and advertising every 20 minutes on every television show about their new more fuel-efficient and safer vehicles that they are selling. the coal industry said no. let's keep getting at this. peabody coal said no. in the same way the auto industry did a disservice, peabody coal has done a disservice to its workers. pretending they could not innovate and improve and make themselves more competitive. trying to blame an outside source whether it's the auto or the coal industry. it's just to defy analysis of the market place. the auto industry was losing to competitors because they were no longer meeting the goals of what the consumer expected. clearly down to only 17% of the

new electrical generation and new gas is at 44%. inevitably because of the coal industry executive who is should be questioned. >> the gentlemen's time expired. we will go to mr. florez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the only side show is the comments on the other side to try to change the subject. this hearing is not about auto mileage or coal or natural gas. it's not about the bill or cap and tax or cap and trade or anything else. it's the bureaucrats who changed the rules after the rules have been passed. it's about bureaucrats who are not following what the law said passed by the people that elected the congress. that's what this hearing is about. i had firsthand experience with this. before i came here to fantasy

land where people changed rules whenever they see fit, i worked in the real world and created jobs. i set up operations all over the world. when i did it, i used to enjoy getting on the plane to come back to the united states of america. i knew we had a clear transparent, fair, and stable regulatory structure. we have become a third world banana republic. that's not what this is about. we have bureaucrats that invent junk science and bogus analysis and change the rules to fit whatever their whim is that day. they do it because you have environmentalists that want to move beyond coal and beyond natural gas. you have environmentalists who want to attack crop insurance. pretty soon we won't be able to eat because of the environmentalists and heat our homes because of the environmentalists and have no jobs because of the environmentalists. this is out of control.

this is not what america is supposed to be. this is a region that has 60% unemployment. we only created 69,000 jobs. the unemployment rate is 14.8%. one out of every six americans out of work and out of control bureaucrats that want to put more people out of work because businesses that hire these employees that create these jobs don't know what regulators will do when they wake up each morning. that's an issue for me. that's an issue for the american people and the reason we had a change in this congress and house in november of 2010. now, we have got to move on and talk about why we are here. miss harvard, the first question is for you. i agree with your comment that -- i will come back to the comment in a minute.

i have a question for you though. that is when you get a permit, you assume that as long as you fulfill the responsibilities on that permit, that should stand in existence. is that correct? >> absolutely. >> what happens if you are an employer or a business if you can't count on that permit to be in effect? it can be revoked at a whim even though you are fulfilling the rules of that permit? >> if it happens before you made the investment, you give second thought to making the investment. if something is under construction, do you halt and lay off the workers or continue at a great deal of risk in the regulatory process? this is all new territory. i think that's why we are having this hearing. the business community was set back by the decision by the epa. they were overjoyed to see the justice system step in and say they were overreaching authority, but at the same time

now we have epa overreaching their authority in alaska and preemptively perhaps rejecting a project that has not gone to final decision. we are seeing scary signs on the wall to the business community and they want to figure out a way out of this. >> but there is -- this question is for mr. eisenberg. is there a statutory authority that the epa has to retro actively revoke permits some. >> absolutely not. they don't even have the authority to issue the permit. they can only deal with the specification of where to put the fill. under 404 c. >> senator, i have been to appalachia and i helped to go and repair and renovate homes for economically disadvantaged people in your part of the world. i can tell you, it is an economically depressed area and the last thing i think would be appropriate to have epa bureaucrats that are not accountable and now look at the

way the gsa responds, they are irresponsible to have them controlling the life blood of your community. how do you feel about that? >> in my area we have a lot of people that have underprivileged situations. we worked on that through the years and tried to diversify the economy and it's working. to get to the next level, you have to have the main source of income and taxation to diversify with. you can have visions and dreams and hopes and desires, but if you have no money to get there, for somebody to simply put yourself in a position, how do you attract business if day they can operate and the next day they pull before they get to operate. it's a scary situation and like i said before, i talked to the ceos of the companies that have been long standing in my region. they don't want to be in the region. not because of the building and the rule. >> let me interrupt you for a

minute. would the folks rather have paychecks or welfare payment sms. >> they would rather work. some of the rallies they had, when the stimulus was handed out in washington, the cry of the people was we don't want the stimulus money. give us a work permit. >> thank you very much. i neeld back. >> thank you for yielding back. we will go to mr. mckinley. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you for the opportunity to participate with the committee. i think the previous speaker said it all. what we are here for. there is always electricity in the air when people try to divert our attention to what we are supposed to be talking about here today. that's what they do a lot in washington. i would just like to start by

saying i am one of three or four people in congress that have a construction background and i dealt with the permitting agencies for 40 something years. when they grant a permit, you work for the permit. if the science changes and you change the requirement -- >> the gentlemen suspends. i am going to ask all committee members to respect the time that other committee members have. if we need side bar meetings, we have a room or a hall way. i appreciate that. thank you. >> when they changed the rules, on the next permit, you make that apply. you don't go back retro actively. that's one of the reasons i came here was to learn from the epa. what was their grounds for the justification? if it were science, let's build

on the science. they chose not to be here or send representatives within the organization. i'm a little surprised with that. let's stay focussed on why we were here. permit was given. if what i'm told, they wanted to revoke it because i believe the science, they felt there was more science that they caused that to be considered. i would like to ask, i suppose to try to give an analogy for you, if in your house, you probably have plywood in your house. you have dry wall perhaps in your house. are you aware that the epa is considering changing the standard on the resin used in plywood to such a level of a tenth of a part per million. if they do make that change, how

would you feel after you have been given a permit to own and build or locate in your house? they knock on your door and say you have to leave your home because you changed the standard and your house is no longer within standard. would you leave willingly? >> i absolutely would. if i thought my house was making me sick, i would leave. >> for i can reclaim my time, the same with concrete. there is in your house, you have flies in your concrete and the epa is adopting standards and you say that's a hazardous material and you are willing to face bankruptcy for your standards and principals. the bank is probably not going to like that after they loaned you the money. >> can i respond to what you are saying or are you talking at me?

>> i will continue my time. you may lose your time and the bank may have to foreclose because your house doesn't meet the standards of the epa. that's a real threat. when we keep moving the goal post for people to be able to make a decision. i am particularly -- i like your comments and wonder whether or not you had any comments, but before we get to the report in a short time frame, i want people to understand that since we got off game, i will play in this court for a little bit. when he won't acknowledge that in the other committee. let's go back to capture in sequestration. i asked time and time again. if you are going to set the standard for sequestration, that's under the standards. show me one facility that has the commercially available

technology. there is their isn't one. we cannot do it in america today. even in a laboratory setting. yet the epa set that as the standard of where we need to be. they know well this is a war on coal. there is no question about it when we look at them being called a green house glass and climate change and utility and train act. we can go on and on and on. we don't want all of the above energy sources. can you just in the time frame, is there anything more in this study that we need to review that was done by the doctor? >> i think the take away from that report is that the impact on the investment community will be huge. it changes the business model for infrastructure in america. was that the intention of the clean water act? that was not the intention of

congress to change the business model for the american economy. that's ultimately what this could mean. >> thank you. apparently i ran overtime. i wanted to ask the senator from west virginia about the fact that the coal company in west virginia is producing power in one county and producing power not with standing the remarks from the senator from massachusetts. it's a rate lower than the gas production on the heat rate so the innovation is there and it's got to be the ability -- >> would the gentlemen like to ask unanimous consent for another minute? >> i would be glad to grant another minute. >> if he can ex-pant on something, i would ask for another minute. >> without objection. >> there coal companies that are providing innovation, but they are being held back because of the threats of the overregulation. are you aware of the producing of a heat rate of 87 btu per

kilowatt. for those that are not aware of that, what would you say to that? the coal companies are innovating? >> i think they are innovating to the best of their ability. utilities and as far as economic ability to do so, yes. >> thank you very much. >> thank the gentlemen for yielding back. we will go to mr. duncan from south carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i wanted to make the point that i wanted to ask the administration officials questions. they are not here because they didn't want to definitely into the subject. we can't say we were not warned about the obama administration because the president himself said as a candidate, if someone wanted to build a coal firepower plant they will be changed a huge sum for all the green house gasses emitted. that is the dynamic that is

driving the administration. i yield to the gentlemen from ohio. >> i thank the gentlemen for yielding. i have a couple more questions, but i would like to point out. we talk about the decrease in the amount of energy business provided by the coal industry when we have an administration, the president of whom acknowledged before he was elected that he was going to make it infeasible to build new power plants and he's done so. the vice president said that coal is more dangerous than high fructose corn syrup and terrorists, so it's no wonder that americans today are paying $300 more on the average per year to power their homes. if that's acceptable to the american people, maybe we are on the right track. i submit that we are not. i applaud the coal industry for

turning down the opportunity to receive a bailout from the federal government in an attempt to choose winners and losers. we have seen the federal government'sibility to choose winners and losers with failed projects like solyndra. i think i made the point. is it to say that we would start to see some of that $200 billion and move overseas where companies can rely on finality of payments? >> sanctity of contracts is important in any business model. to the extent that the ability to rely on your contract oers rule of law would send a signal to go where they feel more comfortable. if it's overseas, it's overseas or it won't happen at all. >> i find it ironic that vice

president biden was in my district in ohio a few weeks ago talking about the resurgence of a manufacturing in america when the administration is taking actions that will only push jobs overseas and attack the energy sources that are providing that surge in manufacturing today. senator kirken daal, many have primacy over the programs and many states spend a great deal of time and resources in the mine-permitting process. what effect would the lack of finality context have on west virginia permitting scheme? >> secretary went on record many times and states should have the right in the clean water act and i think it creates an entirely different atmosphere when you talk about the permit atmosphere. the states don't have the

sovereign rights. it's overridden by the regulators. it challenges the process totally. >> thank you. i was afraid that's what you were going to say. as i said at the beginning of my questioning, this is an egregious case of president obama's administration carrying out the war on coal. we heard today from witness that is the epa's actions have major ramifications for all american business fist the epa's objections a objection actions are allowed to stand. without objection -- >> i reclaim my time real quick. denmark held out as the epitome of alternative fuels and wind power. they reduced their footprint that much. they are relying on the base load, 24-7 power supply from coal. i like the wind power. the gentlemen from massachusetts

was talking about that earlier. we can't continue to talk about wind only. we have to support what works for the base load always on power supply and coal provides that in this country. i think about what coal technology could do for the african continent or latin america where they use charcoal that is harvested in the forest that we love. we provided coal firepower plants in other countries, especially third world and lessen dependence on the charcoal. coal works. it's proven in this country and it can be worldwide. >> without objection, i'm going to yield the final two minutes to our colleague.

>> many of the questions that the committee wants to ask of the epa are better resolved in court dealing with a particular case. many should be addressed that have to do with the clean water act and what it actually says. it actually says that the administrator is authorized to prohibit the specification, including withdrawal of specification of any defined area and he is authorized to deny or restrict the use of defined area for specification. as a disposal site including withdrawal whenever he determines after noticing an opportunity that the discharge will have an unacceptable adverse effect on water supplies, fisheries, wild live and recreation areas. it goes on to say that the

administrator must consult with the secretary and the core of engineers. the court expressed surprise that congress would do this, but congress did that. our witnesses today seemed to disbelieve that congress did this. congress did this. i think it's worth making that clear. i will yield my remaining time to the ranking member. >> i thank the gentlemen. early this week the "new york times" reported that the american electric power company was planning to transition a plant in ken tuck fre coal to natural gas. the coal companies objected. they insisted that rate payers should pay 30% more so that the plant could continue burning coal instead of much cheaper natural guess. they actually got the american

electric power company to submit to state public utility commissioners and let's be honest. that's welfare for coal executives. >> i hate to call it. >> 30 additional seconds. >> without objection. >> making rate payers pay 30% more is just wrong. that's not free market. the company withdraw this ridiculous proposal after it gained attention. they are declining rapidly after thousands of mega watts constructed of gas and solar and wind in new england over the last decade. we across the board had a 15% reduction in our electricity rates. that's without coal. again, the coal industry has 75,000 workers. but the wind industry has 75,000

workers and the solar industry has 100,000 workers. the market is now moving away from coal because the coal industry refused to accept the money. it would have helped them to make the transition. >> i thank the panel for their testimony today. members of this committee may have additional questions for the record. i ask you to respond to these in writing. if there is no further business, the committee stands adjourned.

>> join us tonight for a debate for 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 our companion network. we have more coverage coming your way this weekend. our road to the white house program features a look at the

obama for america campaign and the political and media strategy. campaign strategist and press secretary participate and talk about operation vote, the effort to target key voters in battle ground states. a look at the day to day political operations and use of social media and a tour of the chicago headquarters. that's sunday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. . >> this weekenda after words, katie paf english details fast and furious. >> this was kept from not only the american people, but the mexican people as well. there hundreds of faceless, innocent mexican citizens who have been murdered as a result of this. the only thing that we knew outside of the government program was that guns from american gun dealers were going into mexico and causing all these problems with the cartel when really the government was

sanctioning the sales and sending them to mexico. >> she is interviewed by the national journal of white house correspond ept. sunday night at 9:00, this weekend on c-span 2. >> next a discussion on youth environmental activism. this is from the common wealth club of california in san francisco. you will hear from a college student who stood up and disputed a united nations conference in south africa in december and another student who filed suit against california and the united states, holding the governments responsible for protecting the atmosphere for future generations. from march, this panel runs an hour and five minutes. >> welcome to the manager economy and environment. today we are focussing on what college students and other youth are doing to advance a transition towards a clean and prosperous economy. 2011 was a year of climate extremes around the world. floods affected some regions

while others such as the americans southwest experienced epic drought. global temperatures are tied for the hottest on record. for years, scientists have been warning that this weird weather, too much water, too little water, hot spells and cold spells, all mixed together would result from the accumulation of carbon pollution in the atmosphere. that's happening now. with mother nature screaming at us, republicans and democrats are running for cover. national and international efforts to move towards clean energy are limping along. baby boomers are refusing to clean up their mess and now the kids are starting to call them out. over the next hour, we will discuss what america's youth are doing to discuss resources for the future. at the common wealth club, we have a live audience with school children and families from around the san francisco bay area. on stage we are pleased to welcome three advocates. abigail bora in the middle is a

student at little bury college in vermont and advocate with sustain us.org. tanya is on my right. she is a green for all fellow of broward youth award winner and student at contra costa college in the bay area. this is a stanford student, litigation plaintiff and claims against the state of california and a winner of the prestigious broward youth award. welcome. >> thank you all for coming. i want to hear about your stories and a thumb nail of what got to you this point. let's begin with you, tanya. a few years ago, you were on not such a good track going to high school in richmond. how did you get involved in environmentalism and get on a different track? >> well, my involvement