discussed the financial benefits to boone county and west virginia more broadly. did i hear you right that there is a $29 million be direct payroll and total $100 million direct and indirect payroll that is being lost by the nonoperation of the spruce coalmine mine? >> mr. chairman, that was back in 1998 when it shut down. the loss of revenue that we had to -- you know, we couldn't make it up. we've never made it up. we made cuts. the $29 million of direct payroll of 400 employees that were at daltex and systematically do the math of the people that supplies the mines, the tires, trucks, bolts, whatever they do, all of the

materials, you can estimate, we've done a lot of estimated numbers between lost revenue. >> how many jobs do you think that represents in direct and indirect, how many jobs are we talking about? >> well, we've looked at different statics. some people say a qualified if a person works his normal hours is about 65 to $70,000 a year it's between jobs of activity and 200 qualified coal mining jobs could be anywhere between 500 and 1200 jobs of activity to be split among different type needs and services. >> with the money that would come to the county or the state, is the county or the state able to make water quality and stream

quality improvements? >> well, here's the thing. in logan, we have -- i was a commissioner for the first time starting in 1980. less than 20% of the people had potable water. most of the lines were two-inch lines. we formed a very aggressive and requested for funding and when i left in 2010 we were way past over 90% of the people in our county, logan, had potable water. we do have a policy and a program now about stream restoration. you simply can't get in a stream any more from federal regulations. i don't care what you have in the middle of that stream. they recently had flooding, which the water will flow from upper counties down there. you will have trees and debris from one side of the waterway to

the other. you get in that stream and muddy the water, kill a cratdad, you're going to jail. so they would come in saying engineers studied how to what they call bedrock, bring the water back to the center of the stream and let it restore itself naturally. we was okay with that. we worked with it. so there is avenues to restore streams. but some of the interpretation of streams is what the problem is now. you know, a dry ditch is not a stream. a stream flows due to annual rainfall. that's a stream. >> all right. thank you. miss harbert, do people working in regulatory agencies have a clear enough understanding, in

your opinion, of. >> absolutely not. the reverb ragss of decisions like this are not just in one county or state but across the country. it is building, transportation, it is roads, bridges and these decisions that are taken should not be taken so lightly. we have to understand that these are billion of dollars at stake. board of directors have to make decisions and hire people. they can't do it if they think sometime down the road somebody might change their mind and revoke their permit. >> will this have the result of driving american jobs overseas with this kind of uncertainty? >> it most definitely has a chilling effect on investment. we have to want investment. we have to attract it. we have to be inviting rather than to saying capital markets, take your money elsewhere. because you're going to have that type of certainty somewhere else. decisions like this look more like hugo chavez than george

washington. what do we want to be as a country? do we want to be some place where we want investment or do we want it to scare other markets? >> thank you. i now recognize the ranking member. >> thank you. let me begin with a comment that this little side show earlier just confirms in my mind that indeed the officials at the environmental protection agency had important, better things to do with their time this morning than to engage in political theater. mr. chairman, you knew days ago they were not coming. you did not have to print cards to establish a little skit here to ask where the officials were and this, just as i say, confirm that they, indeed, have much more important things to be doing this morning.

miss gunnoe, we have a chart available of the area. the red in the center i guess is the mountaintop area in question. all of the other gray areas are permitted areas. so it's not as if this is the only opportunity for -- you know, in the tri-state region. miss gunnoe, according to the epa, there are 257 past and present surface mining permits in the area that collectively occupy 13% of the entire land area. as you can see, in the gray there, the mine's really blanket the region.

do you think that the level of mining that is already occurring in this area means that there is more to be done than to protect the streams that would be affected by the spruce mine? >> i do. the streams in that area are already above epa standards on sillenium. we know that through recent water testing that has been done. when you look at this mountain, recognizing that the dark gray areas are peaks that have been permitted or proposed and the people live in the low lying valleys, when you blow off the mountains, basically what happens is the people in the valley get flooded. and fema then comes in to help clean up the flooded communities. and there's many reasons not to

allow this permit. this watershed has an astronomical amount of mining in it already and it's heavily impacted these communities. these jobs will never benefit the community of blair. the community of blair will be depopulated because of the spruce one jobs. >> thank you, miss gunnoe. mr. eisenberg, we've heard that this has some effect on the people locally. miss gunnoe talked about it. but you talk about the lead for this coal. let me ask, how much of that coal is sent to other countries? >> off top of my head, what are

we doing to ourselves? miss harbert used, do we want a country that -- and you described the country that you were asking whether we would want to live in. i think, yes, you're getting right at the heart of this question. do we want a country that is despoiled and so that we can use the coal to china and to india? and, yes, to venezuela. so there's not much time, but miss gunnoe, let me ask you quickly if it sounds that the

epa using new science as it comes forward to make the best decisions for protecting the streams? >> absolutely they should be. and i need to say that the citizens from southern appalacha have lobbied the epa for these protections. these protections -- our lives depend on these protections. the epa is doing what they need to do to protect the lives of citizens in our communities. >> okay. thank you. representative from pennsylvania? >> thank you, chairman. i'm very disappointed in the obama administration just even with notice, refuse and the constitutional republic it's part of the checks and balances

and what are they hiding? what would be the potential for expending resources permitting mines for section 4 permits that were then after the fact vetoed by the epa? >> what would be -- say that -- i'm sorry. >> the impact on the state. >> i can tell you the economic impact. the jobs, number one. number two, i worked 11 years underground. so i'm not a novice to the coal industry. but i can remember back when i worked, we called red hats back then. jobs were tough to again but we

got some. but nowadays it takes 2 to $3 million to qualify permit and to get companies to come in now and put a permit together and spend 2 or $3 million not even knowing if it is approved that it can still be pulled. that's what is throwing everybody off the curve of the road, is if you approve something, i approve it. now, there's a rule and a law that we all have to abide by. as mr. holt said, these people had better things to do. i think they should have been here. we're talking about people's lives, income, and everything else and that's the reason i'm here. is because i care about people having the ability to wake up on monday morning and have a job. we're putting our teselves in t position where the next generation is not going to be working. you see where you can volunteer money if you choose to help somebody who can't afford an

electric bill, you're going to pay an energy tax in the next few years that is going to be mandatory. and they were talking about shipping the coal to foreign companies,s that kpeaexactly ri. we should be operating inside of america and that's what the people inside this country need, want, and they think we ought to have. why are we exporting coal? because of the rules and regulations that we have. if we had the right setup, we would be retrofitting the power plants and making them environmentally sound to burn the coal and do it right. but we are missing the boat on every opportunity and that's why we are having these type type of hearings this morning. i don't want the water to be run to where they are not doable and useable. come to southern appalachan and

i want you to see all of the streams that we're talking about. they are dry ditches. they only have water when it rains. all of these miles of streams are not streams on 28-degree slopes, how many streams can you have in a mountain? the water will seek the lowest level. let's be very honest about things that are sensible. quit listen to all of this rhetoric and come take a look. i'll talk to you about the good and the bad. yes, we can do things better. we need to do things better. but we sit up here and people's lives are in jeopardy and the ability to have a job because we're having a committee discussion. send people from d.c. down to these regions. you're talking about multibillions come see for yourself you'll find out. we can do it both ways. let's do it inside the borders of america.

>> but senator, real quickly, a follow-up question, i don't have much time left. what impact has the litigation had on mining in your region? >> well, they are talking about how many people have worked and come to logan. my county has not had as many. we have a mine that has employed a lot of people. mt. laurel, the owner of said properties in question it's getting to where you talk to people, and i always did as commissioner, people who are ceos of these companies, they are going to illinois, wyoming, places where they are get the permits. it's a question now, do young people buy homes and take a chance on making a living in an area so volatile to have permits being pulled? if you can pull this permit, you can pull any permit, anything else that the epa has in

jurisdiction. are we going to get to that point? >> thank you senator, thank you, chairman. >> let me remind you, in september -- last september this subcommittee did go to charleston and had a field hearing on stream quality issues. >> that's great. >> and the acting now governor was there, u.s. senator manchin was there. other witnesses, including miss gunnoe and others testified as well. that was a good hearing. and we did see some mine reclamation, mine operations later in the day as well. >> did you see the golf course? >> we didn't see the golf course. now i'd like to recognize the ranking member of the full committee, representative markey from massachusetts. >> this has less to do with president obama than with the inability of the coal industry to innovate and its inability to

compete. there are more than 500 coal-fired power generation units operating in this country. 500. how many of those are more than 50 years old. more than 200 of them are more than 50 years old. how many are at least 60 years old of that 500? 74. we actually have ten coal units that are at least 70 years old. here's a picture of the plant in indianapolis built in 1925. it's an 87-year-old coal-fired power plant. thomas edison was alive when this plant was built. the television had just been invented. air travel was in its infancy. the first trans atlantic flight was still two years away when this plant was built and still operating today.

we've improved on all of the other technologies. we've figured out how to do the same thing but for less money, all with greater speed and reliability. it's the american way. new replaces old. clean replaces dirty. high-tech replaces low-tech and our country benefits when this happens. an 87-year-old perry k. power plant is switching to natural gas beginning in 2014. this is a growing trend in the power sector. natural gas is cheaper. it burns cleaner. you're less likely to get asthma or have a baby with birth defects and if you live near a plant that burns it, you're feeling better about the health of your own children because you know that there are more dangerous elements coming out of coal than out of natural gas. and you can get natural gas

without blowing the tops off of mountains and deing the environment. so right now 36% of america's electricity is currently generated by coal. 36% today. first three months of 2012. six years ago, coal was producing half of america's electricity. so it's gone in six years from 50% down to 36% of electricity. at the same time, electricity from natural gas has grown from 18% of u.s. generation to 27%. wind has gone from producing virtually none of our power to 3% of our power in the last six years. new we are, cheaper technologies, the free market is beating coal adam smith is spinning in his grave as we're listening to the republicans

talk about the need to prop up the coal industry against competing technologies, like natural gas, like wind. as a matter of fact, he would actually qualify as a new energy source, that's how much energy he's giving off right now in his grave listening to the republicans bleeding about the rise of natural gas and wind as competition to coal, especially with these plants that are 50, 60, 70, 87 years old. now, here's the interesting thing. in the waxman markeil the house of representatives built in 2009, we built in $60 billion between now and 2030 for them to be able to install

technology. now, the electric utility industry, they supported it. but the coal industry said no. they said no. we don't want the money. by the way, it was $200 billion up to the year 2050. that's a lot of money. that's a lot of investment in new technology. they can innovate and improve so it can become more competitive with the natural gas industry. the coal industry said, no, we're not going to move. and that's with $60 billion of funding coming from the federal government. 200 billion by the year 2050 so that they could innovate. they said no, they said no, they said no over and over again to innovation. there are now 200 coal plants over the age of 50 that need to be renovated at the cost of billions of dollars. natural gas is cheaper. wind is on the move. who wants to pay now in the private sector to rehabilitate

dinosaur coal units with cleaner, cheaper options available? now the free market says, if the coal industry did not want that funding, then we would look at the costs and just say, we're moving the natural gas. we're moving to wind. you innovate or you die. just ask the auto industry. that's what is happening to the coal industry. they refuse to innovate. they refuse to even accept the funding that would have made it possible for them to innovate. i just hope that the record is clear out there and that this gets reported as the real story as coal refuses to move. >> i'm glad you don't like -- i'm glad to recognize the gentlemen from michigan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i represent michigan's first

district and nickel, copper and tell me this regulation here that a permit is going to be revoked and can you expound further about the -- what's going to happen to the rest of the harvesting of minerals in my district? for example, what am i going to tell people looking forward to a resurgence and we have a new mine permitted. i'd like to have you look at that closer. they are using and change the

specification whenever. now they can't because this first decision says that you can't do it retroactively. epa has taken the position that they can do it pre-emptively. it has a lot of folks worried about it in the same -- at the same company and same industries that were impacted by this design decision. right now the epa has not done this. they are performing a watershed assessment. i know that environmental groups have already started using a watershed agreement and if you take away the specification to actually fill, then you can't do t you're essentially vetoing the project which really is the responsibility of the army

corps. so it could have wide ranging application. >> do you think we're going to needless copper, nickel, iron in the next 20 years in this country? >> speaking on behalf of nam, absolutely not. we're going to need more of it. >> do you think we harvest our materials in this country at a higher standard than harvested around the world as far as the environmental impact of the global environment? >> i am certain that we do. >> it just seems to me that keeping the jobs here in america and better environmental quality for the globe is our goal here in this country and i think we should, you know, be harvesting our materials here at home in a fashion that occurs in china and some of these other mines. do you have any comment or an analysis of what i'm thinking is true? >> well, if you look at the

world's appetite for energy, we hope that we'll see it around the world. there's no doubt we're going to need more minerals and input and infrastructure. we as a country we're going to have to decide whether we're going to be complacent and import those things or whether we will cultivate our own resources and have a comparative advantage. we have a lot of resources and those resources and technology to take those resources to market advances every year. we have the opportunity to use coal, use oil, use gas, all of our resources including renewables effectively in our country but the epa is standing in the way. i'd like to address the comment about natural gas. the sierra club launched a beyond coal campaign and they've been successful. now they've launched a beyond gas campaign. they have a movement completely against american resources and we've got to be able to decide

regulatory, and getting our economy back on its feet. >> in order to harvest solar energy and wind energy -- >> certainly. china has an m.o. and they are seeking the rights to those minerals around the world. >> so do we have the ability to harvest those minerals needed for the renewables in this technology? >> we certainly have renewables. we have a policy to be able to access the minerals and if we want to have a domestic -- a very vibrant domestic economy which is all inputs needed for all sources of energy, we're going to have a regulatory regime in place to have access to those resources. >> thank you very much. i yield back the remainder of my

time. >> i'm going to yield myself question time. i'm sure we were all entertained. you know it's shocking to hear comments about the coal industry and inability to innovate and compete. i don't know how we could possibly activists regulatory agencies like the epa and department of interior and i want to remind this committee and the ranking member that those old profile power plants that you're talking about, they provide 45% to 50% of america's energy needs today and in the state of ohio they provide 87% of the energy. and thousands and thousands of

jobs. i'm glad that chairman who hosted this important hearing today on the obama administration abuse of executive power in the case of the spruce coal mine and the broader effects of distributors that it could have on the economy as a whole. the war on coal is most clearly exemplified and that's the reason for this hearing. however, as miss harbert and mr. eisenberg has testified today, the epa to veto the army corps of engineers is potentially crippling effects to the rest of the economy if it is allowed to stand. america's businesses are already being crushed by the uncertainty of regulations coming from obamacare, other epa and interior regulations and if the epa suddenly had the power to veto permits justly issued by other federal ag