mr. barton. >> thank you, mr. terry. i first want to take a little victory lap this morning. the college president announced yesterday that we'll have a non-bcs football playoff in college football, and i can take a little bit of credit because back when i was chairman of this committee i was chairman of that and we got the ball rolling and they announced the 14 playoffs. so i want to commend them, but also take credit for this committee highlighting that issue and i think it's a start in the right direction and i think they'll have it. my first question is to the audience. i want somebody in the audience to tell me the original analog televisions and how many channels were -- anybody that's my age ought to know. i see one hand out there. how many? somebody. no. no, not how many you got, but how many were on the dial. there were 2 to 13, but there was no number one. i never under stood why there was no number one, but there were 13, and you could go up to 13. as mr. powell just pointed out, his testimony there were 900 programs available now. we've gone from my first tv, we'v

mr. barton two, minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas voice for two minutes. mr. barton: i thank -- is recognized for two minutes. mr. barton: i thank the distinguished chairman and would ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. barton: i thank the speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of the bill before us this afternoon and in opposition to what is called obamacare. all of the comments of the proponents of the bill that have been made in the past in support have generally turned out to either not be true at all or to be only partially true. they said that they were having the individual mandate under the commerce clause, supreme court said that's unconstitutional, you couldn't do it. so even though you said that's what you were doing, you're really not. the proponents said that the penalties in the bill were not taxes. well, the supreme court in a 5-4 majority several weeks ago said, well, really you're not regulating the mandate and the penalties under the commerce clause because that would

mr. barton, for five minutes. >> well, i just know i'm glad to be here. [laughter] and i was invited, and i did accept. [laughter] this should be a solutions hearing. i don't think anybody on either side of the aisle think that is the solyndra loan program -- regardless of the political debate -- thinks that the solyndra loan program has been run very efficiently, to be as mild as possible. and the draft bill that mr. sterns and mr. upton have put out an attempt to address legitimate concerns about preventing future solyndras from happening. it's not a perfect bill, and the reason we're having a legislative hearing is because mr. upton and mr. sterns want to go through the regular order. we can, we can debate the political issues ad infinitum, but at some point we should focus on solutions to protect the american taxpayer in the future. my first question, we have the deputy assistant secretary for energy efficiency, dr. hogan, but my understanding is you're not here to talk about the solyndra bill, you're here to comment on mr. bass' bill s that correct?

mr. barton is objecting to is the government standing behind additional loans? >> well, i think, again, for the genera befit he ee it ces, n cet ti po that this is a tool that we would employee in the last resort, even in the negotiations in restructuring. this is noting? that we would then do take lightly. afwe fdinegtithat is ued aract other investments to save the project without using it. it's the last thing we would do. >> it's the last thing you might do to save a project, and if you can't do that and save the projec the the taayerave thangutet >>es, sir? >> try and succeed or let all the losses roll? >> in my oral testimony, that's the assertion made that you would be hamstringing us and taking a ve important crical tool that cod,t,av xp m. haouanu. timxp. now e recognize the gentleman from illinois for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you for your service. as a veteran, i appreciate that, and it's very frustrating for me when sometimes iave to agree th mwa snt i winbo district. [laughter] what's going on here in the water in washington so a couple conce

mr. barton. there's only one and that is mr. dingell. >> to have the new chairman of the nrc. >> business of being chairman sounds good but is not much. >> if the gentleman would yield to my colleagues in the lower level it is very valuable. i tend to echo mr. dingell. take that and $0.50 and in texas you get a dr. pepper. it is good to be on the committee regardless what the title are. i notice the previous commissioners were unbelievably polite but not unique. i would like to go into waters that are a little murkier. your predecessor was not known for his collegiality with his fellow commissioners. there were some fairly rigorous attempts to withhold information and manipulate decisionmaking. would you care to give us your view on how you plan to manage decisionmaking an information gathering and dissemination at the commission? >> i am committed to being as collegial as possible. i regard my fellow commissioners as mike year equals and they should have access to all the information i have access to. i am committed to sharing

mr. barton made a big to do, very passionate, that we should not allow subordination of these ones. what is he talking about when he talks about subordination? >> the subordination question is raised in the context, in our opinion -- only and exclusively project -- projects we're trying to attract and save the products of u.s. taxpayers. >> so you're looking at a proposal for a loan guarantee, it looks like it has a lot of promise in the business is sound enough to succeed. and you give them a loan guarantee. which means that if they can't pay their loans, the government will pay for their loans. then they run into financial problems, such as their competitors suddenly raising their prices, so even if they come up with is a new way of providing this technology, they are not going to be economically viable. is that the kind of situation we are talking about? >> yes. >> it looks that there is some way that we can still succeed, but they need more money. and they go out and find lenders. is the government standing behind those additional loans? >> well, again, to the general benefit of

mr. barton had had a few good years. under the president's proposals now, a couple of years ago he would be deemed as wealthy. what did he do with his wealth? as a small businessman? an l.l.c., a sole priorer toship? he reinvested those dollars back into his business, to be able to create jobs, to be able to provide for his family, pay down his line of credit to zero. kept a little bit of cushion to be able to get them through the tough times. in construction, if you're familiar with that, you often bid jobs but you don't get them. so he needed to re-up that line of credit to be able to keep his business going, to keep his employees going. when he went down to the local community bank he was told they wanted to re-up that line of credit but regularrer toly they could not -- regulatory they could not. he could not get that line of credit. the one option he had was to shut down his business, line up that equipment and auction it off. as i talked to mr. bartmouth, could you see tears welling in his eyes as he related that s