we're ready to go. >> the bowles-simpson commission and the gang of six both recommended infrastructure spending as a way to get the economy going again. is the administration urging the supercommittee to include infrastructure spend anything their recommendations? -- spending in their recommendations? >> what we're doing is working 24/7 to get congress to pass the jobs bill. i don't know what the supercommittee's going to do. but congress should take action now. they just simply should. this is a no-brainer. everybody knows what needs to be done. everybody knows what road needs to be built. everybody knows what bridge needs to be either replaced or repaired. everybody knows that nextgen is important. you've got states all over the country that want to get into here-speed rail. -- high-speed rail. all of these things create jobs. our mission is to persuade congress to pass a jobs bill.

.. >> and so we look to our partners, and they gave us some good suggestions. and the ones that we suggested our wands back and get started immediately. >> last time around wasn't a mistake to build the obama stimulus bill around funding for states with long-term projects like high-speed rail and green energy? with a nation have been better

off had that stimulus bill had a higher concentration of truth or ready project? >> we had $48 billion. the money has been spent. we put 65,000 people to work, 15,000 projects. you haven't seen any bad stories about what we did, and we didn't write the bill. the bill was written by congress. the president signed it within 30 days of being sworn in, and we implemented it. we took our cues from of congress said, and i think the money was well spent. a lot of americans went to work, and that's why we are encouraging congress now to look at what the presidents are posed in the american jobs act, and pass it. >> you commented at length about the partisan gridlock that ultimately affects employment and safety and transportation. as a longtime politician what do you think will have to happen to

return to a more pragmatic approach to governing? >> another election. [laughter] >> carrying along on that line, is it possible to get a bipartisan agreement on transportation issues without earmarks to reward lawmakers on the hill? >> i think there is. i really do. some people believe that because earmarks are banned now that it's going to be more difficult to engage members of congress. every member of congress has a road or a bridge or a transit system, or some infrastructure that they know need to either repair or building or repaid. and under transportation to what will happen is we will work with our friends in the states, the governors, the commissioners of

transportation, the secretaries of transportation, on what their needs are. that will filter down to congressional districts. so we can be done. look, congress passed transportation programs before there were earmarks. and our idea is everybody knows what needs to be done, everybody knows that what we do with our money puts people to work. and it's not that complicated. so i do think that they need your there. people know what they are. i think we can get a bipartisan bill. >> this questionnaire asked do you still shoot the ball with chairman mica? if you do, why doesn't he listen to you? >> well, i have conversations with chairman micah on a regular basis, and he listens to me.

[laughter] >> well, he does listen spirit are we going to see some of your recommendations enacted by the house republicans? >> given what chairman micah said about the infrastructure bank yesterday, probably, that's not going very far, but i think that, again, i think chairman micah, i think chairwoman boxer who is writing the bill in the senate, both get it. they know that we need to get a transportation program. we need for people to work. and i believe we are going to get infrastructure program, and i believe it will happen before the end of the calendar year, because i think there's an enormous amount of pressure on congress when they go back home and they go to their churches

and they go to their barbecues, and they go to their political events. the one thing they're hearing is, what are you going to do about jobs and what are you going to do about the economy? we know how to fix that. they know how to fix it. reaching that kind of consensus i think is, is possible. >> despite recent news about certain transportation bills dead on arrival and the california high-speed rail opposition, transportation is a hot issue. what is the obama administration doing to get some wins on the board in transportation? >> as i said we're working 24/7, all hands on deck. as i said since labor day i've been to 10 states. i'm traveling i think every day except monday next week. i will be traveling four days next week. i'm going to be in detroit. we're going to be in florida. i'm going around the country, and everywhere i go i'm going to

be talk about infrastructure and transportation and jobs. and just keeping the momentum going. a lot of other of our cabinet colleagues are doing the same thing, traveling the country and really trying to engage people in the fact that they just have to persuade their representatives and senators that we need a bill. >> can we meet the surface of transportation infrastructure needs of our nation without increase in revenue for the highway trust fund? >> the president's budget originally called for $550 billion. we felt that what was really needed over the next five years to really begin to meet the needs. there are a lot of unmet needs, and, obviously, there's not $550 billion in the highway trust fund. and that's the reason that the president, when he put forth his

jobs, american jobs act, put forth the pay-fors, and congress is going to have to find the pay-fors. there's probably not enough money -- well, there isn't enough money in the highway trust fund to meet all infrastructure needs in america. and the president has made it very clear he doesn't want to raise the gas tax, and we have more than 9% unemployment, but there other ways to do it. you know what the president has said, those ways are. and we are willing to work with congress on finding the pay-fo pay-fors. >> what do you support as means of increasing that revenue? we just will not gas tax. indexing the gas tax, would that count as raising it? tolls on interstates? you have an idea no one has thought of get? >> i score with the present document in the american jobs act to pay for. >> what will happen in the transportation university if the

super committee doesn't come up with a plan by its deadline and the automatic across the board cuts are triggered including in transportation? >> our hope is congress will address the jobs issue, will really address away to put people back to work quickly the way . the way to do that is to pass either a transportation bill or the american, a portion of the american jobs act that really will put people back to work. 50 billion plus 10 billion for the infrastructure. >> in a blog post you wrote the administration is well on his way to realizing president obama's goal of getting 80% of americans access to high-speed rail service within 25 years. how can the administration achieves the president school in funding and support for the program is drying up in congress? with the d.o.t. have a chance to change the program? >> we've invested, in the last two and half years, over

$10 billion in high speed inner-city rail. the largest over 3 billion in california, significant amount of money between detroit, chicago, st. louis. and then along the northeast corridor. we think these are good investments. we think is really begins to carry out the vision that the president has to implement more passenger rail in america. there isn't enough, if you look at our plan, it's to connect 80% of the country over the next 25 years. it costs about $500 billion to do that. there obviously is not enough money in washington. that's the reason that when we have traveled around the world and visited just about every country that has high-speed rail, we've talked to the manufacturers in those countries about coming to america, partnering with states, hiring american workers to build the

trains and the infrastructure in america. bpd this is the next generation of transportation -- we believe this is the next generation of transportation. next generation of transportation workers to build infrastructure for high-speed rail. we have a lot of workers. some of them are prepared to get into the business of helping to build this rail infrastructure. the train cars and the other infrastructures. we know that there are as many as 10 foreign companies in america trying to partner with states that have received the high-speed rail money. that's what we need. public-private partnerships. so you leverage some federal dollars, some private dollars, some state dollars, and we begin to reach our goal to get passenger rail moving in the united states.

and i think we've made a lot of progress. there are a lot of companies that are very interested in partnering in america, to hire american workers, till the next generation of transportation. >> as you know it's been a rocky road between passenger rail service and freight rails on which tracks that service runs. what are freight rails, told regarding using their tracks because we have reached agreements with our friends in the freight rail business. it hasn't been easy but we've done it. it's been hard work and it's been tough negotiations, but we've also made investments in the freight rail, over a half a billion dollars. we've invested, begin to fix up tracks so trains can go faster on those rails. and we know that we can't implement more passenger rail in america without our friends in the freight rail system. and they've been cooperative and

they've worked with us, and they signed agreements and we've made investments in their infrastructure so that trains can go faster. and so i'm optimistic that that kind of cooperation will continue. we need our friends from the class one in order to make passenger rail the kind of rail system that we really want in america. >> what about build america bonds for transportation funding? they were extremely popular but this congress hasn't committed to reviving them. how hard we push for inclusion of that program? >> we like that program very much. it's been very effective. i've told the sponsors of that legislation that we support that legislation. we think it's another way to find the revenue that we need to continue our efforts on infrastructure. >> you mentioned during a hearing is held that was bashing

the infrastructure bank idea as part of president obama's platform, is there any chance of getting congressional support for the proposal, and if there is how exactly would you reach that? >> we know that in the senate, senator hutchison from texas, and senator kerry, senator john kerry have introduced legislation on the infrastructure bank. that's really when the president introduced his plan, he modeled the infrastructure bank after their legislation. i believe that debate in the senate, part of the debate in the senate will be about infrastructure bank, about that legislation, about how to implement it. it is a way to leverage billions of dollars to do infrastructure. >> another republican hill opposition greatly speaker john boehner and majority leader eric cantor wrote to president obama urging him to withdraw your proposed changes to the trucking hours of service requirements.

trucking companies and truck drivers also oppose the proposal. are you beginning to rethink the need for the proposed hours of service change is? >> that is a role that is pending, and so i can't really comment much more than to say that it is pending. in the administration, in the department, and we'll just ask you to stay tuned and we will see where it takes us. >> also in trucking, the mexican trucking program is getting off to a bit of a slow start after you face a lot of pressure to get that program written and out the door. are you doing anything to try to get more participants in that program? >> our people are working very hard to get companies from mexico certified. when we we wrote the program, the mexican trucking, we we wrote about what members members of congress told us was their

number one priority, which is safety. making sure that the trucks were save mechanically and that they would be inspected, making sure that drivers were well licensed and well-trained, that they could, we could also put onboard recorders into vehicles to make sure that truck drivers were not exceeding their hours that they were driving. we put all of that in the proposal, and we signed an agreement with mexico. 50% of the tariffs have been removed on a day that we signed the agreement, and the other 50% will come off when we certify the first trucking company. >> also yesterday on the hill there's a hearing criticizing the new fuel economy standards that your agency and the epa put out a couple months ago. opponents are saying the standards may jeopardize vehicle safety and they are framing it

as a debate about how the book was written, the process in which it was written. how do you respond to this criticism that are getting an increasing amount of attention? >> the way i respond is that there was passionate they are without merit. we spent a good deal of time, one of the first executive orders the president signed was to raise gasoline standards in 2012-2016. within a year we work with our friends at the epa and the automobile manufacturers who stood with the president a year after that executive order was signed in the rose garden, and agreed to 2012 and 2016 standards. every car company, every car manufacturer was there, both foreign and domestic. and now they are about meeting those standards. 25, 26 miles per gallon in 2012, 35, 36 miles a gallon in 2016. then we got about the business of writing the standard 42017

42017-2025 -- standard for, 2017-2025. we will finalize it here very soon here. again when the president made the announcement about getting 54 miles a gallon, again, every car manufacturer, representative, almost every, with the exception of maybe two foreign manufacturers were again at the washington, d.c. civic center for the announcement. this is a significant a competent. this is something the president felt very strongly about. he talked about it when he was running. but to be able to get that car manufacturers to agree to these, because they believe in it, not because they were forced, is quite an achievement. for all of us being able to drive more fuel-efficient

vehicles, for saving a lot of gasoline and for cleaning up the air, taking the carbon monoxide out of the air. this is a big deal. and it was done in a very collaborative, cooperative effort. the last thing that are safety agency, nhtsa, whatever do, is to put out a standard that would make cars less safe. the last thing that a car manufacturer would do was to agree to a standard that would allow their cars not to be safe? that just simply belies belief that anybody would even suggest that. this was done with total collaboration and cooperation with the car manufacturers, both foreign and domestic. it's a good thing for america. >> moving over to aviation. how will the swap spot giving u.s. airways dominance and delta

thomas allegory can how will it reshaped the d.c. aviation market, and why the dod allow the deal to proceed? >> this was an agreement that was really reached between the two airlines, that we felt it was good for both the airlines, for the airline business or for the hubs that these airlines will be operating on. but more importantly, good for the flying public. that's the reason, but it was an agreement that was forged really between the airlines. but one of our metrics is an one of the things we care about is how does it affect the flying public, and is a good for the flying public. and the answer is that it is, and it's good for the aviation industry. it's good for these companies. but most important, it's good for the flying public. >> the justice department closed its investigation of the death of accordion but it is to investigate the u.s. airways national sight of that deal.

can you tell us about the significance of that? >> i really can't. you have to get eric holder spent we will invite him next. in early 2009, 50 people died in the crash of the continental connection flight 3407 near buffalo. neither pilot got a full night of rest before that flight, but now the new rules that are aimed at controlling pilot fatigue appeared to be stalled at omb. why are they stalled and can you comment or can you commit to us today that a final flight and duty time rule for pilots will be completed during your tenure as transportation secretary? >> we have worked very hard, with particularly the families who lost loved ones in the air crash. they really have been the ones that have been the loudest voices in terms of telling us that changes need to be made. right after the colgan air

crash, our administrator randy babbitt, the faa administrator, travel the country on listening sessions. he met with the airlines. he met with the pilots. he met with flight attendants. he met with everybody in the industry. randy and i have met with the families on a number of occasions. we really tried to figure out what was necessary to make regional jets and flying on regional jets the safest bet he could possibly be. if you look at what the ntsb said, there was fatigue but there was also for training for these pilots. they did exactly the wrong thing when their plane started icing up and they were descending into buffalo. so, what we have tried to do is to put together a rule that addresses pilot training, fatigue, safety, training, and

shortly we will be announcing what that is. >> under your leadership, dts focus on airline passenger protection want any of your predecessors. that's one less will make in that realm that d.o.t. has promised dealing with price transparency. do you think the public and expect in a row to come out before the next election? >> one of the things that we are very proud of is that we have looked out for safety in all of our mode of transportation. we get up everyday and that's what we think about, safety. planes trains automobiles, coaches, pipelines, a lot of jurisdiction over a lot of different things. safety is number one. so when we think about, and one of the things that i ordinarily say is that all of us, everybody in this room either got in your car, on a metro train, and you know, when you get on an airplane, we never think about

the safety. we think the pilot will be well-trained, the plan is going to be mechanically okay, the metro train is going to be okay, the train driver knows what he's doing, the automobile is going to be fine. but that's a we think about, because we know that when americans use transportation, whether it is their car, a train, a plane, a motorcoach, they don't think about safety. well, we do. and so the other thing we think about are the people that have to use these modes of transportation, and what we have done i think for passengers that are flying is try and really look after them in terms of their ability to be treated well by airlines. so when the next rule comes out, which i believe hopeful it will

come out next year. there will be plenty of transparency so that when you show up at the airport, he will know what you're being charged, why you're being charged that, how much it is, and you'll know that well before you make your decision about buying a ticket. and we think transparency is the one way that people have assurances that they are being treated fairly. >> we are going to wrap up with distracted driver. can't let you out of here without talking about that. are we making any progress on distracted driving? if you say yes, how exactly do we measure that progress? >> when we started this campaign, i campaign, i don't know, it was 11 or eight states had distracted driving laws. now there is around 36. we started this two and half years ago. there's no line item in our

budget for distracted driving. we just did it by using the bully pulpit, by talking to people, by traveling the country, by persuading people that if you have one of these up to your ear while you're driving, that it's a dangerous. is there anybody in this room that doesn't have one of these devices, either a cell phone or a blackberry works now i'm not going to ask the question how many of you have used these while you're driving. because i know the answer. everybody has. you all know that when you do it, it's dangerous. you can't drive safely when you have one of these up to your ear. you just can't. so we have met with all the automobile manufacturers. we have asked them to address this issue and to look at the technology they're putting in cars, to really examine, are they making cars safer with all of this technology? and we engaged with insurance

companies who have taken up the cause of distracted driving. and we're going to continue our efforts. we want congress to pass a law. we want every state to have a law. we want good enforcement, but the one way that we know that we can really correct this very dangerous behavior is if people take personal responsibility. when you get in a car, put this in the glove compartment. can you think of a call that you've ever taken that was so important that caused you to be distracted? how many of you have been an accident or gotten rear-ended or rear-ended somebody else because you are on your cell phone? you know people that have. this is as dangerous as drunk driving, and driving without your seat belt. when nhtsa started the seatbelt program, almost nobody was wearing a seatbelt because it

was uncomfortable, breakable or close, blah, blah, blah. you heard all the excuses. today because of what nhtsa has done and what others have done, 85% of the people buckle up. that's the first thing people do when they get in their cars. the second thing that i want people to do is put these in the glove compartment. there is no call that's so important that can't wait into you get to your destination. i know you want me to get off the podium, but i'm not done yet. [laughter] all right? you know i'm right on this. we've made progress. we have a long way to go. we need your help. personal responsibility. the best add that i've seen is s that add weather guys looking in the passenger side of the automobile, and a little girl who is maybe about 10 years old, and he hands her the keys and she morphs into a teenage girl, and he says don't call me and don't text me while you're driving. that's what you ago everyone of your your children or

grandchildren. well, that's what you should be telling yourself. if you put this in the glove compartment when you're driving, you will save injuries and lives, and you'll be taking personal responsibility. that's what we owe as we are driving around. thank you, angela. [applause] >> we're almost out of time. with one more question for you but before ask you, a couple of house mattered better housekeeping matters. on october 19, we have center natalie cole will talk about the american liver foundation's national public health initiative. on october 24 we have been sees harvey levin. will talk about the landscape and entertain and news coverage. on october 31 we have herman cain, candidate for the republican presidential nomination. who will talk about gop presidential issues. on november 3 we have come

brokaw, journalist and author. i would like to present our guests with the traditional national press club mug. >> thank you. >> and one last question. mr. secretary, if i get one of those new cars made by google that drives itself, will i be able to start texting on my way to work again? [laughter] >> no. [laughter] [applause] >> thank you, secretary lahood, for being our guest today. i would also like to thank national press club staff including its library and staff center for organized today's event. here's a reminder that you can find more information about the national press club on our website. it like a copy of today's program please check that out at www.press.org. thank you, and we are adjourned. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> we take you live now to the house energy committee, subcommittee on oversight and investigation. cliff stearns is the chairman. they will continue their look into the investigation of loans to the failed solar company, solyndra. he will have testimony from treasury department officials, gary burner is the chief financial officer for the treasury department branch that provided the loan guarantee. that recently released e-mails from february showing mr. burner had concerns about the energy department's restructuring plan for those loans. which allowed some private investors to be paid before

taxpayers in the event of a default. the solyndra loan guarantee were part of a broader program to begin during the bush administration aimed at stimulating renewable energy industry. the hearing should get underway shortly. we will let you know, the house has a series of votes likely coming up at about 10:15 a.m. eastern so it's possible this committee will break at that time for votes. we will carry live coverage here on c-span2. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everybody, and we convened the subcommittee on

oversight investigation. and i'll open with my opening statement. we convened this hearing of the subcommittee on oversight and investigation to simply gain a better understanding about the department of treasury's role in reviewing the solyndra loan guarantee, particularly with regard to the department of energy's decision to restructure the loan guarantee and subordinate taxpayers to private investors. well president obama may claim that hindsight is 2020, but the facts tell a much different story. recent e-mails produced by the white house and omb as well as a long chain of others, clearly showed that numerous members of the obama administration from the most senior levels in the west wing down to the career professionals at omb, and d.o.e., knew that solyndra was a bad bet that was destined to fail. and while the obama

administration may not have had a crystal ball, they did have financial models in august 2009 for telling that solyndra would run out of money in september 2011. which they choose, which they choose to ignore. in late 2010 solyndra informed d.o.e. that the situation was dire. d.o.e. began negotiations to restructure the terms of the loan to keep solyndra above water. under the new arrangement, two primary investors, argonaut, matrox and matrox capital were given priority over the government with respect to the first 75 million recovered in the event of liquidation. i and other members of the subcommittee have continuously questioned the legal basis for this unprecedented decision. section 1702 top three of the energy policy act of 2005

clearly states in plain language that when d.o.e. makes a loan quote, the obligation shall be subject to the condition that the obligation is not subordinated to other financing, indigo. previous communication produced to the committee rebuild that there were numerous concerned within the administration regarding the financial and political impact of the restructuring. what the latest round of e-mails show that senior officials within the obama administration had significant concerns about its legal basis, and those concerns were simply ignored. in august 2011, discussions about a second restructure were underway, assistant secretary of treasury, mary miller, e-mail the director of oed, jeffrey zients, stating that quote, since july of 2010, treasury has asked d.o.e. on financial

condition and any restructuring of terms. the only information we have received about this has been through omb. as d.o.e. has not responded to any requests for information about solyndra, end quote. she goes on to do that treasury's legal counsel believes the statute and the d.o.e. regulations both require that the guaranteed loan should not, should not be subordinated to any loan or other debt obligations. and that in february, treasure requested in writing that d.o.e. seek the department of justice approval of any proposed restructure. and that to her knowledge that has never happened. in closing, assistant secretary miller seemed almost resigned to d.o.e.'s course of action in stating that while she expects that d.o.e. has a view about why loan subordination can occur without drg, approve our treasures, siltation, consultation, i want to correct

any impressions we have acquiesced in the steps to date. unfortunately, assistant secretary miller is unable to join us today to discuss her correspondence with the d.o.e. or her department shall envy celinda review. hopefully my colleagues, eyewitnesses here today can shed some light on the decision-making process that occurred from the time of his restructuring. one of our witnesses, gary burner, chief financial officer at the treasury department federal financing bank's also e-mailed key d.o.e. officials involved in the solyndra restructuring after hearing about the post terms of the new agreement from omb. he noted on february 10 that he understood quote, these adjustments may include subordination of solyndra's 535 million reimbursement obligations to d.o.e., and possibly the forgiveness of

interest, end quote. accordingly he raised the prospect of seeking the department of justice approval, which never ultimately occurred. judging from these e-mails, it is clear that senior officials at the department of treasury were not sufficiently consulted about the restructuring, and when they offered their opinions and warning signs, they were ignored. like so many of the others along the way. it should be noted, however, that the final rule issued by d.o.e. implementing title 17 of the energy policy act specifically requires d.o.e. to consult with secretary treasury before quote, d.o.e. grants a deviation that would constitute a substantial change in the financial terms of the loan guarantee agreement, end quote. there is no exception allowing d.o.e. to ignore those who disagree with its course of action. i look forward to better understand why the department of treasury felt so strongly about

been consulted prior to the restructuring of the loan guarantee, and whether they believed the we violated the energy policy act of 2005. with that i recognized my distinguished colleague. >> thank you, mr. chairman. so, if we want to no legal basis for the subordination of this loan, by d.o.e., wouldn't it be nice to have d.o.e. here? the majority has a focus on e-mail from august 2011 in which a treasury official raised this question about whether subordination of the guaranteed loans to solyndra was appropriate. and a treasury official expresses a view that d.o.e. is restructuring of the loan may require department of justice approval. now, i think it's appropriate for the subcommittee to conduct a fact gathering relating to these documents to advance the committee's understanding and decisions relating to the solyndra loan guarantee, but if

we really wanted to have a fact-finding hearing, when we also bring d.o.e. in to see what they thought when treasury told them that they thought that the department of justice needed to improve -- approved this loan? the treasury comments regarding subordination raise questions about the application of the energy policy act provisions to the department of energy loan guarantee program, and it's the department of energy that implements these provisions. and so the treasury e-mail that makes d.o.e.'s legal rationale for restructuring decisions a central issue of this hearing. i don't really see how you can have this hearing just bringing one side and without the other side to respond. and as i've said repeatedly, mr. chairman, i think we need to have a full and fair gathering of the facts of what happened with his solyndra loan and restructuring so we can decide how we proceed further with solar energy and other types of alternative energy, loan

guarantees and other types of support. but despite this, the majority has refused the minority's request to invite the department of energy's witnesses to the thing. and astonishingly the majority has even objected to the minority's request to release the february 15, 2011, memorandum by counsel for the d.o.e. loan program that was produced to the committee. in that memo the d.o.e. council provides detailed analysis of their fear of the subordination issue, the statutory authorities in question, and d.o.e.'s position. and by the way, since february of this year the department of energy has also given this committee an additional 65,000 pages of documents to go through. now look, it should go without saying that the d.o.e.'s legal analysis of restructure should be a composite of today's discussion. but without the d.o.e. legal memo, it sort of having our hands tied behind her back. let me just talk a minute about

this memo. in august 17, 2011 e-mail to the only be deputy director, an assistant secretary of treasury expressed a view that will, the statute and the d.o.e. regulations both require that the guaranteed loans should not be subordinate to any loan or any other debt obligation, end quote. she further notes that quote, d.o.e. regulations state that d.o.e. shall consult with only be an treasury before any deviation is granted from the financial terms of the loan agreement. the statute and regulation she appears to be referring to contain the title 17 loan guarantee program which the department of energy interpreter implementing regulation. the department has indeed interpreted the subordination by which of the statute and regulation in the february 2011 i referenced, memo i reference. and the department also interprets what constitutes a deviation from the title 17

rule. i'm looking forward to hearing more from the treasury today regarding with a treasury officials met by her august 17 e-mail. that if we really want a full understanding of the legal arguments for subordination and whether the restructuring constituted a deviation as defined under department of energy regulation, we also need to review the department of energy memo, and have the opportunity to ask d.o.e. officials questions about the rationale. the august e-mail further notes that treasury has suggested in february that the d.o.e. consult with the department of justice regarding the restructuring. based on a statutory provision that requires doj approval weather is a compromise. communications provided to the committee show that a conversation between treasury and d.o.e. officials occurred on this issue in february 2011. to fully moral to fully more as to what happened on both sides of this issue the community or

from d.o.e. as well as treasury. now look, the majority may argue the subcommittee will provide an opportunity to question delia about its views on a later date. mr. chairman, i am sure you intend to do that but that will ensure that would have the story is told today. it makes this hearing appeared to me to be more about generating headlines than engaging us in thorough fact-finding. and i hate to say that and i say with all due respect, but let's not do this investigation piecemeal. let's do a whole investigation. let's get all the facts out there and then let's figure out what to do. >> i thank the ranking member and i think itself evident that we're going to have a d.o.e. folks up here. we agree with you completely, so we intend to have them up here as well as the people who signed the document so we can assure that we will have this happen. with that, recognize the chairman of the full committee, distinguished colleague from michigan, mr. up-month. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

eight months ago we asked secretary chu to turn over all documents containing communications between the department of energy and the department of treasury related to solyndra. we had asked again in september. and d.o.e. is only now beginning to respond to our request. the administration claims are request were too burdensome for a town response that is now apparent that was not the case. we asked the treasury department to turn over similar documents, and they responded immediately. thank you. beginning to turn over the requested documents in less than a week. what we've seen so far suggested the we essentially ignored of treasury after signing off on $535 billion loan guarantee. the documents also reveal the department of energy for department of energy fervently steering more taxpayer cash to solyndra with complete disregard to the alarm bells that were coming from treasury and others within the obama administration. d.o.e. apparently stonewall

treasury, failing or refusing to turn over information related to solyndra's restructuring. in one exchange with omb in august of 2011 assistant secretary mary mellor noted that quote, since july of 2010 treasury has asked d.o.t. for briefings on solyndra's financial condition and any restructuring of terms. the only information we received about this has been through omb as d.o.e. has not responded to any requests for information about solyndra, end quote. this seems to be a clear violation of the energy policy act of 2005 which is d.o.e. shall consult with omb and the secretary treasury before granting any deviation in that loan. putting the taxpayers at the back of the line behind private investors in the event of liquidation, bankruptcy is not only the deviation, it's apparently unprecedented. so what happened?

provide the d.o.e. keep treasury in the dark? of solyndra was burning through cash and the alarm bells were certainly ringing. in february 2011 dealey restructure the terms of the agreement and gave to private investment firms priority over the federal government in the likely event that solyndra declared bankruptcy. d.o.e. postpones solyndra's and national interest payments and push back the repayment of the loan. d.o.e. weighed several requirements. solyndra was obligated to make before receiving further funding. including solyndra's consistent failure to comply with a act and their inability to contribute to an agreed upon reserve fund. by all that was happening, d.o.e. continue to push millions of additional dollars out the door in a futile attempt to save it. to save solyndra. six months later, as predicted by d.o.e.'s own financial model

back in 2009, solyndra's went belly up. today's witnesses, hopefully, will help us understand treasury's involvement in various points of this solyndra loan guarantee. does treasury believe do you we should've consult with doj about restructuring? you have to wonder given treasury's expertise in commercial lending and projects financed, if d.o.e. had responded to treasury's request for information, would something have been different? is some of the taxpayers money could have been saved? the department of energy has a lot of explaining to do, and we'll hear from them again soon, i assure you. unfortunately, we also have to ask how many more solyndra's are there? whether other warning flags that were ignored, risky gambles paid with taxpayers hard earned money? today we focus on the starting development of one cabinet level agency, concerned that another's actions were in violation of the

law. this investigation will continue until taxpayers get the answers that they deserve, regardless of how high in this administration the facts take us. and i would just like to say, in regard to the minors request for d.o.e. witness was received less than two days ago before the hearing. today's hearing was precipitated in part because of the large and coordinated document known by the white house, omb and d.o.e. last friday afternoon, just prior to the start of a three-day federal holiday weekend. we do intend to hold further hearings on this topic. d.o.e. officials will be included in the testimony, and -- >> will a as chairman yield? >> i yield. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to point out the fact that department of energy, the very purpose we had was jonathan silver and we asked in this very question. so we will be glad to have other

witnesses from department of energy, but that was the first witness. he has resigned as we all know. >> i thank the gentleman. i think our time is expired here. so we're going to go to minority and recognize -- >> before you recognize mr. waxman i would just like to say for the record, this hearing was noticed last friday, mr. chairman. and then it was a three-day weekend, because of the federal holiday. the majority did not tell us until tuesday of this week who the witnesses would be for this hearing their and at that point we asked for our witness. so i just want to clear that with a star driven, and we can yield now to mr. waxman. >> fine, thank the gentlelady. all the huge document precipitate this hearing that trumped last friday. but anyway, i think we -- >> the chairman insinuated that we only asked for the witness two days ago, and that's because we only found out about these

witnesses three days ago. >> let me recognize mr. waxman or five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. after the subcommittee's last hearing on solyndra, ranking member to get and i wrote the chairman to request the committee hold hearings on the effectiveness of u.s. policies in promoting clean energy. we asked the committee to examine what steps our nation needs to take to make sure that we do not seek to clean energy market to china and other countries. well, no such hearing has been scheduled. in fact, subcommittee chairman told the media last week that the united states quote, can't compete with china to make solar panels and wind turbines, end quote. i cannot disagree more strongly with the chairman statements. the clean energy economy will be the growth industry of the century. we will lose millions of jobs if

we give up the industry to china. we can outcompete china, but to do so we have to reject the defeatist anti-science, anti-progress, anti-jobs views of those who oppose investment in clean energy. instead of helping americans lead the world in clean energy, the republican-controlled house is doing everything possible to maintain our addiction to fossil fuels, and cripple renewable energy companies. republicans voted against putting a price on carbon, which would've created market opportunities for clean energy. republicans voted to slash funding for research and development, and new clean energy technology. and now republicans are opposing government investment in solar, wind and other clean energy, other clean energy companies are

well, this agenda may be good for the oil companies. it may be good for the coal companies. but it is terrible for the american people and our economy. this hearing is supposed to be about whether the department of energy had legal authority to subordinate the government's loans to solyndra when the loan was restructured earlier this year. but this is a rich process. the chairman has invited witnesses from the treasury department who raise questions about d.o.e.'s legal authority. that's appropriate. members should have a chance to hear from the treasury witnesses and why they had concerns. but we should also have a chance to hear from d.o.e. the energy department disagreed with, the energy department disagreed with treasury, but they are not being allowed to testify. we're going to get only one side

of the story, and that's the way to run an investigation. but it gets worse. the committee has received a six page document from the department of energy that explains the departments legal rationale for subordination. we asked last week if the majority would object if we released this document so the public could understand the d.o.e.'s rationale. the majority objected. they did not want the public to see d.o.e.'s explanation. and they're not going to have a witness today who can talk about their explanation. on wednesday the democratic staff asked the republican staff if they would be any objection if we included a discussion of the d.o.e. legal memorandum in the background memorandum we provide to democratic members. again, the republicans objected. they asked us to withhold this

critical information. d.o.e.'s legal rationale for its actions from our own members. and yesterday the republicans said they don't believe this memo should be made public at this time. this investigation is beginning to resemble a kangaroo court. at our last hearing witnesses who asserted their lawful constitutional rights were publicly humiliated. and now the republican majority is withholding exculpatory information from the public, while they cast in the windows -- >> would the gentleman yield? >> no, i will not. toc-- the general is entitled te heard. he still has his time. >> and now the republican majority is withholding exculpatory information from the public. i don't object to an investigation into solyndra, and based on the record to date i

don't see evidence of wrongdoing by government officials. just a bad investment decision. i don't want to minimize it, but this was a bad decision as far as we know, made on merit. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> i have repeatedly said, i support a fair and thorough investigation. if mistakes were made with taxpayers money, we should understand them and take steps to prevent this in the future. but our investigation needs to be fair. prevent the department of energy from testifying is not there. mr. chairman, i believe you are a fair man, but you're not conducting this investigation fairly and impartially, and i hope you will reconsider. >> the gentleman's time has expired. i would say to him and all difference to them, we think we are. both you and the president have cited me in, talking about china and competition but it was taken out of context. i simply pointed out the fact that china, which subsidizes

their solar manufacturing 30 billion a year, as few regulation, lower labor cost, access to raw materials, and lack of environmental and safety regulation but i think the united states should focus where we have a competitive disadvantage. >> i would like you to yield for me for one minute? >> i sure would like to be yield to as well as some point in time, mr. chairman,. >> the chairman has certain prerogatives. you the nature. you understand this. >> i don't agree with it. rules -- >> i don't agree with a lot of -- [talking over each other] >> regular order. we are now going to welcome our two witnesses, and let me say speak to mr. chairman, are we through with opening statements? >> we are through with opening statement that you have an opportunity to ask questions and to extrapolate on your feelings during their questioning. >> so we will let what the ranking member said go -- >> i think and a democracy, you let both sides have their opinion, and mr. waxman and ms. degette surely have an

opportunity to make any outrageous, outrageous because i don't have a problem with ms. degette's opening statement. >> i think both of us don't agree, so i am dutch that regular order. let's return to our witnesses, and let me say to both of you, first of all, you're unaware that the committee is holding an investigative hearing. and in doing so it has a practice of taking testimony under oath. do you have any objection to testifying under oath? >> knows her. >> okay. the chair then advises you that under the rules of the house and the rules of the committee you are entitled to be advised by counsel. do you advise to be advised by counsel during your testimony today? >> no. ..

in the department of energy loan guarantee program. my name is carrie grippo, assistant sec attorney for a government policy joined here by gary berger, the cfo of the federal financing bank and he reports to me in the treasury. i submitted a written statement for the record. i am not going to read a lengthy opening statement here. in the way of introduction, i would just say that the treasury has two roles, two very dissed dean trolls and the department of energy loan guarantee program. the consultants and also as a lender. as i think you know as a

consultant the statute requires secretary of energy to consult with the department of treasury on the terms and conditions of loan guarantees and we provide input on that uses. and as a vendor, when the department of energy decides to make a 100% federally guaranteed loans, as opposed to partially guaranteed loans, whenever they make 100% guaranteed loan, is the financing bank actually issues to loan to the private sector entity. so we have a role as a consultant. we have a role in lending, which is largely operational. mr. byrne and i would be happy to answer any questions. >> with that, then i'll start a series of questions. the first question i have for you i would like to establish early on. we keep hearing loan guarantee, but i think this is a misnomer. as i understand it, when the d.o.e. is a loan guarantee to

solyndra, what happens is the department of treasury prints the money, gives it to d.o.e. and d.o.e. gives it to solyndra. there's no private bank involved. there's no other commercial enterprise except it goes from treasury, printing the money, giving it to d.o.e. and d.o.e. giving it to solyndra. is that a fair estimation of what happens? >> yeah, let me explain what happens -- >> no, just answer my question. is that approximately what happens? there's no bank involved. >> there is no commercial bank. >> commercial solyndra bank is not saying which is on the $535 million because d.o.e. will guarantee. never did that. they just came to d.o.e. and ichat, is that correct? i think the american people when you hear loan guarantee it means

that the government is standing behind a bank, but in this case the treasury is printing the money. the other question i want to get this clear. in your estimation, contacts payers money be subordinated ever, yes or no? >> i really could not give you yesterday went there. >> you legally can't tell me? to make in your opinion, has there ever in the history of the united states, government taxpayers will guarantee your money given to investment in private companies like it's ever been subordinated to the private sector in your experience? your answer is yes or no. >> i have personally not been involved in any. >> in your limited experience cannot be seen taxpayers money be subordinate? >> minister gary burner community chief financial officer, is that correct? how long have you been in the

office? kenny pulled up closer to you? you've got to turn it on. >> i've been holding this position for five years. >> was your experience before that? >> at the market for 20 -- >> how many click >> 28. >> in your chief financial officer, have you ever heard of taxpayer money being subordinate to think commercial firms click >> no connoisseur, i have not. >> that's 20% of the 33 years. >> yes, sir. >> 33 years experience -- >> 28 total. >> in 20 todo county have never seen taxpayers money subordinate? >> no, sir. >> if they do with it against law? >> i can't give you a legal interpretation on that commissary. >> mr. grippo, do you think it's

a legal click >> i am not a lawyer. >> mr. grippo, the policy act in 2005 requires the secretary of energy to consult with the secretary of treasury regarding the terms of and conditions of the loan guarantee. is that correct? >> yes. >> but must d.o.e. do to console fight this department click >> the department of energy must come to the treasury at a minimum with the terms and conditions and a term sheet prior to issuing a conditional commitment to offer the guarantee. >> basically d.o.e. must seek approval to go through with the loan guarantee, is that fair to say? >> we are not approving or rejecting the terms and conditions. >> is merely pinny to inform you. that's all they have to do? >> yes, consult them. >> to treasury have the ability to approve or reject guarantee if they find there's problems? >> we do not have the authority.

>> what if they guarantee do not protect the government's interest? what do you do then? >> we raise the questions. we provide suggested changes. >> there's nothing legally you do beyond that? connect no. >> mr. grippo come if you go to tabby tina binder is an e-mail between omb staff on march 10, 2 dozen and it stays treasury was not pleased to have solyndra sprung on them that day and that roger is coming d.o.e. stimulus and i very know about it in no uncertain terms. is this an accurate description of d.o.e.'s consultation with treasury? >> we were not aware they were going to come to us with a term sheet for the solyndra loan at that time. the loan in the process did not work at a routine for conducting the consultation. >> was treasury rush to provide consultation on solyndra?

>> we asked for additional time and were given additional time and provided consultation in due course. >> my last question, mr. grippo, when did doa learn conditional commitment to cylinder? out of treasury learned this in who it is d.o.e. informed treasury? >> it would've been around this time, march 10, when we were provided information on the terms and conditions of the loan. i am not specifically sure with individual transmitted documents to us, but it would've been here in early march. >> thank you. i recognize my colleague, ms. degette from colorado. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the chairman asked you if treasury was raster decision and you said you were given additional time. so i guess your answer would be no, you were rushed? >> we were not rushed. >> okay. the majority is highlighted his comments by mary miller, the

assistant secretary for financial markets in an august 17 e-mail to omb, deputy jeffrey snyder regarding restructuring of the solyndra mode. if you can take a look at tab 12 in your notebook and look at that e-mail. in the e-mail, ms. miller writes, our legal counsel believes that the statute in the d.o.e. regulations both require the loan should not be subordinate to any of the loan or debt obligation. mr. grippo, gina look at the treasury department rendered a legal opinion but their subordinate interest in the solyndra and the statutory requirements regarding the d.o.e. loan guarantee program? like we did not render such a legal opinion. >> you did not give a legal opinion? your department? does the responsibility resides at the department of treasury for interpreting and implementing title 17 as it

relates to the department of energy's authority to subordinate loans upraised under statue? >> it is not the treasury's responsibility to interpret energy statute. >> is the department of energy charged with implementing statute authorizes the legal guarantee program, correct? >> correct. >> council for d.o.e. loan office suffered a six page memorandum dated february 15, 2011 that has provided a detailed dissection of the legal basis for subordination to the restructuring of solyndra phone guarantee. that's the legal document i referred to in my opening statement. so mr. chairman, today we are talking about there was subordination and let the legal basis was. and so, i want to ask unanimous consent that the february 15, 2011 d.o.e. legal menu regarding subordination be submitted in the record. i read it. i'm a lawyer and i found it to have no privileged information

or anything like that. i think it would be helpful to have that for today in future hearings talking about this issue. >> i think the general lady. bullock and get back to you. >> thank you. now, i will yield to the chairman emeritus -- [inaudible] >> unanimous consent is not going to be considered? >> now, mr. dingell, the procedure has been, but the ranking member and i had issues to make something and i it, then i had to staff an account to look at it. likewise when i do put unanimous consent, i like her and her counsel look at it before you make the decision and that it's been a regular procedure. i think even when he did that -- a >> it's always been my understanding that these records should be as complete as possible. i think everybody had to know

what all the events i that were dealing with, what a member thinks this is important that they got to be in the record out to be in the record. >> i think the sites can have an opportunity to review it. >> mr. dingell, what chairman stearns and i have been doing -- >> i'm wasting your time. >> it's okay. i've been doing with his documents, too. give me just review and then i will renew my motion. >> this is a document they have to have time to review. this is a document they've had since the very first day of our hearing on solyndra. it's a document that was discussed whether we could release a period they're familiar with the document. if you ask unanimous consent committee had to be able to say yes or no. >> okay, let's give them one minute. if they won't do it i'm going to make a motion. let me just finish my questioning. mr. grippo, have you seen that document?

.memo? >> no. >> mr. burner, have you? >> no. >> are you aware of any legal opinions the department of energy expressed in that memo after doing the legal research? >> i am not personally aware of their legal conclusions. >> okay, and can you speak to it d.o.e. is tuesday regarding the legal basis for subordination under the d.o.e. loan guarantee program? >> i would not feel comfortable speaking their views. >> because that's a different agency, right? >> indeed. >> mr. burner, can you speak to a d.o.e. is to start for subordination and under the loan guarantee program? >> i cannot. >> why is that? once again, mr. chairman, it would be very helpful to have d.o.e. here. mr. chairman, i renew my request for unanimous consent to put that once again, mr. chairman, it would be very helpful to have d.o.e. here. mr. chairman, i renew my request for unanimous consent to put

that. >> while we are looking out in their several other staff to take a. mr. chairman, i renew my request for unanimous consent to put that. >> while we are looking at in their several other staff to take a look at first. >> the staff at cnet and the staff has been talking in your staff told my staff -- >> mr. chairman, if you want somebody to object, i'm happy to object. >> i'm reserving the right -- >> let me recognize the emeritus of the full committee for his five minutes of questioning. >> wait a minute -- >> i think you finish your time. >> i finished my questions, but i renew my request for unanimous consent. >> i'm reserving the right to object. >> in that case, what's the basis? >> i haven't seen the memo. >> in all fairness, let mr. burton -- >> if he wants to see the documents, let's let them see it. >> let's give him a copy. >> at the same time, were going to have votes and we want to continue her questioning.

presumably after he asks us questions, he can read it with data discussion. >> in that case, mr. chairman can i ask unanimous consent that we recess for the vote and return from the vote. >> i do object to this point mr. barton is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me make one brief comment on breaking member waxman's opening statement. i know when you're in the minority in the president does have your own party, you have an obligation to defend the president to some extent. i would also point out we have been trying to get the facts on solyndra for about six months and it took us a peanut request to find a different documents and every every member of the minority voted against the subpoena request. at last weekend we got a fairly extensive document done right at five or 6:00. and to the minority's credit,

their staff spent the weekend apparently going to the documents, found some documents that the minority felt worthy of being released unexercised their right to do that. i tip my hat off to them for that. they worked hard during maybe they were tipped off, who knows, but at least they took advantage of a situation interdicting that they thought made sense. you know, ms. degette said she was to get the facts on the table. after returning to do. there'll be no lack of witnesses called before the subcommittee from the department of energy and other departments. we're here to talk to the treasury department because they are the department that actually financed the loan. it's not really a loan guarantee. and apparently they are the department they raised a lot of red flags about it and nobody d.o.e. at the white house paid any attention to. my way back, i want to ask my first question.

how do you choose -- how did the treasury department first find out about the solyndra loan? >> about the loan itself? >> about the fact that the department of energy under president de palma had decided to go forward with it. we've officially notified or did you hear about it in the press? >> what was the first inkling they are thinking about giving this company $500 million? >> the best dancer was it was in march of 2009 were submitted documents to provide consulted input. >> so you did get an official transmittal from the department of energy? >> yes. >> is that a part of the record we can look out? if not, can they see those documents? the paper provided? >> e-mails or other documents that delivered the term sheet and other related documents. >> chairman stearns made the point that in the law we authorize the loan guarantee,

which means the private sector makes the loan and the federal government agrees to pay if there's a default. but in this case, there is not a loan guarantee. the treasury department actually granted a loan. is there a decision document that goes to that process and makes the change on the record? >> there are a number of long-standing written federal policies, including office of management and budget circulars and other documents, what status the federal government's policy to the federal financing bank issue alone would nether regions he is making a 100% guarantee. if i could, i'll explain why that has -- >> so even though the law stipulates a loan guarantee because there was the decision to do 100% financing existing regulation convert that guarantee to a loan as opposed to a loan guarantee.

>> is still a loan guarantee issued by department of energy. it's just that in this case it is a government corporation, which is under the supervision of the treasury rather than to a commercial bank. >> in laymen's terms, the department of energy guarantees one part of the treasury will play the other part of the treasury of bonus that repaid? >> the department of energy is issuing of a guarantee. >> the treasury will send $500 million to department of energy will turn around and send it to the federal financing bank of which is a part of the department treasury, is that correct? >> are good public policy reasons for doing it that way because the cheapest way to finance out loud for the taxpayer. >> eric e-mails and i think i'm right on this that the minority has put into the record or at least released to the public that shows many treasury officials have grave concerns about this phone.

was the treasury department editor in a position to just reject the loan? >> now, the treasury department -- did the treasury department or federal financing bank without legal authority to reject the loan. >> if asked on the record, the present mess with the treasury department have approved of this blog being given to what they've objected to a? >> i'm sorry, could you repeat that question. >> if you have been given an opportunity to the treasury department had the authority to say yes or no on this wonder below at the time it was granted, with the treasury department have approved or disapproved of? >> one, the treasury did not have the authority and two, we did not have all of the due diligence and background information the department of energy had. it's not our job in the process to make a credit decision. >> is it fair to say that these

objections raised before the loan was granted, i took one was granted that the treasury had grave concerns about this loan? is that a fair statement? >> is probably not however characterize it. >> characterized it correctly then. >> we provide a consultative input on the original terms and conditions. we made suggestions in some of those works that did. beyond that, throughout 2010 and the little 2011, we're certainly aware of issues. we were offering advice and input. leading the department of energy note that we had expertise in finance and structured finance the federal credit policy and were trying to make that available to the department of energy. but we did not have specific information about the loan. >> i'm trying to help you out. >> the gentleman's time has expired. we have a vote on the floor.

the 10 minute bell just rang so we will allow mr. waxman to do his five minutes by tallow members to come back and we will have a decision on the unanimous consent of the range in her. we will let mr. waxman who has to be on the floor offered his five minute question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will have to be on the floor after a series of votes. i want to make my opportunity to ask a question. who has legal authority to make the decision on the issue of subordination? is a treasury department or department of energy? >> is certainly not treasury department. >> you know the department of energy? >> i'm not sure if it's department of energy or department of justice are exactly where the authority -- >> department of energy runs the program. and they heard from you, your department that there were concerns about the subordination issue. isn't that correct? >> i think we raised the issue of whether they could come to my

saqlain bowed to government. it's not specifically whether there was subordination to be clear about the concern we raised. >> it was no legal decision or memorandum, just raising concern by the way look at what? >> no, we did not have legal conclusion are rendered legal judgment. we were fighting an issue to consider. >> you fact in issue for to consider. they heard what you have to say them and their lawyer issued a legal opinion. a legal opinion is a legal opinion. it's not statement of facts. its statement of what they think the law is. and that's the document returned to make public. this is a document to the republicans have had for months. in fact, at the very first hearing we had on solyndra, congressman kingery read a portion from this legal memo and asking questions. in the issue at this moment in

the committee is whether we're going to make this part of the record, what they were going to make a legal opinion public. and the chairman is like one of those fields when work is going to the movie when i couldn't get the results until you come back next time. it's suggesting we will know about the unanimous consent decision when we come back from these votes on the floor. i'm not going to be able to be here, but if they don't give this unanimous consent, and went to the have a motion to put in the record. i don't understand what it should be part of the record. it's a key document in her investigation. that explains the department of energy's legal explanation for subordination of taxpayer debt. it was produced to our committee ended september 14 that was used by mr. kingery. the republicans may allege it release of the document could

contain fat witnesses in the investigation. of the entry of the relevant document does not pollute an investigation. rather it creates a more wholesome records so they know what do thinking. we don't have d.o.e. here. we should have d.o.t. here. i do not accept me what this testimony we hear from u.s. to do with the dollar must begin in respect is. he flagged an for d.o.e. now we say okay how representative from delia's flag. what is your issue? all we know is that the issue was flagged and their legal counsel wrote an opinion. the republicans have released a dozen documents to the press on this investigation. they lead to many more to the national media. the release of the specific document does not take the investigation anymore than the release about these other documents. the majority wants to enter documents into the record whether he supports the theory

of the case and keep documents out to me contradicted. so we will see what happens in this fight when we come back and i know that ranking member degette will do a great job in addition to my comments. >> that's my time. >> had asked for additional time. regular order, we do have a vote -- he has the floor. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. grippo or mr. burner, what to ask about any actions he might have had with mr. kaiser on this question of the loan. did any of you here for mr. kaiser? >> i did not. >> i did not. >> when they conducted the review of solyndra's information in 2009, did you instruct anyone to give specific advice to d.o.e. on terms and conditions because of mr. kaiser's

donation? >> no. >> no, sir. certainly not. >> depend on the treasury gives specific advice to d.o.e. on terms and conditions of solyndra's loan because of mr. kaiser's donation? >> no, sir. >> when treasury determined the loan, did you instruct anyone to take any specific action regarding this rate because of mr. kaiser's donation to the president? >> no. >> are you aware of anything never suggest mr. kaiser's donation was a factor in d.o.e.'s determination whether the grantor restructure the solyndra loan guarantee? >> no. >> no, sir. >> mr. burner? >> no, sir. >> i thank you for your answers and for the limited value it may be. i yield back my time. >> the gentleman kneels back and will temporarily recess the committee. we asked the forbearance of the

witnesses. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> as you heard, and hearing in a break to allow members to go to the house floor for a vote. we'll take you back to the hearing live on their resumes. later today will be live with remarks from president obama and the south korean president in detroit during a speaking to employees at a champ car plant. the remarks are scheduled for 150 and eastern time here on c-span 2. last night, the white house

hosted a state dinner for the south korean leader. here's a toast from last nights dinner. [applause] caught not [speaking korean] [speaking korean] >> i want to acknowledge to guess in particular. another son of korea dedicated to peace and security, secretary-general ban ki-moon is here. [applause] and our first korean american ambassador to the republic of korea can earned by the senate today, ambassador jon kim.

[applause] [applause] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] >> now i'm going to be very brief tonight because president lee has had a very full day and a very white dave. [laughter] as well as extended meetings and press conference at state department banquet and address to congress, which i understand went extraordinarily well. there's a reason why people call it in the bulldozer. he is unstoppable. [speaking korean] [speaking korean]

[speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] >> mr. president, today you spoken with great eloquence about what america and our alliance is meant in your life in the life of your country. this evening i like you and your countrymen to know what korea and its people admit to america. [speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] >> the essence of our alliance i think is embodied in a concept that is uniquely korean. it doesn't translate that easily, but it reflects the deep

affection, the bonds of the heart that cannot be broken and that grow stronger with time. our korean friends know about. sub -- [speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] >> in our country, we felt that job enterprise grade korean communities, including hawaii where i grew up, a melting pot of cultures that made me who i am and that taught me we can all live together with mutual trust and respect. [speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean]

[speaking korean] >> i felt this jung during my visit to korea on veterans day. sixtieth anniversary of the korean war when our proud veterans of that war, both korea and america came together to celebrate a shared legacy com a free, democratic and prosperous republic of korea. [speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] >> and i felt this jung in that friendship with recently. mr. president come your life story questioning poverty to the

presidency is an inspiration. her success, korean success speaks to the truth than with education and hard work, anything is possible. it this a better country share. you describe in korean and english it translates as, yes we can. [laughter] [applause] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean]

>> it sounds good in korean, too. [laughter] finally, i would note that in our life, president lee and i have both been blessed to find our better halves, leaders in their own right, advocates for women and young people, who we are proud to call our first ladies. mr. president is a say in america, we both married up. [speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] >> and so, i want to propose a

toast. to our friends, president lee and first lady can into their delegation. most of all to the enduring alliance between their nations, a partnership of the heart that will never be broken. [speaking korean] [speaking korean] sound mind -- [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [applause] [applause]

[applause] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] >> translator: first of all, mr. president, madam first lady, distinguished wife, please allow me to thank you from the bottom of my heart for this warm reception extended to me and my wife and my delegation here to thank you very much. [speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean]

>> translator: mr. president, non-first lady, my visit to washington d.c. this time it is especially special because before you are the president of the united states of america, you are a close friend of mine and this is how i can figure you as well as them out of first ed, said this visit is very come in very special for all of us. [speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] >> translator: ladies and gentlemen, the president just spoke about the korean emotion

that we call a jung in korean. i think indeed, president obama knows that deep inside his heart he understands the essence of what we call jung. jung can be explained in many different aspects, but one aspect of that is an individual that is humble, yet very strong inside. and i think president obama exemplifies this trade of what we call jung and that is why we have a very special ties that we feel whenever i think about president obama. [speaking korean] >> translator: ladies and gentlemen, i'm a very, very honest guy. [laughter] so when i say it, i really mean it. [speaking korean] [speaking korean] >> translator: and also of

mr. president, i must thank you for one thing. because you spoken so highly of the outstanding educational system of korea, dedication of teachers and determination never korean parents had comes to educating children, you have so many new teacher fans in korea. and i have to be very honest with you. i think you quite a number like you more than they like me. [laughter] [applause] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] >> translator: mr. president, seriously, you do have a lot of teacher friends in korea. the real reason why you are so

popular among many koreans is because everyone, a leading myself, are deeply impressed than i am a for learning and that this is very much reflected in your life story. [speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean]

[speaking korean] [speaking korean] >> mr. president, madam first lady, whenever you think about the end it states in people of america, as have a personal story of mine, which i would like to share with you briefly tonight. 60 years ago courier used to be one of the poorest countries in the world and my family was exceptionally poor and we really have nothing to eat, nothing to wear. we had to rely on foreign aid for many, many years. i was about nine or 10 years old. in my village they became an american missionary lady with ochs boxes and containers of used clothes that come to my village and handout. so being a boy who is only wish at that time is to own and wear a pair of blue jeans, i decided to stand align a lot with any

people. it is a very small and shy boys, hard to imagine. [laughter] a lot of people were jostling about and i ended up way at the bottom of the line. when my turn came, it went up to the american missionary lady and asked for a pair of blue jeans, to which she just looked at me and said, i'm sorry, i am all out of blue jeans. of course i was devastated. i was heartbroken. and this kind american missionary lady takes one look at me bananas into the hands me something out of the she handed me a small rubber ball. now this did little to console the boy who was crashed. and because after all, what was i going to do with a rubber ball? [speaking korean] >> translator: associate this day, initiate the story with president obama. when i finished the story i

remember the president laughing at it nervously. but i said mr. president, as you can see, i do not owe the united states anything, except maybe for a rubber ball. [laughter] [applause] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] >> translator: ladies and gentlemen, mr. president, madam first lady although half jokingly if they do not owe the united states anything, but in reality my country and people

you tremendously. which other country, no weather came to aid the republic of korea 60 years ago in my country was attacked by communists. no country sacrificed within 37,000 lives defending freedom for the people of my country. for that for many coming many years in which we will always be grateful to the american people. [applause] said [speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] >> mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, last night the united states congress didn't passed

and ratified the free-trade agreement. i said this before, but allow me to say it again. i am deeply appreciative and grateful to the leadership of congress, members of the united states congress who supported this measure and especially to the steadfast leadership of president obama for pushing this through. [applause] [applause] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] >> translator: mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, there are those in the united states congress who did not vote for this impaired in agreement. i think i see a few faces here. [laughter] but i'm very confident ladies and gentlemen that in one year

or less of these people who may be critical of this important agreement will say that they made a mistake because they will see visible results of this very important agreement. [applause] [applause] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] >> translator: in the thing i want to prove them most, ladies and gentlemen with the course of fta as many of those critics were seen but of course fta was somehow going to make people lose their jobs. but really, the course of fta is going to create good decent jobs for people of america and this is the point i want to prove by implementing this agreement.

[speaking korean] [speaking korean] >> translator: ladies and gentlemen, you see mr. king at the head table. others receiving gas and when i was shaking hands, i thought to myself, this is my chance to explain to mr. king that the fta will create a lot of good jobs and force members of his union. [applause] [speaking korean] >> translator: the fact that mr. king accepted the invitation to be here tonight just goes to

show that he believes in the essence in core value of the course of fta, so i have no worries. [speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] >> translator: mr. president, madam first lady, ladies and gentlemen, our relationship between our two countries began 130 years ago. 60 years ago our mutual defense treaty began what is considered to be one of the strongest military and political alliance that the world has ever known. of course we are here today to celebrate our journey over the last 60 years, one that has been marked by triumph, sometimes hard eight, but always full of

hope. we are gathered here to reaffirm our friendship and renew common commitment toward shared goals. i know our relationship will grow strong and become more mature and can lead. [speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] [speaking korean] >> translator: mr. president, as we talk over the last few days, we have many, many challenges that are facing us as a nation and as a member of the international community, we do not know when, what type of form or how it is going to straight guys. there's a lot of uncertainty out there, but i believe in our friendship because if we are faced with challenges, i know we will overcome them and even come out stronger.

[speaking korean] >> translator: and i just want to emphasize once again our alliance between the republic of korea in the united states ensures us that we are not allowed. neither is korea alone with the united states. we can have confidence will be able to overcome many challenges they may face asked. [speaking korean] >> translator: ladies and gentlemen, i see that the guest today and i think a lot of you are people who are very much liked by the president in the madam first lady. i also see a few of you who i always wanted to see.

inside very happy i had a chance to see and meet with you tonight. [speaking korean] >> translator: once again, mr. president, madam first lady, thank you so much for this honor and thank you for your invitation. [applause] [speaking korean] >> translator: ladies and gentlemen, please join me now in a toast first of all for the and well-being of president obama and madam first lady and of course for everlasting friendship between our two countries.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> president obama in the south korean leader last night is that the white house state dinner. a reminder that leaders will be in detroit later today visiting the gm plant in talking to employees. we'll bring you their remarks like that 1:50 p.m. eastern time here on c-span 2. members of the house energy committee are returning from a recess. they broke the hearing to go vote on the house floor. we will return to live coverage in just a few moments. while we are waiting, we'll bring you members have made statements from this hearing

investigating treasury department loan guarantees to the failed solar panel company, trained three. >> good morning, everybody and we can be in the subcommittee on oversight and investigation. i will open with my opening statement. we convened this hearing of the subcommittee on oversight and investigation to simply gain a better understanding about the department of treasury as well in reviewing the solyndra loan guarantee, particularly with regard to the department of energy's decision to restructure the loan guarantee and subordinate taxpayers to private investors. president obama may claim that hindsight is 2020, but the facts tell a much different story. recent e-mails produced by the white house and omb, as well as a long chain of others clearly show that numerous members of the obama administration, from

the most senior levels in the west wing.to the career professionals at omb and d.o.e. knew that the lender was a bad back that was destined to fail. while the obama administration may not have had a crystal ball, they did have financial models in august 2009 for telling the solyndra would run out of money and said 10 or 2011. which they choose -- which they choose to ignore. in late 2010, solyndra informed d.o.e. that the situation was dire. d.o.e. began negotiations to restructure the terms of the loan to keep solyndra above water. under the new arrangement, two primary investors, argonaut, madrone capital were given priority over the government with respect to the first 75 million recovered in the event of liquidation.

i and other members of the subcommittee has continuously questioned the legal basis for this unprecedented decision. section 17023 of the energy policy act of 2005 clearly states in plain language that when d.o.e. makes a loud, quote, the obligation shall be subject to the condition that the application is not subordinated to have their financing, end quote. previous communications produced to the committee revealed that there were numerous concerns within the administration regarding the financial and political impact of the restructuring. what the latest trend of e-mail shows that senior officials within the obama administration had significant concerns about its legal basis and those can parents were simply ignored. in august 2011 as discussions about a second restructuring were underway, insisted

secretary of treasury, mary miller, e-mail director of omb, jeffrey cites stating quote, since july of 2010, treasury has asked d.o.t. were briefing on solyndra's terms. the only information we received has been for omb. as d.o.e. has not responded to many requests for information about trent three, end quote. she goes on to note the treasury's legal counsel statute and d.o.e. regulations both require the guaranteed loan should not be subordinated to any loan or their debt obligations and that in february, treasury request in writing that d.o.e. seek the department of justices approve the approval is any proposed restructuring and not to hurt knowledge, that has never happened. in closing, assistant secretary

miller seemed almost resigned to d.o.e. scores of action in stating that while she expects that d.o.e. has it so you why the subordination can occur without eog, approval of treasury consultation, i wanted to correct any impressions we have acquiesced in the stats to date. .. >> he understood quote, these

adjustments may include subordination of solyndra's 535 million reimbursement obligations to d.o.e., and possibly the forgiveness of interest, integral. accordingly he raised the prospect of seeking department of justice approval, which never ultimately a third. judging from these e-mails it is clear that senior officials at the department of treasury were not sufficiently consulted about the restructuring. and when they offer their opinions and warning signs, they were ignored. like so many of the others along the way. it should be noted, however the final rule issued by d.o.e. implementing title 17 of the energy policy act specifically requires d.o.e. to consult with the secretary of treasury report d.o.e. grants a deviation that would constitute a substantial change in the financial terms of the loan guarantee of agreement, end quote.

there is no exception of allowing d.o.e. to ignore those who disagree with its course of action. i look forward to better understand why the department of treasury felt so strongly about being consulted prior to the restructuring of the loan guarantee, and whether they believed d.o.e. violated the energy policy act of 2005. with that i recognize my distinguished colleague, ms. degette. >> thank you, mr. chairman. so if we want to know that legal basis for the subordination of this loan by d.o.e., wouldn't it be nice to have d.o.e. here? the majority has focused on an e-mail from august 2011 in which a treasury official raises questions about what the subordination of the guaranteed loans to solyndra where appropriate. and a treasury official expressed his of you that deal these restructuring of the loan may require department of justice approval. now, i think it's appropriate

for the subcommittee to conduct fact gathering relating to these documents to advance the committee's understanding of decisions relating to the solyndra loan guarantee, but if we really wanted to have a fact-finding hearing, would we also bring d.o.e. and to see what they thought when treasury told them that they thought that the department of justice needed to approve this loan? the treasury comments regarding subordination race definite questions about the application of the energy policy act provisions to the department of energy loan guarantee program, and it's the department of energy that implements these provisions. and so the treasury e-mail thus makes the least legal rationale for restructuring decisions a central issue of this hearing. i don't really see how you can have this hearing just bringing one side in without the other side to respond. and as i've said repeatedly, mr. chairman, i think we need to have a full and fair gathering

of the facts of what happened with the solyndra loan, and the restructuring, so we can decide how we proceed further with solar energy and other types of alternative energy, loan guarantees and other types of support. but despite this, the majority has refused the minorities request to invite the department of energy witnesses to this hearing. and astonishingly, the majority has objected to the minorities request to release the february 15, 2011 memorandum by counsel for the d.o.e. loan program that was produced to the committee. in that memo the d.o.e. council provides a detailed analysis of their view of the subordination issue, the statutory authorities in question, and d.o.e.'s position. and by the way, since february of this year the department of energy has also given this committee an additional 65,000 pages of documents to go through. now though, it should go without saying that the d.o.e.'s legal

analysis of restructure should be a component of today's discussion, but without the daily legal memo, we are sort of having our hands tied behind her back. let me talk for a minute about this memo. in august 17, 2011 e-mail to the omb deputy director, an assistant secretary at treasury expressed a view that quote, the statute and the d.o.e. regulations both require that the guaranteed loans should not be subordinate to any loan or any other debt obligation, end quote. she further notes that quote, d.o.e. regulations state that d.o.e. shall consult with omb and treasury before any deviation is granted from the financial terms of the loan agreement. the statute and regulations she appears to be referred to contain the title 17 loan guarantee program which the department of energy interprets their implementing regulations. the department has indeed

interpreted the subordination language of the statute and regulations and the federal 2011 memo i referenced. and the department also interprets what constitutes a deviation from the title 17 rules. i am looking forward to hearing more from the treasury today regarding with a treasury official meant by her august 17 e-mail. but if we really want a full understanding of the legal arguments for subordination, and whether the restructuring constituted a deviation as defined under department of energy regulations, we also need to review the department of energy memo and have the opportunity to ask d.o.e. officials questions about the rationale. the august e-mail further notes that treasury had suggested in february that the d.o.e. consult with the department of justice regarding the restructuring, based on a statutory provision that requires a doj approval weather is a compromise. communications provider to the committee show that a

conversation between treasury and d.o.e. officials occurred on this issue speech opening statement display from diana degette, the ranking member. cliff stearns, chairman of the energy committee is reconvening the hearing on loan guarantees to solyndra. back to live coverage. >> dated february 15, 2011, we have had a chance to review it, and i think before you make my final decision i'll recognize the gentleman from texas, emeritus of the full committee, on his reservation. and mr. barton is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do reserve the right to object, and i do want to tell the gentlelady from colorado, if we have a productive discussion about my reservation on them very willing to withdraw the reservation, because i'm not at all interested in hiding any relevant information from the american public. and the way to get in the public domain is to obviously put it

into the record. i will start out by saying after consulting with the majority counsel, it is clear to me that this is a key memo. it is also clear to me that the majority counsel had every intention to probably have, in fact i would say to definitely have a hearing specifically on this memo, and that the minority counsel was made aware of that, at least two to three weeks ago. there are apparently at least two memos that are identical in terms of content with the exception of who they are addressed to. one memo is addressed to secretary chu from the general counsel, and other memo, and i think the memo that the gentlelady from colorado wanted to put into the record is a memo to the general counsel from a lady named susan richardson, who is the chief counsel of the loans program office. the content, at least from what

i can tell in trying to read both memos very quickly, is identical but the citation and address are different. that to me is somewhat puzzling. the appropriate time i would hope that we would put both memos into the record, if we're going to put one of them, one addressed to the secretary of energy, and one also address to the general council. the key part of the facts in the memo is on page three, and it's got the paragraph headline is issue. and here's, i'm going to be a. because i think it's important. the issue is whether the proposed subordination is both certain of the barb reimbursement obligations to the d.o.e. is consistent with subsection 702 of title 17. this is of the energy policy act of 2005 of which i was a conference chairman and the committee chairman that supported this provision and also supported the law.

subsection 1702-3 provides that the guaranteed obligation shall be subject to the condition of the obligation is not subordinate to other financing. i want to repeat that, mr. chairman. subsection 1702-d, the obligation is not subordinate to other financing, not subordinate to other financing. that to me is explicitly clear. now here's the answer. that either susan richardson or the general counsel, depending on which memo you decide to put in the record, here's the short answer to that question. the proposed subordination is permitted under title 17. the subordination condition contained in subsection 1702-d is by its terms applicable only

as a condition precedent to the issue of the loan guarantee. well, the question i would have for the author of the memo, mr. chairman, where did that come from? under what fairytale do they decide after reading that obligation is not subordinate, just out of the blue, make the statement is only come is applicable only as a condition precedent to the issuance. now, as it turns out, mr. chairman, the reason they answered that is that this memo was issued after solyndra had already received some of its loan proceeds and was in default. so the department, this is an opinion on my part. i'm not saying it's a fact but i think it's an informed opinion. the department of energy is looking for a reason to continue the loan and to restructure it, but they have a problem in that they can't subordinate it.

and the only way to restructure it is if they can. so the rest of this memo, mr. chairman, is a convoluted explanation of why they think they can't subordinate it. and, finally, on the bottom of "page six" in a footnote, number two, they basically say, we think we can subordinate it because the secretary of energy has broad authority to do whatever he wants to do. that's not a real reason legal opinion, mr. chairman, so i would hope we will find out how many of these memos are floating around, who actually authored those, have the stats on both sides deposed the authors, probably have a hearing specifically on this topic. and let's get to the bottom of it. because it is clear to me that the department of energy violated the law when they agree to subordinate the taxpayers money to private investors, some

of whom appear to have been heavy distributors to president obama's campaign. and i want to thank the gentlelady from wanted to put the memo in the record. it is one of the key if not the key documents, but we need to get all the facts on the table, not just this one document. >> i thank the gentleman. i think what we will do here is have, unanimous consent -- >> i ask unanimous consent to respond. >> i certainly was going to do that and i thought we might have a discussion that you might want up more time on that. i think of the members would like the pics i think we'll try to limit this to three or four members, maybe perhaps 15-20 minutes on this discussion, if it goes that long. you are recognized for five minutes. >> i just want to respond on the reservation. i want to thank the chairman emeritus for restoring this debate to some sanity. when we won't object -- is

mr. barton, apparently it's the same memo, and it has different address these but it's the same text. >> that's my quick reading. >> so, i don't object to that coming in either. and i think the chairman emeritus is understand the point that i have been making all a long, which is when you have a full investigation. we need to all of the evidence in the record. we need to figure out what happened, because just to have treasury come in and say well, we said it should go to doj, without having d.o.e. and to say well, here's what we thought about what treasury said, and here's why we did this. and have the actual author of this memo and, we can't know what happened. and that's really the purpose of the oversight and investigation committee, is to figure out what happened. and so, so, you know, i think that the chairman emeritus questions about this legal memo

are good questions. i just only wish that susan richardson or somebody else who drafted this memo was here to answer those questions. so anyway, i'm glad we're going to put this them and other memo in the record. i think it helps, and i would also ask the chairman, after the recess next week, let's have another hearing. let's bring those folks in. i think we really need to know. >> as the generally has heard me early, we intend to bring secretary to end and a department in and i'm glad you support that. >> mr. chairman, with all due respect, i do support bringing secretary chu in big i think it's important to bringing them. but i also think we should bring in the individuals in d.o.e. who actually wrote these memos and you had these communications andy kay these legal opinions, otherwise i fear that he might not know the legal basis for this. we need to note from him spent and i would say to the ranking member, my staff has told your staff that we're going to do that. so i think actually is a good word to use.

let me recognize -- >> mr. chairman? >> the gentleman from nebraska is recognize. >> i would like the last word on reservation or whatever. >> the request to strike the requisite number of words? yesterday. you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i agree with the gentlelady from colorado, and our friend, chairman emeritus from texas. i'm glad these two documents are being submitted to the record. i think that's important. i do have some concerns usually before the documents are submitted. we have some level of understanding about them. and some of the concerns that i have that now we're discussing them, we're discussing them in theory because interviews haven't been done with these parties. traditionally what happens is

when we get documents that are conflicting or we have questions about the interviews that are done by staff, so that we are better informed. that has not been able to be done. and as the staffs point here of not releasing these, of course, mr. chairman, we have been briefed. the minorities had these documents for at least a week, if not more, is that true, mr. chairman? >> that's my understanding. >> if the gentleman will yield. many -- will yield? many of the e-mails that have been put in the record, interviews have not be conducted with the office of those e-mails either. >> let me ask you this. you want to have a hearing next week, i love that. well, maybe not. i would if you would, but not sure our colleagues would agree to having one next week. but the week after, so when the meantime, would you be helpful,

gentlelady, ranking chair, of providing, maybe encouraging susan richardson to have an interview, any of the associates with her that wrote this memorandum. i think it's important that even dr. chu's staff be in bald -- involved, it raises a lot of questions why was the subsequent one they felt was necessary to erase his name out there, and to try and hide the original january memo. i think those are important questions to ask, because it looks like there's a cover-up to protect dr. chu in this. >> would the gentleman yield? >> issuer. >> i think that's a pretty incendiary statement, and i don't think we know. they might affect to memos.

i think that these allegations flying around about cover-up are exactly the problem of this investigation. what i would say is -- >> you are not allowing us to go through regular order. >> i am happy, the gentleman asked would i be willing to encourage the administration to provide dr. chu and the other witnesses. i would be happy to do that. recognizing that the administration doesn't always do exactly what i tell them to do. sadly enough. >> it would be helpful -- reclaiming my time -- would be helpful because, frankly, from my perspective, and the rhetoric from at least the two top people on this committee has been a destruction into version. so i appreciate the gentle ladies come what i believe is sincere gesture of helping get those. the point was we haven't had time to do those interviews, but i'll tell you what. when things change from one

version to another, it is a legitimate question to say, why was he changed? why was dr. chu's name removed? that's a valid question, and it looks like it was to protect him. why were discussions occurring on subordination october, so three months, three full months before the january memo was written, and in the february suppose it official one made? it looks like, and i want to know this during your interviews, the bipartisan interviews that will occur, it appears that perhaps there may have been another order, may be verbal, that the legal department was to design a memorandum supporting, supporting subordination, as opposed to an unbiased legal

analysis that the department of justice could have given. so i would appreciate those questions in the interview, and i will yield back. >> mr. burgess is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. striking the words on the reservation. i think is important here in when secretary, former secretary department of injury -- energy here, when blessings were asked employers which make of able members of your staff to our staff to be able to talk about these issues, and our staff on both sides i think was doing that due diligence and proceeding. this has all been difficult because there was an obstruction at first. we couldn't get the very simplest of documents out of the department of energy and office management budget until a subpoena was issued in july. a subpoena was issued along

party lines to every democrat voted against it. saying today the republicans have held exculpatory evidence for months, i'm sorry to be incendiary, but that's a lot. that is a lie. and it should not be allowed to stand. we got a draft memo on as result of the subpoena. and we got the sanitized memo, if i can use that incendiary language, we got the sanitized memo only because we asked, since this is a draft, you have a final. that is the issue before us here today. and to say that the republican staff hid things is again, i will stand up for them, that's a lie. it's not right. correct the record. they have done their due diligence, both the staff on the democratic and republican side. they did what we asked them to do. we asked secretary zients, can we have access to staff, can we talk to them? now again, the war since i've may be incendiary, but i got today when you look at the so-called draft, attach a legal

membrane, respecting the purpose of the subordination of the context of proposed restructuring, and it's addressed to the secretary. through the general counsel's office. i mean, what are we to think when we see that, even though it's a strapped on the? the only reason we got this was because of the subpoena. look, the administration needs to hear something today and it needs to hear that when we ask questions they need to respond. we asked for documents, they produce. recall hearing, they show up. if not we are left to her own imagination. and as many of you know i have a very vivid imagination. so you show me this and i think someone is sanitizing something, someone is hiding something. we have members of the press and the. they are asking me questions when i walked out the door to go vote. what's the deal? was one memo different than at the? was one cleaned up? i don't know the attitude the question. i would like to know the answer to the question. i would like to get that straightened out.

i would have backed up bass of my time. >> recognize the gentlelady. >> to strike the record, requisite number of words. >> always recognized for five minutes. >> i would like to yield to my colleague, congresswoman to get. >> trick you i think we should cut this debate off, and because mr. burgess really didn't want to say what he just said. the document from the department of energy were not produced under subpoena. the only subpoena was for the documents from omb, and not for the d.o.e. all of the documents from the department of energy and work produced to this committee, 65,000 pages were produced to this committee voluntarily. and this particular memo, and in addition, the other memo which says a draft audit and secretary

chu, that was the omb production but this one was produced many, many months ago. and so, so, you know, if you want to try to cater to the press and make a scandal where there is none, we can do that. if you want a full and thorough investigation, i would suggest that these memos in an would bring the d.o.e. people and. we talk to them about why there was one draft and another one and so on, instead of making these allegations completely unsupported by any evidence. i will also say, mr. chairman, that if, that the d.o.e. wasn't even invited to this committee. mr. waxman and i wrote a letter to you asking that the d.o.e. be invited to this committee. so that tucson is say that the d.o.e. is trying to hide something about these memos is again an accurate. i think that emotions are running high. i'm glad we're putting both of these memos into the record. let's bring the d.o.e. in to

talk to them about instead making his allegations that are completely unsupported by any evidence. and i yield back spent the gentlelady heels back. the gentlelady from illinois? the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and in response to what ms. degette said regarding mr. burgess his comments, i just want to make certain that we all understand that it was the subpoena from omb under which this draft memo became available. and it is because of this draft memo that was made available under the subpoenaed documents that we then were able to get the final version of this memo, and after they went back to d.o.e. for that request. so, just for a correction for the record, it was because of the subpoena come and that is

exactly what dr. burgess was saying in his comments. i think this is such a very serious issue. if we look at not only solyndra in the situation there, as we look at this loan program in its totality, as we look at the of the loan guarantee programs that are with other departments and how they are working, this is the type issue we need to drill down on. we do need to have the time for the step for them to do their due diligence, and the members to do their due diligence. and i do hope that we will subpoena other members that were involved in this process of writing this e-mail and the attached documents that go from january 21, 2011, which is the e-mail that came under the omb subpoena, and then into the final document that goes through detailing the subordination that is the february 15 document. and i would encourage the

chairman to continue with moving forward with that hearing. at this time, would any of my colleagues like to -- i yield to mr. terry. >> thank you. and just for references, part of the gentlelady from colorado's statement about cutting off discussion here, i mean, let the record reflect that they initiated this discussion about a memo, it made specific accusations against the majority of hiding those from them. so it is completely appropriate now that we have the venue to eight, defend ourselves against those accusations, and to be able to have a valid discussion about what the fact that there are two memos with two different headings, and we don't know what else the differences are at this point, are completely

appropriate. as a former reformed lawyer that did a lot of trial work, the judge would say, madam, you opened the door. >> reclaim in my time. i yield to dr. gingrey. >> i think the gentlelady from tennessee for yielding. and it just seems to me that this issue, it has been brought up by the minority's request for unanimous consent to submit this memo for the record. the minority knows that in consultation with the majority, a commitment was made by the majority to have a subsequent hearing, and to have secretary chu comment testify about this memo. and who gave directions in regard to, essentially, who knew what and when did they know it your and the minority at this

hearing today has sort of preempted that process after seemingly agreement was made between majority staff and minority staff that this would be done in a timely manner, and under regular order, so the dots could be properly connected. ..

>> reclaiming my time and i yield mr. griffiths. >> well, jenna leigh's time could be expired. i'll recognize mr. preferred as a loudspeaker income to rule with mr. barton. >> can you go ahead and perhaps get mr. scully's a little times we cannot set. we have two witnesses an invite to keep moving because the witnesses are showing great for parents. >> i'm actually glad the memos had come in. i do agree with comments made previously trying to get this in the right order seat on the speculation and so forth going on. i'm glad it then because i want present lawyers that the united states of america to look at this menu. when i first read a couple weeks ago, i made a comment that looks like a logical project. i texted my fact that they could find out susan was admitted to the bar. turns out it was 1983, but that

was a surprise because the quality work. there's no reference to court cases. it references one previous section i doesn't give you court cases that the thursdays distinction and then you get to the part where it is once a condition precedent, meaning you can't subordinate, has been satisfied or waived. there's nothing that has been a continuing legal effect. in other words, when mr. silver admitted he had not -- yet not even read the memo before putting the taxpayers of the united states to the tune of $75 million. it was astounding to me that this memo was relied upon. they think it's great for department of treasury at least serve the warrant of the city all that it had just a because i think the site to see not only her to be here, but susan richerson subpoenas to be here because i want to find out it that way she was putting the memo together like this.

what she told to come up with this? that's what i believe the first time i read it. i'm patronis has defaulted this is what leads you to suspicion and speculation because these are serious things. you heard about but not others. default page one. the code also requires if there's a fault the attorney general be notified. did that happen? their own rules require in 609.18 if there's a deviation from the secretary of treasury is supposed to consult with their notified -- i mean, the d.o.e. is supposed to notify secretary of treasury. i'd like to note that happen because this clearly was a deviation after default. but they didn't follow their own rules. i don't know if they notified the attorney general. it appears to be now if they didn't notify treasury what's going on and you know, it just seems like this entire memo. one of my original note says it's inconvenient. i think what happens -- department of energy made at

that moment. realizing that about not ever try to fake your way cover up the fact that that they done anything illegal but that they'd made a background in wittenberg allowed. and with out it will yield to my colleague. >> the time is recognized. >> i think my colleague for yielding. mr. chairman can i chairman titania mccoury can continue to hope to shine the light on what is a major scandal that we've been trying to get to the bottom of homicide and unfortunately our colleagues on the other side of luck this stonewalled us in every for a going back to predating the subpoena. but we had to get a subpoena to get this information. everybody in the minority said voted against the subpoena, voted against going forward looking plan that covers the things we've uncovered. there is a laugh we've uncovered and there's even more to come that we are trying to find out. we continue to get stonewalled on every front. they keep saying, why in the

department of energy here? the department of energy is one program was here a few weeks ago and in fact i asked head of the department of energy's loan programs in a decision to subordinate? he refused to answer that question under oath. finally he acknowledged under oath he would get me the names of everyone involved in the subordination, everyone involved. he admitted under oath and then he resign. of course i have a question to legal counsel, mr. chairman if he still compelled to get is that information. just because he resigned, he said under a few sudafed information. who made the decision to the taxpayers in the back of the line? this isn't about price are republicans and democrats. there's $535 million in tax year money at stake. when we said we want to get information, we were able until he subpoenaed. this document was originally given to us by department of energy. it came to omb and went back to department of energy and they said they forgot to give it to

us. we forgot to give you this? how can they forget this document? this is a legal counsel opinion that basically says you can tour the law. well come you can't ignore the law. the law is very clear. this is a lot insubordination, just on sentences you can't do it in the what a legal opinion anyway? i want to know who else was involved in the decision to subordinate. with such a susan richerson or was she directed to someone else to come up with this opinion because they wanted to get to learn anyway. we found that most of the white house they get this thing done. we want the vice president to be involved in the ribbon cutting. they were concerned about a photo out. in order to do that they led $585 million of taxpayer money to be put in the back of the line of some private venture capital firm based on a phony legal memo from the in-house counsel and we could even get this information so we forced a subpoena that everyone on the minority side voted against. those are the facts and were trying to get more facts. we need this to come out, we

need more hearings because we haven't gotten facts from the people involved in this. >> i thank the gentleman. the chairs repaired to role as the gentleman from texas no longer has a reservation. >> mr. chairman, i reserve my reservation. i do have a question. if i understand this is degette correctly, she is agreeable to putting both memos memos -- on the second memo, there is an addendum to that has a number of tabular information regarding proposed finances of solyndra. did she wish not to go on the record? >> i don't know what does tabular items are. if i can see those, i just want to make sure it's not proprietary information, but i would assume they would mention it. i would be agreeable to whatever

the chair and ranking member -- >> i'm going to take the position that those documents by unanimous consent will be part of the record. >> i reserve objection on the table on the second one until i can see it. >> that's i'm asking the question. >> here is the tabular. we wouldn't want you to not it. >> it's a projection for solyndra for five years into the future. and i'm not saying you should. i'm just saying it was attached to the memo. >> mr. chairman, i don't have jack to the addendum. i would ask the majority minority status review that made sure there's not proprietary information. it looks like could steal confidential. but in general i don't agree.

>> attachments are part of the record including the tabular. with that -- >> i have a question because what the gentlelady from colorado said that what you said. >> well, i'm making a unanimous consent she can object, but she's not object to. >> okay, so that's it regardless of whether it's proprietary. >> what i am saying is that the check to agreement on this staff to reduction of any confidential business information if they can't agree -- here's the problem is we agree to these two men are and then the chairman emeritus came in with her -- >> the tabular is such fine print. i don't think either side is going to look at this. i think we should move on and head of having another discussion about the tabular. i think your decision is -- i'm object into the tabular thing

until we can review it and decide. the memo itself i do not object. >> if you object, our side will object to putting original memo in. >> fine, whatever. >> madam chair, i think we have agreement to put both documents -- we do have agreement. and the gentlelady has made the point that she went to make sure -- >> we are going to put the two documents and by unanimous consent that the tabular and subject to the review by this staff buried actions. so order. now we'll move onto her witnesses who has been kind enough to stay with us. at this point, i think our site is recognized next and that would be mr. cherry. >> all right. gentlemen, thank you are your patience. i have some rather pointed questions, but first i want to make a point about whether or

not -- i think it was mr. grippo, dgc didn't feel like you were rushed to provide your information after the consultation, your feedback? >> let me be clear about what happened. we were provided with the term sheet for this deal. we were asked for a very quick turnaround for consultation. we felt we needed more time. we asked without. >> she didn't feel rushed? >> well, we felt out with more time we asked the agreed we should have more time and in due course give our consultation. >> well, iv states correct then that i just haven't some note? march 10, 2009, dob asks treasury for the consultation? then march 17, 2009 coming

d.o.e. approves and commits to the low. march 19, treasury seven minutes or consultation in question. seems to me that your consultation was fairly irrelevant to d.o.e. >> i am not aware of that sequence of events myself. will submit does. they are in the documents, but i'm going to get and make three minutes last another set of questions here. and then mr. berner, tabs to have your binder is a member and then it is march 16, 2010 title treasury/fsb consultation with department of energy on the cylinder of fact to llc project

are entitled to project. have you seen this memo before? >> yes, sir, i have. >> rejected the menu? >> a member of my staff. do not under objection quite >> yes. >> why was the memorandum to file drafted almost one year after he called with d.o.e. and i'm referring to the first paragraph of the memorandum that is to be documenting a collie here early. >> this staff member with direct aid to put it in final, but did not. i found out here later and asked to be put in at that time. this is the same manner that has not been changed since it was originally drafted. >> all right. so your aid or assist in drafted the memo a year earlier, yet it did not submit --

>> never got put in for some reason. i felt i'd rather a nifty. >> good. i appreciate that. i've had similar in my office where i had to accept staff members to thought as my own. so i feel for you. ms. burner, but to address a few points made in the memorandum to violate at david leading to the treasuries call. i've got. >> ansari. you've got time. the memo that dfs staff made to conclusions about the slender project at the equity cylinder has been the project was 27% as opposed to what appears to be a standard of 35%. i can't find where 35% is

referenced. if that one of the conditions precedent finagled but i don't know about? word is that 35% come from? >> discussions before that, we were under the impression there would be 35 or send the equity put into the deals as a standard. >> said this is a solyndra specific issue that you were under the impression that grippo country in solyndra said there be 35% at what he? >> we had expected the 35% equity put in the deals and that was not what happened. >> okay, so it's not the lenders by's visit, the deals, plural. >> yes, sir. >> in that regard, where can i find a reference to the standard of 35%? and then after that, why is that important that they have 35% equity? >> the equity -- the number

actually comes from if this is a partially guaranteed loan, it would eat 80% of 80%, which should be 30% equity. surrounded at 235% asserted a standard. 80% is sort of a guarantee can asserted a federal credit policy that didn't be partially guaranteed rather than fully guarantee this preference. so this would've put the government on an equal basis and turns the risk of their 35% equity is supposed to 35% equity on a fully guarantee deal is supposed to have been a 20% equity in housing, the 80% guaranteed. >> and the risk then means having unbalanced with the potential consequences to the government? >> it was felt the batteries for the government if there is more equity in the deal.

>> the gentleman's time is expired. recognize the chairman emeritus on the banking side, mr. dingell, distinguished gentleman or michigan. [inaudible] >> the difficulties you're having this morning, i've never seen such a big fuss over a small matter in this committee. add a couple questions for her witnesses. gentlemen, the issue here of subordination of the federal guarantee in. steve mann did not occur when the initial transaction took place. it occurred later after solyndra began to get close. yes or no? >> that is correct, yes. >> okay, the united states western time to time for history submitted itself to a subordination and to a lower treatment of its rights in order to carry out some public policy, is that not right?

>> i'm not personally aware of those transactions, but it could be. >> this document, these two documents were essentially worked papers which are defining what the government should do. is that right? >> ansari, which documents are you referring? >> the two of which we have had such splendid fuss. >> forgive us, but we've been privy to this menace. >> now, i would note that the memorandum for the general counsel has been very interest earmarks. it says here based on the analysis of the direct your portfolio management on prior grams coming d.o.e. is determined that a restructuring of the obligations to the loan guarantee would yield the highest probable net benefit to the federal government by minimizing the federal

government potential last of the guaranteed loan. is that right? yes or no. >> i have not seen the memo. >> now, when the government confronted this problem, they let to see how they were going to save this month. and how they were going to see the business at solyndra, is that right? and they felt the approach taken with the best, is that right? >> i believe that with department of energy. >> what was the policy impact on this? du jour superintendent or second-guess or come up with any corrections to the department of energy or did you just approve the release of the money? which was the course? >> it was not a statutory decision to make. we rendered a legal judgment. >> without the money was properly released, is that correct?

you just thought the money was correctly and properly released according to rules and regulations of the treasury department. >> department of energy certified it can be released. >> okay. mr. chair, if are going to have discussion of this, we had to bring d.o.e. in and let d.o.e. tell us about why it was they came to conclusions which we are in this great resettlement today. i would make a couple of observations here. we have developed the technology for new batteries in all kinds of things like that that are being made in china, and korea, and am not kinds of other places. the result is other people who were designed over here and when the chevy drove out of the factory brand-new as an american car, drove out of an american fat greek with korean batteries,

which were designed in this country. and what we are trying to do is to get back control of the battery industry because our people in the habit when mr. yet i do have some familiarity with that endeavor have come to the conclusion that if the united states doesn't control this kind of technology it will see the entire manufacturing industry of automobiles moved overseas. we are trying to develop an industry and the congress came to this policy when they pass the legislation we are discussing today. and it was her decision we wanted to have these kinds of subsidies that we can compete with the germans. do they have as much sunshine

over there instead velasco? and yet commented big in this whole business and they are controlling this industry. they and the japanese and koreans and chinese in the united states are little by little the rosemount and we want to be in this new technology. or we are not seeing ourselves in it because they subsidize the finance efforts of their industry and we do not. so we started out. it's pretty clear we made some mistakes on the matter and they were big mistakes that cost us a lot of money. a hard fact of the matter is losing control of this type ologies going to cost us a heck a lot more money and it's going to cost us industry and jobs, not just at the new technology, which is where our hope is as a manufacturing nation, but also unfortunately in preserving existing industry. i thank you for your courtesy and i hope this committee will look at this is something with

budget mistakes and set out to correct those mistakes, but understand two things. first of all, there's no criminal or seriousness behavior. there is just an dumbness. and unfortunately, we find ourselves in the awkward position where we've got to go forward and try and save these kinds of vendors treats for the benefit of future generations and quite frankly the help of this committee. >> i recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murphy for five minutes. >> thank you paid thank you for being here. you want to make sure it's clear republican support clean energy. as a matter of fact would love to fall through and we are however primarily the purpose is to protect taxpayers for potential or actual corruption and incompetence violations of law or ignoring the law and not why we're having this hearing.

mr. burner, thank you for being here. every 10, 20 lebanese entity not to the bone's general counsel and director of the department of energy loan monitoring program. am i correct on that? >> you are convinced there. the e-mail and have a gigabyte or come you're familiar with that. in the e-mail you state treasury has learned d.o.e. is quote close to implementing a set of adjustments, unquote to the solyndra guarantee come including subordination of dealing centrist, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> would you recommend department of energy do? >> absent other authorities, we recommended the department of energy go seek and consult with the department of justice. >> can you describe in the context of this e-mail that lets you to ask the consultation? >> in my experience with our client agencies, when there is a workout situation potentially developing that the department of justice is consulted with.

they have statutory authority over such matters. i do need to say though that some agencies have their own authority so it's not a 100% call every time. >> outside of your agency or after it had a funny push to make sure things are done correctly, and i correct in assuming that? out of the treasury, that's something you practice to make sure following the law. >> this is advice to a couple colleagues and area of law and i masher their wares. >> with their other officials involved in d.o.e.? b. modjeska mizer, this is a group effort and then i was the person who transmitted the e-mail. >> internet, what a treasury think it important to write department of energy and nasty seek department of justice approval of the restructuring? what specifically was your turn their?

>> the concern is that the authority to compromise a claim against the government of department of justice unless they have their own authority, we do not do what their actual authority sorry. that's why we wrote the e-mail to them was to warn them. >> you are not legally required to contact the department of justice? >> no, sir. >> are you aware of the following u.s. statue says unless otherwise provided by law when the principal balance of the debt come explicit interest penalties of cost exceeds $100,000 for any higher amount authorized by the attorney general, the authority to compromise rests with the department of justice, are you aware? that i'm aware of 35 life of department of justice. i'm not a lawyer so i'm not familiar with the statue. >> certainly seems to fit in with the issue that this exceeds $100,000 interest penalties. i just want to get this on the

record. also, d.o.e. responded to enough every 10, 20 of that income asking department of justice seek approval of the restructuring. they did respond from am i correct? >> d.o.e. staff stated and i quote. gross misunderstanding of the outcome of the restructuring of this lender obligation, unquote. you talk to delia bacher e-mail, and i correct? >> was with the substance of the conversation? >> the primary purpose of the conversation was to make sure that d.o.e. was aware that they may have an obligation to consult with the department of justice. >> why didn't they believe it was necessary to talk with the department of justice? >> they believe that the results of the deal, at the reorganization are restructuring did not compromise the claim, so it had not reached the point where they needed to take it to the department of justice. >> did they convince you of the

necessary? was there discussion convincing in your mind? >> they were in a workout situation i thought would've been wise to go to the department of justice. >> given the information you've seen at that type and send coming to your knowledge do you believe today that the department of energy should have sought department of justice approval? >> yeah, i said i believe it would've been wise for them to seek department of justice approval. >> given the problems cannot be raised concern about other laws approved by energy department are paid out by federal financing board? >> at this time, i have not been made aware of any other deals in a workout situation. >> mr. chairman, i want to make sure that the lender told the department of energy needed to restructure the one in october october 2010 on the memo was the subject of debate wasn't the intel january and no point to the legal counsel last department of justice that this

is legal, even though both on the in treasury staffers the energy needed to do that. >> i thank the gentleman. i think your point as well as distinguished gentleman from michigan, when the department of energy appear. were going to have the hearing. the senior loan officer jonathan silver of course has resigned, that d.o.e. will be here. i know the secretary of energy, mr. chu had indicated the senior loan officer jonathan silver was an outstanding loan officer. savanna 90 think a lot of us have very to earn. so we will have this hearing and without i recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey for five minutes. >> fhs you a few straightforward business questions give us say you are considering a loan guarantee for a come any in the price of the product sells has declined by 63% over the last several years, including more than 20% in f