust Fund with four separate pools for highway, rail and transit projects and a National Infrastructure Bank.

"Having separate accounts could be a good idea, but I don't see any funding mechanism," said ranking member Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas). "I believe in rail, but I think we've got to see some kind of a mechanism to fund this ... that has an association with who is getting the service."

Despite proposing to increase transportation spending by $270 billion over the previous six-year bill, the administration's budget did not specify a funding source. The Highway Trust Fund is currently fed by the federal gas tax but that fee is insufficient and the president has promised not to raise it during difficult economic times.

Testifying at the hearing, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a former congressman, promised to work with both chambers to specify a suitable funding source.

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who said he worries that the transit and rail focus would leave rural areas in the dust, blasted the proposal as "less a budget and more a transportation wish list."

LaHood faced similar funding questions at a Senate Budget Committee hearing last week (E&E Daily, March 3). He is set to meet with the Environment and Public Works Committee, the other Senate panel working on a transportation bill, this afternoon and will likely have to answer similar concerns.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), however, praised the administration's "bold vision" for its focus on public transportation and high-speed rail as a way to reduce congestion on highways and at airports as well as green the sector. He said that type of investment was important, particularly given the proposed cuts to Amtrak and transit programs in House Republicans' budget plan.

"House Republicans say we can't afford these investments right now," Lautenberg said, the chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee. "That's a short-sighted view, in my opinion. ... We have an opportunity to fix our broken-down infrastructure and get millions of workers back on the job. We also have a duty to the next generation of Americans who are counting on us to make these investments."

Meanwhile, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) questioned the future of the recreational trails program as LaHood highlighted the department's plan to consolidate duplicate programs, but the secretary assured her it would stay funded.

Senators of both parties yesterday praised Peter Lyons, President Obama's pick to be assistant secretary for nuclear energy at the Energy Department.

"I think the president made an excellent choice in nominating Dr. Lyons," said Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.). "He's more than well qualified."

Republicans echoed Bingaman's approval.

"When Pete Lyons talks about nuclear technology, nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear weapons, everyone in any room in the world pays attention," said ranking member Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), reading from a statement by former Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.).

Lyons has served as DOE's acting assistant secretary since Warren "Pete" Miller left the position last November.

With the nuclear industry facing budget cuts and mass retirements, Lyons will face many challenges if confirmed to head the nuclear energy office.

In his testimony, Lyons highlighted four goals he and Miller outlined in last year's Nuclear Energy R&D Roadmap. They include plans to extend the life and improve affordability of current reactors, develop sustainable nuclear fuel cycles and minimize risks of nuclear proliferation and terrorism.

Lyons fielded questions from Bingaman, Murkowski and Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) on small modular reactors and nuclear waste storage, but largely declined to take a position on the issues and instead deferred to a report to be issued this summer by Energy Secretary Steven Chu's Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future.

Lyons would not comment on whether the Energy Department would support a recent bill sponsored by Bingaman and Murkowski that would pave the way for small nuclear reactors to play a bigger role in the nation's energy production. He said the legislation was highly regarded by the department but that he could not voice support without further reviewing it.

Murkowski probed the issue of interim nuclear waste storage while Yucca Mountain is off the table as a storage site.

"I think it would behoove all of us to wait and see what [the commission members] do recommend," Lyons said.

"I think we're all waiting for [the report]," Murkowski replied, "concerned though of course that as we wait, these liabilities continue to amount, to accrue, and we still don't have that permanent repository."

Can the United States stay globally competitive and modernize the nation's electric generation fleet through U.S. EPA's greenhouse gas emissions regulations? During today's E&ETV Event Coverage of an American Enterprise Institute event, Exelon Corp. Chairman and CEO John Rowe, calls on Congress to allow U.S. EPA to move forward with its greenhouse gas emissions regulations, saying the rules will help maintain the United States' competitiveness and help the country transition to a clean energy future. He also says Congress should steer clear of any new laws or subsidies on energy this year. Today's OnPoint will air at 10 a.m. EST.