Sponsors of legislation (S. 3973) that would reauthorize grants to state, local, and tribal governments for programs to reduce emissions from existing diesel engines are looking to get the bill passed by the House and Senate before Congress adjourns this year.

The bill, sponsored by outgoing Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) with 29 co-sponsors, would authorize $200 million each year for the grants for fiscal years 2012 through 2016.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee plans to mark up the bill Nov. 30, according to a committee agenda for the lame-duck session.

"We're working to get the bill through committee as quickly as possible," Matt Dempsey, spokesman for Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and a bill cosponsor, told BNA Nov. 23.

New York's congressional delegates say U.S. EPA's sweeping Chesapeake Bay cleanup plan is inherently unfair to their state and should make greater demands of their downstream neighbors.

Most of the pollution in the sprawling watershed, which includes parts of six states and the District of Columbia, is generated closer to the bay, the lawmakers say in a letter sent Wednesday to EPA.

Democratic Sens. Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand and seven House lawmakers signed the letter, which said EPA's ambitious bay plan, which is set to take effect at the end of the year, contains "drastic" and "unattainable" pollution-reduction requirements that will "jeopardize the economic well-being of communities within New York's Bay Watershed and the agricultural industry on which the entire state relies."

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) is expected to introduce a bipartisan bill this week to reduce lead in drinking water.

The measure would tighten the legal definition of "lead free" for pipes and fixtures from 8 percent to 0.25 percent lead in parts that touch water.

The bill represents one of the least controversial portions of a broad water infrastructure bill (H.R. 5320) the House passed in July. That bill would, among other things, reauthorize the state revolving fund for $5 billion over three years to pay for new water infrastructure (Greenwire, July 30).

Climate change wasn't the only environmental issue on Congress's agenda over the past three years - it just seemed that way.

With the cap-and-trade bill dead in the Senate, lawmakers and environmental groups are looking to shine the spotlight on a slew of problems that received almost no attention in recent years, such as acid rain, overfishing, polluted drinking water and toxic chemicals in consumer products.

"It's quite obvious for the last several years that the climate debate has sucked up all the oxygen from other environmental issues," said Frank O'Donnell, president of the nonprofit group Clean Air Watch. "After the fighting and exhaustion of climate, there are a lot of other issues waiting in the queue."

WASHINGTON - U.S. Rep. John Sullivan said he was shocked by what the Oklahoma Republican saw as arrogance on the part of BP CEO Tony Hayward in testimony last week before a key House panel on the tragic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

"We must hold BP responsible for this spill, and questions still remain on why BP has one of the worst safety records of any major oil company operating in the United States,'' Sullivan said.

Oklahoma Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe also has made it abundantly clear that he is no friend of BP.

Not only has Inhofe insisted that BP must be held accountable, he has gone out of his way, at least initially, to praise the Obama administration for its approach to the environmental disaster.

Where it gets fuzzy is the extent and time frame of the effect. One crucial point of contention is climate "sensitivity"-the mathematical formula that translates changes in CO2 production to changes in temperature. In addition, scientists are not sure how to explain a slowdown in the rise of global temperatures that began about a decade ago.

The backlash against climate science is also about the way in which leading scientists allied themselves with politicians and activists to promote their cause. Some of the IPCC's most-quoted data and recommendations were taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures, newspaper articles, and corporate reports-including claims of plummeting crop yields in Africa and the rising costs of warming-related natural disasters, both of which have been refuted by academic studies.

Just as damaging, many climate scientists have responded to critiques by questioning the integrity of their critics, rather than by supplying data and reasoned arguments. When other researchers aired doubt about the IPCC's prediction that Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035, the IPCC's powerful chief, Rajendra Pachauri, trashed their work as "voodoo science." Even today, after dozens of IPCC exaggerations have surfaced, leading climate officials like U.N. Environment Program chief Achim Steiner and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research head Joachim Schellnhuber continue to tar-brush critics as "anti-Enlightenment" and engaging in "witch hunts."

None of this means we should burn fossil fuels with abandon. There are excellent reasons to limit emissions and switch to cleaner fuels-including an estimated 750,000 annual pollution deaths in China, the potential to create jobs at home instead of enriching nasty regimes sitting on oil wells, the need to provide cheap sources of power to the world's poorest regions, and the still-probable threat that global warming is underway. At the moment, however, certainty about how fast-and how much-global warming changes the earth's climate does not appear to be one of those reasons.

Mr. INHOFE - Reserving the right to object, first let me say I agree with most of what the Senator from New Jersey is saying. He mentioned the profits of the top five oil companies--Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Chevron. They are the giants.

If we will recall, last week when I objected to the arbitrary figure, the cap of $10 billion, it was because it was arbitrary. I quoted a lot of people in the administration saying we do not want to have--it should not be an arbitrary cap. One of the complaints I had was, if you do have an arbitrary cap and that was at $10 billion, that would mean only the big five plus the national oil companies--Venezuela, China, certainly--would be in a position to do this work offshore.

It is my feeling if you take the $10 billion off and make it totally unlimited, that could very well shut out even the five and leave nothing but national oil companies in a position to be doing it.

Actor Sam Waterston, of "Law & Order" and "The Killing Fields" fame, will testify at a hearing tomorrow exploring ocean acidification and the oil dispersants being sprayed over the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Two Senate Environment and Public Works subcommittees will host the joint hearing to examine U.S. EPA's work to monitor and reduce environmental risks to marine and coastal ecosystems.

The oceans have grown increasingly acidic, acting as a giant sink that absorbs almost a third of the carbon dioxide humans produce and sparing humans from some of the worst effects of climate change.

As emergency response efforts continue in the Gulf, EPW Policy Brief presents a new Gulf Oil Spill policy series to help interested parties understand the ins and outs of federal policies, regulations, and key issues that apply to the tragic Gulf spill.

In our first installment, we provide an overview of the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990, passed in response to the Exxon-Valdez oil spill in 1989. The OPA is the overarching federal statute that delineates the roles and functions of federal agencies involved in responding to a spill in coastal waters.

We think the Congressional Research Service (CRS) provides an excellent overview of the OPA. Released on April 30, the report, titled "Oil Spills in U.S. Coastal Waters: Background, Governance, and Issues for Congress, updates CRS's earlier work on the subject. CRS provides the historical context behind the OPA to help readers understand why it was passed, and delves into details of the act's key provisions and the evolution of the act's implementing regulations.