the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tked is recognized for five minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. i know the intentions of my colleagues across the aisle. you want to try to make america a better place. we had the prior speaker indicate that tremors were sent through the financial markets because some politicians for their own purposes put the financial integrity at risk the democratic speaker before that indicated that we should not go against the president's ability to protect the integrity of the united states. the democratic speaker before that said that no one apparently was advising republicans who had missed a truck payment, things like that.

well, guess what? i know that was no intended to be misleading, i know the intent was not that, but the fact is some of us go home as we did in august. some of us get out into far reaches, the most rural areas of america, our districts, we talk to those people. they are struggling with gas prices. they are having all kinds of trouble making ends meet. and they cannot understand how the people that are sent to washington as representatives don't get it. how we could come up here and we can't control our spending so i wanted to help illuminate those friends who are mystified as to what our own purposes were in opposing a debt ceiling bill that jacked up the debt ceiling

and the says we are going to cut one, maybe two, $2.5 trillion over 10 years when everybody in this body either knows or needs a good education to know that there is not a court, there is no way in the world you can bind a future congress into making cuts that they have not agrd to. you can't do that. it's not enforceable. so the trick here in washington is back load all of the massive cuts, have a little trickle of cuts now. so our own purposes boil down to this. i didn't deserve to be born in america. none of us that were born here did. we weren't born here because in the womb we did something deserving of being born in america. we are the most blessed nation in the history of the world. and it's not because what

anybody living today has done. we were blessed, we were born here, so many have been able to immigrate here and be blessed because of what prior generations have done. the responsibility, ptting their lives on the line in war, struggling through depression to be accountable, struggling through the earliest days when they pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor, those people are the reason we have been blessed -- we'veeen blessed. so to make clear about what our n purposes were in opposing that debt ceiling, that didn't really do any kind of significant cuts in the next year, two years, back loaded them for 10 years because that's irresponsible. and if future generation vs. any hope at all of -- generations

have any hope at all of being blessed as we have been, it's up to us. the people that paid the saved and were responsible in congresses for 200 -- well, not 200, but 150 years or so that lived whin their means, we can't repay them, but we can repay this many by being responsible for the future. so to come in and have a debt ceiling increase time after time after time is not a real debt ceiling. and it is not an adequate defense to say, well, bush did it. well, clinton did it, bush did it before him, reagan did it. just go on down, carter did it. at some point we have to be responsible for our own actions and quit playing the pointing game and say, look, our time is now. we were eleed to be

responsible now. our own purposes are to be responsible for the debt that we are incuring now. $4.5 trillion more than has been brought in is pretty irresponsible. that's no way to go. but if you want the numbers, if we only are able to save $1 trillion, we are only able to save $1 trillion over 10 years, which is quite possible under the debt ceiling deal that passed, then it will take 150 years before the budget balance if we continue to cut $1 trillion every year. and it will only add about $120 trillion to the $14 trillion we have now. if we could save $2 trillion every 10 years for -- then we are looking at 80 years before we balance the budget and only adding $72 trillion to e debt we have. that's irresponsible. this country won't be around in this form, this congress, and therefore that is our special

purpose for doing this. that is why we say it's time to stophe debt ceiling bill from where it was, get responsible, and propose real cuts so this congress does what the people who are missing payments are trying to do, live within their means. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: i want to say to the gentleman from texas, i disagree with his position but i respect it. . i can understand those who voted no will now vote yes. what is not understandable is that those on the republican side who voted yes now voting no. i now yield four minutes to our distinguished whip, mr. steny hoyer from the proud state of maryland.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for four minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the previous speaker voted to go deeply into debt. frankly, i voted for some of those programs myself. two which were to support the efforts in afghanistan and iraq. we didn't pay for them. as has been said, i didn't vote for it initial, but i think it's a -- initially, but i think it's a good program. we made it better. the prescription drug program, the gentleman wasn't here when we passed tha but we didn't pay for it. and he's correct, it doesn't matter which side didn't pay for it. we haven't paid for it. this bill is about whether or not we're going to stand up and say, yes, we voted to pay for it but, guess what, whave our fingers crossed. we'reot going to do it. we said we were going to do this. we took some tough action. both sides joined together, both leaderships joined

together and said we're going to do this. now, this bill is a phony. this is posturing. this is politics. this is pure politics because the united states senate has already rejected this bill and nly one house needed to reject it. we are going to have an extension of debt. an extension of debt means those items that we voted on will be paid for. that we won't well much on our debts. that america will pay its debts. this bill isn't about, oh, no, that's t pay our debts. let's predent they don't occur. we don't really have to pay them. americans welching on their debts won't have consequences for it. people believe if we welch on our debts it will have extraordinary consequences and as a matter of ct having consequences on this econom right now as we speak. it's undermining the confidence

of america that we have this conversation about whether america was going to pay its bills. i rise, mr. speaker, to urge my colleagues to vote down this resolution of disapproval, which is transparently political d which will do nothing to secure our nation's fiscal future. it is premise on the assumption that america is ignorant. i don't believe it. igrant about america's fiscal challenges. as often as some in this house attemptly to falsely persuade the american people that raising the debt ceiling means we will take on more debt, we are here to say the truth. this is about paying the bills we have already incurred. the american people understand that fact as evidenced by their disgust with the partisan brinksmanship that almost brought america to the brink of default. what americans want to see is us ming together to take real action on two issues that are

deeply concerned about -- jobs and our debt and deficit. one of the most important things we can do to reduce the deficit is to create jobs, grow our economy, get people back to work. the president's put forward the american jobs act which incorporates many elements of house democrats making it in america agenda to create jobs. i hope my republicacolleagues bring it to the house floor for a vote as soon as possible. over the long term, though, we must lay out a path to restore fiscal sustainability. and the only path that is feasible, fiscally, politically and morally is one that is balanced and asks everyone to pay their fair share, not let some of the special interests and favored fe be left out of the obligations to bring fiscal

responsibility to this nation. all of us need to be included. a balanced solution is favored by an overwhelming majority of americans and even 3/4 of republicans. the joint select committee on deficit reduction must put aside partisan politics and put some hard chces on the table. may i have one additional minute? choices that encompass both spending and revenue. and we must support their efforts to reach agreement. that's what the american people deserve. that's the difference between posturing on our fiscal future as this vote today does and leading on our fiscal future. i urge my colleagues, let's vote down this empty resolution which is a pretense, a pretend, a statement that we don't like debt. nobody likes the debt we've incurred, and everybody ought to join together in paying it

down. ladies and gentlemen, this is an issue of responsibility. it's not always easy. it's not always politically popular. we've incued a debt. it'sur responsibility collectively, not as republicans or democrats, but as americans to come together and pay down this debt and not pretend that simply by defeating a resolion or passing a resolution of so-called disapproval which is already a dead letter and everybody on your side of the aisle knows it's a dead letter because the senate has already voted. this is just a statement that i don't like debt. none of us like debt. let's join together and reduce it as we did ithe 1990's, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the geneman from new york. mr. reed: mr. speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield one more minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. gohmert: thank you. i just wanted to make sure that the record was clear. my friend, my dear friend from

maryland had said there were those on this side that wanted to welch on our debt and that's not the case. the thing -- the thing that we want to do is stop incurring debt. we're all about being good for the debt we incur. we don't want to welch on any agreement. i didn't ask my friend for time, so my time's very limited. i just wanted to correct the record. we are not out to welch on anything. we're here to say quit incurring debt. mr. hoyer: will my friend yield? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. hoyer: my friend won't yield? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i now yield three minutes to the gentlela from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas for -- is recognized for three minutes. three minutes.

ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. chairman, and i think we've already sat the parameters for this discussion. we can see by the throngs that are on the floor of the house how keenly important this is to the american people. the reason why i say that is important discussions draw members even away from their duties elsewhere, but we know that the reason why we are speaking to empty seats is, one, because the other body has resoundingly denounced and voted this particular provision don because we reached a compromise, respectable compromise that we realize we have to pay our bills. but, of course, those who believe that they are not in the people's house, they can put this resolution on the floor because if they look to what the people want, 46% of the american people believe that jobs are more important than reducing the deficit. there are more than 65% believe

we should be doing a jobs bill. we have the greatest poverty among children of all sectors in all areas othe country right now as i speak, and you know the new population of the impoverished are those recent college graduates, all of the stars in the eyes and the excited parents who paid large amount of dollars to ensure that their young ones have the opportunity for a college education. there are no jobs. now, i don't concede to the fact that the only initiative that should come about should be from the government, but we are the umbrella on a rainy day. this is a small measure that the president has offered, a small constructive measure, his jobs bill. it is balanced across the board. it provides relief for small businesses. it provides the jobs that they will create. it gives incentives to hire someone. it works with our larger companies as well, and, of course, it puts back to work wh has been a devastating phenomenon in our communities,

taking away firefighters, police and teachers. you're going to feel the pinch when your young children are in classes that are 50 and 60 persons. so this is realistic. it also addresses the question of the 46.2 million americans that are living in poverty, and as i indicated the disproportionate share of those who are children. so what we're doing today goes smack against what the people want, and this is the people's house. i am concerned tt we are not only being redundant but we're sayinto the world, smack us as irresponsible. we have the money to pay our bills, but we want the word to go out, we are irresponsible, we're not paying any bills. we're not greece, we're not spain, we're not italy. we are americans and we have the no it all and the commitment -- know it all and the commitment to be the best. i have never take the pundits

to be the decline. ignore the needs of our brothers and sisters. ignore theeeds in the northeast where there's been a devastating hurricane. ignore those in the southeast where 1,400 homes have been burned to the ground in texas. who will help those folks besides their private insurance? they need their federal government. the rainy day umbrella on a rainy day or when there is a fire the holes for the fire. so i ask my colleagues to be realistic and rational. vote this down. put a jobs bill on the floor. do what the american peopl want and create jobs now. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. lamborn: i want to thank the gentleman for recognizing me. i ask everyone to support it. as you remember, it was a two-step process when the debt ceiling was increased, an initial $400 billion immediately to avert the

possibility of a default. that has been done. but an additial $500 billion will not go out if this resolution passes. and i think that we need to slow down and take a look at our spending before we commit another $1 trillion of debt. we did reduce next year's budget by i believe $31 billion over last year. that's a gd step. th's a step in the right direction. but it's only a small step when you realize that this year's deficit is $1.3 trillion. so $31 billion is only a small step in the right direction. so this would give us more time and seriousness of purpose to look at additional savings. so with that prospect in mind i would urge my colleagues to support this resolution. let's slow down the adoption of an additional -- excuse me -- $500 billion of debt.

i urge my sport and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: does thgentleman from new york have any further speakers? are you ready to close? mr. reed: i am ready to close. mr. levin: i'll close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: i yield myself the balance of the time. very briefly, you know, in one sense this is a meaningless resolution. and my guess is that opinionmakers in this country and i think abroad will consider it not meaningful. that it's going through the motions. but there is a real danger here and that is what it says about the dynamics on the majority de. that's the worrisome thing. it isn't that we would slow things down.

if this were to pass and become law, indeed the ceiling would fall. we would go into default very soon. and i guess what this resolution being allowed to be brought up says that there's a feeling that within majority ranks that we have to let some bring this up and perhaps a lot who voted yes now in essence vote no in order to bring some kind of peaceful equal libry up within the -- equilibrium within the ranks of the majority. the problem is we need to be able to reach across the aisle having set up a select committee.

it says we need to worry less about the dynamics within our caucus or conference and more about reaching common ground. that's why this exercise isn't meaningless. the danger is that it will become very meaningful and that we will become this congress essentially handicapped if not imprisoned by the inability of the majority on this side to step up to the plate and realize that in order to solve our problems there needs to be a balanced instead of an imbalanced approach, that we have to look at revenues as well as spending cuts. that's the significance of this being brought up here. .

i think all of us need to take another look before we essentially change our votes. and essentially it would mean signaling, it would be still more difficult than the present perilous path to try to make meaningful our effort to move ahead in this country. to address the job needs in this country. yes, toddress the deficit, but mainly or essentially to get our economy growing again. if we don't send that right signal here today and send the wrong signal, i'm afraid this vote will become too meaningful. so i strongly urge that people vote no and i strongly urge on

the republican side that those who stepped up to the plate last time step up to the plate ts time and not duck for what is essentially an internal political dynamic. the dynamics of this country in terms of jobs and job growth, those dynamics are too essential for essential -- for partisan internal politics to be reining -- reigning stream on this floor at this time. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: thank you, mr. spear. i truly appreciate the sentiment of my colleague from michigan. and i truly appreciate the debate that we have had today on this resolution. it is time that we come together

. as a member of the freshman class that has come to washington, d.c., i can tell you it is not a group of radil extremists but men and women who have left their families, who have left their busesses, and have come down here to washington, d.c., to accplish what needs to be accomplished. that is to get the fiscahouse of washington in order. it is to have the ability and skill to deal with the economy and put people back to work. we have the energy, we have the desire to reignite this country so that generations of children and our grandchildren will be able to enjoy the benefits that we have all benefited from. we come here sincerely to reach across the aisle to have an open and honest dialogue with each and every one of the members of thishouse and that is why this

debate is such a positive thing in my mind. because we are now starting down the path of recnizing that the debt has to be dealt with once and for all, but at the same time we must work together to heal our country. to reignite our country's economy. so that people can afford the american dream that they so deserve and as each and every e of us have always benefited from. so i come here this morning -- or this afternoon and offer this resolution to send a message to the president, to the world, to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that we cannot take our eye off the ball. we have to do all things. because we are in an historic time when e issues we face can no longer be pushed down the road. it is now time to lead. it is now time to come together

and act for this great nation, the united states of america. and in this vote i urge all my colleagues to support the passage of this resolution, to send that message that we will deal with the debt, we will al with the economy, we will deal with the jobs, and we will create an environment upon which the private sector will blossom again and people will benefit for generations to come. with bill >> is the house approved the measure. a similar measure was rejected by the senate late last week, 45-to 82. -- 45-52.

>> they announced federal loans. david cameron addresses the state of britain's economy. now for a plan for the most powerful rocket ever. >> we will discuss the president's job built with tax policy director at the institute. the vice president at the center for american progress. it begins live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> in election marred by political corruption, he lost but he changed political history. he is one of the 14 men featured in the new weekly series "the

contenders." friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. what did at c-span.org -- watch it at c-span.org/the contenders. >> this month look for congress to continue federal spending including funding for recent national disasters. the form of a pen for debate formulate a plan across the country. it is all available for you on line and on social media sites. certification, what come and share all of this spirit. it is showing events around the country. it is washington, your weight. created by cable provided by a public service.

olyndra 09, sy received money in loans. today they investigated the decision to grant the loans. member's question jonathan silver comet the director of the loan program. this is under three hours. >> good morning. we can been this important hearing of the subcommittee on oversight and investigation to examine the involvement of the department of energy and the white house office of management and the review, approval, and subsequent restructuring of the loan guarantee to solyndra. solyndra. the obama administration has touted this as the savior for

our faltering economy. solyndra was the first guarantee issued by the obama administration using stimulus dollars. officials held out the company as a shining example of how the stimulus was creating jobs and invigorating the economy. two years of receiving this half a billion dollar loan guarantee and six months after doe restructure the deal, solyndra has closed its doors and file for bankruptcy. fbi agents raided the facility last week. one of our witnesses last week it tends to claim that the bush administration is equally at fault for approving solyndra's deal and that solyndra was a train ready to leave the station when president obama

took office. in reality, at the end of the bush a demonstration, the doe committee voted against offering a conditional commitment. they said the real deal was premature and question the underlying financial support. only after the obama administration to control was the solyndra deal pushed through. we have been asking questions for almost seven months about this deal. we have gathered documents on the department of energy. the committee was forced to subpoena to get basic information showing their role is solyndra in the -- in the solyndra deal. they have accused the committee of engaging in a fishing expedition.

what the committee's review show is that we were right all along about thistions loan. it should not take restructuring, bankruptcy, an fbi raid from my colleagues to put politics aside and join us and our efforts. the document demonstrates that when they were reviewing this and 2009 it was well aware of the financial problems that opposes. what they also show is that the rush to push of stimulus dollars may have impacted the quality of d.o.e.'s review. the white house has scheduled vice-president joe biden appearing at solyndra's groundbreaking event prior to d.o.e. making an announcement.

"we have ended up with a situation of having to do resht approvals on a couple of locations. we would prefer to have sufficient time to do our due diligence review and have the approval set for the announcement rather than the other way around." six months after the loan closes problem became severe. an independent auditor issued a report stating "the company has suffered losses from operations, negative cash flow, since the inception and it raises substantial doubt about the ability to continue as a going concern."

. in late fall, d.o.e. began negotiations about restructuring the loan in order to keep the company afloat. under the agreement, at the private investors were given priority over the government with regard to the first 75 million recovered in the event of liquidation. documents reviewed raised serious concerns about whether this deal was better for the taxpayer. these concerns are spelled an e-mail. "what they may avoid default with the restructuring, there is a good chance it will not.

additional funds would have been put at risk." we are here to ask these very important questions. is solyndra a litmus test? i am very concerned about where the 10 billion d.o.e. that they have left to spend before the deadline has gone. taxpayers would be better served by not risking even more of their money and using it to reduce our mounting national deficit. thank you. with that i recognize my distinguished colleague. >> china's initiatives continue to threaten our renewable energy industry. why we try to revive our economy, it should be clear that

solar energy development is not a partisan issue. it is an issue of securing innovation for decades to come. we should have a discussion about how government can support the development of domestic clean energy technology. as we know and as we can tell from the opening statement, there has been a great deal written about today's hearing. did the issue has become very politicized. the purpose of the hearing is to examine the decisions surrounding the solyndra loan guarantee. i cannot help but looking through the larger events of what our national policy energy policy should be going forward. it is important to see just what happened with the solyndra loan. the minority oppose this investigation. that cannot be farther from the truth.

we believe this is important to understand what happened here and what our appropriate policy is. whenevewhenever oppose producti. i am happy that we now have the documents. i think they should be made available to everyone. it shows the department of energy and both the bush and obama administration supported the loan guarantee application. in 2007, the invited solyndra to cement and administration. d.o.e. had submitted its to the committee for review. they continue to work on it and improved the guarantee in september 2009.

a pre ipo audit raise concerns about the viability. by late 2010, they determined it is headed toward default. they were faced with a choice, restructure the loan to increase the chances that solyndra could repaid or cut their losses and accept the highs possibility of default. d.o.e. determined restructure was the course of action to reserve the full recovery of loan value. solyndra was given more time to repay the loan. solyndra was required to raise an additional $75 million from private investors that would have privacy over the interests before 2013. ceo visited my office

and talked about the strong demand for the projects and revenues were projected from 2010. less than two months later it announced it would file for bankruptcy. now the recovery of over five thunder million dollars loan to is a grave risk. it is easier to assess this in hindsight. with a loan this big, it is critical that we get answers to several key questions. did the bush and obama administration's conduct appropriate due diligence before september 2009 guarantee approval? did the department of energy monitor the financial status of solyndra after loan disbursements began? did they make accurate representations to the government about the financial prospects before and after approval of the loan guarantee?

when the financial situation deteriorated, did they make the correct decisions? score thisunder scor program was designed to help u.s. companies to grow and compete in global energy market in which countries like china and others are providing a wide range of incentives and in sport. we have got to continue to work hard to develop and implement appropriate policies that give clean energy investors the support they need to make the u.s. a market leader and that protect the u.s. taxpayer. these are critical decisions.

we have asked that the ceo and cfo be called. i believe that will happen in short order. i do not know how they could be in my office telling me things could be better. i yield back. >> you mentioned the documents you have been reviewing. can they all been a part of the record? >> yes. >> so ordered. recognize the full chairman from michigan. >> thank you. in 2009, solyndra was the first to receive a d.o.e. eight loans funded by stimulus dollars. it is a model for how the government's venture capital program and green technology

should work. they have filed for bankruptcy. we are starting to look at d.o.e. loan guarantee program. some questioned the basis for this investigation. after wrangling to produce relevant documents, the committee was forced to submit a subpoena. i think this shows the committee was more than justify it in scrutiny of the deal. pursuant to our functions, we have a responsibility to pursue answers regarding the use of taxpayer money. this raises several questions about whether the administration did everything it could to protect dollars. why did the administration think solyndra was such a good bet and push ahead to provide a solyndra guaranteed this year? why did d.o.e. allow the

government to be subordinated to the private investors and a violation of the log? i look forward to the testimony. i want to know what the failure means for the loan guarantee program. is it the tip of the iceberg? d.o.e. has closed over a billion dollars to other green technology companies. it has $10 billion left to spend before the september 30 deadline. the demonstration was so wrong, how can i possibly exercise the proper controls when doling out another 10 billion? at this time, i question whether the government is qualified to act, picking winners and losers and shelling out billions of

taxpayer dollars to keep them afloat. we began this to shine a bright light on a program shrouded in secrecy. new details are coming to the forefront about who decided to allocate billions in taxpayer dollars. this is important information. the public has a right to know how their money is being spent. it is not the end of our inquiry. the answers we have turned up spark additional questions. i'm committed to pursuing this investigation and conducting rigorous oversight. i hope the administration and our friends on both sides will share our commitment to getting the answers. i yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. barton. >> thank you. i think this is a litmus test of how this subcommittee will work together to investigate something that obviously needs to be investigated. i was gratified to hear the

ranking member's request that the record include all the documents that have been discovered so far. at the beginning of this investigation, my friends cannot give this document. i support loan guarantee programs. i do not support the process. the credit committee played against it. after president obama had been sworn in, they approved the identical loan commitment with no intervening improvement. a staff member said this will run out of cash in september 2011.

they declared bankruptcy last week. i look forward to the testimony of these officials. i look forward next week to the testimony of the members of the company. i strongly support all working together to pursue this investigation on a bipartisan basis. >> thank you. i yield the balance of the time. >> thank you. >> i do want to take a moment to point out that the credit committee -- the day after the meeting there was a unanimous decision not to deal with that at the time. we know the stimulus bill was about shovel ready projects. it. the shovels -- it.

the shovels that this project was ready for - it appeared the shovels of this project was ready for more not there. what this committee calls -- when this committee calls, your response. when we schedule a hearing, you show up. we have a responsibility to protect the people's money as well. it does not appear those interests were followed spirit now the tax pi. now the tax there's going to suffer. >> the gentleman from california. >> we're hearing a hearing -- holding an important hearing.

taxpayers have over $500 million at risk as a result the bankruptcy. we need to understand what happened. we need to be held accountable. we need to ask whether solyndra misled officials. the c o met with me in my office. he assured me that the company was in no danger of failing. he said the company would double the revenues in 2011. i have a hard time reconciling those reconciliations with them filing for bankruptcy one month later. staffas that are reviewed thousands of pages of internal -- staff has now reviewed thousands of pages of internal documents. it shows that under both the bush administration and the obama administration, d.o.e.

official strongly backed solyndra. they believe the solar panels offered -- >> can i have an opportunity to speak that strik? >> they thought the internal reviews the they conducted and the external ones showed solyndra could compete. the senators were not realized. today we will ask why. there are and development in the marketplace and solyndra and and d.o.e.argued? was there corporate malfeasance? by late 2010, they knew solyndra was facing difficulty meeting the loan obligation.

this triggered an internal debate about what the government should do. d.o.e. predicted an immediate liquidation would return. did they favored restructuring because of the potential for recovery more of the investment pared some officials predict investment. some officials warned -- more of an investment. some officials warned of a default. we need to ask whether the right choice was made. given the dollar's address, we have an obligation to the taxpayer to investigate the transaction early. i welcome this hearing. we have urged the chair and to hold another hearing where we question solyndra's ceo. i disagree with the policy conclusions that republican colleagues have drum. they say the collapse of

solyndra shows [inaudible] they argue that government cannot big winners and losers in the energy marketplace. this sounds superficially appealing. there is a fundamental flaw. the majority of republicans on this committee denied that climate change is real. there's no reason for government to invest in clean energy. it is ironic that ceo's of a number of corporations, including bill gates for microsoft, jack holliday, bank of america, are all here representing american energy innovation. if they are calling for major investments and alternative energy.

so we do not fall behind the chinese and others who are competing. if you live in reality, you know the world cannot continue the dependence on fossil few appear in the last month alone, three manufacturers have declared bankruptcy because they cannot compete with chinese companies. this weekend at the business columnist wrote listing to the republicans talking about the economy is like entering into an alternative universe. he is right. republicans on this committee opposed putting a market price on carbon emissions. they opposed carbon pollution. they oppose clean energy alternatives.

the fledgling companies have to compete against a fossil fuel industry and heavily subsidized foreign firms. thank you. >> thank you. with that of the opening statements are concluded. i ask that the opening statements of the members be introduced into the record. anyone who wishes to do it? it will be so entered. to our witnesses, you are aware of the committee is holding an investigative hearing. it has had the practice of taking testimony under oath. do you have any objection? the chair advises you that under the rules of the house and committee, you are entitled to be advised by counsel. do you desire to be advised by counsel during your testimony today? in that case if you please rise and raise your right hand i will

swear you in. do you swear the testimony you are about to give is the culture, so help the bird is the whole truth, so help you god? -- do you swear the testimony you're about to give is the whole truth, so help you god? we welcome to give a statement. with that, we welcome you with your opening statement. >> thank you. my name is jonathan silver. i am the executive director of the loan office. i took this position in november of 2009.

in 2005, recognizing there's a shortage for clean energy projects from grenoble's to crinkled to nuclear power, a president bush entitled the loan. it was designed to support next generation energy projects which involve technology and market risks that lenders often cannot are will not underwrite. other governments have recognized the value as well. germany and canada already offer such programs. australia and india have announced intend to do the same. none have been as aggressive as the chinese government that provided $30 billion in credit to the largest solar manufacturers. that is roughly 20 times larger than america's investment. why is china making this investment that the race for solar manufacturing jobs is the race for winning.

this will become a global market worth trillions of dollars. in 1995, the united states manufactured more than 40% of the model sold worldwide. china share has gone from 6% 254% today. china is now home to five of the largest benefactors in the world. by late 2008, and the staff considered solyndra the most advanced of the project to review it. by the time the obama at the station took office, they had already established a time line for issuing a additional loan commitment in march 2009.

on the exact schedule that have been developed by the bush administration. in september, after several more months, they finalize the loan guarantee. although i was not at the department at times, it is my understanding that it with through nearly three years. it is all before any taxpayer funds are put at risk. the federal government was not alone in the assessment of the potential. some of the most sophisticated investors collectively invested nearly $1 billion after conducted a did after conducting extensive due diligence on their own -- after conducting extensive due diligence on their own.

solyndra avoided the high cost of pauley silicone and the cost of installing flat panels. a drop significantly taking many industry analysts by surprise and providing a benefit to several of the company's chinese competitors. these developments made it more challenging. the company took steps to respond, cutting costs as revenues increased 40% between 2009-2010. despite increasing revenue, and they ran short of cash and faced imminent bankruptcy. the department of energy faced a difficult choice, whether to refuse the proposed choices,

ensuring they would close and the government recover only a small amount or to allow the company to pick the financing giving the workers a fighting chance of success. and the government a chance of higher recovery. after an extensive analysis, the department concluded that restructuring the loans gave the u.s. taxpayer the best chance of being repaid. the changes in the solar market have only accelerated. chinese companies have flooded the market with inexpensive panels. dst of an in the mist economic crisis. there's been a drop in the first eight months of 2011 alone. these changes were damaging to

solyndra. they declared bankruptcy earlier this month. what we're all disappointed, it should not overshadow the professional work that the loan programs have done today or the need to find ways to support clean energy in country, developing a robust manufacturing sector that is critical. it is one of the most important tools, a low-cost financing. this is not picking winners and losers. it is helping insure we have winners here at all. we invented this technology. the question is whether we should take this on our whether we will be leadership to other nations and watch as tens of thousands of jobs are created overseas. the administration believes this is a battle we must fight and win. i think the members of the

committee. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you for inviting me here today to testify. d.o.e. loan guarantee program is a key part of the to match recent effort to promote economic growth and jobs across the country and a jump start the clean energy economy. omb has been an active participant in discussions about major milestones in the implementation of title 17, helping to ensure they are consistent with the framework and policy. these discussions are an to make final um

decisions on title 17 loan guarantees. omb has a particular role in the title 17 program under the federal credit reform act of 1990. pursuant to fcra, they must approve cost estimates for all loan programs including the estimate been generated by a d.o.e. for the title 17 program. it ensures that it is accounted for appropriately. omb worse closely with agencies. omb giveshis model ombs,

final authority to ensure the final costs are presented and reflect estimated risks consistently across the agencies so taxpayer funds are invested in a prudent and effective fashion. by contrast, the final decision on whether to issue the loan for a guarantee rest with the agency implementing the program, d.o.e. in the case of title 17. d.o.e.pproval of a the was in august of 2009. while i was not directly involved in this aspect, what i have learned since indicates it reflected a thorough examination and analysis of d.o.e.'s calculation. omb addressed a series of specific questions about the

analysis. omb and d.o.e. agreed on the cost. omb assured it was budgeted and accounted for appropriately. it was issued in september 2009. in february 2011 d.o.e. to the restructuring of the debt. the role was the same as the role in the original transaction to enter the work closely to understand the specifics of the proposal before making a cost determination.

they make sure the loan was an imminent default and the restructuring proposal was expected to be less costly to taxpayers than other options including liquidation. omb determined that d.o.e.'s analysis was reasonable. since then, a challenging global solar market has continued to affect manufacturers including solyndra. the outcome will limit the recovery of funds to the company. congress designed the title 17 loan guarantee program to products that might not otherwise receive the necessary capital. they envision that while some of these projects might not

succeed, others will contribute to the ability to achieve the clean energy goals. omb will continue to work with d.o.e. to make the program a success and make sure the cost associated with the inherent risks are budgeted and accounted for to protect taxpayer interests. i am pleased to answer any questions you have. >> thank you. i will start with opening questions. if you could possibly answer yes or no. in testimony, you claim that diligencelyndra's due was done by the end of the bush administration. the correct? >> yes. creditt it true that a committee met on january 9, 2009 to consider the solyndra guarantee? >just answer the question.

it recommended that the solyndra loan guarantee be remanded to the loan program office stating "the number of issues unresolved make a recommendation for approval premature at this time. were you aware when he submitted your testimony to the committee this morning? >> i was. i was not there at the time. it is my understanding that it was remanded for additional data. >> i am asking the questions. i think he is given an answer. in an e-mails sense, a member of that credit committee send an e- mail to the fellow members. in e-mail he states "after canvassing the committee, it was a unanimous decision not to engage in further discussion in

solyndra at the time." do you understand that they decided the due diligence was not complete? >> no. the credit committee you are referring to is also exactly the same credit committee that approved. >> i understand that. what i said is the truth. isn't that featured the? >> i have not seen that e-mail. i was not there. >> we can assure it is. the d.o.e. should stop talking to solyndra. that was the recommendation. much of the due diligence on the transaction was conducted between 2006-2008., i would like to bring this to your attention. isn't it true that they did not hired the first federal employee until august 1, 2007? >> i am not aware. >> if you do not know, we can

provide this. we provided it to the committee staff. by the end of 2007, it isn't it true that the office had only eight federal employees? >> i do not know the exact numbers. >> he was doing the due diligence you're talking about in 2006 and 2007? >> it is made up of wonder 15,000 working professionals. a number of whom are solar experts -- of 115,000 working professionals. a number of whom are solar experts. technically, the credit committee simply refuse a transaction and recommends it. >> we have established that they did not think they should go ahead. isn't it true that d.o.e. was reviewing the applications it had received in response to the

first solicitation. how did d.o.e. have time to do due diligence like you indicated that that baffled us. >> if you give me a moment to explain i can. the 2006 solicitation resulted in 143 submission. the staff and others reviewed those for eligibility. it is an interview -- an inner review. solyndra was one of those. of the department conducted it on all of the 11. >> isn't it true the first draft of the independent report was not cemented until march 2009? -- submitted until march 2009? >> i was not there at that time. there were several market research reports that were directly relevant that were used as the basement for assessments.

there's a report done for the project. it was cemented -- submitted in early 2009. this was cemented in early 2009, correct? >> how do you explain a statement in your testimony that the due diligence was conducted in 2006 and 2008? >> i did not say it is in 2006. i said the application was received in 2006. due diligence continue through 2008. it would be logical for the reports to be completed after the work was done. >> i think what we have established is that the credit committee during the bush

administration found the dill to be premature and remanded for further work. we have all the clear evidence. we are puzzled with their opening statements. i recognize the ranking member. cried thank you. i would like to ask unanimous consent to put the credit committee recommendation that the chairman refer to into the record. >> i had sat hand you a copy of this recommendation. have you seen this document before? >> i have not. >> this is what the chairman was referring to were the credit committee remanded the project. if they denied the application and remanded it for more. that is what he was referring to. it is the information that he

had on the screen. as i read this document, it says what they appear to have merit, and it did not thoroughly support a finding. it is ready to be approved. in a list for areas that need to be supplemented. do you see that? believe the issues make a recommendation for approval premature. do you see that? a concludes the committee without prejudice remans the project for further development and information. >> it to be typical of a credit committee to perform its function in exactly this way.

>> was that eventually develop? >> it was initially developed. the summary was represented. >> in march of 2009 the application was approved. was that cemented as part of that application? that is my understanding. >> i wanted to ask you a couple of questions about what kind of policies and incentives we need to have in the united states to promote competitiveness. this is what you talked about in your testimony. in your written testimony, you said between 1995-2010 the panel's manufactured in the u.s. dropped from over 40% 26

there. these are tied -- to 6%. china's have increased. half of the world's 10 largest solar panel manufacturers are now chinese. what does that tell us about the state of play in the solar manufacturing industry? >> they have a multi decade perspective. we believe it will be a multi trillion dollar market that will generate tens of thousands of jobs. >> what is the chinese government doing to provide support to its solar industry? >> the chinese government has committed up to $30 billion of

credit to its four or five largest solar panel manufacturers. it has frequently provided a zero cost financing and occasionally free land and other kinds of subsidies to that sector. >> does cheap labor play a part in china's ability to dominate the world market? >> it has in the past. cheap labor does play a material role in other parts of the world. the challenge is becoming one related to government support for the industry itself. >> it is got as much chief labor -- cheap labor but inexpensive debt capital? with your understanding of initiatives, do you really think it is worth us having policies like this loan program to

support solar? should we just walk away from it all together? >> i cannot imagine a scenario where we would walk away from what would undoubtedly be one of the largest industries in world over the next several decades. >> do you think there's any way we can actually compete? >> we have an incredibly strong and innovative work force. what we have to be able to support not only innovation -- we have to be able to support commercial deployment. without, we cannot continue to recognize the benefits that come from innovation. >> irrespective of the details of the solyndra case, you think these kind of programs are important to development of the u.s. solar energy and jobs? >> and they are critical. their only part of the fabric but they're necessary. >> i wanted to ask you.

you talk about this type of 17 funding. there are a number of other projects. has it worked in other projects? is it working in other loan situation stac? >> it is recently new. loans have closed for the most part. we are relatively optimistic that it will perform. >> how large is the portfolio as a whole? >> we have a good estimate. thank you very much. >> the gentleman from mr. texas is recognized for five minutes. thank you. >> are you career civil service employees? are you political appointees? >> political appointees.

>> both. >> i want to follow up a little bit. less than two months later on march 12 of 2009, the credit committee conditionally approved the loan. is that factually correct? >> the timeline is correct. the credit committee that met did not reject the loan. to be remanded it back for further analysis. here timeline is correct.

>> the individuals on the credit committee, are those political appointees are civil service? >> civil service. >> for the credit committees identical? >> i believe that to be true. >> the same people and the same agency needed additional information. in march, and the same committee with the same people did approve it. >> technically, the credit committee does not approve a conditional commitment. the credit committee recommends a transaction for approval. it has been further reviewed by credit reviewcalle boards.

>> they put up a yellow light. >> they indicated the initial questions that have been raised in the first meeting had been addressed. >> what changed in the intervening. ? >> due diligence was conducted. >> specifically? >> due diligence. quite specifically, what do diligence? >> market research was developed. >> is that available? does this have have it? >> we have turned over 35,000 pages of material. >> you are saying that what changed is additional information that was not available in january became available. is that correct? >> additional due diligence was done. >> that does not cut it. half a billion dollars that was

not supported in january under the bush it ministration was supported conditionally in march. one thing change was the president. we know that change. >> i will have a to get back to you. due diligence is a generic term. >> the cover is very specific things. >> is a possible one of the things that change was political influence? >> i do not think so. i was not there. >> no. and commented to the white house that this should go forward? there were no supporters that they step forward and had meetings tha?

this was all done in a bubble top? >> i cannot speak to that. i was not there. the loan program career staff that did the work in 2008 under a republican report pointed ceo did under the same individual. >> is it typical of a loan guarantee that a project gets half a billion dollars and that that half a billion is 2/3 of the cost of the project? and that the federal obligation is subordinated to the violation of federal law ind? >> it depends on the structure. >> they put together a deal.

i thought we could have a legitimate project. >> it was deemed to be eligible. it went through legal and financial due diligence. it was deemed to be a potential process. >> >> thank you. in 2005, congress passed the loan guarantee program to do this on a bipartisan basis. we wanted to move forward with the enterprises that would give us removable alternative energy

rather than continue our reliance on fossil fuels. the idea of a loan guarantee is that we often borrow the money. when know there is an inherent risk in a new startup. isn't that correct? >> yes. they set it up to compensate for the lack of financing. there recognize the inherent risks by providing subsidies. >> no one wants to invest unless they know it will return and give them a profit. the government has decided we will help visitors could start it. -- get started. it is important for our nation. >> we do not start these companies. the private company does.

almost a billion dollars a private equity have gone into this company before the government loan. >> i was taken aback by the figure. between 1995 and 2010, the share of panels manufactured in the united states dropped from 40% to just six%. since 2005, china's market has increased from 6% 254%. half of them are not chinese. rjr now chinese. we would like to compete as well. one of the reason china is maneuvering is because the government is putting a lot more money behind their solar energy industry. is the right? >> yes. china has committed $30 billion

from a development bank. ofwe're providing by any way subsidies. >> at least. >> who would be against such a thing? this is competition for them. i think that is playing a part in some of the reactions i am hearing. what of the key issues of this investigation as identified by the chairman is whether d.o.e. ecb solyndra as a favor. the administration gives "some of this money to people who were contributors are strong supporters." he implied the decision was based on political favoritism. before i ask you about these

allegations, i want to give you a background about this guarantee. solyndra applied for this loan in 2006 when bush was president. d.o.e. document outlined the solyndra loan as one of the three highest priorities. all this took place during the bush administration. >> yes, sir. >> in fact, on january 5, 2009, e-mail said "we think a public announcement would knowledge the hard work of the existing administration as well as benefits the fund-raising efforts for the equity contribution." in this evil, -- in this e-mail, they are talking about the bush administration.

this kaiser group was not the only private investment. a lot of the investment came from another group. that is the walton family, they give to republicans. they were looking to invest in a loan that was given by the federal government. i would like to ask you about or interaction with mr. kaiser. his impact on this loan. did you or your staff have any interaction with mr. kaiser related to the solyndra guaranteed? >> as i said before, i was not here at that time. i have never met or spoken to the man. >> same for me both personally and staff interaction.

>> did either of you instruct anybody to restructure the loan because of the donations? >> no, sir. >> node. >> did anyone in the administration instruct you or your staff to restructure the loan guarantee because of the donations to the president? >> no, sir. >> are you aware of anything that would suggest that his donations to the president were a factor in determining whether to grant dp solyndra loan guarantee? >> i was not actively involved. >> can you assure us that the decisions that were made on the merit -- >> it is my understanding that that is correct. >> our chairman has made some serious allegations. i think the real question is whether the vetting was done appropriately and whether it was

done based on full representation by solyndra about their economic viability. i do not think we ought to use this failure of this particular guaranteed to discredit what is an important loan guarantee in order to be able to compete in this area with china and to move our country away from dependence on fossil fuel. >> the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. >> we do want the availability -- i look forward to the day where i can reduce my electricity bill by putting some type of solar panels on my roof or in my yard. have we advanced the that vision of the future with the activities that have occurred to

in regards to this case? in particular, the jurisdictions for which you are responsible for, d.o.e. and omb. your testimony to us today to talk about pressure testing, i believe. we were talking about the enter agency discussions. there are a lot of e-mails that have been produced to the committee and to the committee staff. going through those, we keep coming up against the notion that there was pressure. this was a pressure cooker. we have to get this thing out the door because we have a groundbreaking and it might

involve a trip by the president. there was pressure, but it was pressure applied in pushing this thing out the door. was that the wrong kind of pressure to apply? >> could i get a copy? >> can we provide a copy of those e-mails? i think we are. i do not want to reference anyone's name because that is not appropriate. >> if i could be provided a copy of those e-mails, that would be helpful. >> we will do it. >> they appear to be in the august timeframe. i am not an author of any of these e-mails. i was not actively involved. i will comment, but i do not

know the intention of any specific e-mails. to ensure that an appropriate credit subsidies corps was given to the project. this is not about whether the loan should go forward, this is about accounting for the loan. there was some scheduling request from the office, interested and potentially being part of an announcement of the closing of the very first line. i want to be crystal clear as to my understanding. those scheduling request had no impact whatsoever on the credit subsidies score that was given to this project. omb staff decided to increase the credit subsidies court to make it more conservative and d.o.e. agreed with that.

the closing occurred after staff had done a thorough analysis and decided to increase the credit subsidy scored to make it more conservative. >> let me just reference august 27, 2009, 4:40 p.m. "as long as we make it crystal clear that this is only in the interest of time, there is no precedent set that i am ok with this, we also need to make sure that they not jam us on later details." implying that there was pressure placed. >> not being involved, i think what is clear is that omb staff, based on my discussions, comfortable with the credit

subsidy score and it was increased during the period of time. >> it does not sound like they were comparable. this time, we will let it go, but tell those guys over at d.o.e. that they will not jam us on this also. >> in preparation, i talk to the career staff and no one hesitated as to whether they were comfortable with the final determination for this project. the credit subsidy score was made more conservative as a result of the analysis. d.o.e. agree with that. >> let me ask you -- this is the filing with the sec on the report from march 2010. on the planned ipo.

the company has suffered recurring losses, negative cash flow since inception. did this prompt any curiosity on your part? and did it change anything about the behavior? >> as a former venture capitalist, frequently, companies will make filings while they are growing rapidly. and a review by an independent auditor is a that kind of scenario. >> i will run out of time. the enter capital is different from a taxpayer subsidy.

this is a different universe. your response as a venture- capital list is not consistent with being a good steward of the taxpayers' money. >> the gentleman yield back. >> recognize the chairman of the energy and commerce committee. the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am very pleased to see that we are having proper oversight. it is my hope that as the go forward, if the majority has evidence of wrongdoing, they will present it to us so they can -- so we can take action. solyndra first applied in 2006 when president bush was still in office is that correct? >> yes, sir. i understand that you have people that work would then allow an office and do the due diligence. are these people political

appointees? >> no, sir. >> they are career. >> and analysts and advisers. >> >> is it your assessment that it was awarded based upon the project proposal and not on any political influence? you are under oath. >> to the best of my knowledge, yes. >> ok. non-political career department of energy employees recommended a timetable to ward's solyndra a

guaranteed loan. >> the career staff identified the time frame after having brought it forward in the first credit committee and produced at that time, yes. >> let's fast-forward to the year 2010 when solyndra approached the department of energy for further assistance. was this is due to low-cost competition from chinese manufacturers? they needed help. if your office did not agree to restructure the loan, would they have gone bankrupt in 2010? >> yes. >> without the restructured along, would they have had any chance of success? >> it is hard to imagine how -- they were out of operating capital. >> would the company's 1100 workers been laid off in 2010? >> i assume so, yes.

>> is it's a standard for new investment to have priority? >> it is very typical. >> mr. chairman, i have been waiting anxiously to hear what we have to show that there is wrongdoing. i am still waiting to see something that makes me be concerned that we have some wrongdoing. i do not want us to proceed just on suspicions or doubtful questions or misinterpretations of e-mails or finding e-mails were not exist. let's try to see what took place. during the bush administration, solyndra submitted an application for a loan guarantee. in a financial technical review were conducted. in october, the department of

energy insights solyndra and 15 other applications to submit to full applications. solyndra submitted their equal application and 2008. the department of energy indicated that they were in the best position to receive the first loan guarantees. in january of 2009, during the final days of the bush administration, the department said 40 timeline to complete due diligence on the application. next, the administration of president obama. during that spring of 2009, the department continued to do its due diligence and completed its work. the loan guarantee was issued in september 2009, three years after the application was originally submitted. i am looking forward to hearing from the committee leadership,

is there anything on record that suggest that this proposal was rushed through or improper consideration was given or that there was any improper or illegal presser or political activity which might have led to us being where we are today? i would urge my colleagues to look hard for the facts and take all the facts into consideration and. as they go about our business, we are careful in finding the truth and not just having a splendid time making accusations regarding the program and the administration. thank you. >> time has expired. i recognize the gentleman from nebraska. >> thank you. i would agree with the gentlemen that we do need to do our due diligence and find out on behalf of the taxpayers, what

went wrong. that does need to be our ultimate mission. there is a thing that i am picking up in the questioning. i think everyone must agree that there is some scandal involved in this. i am reaching that conclusion by the amount of time spent to ensure that people believe that this was somehow approved and all the work done under the bush administration. that seems to be mo. if there is a crisis, blame it on the past administration. just to set some facts straight, you mentioned in your written testimony provided to us that solyndra submitted its initial application in 2006.

most of the diligence on the transaction was conducted between 2006 and 2008. unrepeatable fact is that on january 9, 2011, the bush administration d.o.e. committee remand the application, calling it premature and citing the unresolved issues. it seems to me that not all of the extensive due diligence was on the transaction was conducted between 2006 and two dozen 8, but that the bush to administration said very -- 2008, but that the bush administration said the application required more due diligence. then you said, in 2011, more do diligence was done.

that led to the approval. is that a correct statement? >> i believe that you mean 2009, commerce and. -- congressman. >> yes. >> additional diligence was down from the time the initial credit committee remanded back to the long program efforts through to the next credit committee which met in march. during that time, additional work on market research and other kinds of things that would normally make up the responses to the questions that the credit committee had asked were developed and answered. >> after the president was inaugurated, an e-mail from a d.o.e. states that we are

approaching the beginning of the approval process again. the work continued on the application, correct? >> yes. that is my understanding. >> what we would like to know is -- he asked in a way that major responsible for assuming motives of other people. i would just ask you point blank. after you started your role at d.o.e., did you received any communications from a white house employees, a personnel, at anybody regarding the solyndra loan? >> when i joined? >> yes or no? >> the solyndra was closed in

september and i arrived in november. >> what about the restructuring? >> the restructuring occurred a year later. it was largely conducted on a staff to stop basis. there were interactions -- >> if you are denying that you received any communication directly from the white house to you -- >> what i am trying to describe to you -- >> that is my question. that is an easy question. >> it has an easy answer. we work of regularly on this transaction and every other transaction with or enter agencies colleagues at omb. >> i said white house. >> we work with the omb.

>> do you want me to start naming individuals? did you received any communications -- i think the question is fairly clear. >> you are under oath and he has asked you a question. >> we interact with different agencies. the question is yes. >> i did not say different agencies. i said the white house. >> individuals in those agencies. >> so you did receive communication directly to you from somebody in the white house? >> i do not recall who would have been involved directly. what i can tell you is that the discussions around these transactions are conducted on a staff to staff basis working to develop the transaction. >> once again, have you

received -- you -- received any communications regarding the solyndra loan from anyone from the white house? >> [unintelligible] >> obviously, he is not going to answer the question. >> i was not involved with the loan. the loan was closed. after the restructuring, i do interact with component of the white house. i want to draw the distinction between omb and the white house. to get their expertise on the energy and financial markets. >> who was the person that you were communicating with and the white house? >> the primary expertise are decided at the time at the office of energy and climate

control. >> did they suggest to you -- my time is up. >> to buy, gentlemen. the dumb and from massachusetts -- thank you, a gentleman. >> the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. >> if you want to waste american taxpayer's dollar, let's talk about the oil industry. if you want to talk about loan guarantees, the southern company has received a loan guarantee 15 times larger than solyndra. let's have that hearing. that money is in jeopardy, if you are really concerned. we know we will never had a hearing on the oil industry or the nuclear industry. this is all part of an agenda that deals with the solar

industry. let's go back in time. it is back in 2009. you are looking at this loan guarantee. what does the market look like for solar? >> although i was not at the department in 2009, i do have a point of view. prices were extraordinarily high. the balance of system's cost of putting solar paddling on bruce, which involves a penetrating the roots, -- putting solar paneling on groups, it it received a lot of attention and it was particularly innovative because it addressed both problems. >> in general, you are not providing financing to fortune 500 companies. you are providing financing to companies that are largely start-ups. is that not correct?

>> that is correct. with the added edition that companies themselves are required to raise substantial amounts of capital. solyndra already raised hundreds of millions of dollars. >> when they were being provided, did your agency or any part of the federal government projects a 42% drop in the price of solar panel prices? >> not only did they not predict a 42% drop this year, but between 2008 and nine -- and now, that price has dropped 80%. >> so we can have an honest discussion. every time there is a doubling of solar panels a worldwide, the cost of producing them goes down by 18%. that phenomenon has become very

predictable. into those 11, -- in 2011, we can see the forest for the trees. the chinese funded $20 billion to solar companies in 2010. we have seen a 42% collapse in the price of the solar panels. was that foreseeable in 2009? >> it was not. china's commitment to this was increasingly clear and i believe that number is closer to $30 billion. >> did anyone in the marketplace predict the 42% drop in the price? >> i cannot speak for every analyst, but many professionals were surprised. >> evergreen went bankrupt this year. german solar shot down their

arizona solar facility. bp solar shut down their facility in frederick, maryland. this 42% drop this year is as a result of the chinese intervention in this market. this was not noble in 2009. this was not noble in 2010. this was a market intervention. if the republicans think that there is an envelope would be answered and it that was available in 2009, they're kidding themselves. we are in a global race. we are doing our best to make this case to the republicans on this committee. they keep the loan guarantees before nuclear intact as they pass their budget.

they continue to protect oil companies tax breaks. they are trying to pin a collapsing markets on something that is related to the fact that we are not focusing on the chinese intervention into this marketplace. i did hope that the administration and the policies of financing these programs, it has been a big success story and we have to keep that in mind. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. sullivan is recognized for five minutes. >> i appreciate you hold in this. mr. silver, on january 9, a 2009, the credit committee found the deal to be premature and

stopped all further work. an e-mail sent by a d.o.e. a few days later stated that it was the unanimous decision not to engage in further discussions with solyndra at this time. yet on january 26, 2009, after the obama administration came in, a staffer notes in an e-mail that d.o.e. has decided to restart the approval process. what prompted this decision? >> since i was not there, i can only give you my review of the record. when the first credits committee remanded the debt, they said, we have specific questions we need answered before we can take this application up. the career staff went to work answering those questions and when they had been resolved, brought the transaction forward again.

>> this was about two weeks before the stimulus was signed into law. did that have something to do that? >> not to my knowledge, no. >> secretary directed d.o.e. to accelerate the process. is that right? >> i do not know what the secretary said. the recovery act had a focus on bringing projects forward quickly. there is a sunset date to get this project done. a lot of work has gone into this and other programs to move money. i assume that to be true, but i was not there. >> you say yes? >> i assume that to be the case. >> what d.o.e. did to

accelerate the process? >> there were not during many people there. >> how many employees? >> i do not know. i believe it was between 10 and 20. >> did they even have the resources to do the review? >> yes. along programs professionals make use of outside advisers as well. >> want to resolve -- i want to resolve the discrepancy. in your testimony, had been developed under the bush administration. which is it? can you clarify? >> i do not think those two statements are incompatible. the career staff in the loan programs office identified the march timeframe as when they would come back to the credit committee when the proposal was originally sent back to them.

>> you mentioned earlier that you work in private equity. >> a bit of everything. >> you have looked at businesses and you have seen whether they were worthy are not. in that capacity, would you lend half a billion dollars to this company? >> i am by training and background a venture capitalist and a hedge fund investor. i'm in no position to second- guess what the transaction -- what i can tell a duke is extensive due diligence was done across multiple years on call all the relevant characteristics that would go into a typical financing. >> if we could look at slide 10. i would like to ask you about this. given the time pressures to sign off on solyndra, we do not have

time to change this model. as long as we make it crystal clear that this was only in the interest of time and there was no precedent, i am ok with it. we also need to make sure they do not jam us on later deal so there is not time to negotiate. this was on august 27. joe biden was to do an appearance very soon after that. the stimulus was done on september 1. what do you have to say about this? >> i was not involved. based on what is on the screen, i think this has to do with the closing of the transaction. sure that is to make the credit subsidies scorer is correct. it is not about the loan over all. it is about the credit subsidy score. my understanding, having talked to staff, is that staff was very

comfortable and had no hesitation as to its final determination of the credit subsidies court. as i mentioned earlier, this court was increased as a result of their analysis. d.o.e. concurred with that. it was made more conservative. >> you said there was a problem with the model. is that a problem? >> again, not having been there -- i have talked to omb career staff. there was no hesitation as to whether the score was one they were comfortable with. it was increased as a result of the analysis. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> i want to thank our ranking

members for insisting that we hear from the solyndra officials. my reading of the testimony suggested that d.o.e. and omb appeared to have done due diligence. part of the collapse appears to be due to forces beyond their control. i also think it is important that we except that innovation carry some degree of risk and it is important that we not use the failure in this instance as an excuse to turn away from the pursuit of green energy and the u.s. leadership in this area. my question -- let me start. i would like to ask you to take

me through the monitoring system. i do want to point out that a series of the inspector general reports have identified problems with management and controls with the guarantee program. these programs did not begin with you. it is important to ensure accountability for how these programs are run. after the solyndra loan guarantee was first closed in 2009, what mechanism did d.o.e. used to monitor the cash flow? >> in addition to our origination teams, our credit teams, our legal teams, we also have a portfolio management group. their responsibility is to monitor transactions post- closing against the covenants in each individual transaction. >> site visits to california?

>> there are regular site visits. >> how did it change with the lawn was restructured in 2011? >> the principal difference was that in addition to picking of certain additional collateral, we negotiated and took an observer's seat on this particular transaction. i should say that that is an unusual thing to do and to have. typically, lenders do not have observers see it, but we thought it was important to do that. >> despite the ongoing monitoring, it does not appear that d.o.e. anticipated the financial troubles. mr. silver, how would you explain that you were not able to anticipate the financial troubles? >> as several members have

mentioned, the precipitous price drop of solar panel prices has contributed to that. i should note that we anticipated there would need to be additional support for this company as it continued to grow. that was built into the destruction transaction. >> -- that was built in to the transaction. do you know why this occurred? >> i have no idea. i am not part of that investigation. >> did solyndra ever misleads d.o.e.? >> i have no reason to believe that we were misled. >> what lessons have you learned? how bill loan monitoring practices change? do anticipate making further

changes as a result of the bankruptcy? >> the entire program has changed. when i got there, there were about 35 people. we now have between 1008200 people -- 100 and -- 180 and 200 people. applicants are able to submit electronically. we want -- we won a national award for that software. we have a complete records management piece. we will continue to make additional improvement as we can. >> thank you for this informations. one of the key roles be to understand why d.o.e. did not see the bankruptcy earlier. you have helped us with some information earlier. whether there are ways to improve the system.

thank you for your responses. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you built for being here. just a couple of questions. i know you have been here for quite a while. i have an e-mail. mr. silver, you said you had worked on wall street. >> i did not work on wall street. >> for a hedge fund, okay. you are pretty used to reviewing companies am looking at the history of companies and deciding if something is going to be a good investment or not. correct? >> yes. >> i would imagine that d.o.e. had a file that was passed on to you when you came into your position. was there a file that contained

the different loans that had been approved and the tracking and the accountability to the taxpayer? we are about fairness for the taxpayer. >> as are we, and yes, there were files. >> ok. did you get a file at omb on solyndra? >> i became involved with solyndra around the period dove destruction. >> not the question. did you receive a file that was back today when? >> no. but still had no knowledge of the history? is specifically on fcra. >> not my question. was there some history of the progress? >> i was briefed by our staff on the history. >> but nothing in writing? >> i reviewed the document that stopped produced.

not one comprehensive file. >> there is solyndra no loan guarantee file at omb. >> my assumption is that the career staff maintains a file. >> there are 2 e-mails. let's talk about these. the first and, august 19, an e- mail between d.o.e. staff, "we still have a major outstanding issue, the issue of working capital assumption." mr. silver, i assume you know something about that. let's look at the next day. no one seemed to be -- it looks like we might have had somebody that was doing a little bit of

looking ahead. let's talk about this. that e-mail says the issue of working capital remains unresolved. the issue is cash balances, not cost. solyndra seems to agree that the model runs out of cash in 2011. this is a liquidity issue. mr. silver, what do you say to that? >> that would not be surprising. that is what you use modeling to do. >> have you ever seen this e- mail? >> i have not seen this. >> this is the first time you have seen this e-mail? were you aware that the liquidity issue had read them. -- rhythm. was that and the file?

>> i do not remember. >> remember, you are under oath. >> i arrived in november of 2009. since evelyn was already issued, we moved in and -- since evelyn was already issued, we move into a position where we are managing along. >> i appreciate that. my assumption would be -- my goodness, if we had a loan guarantee program going into different agencies and there is not a comprehensive file, that would show the due diligence, document this comment that would show the orderly process that was followed. my goodness, we should be reviewing every one of these loan programs. is omb not looking at this at a

comprehensive basis? let's look at the rest of this e-mail. >> it generates a working capital shortfall of 50 million went working capital assumptions are entered into this model. that was the question that was passed. to all of my colleagues, i think that when you look at this and you see that someone at d.o.e. was asking those questions, it should cause us to seek to do a little more review.

>> i agree that we should closely examine what went wrong and how the process can be improved. i am very concerned here about this is an attack on a program that when you invest and various innovative technology, is it not true, mr. silver, that there is some inherent risk associated with each of these deals? not just with solyndra?

>> in building, that innovation at scale, there is an old adage that every banks want to be the first bank to be your second line. the program is intended to be the first bank to the first loan. >> my colleagues want to make this a political issue, but they also talk about not wanting to pick winners and losers. we areven's sakes, investing right now billions of dollars in a oil and gas companies. we are investing in a questionable technology, risky technology called nuclear. i want to know that in selecting projects, what steps have been

taken to make sure you have properly diversified our portfolio? >> thank you for the question. the loan guarantee program does not perceive itself to be in the business of picking winners and losers. the marketplace is the place to do that. as someone who has come directly from that, i support that. we do not look at projects that have not already garnered or will attract substantial private capital. private capital is one of the bedrock requirements for the issuance of a loan guarantee. the question is not really so much are we picking losers and winners. we invest across a diversified portfolio. we invest in the wind, solar, geothermal. it is the program of objective, mandate, to introduce a wide range of innovative technologies so that the marketplace can

replicate them on their own. when the markets are in those areas, we exit. the real issue is how are we going to -- if we are not going to substantially -- significant participants in this, how will we build these american companies at all? china and the rest of the world are spending billions of dollars to build up these industries. >> you know, september 2, 2011 -- this program should be judged based on its entire portfolio as opposed to what individual alone. i wonder if you could talk about that. but this particular loan in context comment either one of you. >> absolutely. we have invested in a wide range of technologies. the vast majority of our investment have been in generation projects, rather than

in manufacturing projects. generation projects have agreements through power purchase agreement with utilities. the power grid that is being created is already contacted. the generation projects have a vastly different risk profile than manufacturing projects. the only done it for manufacturing projects in the 40 projects we have done. >> what would be the consequences if this investigation ended up in a conclusion that making investments in companies that do alternative energy, but with the consequences for our country be if we were to divest of those kinds of loans? >> the consequence would be

profound and they would be profoundly negative. we're competing with countries around the world to see this as one of the largest industrial sectors and opportunities of the next generation. if we walk off the field, there is no way that we can succeed. these industries are different than the software industry. you need platform companies in order to be able to succeed. as i pointed out earlier, five of the largest solar panel companies are in china. 7 art in asia. the eighth is in europe. you need to deploy commercially because that is how you build up the supply chains. you have to create demand pull. if you do not do that, you cannot keep those supply chains alive. they cannot reduce their costs. we have under invested and

supply chains for decades. we are only now beginning to catch up. >> thank you. thank you for your work. >> thank you. >> the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. >> i want to make a statement in regard to a couple of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. comparing solyndra to the southern company. i take little exception to that comparison. southern company owns mississippi power, alabama power, a georgia power, and employs thousands of people. it is closely regulated by the georgia public service commission. it has three nuclear power facilities.

this loan guarantee by the southern company, comparing that to this loan guarantee for a company like solyndra is a little disingenuous. let me go ahead and start the questions with you mr. silver. when he met with committee staff, it you represented that the restructuring agreement had position to the united states taxpayer for maximum recovery. the company is now bankrupt, and it turns out the government is now in a second position to the investors and the deal. those that put up an additional $75 million. why did they allow solyndra investors to be first in line to

recovered? isn't your number one duty to protect the taxpayer? >> it is absolutely one of our concerns to focus as much as we can on the security of the taxpayer monies. that is why we reached the decision we did. a restructuring is always, by definition, a decision on on a set of tough choices. it means a company is struggling. the fundamental question that we were trying to answer -- >> let me interrupt you. if you have the legal authority to make those tough choices, the energy policy act of 2005 states open " the obligation shall be subject to the condition that is not supported to other financing. " this language makes congress intent seem pretty clear to me. to protect the taxpayers' money. isn't this exactly what the restructuring dead?

make the taxpayers' interest subject to other financing. doesn't the restructuring of violate the law? but congressman, i am not a lawyer. the decision was reviewed by d.o.e. and omb council. the conclusion of that analysis was that projects needed to have senior secured position at issue once. i will tell you that as a businessman, and if you do not pretend to restructurings of transactions -- permit restructurings of transactions, lenders will be -- >> let me interrupt. i understand that. in this particular instance, you said you received a legal

memorandum on d.o.e.'s interpretation of the energy policy act. correct? >> they all reviewed this matter. >> who reviewed the memorandum? >> which lawyers? i am not sure. >> it was approved by the general counsel, you just do not know what lawyers. it was approved by the general counsel? >> it was certainly reviewed. >> i want to discuss one part of the legal opinion. please put the language on the statute on the screen. i believe that it slide number one. look at what it says. let me read it to you. number three, subordination. the obligation shall be subject to the condition that the obligation is not supported to

other financing. that is part of the industry policy act of 2005. the d.o.e. legal opinion seems to be based on the word "is." "the reading of the provision is reinforced by the world use of the word 'is'." you cannot subordinate when the guarantee is issued, but you cannot restructuring. are you basing the opinion that taxpayers can be second in line to investors based on what the meaning is -- of "is" is? isn't it exactly the opposite of that plan language? >> i am not a lawyer. i'd relied on the council's judgment on that. >> i think you got bad advice.

>> the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. >> i am shocked my republican colleagues to be concerned about something coming from a private sector to the government payroll. i thought that is what we needed more focused on the private sector. i do not like wheeling and dealing either, but it sounds terrible when you hear it. i want to ask some questions about that restructuring. the investigation revealed that there appears to open to a major legal questions. the first was the extent that the d.o.e. had the authority and the second was whether the restructuring should be considered. mr. silver, what does that mean

to subordinates and interest? >> it means that new capital would be in a prime position on exit depending on the structure. i might point out that typically, in a restructuring, why would any capital come into a troubled situation if they did not come in a prime position? typically, in the private sector, the prime trumps other subordinated capital. we were able to ensure that it was only in the event of liquidation. in the event that the company is sold as a turnkey operation, it will not be in a senior position. >> there is language in sec didn't -- and section 17 that my colleague pointed out.

the obligation shall be subject to the condition that the obligation is not subordinate to other financing. your legal staff there was an interest. can you describe your staffs legal rationale? >> yes. as best i can. the judgment was made at the law required that the loan issuance be in a secured position. i want to assure the committee as all the transactions we are. in the event that a project struggled to and there were is no surprise to the fact that projects struggle, we had the authority to figure out other solutions. i should remind the committee that absent the ability to do this, this company would have

closed with solomon hundred jobs lost in the likelihood of any real recovery to the taxpayer being at a minimum. at the time the loan was restructured although the physical building had been built, the plant had not been fitted. it is an average of a project financed that the value of a completed project is greater than an incomplete project. >> key documents provided suggest that your staff had concerns about this approach. you did not step in and stopped them from subordinating the interests. why not? >> staff and lawyers and determine -- >> i keep hearing you're not a lawyer. it does not show anything on common sense. >> the determination was the

approach was a reasonable , wants to make it clear that the billion dollars of private equity that went into this company is wiped out in that scenario. we're not talking about all of that private capital. just the newest piece of money they came in in order to provide the company with a chance to restructure. >> the second issued was whether it was a modification of the loan agreement. my understanding is that it prohibits all modifications that increase taxpayer costs. the definition does not include a restructuring to workout a troubled loan. is that correct? >> this situation was deemed a work around. first, the company was in imminent default.

second, it was in the best interest of taxpayers to restructure the loan as opposed to liquidation. when those conditions are met, a loan is considered a workout. >> so it was a workout and not a modification. what was the rationale for determining to restructure and not modified? >> exactly as we have indicated. >> your staff is also expressing concern that the restructuring constituted -- order analysis did you go through to determine their not illegal modifications of the loan? >> when we first heard about the financial troubles the staff orientation was going to be there could be a modification. as we worked to understand the financial situation and the fact the company was in imminent

analysisand that doe's was reasonable, omb determined that it was a workout. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murphy. >> i want to get a couple of things on this in terms of your expertise. had you ever managed something of this size? >> core capital partners was a venture fund. we provided equity. not in a loan of this size. >> at tiger management? >> yes. >> you are used to reviewing these things. i go back to on a slide 5, when they had in august of 2009

someone wrote this -- i cannot read this. in terms of saying that some issues with regard to the concern about the health of the company, major outstanding issues. any now says the issue remains unresolved. the model runs out of cash in september even in the best case without any stress. when did you become aware of that the noun? >> i have not seen this e-mail. it was written in august of 2009. i arrived in november. there would have been no reason for me to know of its existence. >> you did not know of anybody is concern that there was not enough capital? >> career staff was aware of the issues. >> your job is to recite? >> euros -- you're not aware of

a memo saying they did not have the money to keep going? >> i was aware of the staff situation. >> yet things are going through. >> alone had already gone through. >> as we are looking at this and with the move forward to restructuring, the -- >> and maybe i should clarify what the loan was for. we provided a loan guarantee to support the construction of a physical plant called the fab two. that was what colonus for. it was improved in september. that was delivered on time and on budget. the way it alone -- >> for a company that could not function regardless of what they had. >> that does not say the company cannot function. that says there will be a liquidity issue -- >> meaning they ran out of

money. >> meaning they will have to address that issue. >> i'm trying to establish, you handle loans like this. would you offer a loan to accompany the says it will not have the money to pay it back? >> i was not there when this loan was issued -- >> in a time yet been there, you were aware. i want you to stop throwing everybody else under the bus. i hear you throwing your staff under the bus. you are in charge. now you're saying it is everybody else's fault. you tell me which you did with half a billion dollars of taxpayer money now saying it is all my staff's fault. i did not know. watery going to tell the taxpayers? we're in a hole for some much money and you're dealing this in

a cavalier way. whose fault is it? >> let me say that the 200 professionals working are exceptional professional. >> you throw them under the bus but you are the driver. going back to a slide the sash is the obligation is subject to the condition that is not supported to other financing and now gets restructure its attacks appears to not get their money back. >> any restructuring is based on a decision as to what is the better outcome for recovery. or a restructuring. >> soon made the decision -- who made the decision that this was not going to be adhered to? >> it was -- >> we're throwing him under the bus. >> i am not a lawyer. >> did the secretary of energy have anything to do with this?

>> not to my knowledge. >> so no one is responsible. this is an incredible burke -- organization. this is phenomenal. what did you do for a living? if you do not know what is happening and everyone else is to blame, what do we tell our constituents who work hard. with so many people in poverty, we say we do not take any responsibility. it is everybody else's fault. >> we work to ensure that these projects -- >> i understand. now the taxpayers are on the hook. >> as was pointed out earlier, there are always challenges investing. congress, through the appropriation, -- >> when did this company get their check? >> it does not work like that. >> you could have stopped it when you found the information

that they could not exist. that was under your watch. >> our transaction, our loan was for the construction of a physical plant. >> when you realize they could not function, that is when you take leadership and stop throwing your staff under the bus. >> the question mr. murphy is asking, should someone be fired? should anybody be fired? >> the people in the loan guarantee program have worked -- >> you're saying no one should be fired. >> i am saying we are doing the best job we know how to do. >> binder stand. the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. >> if we can have slide one again. i am concerned about this situation. in paragraphs 1 and 2, it

references that no guarantee shall be made unless -- in paragraph 3, this is the obligation shall be subject to the obligation not subordinate to other financing. have you read the memorandum law on this? >> i have not read a. >> would it shock you to know that if you pay attention to what is being said, i can give you my copy with my notes on them. it looks like it is a law school project for you come up with unanswered. here is a question. defended the best it can. under this analysis, it says that if we close alone in the morning and at lunch somebody says i think we should see if we can get more money from somebody else, we're not going to follow this paragraph. is there is no line.

somebody raised that issue. should there be a line and between when the loan is granted and a possible default. you can change the law any time you want to. does that make common sense? you do not have to be a lawyer to know. does it make sense of the congress is responsible for setting our legislative policy would say you're not to subordinate. under the interpretation they can subordinated over lunch. does that make common sense to you? >> what makes sense to me is to ensure we have the tools available to do whatever is necessary in a troubled situation to secure the taxpayers' interest. >> that even if it is in violation of the law. common english always trumps legal mumbo jumbo. common english makes clear you're not to subordinate. when you were a help your people

subordinated $75 billion to private investors. they're going to invest more money in august. >> that is true. >> they did not do so. when did your observers tell you they were not going to invest any more money see might have been able to anticipate the same courtesy? >> late july. >> or pre trying to get information from you all that time? >> i do not know what you're referring to. and we sent you 35,000 pages of material. >> just so we know, you have all these other loans which are in a similar situation, have the subordinated that money? >> i would say that of the two deals that have closed and completed construction, both of those are repaying on a timely

basis. >> attached to the memorandum there are charts on how they're going to make money. did you look at those charts? >> i have seen the financials. >> you testified that part of the reasons the lender went under is the chinese were able to make their product cheaper and the europeans stopped buying. wasn't that also true in january? >> it has been true for the past several years. >> when you look at these numbers, how if you know that, how could you anticipate that profits of solyndra would double next year? >> i will leave it to the management team to discuss their financial projections. >> you were concerned enough to put a stop -- an observer on the

board. doesn't that sound like it is not common sense? >> with all due respect, revenues are not the driver of how a loan guarantee would get paid. we focus on cash flows. those can be managed in a variety of ways. >> you would acknowledge that if there model was a week to begin with. i recognize there is risk. if there model was week to begin with than the market gets worse, doesn't that mean we should have not thrown good money after bad? we are in a worse position to get our money back. >> at the time -- >> are we worse than if we had let them go into bankruptcy last january? >> not necessarily. that will depend on the outcome of the bankruptcy. when you are looking at this issue and admitting there are no good choices, one choice is

liquidation. >> is a bankruptcy a good thing? >> it is not. ipad " -- >> i agree with you. >> the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. >> i would like to address the ranking member of this committee. i hope she recognizes this is not a democrat or republican issue. this is a threat to the legislative cross has. when you can have an attorney play this game. if that means democrats or republican one day direct legislation that we have to say not only it will not happen but we must say it will never be allowed to happen, and we have to play this word game. i think this is an issue about the law. i do not care how convoluted an attorney wants to do it.

this is not passed. i think this is an affront on both sides of the aisle by this manipulation. we tried to get the job done and we crossed a line. it to a common sense person, they would say you crossed a line. there's a lot of people talking about solar power. some of us have worked in that. are you comfortable with the technology chosen by this company? did you have any concerns about and using this technology? >> i am not a solar technical analyst, but i am highly comfortable with the fact that the solar experts at the department of energy and the independent engineers which were well known firms were qualified. >> there have been more false starts than any other form of

that protection? >> i do not know that to be true or not. >> china has concentrated extensively in pauley crystal technology. >> china has focused on the market segment because it is a very cost-effective way to mass produce those panels. solyndra technology was designed to overcome a 2 fundamental challenges. the high price of silicon -- >> and they also have a lack of durability and a loss of proficiency as opposed to other technologies. you are a businessman. you are looking at a company. do you review their proposal for the construction of their factory, the technology, the

plan, development, and its related costs and oversight. >> what is the question? >> how they were building it, other related issues of the cost of building the factory. >> the loan was issued before i arrive to. >> when you renegotiated, did you look at what was being proposed to? >> the plant was built. >> did anybody down the line raise the issue that the proposal was to build a facility in the state of california? can you think of anywhere in america where you probably have more regulatory obstruction to the construction of a factory? >> i am not qualified to answer that question. the investors that back to this company in the management team that led it must have concluded this was the right place to do it. >> are you aware of anybody that

has notified applicants that if they want to get a grant addition moved out of california into a state with less regulatory obstructionism? >> i am not aware of that. >> maybe we ought to talk about the fact that -- this application which asking to take 30 acres of agricultural land. it was going to be required to be able to go the environmental quality act, getting a permit from the city, their quality from the bay area which is a non-attainment area. it was going to require a general permit which means that not only did you of the environmental agencies involved, the state water quality control board, you have

the local control board that you had to get a permit from. the california department of occupational safety and has summoned the most restrictive regulations in the world. we had to get a permit from them. you has hazardous-waste which california has some of the most restrictive funds. then you get into waste water. these are some of the permits down the line. nobody in your department raised the issue that this is not only a terrible place to try to find a facility, why build a new facility rather than moving into an existing facility in a state with huge empty resources? anybody talk about the question of why would you build a new facility when their warehouse is available?

mr. chairman? >> time has expired. your welcome to answer the question. >> at risk of repeating myself, i was not there. i can tell you that applicants for loan guarantees are required to have all of their permits in place by the time the project is undertaken. >> when they get into it. somebody with siding, it is absurd with the kind of a vacancy we have for anybody to talk about or to come to you and say we want to build a new area on ag land. >> the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you for calling this hearing. we have been pressing on this issue and asking a lot of questions about this loan

program for months. i think it is important that we have this hearing now. while solyndra was touted as one of the poster child of president obama of his first stimulus bill. there's a lot of evidence this shows this was something the white house wanted to move through quickly. while this was one of the poster child is -- poster children of the first bill, the president is counting when i call a son of stimulus. another bill to spend more money to do more things like this. if you look at some of the issues we have raised about this program, some of these projects, just solyndra alone was touted to create jobs. a lot of us are questioning this kind of debt double down son of

stimulus approach where they're going to do more of this same failed policy of spending money we do not have. the president said, passed the bill now. we had not seen the bill. he did not give us the tax sinise said to pass it. he called on the american people. i hope you understand why all lot of us are skeptical when the president says pass the bill now. we see the failure of the stimulus bill. he did that with health care. when the president says pass a bill you can wonder why somebody wants to read a first and look at the details. now when we get to this issue of solyndra, you testified you were not in your position until november 2009. you acknowledge there was a file on solyndra. >> i read through all of the materials when i arrived. >> did you see the concerns being raised by your own agency

back and prior to your coming that solyndra could go bankrupt by september 2011? >> i saw all of the materials related to the discussions. i need to reemphasize that the loan guarantee was for the construction of a physical factory which was stunned. >> it is your job to go through that a loan guarantee and see if there are things that meet the taxpayer interests. if you also needs to be aware of the way the program is being implemented. after you came in, there was a report and that was pretty scathing about the loan program. they made recommendations. they pointed out problems. after you came in, they pointed out that the loan program treated applicants into is this -- inconsistently. they gave examples.

did you read this report? >> if you'll give me a minute to respond. >> i cannot give you that long. >> while the report came out after i arrived, it covers the 2008 time period. >> did you make any changes based on the problems? >> we made substantial changes. >> let me ask you on the actual -- you were here. you were in your position after y'all did the restructuring of solyndra's loan. who put the taxpayers in the back of the loan? >> as i've said, i do not know it was in violation of law. >> someone made the decision. >> there were a variety of legal -- >> did you make it to? >> the loan program --

>> it's a yes or no question. did you make a decision to subordinate the taxpayers when the decision was made to restructure? >> the question does not have a yes or no answer. >> you either made the decision or you didn't. i think it is straightforward. we have been asking for months. we ask your agency for some of these documents prior to the modification of the lawn. prior to restructuring. stonewalled us. to have maybe if you would have given us that information months ago when we ask for it. the taxpayers would not be at the back of the line today. you would understand why we are asking who made the decision? can you get me that information. >> i am happy to meet with you to describe -- >> i want it in writing.

i'm going to ask if you can get as the names of the people and the decision making process. who made the decision to put the taxpayers in the back of the line? in violation of the law. i do not know where your council thinks. your council may be part of this list. i want to know if you are part of the list. i want to know anyone in the white house is part of that chain and said we're going to subordinates denied -- taxpayers in restructuring this long. we deserve that answer. somebody made that decision pureed or multiple people. nobody made it. the decision was made. would you get that information to this committee? >> we will provide what you need. >> the gentleman from colorado. >> thank you. thank you for your time.

i would yield 30 seconds to my colleague from california. >> my biggest concern is -- as someone who supports solar energy. we have to keep the science and not a blind faith. it appears that this process was written by an assumption that anything solar was good. you could force it through and it would work out. the lack of critical review it is the greatest threat for feature solar. it is this kind of blind faith we have to avoid. it has to be driven by science and good investment and not by an assumption that renewable is great. this failure was driven by that. i do not think there was criminal intent. the trouble is, with this kind of prejudice for a technology blindly, there is more a threat to that happening in the future. not just financially but the energy independence of this country.

>> and i agree with you that we ought to back the science which is why a large group of investors who have done their own due diligence, why the loan program staff from 2007-2009 timeframe and the solar experts came to that conclusion. >> the record shows there was political interjection. there were preconceived ideas that if the was solar it had to be a great package. there was good stuff and bad step. the creature itself is the garbage. being treated as if it was sacred spirit it is not critical -- sacred. it is the critical enough. >> thank you. i want to go back to the issue of the e-mails and the approval comment dismissal project

approval, and dismissal of this project. -- i want to go back to the issue of the e-mails and the approval, dismissal of the project. you said this was over nothing big. >> i never did say that. committeee credit comm remanded in back. if i may. >> let me just talk about this. >> i would like to 0.1 other thing. >> this is my turn. what you said due diligence took place over -- let me read this to you. there is not an independent market study addressing longer- term prospects are the specific company. they raise the issue of obsolescence and the market. it is important to have an independent market.

while the agreement is said to be analyzed, the committee did not have access. there are questions regarding the guarantee for the guarantee. there is concern with this. this was an an e-mail on january 9. this is the due diligence he said he did by january 26, and monday. >> i do not know what dates you are referring to. >> no. said no we're not going to do that. >> does the gentleman have copies of that ta? >> we do not have copies.

>> the credit committee sent an e-mail. you can see what i am talking about. january 26 we are approaching this. >> this is not accurate. if you'll give me just a moment to try to answer this question. there is an extended amount of due diligence that takes place. to the first committee met. there's a month before and met again. i need to make sure this is clear. i do not think it is. what gets approved at that juncture is a conditional commitment, not the final close of the loan. the loan did not close until september. additional takes place on the conditional commitment as is

true in every transaction. >> what changed from january 9 and january 26 when they did not need that information? >> i do not know what the general 26 date is. >> is says they are under there. >> they said they did not do because they needed the information. >> we are approaching the beginning. >> the credit committee had their observations taken into account. >> this is the beginning of the approval process. >> the credit committee does not match your? >-- master? >> they said they will meet in march. they did. >> the gentleman's time has

expired. we're in the first round. >> i have a consent request. i am sitting here. i am seeing a wee bit of information carefully. it is supposed to tell me what happened here. pimm i do not think there are any lawyers that would tell your that it would be some fission. the whole document should be placed before us. dig it out. let's see the whole thing. comments.ng a lot of saying this is terrible. i do not know what has happened. i do not see anything of their

which tells me that we have a clear picture of the problems. require, let'sto inquire fairly. is it possible that my republican colleagues have seen these? >> we will take it under advisement. all the documents will be made available. i asked my cancel -- my counsel to provide these documents. they have them produce. they have not been to you. is that a fear of session and it fair -- is that a fair assumption? we passed a unanimous. >> i want to know what they said. i wanted to be put in the

record. >> if the gentlemen would yield. >> we recall that the documents were produced under an agreement with the majority that they were to be confidential and were not to be copied or in any way disseminated. what happened was in between yesterday when i found this out at about 7:00 p.m. last night and today, it turned out that the majority released the documents to the press. i have just as much concern about this as everybody else. the way the information has been

parceled out, the minority does not have the full copies of the e-mail. that is not in the grand tradition. >> we heard your opening statement. we made a unanimous consent. i am told you were given all these documents. this is the one that specified this. we have agreed that we will make them public. >> they were subpoenaed. they did not have the right to tell us. >> i understand that. we agree that they cannot tell us. we will make this public. i appreciate your concern. is there any objection to allowing him in the first-round? >> i have no objection but i

like to understand this. if we are blind to have a second -- if we're going to have a -- >> we have provided all the documents to you. they were produced to both sides. is a possible your staff has not made them available to you? >> i understand it is the committee staff to make these available to all members of the committee. i understand the committee staff works for all of us. >> we were told we could look at the documents but we cannot copy them. the documents could not be disseminated in any way.

that is a ridiculous agreement. if we questioned on documents, we have this available for everyone. what we have had today are the slides, taking " without providing them to anybody. >> i think the point is that they should have been made available so that they could go to the task. i think that -- >> if i could ask a question. the e-mails that are in question are from department of energy staff. it doesn't already have access to all of that? >> i do not necessarily have access. >> we're not complaining about

whether he has these e-mails are e.t here > this is a serious way to proceed. i will take your criticism under advisement. >> no. this is not compromis when you take it under advisement. i do not believe this has been adequate answer for my concerns. and did not like the president. i will read about these things from the press. i do not like the fact that we're having all manner of inferences drawn.

i am not comforted by these been taken under advisement. it should be a dress now. i expect -- i respect his opinion. we say we have given you all the documents. the fact that you do not have them in front of you is not your fault. >> are we majority or minority? the majority staff is making this decision? they're going above their authorities. if the minority is, we have to find out why. >> i suggest you do that and we find out why. >> i find the business of the committee being conducted in a

curious way. >> you do not recognize you have all the documents. my staff has provided all the documents to you. >> where are the documents tha? i am anxious to see them. >> i think what we're going to do is continue this discussion. i want to recognize the gentleman from kansas for five minutes. cried thank you. about the fact the king to his office. he cannot understand why. nobody in that room had any skin in the game. this is exactly what we get when the federal government tries to put money into businesses. your task has occurred a

subsidy. you're out there looking at everyone's loans. >> the point is to put a score. >> that is the purpose spa. i read about this and i was in law school. it was published. i know a fair amount about the process. what you're these cores that were taking index for june watch for the scores that were taken? -- what were the scores in 2009 that for taken? >> it increased. >> can you provide to the committee the original score, and the subsequent scored?

you will provide that information? >> we will work was that to make sure. >> then you give us the score in 2011. you decided this is how much additional subsidies to be provided. >> 2011 as part of the restructuring. this loan was in imminent default. irish gentry was in the best interest of taxpayers. -- our interest was in the best interests of the taxpayers. it'll cost them less. the restructuring in the annual budget will be reflected. >> this is exactly what happens. let me go back. no one could have known what was going to happen to the price of

the cells. this was unimaginable that the cells fis would fall below. do you agree? and who could have known? analysts were- many surprised. >> in august 2004 he wrote you hear about company is working toward price disparity. the manufacturers will have another world.

>> what is the status? >> does see have information? >> i don't. i have a reservation to a unanimous consent request. >> it will not be put in the record. >> i just want to know. are the e-mails and other things that i have been discussing, and will it be put in the record? >> they are. >> i want to make sure everybody is creates a. i want to major in. >> i know you were not there at the time.

were they aware of the concerns about the pricing of the cells software central? >> there are always there. it was the cost of ownership. there's the balance of systems payment. it is a very competitive opportunity. >> i understand. >> the city of gone from 135 to 180 folks. -- you said you have gone from 1352180 folks. i hope you hired mark. >> we have hired an enormous a large and talented pool of former private public experts and executives. i think we have built a very

good one. >> the talked about this loss of market share. these't is precisely what programs are intended to do? the cost of production will come down. >> should the new be thrilled that the prices go down taxi a? yeah at sad. >> it is our collective efforts. we issued a different solar manufacturing loan guarantee to a company whose improvement is a process improvements. it allows them to cut the costs by 500. the american taxpayers lost half a billion dollars. assigned to pick a particular business. isn't that precisely what happened here?

>> we are putting together a portfolio. >> i have been here for the entire hearing. i have heard not a single person stand up and take any accountability for taxpayer money. when asked who is responsible. you point to other people. you take no accountability. for me this is unacceptable. i yield back. >> the witnesses have indicated a request. we will come back at 1230. >> we appreciate your support. >> we will have the second round. how will coverage on

c-span2. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this morning i had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others and in addition to my duties in this house i shall have further such meetings later today. >> thank you, mr. speaker. grieving families have been waiting many months or many years to wait for inquests ended concluded. they suffered enough. will the prime minister stop the messing about now and stop the justice sector to sack the incompetent coroner. >> i will like at the particular case as the honorable gentlemen has talk about. we have been put money and

resources to try to make them more resourceful but i'll look into the individual case that he talks about. >> would the prime minister give us an update on his recent stroift russia especially in relation to the tragic murder of a man whose widow lives in my constituency. would you be able to meet with her to give her an update. >> well, my right honorable widow speak with him. the british government has not changed its view one jot about how wrong it was for that murder to take place and how we need a proper explanation of what happened and who was responsible and we want justice for that family. we haven't changed our view but i do think it's right at the same time to try and build a better relationship with russia across a whole range of issues. we have common interests in trying to grow our economies and

our trade. we have common interests on working together on issues like the middle east peace process. i i didn't just raised that case but i raised many other human rights case with the russian president and with others. i think that's the right way to consult our international relations. >> dave miliband. >> here, here. >> mr. speaker, today's figures show that unemployment is up by 80,000. does the prime minister still think the british economy is out of the danger zone? >> well, first of all, let me say these unemployment figures are disappointing figures. i don't want to hide from that. every lost job is a tragedy for that family and i want to do everything i can and this government will do everything it can to help those people back into work. that is why we have 360,000 apprenticeships starting this year. that's why we have 10,000 extra university places and that's why in the work program we've got

the biggest back to work welfare to work program this country has seen since the 1930s. but at the same time, let me say to the right honorable gentleman, it is right that we get on top of our debts and our deficits. and today of all days shows the danger of getting into a position other european countries are in where the whole credibility is being questioned. >> ed miliband. >> mr. speaker, people are going to judge the prime minister on results. they don't want to hear his spin about the work program. youth unemployment is up by 78,000 on today's figures. even after his work program has started. what young people and their families are asking is where are the jobs? >> the work program is the best way to help young people and indeed all people back into work. now, of course, as i've said these figures are disappointing but we shouldn't ignore the fact that since the election there are actually 500,000 more jobs in the private sector and

employment over -- there are more people, 300,000 more people in work than there are a year ago. that is absolutely -- let me just say to the honorable gentleman, there is not one ounce of complacency in this government about the need to do more to help people back to work. we have a growth plan, that includes cuts in corporation tax, freezing the council tax, cuts in petroduty, making sure we have enterprise zones in every part of our country but in every week and in every month we'll be adding to that growth program so we help people get back to work. >> mr. speaker, he and his government are the buy word for complacency on unemployment and youth unemployment has lowered before his election and has risen. and women's unemployment is at its highest level since 1988. and, mr. speaker, he's making the situation worse by cutting

the child care tax credit. how does it make sense when unemployment is rising for women to cut the support that helps them back into work? >> let me just remind the right honorable gentleman youth unemployment went up by 40% under the last government. 278,000 more young people unemployed when he was sitting in the treasury and breaking our banking system and bankrupting our economy. that is what the people remember. now, when it comes to child care, what this government is doing and this first government to do it is making sure there's 15 hours of free child care for every 4-year-old and every 3-year-old and we've extended that to every 2-year-old and we've focused the tax credit system in the poorest people in the country so the child tax credits are going up by 290 pounds this year and next for those who need the most but let me just say to the honorable gentleman on a day when france and germany are meeting to stop

greece go bankrupt, he must be the only person in the world who thinks you spend more to get out of a debt crisis. >> mr. speaker, it's no wonder he doesn't want to talk about the british economy and what's happening here because what's actually happening and not for the first time. and not for the first time he's wrong in what he says at the dispatch box. youth unemployment was falling at the general election and now -- and now it is rising. now, why -- why is it not working, mr. speaker? the reason is because his claim and the chancellor's central claim that you could cut the public sector and the private sector would make up the difference isn't happening. for every -- for every two jobs, for every two jobs being cut in the public sector, less than one is being created in the private sector. isn't that the clearest sign yet that his policy just isn't

working? >> so now we have it, mr. speaker, he wants to tell us about the golden inheritance left by the last government. the fact that they completely bust our banking system. the fact they doubled the national debt and the fact they gave us the biggest deficit we're recovering and he can't be consistent in one day. this is what he said yesterday to the tuc. he said you cannot spend your way to a new economy. just 24 hours later and he's changed his tonight again. no wonder the labs exchequer said they have no credibility at all. >> mr. speaker, what an insult up and down the country who have lost their jobs. he doesn't -- he doesn't even try and answer the question about his central economic strategy to cut the public sector and make the private sector make up the difference. it's not -- it's not happening. and the truth is, mr. speaker, look at what's happened over the

last year. britain has grown slower than any other eu country apart from portugal and romania. now, can the prime minister tell the country and tell the people who have lost their jobs what is he going to do differently over the last year -- over the next year compared to what he did over the last year? >> first of all, lee me correct his facts. britain is growing faster than america. that is something he doesn't choose to tell us. let me answer -- let me answer -- let me answer directly, let me answer directly -- >> order! the prime minister's answers must be heard. the prime minister? >> let me answer directly this point about unemployment in the public sector. it is -- all governments right now are having to take difficult decisions about cutting public spending. anyone sitting here will have to make those decisions. this government is reducing the welfare bill.

if we weren't taking those steps, you'd have to make deeper cuts in terms of the rest of the public sector. he would be having even more unemployment in the public sector. that is the truth. when is he going to learn what i thought he said yesterday, you cannot spend your way to a new economy. is that still his view 24 hours later? >> mr. speaker, so the message to all those people who have lost their jobs is the prime minister is not going to change course. the chancellor of the exchequer has lashed himself to the mask. [applause] >> not for the first time perhaps. mr. speaker, mr. speaker, youth unemployment is at its highest level for 19 years. women's unemployment is at its highest level for 23 years. the highest level since the last time there was a tory government. it turns out he's just like all the others.

for him unemployment is a price worth paying. >> it is this government that's cutting corporation tax, that's frozen the council tax, that cut the petroduty that started the regional growth fund, that ended labour's jobs attacks that has the biggest apprentice job and it's cut spending when labour left. the truth is, mr. speaker, it was the last government that robbed young people of their future by climbing up the debt. it is this government that's going to deal with our debts and give them back our future. >> chris hopkins. >> thank you, mr. speaker, the prime minister will be aware that the consultation on the draft national policy framework will come to end next month. committee confirm that the government's proposals will ensure that local residents will be able to fall far from the decision-making and important green spaces will retain their existing protection and that this will not become a

developer's charter? >> i can certainly give him that assurance. the fact is we do need reform. the current system is too slow, too brewer crattic and it doesn't give local people enough of a say and we're replacing a vast bureaucratic guide with something that's much shorter. local development plans will mean that local communities and local people have a far greater say in what is developed and where. and we are not changing the rules on national parks, on green belts objects areas outstanding natural beauty. but let me just say this to everyone in the house because, i believe, there should be cross-party support on this issue. today -- today the first time buyer -- today, the first time buyer with no support from their family is aged 37. i think that is wrong. we do need to build more houses to help more people get on the housing ladder. >> thank you, mr. speaker. last week, the prime minister told this house there are 25,000

police officers in back-office jobs but the her majesty's services say there's less than 8,000 police officers and back-office roles. mr. speaker, week after week this house hears a litany of evasion, inaccurate answers and arrogant putdowns on the prime minister. we want a proper answer. but let's give the prime minister a chance today. is it the inspectiat or is it the prime minister. we won't get an honest. >> i think the honorable is confusing two things. and that is -- that is the number of police officers who aren't on front line duties and the number of police officers who are actually in back-office roles like i.t. or h.r. those are the figures that i gave. those are the figures that i write. and what is so complacent about the party opposite is they're not prepared to consider any reforms to try to get more police onto the front line onto our streets. >> dr. sarah wallaceston.

>> i know the prime minister is serious about tackling violent crime, antisocial behavior and over million alcohol-related conditions. will he meet with me that we need to go further of minimum pricing, availability and particularly the marketing of alcohol to young people? >> i'm very happy to meet with the honorable lady who has made a lot of speeches and written a lot of articles about this issue, about which she feels passionate and i think she is right in many ways that actually there's a problem of binge drinking in our country. a lot of it is related to very low cost alcohol continuing in supermarkets. may it please to see is an end of that deep discounting rather than perhaps the way forward that she suggests but i'm very happy to meet and discuss this issue. >> a poll last week showed that 68% of scots want oil revenues

devolved to scotland. does the prime minister agree with 68% of scots or he doesn't? [laughter] >> well, if you ask a stupid question you get a stupid answer. [laughter] >> the fact is, the whole of the united kingdom rightly has invested in the north sea, the whole of the united kingdom should benefit from the north sea. and i think we should do everything possible to keep the united kingdom together because we are stronger. england, scotland, northern ireland, wales than we ever would be separately. >> does the prime minister agree with me that we need more women on corporate boards? >> i completely agree with the honorable lady. the current figures are simply not good enough. only 14% of 100 company directors are women.

we should do far better. we have some experience from the problems -- the problems we had in our own party and the need to take much more proactive action to make sure we have a better balance at the top of politics. we need a much better balance at the top of our board rooms as well. >> aren't the most vulnerable people in the care of the health service -- those silent voices who live in residential homes -- will he express his regret that under his watch, we hear today the reduction in the number of inspections which three-quarters a 70% reduction because money was moved from inspection to bureaucracy? doesn't this again prove that the national health service is not safe in the hands of the party? >> i think the health select committee report that is released today makes a very important point about the future and the work of the care quality commission.

i think it is important that it focuses on inspections and making sure that standards are high rather than simply on a process of registration and bureaucracy. i look forward to seeing the government's response to it but i think it's a very good report. >> sir peter tapsel. >> was my right honorable friend taught at whatever school he happened to attend that one of the key functions of parliament over the centuries has been to diminish what the historians have called the overmighty subject? in the 18th century -- [laughter] >> i want to hear the honorable gentleman's views about the 18th century. [laughter] >> in the 18th century, it was the indian nabobs announced by

edmond burke. in the 19th century, it was the ruthless industrialists humanized, in the 20th century it was the trade union leaders tamed by lady thatcher. today the almighty subject is the bankers. >> here, here. >> in the united states, the federal authorities are prosecuting a wide swath of the top banks. when is that going to happen here? >> well, first of all, the right honorable gentleman obviously

had a much better education that is apparent -- it's very good to hear him say something positive about margaret thatcher. i think the serious point the right honorable gentleman is making we do need to cede responsibility from our bankers. i support of what vickers said in terms of reforms that we need. if people break the law, no matter where they come from or who they are, they should face the consequences and be punished. >> thank you, mr. speaker. what does the prime minister think of local authorities encouraging developers to put applications not on greenbelt but on greenfield sides in order to use the new homes bonus to balance their budgets? >> well, i have the completely original and shocking views that they should be for local people and local authorities. i think in the past we had far too much top-down central direction. i think people should make up their own mind through their local council about what

planning should take place and where. that's the agenda this government is going to follow. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. i'm sure my right honorable friend would have noted the very sound advice recently that the government should operate effectively there should be unity at the top. with this in mind could you assure the house and the country that he should not rewrite a budget 14 hours before it's due? >> i can confirm that these discussions these days take place in a proper way. and they take place between the two partners in the coalition and it's not a battle between numbers 10 and 11 and i have also to say that when i have a meeting with the chancellor of exchequer it's nothing like going to the dentist and there's no reason to have anesthetic. >> i'm sure all parties in the house have convicted fraudster michael brown has been living under the pseudonym in the republic of dominica. unfortunately, mr. speaker, we

have no treaty with that country. can the prime minister tell the house what steps this government is taking to bring mr. bound back to face justice? >> well, we like to extend the countries that we have these treaties with and i will certainly look in the case of the dominican case and get back to the honorable gentleman. and while we're at it, perhaps we could have a search for the individual donor to the labour party. i agree there was only one and his name was alistar campbell. >> thank you, mr. speaker. will the prime minister join me in congratulating the football club who in partnership with the university have delivered the first university of football business in the u.k. which has generated immense interest among the young people of the u.k. and across europe? >> i will happily join my honorable friend in praising the work of the football club.

i've been very struck in this job of the privilege you get of seeing different football clubs working not just on their own football skills but inspiring young people not only here but as i saw in south africa in other countries as well. i think there's a huge role for football to help change people's lives and i fully support what our clubs do. >> mark hendricks. >> can the prime minister confirm that the winter fuel allowance this year will be 50 pounds less for the over 60s and 100 pounds less for the over-80s. >> what i can confirm that that payment will be exactly as set out by labour in their march budget, a budget that he supported. but at the same time the increase in the cold weather payments is actually going to be maintained throughout this apartment. -- apartment.

>> sadly, the cost of new regulations put on businesses under the previous government amount to a staggering 90 billion pounds a year. can my right honorable friend tell what this government is doing on tackling that unacceptable burden in terms of regulation. >> so what this government does specifically on the retail sectors we've already removed 257 regulations. we have the new in one out one so any a staggering 90 billion pounds a enough money to small businesses. that is why we put in the merlin agreement in place and banking is not going down as the shadow chancellor is wrong about everything even when he is sending down. bank lending is actually going up. >> of the headquarters in my constituency, perfectly situated to take the green investment bank with the move from derby to

the post office sorting center and the evaluation offices and with the closure of 70 jobs and the potential closure of bombardier would the prime minister encourage thinks secretaries of state to look at sending more civil service jobs to derbyshire so that we can have more employment in the area? >> well, the honorable lady makes an important point and i know there are real concerns because of what's happened at bombardier. and let me say this on the issue of the agreement investment bank i know there will be many bids from many parts of the country to house this excellent institution. on the issue of bombardier let me just say this. i think it's encouraging to hear that they are looking at the possibility of upgrading an existing set of diesel trains running them to use electric power. the fact is about the previous contract we've discussed this in the house before. it was established by the last government. we had to follow those

instructions. that's why that contract had to be awarded elsewhere but we are looking to the future of bombardier and the future of derby and we want to make sure it's a bright future. >> chris williamson. >> thank you, mr. speaker. last week the prime minister told the honorable member for south derbyshire that he would do everything to help bombardier but the industry is hanging in a balance as a result of a plan to build planes in germany rather than in derby. so can i ask the prime minister if he will meet me and a across party group from derby so he can discuss to review the contract and it's possible to review it in order to secure the future of the british train building industry and keep bombardier in great britain. >> we want to keep bombardier in great britain and working. and that's why i said to my honorable friend that there should be a new activity but we are putting a lot of investment in our our real industry. 14 billion pounds into network grant for network rail, 3.8

billion for cross-rail, 750 million for high-speed too. this is a government that wants to do more for our railway industry and wants to do more for bombardier after they were so badly let down by the last government. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the campaign is on the right to get rid of the 50 pence tax rate. those on the left want to juggle with the a.t. will the fair and most aggressive way to maintain confidence in the economy to accelerate the process of raising the tax threshold to 10,000 pounds? >> what we have made -- i'm grateful to my honorable friend to his question. that we have raised the personal allowance significantly in our budgets. we've taken over a million people out of tax all together. we're committed to going further. on the 50p tax let me just say i think we should look at the evidence of this. we're going to find out soon just how much money this tax is raising. let's look and see whether it is a good way of raising money or

not. >> prime minister, when the current riots hit our borough on that terrible monday night, there were at most 100 police officers on the streets including some very young community support officers facing mobs hundreds and hundreds strong, the result being that my borough was undefended. it was burnt. it was looted. now, can i put it to the prime minister -- not as a partisan point, but as a sensible point, that when the facts -- when the criminal facts change in england following the riots, a sensible government would pause for thought and change its mind and the last thing it would do is reduce police numbers? >> well, first of all, let me say i came to visit there and met with him and met with a number of people who had seen some shocking things happen in that borough that must not be allowed to happen again. but let me say to him even after the changes we're making in police funding, the police will be able to surge in a way that

they did in several areas. the problem -- the problem on the night of the riots was that surge didn't take place soon enough. and i think he's confusing the response to the riots in the immediate circumstances and what's happening to police funding. the police have assured me they will be able to deliver as many police onto the streets of london as they did when they got control of the riots. >> zach goldsmith. >> mr. speaker, following a question from the honorable member, would the prime minister agree to meet organizations like the cpra, the national trust and so on to reassure them and their millions of members that the proposed changes to the planning system don't represent a blank check for the development? >> well, i'm very happy to meet anyone to discuss this. and i know that the national trust -- i know that the national trust -- the national trust have specifically met already with the planning minister the right honorable member and have had a lot of reassurances about what these planning changes mean. and let me just say it again,

because we're going to have stronger local plans, that gives local people a greater ability to decide what's in the local plan and what's out of the local plan. at the same time, having a presumption in favor of sustainable development will cut another bureaucracy in our system but we're not changing the rules for greenbelt, for anob's, for special scientific interests and all the rest of it and i do think people need to focus on that because what we need to happen is sensible sustainable development to go ahead without the bureaucracy and the top-down system today but with all the reassurances people need. >> thank you, mr. speaker. last week the prime minister told this house that a number of young people not in education employment or training was coming down. in actual fact the public figures show the last three-quarters it has risen. will the prime minister like the opportunity to correct the record? >> i think what he'll find the number of 16 to 18 years old who are not in employment education or training has come down. and indeed they have come down.

and that is a step forward but if you look at the overall number of youth unemployment and that has gone up and that is unacceptable and that's why we need the work program, we need the more apprenticeships, we need the more university places and it's that that this government is putting its money into. >> simon kirby. >> thank you, mr. speaker, will the prime minister join me in congratulating all the winners in last night's women in public life awards including the excellent mary makers and brighton holms. >> i will certainly join my honorable friend in doing that and congratulating the winners. i said to my honorable friend the member from madeston we need to do more to promote women in public life whether in politics or local government, this party took some steps and, frankly, i think we do have more to do and there's many organizations we do not have equality and opportunity where we need to have that equality of

opportunity and it's not enough to open the door and it's maeri crattic and you need to take credible action to get it done. >> mr. speaker, now that the prime minister has committed himself to backing the boundary changes which will reduce the number of m.p.'s in this house and ensure that prime minister's questions will reflect the subject in the last few days, will the prime minister now commit on delivering on the other pledge that he and his colleagues made before the election which is to deal with the scandal of non -- people from your elected to this house who do not take their seats and yet who continue to be paid millions of pounds in allowances including the equivalent of short money which they can use for party political purposes whilst we have to use short money for parliamentary purposes. please give us is vote today with that scandal. >> first of all, let me say on the boundary review, what we are looking at here is trying to

make sure a basic fairness, which is that every seat in the house of commons should be the same size. and today what we have is you've got some seats that have as many as 90,000 voters and some seats including some in wales that have as few as 40,000 voters. how can that possibly be fair? on the issue in terms of northern ireland and the issue he raises i haven't changed my view and think it's an issue that needs addressing. >> the father of my constituents mr. oliver tibiaert was killed and his mother was kidnapped. what will the prime minister do of the return of mrs. it beet? >> well, we are doing everything we can on this desperate case and i want to make sure we're coordinating everything the government does. my right honorable friend the foreign secretary has met with

the family today. i think on some >> best-selling author of "a beautiful mind" talks about her latest book on economics. she's interviewed by financial times editor jillian cats afterwards. it's one of the many non-fiction books on c-span 2's book tv. and we'll talk from professors from george washington university about their latest book on suppression and michael

moore recounties his life from starting his own newspaper to winning the academy award. get the complete weekend schedule at book tv.org. >> nasa yesterday unveiled its plans yesterday for a new rocket in the post space shuttle era called the space launch system or s.l.s. will be the strongest ever. charles bolden was joined by senators kay bailey hutchison and anothert to announce the project. this is a half-hour. >> good morning. we're about the administrative

nasa charlie bolden is about to announce the most powerful rocket in history. the administration is coming forth with the plan to flesh out what was passed in the nasa authorization bill a year ago. to plan forward that keeping the international space station alive until at least 2020. with a series of commercial rockets taking crew and cargo to and from the space station then allows nasa to get out beyond low earth orbit and start to explore the heavens, which is which is the job that nasa has always been tasked to do. this rocket is coming in at the

cost of what not only what we estimated in the nasa authorization act, but less. the cost of the rocket over a five-to-six-year period in the nasa authorization bill was to be no more than $11.5 million. this cost is $10 billion for the rocket. the projected cost for the caps sule or what they call the mpcv, the multipurpose crew vehicle, in that time frame is $6 billion, and then reworking of the ground support to launch the new rocket and its facilities in the modernization of facilities is about $2 billion over that time or a

total of $18 billion in that period of time up to 2017. i'd like to show you what the new rocket looks like. >> this rocket has a core that is the pri cot external tank. the old external tank would come to about here, in the stack of the space shuttle to give you an estimate of size. this is the smaller version of this rocket. this is in the range of the 70-77-ton. the old external tank would have come to about here.

so you can think of the entire stack of the space shuttle being about this high. this size of the rocket. on either size are five-second solid rocket boosters, but ultimately nasa will run a competition for these boosters to be solids to liquids. there will be five space shuttle main engines on the tail of this. and on top of the core then is the second stage, an improved j 2 x that's already under development, and then the crew module in the top with the escape system. now, what this does is, you remember in the aftermath of the destruction of the space

shuttle columbia, the gamen commission, he said you nigh the shuttle as long as you have to in order to build the space station because of the components designed to fit into the cargo bay. you replace it with a safer rocket. that's what they are doing with the commercial rockets and that's how this is designed. with the crew on the top of the rocket with the ability to escape. on the path, if there's an explosion as well as all the way to orbit. so i can't say enough good things about the lady that's standing here next to me. kay bailey hutchison has truly

been a leader not only as our space station -- committee and she in large part has brought us to this day. kay is going to speak in a minute, but we want the explanation of the entire system to come from the number one person at nasa, the administrator at nasa, mr. charlie bolden. >> thank you, senator. i have a disclaimer to start with, since i'm the administrator and not the expert at nasa, there's a press availability at 11:30 where bill and the team responsible for putting this together will be available to answer questions about configurationso i would defer to them. i'm going to give you a message

i think is important and a message i want you to take to the american public as well as our partners. and i do want to thank all our members of congress. and the senators is right, i don't want the get in trouble here but i think the queen bee here is kay bailey hutchison. and she's an episcopalian like me, so we've been worried about the wildfires in texas and so we don't always disagree. today i'm pleased to announce that nasa has elected the design of its new deep space system that will take american astronauts foote into space than ever before and create jobs right here at home. private companies are preparing to take over transportation to the international space station and sat lights are on their way to jupiter and the moon and plans for human missions to an

asteroid and mars are taking shape. commercialization of astronaut travel to lower orbit, extension activities and a fresh focus on new technologies, the new space launch system or s.l.s. is key to laying out to president obama in the authorization act. the s.l.s. will be the cornerstone of our deep space exploration program. president obama has challenged us at nasa to be bold and to dream big, and that's exactly what we do. while i was proud to fly on the space shutting, -- space shuttle, tomorrow's dreamers will dream of walking on mars. it's one of the most important decisions to be made this decade. and it riders a major commitment object part of the american taxpayer.

that's why it was insisted to do the due diligence of the work to get it right but we realize the president and congress' vision of doing so but in a more affordable way. we have adopted new ways of doing business and have achieved hundreds of millions of dollars of savings each year and we're also changing the way we spend the taxpayer's money by providing more transparency. we're handing over the space station to our private sector partner so we can focus on deep space exploration. we're already building the caps sule to transport our travelers into deep space. now we've designed a trocket carry us into space where no nations have gone before.

we have decided to go to a liquid fuel system to increase cost and efficiency. 2 development flights will take advantage of existing boosters and other hardware while companies compete for advanced boosters to enable capability for our new heavy-lift rockets. the first mission is targeted for 2017 with additional flights following to get us to reach an asteroid even mars. in the orion multipurpose crew vehicle in 2012, we believe are at the appropriate levels and today the space station has made a commitment to these deep space vehicles. in addition to these two building blocks, we're investing in the technologies to allow humans to live and work in deep space which will

allow us to reach destinations such as an asteroid and mars. and i really want to thank bipartisanship in the for getting us to this day. we, as i have said, will answer questions at 11:30, but it's my on this sexual abuse to you senator kay bailey hutchison for her comments. >> well, thank you. this is a day that we have been looking forward to. for a long time. i think it's no secret that we had theeped -- i had a meeting yesterday with general bolden. with jack lew, senator nelson, in which we really hunkered down, i think on the timetable

going forward, because we do want to be on the same page, and i have the commitments now from everyone that is in the decision making process that i believe really are going forward now all as one with one goal, and that was important to me that the o.m.b., the administration, nasa and the members of congress be all together. and i think now, from everything that i have been told, and the commitments than made that we are. i am very excited about this rocket system. this is the piece that i believe is going to be the true long-term future. you can't have the preeminence in space that we have enjoyed over the past decade without seeing beyond the immediate-term goal, which of course, is the space station,

and making sure we fully utilize the space station. that is the intermediate goal. the long-term goal has to be what's out there that we haven't discovered yet? so i don't want the trays hopes that everything is going to go exactly in a box, by an outline that has been put forward, because we are pushing the in which. we are going to the next it ration of space leadership. and this, today, i believe is the commitment that america is making to assure that we are not going to be the -- we are going to continue to be the world leader in finding out what are the capabilities out there that we have not even discovered yet? is thering? in energy? is thering in in national security or something on mars

or an asteroid that would help us here on earth? so fast great day for america and it is a commitment that nasa, nasa is going to lead the pack. we have commercial for crew -- getting the crew to the space station. that's great. we're committed to other parts of our science in nasa. but the leader is going to be the launch system that is being announced today. and the next thing that senator nelson and i and congresswoman johnson and congressman hall, every one who cares about the vision for america to lead in space is going to be the timetable. the timetable for the contracts to start being modified so that our experienced people will be kept to help modify and design the vehicle that will take us

beyond earth orbit. so the timetable will be what i'm looking for i want to see the contracts need right away. and i'm told by all of those who can make it happen that we are in fact mere weeks away, maybe one or two weeks away from modifying the contracts and assuring that we are going to have the designers with the experience to take us to the next level. so i am very pleased to be here today. and i am pleased to have really a new beginning. that's what we have been looking for since our last shuttle came down, is the new beginning, and i think we have it today. let me just say to my partner here, bill nelson. he gave me credit, and i don't know if queen bee is how i would like to be referred to. your highness is not what i was

looking for, but with great support senator bozeman and rockefeller have been relentless in assuring that america's place in space would be continued. and i couldn't ask for better partners and these senators on our side, they have backed us all the way, and i will also mention, because we're going in this week to the appropriations process, senator mikulski also has bought in 100%. she and i are the chairman and ranking member on the appropriations committee. we're going to markup tomorrow, and we're going to do what i think everyone will applaud and that is assure america's rightful place in both science and space exploration. thank you. >> we get double the pleasure with kay, because she's not

only the ranking on the senator commerce committee, but the senate ranking on the c.j.s. appropriations committee. we want to hear from the other members of congress that are here. congresswoman eddy bernice johnson is the ranking member of the house science committee. >> thank you. >> let me say, mr. hall that is chair of the science committee is unable to be here this morning. but we work in partnerships, as i am the ranking member in some support of the space program. and this is a very special day for us. because we are going into an area just as we went into the area when we started space

exploration. we are going now to the next level. we know that what was done in the past has been the most successful research in this country that we have invested in. what we have been concerned about is preserving our expertise in making sure that the people that trained scientists that inspired our young people for the next level will flame place. we considered this somewhat of a longtime coming, because we have known for some time that we were going to need to take this step. we were simply waiting for the white house's approval, and we are so pleased that the white house has joined us in where we want to go. and we are very excited about this next phase. we know that research means exploring the unknown. we know what we've done in exploring the unknown from the

past. we don't know what we'll find in the future, but we are confident that we will find new information that will clearly take the lives of our people from around the world to the next level. so we are very excited about now. and we are very pleased that administrator bolden can move forward with his vision, and we'll keep all of our very qualified staff in place. we want to thank them for what they have contributed to the space program already. and we want to thank them for being patient enough to wait until we could come to this level where we are now. we hope that we will be successful in making sure that we can get the minimum, at least, amount of money to go forth in a very vigorous and successful manner. and so i am pleased to be here and pleased to say i see other

members of the committee present from the house as well, and i am glad to see them here, and i am going present to you now the senator with whom i worked with very close in the house and we worked this on a subcommittee and transportation, and neither one of us stayed more than we -- said more than we had to. we were pretty quiet, but we had a lot of communication going. but i want to present to you senator bolden, my dear friend so, that he can make remarks. >> thank you all, and i really am very pleased, very happy that we have a decision. and i think the key to that is because we have a decision now, it will allow us to provide certainty, and that's so important, especially as we seek to retain the best and the brightest as question move forward. those employees that will help us get to the next stage that we go to.

so i really look forward working with my colleagues here, working with my colleagues in the house and the senate and working with the administration, again, to so we can work together and build the infrastructure we need to take this hard in space and continue with the preeminence of being the leaders in space. moving forward. that's been such an important part in our history, and i think it will be an important part moving forward into the next century. thank you. >> it's important to underscore the administrator's comment about the workforce. this is the most skilled workforce that is a national as set to this country. -- asset to this country.

and with the phase-out of the space shuttle and the commercial rockets scaling up. as the space taxi, and then now with the big rocket, the monster rocket being set, and the contracts as kay said, within a week, the contracts being modified. you will see that workforce, then, start to scale up. so that there's not just precipitous drop that you phase from one right into the other. that was most important to all of us. it's important to the president and the administrator made that comment in his opening line, and i just wanted to underscore it. we're pleased to have congressman which a can a fata -- chaka fatah, from e.p.a.

he is the -- from pennsylvania. he is the ranking member of the subcommittee in the house. >> the general said he was proud to have on the shuttle commission. he actually commanded two of them. today you see a decision package come together. as an appropriate i know that we're pleased to see the president's goal moving us from exploration in terms of lower orbit to deep space to mars, as the target. them bracing the project is important. i am -- the position positions

nasa to move forward. i know that some of the toughest things on the hill can be challenging. but this is rocket science. rocket science we are dealing with. so it is somewhat difficult for those in the political realm. but i do want to make sure our country leads the world. i have led in an absolute way. we know we have others who have joined this effort in terms of space exploration, but we intend for her to be number one on the cheap. and as an appropriate it's always helpful to have depines from the authorize ors and have agreement so at least we're not working at cross purposes. so i want to thank senator hutchison and my good friend senator nelson who himself

serves in a different capacity than our efforts in space for their leadership, along with my colleagues from texas, congresswoman johnson, who has done such great work in the science education area and on behalf of nasa. so thank you. >> ok. let's take a few questions mindful of the 11:30 detailed press availability for the technical details. yes, sir? >> you talked about spending. can you talk about how difficult it may be in this budget strirmente fund these primptes, not just this year, next year, but however beyond will that be? >> the question was the funding difficulty on a going-forward basis. this is why the president

wanted to make sure that they had all their t's crossed and their i's dotted. so that he would be able, with vigor, to present this budget. and then defend it. from the administration standpoint. will it be tough times going forward? of course it is. we are in an era in which we have to do more with less. all across the board. and the competition for the available dollars will be fierce. but what we have here now are the realistic costs that have been scrubbed by an independent outside third party and their decide study of nasa after nasa presented its numbers to the

administration to the budget director. and so they have scrubbed these costs, and they think they are realistic, and they think that this is achieveible if america is going to have a human space program. and i can tell you in the abuse m of every american, there is a yearning for us to explore the heavens. and what you see over the next five or six years is a budget coming forth from the administration is about $3 billion a year for this system. do we think that we can maintain that? the answer the is clearly yes. >> let me speak to that ast as well, because as ranking member of the committee that is driving the budget, i see a very strong bipartisan support of nasa in its key roles.

we will set priorities. and the administration has set priorities. it will be this space launch system for the far out. it will be the commercial system for the interim term, and the web telescope. and when we set those priorities, i believe that we will get the funding. i will just use this as an example. even some of the strongest budget cutters on my side of the aisle have put forth mission cuts or the core mission of nasa, because they see that as part of the american spirit and most certainly poofert american economy and america's national security, which we cannot afford to be where we cannot afford to be in second place.

>> senator had a press release that was headlined or somebody was undercutting the space program. you also have an ongoing investigation into the delay and delivering this design today, will that investigation continue? and are you satisfied now that as you say everybody is onboard? >> well, i think that we -- certainly the committee and senator rockefeller and i will discuss the investigation and if there are parts of it that we need to close, we will talk about that. i haven't been privy to exactly where they are. we have been frustrated. i think that's no secret, by the time delays. i have felt that there was some effort underneath somewhere to

delay, delay, delay, until it was too expensive. and it came to a head when there was a leak that issued a -- a hypothetical set of circumstances which would double the cost of this -- of this launch system. well, no one ever suggested the hypothetical yet it was reported as oh, my gosh! the white house has sticker shock. and that brought it to a head. nothing in there was factual and it was an erroneous leak and that's when senator nell and so i came out forcefully and said this is sabotage. so i think that now that the administration has come forward. everyone is on the same page on the numbers. the numbers are within the authorization levels, and i think we're now moving forward

as a team for america. and that's where we all wanted to be, so styles the making of the sausage isn't pretty, but we're at the right end, i hope. but you know, we're still -- we still have to see the timetable. we have to assure that everybody is working as enthusiastically for all the priorities and when that is satisfied, i think we'll be in good shape. thank you very much. >> we'll see you at the 11:30. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> up next on c-span, the coalition of so-called -- democrats call for federal spending cuts. robert dole lick discusses the new economy. followed by "washington journal." >> mary shapiro the head of the securities and exchange commission testified on capitol hill. we'll have live coverage beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three. >> do you know what the second amendment of the u.s. constitution is? >> yes, i do. >> and what is that? >> it's basically, well, it's somewhat open for debate, but it's been proven just recently that it allows the right to bear arms to individuals.

citizens of the united states. >> right to bear arms. >> it's the right to keep and bear arms. >> do you feel safer wearing a handgun? why or stpwhinet >> yes. i do. because being a woman, i'm automatically the weaker target than any other man would be, so i feel that with a handgun here, i would be able to defend myself a lot easier. >> if you're talking about the robbery against a person, obviously, i think that somebody who is -- would not bother trying to rob them. >> that's one of the winners from last year's student cam competition, and you can see all the videos. get more info at studentcam.org. >> a group of house democrats known as the blue dogs held

this news cofrpbls yesterday to discuss federal deficit. they have called on a joint deficit reduction committee to be aggressive in cutting federal spending. this is a half-hour. >> good morning, everyone. i would like to thank you for giving us this opportunity to express the blue dog's opinion on the fiscal super commission. the ways in which we can better the lives of the american people. do what's right for the american people. put the political parties aside. it's about the sensible middle. it's about stability and confidence in the markets. how to create jobs when you have a type of commitment that

this group has shown over the years. this is not something that has just been a commitment and been fashionable in the last six months or the last year, because it's the fashionable statement to make. this has been a commitment that the blue dogs have had for over a decade. and we know that it's time for the american people to have leaders like this stand up for them. not the political parties, but stand up for what is right. so it gives me great privilege to introduce john from georgia. our policy co-chair will talk to you about the policies that we have looked at, constructed, but also talk about a letter that we'll be sending to the super committee. >> thank you. good morning, y'all. i'm the congress from georgia's

district and the -- citizens blue dogs were founded back in 1995, the principles that have eyed us are getting our nation's house -- fiscal house back in order. those are the principles we started with, and they have guided us ever since. there are a lot of uncertainties out there facing the business community right now. tax and certainly we believe we're not going to be able to address any of the uncertainties unless we towards fiscal uncertainty, imposed by spending and national debt. until we get that under control, we cannot address any of the other things affecting business today. so we a poivetted a task force that will help deal with the fiscal uncertainty imposed by

our nation's finances. the chairman and vice chairman, we are developing policies that will address fiscal uncertainty facing our class. right now i want to turn the floor over the our cochair, mr. mike ross of arkansas. mike? >> thanks, john. you know the blue dogs have districts all across the country. but we continue to hear one consistent message from our constituents. quit putting party before country and get to work. to do what's in the best interest of the people of this country. in all my years in public service, i have never steen public discourse so hostile. and i blame congress for that. members of the house have become so backed into their respective corners, so blindly intolerant of one another, it has made having even a simple

conversation across the aisle nearly impossible. this extreme bipartisan or extreme part sonship is not what the american people expect out of their elected officials, and it has got to come to an end. the national debt is the single biggest threat to our economic and national security. those of you who know the blue dogs know that we have been talking about this for over 15 years. it is time for the members on both sides of the hours to stop playing lip service to bipartisanship and get to work to come up with a compromise that puts us on a path to a better future. a compromise that puts country before party. as blue dogs, our goal so encourage the members of the super committee to call for a time-out at least long noufer do what's in the best interest

of this country. and we urge all members of congress to do the same. i'd now like to turn ito to the blue dog chair of the task force. >> as he said, we've been talking about this for a long time as blue dogs, and i think our basic message other than working together, more than anything else, it's about the fact that we cannot get it when americans are americans are suffering and our message to the super committee is if you just do what you have been legislated to do, it's not going to cut the mustard. you have to get close to that $4 trillion figure in savings and revenues to balance the budget at the end of the day. if we don't go big and really talk about the cost drivers, our tax system is a mess.

we have got really talk about not more than just our discretionary programs which are 1/3 of the budget right now. that is the real charge. they have got to go bigger than anything expected of them. and this will be a real statement about whether this congress has america's back at the end of the day and are we going to make it worse or better for this do the right thing and go big, solve our problems but put everything on the table, i think that's a huge confidence message. you just heard mike talk about a moment ago that gets businesses off the sideline, making the investments and really creating the jobs this president is talking about. with that, the most experienced member of the blue dogs, jim cooper. >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to be here, i'm jim from tennessee's fifth criminal district.

that is rare member where the committee can eper come up with a solution or force us into across the board se quest tration. it's important that the super committee go big, put us on the path for a $4 trillion solution much like the bowls simpson -- the bowles simpson suggested we do. so the super committee has heavy responsibility to come up with what will have to be, since it's 6-6, a bipartisan answer to our problems. and it will have to come up with that by everything that and then have house pass this by christmas. but that is so much more

preferable than se quest tration. that's what our letter does. saying our blue dogs are willing to step up and do the right thing for the country. so even in this type of partisan, to put the message first to try to make sure we get a fiscal so i appreciate your being here and look forward to your questions. >> any questions? >> what do you think of the idea of spending more to help stimulate in the near-term, and then maybe get more fiscal austerity? >> obviously we think any jobs package should be paid for.

but we're not here to talk about a specific piece of legislation. i mean, that is a small part of what we're talking about. you're talking about a $450 billion jobs program, but we're here about talking about the government cutting spending $4 trillion. we're here to urge the super committee to go big and to call a time-out of the 2012 elections, and let's put country before party. rarely do you have the american people as focused as they are now on the deficits and the debt. it's a real opportunity with the super committee and with the focus of the american people on the debt not really just kick the can down the road, but solve this problem not only for our generation but for futures. so in terms of jobs, i think i

can speak for all of us when i say we're for creating more jobs. >> in nevada in which your party suffered pretty big losses, the president's leadership on the committee? and -- >> look what happened the last time we had special elections. >> what do you think? >> i don't think it's any sthook we lost the race in nevada and i don't think it's too big a sthook we lost in new york. only for the political pundits to analyze, but we all know that there were a lot of local issues, if you will, that were involved in the -- in new york. and i don't know it's going to be to say as your democrat, it's going to be a bad year but most in nevada told you it was

going to go republican and in new york there were a lot of local issues involved in that in my opinion. >> one issue that came up in new york is the public if you put the president further ahead, there really wasn't a difference in the change between parties. we talked about putting politics on hold. it's the promise that if we also threat -- that title. >> everything is on the table. i mean, we cannot, not have an increase in revenues the way the commission had proposed. it was a lower the rate and broad at any base, and you can't do that without some type of reform and entitlements. whoo we would be kidding ourselves. you'll be lying to the american people if you think you can do it any other way. that's far too to have been problem that we have in this country. i mean, even as news media,

it's much easier to put an extreme right or left person on tv, split the screen and let them fight about it. that's great entertainment. but the american people need to hear the truth, the truth about what we need to do as a country and member of congress, at the end of the day jim cooper said that four years ago. he said there's no truer statement that could have been made. he said i'll do what is right for the american people first, even if it costs us our jobs. 10 years from now they will say that is greatest congress ever to have served. think about that. that's what we have to get to as a nation, and we are leaders. we are trying to lead here when everyone else is running to their political corners. everything has to be on the table. >> representative shuler.

are you all at odds with each other about rev snue >> no. >> well, let me clarify, when i say we need to cut $4 trillion in spending. we -- that would include tax reform. iman, there's something wrong with the system when some are paying zero% and others are paying 30% and 40% in corporate taxes. we need tax reform. obviously that would be included in the -- no one is going to vote to cut benefits for seniors and for folks who are near social security eligibility age, democrat or republican. no one's going to do that. politically, it would be suicide. and the fact is that we've got to reform the system to ensure it's there for my children and

grandchildren while protecting the basic benefits stride to seniors today and seniors coming online in the next few years. i don't think either party. i'm sure in the fall of 2012 you're going see one party -- the fact is social security keeps half the seniors in america out of poverty. so what happens if they don't have a social security zpheck they fall below poverty and therefore they qualify for food stamps and housing assistance and it could well end up costing the government more. so i'm sure in the heat of next year's election, there's going to be a lot of games played on social security and medicare. but the blue dogs, no one is talking about cutting benefits for seniors today and those near retirement. we're talking about reforming the program for our children

and our grandchildren to ensure the insolvents as i of it. and ensure it's there as well. and i think it's very important that we make that blusht, and i would call on the leaders of both parties to not make this an issue in the next election. >> the white house -- medicare and medicaid are expected to be a pretty big subject for savings in the super committee. can you talk about that and specifically, would one of the ideas be raising the jobalt to -- >> most budget experts will tell you 2/3 of our budget problems are health-related. but remember where we are in this debate. many americans don't really realize that medicare is a government program. and all kidding aside many of us here and regularly back home keep government out of my

medicare. so we have to start first with diagnosising the problem, helping all americans understand the true nature of the program. so we have a lot of work to do in that regard. 34 people they social security and medicare are bank account programs and the money they have paid in is in an account stored up just for them. there's a lot we can do to help people that you understand what they pay in this month is paid out next month to a complete stranger. getting an idea of pay-in and then your return on your investment into these programs is another important feature. so we have a lot of work to do as congress and a media to help americans understand, this and there's another area of government accounting. and we put most of these

precious vital programs a credit card as opposed to treat egg them in a regular budget process. our further issue has to do with the legal issue of these programs. are these vested or contractal benefits? legally they are not even promises. 24er scheduled benefits, and most americans are not aware of that. so we have a lot of work to do here as a dongs start getting people's heads in the game and understand the true nature of the dilemma. i think once americans see how large the problem is, we'll be closer to a solution. once you have an accurate diagnosis, the solutions are clearer. but right now we're not even close to a diagnosis. the letter has been drafted and i think it might be unless you're on the committee with your jurisdiction and unless you've taken a couple months

tufe decide, this these are very difficult issues. that's why they have not been solved in the past and why this generation of elected officials need to step up and do the right thing. >> and who are more likely to have a difficult race? these members of congress or those 12? that's pretty easy to realize that we have got a lot -- that we are willing to step forward and lead, and we're asking them to follow us. >> do you think that was the problem, men? the special election, you're talking about these upcoming elections, but we're still dealing from the fallout of last night. >> i think it's in general, the american people not talking about the far right rand left 10%. 80% of america has really had belly full of this partisanship

and what's going on in washington. they need to hear from the sensible middle. from the members of the blue dog caucus and from the tuesday group. that's where 80% of the american people is. it's just unimportant to that 80% of the meernl's viewpoint is in a small room a small caucus, because we're only electing the fringe groups. i think every single race individually, i mean we all went through difficult races last time, and all of us came out substantially ahead of the last year's election cycle. so it really gets down to each candidate in every district and when you represent your district right and let the folks in your district know you are working for them and not the political parties, you get reelected. >> are you confident that the composition of the super committee will allow them to reach this kind of agreement? i mean a lot of these people

represent the basis of their parties? >> if the blue dogs were the 12, we would have a solution, the economy would be strong. it would be vy bavent. the stability would be there. the economy would be rebounding. the trillions it's setting in the business world, the uncertainty, it would be back in the game. and we wish at least one of us was on that committee. >> if you had members of the blue dogs and -- group on the super commeerks i'm confident they could have gone big and really 1068d this problem for future generations. our concern and the reason for our letter is because of the political makeup of the folks on the committee. we're concerned that they are going to take the orders from their national party leaders and not sit down and call a time-out on the 2011 elections.

>> that is -- we saw the bush tax cuts and wars in afghanistan and the run away programs, spending, there was no sense as i saw yesterday of to tackle anyone. >> well, you can help us by getting our message out. >> yes. >> that's exactly why we're here. >> the blue dogs, -- tax increases -- >> taking an official position, obviously we're still seeing the details as they are rolled out. i would not call corporate tax reform a tax increase. i would call it bringing fairness and equity into the system. you know, we're waiting to see

it all and have a chance to review it. i think he's rolling out more in the next few days. >> is the joint committee a proper place to find this paperwork? shoubt it be focused just on its tax? >> well, i'm not so sure that that's the bottom line. the bottom line is everything is going to be going into the super committee's bill at the end of the day. you know that and i know that. whether it's the proper place to have individual piece meal attached to it. the president's job is back. there's mixed media message going to folks back home. they are not sure, paying attention to their flight, and at the end of the day, what gets passed at the -- it's important to the fact that

we're talking about it and on the surface, at least, they wanted to do something with the president about it. we want to make sure that we're working together. they are going to processture and come out with retorqual statements to start off with. that's politics 101. but as heath and mike, and everyone, our job is not to put pressure on them. going big is a win for both sides at the end of the day. we can both take our respective messages home, america is the greater for it and in the committee, get the trillions of dollars off the sideline. so you need the package deal and i think the republicans buy in and the companies big and small buy into reducing the tax breaks and getting rid of the tax tpwhreaks don't make america more competitive and give it to the jurisdiction,

the smart people that have been around and don't want to affect those and i don't -- we'll leave that to left and right. >> the house is going to vote on the raising of the debt ceiling. >> i think it's left up to each individual member. as a caucus, we have not taken a position on it. even member will be able to vote the way he or she sees, what's best for their district. >> yesterday house republicans rolled out an effort making the case that a b.b.a. would help for job creation. do you all agree with that? >> we have released our balanced budget amendment that we have had. it's actually gotten pretty good reviews from both republicans and democrats, so

if there's anything throughout let's take the approach put forth, when it was not the fashionable thing to do, because we've had this out for how many years now? 15 years now? so it's very fashionable to have these proposals. where were you 15 years ago? >> the blue dogs were balancing budget amendments when balancing budget amendments wasn't cool. >> many have started pointing at the president's low approval rating as something against democrats. >> i think eve done a pretty good job of representing my district. and he lost my district last time. >> the president will have an affect on democrats on the ticket? >> i think in districts where those members have not worked

to represent their con -- constituents the way -- but i think our blue dogs have shown our independents. and that's how we will be successful in this cycle. we are giving what the american people are asking for not what the political parties are asking for. >> if i could make a point on this, that there's always stories about if the president doesn't do well in a conservative, moderate-leaning district then that member will be in trouble or could be in trouble. people are going to vote on the same ballot the folks who are going to vote against him are going to vote against him anyway. if i were on a ballot with the president, it had nothing to do with my decision.

just take by district for example. i was important to to win by 18% last year. yet if you looked at 2008, which was a presidential year with obama on the ticket versus 2010, a non-presidential year, there were 15,000 viewer votes cassed. that's more people voting in arkansas' fourth congressional district next year, and i promise you it twuvent republicans and team folks. heavily african-american, heavily democratic. 10,000 less sflotes 2010 versus 2008. i had an think that gets missed and i also think advantages come ino swing districts that -- >> the republican argument that this is a good discussion to have right now as we talk about job creation, the discussion, is that relate to the job creation at all? or is that a distraction at the

moment? >> just speaking for myself, i think the balanced budget amendment is a very powerful symbol. a lot of americans don't trust congress and balancing the budget is a way of taking it beyond congress' control. i think in general it would bolster confidence and congress in time would start doing the right thing again. until we restore that confidence, right now there's a terrific loss of faith, our congressional po ratings are at all time lois. as people see us on tv and don't think we're putting the country first, at least blue dogs, a small group of individuals is trying to put the country first, and i think the group -- there are other good-hearted men and women, generally backed by -- who are trying to do the right thing. they need to come to the four so the country's interest are

but -- >> the chairman on the committee yesterday, what do you take away from it as far as the ability to -- [inaudible] and where are the two signs of hope? >> there's always going to be processturing in the first hearing or two. i think we all need pray for a miracle that one of more of them is willing to consider the argument on the other side and do the right thing. there is a solution to be had. the bowles simpson commission was not perfect but they got everybody from senator dick durban to senator cobin was that possible six or eight months ago? then it should be possible now. paul volcker but that's what we're going to try to encourage

them to do, to get together privately at first then have a big public announce meavent before thanksgiving, put the country first. >> what kind of announce the do they need to make sure this stays in place over the next four years? >> i do not want to talk to much. what they should do is beat up front about enforcement. it the committee deadlocks and is unable to decide an automatic sequestration, those to not happen until 2013, after the next election when there will be a new congress, and possibly a new president. that looks kind of fake. this is something the super committee can take up with a committee can take up with a