>> the chair thanks the gentleman. recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkiss. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i apologize for not being here for opening statements. i was giving a tour of wounded warriors in the capitol, and they just left, and it gave me time to get back here and so in that venue, obviously, some of my questions will be asked. but i -- just at the outset, dr. strickland, we think it's applaudable for us to try to organize these agencies and try to maximize the focus. we know that you got federal inner agency committee, the federal clearinghouse, the federal inner agency for database. regenerative medicine. how are you going to try to -- how are you going to try to coordinate these groups? i think everyone knows, and the president has also said, we've got to get efficient.

we've got to pare down redundancies. who you how going to do that? >> i should clarify, the committee that hrsa is convening is really not to achieve that intraagency. >> do you think that's an important thing to do? >> i think it's a very important thing to do within each agency. ours is more of an informal group so that we can be aware of what other agencies are doing and better align what we're doing with our scarce resources with the resources of others. there is certainly still a need for agencies to coordinate their activities within their own agencies and dedicated activities of similar interest and similar focus. >> and i think we're going to try policywise and budgetary wise to really streamline this process of not just in this area, but health care research dollars. because we do seem to have sometimes multiple agencies doing similar things, but they're not coordinated and not feeding back the same

information, and there's not one clearinghouse. so we're getting a return on that investment, but the question is, are we getting a bigger return on investment as we should? and that's not even in your own agency. that's some of the health care research is in the department of defense, as you know. and the like. let me go to mr. dittio. how many states are working with returning service members or veterans? >> give me a quick number? probably 15 or 20, from what we're aware of. some states are very advanced in this. the state of massachusetts, for instance, versus a very involved, elaborate program they've been working on for years. but they had a lot of commitment of resources at the state level that helped to bring this collaboration together and to work on it. what i'm worried about, from the

standpoint of our organization and representing state governments, is that we just don't have every state working on this. but every state has returning service people. so right away, we're in sort of a difficult position, because we're really not necessarily reaching people. the other thing is, and i'm sure it's no surprise to you, most of the public entitlement programs across the country, especially like medicaid, become the payer for long-term care services for people with various disabilities, including brain injury. and most states are seeking to reduce and decrease their expenditures under the medicaid program for various reasons. obvious reasons. and it worries me, because what's happening is, in some respects, people with brain injuries are just being mixed in or lumped in in states with other groups of people with disabilities, and yet, as you've heard from the experts, the treatment and the management of these individuals is quite different. we're looking at quite a different approach to doing

something. and it -- because it's a lifelong disability, and because the impairments persist overtime, over a long period of time, it really requires a lost resources. and states -- i don't think states don't want to do the right thing. i just think they're just having a very difficult time with the funding. and, you know, with constrictions and programs and with the small amount of money that hrsa gets to support through the tbi act, what needs to be done, this is -- you know, the system is not -- the amount of money that is being given to hrsa is not reflective of the magnitude of the problem of brain injury. that's the simplest way i can say it. >> we appreciate that. what about -- in your coordination with states and how are the veterans organizations linked in? at all? >> veterans' organizations are linked in. and, in fact, we've had some very excellent -- we had some very interesting developments in

a number of states, where the national guard came to the state and said we'd like to do something with the people we're sending out, you know, on -- to combat. and so they were pretested before they left on assignment with a base measure of their brain function, et cetera. and then when something happened to them and they returned home again, they were retested. and because of the baseline, there was an ability to determine whether or not any brain damage had been sustained. and if so, then plan appropriate treatment for them. so both the local service organizations, as well as the state veterans service organizations, as well as the federal veterans department veterans' affairs, i think, are all very interested in this. and nasha has tried to work with these organizations and encouraged our states to work with them. but when we ended up with 21

states getting grants from hrsa, it made it difficult for the rest of the states to get replacement funding from the legislature and the governor to fill the void of trying to continue the momentum of this. >> and my time is expired. i appreciate the answers. i'll just finish on this. i mean, especially your last point. because as members of congress, one of the things that we do numerous times, is we do constituent service, and we do a lot of veterans' affairs issues. and do have a baseline on disability and percentages and be able to get through that system sooner rather than later, and instead of reinventing the wheel and some of the lag times, it's just really abysmal. that would be helpful too. so appreciate your testimony. thank you, mr. chairman. >> chair thanks the gentleman. dr. winston, i didn't get to you, so i have just one follow-up, if you would. in your testimony, you discussed the importance of the golden

window in acute treatment. are you aware of any studies of treatment of children with tbi during the golden window? >> yes. so the question is about the golden window. it used to be called the golden hour. we're now learning that it's important to have aggressive care for a longer period of time, as we heard terrific testimony on. you know, the fact is that it is very difficult to do -- to do acute care research. and i think that there are -- there's work out there to try to start bridging together emergency departments and hospitals to try to build networks where this kind of research can be done. just beginning. personally, i could get back to you on specific information. but i know a very exciting study with adults found -- just came out from the university of pennsylvania, found that early, aggressive, expensive care had important long-term

consequences. i think that we give -- and i think you would agree, too little, too late. and sometimes too late, too little, even late. you know, like we -- we give -- we really need to get in there, particularly for very serious injuries. we need to get in there and work with the brain's ability to heal and reduce the secondary injuries that might occur from hypoxia or low oxygen or low blood flow or the rest. i think for mild traumatic brain injury, the window is a little bit longer. it's 48 hours. and i applaud the cdc and others to try to get that awareness out there, that early recognition response is needed. but i want to, if i may -- give you a challenge that we're experiencing.

the growing awareness for early recognition has really turned into some real challenges by parents who want some answers. they want to know things like after how many concussions should my child be removed from contact sports? for how long are injured brains vulnerable to a second impact? does the risk differ by age, and why did my child get a concussion when they were wearing a helmet? our science today does not answer these questions. clinicians on the front lines are also asking questions. i think you might find this interesting. visits for concussion, because of awareness, have skyrocketed at the children's hospital of philadelphia's care network. increasing 458% since 2009. we're struggling to meet the demand. we need research and leadership to provide evidence-based recommendations. it can't be this broad brush, because we just can't afford it and we don't have enough trained providers. i know that chairman pitts, you have been very, very helpful in

trying to make sure that we shore up the training that's necessary for this specialized care that children need. thank you very much for that. we need better standards for safety equipment, bio markers for traumatic brain injury, so we can follow the course of care. better tools to use in the field and in the clinics. evidence-based and tested protocols. these don't exist right now. and then just to reiterate, for the young athlete in particular, their job is not playing on the field. it's actually learning. and we can't forget that. we need to make sure that we protect their brains so that they can become the leaders in

society that many of them hope to become. >> thank you. and that effort for the children's hospital gme training for pediatrician was bipartisan. my colleague, mr. pallone, was great advocate of that, as well. do you have any follow-up? >> no, mr. chairman. i just wanted to -- well, first of all, thank you for what you just said. and your comment about concussions and is sports. i agree. but i just wanted to -- if i could ask unanimous consent, to submit the statement of our ranking member, mr. waxman. >> without objection, so ordered. that concludes our hearing. the members may give you questions. we ask that you respond to those questions once you get them promptly. and i remind members that they have ten business days to submit questions for the record. and that means they should submit their questions by the close of business on monday, april the 2nd. excellent hearing. wonderful testimony. we thank our expert panel for your very important testimony and answers to our questions. without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.

join us tonight for a debate between republican candidates running for senate in texas. they are vying for that nomination and you can watch it live at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. we have more campaign coverage coming your way this weekend. our road to the white house program features a look at the obama for america campaign and their media strategy. campaign strategists david axle rod participants. they talk about operation vote, the effort to target key voters

in battleground states. also a look at the day-to-day political operations, their use of social media, and a tour of the chicago headquarters. that's sunday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. this weekend on american history tv, harvard professor john staufr on the civil war and the movement to end slavery. >> it's one of the fascinating aspects of the abolitionists is that when lincoln gives his inaugural, the abolitionists are still a minority. they are still despised. what transforms abolitionists into respected critics of the american scene is fort sumter. >> lectures and history, saturday night at 8:00 eastern. also more from our series on key political figures who ran for president and lost but changed political history. the contenders and a look at

eugene debs, sunday at 7:30 p.m. american history tv this weekend on c-span 3. next a house natural resources subcommittee looking at the epa's efforts to halt a previously-approved coal mining project in west virginia. the project will jeopardize the health of communities and pollute its waters. in march of this year, a u.s. district court judge rebuked the efforts saying the agency was overstepping its authority and using magical thinking to do so. the obama administration is now appealing that decision. from earlier this month, this is an hour and 40 minutes. >> under committee rule 3 e is two members. the subcommittee on energy and 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 f, opening statements are limited to the chairman and ranking member. i ask any other members opening statements is submitted to the clerk by business of today. hearing no objection, so ord ordered. i also ask unanimous consent to have congressman david mckin lee of west virginia's first district with us on the day as today and participate in today's hearing. 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, west virginia. this saga is one of the most disappointing legacies of federal bur rack si in american history. this is the story of how one agency, the obama administration's agency can attempt to single handedly decide to retroactively pull

permits which destroys 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 veto active permits, how can any company, contractor, or concessioner have confidence to invest in america when their permit is not worth the paper its written on? fortunately, u.s. district judge amy jackson found that the epa's acti 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 consume 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 extralegal new power to revoke permits. this subcommittee frequently hears discussion about certainty, how domestic investment requires certainty in order for investors to create jobs. should the administration win this case and grant the power to retroactively revoke permits, it it would destroy all certainty in permitting for projects across the united states. this would be terribly destructive for the american economy. unfortunately, this permit isn't the only one the epa has withdrawn that has cost jobs and destroyed the livelihood of hard-working americans. they withdrew the permit for the energy plant on the navajo nation. that $4 billion investment would have created thousands of jobs, generated tens of millions in

revenues, and supplied power to the hundreds of thousands of homes in the west. one added bonus would have been the lktification of a broad section of the navajo nation where people currently live without electricity. but that permit after being issued was withdrawn by the epa. the obama administration's war on coal can be felt throughout the country. east, west, appalachian, logan county, west virginia, and farmington, new mexico. americans should be deeply concerned with this trend and the administration's ongoing effort to retroactively pull permits, destroy jobs, and hurt the economy. today we'll hear from folks interested in talking about other topics than the addition regard for the law as dem strait itted by the epa in this instance. there will be distractions about water quality and the general process of mining. none of that is the topic of

today's hearing. today is about a reckless administration and an agency that believes it is above the law as they crusade against domestic jobs and domestic energy. i will now recognize the ranking member from new jersey, representative holt, for five minutes for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. 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 streams have been filled with debris resulting from mountain top removal mining. streams are being buried at a rate of 120 miles per year. mountain top removal mining has also deforested an area the size of delaware. the proposed spruce number one

mine in west virginia would cover an area roughly seven times the area of the national mall, just to give you a sense of the scale. it would be one it would be one of the largest individual surface mines ever authorized in west virginia and waste from the mining operation would bury more than 6.5 miles of a couple of streams that according to the epa, quote, represent some of the last remaining, least-disturbed high quality stream and resources, end quote, in the region. the epa has concluded that this mine will, quote, transform these head water streams from high quality habitat into sources of pollutants, end quote. since the bush administration approved the permit in 2007 which may have been unwise then, additional peer-reviewed scientific information has become available which according to the epa, quote, reflect a growing consensus of the importance of headwater streams

and a growing concern about the adverse ecological effects of mountaintop removal mining, end quote. we increasingly understand the effect, the impact that this sort of mining has on our environment and on the health of local communities. this morning, scientific understanding of the impacts of this mine and others like it -- i beg your pardon, this mounting scientific understanding of the impacts led the epa to withdrought permit fulfilling these streams with mining waste under the clean water act. the coal company, a subsidiary, challenged the epa decision and a district courtsided with the coal company by ruling that it was illogical, but in ruling the clean water act text it seems clear that what is really illogical is the court's interpretation of the statute and epa's authority. epa has appealed this decision and agreed to an expedited

schedule to resolve the appeal and remove any uncertainty that, for example, the chair refers to. the majority made claim that the e. a made effort to protect the environment in appalachian from mountaintop removal mining is somehow evidence of a larger attack on the coal industry, but the reality is that the threat to coal use right now in 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 natural gas prices to plummet and they are got for american consumers and they're good for american manufacturing and for other american industries such as agriculture and steel. falling natural gas prices have, as one might expect had an impact on our electricity mix. over the last four years, the amount of electricity produced from coal has fallen from

roughly half to a little more than a third. meanwhile, over the last five years we've added more than 41,000 megawatts of natural gas generation as a nation. we've added more than 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, it abandon the plants to ask state regulators to approve a 30% increase in electricity rates from consumers to pay for a $1 billion retrofit to keep a coal plant that is nearly 50 years old in operation. our domestic natural gas production is at an all-time high. that is a fact and that's what's going on here. utilitieses are increasingly moving to natural gas and ren renewables to generate electricity yet the majority

continues to support destructive mountain top removal mining, that companies are not choosing at this time and it makes no sense. i yield back. >> also as is our practice whenever the chairman or the ranking member are here they're invited to give a five-minute statement and i now recognize representative hastings of washington. thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you for your courtesy as you have given that to me and several times this year. 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 in coal-fired electricity plants across the country. these direct attacks on america's hard-working coal families have threatened tens of thousands of jobs and promised to increase the cost of energy

at a time when they can least afford it. 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 zone rules, others have been more bold and direct. the obama administration's epa decision to retroactively withdraw a previously issued permit was a bold and direct assault on american coal production. in fact, a federal court ruled that epas, and i quote, exceeded its authority, end quote, under the clean water act to revolt an issued coal permit and that such action required and again, i quote, magical thinking, end quote, that after such a strong rebuke from the epa's reckless decision making the obama administration is appealing the judge's ruling and once again trying to inflict economic

damage on an already struggling region. the spruce coal mine in loud oun county, west virginia, is an opportunity for families who are desperate for job creation. it is 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 hardworking american families. this hearing was supposed to give committee members an opportunity to question obama officials about the, quote, magical thinking, end coat 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've heard a lot about openness and transparency from this administration, so to me it's very disappointing to see high-ranking officials or any officials, for that matter, from his administration ignore the

opportunity to keep the public informed. i'd like to thank the second panel if would be called for taking time out of their busy lives and schedules to answer questions about the support and topic. i just wish that the obama administration had shown the same courtesy. mr. chairman, i'd like to take a moment to express how saddened we were to hear of the passing of your father mr. landborn on tuesday. i understand your father served with honors in the second world war and was one of the five guards that participated in the nuremberg trials. clearly, his service, public service was passed on to the second generation. so know that our thoughts and prayers are with you as your family as we go through this difficult time. i yield back my time. thank you, mr. chairman. okay, moving on here. at this point i would like to introduce the invited first panel which was the honorable lisa jackson, administrative

agency. the director of the office of surface mining, reclamation and enforcement and joe elle darcy for civil works representing the army corps of engineers. it appearins not a single membe of the obama administration can take time out on 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 to the important issue that directly impacts the lives of many americans. even if they are too busy today, which i 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 kirkda, well l, and karen, president and ceo of 21st century energy of the chamber of commerce, mr. ross eisenberg of the national association of manufacturers and v.p. for merge and resources policy and miss maria guno, boone county west virginia organizer. as you come forward, i'll lay out the ground rules. like all our witnesses, your written testimony will appear in full in the hearing record so i ask that you keep your statements to under five minutes and under committee rule 4a. our microphones are not automatic so you have to press the button to start. i also explained -- will explain how the timing light works. you see the clock in front of you that starts in five minutes and after the five minutes are all up the red light comes on. senator kirkdall,