The chairman of a new House subcommittee said he plans to shine a spotlight on a pair of environmental laws many critics blame for stifling the use of public lands but that are fiercely defended by conservationists.

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), chairman of the newly created Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation, said he plans to take a closer look this Congress at the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Antiquities Act, two bedrock laws that have faced withering criticism from Republicans and some land users in the West.

The battle lines in the subcommittee will be stark, as Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Bishop's Democratic counterpart, yesterday said he is prepared to defend NEPA and will be pushing President Obama to flex his muscles under the Antiquities Act during his second term.

Bishop's new subcommittee will take jurisdiction over environmental reforms and NEPA, a 1969 law designed to mandate public disclosure of the impacts of federally authorized or funded projects.

While NEPA affects federal projects nationwide, some Westerners in particular blame it for delaying cattle ranching, logging and oil and gas drilling on public lands. But proponents of the law say it is a critical tool to ensure that land managers and the public understand the impacts of decisions before they are made, though it does not require protection of the environment.

Bishop said much of the subcommittee's early work will involve fact finding and may extend beyond the Interior Department and Forest Service to other federal agencies that use NEPA.

"Everybody gets drilled by NEPA somewhere along the line," Bishop said in a short interview with E&E Daily. He noted that some liberal Democrats in California have raised concerns about the state's version of NEPA and that Canada was revamping its version of the law.

But he acknowledged that reforming the law will be difficult, considering that many conservationists consider it the holy grail of environmental law. Republican attempts last Congress to pass laws shortening NEPA reviews or exempting certain projects all fell flat in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

"It's not going to be easy, which is why I'm not expecting it to be fast," Bishop said. "We're going to take our time."

Grijalva said he's not surprised Republicans intend to target NEPA and that it will be the role of Democrats to defend the law.

"NEPA is still going to be the whipping boy on almost any piece of legislation we see," he said. "You're going to see the whole scenario, except now there will be two theaters: the full committee and now the subcommittee."

Environmentalists, too, said they are girding for a broader fight over NEPA, which House Republicans last Congress sought to curtail in a five-year transportation authorization bill that was later scrapped after failing to garner enough votes.

"We may this time around see a frontal assault on the statute itself -- rather than just limiting the instances for when it applies -- that cuts at the heart of the environmental protections we have in place in this country," said Sharon Buccino, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "NEPA is the source of the right of the public to participate in the government decisions that affect their communities."

Antiquities Act

A bigger battle may be over Obama's use of the Antiquities Act, a 1906 law that allows presidents to designate national monuments -- which can prohibit new mining claims, oil and gas drilling or other extractive uses -- without the consent of Congress.

While most designations are welcomed locally, Bishop, who represents a state where many residents still seethe from the surprise designation of a 1.9-million-acre monument by President Clinton in 1996, has sought to give Congress and states more control over the process.

"The Antiquities Act is still being abused," Bishop said. "Even if you're going to keep legislative powers in the executive branch, they should at least go through the same NEPA process that everyone else does."

Oversight of the Antiquities Act, which more than a dozen presidents of both parties have used, could come into sharp relief during Obama's second term, a time when most monuments historically have been designated.

While the House last Congress passed curbs on the Antiquities Act as part of a broader hunting package -- which the Senate never took up -- Bishop said he is willing to explore other options for reforming the law that could gain more political traction.

Grijalva said he is hopeful Obama will use the act more than he did in his first term, which included designations protecting two historic forts in Virginia and California, an American Indian archaeological site in southwest Colorado and the home of labor leader Cesar Chavez.

Environmentalist are urging the president to designate larger, landscape-scale monuments in states including New Mexico and Arizona, a call Grijalva echoed.

"You've got to use that power," Grijalva said. "[Obama] didn't use it the first four years, particularly around the environment."

Grijalva said he's hopeful the president will use the threat of new monuments to pressure Republicans to the bargaining table on conservation bills.

"That becomes something we can utilize, even to force the Republicans to deal with some of these designation issues in a compromising way," he said.

Bishop said such tactics could backfire.

"The more the president uses the Antiquities Act, for example, the more fodder he gives us to fight it somewhere else," he said.

The administration will have to toe a careful line with House Republicans and Bishop, who has managed to insert language into past appropriations bills blocking Interior's implementation of a secretarial order to protect wilderness lands.

Areas of agreement?

Despite their differences, both Bishop and Grijalva said they are optimistic that the 113th Congress could reach bipartisan compromises on public lands issues that have eluded it over the past two years.

Bishop, for one, said he could support conservation bills if Democrats are willing to allow management decisions on federal lands to be made locally rather than in Washington.

"I may surprise some people with what I'm willing to do if people are willing to make trades," Bishop said. "If there's anything that Grijalva wants to work with me on that moves it so local people actually control their own destiny, I'm actually very willing to talk to him about it."

But Bishop acknowledged that there was little, if any, discussion last Congress about a viable package of lands bills that could pass Congress, despite the introduction of a handful of Republican-sponsored conservation bills.

The House's biggest conservation act last Congress was passage of a bill elevating Pinnacles National Monument in California to full national park status. Some conservation measures reached the Senate floor last Congress, but the chamber, on the whole, didn't accomplish much more. It, too, failed to introduce a public lands package.

Bishop said much of the subcommittee's agenda will also depend on his discussions with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the new chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, with whom Bishop said he sees a greater chance at compromise.

Grijalva said he is willing to limit his ambitions for land protections in order to meet Republicans halfway.

"While the rhetoric may not be scaled down, I think there is some room for compromise on some scaled-back public lands issues, particularly around designations and acquisitions," he said. "We can't disengage from that bluster, but I hope we take some responsibility for the fact that it was a dismal, dismal performance [last Congress] passing legislation and getting legislation done."

It's difficult to pinpoint the origins of the "war on coal" slogan.

Industry sources have speculated that other advocates may be responsible for coming up with the phrase -- or maybe someone in the network of pro-coal grass-roots groups around Appalachia. Whoever the source is, "the war on coal," and all it implied, quickly took on a life of its own on Capitol Hill and during last year's elections.

"It became kind of the magic bullet of the campaign," said Bill Bissett, president of the Kentucky Coal Association. "It quickly communicated what everyone understood."

In other words, it became shorthand for pro-coal forces in the ongoing debate about the future of the resource and rules to cut down on its pollution.

"It became the rallying cry," Bissett said.

A quick Google search for "war on coal" yields more than 3 million results. But even though it became one of the top catch phrases of the 2012 elections, industry advocates and lobby groups are conflicted about its use and effectiveness. The slogan has an uncertain future.

Articles and pro-coal publications contain mentions about the "war on coal" or variations of the phrase -- war on Appalachian coal, for example -- going back several years.

In late 2009, the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce said, "This war against coal and domestic energy threatens our state and its citizens with increased poverty." Bill Raney, head of the West Virginia Coal Association, reportedly said at a rally, "Every coal miner in this state is under attack by EPA."

Carol Raulston, longtime spokeswoman for the National Mining Association, said she recalls the phrase becoming popular as the Obama administration cracked down on mining permits, particularly for mountaintop-removal projects, a move environmentalists welcomed.

"It was picked up by several of the elected leaders in the region when they could not get any satisfactory responses from EPA or the White House on how these permits would be resolved," Raulston said. "It took on a life of its own."

"In my view," she added, it has been used widely "because so many of the people who live in coal mining communities really felt something was happening to them, and they didn't understand why."

An additional source of resentment in coal country was President Obama's 2008 statement, before being elected, suggesting that he would make it harder for utilities to build coal-fired power plants because of new regulations. The push for greenhouse gas cap-and-trade legislation soon followed after he took office.

"The 2010 House campaigns seemed to be a real turning point," Raulston said, pointing out that individual coal companies, politicians and groups picked up the phrase in a cycle that saw huge Republican gains.

Within two years, the "war on coal" was a household phrase in many parts of the Appalachian coal fields. It was on bumper stickers and yard signs.

Politicians and conservative advocacy groups like the Heritage Foundation helped fan the flames during last year's elections. The GOP-controlled House even passed a bill called "Stop the War On Coal Act" in the weeks leading up to Election Day.

Smelling an Obama vulnerability, especially in battleground states like Virginia, Pennsylvania and particularly Ohio, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's campaign began using the phrase.

"Obama wages war on coal while we lose jobs to China, who is using more coal every day. Now your job is in danger," said a Romney campaign ad from September.

Changing minds

Bissett said he sometimes worries about the bellicose nature of the phrase. Raulston said the NMA doesn't use it in presentations, nor does it urge members to do so.

Bissett said of Romney's defense of coal: "Clearly his campaign said, coal is a good example of a way the Obama administration is hurting blue-collar people."

Obama's re-election gave the environmental community, which has been fighting for the United States to move away from coal, ammunition against the slogan and the message behind it.

John Walke, air director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a recent interview that the "war on coal" message "didn't catch fire during the election." He called it a "fairy tale" that "failed to capture the attention of voters."

For the coal lobby, the 2012 elections weren't a total loss. The coal industry helped Kentucky Rep. Andy Barr (R) unseat longtime Rep. Ben Chandler (D). The pro-coal message also helped win re-election for Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) in a tough race. And it added to Obama's deep unpopularity in West Virginia and most of the rest of Appalachia. According to National Journal this week, Obama in November won 30 of the 421 counties covered by the Appalachian Regional Commission. In 1976, Jimmy Carter won 295 of those 421 counties.

Still, there is a division within coal's forces over the use of "war on coal" and whether they should deploy it in upcoming elections. Bissett doesn't think it had much traction in urban areas.

"I have some in my membership who think it should continue to be the mantra" of the industry's pro-coal message, he said, adding that others have spoken against it.

"We have to ask ourselves," said Bissett, "what minds are we looking to change and will the message work? I think we're kind of taking a step back."

One coal advocate suggested that the term is getting old and overused. Raulston said, "We clearly believe there are positive messages about coal's abundance, affordability, reliability that speak more directly to consumers of coal-based electricity."

Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Energy and Power Subcommittee, said the pro-coal message from House boosters would likely not top the rhetoric during the previous Congress, when lawmakers were constantly battling actions by EPA and other agencies.

"What we're going to be focused on is the ability for America to be energy independent, with the new discoveries in oil and natural gas. We have a 250-year supply of coal," Whitfield said.

"I'm hoping we can find some areas of agreement to move forward," he added, "because it's not often that you have an opportunity to become energy independent, and you have to take advantage of that."

But the "war on coal" slogan is not going away. News articles in recent weeks, including one from The Economist magazine, have mentioned it. A recent news release from the House Energy and Commerce Committee was headlined, "War on Coal Claims More Casualties."

Coal's allies on Capitol Hill and in lobbying circles say the rhetoric will likely depend on what the White House does in the coming months.

Reporter Jean Chemnick contributed.

For a long time now, analysts at conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation have felt that the solutions being offered to the country's vast environmental problems haven't reflected the conservative worldview.

As senior research fellow Jack Spencer put it yesterday, from a policymaking standpoint, the conservative answer to environmental challenges often involved "just doing liberal things, but just doing less of it."

To help change the conversation, the Heritage Foundation is offering the "American Conservation Ethic."

First published in 1996 and recently updated with a new set of policy recommendations, the "American Conservation Ethic" offers guiding principles for a comprehensive -- and, of course, conservative -- vision for environmental reform.

The goal is to provide a new lens through which environmental issues can be analyzed and discussed both on Capitol Hill and around the county.

The principles and policy recommendations revolve around the ideas of individual liberty and the free market with the federal government taking a step back to allow states and localities to craft their own answers to unique challenges.

"It's not that we reject the notion that there needs to be environmental policies," Spencer said at a media briefing yesterday. "We think that states and localities are better purveyors of those policies than Washington."

Spencer said the principles are starting to take root -- from state and local government planning to the Republican Party platform of 2012 -- as the Heritage Foundation has tried to spread the word about the "American Conservation Ethic."

He also said the latest version of the document, which has been in development for more than two years, is different from a recent effort by the Conservation Leadership Council (CLC).

Formed last year and featuring several former George W. Bush administration officials, the CLC hopes to be a new voice for free-market, limited-government conservation efforts that can garner support and reignite environmental debate in conservative and libertarian circles (E&ENews PM, Jan. 8).

But Spencer said Heritage's goals are broader than what CLC is doing.

"They are addressing discrete problems ... and applying, to one extent or another, a market-based approach," he said. "What they do not seem to be doing ... is really questioning the overall backdrop of environmental policy as it exists today, which is what we do."

But the Heritage Foundation's document is also full of specific policy recommendations -- which the foundation put together with the help of conservative leaders, researchers and former agency heads. The recommendations cover issues including U.S. EPA's regulatory reach, carbon emissions, international environmental laws and several other areas.

For example, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) was tapped to put together a section on government claims on private property.

Cuccinelli writes that federal seizures of private property have become increasingly pervasive under the Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. He argues that because the court system has failed to properly protect the American public's right to property under the Fifth Amendment, federal and state legislation is needed to scale back regulatory abuse and protect private property. Doing so, he argues, would more effectively protect natural resources.

One recommendation Cuccinelli makes is for Congress to pass the controversial "Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act." The bill would prevent any regulation having an annual economic impact of $100 million or more from going into effect unless Congress specifically approves it.

Opponents of the measure say the REINS Act would destroy the ability of agencies to pass new rules to protect public health and safety and would provide special-interest groups a new way to block regulation.

Former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) will make his campaign to return to Capitol Hill official today, as he aims to recapture the House seat he first won nearly two decades ago.

The former lawmaker, who represented the coastal 1st District for three terms in the mid-1990s and later served two terms as governor, is expected to be one of as many as a dozen GOP candidates competing to fill the House seat of now-Sen. Tim Scott (R) in a March 19 primary.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) tapped Scott for the Senate vacancy created earlier this month when Sen. Jim DeMint (R) stepped down to head the Heritage Foundation.

While it remains to be seen how the field will shape up -- and whether Sanford can overcome the scandal from 2009 when he claimed to be hiking the Appalachian Trail, only to have flown to Argentina to visit his then-mistress and now-fiancée -- Republicans are widely expected to hold the House seat in a May 7 general election.

Sanford, 52, who once was thought to have White House ambitions, will start the primary with high name recognition and a respectable $121,000 in his campaign account, left over from his earlier congressional career.

Conservation Voters of South Carolina Executive Director Ann Timberlake noted that several of the announced candidates, including Sanford, state Rep. Chip Limehouse (R) and philanthropist Teddy Turner (R), son of media mogul Ted Turner, have expressed support for conservation measures or water quality issues.

"The 1st Congressional District has the strongest set of constituent support for conservation in the state," Timberlake said, noting the area's dependence on agribusiness and outdoor recreation. "There's a tradition along the coast of electing folks who are strong on the environment."

She later added: "It's pretty bipartisan to be a land conservationist in South Carolina."

South Carolina environmentalists generally praised Sanford's tenure as governor -- both the CVSC and the state Sierra Club endorsed his bid for a second term -- citing his support for land conservation efforts, particularly along the coastline, where clashes often occur over the development of new homes and resorts.

"Sanford did really well, and his reputation was well-deserved in supporting measures like the land conservation bank, which is a state-funded entity that gets a small portion of real estate transactions to leverage land conservation and open space conservation," said Bob Guild, a leader in the Sierra Club's South Carolina chapter and an environmental law attorney.

Although Sanford was widely recognized as a fiscal conservative during his tenure, including his effort to reject federal stimulus spending, Guild added that those stances often aligned with his organization's own goals.

"The other side of the coin with Sanford is he really is a libertarian, and a tea partier before the tea party came around," Guild said. "We found that attractive in some respect, because many of the worst projects we contend with only thrive because of unholy alliances with the government."

Timberlake echoed that thought, citing Sanford's objection to a $2.2 billion coal-fired power plant in 2009, when he cited concerns about both the construction cost due to federal regulations and pollution in the state.

During his second term, Sanford established an advisory committee to study the consequences of global warming in the Palmetto State, and in 2008, he called for voluntary efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the state.

But Guild said he couldn't predict how Sanford might perform if he manages to recapture his former seat in Congress.

"Times have changed, but I do think that he comes from a position where, unlike the class of 2010 that has been knee-jerk anti-government, anti-regulatory, almost hostile to the environment ... Sanford doesn't really fit that mold. Whether he would adapt to that or not is an open question," Guild said.

During his previous tenure on Capitol Hill, Sanford received steadily declining marks from the League of Conservation Voters on its annual scorecards, from a high of 62 percent in his freshman term to 30 percent in his third term. Sanford did not seek re-election, adhering to a self-imposed term-limits pledge.

But during the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla., last year, Sanford told Greenwire that his fellow Republicans needed to focus more on environmental concerns, which received little attention during the weeklong gathering.

"I would say the economy and by extension energy is out front and center at this convention," Sanford said in the August interview. "Republicans ignore the larger issue of the environment at their own peril" (Greenwire, Aug. 30, 2012).

Still, Timberlake questioned whether Sanford will be able to overcome the stigma of the 2009 affair, which made him the butt of many jokes at the time, even as he avoided impeachment in the South Carolina Legislature.

"It's very difficult to think of him as a credible candidate for Congress," Timberlake said.

Still, Guild said the state Sierra Club would likely consider endorsing Sanford -- noting that the group would need to evaluate all candidates -- given its history with the lawmaker. The Sierra Club has previously endorsed Democrat Linda Ketner, a supermarket heiress who made a failed 2008 bid for the seat and may run in the special election.

West Virginia Republican Rep. David McKinley says his support for the Senate candidacy of his GOP colleague Rep. Shelley Moore Capito depends on her votes in the coming months.

"I think Shelley, as long as she continues to vote the way she has, I think she's someone I'll be very comfortable supporting," McKinley said in an interview.

He did not elaborate on the voting record he would like her to have, but in a recent interview on the subject he stressed the need for fiscal responsibility.

Groups such as Club for Growth and the Senate Conservatives Fund, once associated with former Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), have already expressed concerns about Capito's commitment to conservative principles.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller's (D-W.Va.) announcement last week that he will not seek re-election in 2014 also has several Democrats thinking about their own futures (Greenwire, Jan. 11).

West Virginia Secretary of State Natalie Tennant (D) is considering a run. Attorney Carte Goodwin (D), who served in the Senate in 2010 immediately after Sen. Robert Byrd's death, has not ruled out a run, according to state media reports.

Rep. Nick Rahall, the only Democrat from West Virginia in the House, said he will decide whether to throw his hat into the ring during the middle of the year. His state's influence in Congress will be a factor, he said.

"Obviously, [Rockefeller's] decision to leave the Senate, coupled with the loss of Sen. Byrd, has been devastating to the state of West Virginia and our seniority" in the Senate, he said.

Voting registration totals from October show more than 600,000 registered Democrats in the state, compared with about 354,000 registered Republicans.

However, the state has been trending conservative even as Democrats do well in local elections, particularly in southern counties. The GOP thinks it has a good chance for a Senate pickup in the Mountain State.

Rahall said he "strongly believes" that Democrats can hold the seat as long as they find the "right candidate." He said, "You got to represent West Virginia's values."

They argued among themselves on the floor. Some of them shouted at each other. It wasn't easy, but ultimately, the Republican-led House passed a $50 billion Superstorm Sandy bill -- a triumph for thousands of Northeast residents awaiting aid.

The focus now shifts to the Senate, where the Democrats in control of that chamber indicated they would take up the House measure as early as next week, marking the first major legislative fight for the new Congress.

The House passed the amended bill, 241-180, after rejecting several attempts to cut down funding levels. To advance the bill, old-guard moderates from both parties were joined by liberal Democrats to overcome the opposition of Republican members fixated on alleviating the federal debt.

For these Republicans, the Sandy package epitomized wasteful congressional spending. Their Northeastern colleagues, especially Garden State lawmakers, did not see it that way.

"Many of them supported disaster aid for their areas. Some of them got disaster aid personally," said New Jersey Democrat Bill Pascrell. "We stood on this floor after [Hurricane] Katrina and voice-voted billions of dollars. ... I think that the record is very clear on what is needed."

New Jersey Democrats Robert Andrews and Frank Pallone said they could not understand the opposition, especially given the times their state helped pay for recovery efforts in Florida and Louisiana. Republican Frank LoBiondo shouted he was "angry" that colleagues questioned the need for the emergency funds. Jon Runyan, another Republican, stressed that his shore town of Seaside Heights is without its popular boardwalk.

For this delegation, it took the prestige of Republican Rodney Frelinghuysen, a powerful appropriator and member of one of New Jersey's most powerful families, to rally bipartisan backing for a $33 billion component to the bill.

As a way to appease the more fiscally conservative flank in the GOP, House leaders split the Sandy package into a $17 billion measure, offered by Appropriations Chairman Harold Rogers (R-Ky.), which was easily approved (327-91), and Frelinghuysen's amendment, which was adopted 228-192, with the help of 38 Republicans.

Republican Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina led the effort to require that Rogers' $17 billion be paid for with money from other agencies, an idea opposed by the White House, Rogers and 257 other members -- enough to defeat Mulvaney's amendment.

Mulvaney argued that before colleagues rush to rescue New Jersey, New York and Connecticut from the financial and structural blow the superstorm caused last fall, Congress needed to figure out ways to pay for the aid.

"We've continued to mismanage our money and to run up our deficit to such a point that's $16 trillion, and it is incumbent upon us to have the discussion about whether or not we have the money to do this," Mulvaney said.

Rep. John Fleming (R-La.), of the Mulvaney mindset, added, "There's so many places we can cut, but we just don't seem to have the courage as a body to do that."

These calls for fiscal soundness are not over. GOP hard-liners in the Senate could still attempt to block the measure or force reductions to the top line.

Yesterday's floor debate

Before yesterday's votes, government watchdog groups criticized the measure, arguing that certain provisions wasted taxpayer money and did not address any sort of emergency. Conservancy and infrastructure advocates, on the other hand, praised the bill's emphasis on mitigation projects.

"Strengthening the weakness in our infrastructure in a way that both addresses the reality of climate change and puts people to work must be our next priority," said Utility Workers Union of America President Mike Langford.

Proponents of the Sandy bill say the funds will pay for the boardwalks destroyed in New Jersey, the redevelopment of devastated neighborhoods in the New York City boroughs of Queens and Brooklyn, damages to New York City's subway system, upgrades to the electrical grid and the transportation systems in the Northeast, and new coastal infrastructure able to withstand a punishing weather event like Sandy.

Overall, the House bill would provide $3.9 billion for the Housing and Urban Development community development program, $1.4 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers and $287 million to rebuild parks, federal lands and buildings. It also would provide $5.4 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's disaster relief fund and another $5.4 billion to restore the transportation modes in the tri-state area of New Jersey, New York and Connecticut. EPA would receive $608 million, and the Federal Highway Administration would get $2 billion.

Before final passage, members adopted a Rob Bishop (R-Utah) amendment, 223-198, to prohibit the Interior and Agriculture departments from buying federal land with Sandy relief aid.

"If you want to spend the money to fix the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, do it. ... But we don't have the luxury of spending emergency money on land acquisition. It's just dumb," Bishop said.

This week, the National Parks Conservation Association said Bishop's amendment could block the ability to acquire strategic parcels that would protect parks against future storms.

And by a vote of 221-197, the House adopted an amendment by Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas) that would cut $150 million for Regional Ocean Partnership grants to coastal states hit by Sandy.

The Ocean Conservancy, an advocacy group, was not pleased with the action on the Flores proposal.

"We are disappointed to see the House eliminate an important tool that coastal states and regions can use," said Emily Woglom, a spokeswoman for the group. "The Senate should pass a package that allows states and communities to use all the tool(s) available -- like the partnerships -- to ensure they rebuild better and smarter."

Talk about whether humans contribute to the changes in the Earth's climate never materialized yesterday. Aside from three minor mentions, proponents kept quiet.

"Others have talked about how do you mitigate for such a thing; how do you address issues that relate to climate change," said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "Save that conversation for another day."

Reporters Allison Winter, Phil Taylor, Annie Snider and Nick Juliano contributed.

Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet (D) yesterday said he was disappointed that House leaders had blocked funds in the Superstorm Sandy relief package from being used to restore watersheds damaged by last summer's wildfires.

The House Rules Committee on Monday rejected a bipartisan amendment from Colorado lawmakers to provide $125 million for an Agriculture Department program that could aid communities affected by last summer's High Park blaze near Fort Collins and Waldo Canyon fire in Colorado Springs.

The wildfires raised the threat of flash floods, road washouts and impaired drinking water, Bennet said.

"It is extremely disappointing to see the House of Representatives move forward with a bill that does not include critical resources Colorado needs to recover and protect its water supply -- resources that were included in the Senate bill that received bipartisan support," Bennet said in a statement yesterday. "While eastern states should have the resources they need to recover from the destruction of Hurricane Sandy, this summer, Coloradans also endured devastating disasters -- catastrophic wildfires in the midst of one of the worst droughts in decades."

The amendment proposed by Colorado Reps. Cory Gardner (R), Scott Tipton (R), Doug Lamborn (R), Ed Perlmutter (D) and Jared Polis (D) would have provided $125 million for the Emergency Watershed Protection program (EWP) for watershed restoration and infrastructure protection in areas where major disasters were declared.

Similar language was included in a Sandy relief package passed by the Senate at the end of the last Congress.

The second-degree amendment was offered to an amendment by Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) that significantly boosts Superstorm Sandy aid and includes $180 million for EWP, but stipulated that it must be used in areas affected by the storm.

Many Republicans have argued that Sandy relief funds should be used only for areas directly affected by the October storm, and some have also argued the spending should be offset. The House passed a $50 billion Sandy relief bill yesterday (see related story).

Don't expect a new five-year farm bill for at least a few months, top House agriculture lawmakers said yesterday.

A new farm bill likely won't be marked up until after Congress deals with a host of fiscal- and budget-related issues, they said. Those include averting across-the-board spending cuts set to take place at the end of February, passing legislation to keep the government funded through the rest of the year and dealing with the debt ceiling.

Before the holidays, House Agriculture Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) had been aiming for a Feb. 27 markup of a new farm bill, which funds conservation and energy initiatives as well as commodity subsidies and the national food stamp program.

"The lay of the land has shifted pretty dramatically in the last few weeks," Lucas told reporters yesterday. "The challenges, the debt ceiling, [continuing resolution], sequestration coming up at the end of February -- that makes it a really complicated time."

Last year, a version of the bill languished in the House for several months after GOP leaders refused to bring it to a vote. The fiscal cliff deal signed into law at the beginning of this year provided a partial nine-month extension of 2008 legislation, forcing the House and Senate Agriculture committees to begin work this year on a new bill.

"I'll know when the time is right when my political gut tells me it's right. And I just can't give you a better answer than that," Lucas said when asked to be more specific on a markup date. "We've not been playing by the conventional rulebook on legislation for some time, for years now, so I'm just going to have to play it by ear."

The delay in marking up and passing a farm bill could have devastating consequences, House Agriculture Committee ranking member Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) warned yesterday.

If work begins after the Congressional Budget Office releases its yearly estimates of what the bill costs, expected in March, the Agriculture committees will likely be dealing with less money from which to base a new bill.

More potentially damaging, Peterson said, would be if Congress or the White House digs into direct payments to look for savings for any of the fiscal-related legislation coming down the pipeline.

Direct payments, included in the farm bill, are subsidies given to farmers regardless of the actual acres that are planted in a given year. The nine-month extension provides $5 billion to continue them this year, and there are growing calls on both sides of the political aisle for using them to provide savings in fiscal legislation, Peterson said.

If the payments are eliminated before a new farm bill is written, that money wouldn't be available to offset the continuation of other programs in the bill, Peterson warned. Those include energy, conservation, organic and other smaller programs.

"There wouldn't be an energy title. There wouldn't be a lot of things," Peterson said. "I don't know how you'd pass a bill, because what would happen, I would guess, is that the Republicans would make up for it out of food stamps. And then you'll get a bill that you can't conference with the Senate."

Peterson also said he wasn't sure he would vote for a farm bill in the first place without a written commitment from House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to bring the legislation to a floor vote. On Jan. 3, Peterson sent a frustrated letter to Boehner with such a request and said yesterday that he hadn't heard anything in response.

While Peterson said yesterday that he wouldn't necessarily boycott a markup, he added that he "may not be particularly helpful" when it comes to passing the bill.

Rep. Paul Tonko of New York will replace Rep. Gene Green of Texas as the ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, potentially ushering in a new focus on renewable energy technologies.

Although Green decided to step aside to focus on health issues as a member of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, the conservative oil-patch lawmaker will continue to sit on the Environment and Economy Subcommittee, just not as ranking member.

"I chose to sit on the Subcommittee on Health because health care has always been a big priority of mine," Green said in a statement. "I sat on the committee in the 111th Congress and worked on the Affordable Care Act, which was critical to my district because we have one of the highest rates of uninsured adults in the entire nation."

Tonko is an ardent supporter of clean energy power and federal incentives and has crafted legislation to improve gas turbine efficiency, authorize wind energy research and development, encourage combined heat and power, advance fuel cell applications, create tax credits for waste heat recapture and require oil companies drilling on public lands to disclose campaign contributions.

Before being elected to Congress in 2008, Tonko, an engineer by training, served as CEO of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, a state agency focused on reducing energy consumption and boosting the use of renewable power in the state while protecting the environment. He also spent 16 years as head of the New York State Assembly's Energy Committee and is a member of the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition, a caucus in the House that aims to bolster "green collar" jobs while improving the environment.

As the ranking Democrat on the House Science Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight last Congress, Tonko voiced support for production tax credits, federal loan guarantees and benefits for renewable energy properties. Notably, his Albany-area district includes companies like solar manufacturer Monolith Solar Associates LLC, which used the Energy Department's Section 1603 grant program to succeed in the Northeast.

Green, on the other hand, is seen as a more conservative Democrat closely tied to the industries in his district, which encompasses five refineries and numerous chemical and industrial plants.

But Green has also brokered bipartisan deals and in 2009 backed House climate legislation after Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), then chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, removed a low-carbon fuel standard (E&E Daily, May 18, 2009).

Tonko's focus on clean energy will play a critical role as Illinois Rep. John Shimkus (R), the subcommittee's chairman, homes in on fracking, coal ash and nuclear waste issues in the 113th Congress (E&E Daily, Jan. 4).

In other Energy and Commerce shuffling, Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois will replace Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) as the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade.

Schakowsky has joined Democratic Reps. Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Earl Blumenauer of Oregon in demanding that the Food and Drug Administration step up its oversight of products, including hair straighteners that release toxic formaldehyde when heated (E&E Daily, Dec. 11, 2012).

Maintaining their top positions on the subpanels were Energy and Power Subcommittee ranking member Bobby Rush of Illinois, Communications and Technology Subcommittee ranking member Anna Eshoo of California, Health Subcommittee ranking member Frank Pallone of New Jersey, and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee ranking member Diana DeGette of Colorado.

Notably, Georgia Rep. John Barrow will now be serving on the Energy and Power; Environment and the Economy; Health; and Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade subcommittees. Barrow has strong backing from the nuclear industry, as Georgia is home to the first U.S. reactors in more than three decades and Barrow is a member of the bipartisan Nuclear Issues Working Group (Greenwire, Oct. 19, 2012).

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) yesterday reintroduced legislation aimed at eliminating tax credits for energy producers and suggested he could support broadening the scope of his effort to also target other incentives, such as deductions enjoyed by the oil and gas industry, in an effort to attract bipartisan support to eliminate all energy-related favors as part of a broader tax reform push.

Pompeo's bill, H.R. 259, introduced yesterday with 11 Republican co-sponsors, is virtually identical to legislation he introduced in the previous Congress. It would eliminate more than a dozen tax credits, most notably the production tax credit for wind and other renewable sources, as well as credits for biodiesel, alternative fuels and electric cars.

At a news conference yesterday, Pompeo stressed that his legislation is technology-neutral, pointing to oil industry credits designed to promote "enhanced oil recovery" and production from marginal wells. But critics point out that those credits do not actually provide any benefit because they are triggered only when oil prices fall far below their current levels.

The bill leaves untouched more lucrative incentives for the oil and gas industry that are not technically tax credits, such as the so-called depletion allowance and the ability for oil companies to deduct "intangible drilling costs" from their tax bill.

Pompeo said he wanted to keep the bill focused on credits at the outset but remained open to adding to the list of incentives to eliminate. He said he was awaiting a response to a letter he and other members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent last year requesting a Government Accountability Office audit of energy subsidies and tax benefits (E&ENews PM, Oct. 10, 2012).

"I'm prepared to take that wherever it goes," he said of the impending GAO analysis of energy incentives. "We should not be subsidizing energy sources in a nation that has the capacity for energy independence."

Pompeo's legislation never gained much traction in the last Congress, although its language was included in a Senate amendment offered by former Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) to the transportation bill that failed 26-72 (E&ENews PM, March 13, 2012).

DeMint has since left the Senate to lead the conservative Heritage Foundation. Pompeo said he is still searching for a senator to sponsor the bill this year, and he mentioned freshman Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who was a co-sponsor of the House bill last year, as one member he has spoken to about introducing the bill.

While Pompeo's efforts to eliminate energy credits were unsuccessful last year, he said he was optimistic about its chances with Congress poised to debate broader tax reform this time around. The House and Senate may have voted at the last minute to extend the PTC and other energy incentives, as part of the broader "fiscal cliff" deal, but Pompeo pointed to the intense focus on the merits of that credit leading up to the extension as a sign of progress in itself.

"The fact that we now have long discussions when you see folks in these energy sectors having to spend millions of dollars lobbying to protect these things ... it's already a sea change in the way this House thinks about these kinds of issues," he said. "So I think we're making enormous progress both in educating the American people and members here in Congress about how bad this set of policies are."

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), who unseated 20-term Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) in California's 15th District in November, is taking on another daunting challenge.

As the congressman in a district with two national laboratories located in the San Francisco Bay Area, Lawrence Livermore and Sandia, Swalwell, 32, has been assigned to the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, where he plans to advocate for acknowledgment of human-caused climate change.

"What I've seen on that committee is attempts to roll back some of the progress we've made on fighting global warming, attempts there to deny that humans are causing global warming, and so that's where I really will be pushing back," Swalwell said. "Getting us to just agree on the same set of facts, to sing from the same sheet of music, so to speak. That's where I'd like to get us."

SPECIAL SERIES

E&E Daily profiles new members of Congress who will quickly become players on energy and environmental issues.

He has his work cut out for him. While the committee is undergoing significant turnover following the elections, losing Reps. Chip Cravaack (R-Minn.) and Todd Akin (R-Mo.), who were climate skeptics, there are still several prominent opponents of climate action, including Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) and Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) (E&E Daily, Nov. 8, 2012).

Incoming Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) has criticized U.S. EPA's finding that carbon dioxide endangers human health and welfare by contributing to climate change. He said last week that he thinks the science is still out on how much humans are affecting the climate.

"I believe climate change is due to a combination of factors, including natural cycles, sun spots, and human activity," Smith said in a statement. "But scientists still don't know for certain how much each of these factors contributes to the overall climate change that the Earth is experiencing. It is the role of the Science Committee to create a forum for discussion so Congress and the American people can hear from experts and draw reasoned conclusions. During this process, we should focus on the facts rather than on a partisan agenda."

Observers said they didn't expect the committee to be particularly active on the issue. "I am not optimistic of any meaningful constructive action coming out of the Science Committee's deliberations in the next Congress on this very important subject," said former Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), who chaired the committee from 2001 to 2006 and now serves on the boards of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Action Fund and former Vice President Al Gore's Climate Reality Project.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.). Photo courtesy of Wikipedia.

The committee could be a venue for debate under Smith, however, Boehlert said. "Lamar Smith is not some nut," he said. "He's a thoughtful, decent guy, and a fair guy. I don't think he's convinced of the reality of climate change, but he's a thoughtful, fair guy."

As a result, "I'm going in there optimistic that there will be Republicans who see what global warming is doing to our Earth," Swalwell said.

"What I will be on that committee is a vehement defender of science," he said. "If they don't want to have a science committee, they shouldn't have a science committee, but if we all agree that it's important to us, then I want to be there to defend science."

Swalwell said he supports cap and trade and possibly a carbon tax. "I'm open to it; I'm not closing the door on it," he said. "I want to look at those options."

"We can agree or disagree on what the methods are that we should take to cool the Earth and slow global warming," he said. "You can overregulate to the degree that you're hurting jobs in the short term, so you need to make sure you have a balance of protecting economic growth but also protecting the environment, but if we don't agree on the same set of facts that's happening, then that's where I think we're at right now."

Climate change aside, Swalwell also plans to strive for bipartisan cooperation. He has affiliated himself with a group called No Labels, which is chaired by former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman (R) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and whose agenda includes limiting filibusters, requiring up-or-down votes on presidential nominations within 90 days and tying legislators' pay to their ability to pass a budget on time.

Dublin, Calif., Mayor Tim Sbranti, whom Swalwell worked with as a city councilman, said his bipartisan bent would be welcome in Congress. "One of the things he did that will serve him well in D.C. is he did a good job of working on all sides," he said. "The art of compromise seems sometimes sadly to be a dirty word."

Former Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), for whom Swalwell interned in 2001, said the new congressman will strive to bring people together.

"Eric is an attorney and is someone who believes in science and facts and is a pragmatist, but he's also somebody who wants to reach and get bipartisan consensus," she said. "That's frankly the only way you can achieve the kind of consensus we need to get things done."

The Science and Technology Committee could also be a good pulpit for Swalwell's "mobile Congress" idea, aimed at getting lawmakers back to their districts more often. Votes and hearings could happen remotely, he said.

"I think there's just too much Beltway bubble that needs to be popped," Swalwell said. "I think you can pop that bubble with technology."

"We don't always have to be in the same room at the same time to talk about the same issue," he said. "You could do a committee hearing at the lab and have lab employees there, and then via satellite you have other committee members."

"Cisco, Oracle, big employers in our district, they use this technology all the time to communicate with Asia, Brazil, India, so it's changing the way we communicate and I think it's time for Congress to step up."

Other issues that interest him: defending businesses, government and infrastructure against cyberattacks and figuring out how to share data between the private sector and government to prepare for such attacks without raising businesses' hackles. "The next terrorist attack ... it's not going to be at a building," he said. "I think that we know our biggest threat right now is our cyber networks, and that can affect all of us."

In the long term, he said, he hopes to be on the Ways and Means Committee, as Stark was, and "probably something that's global, whether it's Foreign Affairs or Armed Services."

'Right guy at the right time'

A lot of people had their eye on Stark's seat. But only Swalwell, who was born eight years after Stark entered Congress, took the plunge.

Swalwell was making the rounds on Capitol Hill in July 2011 as a councilman for the city of Dublin when he heard from Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.) that Stark would be moving into the district, thanks to the new state redistricting process. McNerney would be moved out of the district at the same time.

"For me, it was like a punch to the gut, because Jerry was someone that I've known for a long time, had worked to get elected, and it was just sad to see that he was going to be leaving," Swalwell said. "And then, on the other hand, to see that Pete Stark, someone I had always thought was kind of checked out, was going to be now coming into this area, which is a very innovative area -- people have high expectations for their member of Congress."

The following weekend, Swalwell went to Ocean City, Md., for an annual trip with high school friends. His inclination to run crystallized there, he said.

"We spent the whole weekend plotting out a congressional race," he said. "We were at this little beach-side motel in Ocean City on laptops poring through Pete Stark's voting history and record, and we left the weekend more sure than when we started that it would be a good move."

Another potential challenger, former Commerce Department Deputy Assistant Secretary Ro Khanna, had stated publicly that he would not challenge Stark in 2012. That didn't stop a slew of high-profile names, including venture capitalists John Doerr and Vinod Khosla and Google Chairman Eric Schmidt, from pouring $1.2 million into Khanna's coffers for a possible run in 2014, when he presumed that Stark wouldn't be running again -- more than either Stark or Swalwell wound up raising for 2012.

These days, Khanna says he hasn't decided on his political plans yet.

"At some point in the future, I'll make a decision about the next step in my public service career," he said. "I congratulate [Swalwell] on the race, and I wish every member of Congress well. Our country needs to come together, and I wish everyone in public service who's representing our country and our area well."

In addition to California's new open primary system, which allows the top two primary finishers to advance to the general election regardless of affiliation, Swalwell benefited from the redistricting process, which made the region more moderate. Stark also committed a series of public gaffes, including falsely accusing Swalwell of taking bribes from developers and confusing bankrupt solar company Solyndra -- in his hometown of Fremont -- with Tesla Motors (E&E Daily, June 4, 2012).

"Swalwell in some respects was the right guy at the right time, but Stark made it pretty easy," said Larry Gerston, a political science professor at San Jose State University.

In the June primary, Stark took 42 percent of the vote to Swalwell's 36 percent, with Christopher Pareja, a businessman running as an independent, finishing with 22 percent. The result set up a rare Democrat-versus-Democrat general election.

Although Stark had the backing of most of the Democratic establishment, including President Obama, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the entire Bay Area House delegation, Stalwell wound up defeating the incumbent by 6 points. House leadership has supported Swalwell since his election. Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland -- a fellow University of Maryland graduate -- last week named Swalwell an assistant whip, saying he would bring "a fresh perspective to the whip team."

Swalwell said that despite the upset, the Bay Area delegation has been welcoming, as well. He hired Rep. Zoe Lofgren's (D) deputy chief of staff, Ricky Le, as his own chief of staff.

"I think that hire assures the Bay Area members that I want to be a team player," he said. "I think that was an important signal to them that I'm here to do big things and work with them as a team."

New York Rep. Bill Owens (D) is trying again with what he calls "common sense" legislation that would allow U.S. EPA to grant exemptions to asbestos regulations if a building is on the verge of collapse.

Owens, who introduced the same legislation last year, said his H.R. 204 is rooted in Nikki's Place, an abandoned bar in New York's village of Malone.

The village wanted to demolish the building but couldn't because of costly EPA Clean Air Act regulations that require specific asbestos containment procedures when renovating or demolishing buildings.

As a result, the building collapsed, exposing nearby residents to asbestos and forcing EPA to step in to help with the cleanup.

Owens said the circumstances show that the regulations "just don't make sense."

"In many of our communities, we have abandoned properties that have asbestos in them," Owens told E&E Daily. "Under the current rules, the EPA cannot step in and provide assistance unless the building collapses."

Specifically, the bill would grant EPA the ability to waive certain asbestos regulations governing the demolition of contaminated buildings. To qualify, a structure would have to be condemned and reasonably expected to collapse.

The legislation didn't advance through committee last year. To avoid the same fate, Owens said he is reaching out to Republicans he believes might be receptive to it.

A new report showing that the contiguous United States had its hottest year ever in 2012 was hailed by a key Senate Democrat as further evidence of the need to address climate change.

The 2012 State of the Climate report released yesterday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said last year topped the previous record from 1998 by 1 degree Fahrenheit.

And last year appears to be part of a trend, the report said. It was one of 36 consecutive years that were marked by average temperatures hotter than the 20th century average; the most recent colder-than-average year was 1976. Global averages have climbed an average of 0.28 degrees F per decade since 1970, it said.

Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) cited the report as more proof that "the Earth is warming and the trend is going in the wrong direction."

Global temperature averages have declined the last two years, but James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies told reporters on a conference call that fact did not show climate change had stopped.

"On the decadal time scale, it's going to get warmer because we know the planet is out of energy balance," Hansen said.

Summertime anomalies are particularly telling, even when they are smaller, he said, and last year saw summer temperatures in several parts of the United States top average temperatures for the same months by more than 3 degrees F.

"It doesn't sound like a lot, but it has a big impact," said Hansen, who took the morning off from his day job to address climate activists from the faith community at a rally in front of the White House. "I think last year was a good teaching moment, because we can see how big an impact a summer mean anomaly of 2 or 3 degrees can be. It has a huge practical impact."

Last summer was marked by drought, hurricanes and storms that scientists say may have been juiced by man-made climate change.

Boxer has said she plans to devote more of her panel's resources to climate change in the 113th Congress. She is also co-leading a group of senators who plan to introduce legislation on climate change this year and next.

"We cannot afford to ignore these warnings, and must make plans to address this serious threat," she said in a statement. "The health and well-being of our communities and families depends on it."

Will global financial constraints cause businesses to scale back their plans for sustainable investments? During today's OnPoint, Andrew Steer, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute, discusses the impact of the financial crisis on green investments. He also explains how rising global coal demand will affect emissions reduction goals. Today's OnPoint will air at 10 a.m. EST.