GOP Questions Chu's Competence As Energy Secretary

By Adrianna McGinley

Energy Secretary Steven Chu emphatically denied any wrong doing on his part or that of his Department in the decision to provide the now bankrupt solar energy company Solyndra with a $535 million government loan guarantee in 2009.

Members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations rigorously questioned Secretary Chu about what he knew regarding the decision to move forward with the loan and when he knew it. Republican members referenced numerous emails they said clearly showed the eminent failure of the company.

Chu denied having any knowledge of the emails at the time the loan was approved and said given the information that was available at that time “competent decisions were made”.

Chu attributes the failure of the company not to bad decisions, rather to an unforeseeable economic downfall spurred by rising competition and government support in China to further solar energy development. Chu added that the U.S. must be willing to take risky decisions and make risky investments in order to support a sustainable future and create jobs.

“There’s a heavy expectation in the business world that these technologies will become competitive without subsidy in a relatively short period of time,” Chu said. “The whole issue is…do we want to be buyers or sellers?”

GOP members also grilled Chu on whether or not he was aware of any communication between the White House and the DOE regarding the decision to restructure the loan and the decision to delay the announcement of Solyndra layoffs and looming financial default until after the 2010 midterm elections.

Chu emphatically denied any pressure or influence from the administration on these issues, saying “I’m not sure what communications there were between DOE and the White House, but certainly we did not communicate with the White House on whether we should approve the loan…that was our responsibility.”

Chu also denied White House pressure to restructure the loan in February 2011, adding that the decision was a difficult one.

“We either had to stop the loan, which would have made Solyndra go into immediate bankruptcy with a half completed factory, or we could say we can continue on the contract of the loan, which was to build this factory,” Chu said. “Once the factory was complete Solyndra would have a fighting chance of continuing or it could offer that factory sale as a whole unit.”

“We were always focused on that path that could get as much taxpayer recovery as possible,” Chu emphasized.

Chu added these loans are inevitably risky in nature and the legislation of the entire DOE loan program reflects that. Chu said the legislation passed by Congress includes $10 billion budgeted for losses, but when asked how much of the lost tax payer money would be recovered, he said “not very much.”

Members on both sides of the aisle also questioned the legality under the 2005 Energy Policy Act of the decision to subordinate tax payer recovery for corporate interests during the process of restructuring. GOP members maintained Chu broke the law in making that decision, sparking several members to question whether Chu is competent as energy secretary and whether resignation should be considered.

“Have you discussed with your boss whether or not you should continue in your position having violated the spirit of the Energy Policy Act of 2005?” Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) questioned.

Chu responded, “we believe there was no violation of the law.”

Republicans Subpoena The White House Over Solyndra Docs

By Janie Amaya 

A House committee voted Thursday to subpoena the White House for documents regarding the Department of Energy’s $535 million loan to solar manufacturer Solyndra, Inc. 

The House Energy and Commerce Committee initially presented a request for the documents on Sept. 1 in which it asked the White House to produce all documents containing communications between the White House and Solyndra Inc., which filed for bankruptcy earlier this year despite the giant loan it received as part of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, otherwise known as the “stimulus law.”

According to committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), the White House Counsel’s office waited until Oct. 14 to tell the committee that it didn’t need to see such documents. However, House Republicans, who believe the White House rushed the loan while ignoring oversight, have forged ahead with their investigation.

During today’s markup of the resolution, which passed 14-9, Upton pointed to a statement from President Obama, who once said “the government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.”  

“At this point in time, I am not confident that we will have a good faith response from the White House without issuing a subpoena,” Upton said.  

However, after meeting with the White House Counsel Wednesday, Democratic members of the committee argued against issuing a subpoena. The top Democrat on the committee, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), accused Republicans of using the issue as a political stunt.

“We should not be having this business meeting today,” he said. “A Congressional subpoena to the White House is a serious step. It should be the last resort. It is justified only if an unbridgeable impact between the branches has been reached. None of that is true today.”

White House spokesman Eric Schultz responded by saying the administration has already “cooperated extensively with the committee’s investigation by producing over 85,000 pages of documents, including 20,000 pages produced just yesterday afternoon.”

“We’d like to see as much passion in House Republicans for creating jobs as we see in this investigation,” he added. “We are disappointed that the committee has refused to discuss their requests with us in good faith, and has instead chosen a partisan route, proceeding with subpoenas that are unprecedented and unwarranted.”

Solyndra Executives Provide No Answers

By Adrianna McGinley

Top Solyndra Inc. executives invoked their Fifth Amendment rights and declined to answer any questions presented to them at a House Committee hearing Friday.

Solyndra CEO Brian Harrison and CFO Bill Stover were scheduled to testify September 14 at a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing investigating the over $500 million loan guarantee the company was awarded in 2009, but requested to postpone their appearance one week. According to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), the duo requested postponement because they were in active negotiations to sell the bankrupt company, in an attempt to lessen the consequences taxpayers would face.

The committee accepted the request with the condition that the two would answer questions at Friday’s hearing. Stearns said he received written assurance that Harrison would in fact answer questions, only to receive later notice that the two would voluntarily appear, but would plead the Fifth.

The Solyndra investigation has become a source of heated partisan debate, but one point on which there was agreement was the disappointment of not receiving answers from the executives.

“It is a very sad commentary that we met resistance every step of the way as this subcommittee has tried to seek answers to basic questions overseeing the approval process of this project,” said Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.). “We finally had to resort to a subpoena and now the outright resistance of getting answers that both of you, our two witnesses, assured us only last week that you would provide. Let me just warn you and the other folks involved in this taxpayer rip off, we’re not done.”

Members of the committee presented dozens of questions to the witnesses, all of which were answered, “On the advice of my council, I invoke the privilege afforded to me by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and I respectfully decline to answer any questions.”

After receiving no satisfactory answers, the committee dismissed the witnesses but made it clear that the investigation would continue.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) recommended that the next step in the investigation be to question private venture capitalists who invested over a billion dollars in Solyndra, including Argonaut Private Equity and Madrone Capital Partners.

Administration Officials Come Under Fire During Solyndra Hearing

By Adrianna McGinley

Witnesses in the Solyndra investigation faced intense questioning by members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce during a hearing Wednesday.

Jonathan Silver, Executive Director of the Loans Programs Office for the Department of Energy, and Jeffrey Zients, Deputy Director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, testified before the Committee conducting the investigation into a $535 million loan awarded to Solyndra, Inc. under Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Last week, the company suspended business and announced bankruptcy, launching the investigation. 

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) in her opening remarks stated that the questions to be answered were whether the Bush and Obama administrations conducted sufficient due diligence before approving the loan, whether the Department of Energy sufficiently monitored the financial status of Solyndra after the loan had been disbursed, whether Solyndra made accurate representations of its financial prospects both before and after loan disbursement, and whether the government made the right decision in restructuring the loan when Solyndra’s financial standing deteriorated.

The hearing quickly sparked finger pointing as both sides closely questioned the timeline of the loan approval, attempting to determine attribution to either the Bush or Obama administration. Questions of political favoritism came in to play, as did questions of whether the witnesses were career civil service employees or political appointees.

Answers from witnesses often seemed unclear, leading Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) to say to Silver, “I really want you to stop throwing everybody else under the bus, I hear you throwing all your staff under the bus. I want to know, you’re in charge, you’ve handled loans of this size and now you’re saying its everybody else’s fault except you, but you’re in charge.”

Executives from Solyndra were scheduled to be at Wednesday’s hearing, but will instead be testifying next week.

Highlights From Today's White House Gaggle

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney addressed reporters on a range of key issues this morning, from previewing President Obama’s jobs plan speech today in North Carolina, to yesterday’s special congressional elections in Nevada and New York, both won by Republicans, to reports suggesting that the White House inappropriately rushed millions of dollars worth of stimulus grants to energy company Solyndra, which would later go bankrupt.

The following notes are courtesy of today’s White House travel pool reporter, Carrie Budoff Brown of Politico:

Carney spoke with reporters for about 15 minutes on poll numbers, Solyndra and special elections

Highlights of the gaggle:

In his remarks, the President will announce a new memorandum directing agencies to accelerate their payments to small businesses. The goverment pays $100 billion to small businesses annually. Under the new policy, the government will cut goal in half, from 30 days to 15 days. The idea came from the jobs council.

On Bloomberg News poll showing 51 percent of Americans don’t think the jobs plan will lower unemployment: “I think that means half the American people based on that poll believe it will help create jobs and grow the economy. … The American people want Washington to take action.”

More of a sales job needed from the president?

“We are not done pressing Congress and reaching out to the American people.”

Reax to the special elections. How can they be viewed as anything other than a referendum?

“Special elections are often unique and their outcomes don’t tell you very much about future regularly scheduled elections.”

“You can make those predictions and look foolish in 14 months or not, I’m simply saying we do not view them it way (as a referendum).”

In New York, it was a special case in a specific district in a low turnout election, Carney said.

On Solyndra emails, did the admin act appropriately?

“What the emails make clear is there was urgency to make a decision on a scheduling matter. It is a big proposition to move the president or to put on an event and that sort of thing so people were simply looking for answers about whether or not people could move forward.”

The admin sees nothing wrong with accelerating the process for a scheduling need?

“It had nothing to - and there is no evidence to the contrary - nothing to do with anything besides the need to get an answer to make a scheduling decision.”

Is the president happy with the approach?

Carney said he hasn’t discussed it with the president.

Asked if there an internal review, Carney said the administration has been cooperative with Congress.