question, we were very blessed, attianroheu.y, with a program of an eaf experiencing managing the portfolio. she is our directer portfolio management f the program, and she brought imported systems that were decades tried, true, and pn t obslped opec as well given my background. we have -- she -- there's a total watch system that is in place. inedeein tll an oversight tee, o o pct deins it's now not process of being fully systematized to be completed at the end of the fiscal year. there's up dependentnergies in the field on the projects on a mohly basis aof tbe

be oyy our program in terms of portfolio management and all of them were very consistent with t views and overstieght. >>so thi includes specific h s elsfoes s ppti >> yes, ma'am, we do. >> okay. what about the internal management and reporting structures in the loan programs office? have these changes been made yet? thilmpdy-- we a inhe pes ptber 30th. we will have a state-of-the-art system comparable to the u.s. vernmental agencies by that date. the system is up and running, and we're right now migrating all the formion into this ngleystef ie foio rie >> if you came back september 30th, you could report systems

are in place? >> yes, ma'am, that's the objective. ag theis oot ra office is an important one, and i think that is why the disssions were asked before us today does not elimate the program i'm happy to say. it's clear, to me, however, that this legislations prly ou s heen o the taxpayers as well, and i don't think the legislation before us is a serious attempt or at least an adequate attempt to improve the doe loan guarantee program which it is my dendfro sty, fact, implementing improvements that have been recommended. we need to do better. everybody agrees with that. i hope we work on a bipartisan soluti to vae th gwe l e. ne b

t you. at this time, i recognize mr. terry for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and mr. antz. as gentleman from california, mrxmanem ishu, t the proposal allows all of those in the pipeline to go forward, but that the loan programs, 1705, would cease after that. that's how you re til ll y,r,e w leecew applications. >> and mr. waxman suggest the led -- suggested picking winners and losers. do you agree with that? >> mt s v tch erybody, i think, here acknowledges,e're not clairvoyant enough to know the new technologies that might be right around the corner that

would be -- >> do you agree that that's a fair satement? that bls inne dos tld cin preclude us from having an open forum for the projects for sure. >> for new projes? >> if it's picking -- >> would it be fair, then, if we talk about fairness, to jus in aofere t anipe? just going further on those? >> no, no. >> then you're not picking winners and losers. >> i think the ones in the peline as we incated, in the process ofeviewing tho not thandou didn't say there would be unfairness to not going forward, i mean, we accused us of being unfair. >> no, i think the point that -- the point is - and it's in my oral testimony. i mentioned it. >> okay. i t waveris erifre u tethecr #-

31st, 2011 because that's implication of new technologies. 30 2705 exre ateeper hacot. >> there's several in the pipeline filed before then, and you're going forward; correct? >> yes, sir. the point is they are 1703. >> you were allowed to follow through on those if they ha ot-q, "commenced construction"; correct? >> not necessarily. they were 1703 eligible with no sunset date. >> basically, then, you take the programs and switched them from 05 t 1 esr,losy a eligible. >> 1705 in the last three weeks before september 11th, 2011, there was $10 billion issued to

projects; is that correct? nu, --on rember theac wa j fgu atheou behind you could help you out. >> in all fairness, if you'll permed me, i submitted to your staff in private interviews that all of the projects th were coludedun 11 deadline, experienced due diligence periods. the median was 320 working days. every single one of those projects. there s no rush t dgme. we were ableodot a be, ibay t or false -- doe approved about $10 billion in projects in the last three weeks of the program? >> i don't remember the exact number, but i assure you the due ligee reects the analysis at irod. w d fosin yore n saying yes or no, so it's hard for me to go forward.

did all of the projects that were commenced constructn by september 30 #th, all of tose funded within the last three weeks? heyid aor tou idne hoes doe define "commence construction"? >> i don't have precise language in front of me, but we can get it for the record, sir. >> oy. i would preciate that. oeprat llutzed in the final weeks before the stimulus deadline, how much has been drawn down? do you have those numbers? >> the- the actloa tag t the ve tre $23 billion, 353, 690,276. >> okay. now, that's been drawnn?

fou thcou we can get it quickly. >> yeah, i think that would be appropriate. what i'm also curious about is any of the an guarant fu-- of those received in the last three weeks , have they missed deadlines or mileston? >>igh ime ito my knowledge. re t y rni t gdyrom california for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm glad the committee is seeking to advance bipartisan legislation on energ efficiency through the topics 're en bing today,he art e mpnt advantages of energy efficiency is it spans the regions of the country and

regardless of what energy source you support, efficiency is the cheapest, fstaytore ereedfo l ctos ctehi we know also is very important, especially now at a time when the econo's still struggling. the other important aspec of energy efficiency is these technologies are radily available. on hot ogi no, n t vae the existing ones we know about right away. there's tremendous potential for the committee to take action on energy efficiency and to help our constituents save money that's why i'm pleasedded with the legislation that's been proposedd 'sllha yo fousty today, and dr. hogan, i wanted to talk with you about improving efficiency in our homes. i went through a project on my own home in santa barbar california, a decade ago, and now ita rsto

le aer ad ise ha tdvge of an eergy audit of my home, which is part of a county or locally based incentive structure using a local, veteran cos thh,ndhe tsiness,which prtsgysa be there's a tremendous amount of potential with programs designed to encourage any building owners to make upgrade. we have to have to don on a regular bs new telo co thsoussob can think of. it also helps to jump start a whole industry for home energy retrofits. dr. hogan, can you describe to what the deparent is doing mayoan s a - status update on scoring systems now available.

>> yes, thank you. truly, there's a tremendous amount of savings that can be lired teowns ihe s tgh gyicy. erpoit o 10%-20% savings on the average home energy bill. average home energy bill being for the average home $2200 or so, that's $400 a year thas real outth astac devmi er . we -- the department of energy, the administration has been very focused on these opportunities for many yearsment one of the cly abefwrewog nionroou is something called the better buildings neighborhood program where we are working to pilot programs that can really take home retrofits to scale. haeeow etranprograms of

he mt pee you need a homeowner to want one, and you need the delivery system to be able to come in and provide, you know, high quality audits and then follow through on the projects. it'secsefathae in gsi ra y monhe home energy score. we see that as a great way to bring homeowners' iormation on the efficiency of the home whether it's highly first efficr crleormation on the low cost things they can do to improve their home such as added insulation, home sealing, the things that are low cost, but can get them a goodortion of thenergyavings tre te tt thro as cry 2 so partners, looking to refine it over the next year, and then being able to offer it up much more broadly around the country ter that.

>> thank you for that. i wanted to underscore what you it cnyt a mytrry atpa i 's called gills onion. any onion you eat on your hamburger probably came from this company. they grow, cut, and process a lot. theyducenemio e se tt try un oti ey are totally self-sufficient. they used federal grants and partnered with another company, prudent energy, to develop battery systems to allow gills to ste ectricity that i extrand u t pr ak urenctty cs most. they use a lot of power for the equipment and refridge ration. a project like this makes sense to them and lessens costs by hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. it's a good al. 's an examp oal omev. a hnd mps using innovation and

technology to help them with their bottom line, but also to create jobs and we are help businesses this way. i have -- oh, i already used my time. >>nku, ms. capps.th i recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murphy fo five minutes. >> thank you. mr. frantz, your testimony of loans closed september 2ve mdnymion >> beg your pardon? >> is it your testimony loans have not missed milestones? >> we have milestones, some of them have that -- in the manufacturing ace,nd we're woingthh- ve is t specifically? >> we have not funded amp yet. >> okay. >> amp is not even -- we have not even funded that project. >> can you get us a list of the

los pending? ctain, s lloit tec thar?nched >> none right now, no, sir. >> none at all? okay. i get concerned here because the loanrogram is one that where folks all over the place talk ths wa oin right and wrong. france subsidizes nuclear, china supports everything massively, and what concerns me a great cou opec.amilyings inhe we're trying to get buy here. there's indications that something is wrong, and what puzzles me is i don't get a sense yet the loan program in the departmenterge iokat solyndra and abound and others wt bankrupt,

first wind withdrawn ipo, a signifant debt, nevada reen inon,, the urth d o ang arovimom hearings, there were so many signs that solyndra was having problems. all of these federal agencies d departments saying this is a bad investment. omb, treasury, justice, doe sora pricewater coopers. a presentconomic adviser says this is a problem, and yet with all the indications, ihink atoulde en aan ogtuntwh e deme ey e e rai w g is anyway despite signs nobody gets paid back and ignoring the law about the taxpayers getting paid less. what concerns me her and the reason why we needtov lok

h pant o gy sl din problems. still not admitting failures in how the department of energy handled this, how they ignored th warning of failure, continued on, and even when the secretary of energy isere ng itwh nc tpa wh gao tinmon a hole, even though he knew that hole had no bottom. if we can make a movie of how the department of energy is handling thi of howhe department of energy would hve hoeynded it, it would look something like this. can you play the clip, please? >> remain calm! l isl! [screaming] >> all is well! remain -- ♪

>> ts time, i'd like to recognize the gentleman from tech, mrgreene, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i enjoyed the movie too, but i don't know ifit relates to the department of energy, but t pelv.uom ofis inkav a my colleague mentioned it, we have competition for going to more energy efficiency, whether it's solar or wind te bst growing windn power, and if what happened with the solyndra, in some countrie you'd be shot. we don't do that in the country. we caou before llati ar. nt wme y

n oguon s the aisle in frustration and anger on the failure of solyndra, and i participated in overnight hearings before and was on the committee when we wrote the law that created this lora ra rbe nd puanseer republican president originally authorized the program. the friends and colleagues in the majority side championed provisions, and in 2005, worked in a bipartisanatter and had political fights then,oo,ut edetheto legte th f ntinoc a puan w loan program. we can learn from the mistakes made and strengthen the program that once enjoyed broad bipartisan support. i can't support leglation just asurrentlydrafd. 'snsrt aptt lil agnd rieffort to solve the problems to allow taxpayers to be on the hook for solyndra. the bill stands no chance of being signed by the senate or

president. let's not waste the oprtunity. les write a bill that physalfixs e ra leve a 's obligation to find consensus and not create irreconcilable differences. differences can want be solved by the witness, and questions today resolv around solar ne. my goal is to do for sor wh id fd t ctr iid tst s,vee greatly with wind, and we're going to do with solar if we find state money to do it, but, mr. frantz, thank you for appearing today. i know there's mkein t cases ofolyna, a o of e estce m eaise rde tif oa when we passed the 2005 energy bill, i remember the language saying that taxpayers' interests could not be subordinate to that of any investor. rect l wthlathel gmnascs t

permitted. mr. frantz, what was the reason to seek outside counsel to draft the bordination memo rather than going to the department of justice. >> i can't answer the question, sir. col'findimandled by t cief deme of energy, sir. >> we want to avoid another situation like that that we had with solyndra, and i understand doe believes they were doing their best to save the taxpayers' money by subordinating the loan, but in retrospectthdgnt oe re.fdin t s aurole that loan guarantees can be subordinated after restructuring? >> that is the position we've taken. we hope never to have to do i as i indicated in the tesmony cotet aol fthe sour attempt to save taxpayers' money from a pure liquidation scenao. >> learning what we did from

solyndra, is restructuring a risky bet now? es idodend question. >> well, you know, we're talking about $500 million, and obviously, we put good money after bad,and it seems like somebody ought to say, hey, that was a bad decisi made. >> the decision we too cossi ihe , hee inhat place. hindsight is always more valuable than foresight for sure, and it w a very appropriate transaction at the time. obviously, we would not do it again knowing the circumstances we do parculay in mket ac l,on t gy bbunre that you couldn't subordinate, and there was efforts to do that by getting some great drafted letters, and i practiced law too, and bu you get three lawyers, ietou fropns pauthis it t imang sure

that subordination is not allowed, and i thought that's wh the 2005 energy bill, but obviously, it didn't. i hope the legislati would be that we make sure taxpayers' i'ou oof time. thank you for the time. >> thank you very much. at this te, recognize the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> i thank the chairman for the recognition. mrfrantz, staying on the i'uru' pic w ec ye one of the original hires in that loan project office in 2007 to administer this program in 1703,s clause under subordine boar nation reads thebligation subjectthononat e ga i n si straightforward statement, even a non-lawyer like myself is understand it. the difficulty that -- i think mr. green is exactly right i the line of questioning that is

correct, bheifltyhe t esot n ese any penalties, civil or criminal for violation of this. while i believe the secretary to have been in technical violation of this passage of the energy policy agent of 205, ther i ptyo f ttas anr bill, 5863 to prescribe civil monetary penalty between $10,000 and $15,000 for people who violated the statute. the bill is based onhe deenctvi ldmtre ltfoanfis who violate appropriations bills and has over a century of precedent. i believe this may be a better way to get at this problem. now, you reference -- well, actually secretary chu ca to cauro wst of those companies? sorry, companies on the watch list? can you provide in i don't

expect it at your immediate dingell -- itsposal, but wl you pde >>so wt yoe responsive, the reason why it's important because i mean, the purpose of the hearing is no more solyndra, but mbe it should be no more loan subordination. are we at risk in subordinati s astcoro ve ayllas esed want to help you here. you keep talking out hypped sight is perfect. let's sharpen foresight to anticite the next loan suboination activity and have todetand there's penalties for not following the letter of the law. now, also, on the issue of hindsight or foresight or whatever sight we're on right now, i've heard several people talk about the fact with the inthaggyn

dumping stuff on the market. do you recall that in the discussion? >> well, i mean, it is a part of the discussion. >> four days prior to the closing of the loan, there's an chfrhedgtranc encnd, there's an e-mail from the branch chief for the office management of the budget to the immediate superior that describes the problem. he wants them to slow down. he says you're going too fast, yanot following th les,nd ren att te-inla revises price. as prices sump, solar industry suffers. more sun for less. solar panels drop in price because of chinese import. it was known. it wasn the a surprise. it was not n information. thdgaied sl isndol tul instead, it was speeded up for reasons that this committee, the best of my knowledge, has not been able to discern, and

that's where the whole investigion has hinge the administration would have done itself fair toget -- r etutntd neite itf it was a mistake. we accept mistakes and can improve the policy from recognizes mistakes. a big mistake was here, and you papered over it, glossed over it, and went ahead. do you haveny comment about that? i don't. haot ldatat >>o not, sir. >> where is -- we'll get it for you. i want you to look at that while you are here. if i could, dr. hogan, question on energy efficiency. spoke atct c itnttith ster a wearpt appropriations bill, there was an amendment from a representative of california who said people suffered from anxieties in the car. i don't know whatyouor of a miexiod, t e'heelo.

cof picking winners and losers in my neck of the woods, we talk about using naral gas to power, especially the big rigs on the road. telohe t ck elecic c otpe ie t investigating -- why pick a winner over a loser in this instance? >> first, as i said in my testimony, the department of rech dop iheull portfoliof hisp anulnj hngs conversation with you on that. as you look at the different vehicles that are out there, the different vehicles we use in our economy from light duty to heavy duty, it does seem that different technologies have eet spots and differentas. i rniyeir t umo w what you are trying to make, and we'd be far better served if we let the market absorb the appropriate signals and respond rather th us trying to force an issue on

the american people. >>nk yltpeg. interest of time, p on your side? okay. who do we have over here? this time, i recognize the gentleman from georgia for five minutes. webe tse to death, but i don't think quite so so i want to go back to the issue of subordinate boar -- subordination, particularly lit ofhetou s at beis ctt mng that you believe that under this loan program, you have the authority to subordinate in an extreme ation. you've said that a mb of yohut that orove

confirm it, but here is the situation. .. unin pt anywhere money, throw good money after bad, it gets ration goes. and somedy else does going to do that. maybe because they get a higher

pop m money.e tocm n you might be able to restructure a deal like that, but i would ink -- now you have a legal team behind you right looking people and you pay yourself - ibsi ose ng . hao go into and get approval before you could restructure and subordinate them to a secondary position, would you not >> you do. you are in consultation w them, as wwr >> antsuio with me. i'm a taxpayer. you are not in consultation with we the taxpayer. that is the problem here and that is the thing that just geazes me that you don't seem to w,rea tou mme teamed, dicicco blue, former former director of omb

said not only to department of energy, but as i understand, every other agent see in the partment of federal goveenerc en cr a 129, this guidance document then by omb director jacob lew, you cano td oa ramor eipantthhere department of energy, department of agriculture or wherever throughout the federal government. this cannot be done. you guys were told repeatedly, consult with the treasury. dtmofaswhthth ne a lent to you repeatedly refused to go to the source of the funding to ask the question if this isoky.

us mea ped out, ask some rookie junior counsel to department of energy to give you a quick and dirty opinion you could go aheadnd get this done and get it out the or anthats e - ie yod ea term generically. i think you've been a good witness and been honest with us, but i think you are honestly wrong in thinking that you could coinuei hslpor. digun s ote am rdy to say that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater and just eliminate the loan programs entirely. i want to think very long and hard on hat before iwouldo buu ng me that if we continue the long program and you're the guy they are, you

are the straw that stirs the drink in regard to the long program and anoth extreme atcop, meyu ld subordinate the taxpayer, if that's the case i would say let's get rid of the thing. i don't ink you have the authority to do that and i want you to respond to m if you are uncleara, eger yu all better look at the documents and settings this long and hard because i think you're flat wrong on this. >> well, my only response and just reiteration of my omnt, wou hop r ita l lt report. >> let me interrupt you for just a second cancer going down the same path. re.is not a tool of blast oi orolx

dohahaol n't you understand not? >> i again do not have a license to practice law, so i depend on the civil servceavit acfftcclns sir. >> well, i suggest you go back with your account and i suggest you talk with the attorneys and the bankers and the department of treasury and maybe even asie ourh ase a looked carefully at circular quay 19. i apologize to my colleagues for as they say going back to the issue over and over again, bt e gelemajustoe s to et ites i k used to make sure that he does get it and without any guilt that. >> at this time i recognize the gentleman from kanas for five

minutes. >> thankoumrcar hetoday.be we've got this bill. i think it is a good bill trying to make sure we don't have anything like solyndra. two different descriptions of the problem. you cite as inaduate foresight, not enough a. hticte loner to the subordination. that's what identification. a second is sociéte are we've made a few more process and procedures then we won't ever enup here today. those are both wrong. the government has no busess havi ion o ct17ro ie t ntce the very problem you are stuck here testifying oday if i is inevitable laws will go bad. i came from the private sectr. it is absolutely inevitable. th bescawelthoulnot anen we find things like

bordination and e-mails talking about hurry and get a loan at the door because there's going to be a press conference where the presidt or vice president wants to o e thquad what we don't get documents we have every right and obligation to pursue the line of inquiry. so i'm going to get you out of this. you don't ever have to come testify. eliminate the program, so will haveo see usdohat. prioats ll s folks to continue into the 1703 program, those who have already filed applications. if you want further and said you couldn't disperse funds even to those, tell me wha do we do in t, ren, teogrami int is that the program establishes a bipartisan program to bring new and innovative technologies that also reduce,

sequestered eenhouse gases and pollutants. having spe mywoer n the energy infrastructure industries, this is high-risk business. the other point i would like to make to the benefit of the entire committee is that this involves what we call discreonary capital expendituresmajorpos of this program as we brought small investors as well as large investors foreword to take very high risk decisions and emoyinga rigingew an novehnie t wedoit very successfully and otherwise that would not happen. there's a lot of testimony here. >> i have more confidence in the private sector and you have more in government. i understand thatitnc. a o eicqen. if we deny further guarantees, even those providing application

come and tell me what that would do to the loan program. >> we have a group of projects, which i'veided70 ald ik etdlisspe0, 2011. it was in that cadre of projects, new and innovative technologies that we want to bring to the commercialization. unerab pteh have thxed? tihaveei risky and would like and what i think it's a terrible policy. i'm trying to avoid doing harm in this transition to what i think the world to look like. can you tell me wht the impact is qui >> i'll have to it for the co fw temiy >> thank you. without i yield backhe balance of my time. >> at this time i reognize for five minutes thegtleman rom

t ymrai. prter it mr. frantz and ms. haldane, ank you for being here. when it comes to solar projects, how many loan applications you ha in this program -- not honytitinte hegrig now? >> i think i have the schedule right in front of me. we have been solar 12 projects in solar manufacturinge have fourrojects,bt ntw osure drs wveeft erhe hold for those identied in the hearing today. so those are the major -- it is essentially 12 plus four. oundoes not inlude e ikor >> yes commissary. >> you set a number of benchmarks and milestones.

are those major milestones are you monitoring compliancwith the terms of theontract itself quite >> we are dg hose. oumk reh cmly yomare are. on a weekly to monthly basis o every project. there's a reasonableness and tt is what we have done now going forward, we are puting face disbursements against absote hardienesd llseisini they're not meeting the milestones. >> in terms those are all 12, 14 in existence today, are they meeting every term of the ra >>'tfthemlees thonly one in default are those who were identified. >> are they in technical default? >> we are working to permite

me anfor example, if you're familiar if there's a turbine that has simply, if there's a fix that night deivery. teo nt tengne cplywt et o bef knowledge. >> as i said, we monitor on a weekly bsis. >> all of them pay wages as required quite >> to the best of my nowledge. wa were ra ai co d hth rm >> the loan was close for a bound 10 minutes before funding was cut off. what cnged in the 10 months? >> the marketplace was the deding atr. yodnee coming? >> we didn't until after it closed. >> i'll switch to questioning of

mr. and seven. talk about performance coracts. hoetttero esent actually commending the president for his work on $2 billion worth of investments in energy savings performance contracts, making sure we encourage those to go forward and it have een. therveatuly en5, en ey eron as thaee ened can you tell me where we are in reaching those? cau mate gtifpotential dv t esus? >> certainly the trainee program is working around the conservationeasures they have identified. certainly one cannot find all of the measures just beuse they have been identied. on ftei ovrson nvtinswhdo aprinst ia we

have super torents that as well as what use we in half of energy performance contracting. >> of course you don't need to have funding because it's all ccthrough the private sector. coct tigor hbe successful with the president's challenge for the $2 billion by december 2013. >> we know in 2011 energy savings performance project th towlesis$5io 07 can you talk more about why we're not encouraging more energy savings performance contracts to get to the $2 billion? >> swe a encouraging as gressilywe n epnthllen o e deral agencies has been a great way to get everyone focused on the performance contracting can do it without tracking system in plae, where

each of the agencies is being thmmntthdsirce est'galht mentally tracking to see where they are. we are right now on track to get there. so were feeling pretty good about that. >> mr. chairman, yield back my . t treize lefr isia, mr. scully's for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the area. we've been looking into the entire loan program for a long time now. the committee has done onhendo deutyn flaws of the loan program. i want to ask mr. frantz with members, we're in the lot is a you el hth ari sdi taxpayers?

>> again, congressman, i have to defer to the opinions f the civil servants in the general counsel office of department of energy and chief counsel. untag i'turhidigben i how much you review the documents we have reviewed on the phone program, especially as it relateso solyndra. going back prior to the decision to subordinate the tapr, e cod omns atslarmth panten was having on subordination, whether or not it was legal. it was her understanding there is a draft of the legal opinion from outside law counselthat it would not be legal to suboinate the taxpaye hine arllacandlgo sod h to give us the opinion we wanted and that is where this memo came from. are you familiar with that? >> with all due repect ican't comment your question. >> are you disputing that have

en e ooron e diiners id help? >> i'm not disputing one way or the other. i'm just not familiar th those communications. >> let me ask you becausew've lkbouthesether len o h uthe ot ha el uhy subordinate. you say here today you still think you do have legal authority to subordinate. again, if you show me the lover you have habit, that's one thing. you hi behsome leg col n ghwwomro nhus seen as outside counsel say you don't have legal opinion so you would inform shop and that is form shopping and department of energy. even within the obama admistration we've g e-mails fr the department ofay ine pantey i'hink it's legal to do this you want to talk to the justice department. did you see those e-mails?

>> i did not, sir. >> i don't see how you can tel us you're about reforming the lo program. heold buon wdon'want akst oe . doevnoat we ctteas. this was broadcast on c-span. we had to subpoena documents and you tell us today you didn't look at designate your serious about reforming te program when you didn'teview the record out thfomonths ms wvoved t nvga erstin the public domain you can read in the newspaper about the problems leading to subordination and yet yotell uwho don't even know what happened. you don't know this history that ifaarh w us about reforming h did and how we did it. i'm not familiar with the background information. >> bacround is what got us to this point in having lost $535 million of money. goeoisthgesusi oesnismi sg ho

hemainat saying you shouldn't do it. their e-mail sameness and you're telling me you haven't read those e-mails? >> now, i have not. >> goack nd ea h us5 io taxpayer money. there's other loans out there. how many billions of dollars in taxpayer money are out there in risk in these loans? >> as i've indicated to you and to the full committee, this is a highrs >>t'qio w bon dollars -- >> it's no clairvoyance enough to know what the future holds. >> how much money -- how much taxpayer money is invested i these loans? i think you goo gi me sw you n th rgr. celuere 1705 prram, 16.1 billion.

>> $16.1 billi. this is in private people thinking this is a goodbet. don in t nven tobste so companies went to the taxpayer, your agency that taxpayer money. you're not a steward of the taxpayer money. i uld hope you'll go back and look at the history of how we've losthundrs lns o ouhere.lll do you understand that you know this history? >> certainly. i find it perplexing you tell me you haven't looked at yet. we've had hearngs. bo rpubn eoradeae hi meplouof oeg information. we got the documents. we know what the e-mail said and many say don't do it. and yet you said you're saying you're going to do it. even thoh there's e-mails from the department ofteasury. his fthast

resort. we hope to never have to do it. >> but he said you're still going to use it, didn't yu? until the attorneys advise me. >>chey sodvyot oi footatrn please look at the history. it's your job to look at the history considers billions of taxpayer money at risk, not to mention what was lost with solyndra, he can and maybe others. dontpur hngprent o i d esat . isacocts he is referring to, outside counsel opinion seem to subordination is illegal into the cord so we can know what he's talking about. >> with that many documents on threcord. >> would be hay to ctinuto goown is a >> all documents have been in the record. we be happy to put them in the record for this hearing. at this time either to recognize

the gentleman from california, s.anwi olariy for five minutes. methg. they talk about multiplication, both for transportation and for generation and both of them in the most be mefentteem need a uitto my question is when you guys are talking about this, how much discussion do you have at the interior department about if we want to go and get more when generation and produced this domestically, we've got t doicrcf nt ont. how much in a relationship or communication do you have the end about opening up public lands for the mining of these railroads or other comonen that areeseti? 70 pounds in a previous.

is there any question about assuring serces for women raw materials to produce these strateies? >> yea swe ing ehse in a number of ways that includes having put together strategy on rare earth materials that we can undetand the criticality and things we need to do. we are engagedadly across the federal government in what theoita ot ae e sie oueina is using the rare earth strangle on japan for their foreign policy based on fishing? we all agree that conservation whelngeno he sa ey sa m,f right? weaver choir mileage efficiency of our cars, don't wait?

efenuto road? under a university of texas university of texas, university of missouri, shown steady at traffic control can be adding as much as 22%. i knowu e rok con , whe t er local businesses and consumers and say they must change the way they do business, how come we walk away from one of the largest opportunities we have to reduce fuel consumption andplut is that just because its government so we don't hold government to that standard? >> i believe what you prefer to her other strategies you can use to addresstransportation eesmv, ag tisarhehe partment of energy is that of

lee with the department of transportation and others and addresses through clean -- >> what we do to local government us, ths like utthotaving one. why do we continue to not only pay for, not only allow, but pay for local government putting up four-way sto and city yields are not synchronizing traffic signs ororevne h wegivthir l government and state government as we are with auto manufacturers? >> certainly we can he a conversation about what the role of the federalgovernmentis isse t avenngvy ti o a rf years is working with state and local government to bring forth the best part is his to hw with the benefits are very strategies that they can adopt them and efivs. a fair amount of

>>l yec ie toc ie hspent decades talking about fuel efficiency in the car. i would challenge that this committee has held more than a mameo odd er even afew minus fcit. and when you talk about a study showing as much as 20% of mobile sources, this is a big deal that our credibility is destroyed if we say we'll do isto the irobjuvek tlc it looks like rather than being proenvironment improve conservation, we are anti-private sector. can gain credibility as being tough on fellow agent these as they are in the air. i will harpon wat. ven lngrb e ct we can't even ask a blinking light because it's so

much easier to have a blinking red light. and this shows why boher? every one of those ikng eghrc on fanllmobu s b don't bother because it seems too small to bother with. don't you agree is something we need to revisit it. >> wou figout w are seg ttesvings and we'd be glad to have a conversation. >> you remember the 70s people of the cars had to be big and heavy to be safe. st traffic.o be polluting to be i think it is time to put the pressure on mayors and county supervisors and ste officials, just like automobile >> m biray, ithe 1 lie i juapo

ac. >> we look forward to working with you on no. >> we have votes on the house floor and i understand we have like sev to. wdiss htn i want to thank you for taking time to be with us this morning. we appreciate your tstimony, look forward to working with you is enough power. those numbers,t aes doogize in advance for this delay. we're going to make every effort to be back withinevery hour, which will give everyone the opportunity to go have a wonderful me atte caer an wmeouback here at 15 until 1:00. the committee is in reces and ll then.

[inaudible onversats] naleveio