i'm coming down the right-hand side. >> if we're making a decision to put as much as $116 million at risk for a tenuous, at minimal, that might approve to a company that we own 3%, that would be completely irrational on the part of goldman-sachs and all of its constituencies. >> this at least raises some concern in light of the what we have seen the way the department dealt with the sharing of information. in spite of the fact that we have letters being drafted that are going to go to the white house chief of staff, at some point you got to say, where does this all end? what really took place here. no wonder a whole bunch of these companies didn't get a chance, because the ones that didn't, they were so close to the government, they got approved.

>> i don't -- with respect to the one loan that we applied for, received, there was -- had nothing to do with any relationships with anyone in the administration, the white house, it was done -- it was done on its merits. >> how much -- how much money -- what's the dollar amount of the interest you have in amanax, do you know? >> it's less than $10 million, i believe. >> okay, it's still real money. >> no, but in relation to -- i guess my point is in relationship to $116 million that we're putting on the line for this project. -- >> 9%. >> 10 million out of $1$10 mill million is still pretty significant. >> it would be completely imprunt for us to risk $116

million as opposed to $10 million. >> all i'm saying is that if you can get, the one of the four is the one you have to have an interest in-- >> if it happens by coincidence to be the case. >> it's not by coincidence. >> it's completely by coincidence. >> you just said the expert said it was the right thing to do. >> all i'm saying is that we had not only our own engineers but the engineers that were advising -- >> we yield our final round of questioning to the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> is that a general sigh of relief on the panel? >> i know this is uncurveball for you. mr. mancini, i understand when you said we would never risk $116 million on such an imprudent project? and i get that. >> i said we wouldn't risk $116

million to protect $10 million. >> how about the american taxpayers putting $15 billion at risk, was that imprudent? it's not who you know it's what you know, and there's another part to that, it's who knows you. but the real defining answer to this is when that phone call goes to someone that says i need help or i need you to weigh in on this, some people say, tell him i'm not in, tell him i'm on another line. if it's somebody i know, put them on the line. if there were 25 companies that were able to get through all this navigation, somebody obviously appreciated who was on the other side of the phone. because we have really lost sight of what this is about.

this whole program, if i understood it correctly, and i don't fault anyone who took vac of this money that gave you very low rates. why would you pay back loans that were the low interest. the ones you owe the most of it. you want to pay it all back and get it off your plate. when you don't owe anything, i know why they didn't do it. but at the end of the day, we were led to believe that if we investigated all this money, there was going to be a return on this investment. and the return on this investment that we were going to get people that were sitting at home were unable to find a job and this great opportunity that was out there. >> currently by the

department -- only 5 million -- >> 5 million jobs? do we know exactly what the number is? >> when i looked yesterday. >> i mean not the game numbers. >> according to the department of energy, permanent jobs, through the 1705, it comes down to -- and the permanent one comes down to 2,388 jobs. >> so we invested -- what was the total amount we investigated? >> $16 billion. >> $16 billion, that's with a b, billion. >> and so it was an exposure of $6.7 million. but think about it this way, this is the taxpayers exposure per job, but the reality is, if the company defaults, right, i mean there are no jobs created, this is what we saw with

cylindera. >> so they get it in breatoth e? >> yeah. >> what i'm trying to understand, this is not a democrat-republican situation, this is where we took american taxpayer money and we put it down on the green. not the red or the black, but the green, and we spun the wheel and we say you know what? i know we're going to win on this, and i bet we're going to create 5 billion jobs, put it all on the green and in the end what did the american taxpayers win? >> i think it came down to the ability of the government to create jobs and i can't -- i mean it can obviously pay for some jobs, but to create sustainable jobs that will sustain themselves when the government money is gone, the government can't do this. >> stable jobs only come from

the private sector. >> the private sector is the one that can actually sustain jobs and create economic growth for that matter. and the private sector has been also pretty good at even leading the way on green energy. >> this has been the most irresponsible waste of taxpayer money that i have seen in my lifeti lifetime. but it's incredible that we can sit back and say, mission accomplished. this is ridiculous what we have done to the american taxpayer, keep funding this, because there's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. >> i don't know if it's the most irresponsible thing. >> it's what we're talking about today. >> the thing i don't understand is how we can reconcile the idea that these projects are low risks.

it seems like a safe bet. moreover, i find it surprising that while some of the companies involved have had a hard time maybe finding funding and capital while the recession was going on, and while european banks were in trouble. it does seem that it's also the same time where everyone in america is hurting and that seems somewhat irresponsible to be asking taxpayers then to jump in. to take that risk. >> you can actually do that when

it's not your own money that's being risked. it's a very easy bet to make when it's not your money, and when it's your money, it's a much more difficult risk to take. >> i do not understand, if it's really low risk, which i'm willing to -- >> you make a good point, it is hard to understand. that's the reason it's hard to understand, is because it doesn't make sense. it's not common sense to the average guy that goes out there that has to pay out of their own pocket. if their nose is the one getting bloodied, they know the difference, and whenever you can take something out of your checkbook or out of your pocket, that's an easy roll of the dice. but when it's your own money that took so long to earn and so long to pay back. we just made a very easy bet using taxpayer dollars. i appreciate you all being here, i don't discredit you for doing

what you did. it makes sense, it makes sense to you, unfortunately it doesn't make sense to taxpayers whose money was wagered. as long as we clear the air on this. i don't represent me, i represent 5,768 people in western pennsylvania and they're not all republicans. >> within the closed system, and the way it was designed that it's been successful, but i think this committee asked the right questions in raising first

of all who the winners and losers are here. and when i have heard gentle lady from -- they're not getting access to capital, i know and members of this committee know that the federal reserve famously was given money to big banks and the big bangs winter turning and and loaning to it people. people in my district who had great credit ratings who had been in business 18 years or more, and people who were stalwarts in their business communities, their credit dried up. so we cannot be unmindful of the fact that we're designing systems here which do pick winners and losers. i'll go against my friend mr. kelly, that needs to be

something we pay attention to, and when we get to some of the largest companies in america who have been able to get the advantages that smaller companies shouldn't, those are really weren't questions that are raised. with all due respect to the gentleman who probably new more about the refinance deal than anybody. because there's a lot of people out there asking hey, why not we. i didn't, what's the connection. this time in washington, where there's such suspicion. where are your moneys coming from, high it's going there, why somebody gets a contract, why somebody doesn't get a contract. notwithstanding mr. mancini's

comments, listen, go aheldman-s is phenomenal influence over the government. with no insult to you, that's how we seem to figure this out. so you're going to have to forgive the members of this committee for raising that question back at you. so have a lovely staday, thank . >> i want to thank all our witnesses, i know it's not always pleasant to be here. so i want to thank you and we will adjourn the committee.

last year is environmental protection agency -- decision in may. we'll hear from a west virginia environmental group and the new york chamber of commerce. and a session on the use of biofuels and alternative energy. the house oversight committee will decide whether to hold attorney general eric holder in contempt over chairman darrell issa's request for additional documents on the fast and furious program. the committee has been investigating the atf's so-called gun locking program which started under the bush administration and allowed weapons to be smuggled into mexico. coverage gets underway at 10:00 p.m. here on cspan 3.

>> the epa says the project which requires mountain top removal would jeopardize the health of appalachian communities -- return of that epa decision. this hearing from earlier this month is chaired by colorado congressman doug lamborn. >> the committee will come to order. the chairman notes the presence of a quorum of committee member 3-e is two members. the subcommittee on energy resources is meeting today to hear testimony on obama administration's actions against the spruce coal mine, cancelled permits, lawsuits and lost jobs. under committee rule 4-f4-f--i unanimous consent to -- close of

business today, hearinging no objection, so ordered. i also ask unanimous consent to have david mcconnell's -- to participate in today's hearing. no objection, okay, so ordered. i now recognize myself for five minutes. today we will hear an update on the ongoing legacy that is the spruce coal mine in logan county in west virginia. this saga is one of the most disappointing legacies of federal bureaucracy in american history. this is the story about how one agency, obama's environmental protection agency, can attempt to retroactively pull permits that destroys jobs and cripples our economy and try to do this without consequence. at the heart of this issue is the lack of confidence in permitting by the federal government. if without cause an agency can retroactively vito issued

permits, how can any company, contractor or concessioner have confidence to invest in america when their permit is not worth the paper it's written on? fortunately u.s. district judge found that the epa's actions in this matter were essentially a stunning power grab, not justified by the statute. and yet, even with such a staunch rejection by the courts, the obama administration is committed to a war on coal and is appealing this clear decision. this appeal will concern tax dollars and time in our courts, and for what? to destroy good, important jobs for americans. yes that is the goal of this administration's appeal. they want to destroy jobs and expand the power of the epa to have extra legal new power to revoke permits. this subcommittee frequently

hears discussion about certainty, about how domestic investment requires certainty in order for it to create jobs. should the administration win its case and grant the epa the power to retroactively revoke permits it would destroy all confidence in permitting across the united states. this would be terribly destructive for the american economy. unfortunately this isn't the only one the epa has withdrawn that has destroyed the livelihood of hard working americans. in 1995, the government revoked the permit -- $4 billion investment would have created thousands of jobs, generated tens of millions in revenues for the navajo nation and suppli s jobs to hundreds of sands of home.

that permit after being issued was withdrawn by the epa. the obama administration's war on coal could be felt throughout the country. americans should be deeply concerned with this friend and the administration's ongoing effort to retroactively pull permits, destroy jobs and hurt the committee. they would we will learn from folks that will talk about other topics than the reference for the law as demonstrated by the epa in this instance. none of that is the topic of today's hearing.

>> mountain top removal mining can be one of the most destructive practices on earth for the health of local communities, our climate and our environment. according to the environmental protection agency, since 1992, nearly 2,000 miles of appalachian streams have been filled with debris resulting from mountain top removal mining. streams in appalachian are being buried at a rate of 120 miles per year. mountain top removal mining has also did forested an area the size of delaware.

the epa has concluded that these mines will transform the appalachians from high quality habitats into sources of pollutants. since the bush administration approved the permit for the spruce mind in 2007, which may have been unwise then, additional peer reviewed scientific information has become available that reflect a growing consensus of the importance of head water streams and the concern of the mountainous ecological effect of mountain top mining.

to coal company, a subsidiary of arch coal challenged the decision and a district court sided with the coal company by ruling that the epa's ruling was illogical. it seems clear that what is really illogical is the court's interpretation of the statute, and epa's authority. epa has repealed this decision and has geagreed to an expedestrian ditd schedule. the majority may claim that the epa's effort to protect the environment and the help of communities in appalachian from mountain top removal mining are somehow evidence of a larger

attack on the coal industry, but the reality is that the threat to coal use right now is today's economy is not coming from the administration. it's coming from the market. surging domestic natural gas production, including from shale formations has caused u.s. natural gas prices to plummet. low natural gas prices are good for american consumers, they are good for american manufacturing and for other american industries such as agriculture and foagriculture -- over the last four years, the a lot of electricity from coal has fallen from roughly half to a little more than a third. meanwhile in the last five years, we have added -- 36,000 megawatts of wind.

the shift is not the result of the epa or anyone else in the administration, it is simple economics. indeed, just this week, american electric power abandoned plans to ask state regulators in kentucky to approve a 30% increase in electricity rates from consumers to a retrofit to keep a coal plant in production.

>> okay, thank you. and as is our practice whenever the chairman or ranking member of the full committee are here, they rain vare invited, they ar allowed to give a five minute introduckation as well. >> there's no question that over the course of president obama's term in office, he and his administration have taken aim at shutting down coal production and coal fire electricity plants across the county try. these direct attacks on america's hard working coal families have tlechreatened tenf thousands of jobs. while some of the administration's action against coal mining have been deliberately slow to develop, such as the unnecessary rewrite of coal regulation known as the

stream buffer right rules. the obama administration's epa decision to retroactively withdraw a previously issued permit was certainly a bold and direct assault on american coal production. in fact the federal coal court ruled that epa exceeded it's authority under the clean water act to revoke an already issued coal permit and that such action required, and again, i quote, magical thinking, end quote. yet the strong rebuke, the obama administration is repealing the judge's ruling and once again trying to inflict economic damage on an already struggling region. the spruce coal mine in west virginia is a great opportunity for coal mining families who are desperate for job creation. it's also an opportunity for more american energy production that will help support other american industries.

unfortunately, this administration has tried everything to take this opportunity away from these hard working american families. this hearing was supposed to give committee members an opportunity to question obama officials about the, quote, magical thinking, end quote, and better understand their decision-making process. unfortunately, the obama administration officials that were invited to testify refused the invitation and refused to send anyone in their place. we have heard a lot about openness and transparency from this administration, so it's very disappointing to see higher officials or any officials for that matter in his administration to ignore any opportunity to keep the public informed. so i would like the thank the second panel for taking time out of their busy lives and business schedules to answer questions about this important topic. i just wish that the obama

administration had shown the same courtesy. and mr. chairman, i would like to take a moment to express how sad we were to hear the passing of your father dr. robert landborn, i understand he was one of the five guards that participated in the nurmberg trials. i yield back my time. >> okay, moving on here, at this point i would like to introduce the invited first panel which was the honorable lisa jackson, the honorable joseph pesarcek, and the honorable joe ellen darcy. unfortunately, it appears that

not a single individual from the obama administration could take the time out from their ongoing work of laying burdens on the american economy and they cannot attend our hearing today. it's extremely disappointing that they invited -- excuse me, declined our invitations to speak and answer questions on an important issue that directly impacts the jobs and livelihoods of many americans. even if they are extremely busy today, which i would understand, they could have sent someone in their place. since the obama administration has no time for us today to answer questions, we will now call forward the second panel. state senator art kirken daal, the honorable karen harver, mr. rossizenberg of the national