legitimate role in conducting oversight on how the executive branch has spent the taxpayers money. the committee needs to better understand what the white house involvement was with regard to solyndra loan guarantees. if colleagues at the white house has nothing to hide, they should just simply cooperate with the investigation and quickly and readily produce the documents. i believe the president owe it to the american public what happened to their money. >> i remember what, this is a sad day in the annuals of this august committee. in my 15 years of this subcommittee we have forged a strong bipartisan tradition of thorough and meaningful investigations. that could have been the case with the solyndra investigation. we have here a $525 million loan guarantee made with taxpayer funds that went bad.

we need to learn the circumstances of the original deal as well as the refinancing. we need all the facts, all the witnesses, all the documents. sadly, after seeing the majority's conduct of this investigation, i do not believe they share this goal. for example, in the last hearing that we had in this subcommittee, where there were emails by a treasury employee suggesting the loan restructuring be sent to the department of justice, the majority only brought the treasury department in. never giving anyone the opportunity to find out why the d.o.e. didn't get an opinion from justice and, in fact, resisting our efforts to put the legal opinion from justice into the record. now, i agree that white house documents should be produced. and, in fact, today the administration has provided this committee with over 800,000 pages of documents. 800 pages of documents -- i'm sorry, 80 -- let me try that

again. 80,000 pages of documents. the departments of energy and treasury and the office of management and budget have all produced documents on the matter, and they've all sent witnesses to testify before this committee. the white house has also already produced almost 1,000 pages of documents regarding communications with solyndra and investors in the company. i believe that the majority's action in moving forward today was a subpoena resolution is a act of partisanship. the committee has every right to obtain information from the white house to advance its oversight needs but a subpoena to the white house is a serious step in a congressional investigation. and it's a step that should only be taken after alternative avenues have been exhausted. we clearly do not face those circumstances today. in contrast, the subpoenas to

the executive branch agencies, a subpoena to the white house has the potential to reach communications all the way up to the president's desk. and that's why it's the long-standing practice of congress and of this subcommittee to engage in meaningful discussions with the white house to attempt mutual accommodation when congressional oversight needs for white house information confront executive branch equities. in fact, i'm unaware of any subpoena to the white house ever from the committee on energy and commerce under previous chairs. both democrats and republicans and both when they did and did not share the same party affiliation with the administration. with respect to the subject of today's resolution to subpoena the white house, the starting point was the committee's october 5th, 2011, request to the white house for documents relating to the solyndra loan guarantee. in response to this request, the white house proposed the

committee narrow its request to the following areas. one, the influence of campaign contributions on the decision whether -- to whether or not to grant or restructure the solyndra loan guarantee. two, involvement by the white house in the decision whether or not to make a conditional commitment to solyndra for its loan guarantee. three, involvement by the white house in the decision in whether or not to close the solyndra loan guarantee. and fourth, involvement by the white house in the decision to subordinate the government's interest as part of the restructuring of the solyndra loan guarantee. the white house never said that they wanted to keep documents private that embarrassed people. the white house never said that they didn't want to produce documents if they implicated certain donors. in fact, they offered to produce all these categories of documents. now, i knew that this investigation didn't really mean getting all the evidence. when i received the majority's media advisory that they sent out late last night that said

despite committee leaders bipartisan outreach to avoid subpoena, white house failed to turn over requested documents and said on page 2 a quote from the chairman upton and stearns that the white house still refuses to turn over -- to turn over internal solyndra-related communications when, in fact, i sat there in that meeting yesterday. mr. waxman sat there in that meeting yesterday, our staff sat there with the majority and the white house repeatedly said that they turned over documents and they were willing to turn over more documents. yesterday, mr. waxman and i sent a letter to mr. stearns respectfully asking you to postpone the date of this subpoena issuance in an effort to work with the white house. i would ask unanimous consent to put a copy of that letter and a copy of the majority media advisory into the record and i

would once again ask you -- i would implore you to please postpone this hearing so that we can continue to work with the white house and avoid this unprecedented step of the subpoena. >> without objection, so ordered. both documents will be part of the record. and we respectfully disagree with the ranking member. and the chair reminds members that pursuant to committees' rules that it will be made part of the record and i recognize the full committee the distinguished gentleman, mr. upton. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do wish that it did not come to this. oversight is a core congressional responsibility, one that has a proud tradition in this committee under both republicans and democrats. but sometimes in the course of an investigation, we find ourselves unable to secure the necessary requirements.

it is a tool that we use sparingly and only as a last resort. today is our last resort. we began reviewing the loan guarantee made to solyndra by the federal government, they identified problems with the company and whether solyndra's business model was a sustainable one. solyndra was not chosen at random. we had reason to believe that taxpayer dollars could be at risk. and we had a responsibility to look into the loan and understand how and why it was made. unfortunately, we've had nothing but eight months of frustration. there's a natural and appropriate tension between the legislative and executive branches of government. but what we've seen in the course of this investigation is down right obstruction. the administration has touted the tens of thousands of pages of documents, most of them

highly technical. it is turned over never mentioning producing those documents was like extracting a tooth without anesthesia. unnecessarily painful, time-consuming as well. just last night the department of energy turned over several boxes of documents. proudly sharing them with the press long before delivering them to our investigator. these documents are not responsive to the request that we're discussing today. they are long overdue responses to requests that we made weeks, even months ago. many of the documents the administration has produced were delivered only after being compelled by a subpoena to omb. then as now we repeatedly reached out to the administration to attempt to negotiate, review and release of necessary documents. and then as now, administration lawyers feigned a limited willingness to cooperate while steadfastly refusing to actually

deliver the documents needed to get to the bottom of the whole solyndra mess. we began this investigation eight and a half months ago and the administration has put up road blocks at virtually every turn. we're force to contemplate a subpoena before and we did everything we could to avoid that outcome but after months of negotiations and broken agreements we had no choice but to have the omb record and we had to issue the subpoena over the objection of the minority. unfortunately, we cannot get to the bottom of this mess without white house cooperation. yet, we're hearing the same excuses about the need for more time and vague promises to deliver something but no details on some basic questions. like, what does the white house have and when will they let us see it? just yesterday chairman stearns and i met with the white house counsel to try and broker an agreement, ranking member waxman and subcommittee ranking member

degette joined us for that meeting and what the white house offered was exactly the open-ended pledges that were given to us before the omb subpoena. almost four months after we served the subpoena we still haven't received all the responsive documents from omb. they're using the same tactics now which means that we have no choice but to expect the same outcome and move forward with our subpoena accordingly. last night, a little bit before 7:00, after the house had recessed the house counsel's office contacted our investigators with a last minute attempt to narrow the scope of our request. the white house made no commitment to produce documents. however, their lawyers did express a willingness to conduct a search of their internal communications for only those items and the categories they had identified. while it's encouraging, it's insufficient. this is the sort of negotiation that should occur after the initial request for documents, not on the eve of a subpoena. any sign of cooperation is

better late than never. and we fully intend to take last night's proposal into consideration as we refine the scope of the subpoena and work with the white house on its document production. so the solyndra we smelled a rat from the start. and the investigation proved we were on the right track. we've clearly established that red flags were ignored both with the initial loan guarantee and with its subsequent restructuring. we have clearly established that senior white house advisors had close knowledge of the solyndra loan and that d.o.e. officials felt pressure from the white house to approve the loan. we've made our case about the need for the documents. the white house has refused to produce them. we have no choice but to authorize the issuance of a subpoena to compel them and i'll say it again. i wish it had not come to this. but it has. and i hope that members on both sides of the aisle will join me today to assert our authority and issue the subpoena. i yield back.

>> thank you, gentlemen. i recognize the full committee of ranking member for five minutes, the distinguished member mr. waxman. >> mr. chairman, i agree with the statement of representative degette, our ranking member, made. we should not be having this business meeting today. a congressional subpoena to the white house is a serious step. it should be the last resort. it is justified only if an unprivilegeable impasse between the branches have been reached. >> none of that. i was the chairman of the house oversight committee when president george w. bush was president. i was chairman of the health and environment subcommittee when his father and president reagan were president. i never issued a subpoena to the white house. i sat down with fred fielding president bush's white house counsel and worked out an arrangement that met the oversight committee's legitimate needs while preserving the

president's rightful prerogatives. and that's what we should be doing here today. and that's what this committee has always done. john engel will tell us, he never issued a subpoena to the white house either. he always worked it out. president obama's counsel, cathy rumler met with chairman upton and chairman stearns yesterday. he said that the committee's document request is so broad that it would include everything from the logistics of the president's trip to solyndra to the president's personal blackberry messages. he offered to provide internal white house communications voluntarily without a subpoena if the committee would engage in good faith and negotiations to narrow its request. the white house counsel specifically offered to provide the committee with documents that would, one, show whether the white house intervened on behalf of campaign contributors.

and two, what involvement the white house had in decisions to reissue or restructure the loans. that's a lot different than what we heard from the republican leadership. they said the white house would only pick and choose what to produce or whether they would produce anything at all. these are central issues the committee is investigating. yet, the chairmen refused her offer. apparently, what the committee really wants is a confrontation with the president, not information for the investigation. no wonder the public holds this congress in such low regard. our focus should be jobs. our attention should be on rebuilding our economy, not manufacturing controversies with our president. this is an important investigation, but it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the committee is abusing its powers. with every hearing, the inquiry

looks more like a rigged process and an investigation by a partisan stunt. let me go through the history. in june we invited deputy director of omb jeffery zeits to testify with just four days notice. he wasn't available the day the committee wanted, but he said he could testify any other day. so the committee held a hearing with an empty chair. in september, ranking member degette and i asked the committee to invite solyndra's executives to testify. when the executive's ceo testified, the republicans on the committee publicly humiliated him for asserting his constitutional rights. at our last hearing, the republicans accused the department of energy of violating the law but refused to allow anybody from the department to testify to defend the agency.

and then the republican majority resisted releasing exculpatory information. now, today we're being asked to give chairman upton a blank check to subpoena the white house when there is no need for this extraordinary step. this is no way to run an investigation. it certainly is no way to run an investigation that should be bipartisan. it is an unprecedented departure from the practice of this committee. we've heard that there is no other choice. well, i think there is another choice reasonable people would take. to get the white house documents that relate to our investigation. if that is insufficient, we could always go to a subpoena. instead, we want to go to a subpoena first and then later we'll see what requests are out of bounds when the white house raises them. i think a subpoena should be

used sparingly, only as a last resort. this is not the case that we see today. we are entitled to information from the white house to advance our legitimate oversight needs, not for a phisching expedition by the republicans. and i think it's sad that we're seeing what's going on here today. >> the gentleman's time has expired. and now the chair recognizes the full committee chairman emeritus, mr. barton, the distinguished gentleman from texas. >> thank you, chairman stearns. i was saddened to hear comments of ranking member waxman just now. we can argue over conclusions and interpretations of fact documents, but we shouldn't argue over whether the american people through this subcommittee have the right to get those documents to determine what the facts are. ranking member waxman voted

against the initial subpoena. i believe every member of the minority party did that. and based on his statement it appears that he's going to vote against this issuance of subpoena. that's sad. again, we got a long history of this committee of working together to get the facts and then having very spirit debate and arguments over just what the conclusion should be derived from those facts. mr. chairman, we're here today because since early this year. we've been trying to get the facts from the obama white house and they have steadfastly refused to cooperate. that is a fact. that is not a supposition. we want to know what changed in january of 2009, the bush administration department of energy made a decision not to proceed with the solyndra loan. yet, less than two months later, the obama administration

department of energy made it 180-degree turn and not only decided to fund this particular loan guarantee, they stated to to expedite it and even inquired whether the president or the vice president might participate in some sort of tour and photo-op at the announcement. what happened? what changed? what made this almost a head-spinning turn-around occur? that's why we're here today, to try to get those facts. again, it took chairman upton making, i believe, a personal phone call to the chief of staff to the white house to even get the meeting yesterday that mr. upton and mr. stearns, mr. waxman and ms. degette participated in with the counsel of the white house, and that meeting and in all prior meetings, white house has not claimed executive privilege.

they've not claimed this committee and subcommittee are not entitled to the documents. the omb produced documents, the private sector has produced documents but until apparently what was it, 6:00 or 7:00 last night, the white house had done nothing but issue press releases and last week announced the appointment of some sort of an independent counsel. again, this committee has been investigating this on a bipartisan basis for almost a year. we know over half a billion dollars of taxpayer money has gone down the tubes. we know that there have been repeated contacts within the white house from outside forces that were very active in the president's political campaign. we know that pressure was exerted or at least attempted to be exerted within the department

of energy from various officials in the white house, but we don't have an email. we don't have the documents. that's what we're here for today. again, mr. chairman, we can argue over what the documents mean. and we will. but we shouldn't argue over where the american people have a right to what the facts are. this solyndra investigation has tainted the entire alternative energy program. i happen to be a supporter of loan guarantees for alternative energy. i was chairman when this program was authorized. we now have people on my side of the aisle making serious recommendations to terminate the entire program because it is just not being well run. we need to get the facts. in order to get the facts we need to get the documents. a lot of the documents are within the white house, mr. chairman. the only way to get those documents is to subpoena them. we have the authority under the

constitution delegated to get those documents. i would hope once the white house receives the subpoena, they will -- they will comply and then we can work together to determine what, if anything, can be done to prevent future activities like this occurring. and if something happened that shouldn't have happened, determine what penalties and what remedial steps need to be taken. that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognized the past full committee chairman emeritus, the distinguished gentleman from maryland, mr. dingell, for five minutes >> i didn't roll off the cabbage wagon yesterday. i was chairman on this committee for 16 years and most of that time i was chairman of the oversight committee. i served many subpoenas on many people but never on the white house. we always got the information we wanted from the white house. the committee required that we

exercise a certain amount of patience. not that we come in with resolutions like this, which give power that would rival that of nero. now, having said this. democrats want to get the facts. we think this matter should be properly aired, but i use the word "properly." i sometimes threatened the use of subpoena during my time as chairman. but i was always able to negotiate with the administration or the d.o.e. to examine the white house. the subpoena is only a last resort because it's a strong possibility of defense of executive privilege which has much opportunity for the congress to lose power if we handle it badly. and we worked with the white house. we had very few confrontations in this committee over whether subpoenas were going to be

issued. and the democrats on this side supported the subpoenas almost overwhelmingly that were suggested by the republicans when they ran the committee and the full committee. now, i've been told that the efforts have been made by the majority staff to do what i have described. and that is to work with the -- work with the democrats. and with the administration. we do not see it that way over here. and it appears that the republicans are having a hard time understanding what the meaning of the word "yes" is. and my question is, what part of it do you not understand? the getting of information in an investigation is a careful, thoughtful work that has to be done with exquisite care and with great attention to all manner of complications and complicated consideration. now, there's a question, why have we not spent more time on

getting the documents from the department of energy? they voluntarily provided tens of thousands of pages of documents without being issued a subpoena. and they've refused to deliver nothing more to the request of this subcommittee. this subcommittee heard from omb and d.o.e. and they invited solyndra to exercise who exercised their proper fifth amendment rights. then we also heard from treasury officials who have no background in energy issues and they testified that they had no decision-making authority for d.o.e. loans. why are we now making a leap to issue a white house subpoena with so little pertinent testimony on the record? i'm concerned with the precedent we are setting today by issuing what is essentially a blank check subpoena without any real basis of misbehavior on the part of the white house. as i have said earlier during 14 years as chairman, i only use subpoenas as the last resort and we always brought the

republicans in at the earliest moment to discuss the business of the committee including what information we want, what was going to be done in the hearings, what was the purpose of the investigations and whether subpoenas were not -- were going to be needed or not at the earliest instance when that question became important. i hope that the members of this committee will take a moment to think about the repercussions that this will have on future subpoenas issued by the subcommittee when either republicans or democrats are in control. and when either republicans or democrats control the white house. i have not agreed oftentimes with republican presidents that served while i was chairman. i respected them and i respected the white house and i respected the traditions of the congress and the subcommittee. the process of this committee so far has shown a great inclination towards haphazard behavior and clearly shows a

lack of respect for the president. and at its base is conducting an event here which forces us to the conclusion that this whole sorry business is politically motivated. the simple fact of the matter is the information has been offered by the white house more or less formally to deliver what you want in the way of papers. my advice to you, mr. chairman, is to take that opportunity and let us get these investigations back to the point where they are bipartisan rather than where they become because of bad management, tangles between republicans and democrats about what we're going to do. i yield back the balance my time. >> the gentleman's time has expired and recognize mr. sullivan, for 1 minute. >> thank you, chairman stearns. thank you for calling this business meeting today on a motion for a subpoena of the white house records for the

stimulus loan degree to solyndra incorporated. this subcommittee started this important investigation nine months ago. we've been patient and today the white house has refused to give this subcommittee any documents or other records of communications relating to the loan guarantee to solyndra. the american people deserve answers because they footed the bill. we know the white house was closely involved in monitoring the solyndra loan application review by d.o.e. and omb. the simple fact is we need to learn how extensive the white house involvement was in approving the loan and whether they placed political pressure on omb and d.o.e. to approve it he at the end of the day, $535 million in taxpayers' money has been lost on the solyndra loan guarantee and there are legitimate questions about how this was allowed to happen that need to be answered by the white house. as a long time critic of the solyndra loan guarantee, i will

vote in favor of the subpoena to ensure that the obama administration complies with this subcommittee's investigation and stop the delay tactics. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman's time has expired. ms. schakowsky is recognized for 1 minute. >> so this is the way it's going to be. yes, we need to determine what happened with solyndra so the d.o.e. loan guarantee program can be more effective in the future. but the white house has been working with the committee as the other side has testified to produce materials, i believe, are all the relevant materials to the solyndra loan guarantee and the white house counsel has also agreed to work with the counsel's request that issues that are relevant to our investigation. i doubt anything that the white

house would have agreed to yesterday would have been sufficient. this is a majority that won't take yes for an answer. .. they accuse the committee of politics, hypocrisy and politics and score settling but none of this is true. people say, why rush, delay, wait, give the white house more time. that is smoke and mirrors. the whole purpose of this

investigation is to learn the truth. that we don't have anything to be afraid of. if there is nothing to hide turn over the documents. rule of law still matters. here's what the law says. no loan can be guaranteed unless they can pay it back. that the buildings can be built and taxpayer positions could not be put behind private investors. if the law isn't broken taxpayers want to know, why $535 million of taxpayer money is gone and money trail keeps leading to members of the executive branch. this investigation must go on and not be delayed any further. subpoenas need to be issued because nothing we do in this committee is more important than protect the taxpayers money. they deserve to have the answer now. i yield back. >> gentle lady from florida is. >> i respectfully disagree with the characterization by the majority that the executive branch has not cooperate thed. this committee made eight formal document requests to the administration. four to the department of energy, two to the

white house, to the treasury department and to the office of management and budget and so far over 80,000 pages of documents have been produced and the white house told the chairs yesterday that more would be produced. they have held in camera review of the documents. they have interviewed all sorts of agency representatives. we've had committee hearings. so i don't know how you can say with a straight face that the administration has not cooperated. trend has been for very proactive cooperation and i think the committee majority has a responsibility to be straightforward and honest in the characterization of this investigation and i regret they have not done so to date. that is to the detriment actually determining the facts of the matter. i yield back. >> thank you gentlelady. gentleman from texas, dr. burgess is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman for the recognition.

the ranking member of the subcommittee said this was unprecedented activity. i do not know to the accuracy of that but i do think it is unnecessary. had the white house not practice ad mantra of delay, delay, delay and continued to put obstacles in the path of this investigation we would not be here today. this would have been a one-day story but the white house has fought every step of the way. expedite the loan. when it goes to chapter 11, obstruct the investigation seems to be management plan. now the ranking member of the full committee says no way to run an investigation. i would submit this is no way for the white house to structure a response. they might do well to follow the words of former white house counsel lanny davis who recommended when you have a problem, get it out and get it out early. this white house has run from the investigation. this white house has refused to even assert executive privilege or that they might have documents that would be covered by executive privilege. if in fact democrats

supported subpoena from the beginning the white house might have been much more cooperative. that is real shame having to be here today. i yield back balance of my time. >> gentleman's time has expired. gentleman from texas, mr. green is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm disappointed the way this investigation is being conducted. i support a full investigation of solyndra about the subordination and about whether the federal government was a good steward of the tax i paer dollars. i agree we must vigorously investigate s what is happening here though is wrong. this committees unprecedented action will be conducive to partisans on both sides digging and actually figuring out what went wrong with solyndra. our former chair of the committee, my colleague joe barton from texas, this program was actually created in 2005 when congressman barton was chair of the committee and i supported the program. i think we ought to have this program available but we ought to still see how what happened with this investigation. the white house has been cooperating. the subpoena would take this to the next level. we are losing faith and

cooperation received so far from the white us who. i know there is going, we could be doing better but while still cooperating a subpoena is not necessary. i am left to believe today's hearing is more instead about generating sensational headlines and not about living up to our constitutional authority. the subpoena today will pass. and i'll oppose it and expect my democratic colleagues to oppose it. it needs to be said my opposition has nothing to do with protecting the president. nothing to do with politics. i opposed subpoena because it is abuse of process. let's get the investigation started and instead of dragging congress through something we really don't need. we have the responsibility, carefree conduct investigations allowing partisan virus to affect our proceeding cause this is important matter to lose credibility. today is the committee like throwing chum to the sharks instead of treating this with respect and reference american people respect. i yield back my time. >> gentleman's time expired. gentlelady from tennessee is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. at a 2008 june 2008

presidential debate then candidate obama received a question about president bush's use of executive privilege. president obama responded and i'm quoting, you know, as i recall, richard nixon mounted similar arguments. that's not how we operate. we're a nation of laws and not men and women. so, you know, that is the precedent i don't mind living with as president of the united states, end quote. since we first began our investigation back in february we worked diligently with our friends across the aisle and everyone involved. we've tried to be cooperative, thoughtful and thorough in conducting oversight that our constituents would deem worthy of the responsibilities that they have given us. however, without any real explanation, this administration has continually delayed the release of pertinent information that is required in order to conduct a systemic and comprehensive review. the american people have the

right to know. they expect us to get to the bottom of the solyndra issue. i yield back. >> gentlelady from the virgin islands is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the white house already agreed to cooperate with the committee on this investigation and all their testimony and documents turned over so far they have been true to their word. with every president, republican and democrat executive privilege have been exerted over congressional requests. this president has done nothing more than that i too have to ask the question what is different in the case of president barack obama? we do have a responsibility to investigate and we should continue with what we have but this is not the priority of our fellow americans. they need jobs. as the representative, representatives on a committee with broad oversight and therefore the great potential for job creation, that is what we must turn our attention to. while we may be able to wait to get more information on solyndra the people of this country are demonstrating they can not wait. i yield back balance much my

time. >> gentlelady yields back. miss myrick is recognized for one minute. >> yield my time. >> gentlelady yields her time. mr. ross, do you yield? >> [inaudible]. >> one minute? >> thank you, mr. chairman and i'm, i'm saddened by what we're dealing with today. i think it is way premature. i support a full and thorough investigation of solyndra and anyone else that's involved in this including the administration but the fact is the administration is cooperating with house investigators at this time. they provided more than 80,000 pages of documents. the administration in fact turned over 15,000 pages of documents to the committee this week. including 1200 pages of communication between the white house and the energy department. at a time when the american people want to see us

working together and to put country before party, it seems like this is nothing more than a political gimmick because the reality is the administration is working with this committee. should it stop then i would support this but at this time, there are fully participating, and cooperating and, i think the investigation should continue and it should include anyone with any knowledge about any of this and let's get to the bottom of it but let's not have these votes and take these actions just for what may or may not be political gain for someone. it is time for us to all come together, work together and put country before party. >> gentleman's time has expired. mr. gingrey is recognized for one minute. >> mr. chairman, thank you. this is a serious investigation of a loan program for renewable energy administered by the department of energy. this program was modified by the stimulus bill in section 1705 essentially allowed for

no doc and no money down loans which surely, surely contributed to this solyndra fiasco. now our colleagues on the other side of the aisle were given an opportunity several months ago when a subpoena was issued to the omb for records and of course they voted against that subpoena. we have subsequently received very valuable record and now they have another opportunity. they have an opportunity to today to vote yes or no, to do the right thing and agree with us that subpoena of the executive office of the president and office of the vice president is entirely necessary. this is a very serious investigation. they have admitted that. the white house has admitted that. let's be teammates here in this effort because the american taxpayer deserves nothing less. and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. mr. scalise is recognized for one minute. >> that plu, chairman.

with over $535 million of taxpayer money at stake you would think that the white house would be willing to cooperate and give us the information that we've been requesting. from the very beginning of this investigation when our committee started looking into this solyndra scandal the obama administration has refused to comply with the basic requests we've asked for. in fact they failed to live up the very transparency president obama tried to make a hallmark of his campaign. taxpayer money got lost in the process. if they would have complied with us at the beginning we may have been able to protect taxpayer money. yet here we are again, unfortunately a partisan attempt to block us from getting the information we already got that has been so important in releasing this information, now we're trying to get more information that the white house still will not give us. they keep saying we've given you enough already. the target of investigation doesn't get to decide what they are going to comply with and what they're not. the white house is not above the law. there are taxpayer money still at risk. there are other loans are

outstanding and we're trying to get basic information. the white house play ad heavy hand in this scandal from the very beginning. we've seen that in e-mails we already got. i don't know why they're not complying with us today. they should be sitting at the table saying what do you need, we want to v. solve this problem? instead they're still trying to obfuscate. time for them to come mean and work with us and finally get to the bottom of this scandal of solyndra. i yield back. >> gentleman's time expired. mr. garner is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this subcommittee has been investigating the solyndra affair for months. in that time this investigation has been slow-walked, delayed and turned away. you can not lose half a billion dollars of taxpayer money and not provide answers. i had hoped that everyone shared in this value but apparently not. if there is nothing to hide then why hide? i'm disappointed. i'm disappointed too. not because that we have to seek answers but because there seems to be so many people who are unwilling to seek those answers. i'm curious to know where the spirit of cooperation

was when we sent the original letter requesting these documents? this subcommittee has a fundamental right to conduct oversight of matters within our jurisdiction and resistance we have been met with from the executive branch is simply unacceptable. i'm hopeful after taking this step the white house will begin to take this matter seriously and show some initiative to get to the bottom of this issue. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts is ends ared for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know, the white house is saying they want to cooperate. the white house is saying they want to provide all of the relevant documents but you're saying no. and of course the reason you're saying no is that from the minute you took over in january you have had a concerted effort to destroy the renewable energy program in the budget that you passed, the ryan budget, it reduced by 70% next year and by 90% over the next

three years of the money for clean energy. in april, when you brought the government to the brink of shutdown, you successfully rescinded $18 billion for renewables but left in 22 billion for nuclear and eight billion for colon guaranties. that's what this is all about. this is just a continuing pattern where the call of nuclear industry wants this competitive wind and solar industry to grow. and we still haven't had any announcement of an investigation of the loan guarantee for the southern company for two nuclear power plants proposed to be constructed on earthquake faults down in the south. so let's talk about that post-fukushima. let's examine whether or not the economics of that worked at all. >> gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for one minute. >> thank you.

and appreciate allowing me this one minute. frankly i'm one of many on this side that have worried that the actions of the administration and in providing loan, while not loans, but now just massive grants to solyndra and sunpower, and what appears to be under political persuasion or favors or cronyism or something, has endangered renewables more than any ryan budget. the actions here by the administration has created a public perception that this is an unstable, corrupt industry and i don't think that is a fair label

although there is going to be several examples of evidence of that and that's why we have to make sure that our investigation is complete and that we have these appropriate documents and i yield back. >> thank you, gentleman. mr. griffith from virginia is recognized for one minute. >> cooperation, cooperation. but there is no cooperation. two months ago we asked the white house for the cooperation and still we wait. every step of the way the minority has opposed this investigation. i would like all the information on this matter to be public. a half a billion dollars of taxpayer money gone. 75 million subordinated, making the taxpayers second place or second class creditors and in my opinion in violation of the law and the american people need to know who was involved in the decision-making process. who knew what, when. and when did they know it? it appears the subpoena is the only way to truly find

out this information. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. appears to me there is no further opening statements. chair calls up the resolution and asks the clerk to report. >> a resolution offered by mr. stearns. be it resolved by the subcommittee on oversight and investigations that upon the adoption of this resolution the chairman of the committee on energy and commerce may authorize and issue subpoenas dues sees teak couple to both -- duces tecum, william daleyly, white house deif of staff and appropriate, bruce reed, staff to the vice president or appropriate custodian of records, the office of the vice president relating to the committee's investigation of the following matter. a loan guarantee made to solyndra, inc., by the united states department of energy on september 2, 2009. this resolution is adopted pursuant to the rule 11,

clause 2, m-1 and 3 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives. >> mr. chairman? >> gentlelady is recognized? >> i have, i have a motion at the desk. pursuant to rule 16, clause 4, i move the subcommittee on oversight and investigations postpone consideration of the resolution authorizing the issuance of subpoenas to the white house, regarding the solyndra loan guarantee until november 15th. 2011. >> gentlelady is recognized in five minutes in support of her motion. >> thank you, very much, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this morning we've been haggling around about whether or not the white house has been responsive to the committee's request for documents. we all agree that a subpoena to the white house is unprecedented in this committee. if there is any way to get

the white house to cooperate with us and to provide the documents, that would be the very best result both in terms of getting the evidence we want without getting involved in a prolonged court battle with the white house over executive privilege, and it would also help us get the evidence that we need in this investigation. i like to take a couple minutes to clarify what happened here. to be honest on both sides of the aisle i think there has been real confusion what requests were made to the white house and to the rest of the executive branch and when they were made. this committee's first document request to the white house related to the solyndra loan guarantee was sent on september 1st of this year, approximately two months ago. it asked for all communications between the white house and solyndra, let me say that again. it asked for all communications between the white house and solyndra as well as any communications

between the white house and quote, the investors in solyndra, inc., including the administrators, employees, attorneys, agents, advisors, consultants, staff, principles or any other persons acting on behalf of those investors. the white house, mr. chairman, responded to the september 1st request with document productions on september 13th, september 30th and october 7th, totaling 968 pages. now, there have been subsequent communications between this committee and the white house at which the white house has asserted, i don't completely agree with the white house position on this, but they asserted that many of the documents that had been produced by the doe and omb were also documents that were included in this committee's september 1st request. so there have been a number of back and forth communications about those documents.

and now, mr. chairman, there was this meeting yesterday which we've all talked about where the majority was there, minority was there, the white house as well as many staffers in which i heard the white house counsel clearly say that she believed that this was a legitimate investigation, she believed that documents relating to anything about this loan fwarn tee were appropriate including, she said, documents about communications with white house political donors and others and she, and she volunteered to work with committee staff to further, further narrow the scope. and then, later yesterday, after many conversations between our staffs and the white house, as i said in my opening statement, the white house offered to produce more documents in the four areas that i delineated before and that were delineated in the letter that mr. waxman and i sent to you last night.

so it seems to me, mr. chairman, that the white house is attempting to cooperate with this committee's investigation and for my part and for mr. waxman, mr. dingell and the rest of the members on this side of the aisle we would urge the white house to go overboard in cooperating with this committee's investigation. but it is inaccurate, if anybody intend to leave the impression that the white house documents were requested eight months ago. that is incorrect. they were requested two months ago and there have been good faith efforts to produce documents. secondly, mr. chairman, i've reviewed the proposed subpoena. we got that from your staff late last night to the white house and it is a very, very broad subpoena. it says, documents to be produced. all documents in the possession of the executive office of the president relating to the $535 million loan guarantee to solyndra,

inc., by the department of energy, including but not limited to notes, analyses, reports, memoranda, and all drafts of such documents. my concern, mr. chairman, is twofold. the first one is, since you're dealing with a very broad document request there may be many thousands of pages of documents that are irrelevant to this committee's investigation which would slow us down in trying to figure out exactly what happened with the solyndra loan. the second concern i have is if the white house asserts executive privilege and we end up in court and this is further delayed. and so what i have done in my motion i have said, let's delay this subpoena until november 15th. that is two days before secretary chu is scheduled to come in and testify before this committee. let's try to work to get the documents that would be relevant so we can question secretary chu on them. then if the white house still refuses to produce documents we can come back and look at it that point

that would be my suggestion and i yield back to the balance of my time. >> gentlelady yields back balance of time. opposition to the motion, recognize the full committee chairman, from michigan, mr. upton. >> i strike the last word and i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. we have been, we have been trying to get information now for months. we've sent a number of letters. i would note that last week i informed mr. waxman that we were going to ask for a business meeting this week and then at the same time i was going to call bill daley and urge a course of action that perhaps we could have avoided today's business session. though i didn't speak to bill daley on thursday, i left a very defailed message where i thought that it would be prudent for the white house counsel's office to reach out, to the committee staff, either

thursday or friday over the weekend just to see if we could get this resolved because we were not at all satisfied with the response from the letters that we had sent to the white house. he chose to reach out to me on tuesday afternoon of this week. i again made the same request and in fact we had the meeting with the white house counsel yesterday morning with both mr. waxman and ms. degette and their staff present as part of that meeting. they knew that we were going to sit down with the republican members at 4:0 yesterday afternoon to make a final decision as to whether we would move ahead today. and though they indicated yesterday morning they might be willing to put something on paper, not necessarily a letter, 4:30 came and went. 5:00 came and went. i spoke to mr. dingell on the phone about 6:00 last night and i indicated our

frustration with the full knowledge that the white house knew we were sitting down at 4:30. in fact we knew that for hours doe had dumped documents not to us but to the press. i didn't see that as a sign of good faith. and again as i said in my opening statement, it was about quarter to 7:00 last night when we were received written response from the white house. and that had no sense of timing when we would see any production. would i say when we went to the, through the exercise last july of seeking the subpoena then, it was only that that finally began to see some cooperation by omb to provide documents which led us to where we are today. i'm a former white house official. you have bad stories from

time to time. and when those happen, frankly from the white house perspective it is best to get them resolved and get them over wither versus the drip, drip, drip, of bad news. we don't want to delay this investigation anymore. we have seen half a billion dollars of taxpayer money out the door. we are likely now, and we're going to be signing more letters today, of other loan guaranties that have gone bust as well. it has plagued the whole issue of alternative energy and things that we had passed on a bipartisan basis under mr. barton's leadership. it is time we get to the bottom of this whole mess? that means we need cooperation from the white house. we have not seen it so far and that is why we're moving ahead with this subpoena resolution and i would ask my colleagues on both sides to oppose this resolution and i yield back. i would, actually, i would

move to table the motion that is before us. >> the question is on the motion to table, the motion to postpone. all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. >> mr. chairman, i ask for. >> the ayes have it and motion to postponed is tabled. >> request for tabled vote. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. terry? >> aye. >> mr. terry votes aye. >> mr. sullivan? mr. murphy? mr. burgess? >> aye. >> mr. burgess votes aye. mrs. blackburn? also plaque burn votes aye. mrs. myrick votes aye. mr. bilbray? mr. gingrey? mr. gingrey votes aye. mr. scalise? mr. scalise votes aye. mr. gardner? mr. gardner votes aye. mr. griffith, mr. griffith votes aye. mr. barton? mr. barton votes aye.

mr. up son mr. upton votes aye. miss degette. miss deget votes know. miss schakowsky. miss schakowsky votes no. mr. rose votes know. mr. castor, votes no. mr. markey votes no. mr. green? mr. green votes no. miss christensen. miss christensen then votes no. mr. dingell? mr. dingell votes no. mr. waxman. mr. waxman votes no. chairman sterns? >> chairman turns sternses vote aye. >> mr. sullivan votes eye. . .

>> well -- first of all, it's the department of energy. who also is involved the department of management and budget because they review the decision so our committee asks d.o.e. for information and we got 65,000 pages from them including correspondence that they had with the white house about this loan. some people at omb had a different opinion about solyndra. so we asked omb for their information. before they had a chance to get it to the congress, this

committee moved to subpoena them, which i thought was premature and inappropriate. but it is a far different thing to subpoena the omb than to subpoena the president of the united states. i don't think they should be rushed into any circumstance if there's an opportunity to work things out. we didn't give an opportunity to omb to work things out. we slammed them with a subpoena which i opposed as premature. not because i didn't want to get the information. but let us review where we are now with the white house. the white house counsel met with mr. upton and mr. stearns and ms. degette with our staffs and how they want to get the information for the committee's investigation. they acknowledge it's a legitimate investigation and they acknowledge that we're entitled to the investigation they should they would get us information on the core concerns

of the committee. whether solyndra's loan decision were inappropriately influenced by political contributions. that statement has been made as if it's already established. they haven't even gotten all the facts and the republicans have jumped to that conclusion. there's no evidence yet to support it. but we ought to get all the information to see if it's true and the white house said they'll give us that information. they also say they would give us white house involvement in the conditional loan guarantee. a commitment, a loan guarantee closing and the loan restructuring. those are the reasons we have an investigation. so the white house outlined all of this. and mr. upton just told us is that they didn't give them anything in writing before his 4:30 meeting. so because they got him something in writing at 6:30 we're going to go to the unprecedented step of a subpoena. hey, give me a break. two hours? the white house is trying to cooperate.

republican after republican today said the white house has refused to give us anything. it's just not true. in my experience in congress, i've never seen a situation where -- on a bipartisan basis if somebody asked for more time, you didn't give them more time. we could have given them a little bit more time. and make clear that we're getting the information that's pertinent. well, why is the white house still saying they don't want to comply with all the information that's been requested? because the information requested is so broad that it could be a violation of your executive privilege. the white house has not claimed executive privilege. if someone is discussing if someone should go to the solyndra's factory and then all these different people in the white house are involved in logistics and the president might have contacted somebody in the staff, just -- that's just not information that pertinent

to our investigation. it becomes a fishing expedition. it intrudes on the prerogatives of the presidency. the presidency, not just this president. so i just really think if you would look at this question seriously, you don't need to have a subpoena vote today. because the white house didn't give mr. upton his written statement? they gave them everything but. they gave them a clear elucid e elucidation of what they gave to the committee. after that information is provided, we can see what else we need. do we need the information that was directed to whether the president should enter the west side or the east of the company headquarters? there's some things we don't need and there are some things that are inappropriate for us to ask. so i would urge opposition to the subpoena and i would even

urge the chairman of the full committee rethink his position in light of what he just said. they didn't give you the information that you wanted by the 4:30 meeting and, therefore, we're going to go to the unprecedented step that was never taken by any chairman of this committee or subcommittee chairman of this committee. the issue was the subpoena to the white house. i yield back my time. >> mr. chairman, the chairman strikes the last words and recognizes himself in support of the resolution. my colleagues, as chairman of the subcommittee, i feel compelled to offer this resolution. we have exercised restraint and patience during the course of this eight-month -- over eight-month investigation. and the administration has resisted our efforts every step of the way. now, earlier this year, omb repeatedly failed to cooperation and we put off the subpoena

because we were assured engaging with a dialog with the administration and the minority -- [inaudible] >> thank you for your attention. we were assured that engaging in a dialog with the administration and the minority would resolve all of the problems without the need to resort without a subpoena. but that was just a stalling tactic. we were forced to issue a subpoena several weeks later but the administration had won the delay that they were seeking. the administration seems to think what -- seems to think that if they can just drag this investigation out, that we will give up and simply go away. but we won't. we have a constitutional duty to investigate this matter, pursuant to our oversight and legislative function. we have an obligation what went wrong. why have the first two companies that received these loan

guarantees failed? why was there money subordinated to a solyndra loan and why were so many warning signs and red flags simply ignored? my colleagues, this is a serious investigation. half a billion dollars of taxpayers' money appears to be lost. this is not a fishing expedition. we already have documents that show that the white house -- the white house was involved in decisions that related to solyndra. we want answers and so do the american taxpayers. it is unfortunate that it's come to this but we do not have any faith in the white house overtures that seem to simply want to delay and obstruct. i request that members of this subcommittee join me in their full support for this resolution to authorize chairman upton of the full committee to issue subpoenas to the white house. is there any further discussion on the resolution? >> mr. chairman -- >> the gentleman recognizes

mr. markey. >> i ask unanimous consent to strike the last words. >> so ordered. >> mr. chairman, in my 35 years in congress, i presided over the issuance of only one subpoena in the time that i served as a committee chairman. it too concerned an environmental policy matter that began during the bush administration. but unlike this subpoena, for every single internal white house email related to solyndra, the one i issued was issued on a bipartisan basis with my ranking member jim stennen brenner. it was a bipartisan effort because we exhausted all other avenues for obtaining the information from the bush administration first. that has not happened here.

the obama administration has been cooperating with the committee and has said it would continue to do so. the white house just yesterday offered to share internal white house emails on all issues that are being debated about the solyndra loan guarantee. by contrast, what my subpoena was, it was just two documents. one of these had been attached to a single email that epa sent or that the white house never even opened. the bush administration white house didn't just refuse to provide them voluntarily, they refused to comply with the subpoena at all until the select committee scheduled a business meeting to consider a contempt motion. this committee should accept the accommodation offer the white house made. subpoenas should be the last

resort used to obtain information when the subject of an inquiry has failed to fully cooperate. in stark contrast to today's deal for issuing subpoenas to the white house, yesterday, republicans were singing a very different tune. over in the natural resources committee, 100 yards away, republicans voted unanimously against my motion to subpoena the ceos of bp, transocean, haliburton and cameron who refused -- that's right, refused to appear at a hearing before our committee to testify as to what has happened since the bp oil spill. we weren't asking for hundreds of thousands of pages of emails or documents. we just wanted the opportunity to question them about the environmental catastrophe that

actually was the result of illegal activity in the gulf of mexico. while insisting on full disclosure and complete transparency from the white house on solyndra, republicans have put the ceos from the companies responsible for the worst offshore oil spill in our history into a witness protection program where they are apparently is going to be immune from any congressional or public scrutiny. when it comes to solar energy, republicans embrace the disinfecting power of sunlight and disclosure when it comes to oil, they seem to prefer to hide behind its murky sheen. this debate isn't about using our committee's subpoena power. this is about fossil fuel and

nuclear fuel interests not wanting more americans using solar power. that's what it's all about. that's the bottom line in this debate. and you have to see this story in two parts. bp, oil, a crime, not a word. we don't want to meet these. here cooperation coming from the white house. they insist on issuing -- fossil fuel and nuclear industry trying to kill what is now the growing industry. 100,000 employees in the solar industry. 85,000 employees in the wind industry. 85,000 employees in the coal industry. that's what it's all about, bottom line. they're growing too fast. their share of electrical generation is growing too fast. we got to slow them down and put a cloud over their ability to raise funding in the private

capital markets. and we're going to do it at the expense of full safeguards being given to all of those who come before this congress. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i ask to strike the last. i've listened with interest to my friends on the democratic side. and they really are my friends. john dingell, mr. markey, ms. degette, mr. waxman. they are all people i have great respect for and great affection for and we know that on this committee where we debate the big issues, we're going to have spirited debate. and i must say that i'm reminded of the old popeye cartoon character, wimpy, kind of a roly-poly kind of guy.

he was always trying to mooch hamburgers off people. i will gladly pay you tuesday. ms. degette has offered a motion they're all for the investigation in two weeks. in two weeks. now, they don't want to support it today but they'll november is on november the 14th. mr. waxman is all for the investigation but it's premature to obtain documents from the white house. mr. waxman was chairman of the -- ranking member of the government reform committee offered all kinds of document requests to the bush white house energy task force, things of that sort. and mr. markey is upset because over in another committee that we don't -- in fact, i would say most of the members of this committee are not big fans of the other committee that he's the recommend on. their chairman tried to take

their jurisdiction that started this congress. i don't know how you can associate us with those guys. we're here today because half a billion dollars of taxpayer money is gone. and the company that took the loan had been rejected by the bush administration in january and then the obama administration comes in and approves it and expedites it and even thought about doubling down on it. although they didn't to their credit. and we've been trying to get some documents and we've got a lot of documents and the minority has pointed out the and the treasury department has provided documents on a voluntary basis. but the white house has not. and if you read the letters that mr. upton sent and the letters that the white house responded to him, the bottom line is that the white house says it's not necessary.

almost, i think, a verbatim quote. so we want to get the facts. and the only way to get the facts is to issue a subpoena. some have said that our subpoena request is too broad. well, i was oversight chairman when the republicans first came in to the majority back in 1995. and we took the language almost, if not exactly, verbatim from oversight requests that mr. dingell had been using when he was full committee and subcommittee chairman. i will at the appropriate time, my good friend knows. we may have update it back in those days email wasn't a big thing and blackberries didn't exist. but our basic subpoena request and document request is a standard format that democrats used and republicans have used on this committee literally for decades. and so with all due respect, i

understand my friends on the democratic side have to walk a fine line. they have to protect the president of their own party but they have to try to be objective and support an investigation. it's gratifying to know that they and the white house have agreed this is a legitimate investigation. we appreciate that. we knew that all along. but if you really want to get the facts and the white house doesn't want to comply, doesn't want to cooperate, they just want to sandbag and drag their feet and gladly comply next tuesday, then we have to issue this subpoena. it has to be broad. and then we have to insist that it be -- that it be complied with. so with all due respect, i would say that we vote on this and get the documents and dissect them, review them, analyze them and then we can have a debate about what the conclusions are and

with that i would yield to mr. dingell. >> well, i expressed my affection to the gentleman from texas but i want to observe several things. >> would the gentleman suspend -- you only have 6 seconds left. >> well, i ask unanimous consent that i have two additional minutes. >> you can recognize yourself for five minutes. >> he was saying he had affection for me. let him continue. [laughter] >> i recognize the chairman emeritus in the past for a full five minutes. >> i don't want to be recognized for a full five minutes but i want to be recognized for what the gentleman said. >> i would ask unanimous consent for one additional minute. >> so ordered. >> and i thank the gentleman. now, let me make one observation. one, i never served a subpoena on the white house. two, the subpoenas were always discussed with the minority. we had a policy that we would always discuss them before we issued them. i did that with the gentleman

from texas and i did it with every other ranking republican member when i was a chairman either of the subcommittee or the full committee. none of those things are being complied with here? this is a vast fishing expedition. we're asking for everything from the president's schedule to his travel plans to where he was going to meet on any matter related to this investigation. this is a fishing expedition and there's no way getting around that. >> the gentleman yield back the balance -- >> okay. anyone else seeks further discussion of this resolution? >> mr. chairman? >> yes, the gentleman from georgia. >> i move to strike. mr. chairman, quite honestly here what we're dealing with -- the subcommittee on oversight and investigation. we have a responsibility to the american people, to the

taxpayers. this loan program for renewable energy by the stimulus bill is $36 billion worth of taxpayer money. now, there's an article -- i believe it's in politico today talking about 100 criminal investigations that have already been initiated by the inspector general in the department of energy. now, i don't know about you folks, but to me that sounds like a heck of a lot of in a program, a bill that was just passed in february of 2009. and we already have 100 criminal investigations. now, you'd think back to the time when the community reinvestment act was passed back in the '70s and then, of course, in the '80s and you got

organizations like acorn pushing banks to get out these no dot, no money down loans, all kind of red flags were raised over a number of years and it was ignored until finally we got this country into one mel of a hess. and so for us to drag our feet on something like this and say that it's nothing but a fishing expedition and a witch hunt and it's all political -- and that's clearly not the case. my good friend from massachusetts talked about -- i think he put it, a murky sheen. well, look, we need to get a clear view of these related documents from the executive office of the white house. and what they're doing is putting up a murky sheen. let me just say in conclusion as i yield back. it's time for us to get out the

windex. >> will the gentleman yield to me for a question. >> yes. >> you said 100 criminal investigations by the ig's. i don't believe that's an accurate statement. ig may look at whether things were done properly or not the only investigation i know of the fbi of the solyndra matter so if you have further information on the criminal investigations, could you give it to us? >> i will be happy to give that to you. and i'll refer you to the article this morning in politico. and if there's any inaccuracies what i say, i certainly will be willing to retract these. these investigations are 100 investigations. they may not all have been criminal. i may be mistaken on that. but 100 investigations have been initiated by the inspector general of the department of energy over this loan program for renewable startups. and that's the facts that i've

read this morning in this article on politico and i'll refer you back to that. >> will the gentleman yield back the balance of his time? >> he does. >> does the gentleman seek recognition? [inaudible] >> the gentleman is ask -- >> i ask to strike the record of the words, and i have questions to direct to the chief counsel of the subcommittee. is he here, please? >> he's not in the room. >> well, i ask that the clock not begin to run on me until i got him here to ask questions. >> he's presently in the room now. >> if he'll come down to the witness table and if the chair will start the five minutes when he gets there, i'll be delighted -- >> well, your five minutes starts also. i don't think we can quibble on 15, 20 seconds. >> no, i'm quibbling over 42 seconds. these are yes or no questions. counsel, have you included the minority staff in any and all meetings with members of d.o.e.,

omb and white house, yes or no? >> i'm sorry, sir, can you repeat that again. i'm sorry, i couldn't hear it. >> have you included minority staff in any and all meetings with members of d.o.e., omb and the white house? yes or no. it doesn't require a lot of thought. yes or no. >> yes, sir. >> have you shared any and all details of your meetings with the minority? i think my previous ponce is they've been involved in all these meetings. just yes or no. >> yes. >> have you requested documents from solyndra? >> no, sir. >> have you requested documents from omb? >> yes, sir. >> have you received all the documents requested from omb? >> no, sir. >> you have not? >> no, sir. >> will you put in the record what those are, if you please.

have you requested documents from the white house? >> yes. >> have you received those documents? >> no. >> when would you submit for the record what were the dates on which the requests were made in each instance? >> sure. >> have all these documents been shared with the minority staff when they were received? >> yes. >> did you share with the minority staff all documents being requested and at the initial designation of the document request as set forth in the resolution and the subpoena? >> what's that? >> have you shared with the minority the list of documents which are being considered for receipt under the subpoena of the resolution that we have

before us? >> yes, we have a copy of the schedule. >> all right. have you received documents showing that the white house directed d.o.e. to approve the loan to solyndra? >> can you repeat that? >> have you received documents showing that the white house directed d.o.e. to approve the loan to solyndra? yes or no? >> we don't have all the documents and that's sort of a matter of interpretation. >> okay. all right. has the minority counsel seen the documents that you have requested from the white house that directed d.o.e. to approve the loan to solyndra? >> we don't have the full production, sir, but everything that we've gotten, we've directed and our instructions direct the target of our document requests send copies directly to the minority. my understanding is that they have received them at the same time that we have. every production.

>> now, my staff did not receive a copy of the subpoena until 10:00 pm last night. so i've just only read it recently. is there a clarification on the resolution where anywhere the majority justifies the need for the subpoena? and if so, where? >> i'm not sure what is there a clarification? we sent copies of the subpoena up until the time -- >> have you defined what the documents are that you are requesting or that they know what it is that you are requesting the subpoena and the resolution are literally without limit. what are the documents requested in the subpoena so we know what we're voting for. >> i disagree there's without limits. >> you may agree or disagree but the answer to the question is yes or no. >> then i would say the answer is no. i disagree with that.

>> now, in lieu of -- does the subpoena ask for specific documents that the majority knows the white house has not turned over? yes or no? >> and does not ask for particular -- >> that's precisely the note i make. the subpoena ask for damn near anything that they got down there. now in lieu of issuing a subpoena, have you held discussions with the white house to find out whether a compromise can be arranged with the white house either to turn over the documents or to allow the majority or minority staff to review the documents in the presence of white house counsel? yes or no? >> we have repeatedly requested to have discussions with the white house and open up a dialog with the white house. >> have they said yes to that or no. >> well, that didn't happen until yesterday after we -- we let them know last week -- >> so it happened -- >> would the gentleman yield,

and i would ask unanimous consent for the gentleman of michigan have an additional minute and i would ask if the gentleman would yield for a question from me or a statement from me? >> i'll yield for a question. >> i would just note that the resolution offered by mr. stearns authorizes the chairman, that would be me, in essence, to authorize -- be resolved the subcommittee and oversight upon adoption the chairman on the committee of energy and commerce may authorize or offer a subpoena. it doesn't request specifically what the request will be but as i said in my opening statement and i quote, we fully intend to take last night's proposal into consideration as we refine the scope of the subpoena and work with the white house on its documentation. >> that's mighty comforting but it's not enough.

i would say from my beloved friend here that we got the subpoena -- i got it last night. i don't know when the white house got it. >> it's only one sentence long. >> i don't know what it is you are asking in the subpoena. that's what i'm trying to figure out so that i know whether the minority has been included in this and whether the committee has an understanding on what is constituted in this splendid set of documents. you know, what i'm being told here -- >> if the gentleman will yield, as i said in my opening statement, we intend to take last night's small step of cooperation here into -- we intend -- if the vote -- >> i will -- i will support that, and i will support the gentleman in getting the books

and the papers and the records that he wants in a proper and traditional way. and for that reason, i move at this time the committee adjourn. >> the gentleman makes a motion that this committee adjourn, is that what i understand this gentleman's motion is. all those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all those oppose say no. it appears the committee is no and we'll move any further discussion on the resolution before the vote occurs. if not, all -- >> i would strike the last word. >> sure. >> i want to respond to what the chairman said, very briefly that he would use the discussions that happened last night as the parameters of the subpoena. yesterday in the meeting that we all had, i asked committee staff to give me the draft subpoena which is the subpoena that mr. le -- mr. dingell and i

received at 10:00 pm last night and i guess i would ask the chairman because your staff gave us this subpoena -- >> if the gentlelady would yield. >> it says all staff of the executive office of the president relating to the $535 million loan guarantee issued to solyndra, inc., by the department of energy including but not limited to notes, analyses, notes, reports, memoranda and all drafts of such documents. so this is the subpoena that the committee staff has advised us that it intends to serve upon the white house. and i would ask that that be included in the record. and i would just ask the chairman, is it not true that's the subpoena you intend to serve upon them? >> you are giving time -- >> yes, i'll yield to the chairman. >> i'm sorry. i didn't hear the very end of your statement. i said this resolution that

we're voting on today authorizes chairman of the energy and commerce, me, to issue a subpoena. that subpoena -- you've seen some draft language. it's not done yet. and that was done -- that draft language was written long before the statement last night. and it's not done. as i said in my opening statement, we're going to use what the white house presented to us to us last night. >> reclaiming my time. re claiming my time. actually, this subpoena was provided to us after the white house made its statement. >> will the gentlelady like to yield. i would like vote into the subpoena if it takes into consideration all the information we're being received. what we're being asked to do was to vote on a subpoena and now we're told we're authorizing you to make up a subpoena later.

come in and ask for a subpoena when you're ready to issue it. not ask us now to give you the power to issue subpoenas. that doesn't strike me -- that's putting the cart before the horse. i yield back. >> and i'd yield back to the chairman what he intends what he claims to do because it makes it more claiming what this resolution is actually asking for. >> if the gentlelady will yield, it authorizes the chairman of the energy of commerce to authorize the issuance of a subpoena. we've looked at a number of different things. you've seen a draft. a draft is a draft. it's not done till it's done. we are going to take as i said in my opening statement, last night's proposal into consideration. as we look at a final document. should this committee vote to authorize me to send a subpoena. that's something -- we're going to take discussion of what the white house provided last night and probably add a few things.

i'm not sure exactly what that will be yet. but we're also going to have a time frame, something that the white house did not offer last night as they began to come forward with some of the communications that they may provide this committee. >> so reclaiming my time -- >> i yield back. >> what the chairman is saying if we vote for this extremely open-ended resolution, then we're just giving carte blanche to the chairman to ask the white house for anything he wants to ask them for with any time frame he wants to without consulting with anybody. i think that that is even more cause for concern of this committee because this committee has a long-standing tradition of working together on documents that should be produced. i'll just say one last thing, i'm going to put this proposed subpoenas which were received from the majority late last night after the white house had

already made their offer and these subpoenas do not say draft but they simply reflect the broad language. >> are you asking unanimous consent to put -- >> yes, i am. >> at the same time, i would like mr. dingell to put these white house letters and myself and mr. upton the two letters -- >> i don't have any objection and i yield to mr. waxman. >> my understanding -- >> so ordered. >> it's always been the tradition of this committee to vote on specific language of a subpoena. that is the full force and effect of the subpoena. now we're not being asked to vote on the language of a subpoena but to authorize the chairman when he gets around to figuring out what he wants to ask for to go ahead and issue the subpoena. now, suppose the chairman acts very arbitrarily and says he wants the president's personal blackberry, well, we won't even have a chance to debate that in committee 'cause we've given him that power. this is an unprecedented power to the chairman of the committee

in this committee to give this kind of subpoena power that we're not voting for a subpoena. we're voting for an authorization for the chairman to issue it. >> i think there's no further discussion on the resolution. the vote occurs on the resolution. all those in favor should signify by say aye. those oppose no. the ayes -- >> i ask for a roll call vote. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call vote] [roll call vote]

[roll call vote] [roll call vote] >> dr. burgess? >> anyone else wish to vote who has not vote? >> mr. chairman, on that vote,

there were 14 ayes, nine nays. >> with that, the resolution is agreed to. the quorum being president. the business meeting of the subcommittee is hereby adjourned. [inaudible conversations] >> the u.s. senate gavels in about 20 minutes with three hours of general speeches before starting legislative work at

5:00. senators will work on a bill to repeal a 3% withholding tax from federal contractors with a procedural vote on the measure at 5:30. you can watch the senate live right here starting at 2:00 here on c-span2. before the senate gavels back in, a look at gop presidential primary race nationally and in the early primary states. we'll show you as much as this as we can before the senate returns. >> at the table is molly ball, national political reporter for the atlantic. thank you for joining us. >> guest: thanks for having me. >> host: i want to get to one of your recent pieces here in the atlantic. the headline religious rights still lacking a champion in the 2012 field. what's going on? >> guest: well, when you think about the evangelical community especially within the republican party, it's such a key part of that base, and you recall how important they were especially to the victories of george w. bush, this time around, there isn't a candidate they really

feel they can rally around. so in a lot of ways they're frustrated. they're dissatisfied. they don't like -- the tone of a lot of the discussion, especially around immigration. and so the leaders of the christian right are still not sure what they're going to do. >> host: what might they do in this year ahead? do folks stay home? do they go out. do they coalesce around somebody? what's happening on. >> guest: the leader richand lamb said they will come out because they want to badly beat president obama but that negative motivation is different than the positive motivation of having somebody that you actually want to vote for. and so i think the question is, will they come out or will they stay home? this is a group that before they really became politicized and activated in the '90s with the christian coalition and with bush's two elections, there was

a strong feeling that they maybe shouldn't be involved in politics. that maybe the religious sphere was not, you know, the worldly sphere, the sphere of government. and so i think we may see a retreat back into the private sphere and out of the public sphere for a lot of these voters. >> host: we'll put the phone numbers up at the bottom screen for molly ball the national political reporter for the atlantic. we'll be here for 20, 25 minutes to take your calls on politics. we'll hear from you in just a couple minutes. our guest is formally worked for politico and the los angeles review journal and there is this headline as well, molly ball, there's a new poll out it says that mitt romney is electable but -- and they have ellipsis here but many republicans are hesitant, more hesitancy in the party and they're saying -- he has significant advantage over the rivals except in that one area, electibility. what does that mean? >> guest: well, this is something i find really interesting when i i'm out on

the campaign trail and i speak to republican activists. electibility means something different to them than it does to a lot of the -- what we see in the polls and what the pundits like to say. there's a feeling, i think, that mitt romney is the most electable candidate by -- when you look at those polls and you see he matches up well against president obama but to republicans, they don't -- a lot of them don't feel that way. a lot of them feel like they want a strong conservative. they want a champion who is as angry as they are about the situation in america. and about president obama. and in someone like romney, they see someone who is too much like obama to get elected. so i think you have two different views of electibility depending on who you're talking to. >> host: on this new poll who has the best chance to beat obama. they have a chart, mitt romney 33%, herman cain, 21%. newt gingrich, 5%. noticing that rick perry is not even on there. >> guest: yeah. >> host: apparently. >> guest: he's really fallen off

the map in a lot of ways. >> host: you can read this more at the "washington post." a couple other stories. herman cain was all the rage in the news last week and continues to be heading into this week. the "new york daily news" says his slip shows that's the way they put it. in the weekend poll. they said this sex harassment scandal has started to cut in his popularity he dropped 9 points among republicans. now that's one version of the herman cain story. another one says in "usa today" that he's raised $2 million amid this uproar. a little bit of not so good and a little bit of good if you believe the numbers here. >> guest: yeah, and i think -- i'm not sure if that particular poll is reliable. i believe it's an online poll. but i think we'll see need some more polling before we can discern in herman cain's support. but fundraising certainly demonstrates there was a knee-jerk reaction at least among his supporters to rally around him and to take his side against what they saw as a hit

on him by the liberal media. and i think also it's important to add that we don't know if that fundraising is real. this is a claim from his campaign that we have no way of checking because the disclosure is such that we won't find out until after the primaries really how much money these candidates are actually raising. >> host: before we get to calls i wanted to get your take and apply it to the gop poll. in obama an insurgentant wall street as the financial industry i-35 under the president the rift between them grows so they're talking about that part of it. but what might that kind of headline mean to the gop field in the broader race in 2012? >> guest: well, on the one hand the financial industry as that story points out doesn't seem particularly grateful for what's happened to them under obama's administration. they may be doing very well but they've certainly turned against him in terms of the general sentiment and a lot of the donations and that kind of

thing. but i think we're going to see wall street be the big villain in this coming election. we're going to see democrats working to associate whoever the republican nominee is with wall street, whether that's romney with his past in the financial industry or really any other republican candidate. that's going to be the line of attack. and so the extent to which obama distances himself from wall street -- while it hurts him in some ways in terms of his own fundraising and his friendliness with the sort of establishment, it may be a good thing for him in an election. >> host: first call for our guest, richmond, virginia, roy, a republican. thank you for waiting. good morning. >> caller: good morning. if anything barack obama has distanced himself from reality and if you think christians aren't going to show up to vote him out of office, then you're in for another rude awakening. we will show up -- you couldn't keep us away from the polls because this president has

stolen our god-given freedom, our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as america should be, not as progressives want it to be. progressives are worse than liberals because they not only want to tax and spend you. they want to tax and spend you into oblivion. thank you and god bless america. >> host: strong voice there. >> guest: well, thank you for calling. i think that is certainly one view we have heard of. and there is a very strong anger in a lot of orders of the right and there are a lot of people who will show up just to vote against obama. >> host: interesting piece on all of this, christian politics create unholy alliances. it's in the "usa today." from a distinguished professor of christian ethics at mercy university in georgia. what needs to happen. precisely as a christian i call for my fellow christians to try an experiment. the lack of a better term. let's normalize even secularize

the next election. ask all candidates to drop the god talk and reject all forms of religious pandering. publish candidates who make religious tribe uism >> guest: well, i guess i'd say that the writer good luck with that. politicians talk about these things because it works. you can decry it as a way to manipulate people or as he says, a play on tribalism. but politicians are going to seek advantage wherever they can find it and this is one of the ways. >> host: let's go to vanessa, pompano beach, florida. good morning. >> caller: yes, good morning. i don't understand when she say christians. you know, the christians 'cause

really the only presidential candidate i see as far as religion is -- i mean, say is serving the people is what we all want not just christians we all want that is obama. i haven't seen obama do anything wrong. the united states already messed up when he got in there. and i think we are a little bit better than when we was in. and why not keep the man who is doing a good job in there which is obama. thank you. >> host: let's hear from our guest. >> guest: i think it's a good point and it's important to remember the religious right which consists mostly of evangelical christians, particularly, older evangelical christians, is a distinct part of what we call the overall christian vote. people who identify themselves as born again christians, not just all types of christians, although a lot of catholics are in that very conservative block of the christian right. but there is a younger generation of evangelicals who vote based on different issues and many of them are more

liberal than that older cohort. caring more about environmental issues, caring more about helping the poor. and one of the things that obama did pretty successfully in 2008 was mobilize a lot of those voters and appeal to them rather than what was a lot of democrats did which was to be aggressively secular and keep faith out of the conversation. so he did have some success with those voters and i think we will see the christian vote especially the evangelical christian vote less monolithic as time wears on. >> host: let me add abortion to all of this, molly ball, abortion are pushing one of the

>> host: there's a new dnc ad on mitt romney on abortion and here's a look. ♪ >> voters from across the magnolia state will not only vote for candidates in key positions but also on specific issues. one issue that has become very controversial is that person hood amendment. >> i'm literally voting for my life because i had an eck topic pregnancy, i could have died and with a amendment had been in place women will suffer and women will die. >> absolutely. >> host: the gop on abortion? >> guest: well, this is referring to something that's

actually going to the polls tomorrow in mississippi this amendment that would declared a fetterized egg that is a person with all the rights that a person has. this is something that's probably going to pass and it has a lot of consequences that we don't understand. even within the antiabortion activist community there's some divisions of this particular approach to try to outlaw abortion with some groups thinking that it may actually backfire. it's almost definitely going to be litigated and when it goes to the supreme court, there's a fear that it will -- it will lose and that will set back the cause of trying to outlaw abortion in this country. >> host: newark, delaware, may, on the line for democrats. good morning, may. hello, you're on the air. >> caller: good morning. >> host: morning. >> caller: i would like to ask your guest there, why does she think that the christians so badly want to beat the president. and as much as he does done more for the country than any other

president. i don't understand that too well. i can dispute it. i know what it is. but i just want to see what her answer is and i thank you so very much. have a great day. >> host: all right, something you want to tackle there, molly ball. >> guest: well, it is an interesting question. i think there's been a long history of very religious people and particularly very religious evangelicals being associated with the republican party and with the right. not only on issues like those very divisive social issues, abortion and gay marriage. but also on economic issues. and i think you'd have to do some real parsing of the historical threads to sort all that out. but in particular, on the social issues, that's something whereas you mentioned, paul, there's -- even in an election that's supposed to be focused almost entirely on the economy, these things always come up. and the candidates are always called to account on where they stand on these issues and particularly when they go to iowa, there's a very strong

contingent of activists in iowa who demand to know where the candidates stand and want them to be pure on these decisive social issues. and so even in an election that's supposed to be about other things, we find this is what we end up talking about over and over again. and there's such emotional issues for people that they always, you know, are a hot button. >> host: let's hear from houston, texas, troy, a republican, good morning. >> caller: hey, thank you for taking my call. >> host: sure. >> caller: i appreciate ms. ball's time. i'm glad she brought up the young christian vote. without exception, young christians are going to go for ron paul in this election and she's right about different issues being important to us. like the environment. i mean, we're concerned about trails being dropped over in american city and we're concerned about the tsa growing in pushing a police state in our country. we're more worried about freedom and the future of this great republic. and i think that's why ron paul is our candidate. >> host: ron paul, prospects,

what do you think? >> guest: well, ron paul has been aggressively trying to court the christian vote in this election in a way that he didn't do four years ago. his campaign has run ads especially in iowa talking about him being pro-life and he's talked about that, for example, at the ames straw poll this year seeking to position himself more in being in tune with these social issues rather than emphasizing the sort of familiar hobby horses that we hear from ron paul, things like hard money and the fed. i think, though, we're still seeing despite all the money that ron paul has in his campaign and despite the more professional operation he's running, he still has a pretty hard ceiling where he polls better than a lot of other candidates but isn't able to break into that top tier where he's actually giving romney a run for his money. instead, we see someone rise like herman cain who has a resolve more conventional set of issues. >> host: mitt romney versus rick

perry here's an ad about the former massachusetts governor. ♪ >> ♪ >> there's that immigration issue coming up again. >> guest: there's the immigration issue and this is what we've seen about romney and perry becoming the point of contention. i think there's a couple of interesting things. first of all, perry, despite the way he's fallen off the map polling ways is still the one that romney is attacking, not herman cain who's actually competing with him numbers wise. and that's because perry seems to have the money and the

professional operation to actually have some staying power if he can come back with voters. and also because perry's only hope is to be the conservative alternative to mitt romney. and immigration is the one issue where romney is to the right of perry. and so he's seeking to paint perry as too liberal. >> host: harrisburg, pennsylvania, john is on the line for molly ball. john is an independent. >> caller: hi. yeah, the country keeps talking about jobs and jobs and jobs. and jobs are not coming back to this country. and you and i both know that. unless people in this country start working for 4, 5, $6 an hour there's no reason for big corporations to bring back to this country when they can go to bolivia, they can go to china, indonesia, mexico and pay labor whatever it is, a dollar a day, 50 cents an hour. so there are no jobs coming back to this country.

>> host: john, apply this to the presidential race if you can, the topic at hand? >> caller: well, obama is correct in that this is a class warfare. and people are saying that he's wrong. it's a class warfare because everything is slanted toward the rich and the big corporations. what people have forgotten, eight years under the bush administration they collapsed the economy. this guy, obama, took over with a collapsed economy under unprecedented conditions. and eight years under the bush administration, he gave big corporations and affluent people their own way and the resulting factor is a collapsed economy. >> host: molly ball, the class warfare argument came most recently from the speaker yesterday on one of the sunday's shows and the president citing class warfare, that idea, class warfare, if you want to put it that way, plug it in to the race at this point.

>> guest: well, if you recall when the president presented his jobs bill, he said this is not class warfare. so it's clear that the democrats are accustomed to this attack on them and are trying to turn it around, but that is a familiar refrain every time something is introduced, particularly, that taxes the rich. and we see in polls that there is generally overwhelming support for requiring the rich to pay more taxes, but the republicans have had a lot of success in turning that around based on ideas like this one of class warfare. it sort of hits on this essentially american feeling that we're not the kind of society where these classes against each other and we're not europe so we'll see. i think that the caller hit on the key issue for the president which is, can he convince people that he's going to in the right direction with the economy and that it's not his fault? >> you can watch the rest of

this conversation online at c-span.org at the video library. as we go live to the floor of the u.s. senate. starting the day with three hours of general speeches. legislative work scheduled to begin at 5:00 with work on a bill to repeal a 3% withholding tax from federal contracts. and a procedural vote on that measure at 5:30. live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty and everlasting god,

who governs all things in heaven and earth, mercifully hear our supplications and give us your peace. lord, give our lawmakers this day the grace and wisdom to measure personal convictions in the light of truth and courage. empower them to act consistent with enlightened conscience, however costly to personal ambition. give them such a sense of duty that they may leave nothing they ought to do undone. infuse them with a sense of gratitude

that they may offer thanks to you by trying to do your will. we pray in your holy name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., november 7, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate,

i hereby appoint the honorable richard blumenthal, a senator from the state of connecticut, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: the majority leader. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. reid: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be terminate evidence. following the morning business the senate will be in morning business until 5:00 p.m., senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes each. then resume consideration of h.r. 674 at approximately 5:30 the senate will vote on a motion to cloture to proceed to that matter. mr. president, every man or woman who puts on the uniform of the united states armed forces takes a solemn oath to defend it against all enemies. with that comes an obligation,

upon which it was founded without regard to personal price. and for this service united states makes a promise to our soldiers, mail lowers, marines, and airmen in return. that promise isn't about flag waving or yellow ribbons. it lasts long after the parades and holidays are over through every day of every year of their lives. it's a guarantee that the american dream for which every service mib fights -- member fights for which many of their comrades have died will be waiting for them when they return. bisince september 11 -- but since september 11, 2001 this country has allowed that promise to lapse. today there are 240,000 unemployed veterans. these veterans the fight against global terrorism. among veterans who have served since september 11, unemployment is more than 12%. more than 3 percentage points higher than among the general population. among the youngest veterans,

under age 25, the unemployment rate is 22%. these young men and women volunteered to vite terrorism abroad but their struggles didn't end when they came home. despite their service and experience, a quarter of a million post-9/11 veterans can't find employment in today's rapidly changing work force. it's time for this country to make good on its promise. as we pay tribute this week to the millions of american veterans who faithfully have served our flag, democrats will introduce legislation to put those men and women back to work. vow to fight heroes is the name of legislation. vow to -- vow to hire heroes is the name of the legislation, i misspoke, mr. president. this will offer tax credits to companies who hire unemployed veterans or veterans who are discharged in the last five years. the legislation will give an additional tax credit to firms that hire unemployed veterans with service-related

disabilities. disabled veterans will also be eligible for an additional year of employee rehab and employment benefits under this legislation. it makes transition assistance including resume writing workshops, career counseling mandatory for all service members being discharged. although veterans are coming home with greater skills than ever before those skills don't always translate to a civilian resume. this program will help bridge that gap. many federal agencies such as the v.a. and homeland security badly need employees with unique skill veterans possess. this legislation will make it possible for service members to apply for those jobs before they leave the military. this will allow soldiers to transition from serving in uniform to serving the civilian world without a gap in their employment. to keep our promise to older veterans the legislation will expand creation and training opportunities at community

colleges and technical schools for 100,000 unemployed veterans who served before september 11. democrats believe we owe it to the men and women who have fought for us to fight for them here at home. vow to hire heroes is our fourth attempt to pass commonsense legislation that puts americans back to work and helps jump-start our economy. senate republicans unanimously opposed our last three jobs bills although those bills had support of the vast majority of americans, republicans, democrats, and independents alike. meanwhile republicans have yet to propose a single idea of their own to create a job. their obstruction has cost hundreds of thousands of teacher and first responder jobs, hundreds of thousands of construction jocks and put reconstruction of our nation's crumbling roads, bridges and run waips on hold. now we'll see whether the senate republicans are willing to put jobs for veterans at risk as well. i certainly hope they're not. i hope they'll join us in supporting the legislation that

uses ideas originally proposed by republicans and democrats to put this nation's veterans back to work without adding a penny 0 the deficit. i believe every man and woman serving in the senate today is a patriot. i know every won, each and every one of us supports the members of the united states armed services and is grateful to every veteran who has served. this week we have the opportunity to express our gratitude and our patriotism with action. so far, republicans have stood firm against even the most reasonable plan to create millions of jobs for the sake of politics but it's only a matter of time before they break and join democrats in our effort to create jobs and get the economy back on track. as veterans day fast approaches i urge my republican colleagues to abandon partisanship and honor a commitment to this country's heroes. the presiding officer: the republican leader.

mr. mcconnell: the past three years president obama and democratic leaders in congress have spent most of their time pushing policies that actually undermine the private sector. they may have the best of intentions but the fact is, they made a bad economy worse. unemployment has now stood at 9% for more than -- more consecutive months than any other period since world war ii. and there are now more than a million fewer jobs in this country than when the president's first stimulus bill was signed into law. so the american people gave the president a chance to do something about jobs and the economy, and he failed. that's why last year the american people put republicans in charge of the house of representatives so they could try a different approach. and that's just what they've done. for nearly a year now house republicans have been following through on their pledge to put americans back to work by passing bill after bill aimed at

helping businesses crete jobs. -- create jobs. the problem is, every time republicans pass one of these bills over in the house, democrats here in the senate refuse to take it up. the democrats who run the senate are just letting all of these bills die. some people want to know why this is happening. they want to know why the senate won't take these bills up. well, the answeractually pretty simple. president obama and his political advisors have put out the word they don't want congress to get anything done around here until after next year's election. so the president can go around on a bus and blame congress for the country's problems. and democrats in the senate are lining right up behind him. they're doing the president's bidding. but that's not stopping republicans in the house from doing the work they were elected to do. and it's not going to keep the

republican minority here in the senate from calling on democrats to act. to date, house republicans have passed more than 20 pieces of legislation designed to do two things: make it easier for small businesses to create jobs, and bills that would pass on a broad bipartisan basis. last week i highlighted 15 such bills the house already passed and that senate democrats should take up. this week senate republicans will highlight several additional such bills the house passed just last week. we're going to keep on talking about these bills until senate democrats realize there's no reason we shouldn't take them up. pass them on a bipartisan basis, and actually do something on jobs around here. for nearly three years president obama has demanded that we pass massive legislation he knows republicans have problems with. what they're saying saig is let's start with -- what we're saying is let's start with things that a have bipartisan

support that we know can pass instead of that other approach. since republicans control the house and democrats control the senate, we're not likely to agree on big partisan stuff. but there are a lot of other job creating measures that we actually could agree on. why don't we focus on them? let's work together on the things we can all agree on just like we did last month on the trade agreements. here's just one example out of many. last week the house passed a bill called the small company capital formation act, h.r. 1070. it got 421 votes including 183 democrats. only one person in the house voted against the bill. here's a jobs bill that's about as pore rather as mother -- popular as mother's day. no reason not to pass it in the senate right now. night rite now promising businesses aren't going public because they can't afford the high cost of managing the mountain of government paperwork

they're required to under current law. so instead of going out and raising money to grow and hire, they're holding back. they're not expanding and they're not hiring. we recently heard from a c.e.o. of a pharmaceutical company in fort washington, pennsylvania who said private companies like his are at a major disadvantage. if they come up at a major disadvantage if they come up promising new drugs. he's got at least one such promising new drug in the pipeline for chronic kidney disease, but can't take it to the next level. if firms like this want toaks panned and hire they need to be able to raise capital from have investors so he they don't go into debt. but current law keeps them from doing so because of the regulatory burdens that come along with it. i think we should be removing these barriers to growth for companies like this one, and 183 democrats in the house actually agreed with me.

president obama actually supports the idea, too. he said so in his speech to giant session of congress back in september. so this bill is as bipartisan as it gets. you won't find a bill any more bipartisan than this. passed overwhelmingly in the house, supported by the president of the united states. the only thing standing in the way right now is senate democrats. they just won't take yes for an answer. but it's only a matter of time before the american people catch on to the democrats' refusal to act and once they do, republicans will be ready with a long and growing list of bipartisan bills that have already passed the house and that we believe the president of the united states would sign. so let's not delay any longer. let's stop the games, let's do the work we were sent here to do. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: of morning

business until 5:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein up to ten minutes each. mr. reid: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: rom oregon.

mr. wyden: i ask unanimous consent to vacate the quorum call and speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president, i come to the floor today to talk about creating more good-paying jobs in america and how tax reform can play a key role in job creation if it's done right. mr. president, as we all know, no member of congress has a piece of machinery on their desk that's just a job-creation

device. you can't just start something like this up, press a button, and then after it whirs around a bunch of time, create a lot of new jobs. nobody has a contraption like that here in the senate, and the reality is the president doesn't have one, nor does anybody else in america. but there are policies that are relevant to how you create more good-paying jobs, and those involve, first, looking at what's worked in the past. and, second, what hard objective data is relevant to the future. now, nobody can know the ideal, sure-fire way to create jobs, but we can document what has worked in the past. in the case of comprehensive tax reform, what we know is that

after the 1986 tax foreman act, where -- 1986 tax reform act where democrats and republicans went in and cleaned out scores of tax preferences to hold down marginal rates and keep progressivity, our country created 6.3 million new jobs in those two years after tax reform was enacted. now, i'm not going to say on the floor of the senate, mr. president, that each and every one of those jobs was the result of tax reform. but certainly independent authorities point to that tax reform effort as a key factor in creating those jobs. and with at least 14 million americans out of work in our country right now, it would be legislative malpractice for congress to ignore the facts

that document the results of the last tax reform effort in job creation. shouldn't when we look at the possibilities, pay special attention to who has worked in the past? the reality is, as the president of the senate knows, our country's tried just about every other tool in the economic toolbox. we've seen the recovery act. we've seen the fed. the fed is essentially all in with its program of quantative easing. we've had a whole host of other initiatives in the housing area, the automobile area, and a whole host of other areas. so the fact is the one tool in the economic tool shed that nobody has picked up is fundamental tax reform. and it's my view that it's time for the congress, working with

the president, to pick up on a proven model that a host of progressive democrats and conservative republicans, led by a conservative republican president deployed 25 years ago to spur economic growth and create millions of new jobs, which i think we all understand people and our economy need desperately. given that success, it's no wonder that democrats and republicans as well as kweufts and think -- economists and think tanks and bipartisan commissions are again calling on congress to take up the cause of tax reform. and we're very hopeful that the bipartisan joint committee on deficit reduction can also bring together democrats and republicans as part of their work to lay out the strategy for moving ahead on tax reform. now there is no shortage of good reasons for congress to look at

this particular approach to job creation. it's bipartisan. it's been proven before. and certainly the basic principles, simplifying the tax code, cleaning out the clutter, and holding down rates across the board make just as much sense today as they did a quarter century ago. it's been argued, mr. president, that since the last change in our tax law there have been close to 15,000 tax changes, one for almost working day year in and year out. and so what we have on our hands now is a dysfunctional antitkproegt mess. -- antigrowth mess. and that's why i think it is particularly important that we look at moving now rather than waiting until another election or taking a detour to reform

only the corporate tax code while, for example, leaving small businesses and working families stuck with the same tax code they have today. let me point out, mr. president, that to those who say that you can't do tax reform in a divisive climate, divided congress and white house, as you move into an election. the fact of the matter is that fundamental tax reform was passed on the eve of an election a quarter century ago. passed on the eve of an election because i know that one of the fundamental architects of that tax reform, senator packwood, whose seat i now hold in the senate wasn't available for the bill signing because he had a community event that he had to get to back home. so the fact is there is an opportunity now to move ahead with comprehensive tax reform.

we've got very good people who have expertise in tax law on the super committee. chairman baucus, senator kerry, congressman camp, senator portman, democrats and republicans who have been involved in budget and tax issues for years and years, with great expertise on these issues. i wanted to take just a minute this afternoon to discuss some eye opening new information on an issue that i know is being debated in the congress. and my sense is the super committee is looking at it as well, and that is the question of splitting up tax reform into separate corporate and individual pieces. last week the joint committee on taxation issued an important report that all members ought to pay close attention to as

congress looks at tax reform as part of a potential debt deal or other legislation. the reason i wanted to discuss it this afternoon, mr. president, is we all understand it's part of the legislative process. just about everything is negotiable. but there is one thing that isn't negotiable, and that is the accuracy of the numbers. whept official numbers -- when the official numbers cruncher for taxes says you can't make the numbers add up, members of the senate and congress have got to pay some attention. what the new report by the joint committee on taxation says -- they are the official scorekeeper for tax policy -- is that the congress essentially has a choice to make. we can either provide all american companies significantly lower tax rates or we can allow multinational companies to continue to avoid paying taxes

on their overseas income. but what the joint committee on taxation says is that it's really not possible to do both. there is not enough money in the corporate tax code to do both without further increasing the budget deficit. the joint committee was asked to provide its estimate of the lowest corporate rate that could be achieved by eliminating corporate tax expenditures. the various credits, deductions and exemptions that lower the actual amount of taxes are business pay. in response to the joint committee the 28% is the lowest possible corporate rate that could be achieved from eliminating corporate tax rates and still not increase the deficit. in effect be revenue-neutral. 28% is certainly lower than the current top rate, but it's higher than certainly many in the business community and the congress have argued is needed

for u.s. companies to be competitive in the global economy. most in the business community want to lower the top rate to 25% or even lower. the joint committee has determined that 28% is the lowest the corporate rate can be reduced to without adding to the deficit. now this report by the joint committee on taxation ought to be a real wakeup call here in washington, d.c. for example, many companies not only argue that congress can get the corporate rate down to 25% or even lower, but also want to keep many of the tax breaks they now get under the current tax code. the joint committee's report makes clear that cannot be done without increasing the federal deficit. and even the joint committee's 28% rate estimate was filled with sort of caveats, little

kind of, look out, there may be more to the story, kind of warnings about the difficulty limiting tax breaks available to all businesses so they can no longer be claimed by corporations. if tax breaks are eliminated for corporations but not for other businesses -- remember, most businesses, as we know, are sole proprietors or limited partnerships and l.l.c.'s and the like, corporations may end up converting their businesses into other types of tax structures. if that happens, the savings from eliminating corporate tax rates would be less so so that the corporate rate could end up even higher than 28%. that's just one example of how it is very hard to repeal tax breaks just for corporations and not for other businesses. now, in making their estimate, the joint committee looked at

repealing literally scores of corporate tax breaks, everything from research to specific breaks for energy and housing and transportation and education and training and others. but there is one important tax break that was not considered as part of the joint committee's analysis and that is the ability of u.s. multinationals to avoid paying taxes on their overseas income as long as they keep that money overseas. this is the tax break that is known as deferral. significantly, the joint committee has done a separate analysis in the amount of revenue that could be generated by repealing deferral. if you repealed deferral and imposed related limits on foreign credits to prevent gaming, you take that step and the total comes to an eye popping $568 billion over five

years. that estimate, mr. president, comes from an estimate that the joint committee has done for a bipartisan group of us that have been working on this issue for the last five years. i initially started working on this with our former colleague from new hampshire, senator gregg. most recently with senator coats and senator begich. but four of us have worked very closely on this over the last, you know, few years. and if you make the change that we've made in deferral and related foreign credits that you ought to change to prevent a gaming, it is possible, mr. president, to slash the rate for all businesses, all our businesses so that you can get down to 24%, particularly for the corporate rate, have

additional relief for small businesses. mr. president, we've got some ideas for how you could drive the rate lower than 24. now, i would think that would be a real shot in the arm to businesses in oregon, across the country, and it sure would do something about creating red, white and blue jobs so that we'd have more jobs here in the united states so we could put our people back to work in the manufacturing sector and the other parts of our economy that are so important. so that's really the choice, mr. president. according to the joint committee's estimate -- and these are the official score keepers for taxes -- there are two alternative ways to lower corporate, you know, tax rates. one keeps deferral, this break for doing business overseas, and then the lowest rate, according to the joint committee on taxation, would be 28%.

the other takes away the tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas, eliminates deferral and dramatically drives the rate for our businesses down to 24%. and as i've indicated, our bipartisan coalition has some ideas for getting it even lower. so it's important to point out that the lower 24% rate would apply to every u.s. company -- every u.s. company, whether it has overseas operations or not. u.s. manufacturers and retailers and other domestic businesses all would benefit from this kind of approach. with lower tax rates, all u.s. businesses would have more money to invest in new equipment and hiring workers here in our county, in connecticut, in oregon, in all of our states. by contrast, while all businesses would get some help from a 28% rate, the biggest winners are those with significant operations overseas,

thousands and thousands of miles from our shores. by continuing deferral, those businesses that operate overseas, those companies pay a zero rate on their overseas income. with that rate differential, there would still be a strong incentive for some of those very large businesses to target their investments to lower tax overseas operations at the expense of investment and job creation here at home. mr. president, it should be obvious that the last thing the congress ought to be doing in this current economic climate is to take actions that will hurt job creation. with so many people out of work, we obviously need to focus on steps to create jobs, not reward those that, in effect, ship the jobs overseas, ship the investments overseas, the investments and the jobs that we need so much here at home. we can do more for all u.s.

businesses, workers and their family through comprehensive tax reform than just by going forward with corporate only reform. in fact, it's possible to do more for businesses, get a lower rate. mr. president, i want to emphasize, a lower rate for all our businesses in america, significantly lower so they'll be more competitive in tough global markets. i'm not saying that tax policy is the only consideration in terms of creating jobs. i chair the trade subcommittee of the senate finance committee and i've long taken as my major objective to do more to grow things here in america, to make things here in america, to add value to them here and to ship them somewhere. so there are a whole host of trade and regulatory policies that factor into this.

but certainly we ought to agree that at a time when comprehensive tax reform is the one tool in the economic tool shed that hasn't been used and there's a chance to take away tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas so we can get more tax relief for americans here at home, we ought to be picking up on that opportunity. so i hope all colleagues who are going to be part of this tax reform debate over the next few weeks -- and i think it's inevitable because more and more debate is focused on tax reform, whether it ought to be corporate only, how you would go about pursuing it in a bipartisan wa way -- i hope those colleagues will take a look at the new report done by the joint committee on taxation. what they have made clear is that there isn't enough money in the corporate tax code to get

the lower rate companies want as long as some of these multinationals can continue to keep the money overseas and avoid paying u.s. taxes. mr. president, having worked on this issue with colleagues on both sides of the aisle for about the last five years and watching as the economic debate goes forward with our people hung tbri for new jobs -- people hungry for new jobs, i hope ceegcolleagues will see one, tht there is a real lesson to be learned from what was done in 1986, where progressive democrats and conservative republicans came together, came together on the eve of an election, by the way, the 1986 election. i think it's also fair to say, mr. president, that after tax reform, both sides did pretty well. both sides did pretty well in the congress and in terms of

controlling the white house. so the fact is, this is a chance to take a big step to help our people who are hurting now, 14 million out of work, and i hope colleagues will look at that new report prepared by the joint committee on taxation and look at the history of how in the two years a quarter century ago when we came together, democrats and republicans, and passed fundamental tax reform based on the same kinds of principles that senator gregg and senator coats and senator begich and i have worked on for the last five years, cleaning out special interest breaks, special interest preferences, cleaning out scores of them, using that money to hold down marginal rates, and keeping progressivity. so we have the sense of fairness. everybody wins, mr. president. many of our colleagues on our side of the aisle, mr. preside mr. president, feel passionately about economic fairness. i certainly do.

i know the president of the senate does as well. many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have focused on economic opportunity. with fundamental tax reform, we can have both and we can do it in a bipartisan way. and it means picking up on the one tool in the economic tool shed that hasn't been used. i'll be back on the floor of this senate, mr. president, to talk about this again. it's one of the reasons why i wanted so to serve on the senate finance committee, to tackle these fundamental issues of taxes and health care. we've had a very constructive set of hearings on tax reform chaired by chairman baucus and ranking minority member, senator hatch. and i'm just very hopeful that at a time when our people are so hungry for new jobs, good jobs, high-paying jobs, that we will pick up on this opportunity to bring democrats and republicans together, together, as we were

on this issue a quarter century ago, and enact fundamental tax reform. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor and i also note, mr. president, the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. shelby: is there a quorum call going on? the presiding officer: there is. mr. shelby: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. shelby: this weekend in tuscaloosa, alabama, there was a importanting event. i think most of the people in the nation watched it between the number-one ranked football team in the nation, l. u.s., lass state university, and the

university of alabama. senator sessions and i were there. we had a bet that senator sessions and senator vitter initiated and senator landrieu and i concurred with on the outcome of the game, all in fun but, you know, we all like to win. this was a tremendous football game. no touchdowns, either side, five field goals, overtime. louisiana state, l. u.s. won. i congratulate my two senators here today. it was hard fought, two great football teams, and today if people probably see me on the floor a number of times, i've never worn the purple tie but i have one on today because i lost the bet. we lost the game. i won't wear it every day, but out of respect to my colleagues from louisiana, congratulations, senator vitter, congratulations to the

people of louisiana and to the football team and the coaching staff in baton rouge. mr. vitter: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i thank my colleague, i'm a law graduate at the university of alabama. it was a fabulous spectacle this weekend. 103,000 in that fabulous new stadium that's been expanded and the colors and the band and the noise. i don't believe -- truly i doubt any of us will live to see a game in which is any louder than that game was. and it was just a spectacular event, and an unusual special thing that happens in the southeastern conference and so we are -- believe in being winners, in alabama played

every single play and so did l.s.u. with every single play committed to winning the football game. at the end of it after all had been said and done it was 6-6. the two best teams in the nation i think clearly proved they're the two best teams in the nation. but we had to have an overtime, and so to my colleague, senators landrieu and vitter, congratulations, i'm proud to -- not really proud but i'm honored and willing to wear the tie of the team that beat the university of alabama. and we look forward to also celebrating with you that fabulous game and to having some fresh alabama gulf coast louisiana seafood and let the whole world know that our gulf coast seafood industry is back strong, better than ever. so congratulations. mr. vitter: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: i want thank our

alabama colleagues. they're very, very gracious and great sports in terms of this past week and this bet. i'm honored to be with them as they wear l.s.u. colors for one day. maybe they can keep the ties for january, maybe after the bcs game they'll wear it for an s.e.c. victory, knock on wood and we very much looking forward to their delivering as senator sessions said, great, delicious, fresh and perfectly safe gulf seafood that all of us are going to enjoy. i thank them for being such great sports. and i congratulate their team for being a super team. that was a heck of a game. it was everything, it was cracked up to be, people said to be a defensive struggle yet nobody imagined there wouldn't even be a touch into, 9-6 in overtime and congratulate the alabama team who played their hearts out and who really is a great, great alabama team. and of course i also want to

pause and congratulate everybody in l.s.u. community and the l.s.u. team. that was a hard-fought struggle, a hard-fought win, and a lot of folks came together and made extraordinary plays. of course it ended withdrew ellamond's field goal in overtime but eric reid this terrific interceptions and even the punter, brad wing, played a pivotal role in terms of his 73-yard punt that really won the field position battle. so there are a lot of heroes and a lot of players on the l.s.u. side in that game and i congratulate the entire l.s.u. community and with the rest of the state of louisiana we look forward, knock on wood, to several more victories leading up to hopefully a bcs game in new orleans and the louisiana superdome. so of course we look forward to that. thank you, mr. president, and at this point i turn to my

colleague from louisiana, senator landrieu. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: i want to begin my thanking my colleagues from alabama for being such great sports. i never thought they would actually wear purple and gold on the floor but i'm proud of them for living up to their end of the bet and for showing up appropriately dressed this morning. and i want to thank my colleague, senator vitter, for initiating this terrific bet. i'm looking forward to some great gulf coast alabama seafood. as senator louisiana said, and senator sessions alluded to, the seafood is not only plentiful, abundant, affordable, it's also very safe and we are proud to represent the gulf coast and proud, mr. president, of these two extraordinary universities. as a graduate of l.s.u. i'm particularly proud, but our universities, both the university of alabama and the university of louisiana at

l.s.u., l.s.u., just tremendous universities that have extraordinary reach across all disciplines and their football teams showed that great spirit on the field. i want to just remind my colleagues that if l.s.u. is victorious this weekend against western kentucky, the tigers will advance to 10-0. this is the first time since their national championship in 1958. so you know how excited our whole state is. i also want to say the great news from this weekend, mr. president, is whatever was -- recession there was in alabama, i think it's over with, because of the stimulus brought to their state by our crazy l.s.u. fans that started to arrive on wednesday, i understand, and no one can tailgate like we can tailgate, mr. president. so i think if they check their economic indicators this monday morning they will be all straight up from the good money and good fun that was had in alabama. but seriously just in

conclusion, les miles and our team are just unbelievable, and our l.s.u. team is just terrific. but both teams played their hearts out. and i really want to congratulate the men on the field that night. it was an exciting game to watch, and according to the polls, let's see, the ratings, the l.s.u.-alabama game through the second highest rating of any cbs regular season football college broadcast since the network began its tracking. i thank my col -- soarings again, i thank thany colleagues for being good sports. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: rtunately some membs

objected to a small portion of that bill, the offset that shouldn't be a concern this time. the bill we are voting on shortly passed the house with 405 votes. mr. president, when's the last time you heard that? so the bill we're going to do today has a new offset endorsed by the president so i say let's get it done. if we pass it, every company that does business with the government can go back to thinking about hiring new workers rather than worrying about losing 3% of the value of

their contracts right up front, right in the beginning. if we pass it state and local governments won't be saddled with costly, unfunded -- another costly unfunded mandate. so it's something as i said before is a no-brain ared. if we pass it we will repeal the tax that costs the government billions more to implement than it actually raises in revenue. so let's pass this bill and let's end this stealth tax that is extremely expensive to implement and punishes many for the bad acts of a few. that being said, mr. president, as, you know, we have tuesday is fast approaching. i want to thank our men and women that have served and continue to serve and cipt think of anything more meaningful than to come together in a bipartisan, bicameral way to help out our jobless veterans. unemployment and homelessness amongst our active duty veterans and members of the national guard and reserves are a national disgrace and we can do

better. we shouldn't leave anyone behind. active duty soldiers and members of the guard and reserve fight side by side for our freedom. they face danger together, they are wounded together, they should be treated as equals when it comes to helping them find jobs. back in january, i introduced a hire a hero act with senator kay hagan. it expands the tax credit to help companies put our veterans and members of the guard and reserve back to work. the president has proposed a similar action in his jobs bill. it didn't include guard and reservists and that's why by hope that when we take up the veterans package here as being discussed, the majority leader will actually allow for that to be included. our guard and reservists once again deserve payroll. it's time for our senate colleagues to rally behind and continue to serve. they are leaving the service and

need this opportunity right now. the unemployment rate for veterans is more than 12%, while for members of the guard and reserve, mr. president, it's twice the national average, as high as 20% in some areas. we need to treat this as a truly bipartisan and hopefully bicameral effort. something that the american people are yearning for. they're looking for us to show leadership, to actually work together and if we can't work together with our heroes that have served and given to our country so -- in a time of need, then i'm not quite sure what we'll be able to work on together. if we can do thee two things, repeal the 3% withholding and help our veterans in one day, potentially one week, maybe it will usher in a new era of good will, something i know you and i have worked on to establish and many other people here in this historic chamber. one good deed can lead to another good deed and another good deed can lead to another good deed and soap.

let's start working together. the american people are demanding it and as i've said before, mr. president, we're americans first. i may be a republican and proud to be a republican but we're americans first. i'm way more proud to be an american and i would hope others in this chamber feel the same way and we can put our party differences aside and do something very, very important for not only our businesses in this country but also for the ones that have given so much in their service to our great nation while serving in the military. mr. president, i thank you and i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: enator: mr. preside?

the presiding officer: the senator virginia. mr. warner: mr. president, i ask that proceedings of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. warner: mr. president, i rise today to continue an initiative that was actually started by the presiding officer's predecessor, senator kaufman, and whereby on a fairly regular basis, i try to come down and recognize the service

of one of our incredible federal employees. we spend a lot of time in this body talking about policy. we oftentimes spend a lot of time also talking about what government does wrong, and there are things that government does wrong. but too often we don't acknowledge when government does right and particularly the incredible service that many of the folks who work for our federal government perform. so today i'm pleased to honor another great federal employee, ms. ann martin. ms. martin is the senior intelligence research specialist for the treasury department's financial crimes enforcement network, or ncen. at the age of 29 -- the presiding officer a may recall when he was at that age -- at the age of 29, ms. martin led a team of experienced financial

experts to compile and analyze hundreds of thousands of pieces of data. her research and analysis gave unprecedented insight into how mexican drug cartels finance their operations in both mexico and the united states. it also provided american and mexican law enforcement authorities a number of leads into cross-border money laundering and transnational organized crimes. discussing ms. martin's work, grames friese, the director explained, "no one had ever put together a picture of the kind of financial movements across our border." in other words, nobody had put together in an organized way the kind of activities that some of these drug cartels were involved in. the exhaustive and comprehensive analysis that ms. martin conducted supported the mexican government's decision in june 2010 to issue new regulations restricting the amount of u.s. dollars that could be deposited

into mexican banks. as a result, more than 700 suspicious activity reports have been filed from mexican banks. in other words, we have got the leads on 700 potential activit activities that are now being investigated due to her work. while her time working for the federal government has been relatively brief, she h's already made an impact. the deputy associate director at fncn had to say "i've been in government for 35 years and ann is the kind of person that you want to hold up as an example to others. she is extremely dedicated to the agency's missions." so, i hope my colleagues will join me in honoring ms. martin, a fellow virginian, for the excellent work she has done and her commitment to federal service. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: