U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

73–857 PDF 2012

FROM DOE LOAN GUARANTEE TO BANKRUPTCY 

TO FBI RAID: WHAT SOLYNDRA’S EXECUTIVES 

KNEW 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 

INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 

Serial No. 112–89 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

Chairman 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Ranking Member 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, opening statement ...................................................................................... 7 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois, opening statement .............................................................................. 12 

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 15 

Hon. Lee Terry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nebraska, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 16 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement .................................................... 17 

Hon. Tim Murphy, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 17 

Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 18 

Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas, opening statement .................................................................................... 19 

Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, opening statement ....................................................................................... 20 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22 

Hon. Sue Wilkins Myrick, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

North Carolina, opening statement .................................................................... 23 

Hon. Phil Gingrey, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 23 

Hon. Cory Gardner, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 24 

Hon. H. Morgan Griffith, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Virginia, opening statement ............................................................... 25 

Hon. John Sullivan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oklahoma, opening statement .................................................................................... 25 

WITNESSES

Brian Harrison, President and Chief Executive Officer, Solyndra, Inc. 1 ...........

W.G. Bill Stover, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Solyndra, 

Inc. 1 ......................................................................................................................

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Subcommittee exhibit binder .................................................................................. 36 

Majority memo, dated September 21, 2011, submitted by Mr. Stearns .............. 49 

1Mr. Harrison and Mr. Stover did not present opening statements. 

(1) 

FROM DOE LOAN GUARANTEE TO BANKRUPTCY TO FBI RAID: WHAT SOLYNDRA’S 

EXECUTIVES KNEW 

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:03 a.m., in room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cliff Stearns (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Stearns, Terry, Sullivan, Murphy, Burgess, Blackburn, Myrick, Gingrey, Gardner, Griffith, Barton, Pompeo, Upton (ex officio), DeGette, Schakowsky, Markey, 

Green, Dingell, and Waxman (ex officio). 

Staff present: Carl Anderson, Counsel, Oversight; Jim Barnette, 

General Counsel; Sean Bonyun, Deputy Communications Director; 

Karen Christian, Deputy Chief Counsel, Oversight/Investigations; 

Andy Duberstein, Deputy Press Secretary; Todd Harrison, Chief 

Counsel, Oversight/Investigations; Kirby Howard, Legislative 

Clerk; Carly McWilliams, Legislative Clerk; Andrew Powaleny, 

Press Assistant; Krista Rosenthall, Counsel to Chairman Emeritus; 

Alan Slobodin, Deputy Chief Counsel, Oversight; John Stone, Associate Counsel, Oversight/Investigations; Jean Woodrow, Director, 

Information Technology; Kristin Amerling, Democratic Chief Counsel and Oversight Staff Director; Alvin Banks, Democratic Investigator; Phil Barnett, Democratic Staff Director; Stacia Cardille, 

Democratic Counsel; Karen Lightfoot, Democratic Communications 

Director and Senior Policy Advisor; and Matt Siegler, Democratic 

Counsel. 

Mr. STEARNS. Good morning, everybody. 

The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Energy 

and Commerce Committee will come to order. 

My colleagues, before we begin today, I would like to address the 

procedures used at this hearing. I called Ranking Member DeGette 

yesterday evening to consult with her about today’s hearing. 

Ranking Member DeGette and I agreed to the following process 

for opening statements and questions. I will recognize myself and 

Ranking Member DeGette for 5-minute opening statements. Then 

each member of the committee will be able to give a 2-minute opening statement. After swearing in the witnesses, the majority and 

minority each will have 10 minutes to ask questions of today’s witnesses. This time will be allotted among members who wish to ask 

2 

questions at the discretion of the chair and the ranking member. 

We will start with 5 minutes for questions for majority members, 

then 5 minutes for minority members, then repeat. 

I would like to thank the ranking member, distinguished member, for her support. 

And now I recognize myself for a 5-minute opening. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Good morning, everybody. We convene this hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations to examine what 

Solyndra’s executives knew about the company’s financial condition 

and how it represented that condition to the Department of Energy, the White House, and members of this committee. Just 2 years ago, after Solyndra received its $535 million loan 

guarantee and 6 months after the Department of Energy restructured the deal, Solyndra has laid off over a thousand workers, filed 

for bankruptcy, and has been raided by the FBI. Yet only 2 months 

ago Solyndra’s CEO Brian Harrison met with me in the committee 

offices. He looked me in the eye and assured me that everything 

was just fine, and the company was on track to be cash-flow positive. Mr. Harrison told me and other members of this committee 

that Solyndra was continuing to make excellent progress, that it 

was meeting all its cost and performance milestones, and that revenues were projected to nearly double in 2011. 

I was hoping that Mr. Harrison would testify today and explain 

to me and to this committee how he could make those representations in late July about Solyndra improving prospects when the 

company was on the path to bankruptcy just 30 days later. 

It seems clear to me that Mr. Harrison knew or should have 

known in July that the company was going to restate its financial 

projections to reflect increasing market and pricing pressure on its 

products, resulting in decreased revenue. 

When the committee invited Mr. Harrison and Mr. Stover to testify at last week’s hearing, Solyndra’s counsel said that Mr. Harrison would appear voluntarily and would answer the committee’s 

questions. However, Solyndra’s counsel asked the committee to 

postpone their testimony by 1 week, claiming that Mr. Harrison 

and Mr. Stover were involved in active negotiations to potentially 

sell the company and that an earlier sale might potentially result 

in a better recovery for the taxpayer at the company’s bankruptcy. 

I agreed to this request, provided that Mr. Harrison appeared 

this week and testified. In return for postponing his testimony by 

1 week, I was provided written assurance by Solyndra’s counsel 

that Mr. Harrison would answer the committee’s questions. 

Unfortunately, we won’t get those answers today. Mr. Harrison 

and Mr. Stover’s counsel informed the committee 3 days ago that 

they would decline to answer the committee’s questions and would 

invoke their rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United 

States Constitution. I respect the witnesses’ rights under the Fifth 

Amendment, but I want to make it clear today, though, that this 

subcommittee’s investigation will continue. 

We have been asking questions about this deal since February of 

this year. We will get to the bottom of why this loan was pushed 

3 

out to a company whose liquidity issues were a major issue to Department of Energy staff reviewing the loan back in 2009 and 

which ultimately caused its bankruptcy. We will also figure out 

just how DOE concluded that restructuring the Solyndra deal positioned the U.S. taxpayer for maximum recovery, end quote, when 

documents produced to the committee showed that OMB staff 

doubted that it would prevent a Solyndra bankruptcy or result in 

greater recovery for the government. We are also determined to 

know why DOE allowed the taxpayers to be subordinated to the 

private investors during that restructuring in violation of the clear 

letter of the law. 

What we do not know is whether the Solyndra executives here 

today have something to hide. Was all the information they submitted to DOE accurate and complete? What did they know about 

their financial situation and when did they know it? And how did 

they represent it to others, including this committee? What did 

DOE understand about Solyndra’s financial situation? Did DOE 

know what they were doing and did they properly monitor 

Solyndra and the taxpayers’ money being used to prop Solyndra 

up? 

My colleagues, these are all the questions I would have liked to 

have received answers from our witnesses today. Congress and the 

American taxpayers have a right to know whether this loan guarantee was rushed out the door before it was ready for prime time, 

whether the administration doubled down on a bad bet after knowing of the company’s dubious commercial prospects or, even worse, 

whether $535 million of taxpayers’ dollars were wasted on false or 

incomplete information. We intend to get those answers. 

And that concludes my statement. 

With that, I recognize the ranking member, Ms. DeGette, for her 

opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stearns follows:] 

4 


73857.001
5 


73857.002
6 


73857.003
7 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DEGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, 2 weeks ago, Ranking Member Waxman and I requested that this subcommittee seek testimony from Solyndra 

President and CEO Brian Harrison, so I am pleased that the subcommittee sought the testimony of Mr. Harrison and his colleague, 

Mr. Stover, for today’s hearing. 

I respect that witnesses appearing before the committee have the 

right to invoke their constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment, but I am disappointed that the executives here today won’t 

be responding to questions. I believe that their testimony would 

greatly inform the subcommittee’s investigation of the Department 

of Energy loan guarantee to Solyndra, and I hope that once those 

constitutional questions are resolved, that they will be able to return and testify voluntarily. 

Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the subcommittee 

will continue to examine key questions relating to the Solyndra 

loan guarantee. As I noted in my statement at the September 14th 

subcommittee hearing, it is critically important that we understand 

a number of factors: First, whether the Bush and Obama administrations conducted due diligence on the loan guarantee; whether 

Solyndra made accurate representations to the government; whether the administration sufficiently monitored the financial status of 

Solyndra, particularly as market forces seemed to be against the 

company; and finally, whether the government made correct decisions about restructuring the loan. 

But in addition to our specific concerns around this loan, it is 

also imperative that the subcommittee examine these issues in the 

broader context of how government should support development of 

our Nation’s clean energy technology industry. The United States 

has an unparalleled history of innovation, and at the beginning of 

the 21st century, it would be to our long-term economic peril if we 

cede leadership to any other nation in clean energy technology development. 

To advance the subcommittee’s understanding of these issues, 

Ranking Member Waxman and I have urged you, Mr. Chairman, 

to take several additional steps in this investigation. First, we have 

asked that the subcommittee convene hearings to ensure whether 

U.S. policies and incentives are adequate to ensure that U.S. manufacturers can compete in the global clean energy market. We have 

already heard testimony in our investigation that China’s share of 

the solar market has jumped from 6 percent in 2005 to 54 percent 

just 6 years later. And we have heard that half of the 10 largest 

solar panel manufacturers are now based in China. 

At the same time, just last week, some of the country’s business 

leaders, including the CEOs of General Electric and Xerox, stated 

that, quote, the Federal Government has a vital role to play in energy innovation and warned, quote, if the U.S. fails to invent new 

technologies and create new markets and new jobs, that will drive 

the transformation and revitalization of the $5 trillion global energy industry. We will have lost an opportunity to lead in what is 

arguably the largest and most pervasive technology sector in the 

8 

world. Accordingly, review of the Solyndra loan guarantee should 

go hand in hand with review of the appropriate path our Nation 

can take to avoid ceding leadership of the clean energy technology 

market to China and other countries. 

Second, Mr. Waxman and I have asked Chairman Stearns to obtain the testimony of representatives from the two private equity 

firms, Argonaut and Madrone, which were the most significant investors in Solyndra. Private investors invested twice as much as 

the government in Solyndra. The subcommittee should understand 

why Solyndra attracted so much private capital and what representations the company made to private investors as well as to the 

government. 

I am certain the chairman sees the merits of these requests, Mr. 

Chairman, and I look forward to working together on these and 

other issues as the investigation continues. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank the gentlelady, and now the full chairman 

of Energy and Commerce, the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In 1963, there was a great train robbery in England. At the time, 

I think it might have been the largest heist ever, and because of 

its cleverness, the legend continues. The take was 2.6 million 

pounds; that is about $7.5 million in 1963 dollars. But now we have 

our own modern day great train robbery. But it appears that we 

have a great heist of over half a billion dollars and possibly even 

willing collaborators, maybe even co-conspirators called the U.S. 

Government, who rushed out a $535 million loan to Solyndra. 

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. 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 are not done. No, we are not. 

In 2009, Solyndra was the very first company to receive a Department of Energy loan guarantee funded with stimulus dollars. 

The company was touted in statements by the President, the Vice 

President, the Secretary of Energy as a model for the government’s 

investment in green technology. And now less than 2 years later, 

Solyndra has filed for bankruptcy and was raided by the FBI. 

I understand that our two witnesses today, Mr. Harrison and Mr. 

Stover, intend to invoke their rights under the Fifth Amendment 

and will not testify. Solyndra has left taxpayers holding the bag for 

a $535 million guarantee, and we still can’t get answers. 

Last week we learned even more troubling facts about the administration’s review of the Solyndra guarantee. Concerns about 

the liquidity and cash flow were ignored. The financial model 

showed that the company would run out of cash by September 

2011, which, as it turns out, it precisely did. OMB felt pressured 

9 

to complete its review in time for a groundbreaking event with the 

Vice President. And when Solyndra faced default at the end of last 

year, the administration restructured the guarantee and put the 

taxpayers behind the investors, despite concerns by OMB staff that 

the restructuring would not be a better deal for the government 

and, frankly, in direct contradiction to the law. These facts clearly 

show that the committee was right to start asking questions about 

Solyndra when we opened up our investigation 7 months ago. 

The administration’s actions in this case are deeply troubling, 

and so is their response to our findings. Rather than engage in a 

dialogue about their efforts to protect the taxpayer from the risks 

posed by Solyndra, they are arguing to the press the clean energy 

and DOE projects that Republicans on this committee have supported. They believe that this somehow undermines our basis for 

asking tough questions about Solyndra. 

According to Politico, ‘‘Obama administration officials have spent 

the last week digging up letters, sound bites, and media stories 

from Republican lawmakers who had previously begged for clean 

energy spending in their districts.’’ 

First let’s talk about clean energy. Yes, Republicans do support 

innovation, and we are uniform in our support of any solution that 

improves our energy security. While we may question whether the 

Federal Government is capable of selecting the most promising 

companies and technologies, we had concerns about the stimulus 

when it passed in 2009, and we have concerns now that it failed 

to deliver the jobs that were promised. This is not a debate about 

the virtues of clean energy. It is a serious inquiry into reckless use 

of taxpayer dollars on a company that was known to pose serious 

risks before a single dime went out the door. 

Yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

10 


73857.004
11 


73857.005
12 

Mr. STEARNS. The chairman yields back. 

Ms. Schakowsky, the gentlelady from Illinois, is recognized for 2 

minutes. As I told all the members, we are trying to strictly enforce 

that 2 minutes. I would appreciate your support. Thank you. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am saddened that a company in which both the Bush and 

Obama Departments of Energy saw such promise has filed for 

bankruptcy, causing the loss of more than 1,000 high-tech jobs. I 

also seek answers from Solyndra’s executives about the possibly 

misleading or incomplete assessment of the company’s financial position and the cause and circumstances behind the FBI raid on 

Solyndra facilities and executives’ homes earlier this month. 

And it is unfortunate that Mr. Harrison and Mr. Stover have 

elected not to testify or answer questions today so that our subcommittee together might have answers to those questions. 

However, I think it is important that as we work to address the 

Solyndra situation that we don’t throw the baby out with the bath 

water. Last night, exploiting the Solyndra case, this House voted 

to cut the DOE loan guarantee program. This is a shortsighted 

mistake that will undermine our ability to compete in the global 

energy sector. As the demand for energy rises, emerging technologies will need our support to compete with businesses in China, 

whose solar industry was provided with $30 billion in government 

subsidies just last year. Conceding the green energy race to China 

would be a reckless and irreversible decision. 

In a Politico op-ed last week, a group of leading American venture capitalists said that the, ‘‘nascent clean energy industry needs 

more than venture capital to succeed.’’ They insist that only a program like the loan guarantee program has the resources required 

to fully promote our green energy economy. As we move forward 

with our investigation of Solyndra, we should ensure that the loan 

guarantee program remains a priority for this Congress and our 

country. 

And now I yield back the remainder of my time. 

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentlelady. 

And the chairman emeritus of the full committee and the distinguished gentleman from Texas is recognized for an opening statement for 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let’s set the scene. It is a sunny day in northern California. It 

should be a good day for a solar energy company, especially a solar 

energy company that has just received a government guaranteeing 

loan of over half a billion dollars, a solar energy company that has 

been paid a visit by the President of the United States himself, a 

solar energy company that President Obama called the true engine 

of economic growth and touted as a green energy success story, a 

stimulus success story, and a job-creating success story. 

13 

As it turns out, that day was not a good day for the company. 

Instead, that company, after taking a half a billion dollars of taxpayer money, closed its doors, laid off over a thousand employees, 

and declared bankruptcy. The next week the FBI knocked down the 

company’s door to secure its files. 

The question before the subcommittee today, Mr. Chairman, is, 

how does a company go from having the President of the United 

States visit it to having the FBI come in and confiscate its files? 

The American people deserve an answer to that question, Mr. 

Chairman. 

The two gentlemen who sit before the committee today told us 

informally and in meetings with the staff that they were ready to 

answer questions; they had nothing to hide. They made a deal with 

this committee to delay the date of the hearing with a promise that 

when they came they would answer our questions. 

Now they are going to assert their Fifth Amendment right and 

refuse to answer our questions because those questions, the answers to those questions might be incriminating. However, I am 

sure that the members of this subcommittee will still ask those 

questions so at least the American people, Mr. Chairman, know 

what questions should be answered. 

With that, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barton follows:] 

14 


73857.006
15 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman from California, the ranking member of the full 

committee, Mr. Waxman, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Two weeks ago, Ranking Member DeGette and I 

requested the senior executives from Solyndra appear before our 

committee, and I am pleased that Chairman Stearns agreed and 

invited Brian Harrison, CEO, and Bill Stover, the CFO, to testify 

before us today. The attorneys for Mr. Harrison and Mr. Stover 

have indicated that both witnesses will invoke their constitutional 

rights under the Fifth Amendment. I respect that they have this 

constitutional prerogative, but I am disappointed they will not answer our questions. 

When Mr. Harrison was in my office in July, he said that 

Solyndra’s future was bright, with sales and production booming, 

and I would like to know why he told me that in July and then 

filed for bankruptcy 1 month later. Unfortunately, I will not get an 

answer today. 

As this investigation continues, one key question is whether the 

Department of Energy made a mistake in investing in Solyndra. 

Chairman Upton and Chairman Stearns said they already know 

the answer to this question. They said last week that Solyndra was 

a ‘‘bad bet from the beginning.’’ 

A lot of smart people thought otherwise. In March 2010, the Wall 

Street Journal announced a ranking of the top 10 venture-backed 

clean technology companies. Solyndra was number one on that list. 

Some very successful and experienced private venture capitalists 

invested over a billion dollars in Solyndra, twice the support of the 

Federal Government. They obviously did not share Chairman 

Upton’s views. 

Our next step in this investigation should be to hear from these 

investors. That is why Ranking Member DeGette and I wrote 

Chairman Stearns and Chairman Upton early this week to request 

a hearing with Argonaut Private Equity and Madrone Capital Partners, Solyndra’s two largest private investors. They will be able to 

tell us what private investors thought about the company and its 

business prospects. 

We need to put our investigation into perspective. Republicans in 

Congress are now dancing on Solyndra’s grave, but they seem to 

have a case of collective amnesia. It wasn’t too long ago they were 

urging the Department of Energy to award loans and loan guarantees to companies in their districts. 

One Republican member of our committee, Representative 

Blackburn, welcomed the award of a $1.6 million loan to a Japanese company in her district. Another member, Representative 

Bass, said he believed in the subsidies received by Granite Reliable 

Power in his district. Two other members, Representative Bilbray 

and Representative Bono Mack wrote the Speaker earlier this year 

to support DOE’s loan guarantee program. Even Chairman Upton 

pressed for clean energy loans in his State. 

16 

Risk is an inherent component of the loan guarantee program. 

That is necessarily the case with a program designed to help new 

technologies get off the ground. The alternative is to simply give 

up on the important role that government can play in supporting 

development of these technologies. 

We need to face reality and stop denying science. Climate change 

is real, and it is caused by man. In the past year alone, extreme 

weather has caused record floods, droughts, and fires that have 

turned much of our Nation into disaster areas. The future will belong to the countries that recognize reality and invest in clean energy. China knows this and invested $30 billion in Chinese solar 

manufacturers last year alone. We need an effective strategy to 

compete. 

That is why Ranking Member DeGette and I wrote the chairman 

yesterday to ask for a hearing. Unfortunately, we seem intent on 

denying the future. 

Last night, Republicans voted to block funding for clean vehicles, 

and they voted to take away funding for innovative renewable energy projects. That is not an economic plan for the future. It is a 

job-destroying strategy that keeps us tied to a fossil fuel past. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time. 

We are in opening statements. 

The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Terry, is recognized for 2 

minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LEE TERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and this was to be an important hearing. As the chairman of the full committee said, we 

want clean jobs. We like clean energy. All of us want jobs to be created in our own districts. Some of the districts mentioned by Mr. 

Waxman have very high unemployment rates. So when you combine the two, it only makes sense that Members would encourage 

job growth in their own communities. 

And I think it is a tactic that is being used by the White House 

and now by members of this committee to deflect attention away 

from the real issues, and that is whether or not, the fundamental 

question, was DOE and OMB and the White House duped by 

Solyndra or did they ignore the information that was available to 

them for whatever purposes, whether it was to put green energy 

in a better light than it was currently in the markets, for press 

availability or even more onerous, for one of its major shareholders, 

Mr. Kaiser, who had 16 contacts with the White House, some of 

which were during important times of consideration for Solyndra’s 

request. 

Those are all legitimate questions that we need answered, that 

could have been answered here today. So it is disturbing that when 

the taxpayers have been duped out of over $500 million, that we 

are not receiving the information on their behalf that could resolve 

questions and fix the problems for the future. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman yields back. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for a 2-minute 

opening statement. 

17 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. MARKEY. Last night, the Republican House passed a bill that 

would destroy the advanced technology vehicle loan program and 

destroy the renewable energy loan guarantee program and destroy 

thousands of jobs. And what was the rationale? They used 

Solyndra. Is this just a failed company that could not compete 

when faced with a 42 percent decline in the price of solar energy? 

Or was wrongdoing involved? We don’t know the answer to that. 

But the Republican majority is recklessly exploiting this one case 

to advance a political agenda that is very clearly aimed at killing 

the solar, wind, and renewable industries. It is reckless to toss 

around accusations of illegality on the part of the Department of 

Energy officials who agreed to restructure the Solyndra loan guarantee by putting some private investors ahead of taxpayers in the 

reimbursement line. 

I sent Mr. Upton and Mr. Stearns a letter this morning that provides a bit of a history lesson. The loan guarantee program was 

created at 2:30 a.m. in this room in July of 2005 in the conference 

between the House and Senate on what would become the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005. Senator Domenici authored the provision largely 

as a way to pay for the nuclear power plants that Wall Street had 

no interest in financing. I offered an amendment to strike, but the 

amendment was opposed by the Republican majority, and the provision became law. 

The nuclear industry hailed the new law, but soon everyone 

started complaining. Republican members of this committee, along 

with the nuclear industry, excoriated DOE for not getting the loan 

guarantees out the door more quickly, and the nuclear industry 

said repeatedly that if DOE did not allow private investors to jump 

ahead of taxpayers in the reimbursement line, Wall Street wouldn’t 

give them the money to build any new nuclear power plants. DOE 

finally acceded to the nuclear industry’s wishes and changed the 

rules—— 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. MARKEY. But it wasn’t secret. It wasn’t sudden—— 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. MARKEY [continuing]. And it followed the right regulatory—— 

Mr. STEARNS. With that, I recognize the gentleman—— 

Mr. MARKEY. We should hold hearings on the nuclear industry’s—— 

Mr. STEARNS [continuing]. From Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy, is 

recognized for an opening statement. 

Mr. MARKEY [continuing]. To change these rules. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In January 2009, the Department of Energy Bush administration 

credit committee unanimously rejected the Solyndra loan. Three 

weeks later, the process began again. In March, they said this deal 

18 

is not ready for prime time, and by August, DOE employees 

warned that Solyndra model runs out of cash, and yet what happened next was pretty incredible. 

There are two major factors that suggest strongly the focus was 

on protecting the money of the investors and executives, not the 

taxpayers. It was an airtight scheme that trumps the Bernie 

Madoff scheme. First, Solyndra executives filed with the SEC in 

December 2009 this initial public offering, which could ensure them 

a strong financial return by being able to profit from stock sales. 

The New York Times said behind the pomp and pageantry of a 

Presidential visit, Solyndra was rotting inside, hemorrhaging cash 

so quickly that within weeks of Mr. Obama’s visit, the company 

cancelled plans to offer shares to the public. 

Secondly, the law clearly and unequivocally states the taxpayers 

will not be subordinate to other financing in these loans, but the 

executives and investors arranged the contract to put themselves 

first in January of 2011. 

It appears you knew the Titanic was sinking and you made sure 

you got to the life boats first. I am very disappointed we will not 

get answers to this today, but the taxpayers deserve answers, and 

they deserve to get their money back. 

I yield back. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman yields back. 

For an opening statement, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, 

is recognized for 5 minutes—2 minutes, 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought you were going 

to give me extra time because we are kind of slow talkers. 

Today’s hearing should be an opportunity for Solyndra to clear 

its name. However, due to the ongoing investigation and the witnesses exercising their constitutional right, they will not shed any 

light on the events surrounding a loan guarantee or the restructuring of the loan. It is their right to do so, but I am disappointed 

we will not get the information. 

Like other Members of Congress, in July, shortly after this issue 

was first raised by the subcommittee, our staff met with the representatives of Solyndra. During this meeting, our office was assured that Solyndra was solvent and well positioned to grow. Only 

days later Solyndra filed bankruptcy. 

It is clear that they were disingenuous at best. They misled our 

office and other members of this subcommittee. This leads me to 

believe that there is a good chance they similarly misled investors 

and the Federal Government throughout the loan guarantee process. 

What is important to recognize is no entity, even the Federal 

Government, is immune to fraud. The case of Solyndra should not 

lead anyone to believe that our country should not stop exploring 

the development of alternative energy sources, particularly solar. 

Loan guarantees need to be thoroughly vetted, but if a mistake is 

made, a fraud happens, we can’t simply turn and run away. 

Wrongdoing should be thoroughly and vigorously investigated, and 

19 

perpetrators should be punished, but we must continue to explore 

ways to derive energy from alternative sources. 

For instance, 90 percent of Israeli water is heated with solar 

power. Other countries are doing this, and so should we. If we are 

not aggressively pursuing these technologies, we will be left behind. 

If we lose our competitive edge, if our Nation ceases to be the world 

leader in technological development and innovation, the financial 

loss we are experiencing due to Solyndra will be dwarfed by our inability to compete. 

While I am shocked at the conduct of this company, and I welcome the investigations by this subcommittee and the Department 

of Justice, the allegations have been made and maybe in this case 

cannot be used as a pretext for abolishing Federal programs that 

have enormous potential. 

And I yield back my one second. 

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. 

And for an opening statement, Dr. Burgess is recognized for 2 

minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BURGESS. I thank the chairman for the recognition. I want 

to thank the witnesses for appearing today and do note they are 

here voluntarily and not under subpoena. I am obviously disappointed, as is every other member of the committee, that we will 

not be able to get our questions answered today as the assertion 

is that you will assert your privileges under the Fifth—or your 

rights under the Fifth Amendment. 

Mr. Chairman, we have been trying for months to get this information out of the Department of Energy and Office of Management 

and Budget, and it is a shame that this committee has been 

stonewalled. It is a shame that this committee had to resort to a 

subpoena in July of this year in order to get this information and 

that that subpoena passed on a party line vote. I suspect there are 

several members on the other side of the dais that would like to 

have that vote back in light of what we know. 

Yes, last night, the money for further disbursements of cash to 

these energy programs was corralled in the continuing resolution. 

I think that was a good thing. I only wish we could have gotten 

more. 

Mr. Markey, in March of 2010, at this very table, one of your 

subcommittee hearings, Cathy Zoi, an assistant secretary of the 

Department of Energy, told this committee that all of the money 

for these energy programs was obligated and out the door at the 

Department of Energy. That was 15 months ago. And now we learn 

that rapidly approaching the end of the fiscal year, they are trying 

to cram $8 billion more out the door. Hell, yes, we took that money 

back. So if DOE is going to continue to be chumps, we ought to at 

least try to corral what they are doing. 

I only wish we could have appropriated a little bit more money, 

invested in some crime scene tape and taken it down there and circled their building. I hope they will be forthcoming in the future, 

I hope Secretary Chu will be down here to our committee to testify. 

It is only the right thing to do, you owe it to the taxpayers, come 

20 

to our committee, bring the documents, and tell us what you know. 

I yield back. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes 

the gentleman, the distinguished gentleman, from Michigan, Mr. 

Dingell, for 2 minutes of an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, like every other member of this 

committee, I am disappointed, and we feel that we should be able 

to ask questions of today’s witnesses. If we are going to look into 

this issue, we need to get both sides of the story, and in all truth, 

I believe the witnesses today have much to tell us that is probably 

in their interest, but their behavior is fully within the Constitution, 

and like everybody else, I have to support and protect those rights 

because they were wisely given by great men. 

Now, having said this, I am hard put to believe there is wrongdoing on the part of the Department of Energy’s loan program office. I believe that that agency has documented that fact over the 

course of 3 years and two administrations, one of each, Republican 

and Democratic. And I believe that they have shown that due diligence was done by the loan program office and by outside engineering and market consultants. And I know how hard it is to get loans 

because I have had to support on a number of occasions constituents of mine who had need of this kind of assistance. 

In any event, members of the subcommittee were assured earlier 

this year that the company was thriving and on track to success, 

and it concerns me that we may have been given inaccurate information. I did hope that we could hear Solyndra’s story at some 

point as we went through these matters. How many of my colleagues on this subcommittee support renewable energy is very 

clear. Many members on both sides of the aisle submitted letters 

in support of Recovery Act funding projects for this district, for 

their districts, Republicans and Democrats, and I hope that we 

don’t take the failure, for whatever reason, of this project to mean 

that all renewable energy projects are bad investments or that the 

Congress or that the government should not establish programs 

that enable the government to support new technology to keep this 

country competitive. 

I thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. 

We recognize the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn, for 

an opening statement of 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome to our witnesses. We are pleased that you are here. 

We are very disappointed that you are not going to answer the 

questions that we have on behalf of our constituents and the American taxpayers that want to know what happened to the money. 

21 

And Mr. Harrison and Mr. Stover, I think it is important that 

you realize, this hearing is not about science or energy policy. It 

is not about previous legislation. This hearing is about you, the Department of Energy, and your interaction with the administration. 

There is a desire to be accountable. We want to be accountable to 

the taxpayers. We need to have the answers from you. There are 

plenty of questions to go around. 

Mr. Chairman, did Mr. Harrison plead the Fifth as he interacted 

with the White House? Did he find it necessary to plead the Fifth 

when he visited with some of my colleagues and said that you were 

on pace to triple your output? In fact, if we have learned anything 

about Mr. Harrison, it is that until this morning, he has had no 

problem talking about the company. 

In fact, it makes you wonder what you are trying to hide or cover 

up. Did your 1,100 former employees know that they were going to 

be laid off on the morning of August 31st? Did they know that 

there was going to be difficulty with the financial bearings of your 

company? Did they understand that there are plenty of questions 

that are yet to be answered? 

I think another part of this story that causes concern is what is 

going to happen with the $783 million you owe to creditors that 

trusted you. 

I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Blackburn follows:] 

22 


73857.007
23 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentlelady yields back. 

There is no longer on the Democrat side, so we will move to the 

Republican side. 

The gentlelady from North Carolina, Sue Myrick, is recognized 

for an opening statement for 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SUE WILKINS MYRICK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH 

CAROLINA 

Mrs. MYRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that, and 

it goes without saying that I am, like everyone else on this committee, very disappointed that we are not going to get any answers 

today. We appreciate your being here, and we respect your Fifth 

Amendment rights, no problem about that. 

But I am confident that the committee will get to the bottom of 

this in the future because we want to find out exactly what went 

on and how this loan guarantee was handled. And also, what was 

the real reason for the company’s eventual failure after the Federal 

Government provided support? 

I would also be very interested to hear about the financial controls internally or lack thereof because a September 22nd Washington Post article about Carol Leonnig and Joe Stephens cited 

former employees who saw Solyndra’s executives burning through 

cash after receiving the Federal loan guarantee. The article also 

mentions that inventory continued to pile up in Solyndra’s leased 

space at the same time they were building their $340 million-plus 

facility around the corner. Like most Americans, I would be very 

interested to know how Solyndra spent so much money so quickly 

and if the company’s management team really believed in the financial picture that they painted at the same time the company 

was evidently spiraling toward ruin. I would also like to ask our 

witnesses if they could point to anything that Solyndra did that 

will ultimately benefit the American people. 

Unfortunately, these questions won’t be answered this morning. 

However, as I said before, it is not the end of the investigation, and 

I know we will get these questions answered in due time. It is the 

least we can do for the taxpayers who have been left holding the 

bag on this one. 

I yield back. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentlelady yields back. 

The gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, is recognized for an 

opening statement for 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PHIL GINGREY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling today’s hearing as we attempt to get answers from the executives of 

Solyndra. Unfortunately, despite assurances from Solyndra’s executives in an email dated September 10, 2011, that they would testify 

before this subcommittee, I am extremely disappointed that CEO 

Brian Harrison and CFO W. G. Stover have reneged on this pledge 

to provide us with answers and instead chose to invoke their constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination. 

24 

Mr. Chairman, hundreds of millions of taxpayers are owed an explanation as to how they were swindled out of $535 million in loan 

guarantee money. My constituents in northwest Georgia deserve to 

know why it is that this company, whose financial outlook in August of 2009 indicated that they would be out of cash in September 

of 2011, in fact the time that they declared bankruptcy, and yet received a hefty loan in a rush to judgment about unproven technology. Yet today we hear nothing. 

Even more frustrating than the carelessness in which Solyndra 

acted after putting taxpayers on the hook for over half a billion dollars is the fact that these executives sitting before us today had the 

audacity to tell members of this subcommittee 2 months ago the 

merits of Solyndra, only to see its doors close, leaving another thousand people out of work. 

Now, as we all know, Solyndra is the subject of a criminal investigation by the FBI. Mr. Chairman, my constituents would like to 

know the answers to several questions. How did Solyndra manage 

to obtain this loan in the first place, given the shaky financial outlook? What interaction did Solyndra have with the White House 

during this process? How did Solyndra restructure its finances in 

February of this year and obtain Obama administration’s approval 

to return $75 million to private investors before taxpayers were 

paid back? Was this a violation of Federal law? Mr. Chairman, 

these questions will be answered with nothing but silence, as you 

can see. This subcommittee deserves better—— 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. GINGREY [continuing]. And quite frankly, the American people deserve better. 

Mr. STEARNS. And the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Gardner, is 

recognized for an opening statement for 2 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank you for being here today. You received the full faith 

and credit of the United States. The American people deserve answers. What went wrong? What could have been done? Did the lobbyists know? Was information hidden from the Department of Energy? Did the Department of Energy paint a rosy picture, hiding 

from Congress? Half a billion dollars was taken from the American 

people. They won’t get it back. This morning this Congress passed 

a continuing resolution, and you have managed to do something 

that few Congresses have. You have killed a program. 

We don’t have answers, but we will continue to ask. We will restore the full faith and credit of this country and the answers that 

they deserve. 

Yield back. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman yields back, and we recognize the 

gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for an opening statement 2 

minutes. 

25 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF VIRGINIA 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I respect your decision to invoke your constitutional Fifth Amendment rights. That stated, the American people 

deserve to know the answers to a lot of questions. After all, it is 

their money we are talking about. 

If I had the opportunity to ask questions which would be answered today, I would ask, in light of the fact the Justice Department got a search warrant for your records shortly after the unflattering emails from within the Obama administration were given to 

this committee, do you feel you have been unfairly targeted by the 

Obama administration’s Justice Department in order to keep you 

from testifying here today? Or do you believe the Justice Department’s investigation in this matter is a smokescreen by the administration to shield the administration’s gross negligence in giving 

you and possibly others questionable loan guarantees in the first 

place? Or do you believe it is a smokescreen for the administration’s decision to subordinate $75 million of taxpayer money 

against the clear meaning of the law? 

Secondly, did you or anyone at your direction speak with anyone, 

particularly legal counsel, at the Department of Energy in an attempt to persuade or educate them that there was a legal theory 

that would allow subordination of taxpayer loan guaranteed 

money? Also I would like to know, did you have knowledge of anyone else possibly speaking to, particularly legal counsel, at the Department of Energy in an attempt to persuade or educate them 

that there was a legal theory that would allow such a subordination? 

I would also have inquired whether you could affirmatively state 

that you don’t have any knowledge of representatives from Argonaut or Madrone speaking to anyone, particularly legal counsel, at 

the Department of Energy in an attempt to persuade or educate 

them that there was a legal theory that would allow subordination. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman yields back. 

We have completed our opening statements at this point, so now 

we will move to the witnesses. 

Mr. Sullivan is recognized for 2 minutes in an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SULLIVAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This is a critical hearing to examine Solyndra’s representation on 

its financial status to this committee and the Department of Energy. 

Mr. Harrison, on July 21st, you came to my office to meet with 

me, and I quote from your meeting request to my office to discuss 

Solyndra’s continued success in the global marketplace. I guess a 

lot can change in 5 weeks. 

26 

In our meeting, you lied to me about the financial health of your 

company because just 5 weeks later, your company was bankrupt. 

What happened? Today I want to know how your now-bankrupt company got $535 

million taxpayer-funded loan guarantee from DOE, and I also want 

to know how your chief financial officer, Mr. Stover, duped the 

Obama administration and others on the financial health of your 

company. The American people deserve answers because they footed the bill. Did you know when you were meeting with me and 

other members that your company would be bankrupt 5 weeks 

after your Hill visits? 

As a long-time critic of the Solyndra loan guarantee, I want to 

know what happened. Americans deserve to know their taxpayer 

dollars are being spent wisely. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman yields back. I think at this point we 

are complete with our opening statements. Now we will move to 

our witnesses. 

My colleagues, my understanding is that Mr. Harrison and Mr. 

Stover authorized their counsels to advise the committee that they 

will rely on their constitutional right not to testify at today’s hearing. I believe that this privilege should be personally exercised before the members, as we have done in the past, and that is why 

we have requested Mr. Harrison and Mr. Stover’s appearance 

today. I request that given the importance of their testimony, they 

reconsider their decision to invoke the Fifth Amendment—their 

Fifth Amendment rights, especially because the American people 

deserve answers about what happened to half a billion dollars of 

their money, and because Mr. Harrison met with many of us and 

made statements to us, so we think we should answer our questions—they should answer our questions now. 

In addition, both of you and your company, Solyndra, have made 

statements that you don’t know of any wrongdoing and that you 

are cooperating with the Department of Justice. If you are not 

aware of any wrongdoing, how can you plead the Fifth Amendment 

and say that answers to our questions will expose you to criminal 

liability? I ask you today, both of you, to reconsider. 

I am now going to place both of the witnesses under oath. 

Mr. Harrison, you are aware that the subcommittee is holding an 

investigative hearing, and in doing so, we have the practice of taking testimony under oath. Do you have any objection to being 

under oath during your testimony? 

Mr. HARRISON. No. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Stover, you are aware that the subcommittee 

is holding an investigative hearing, and in doing so, we have the 

practice of taking testimony under oath. Do you have any objection 

to being under oath during your testimony? 

Mr. STOVER. No. 

Mr. STEARNS. The chair also advises you that under the Rules of 

the House and the rules of the committee, you are entitled to be 

advised by counsel. Do you desire to be advised by counsel during 

your testimony today? 

Mr. Harrison? 

Mr. HARRISON. Yes. 

27 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Stover? 

Mr. STOVER. Yes. 

Mr. STEARNS. In that case, would you please identify your counsel for the record, each of you? 

Mr. Harrison, please identify your attorney by name. 

Mr. HARRISON. Mr. Walt Brown. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Stover? 

Mr. STOVER. Jan Little. 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you. 

At this time, will you both please rise and raise your right hand, 

and I will swear you in. And I need you to make sure your mike 

is on if you don’t mind. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Mr. Harrison, and thank you, Mr. Stover. 

The chairman recognizes himself for questioning of the witnesses. And I should be less than 2 minutes hopefully. 

Mr. Harrison and Mr. Stover, was every document and piece of 

information you submitted to the Department of Energy and the 

White House, Office of Management and Budget, the United States 

Congress, and your investors accurate and complete to the best of 

your knowledge? 

Mr. HARRISON. Mr. Chairman, I have tremendous respect for this 

subcommittee and the important oversight role that it plays. As 

much as I wish to be able to answer the members’ questions, I have 

been advised by my counsel that it is the better course for me to 

assert my constitutional right to decline to answer questions under 

the Fifth Amendment. While I hope to have an opportunity to assist this committee’s inquiry in the future, on the advice of my attorney, I must respectfully decline to answer any questions put 

forth to me by this committee. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Stover? 

Mr. STOVER. Mr. Chairman, on the advice of my counsel, I must 

invoke the privilege afforded by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution, and I respectfully decline to answer any questions 

put to me by this committee and subcommittee. I have great respect for the crucial oversight role that Congress plays in our democracy. I trust that the members of this subcommittee similarly 

have great respect for the privilege afforded every citizen by the 

Fifth Amendment. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Stover, knowing the financial conditions of the 

company in mid July, were you aware of Mr. Harrison coming to 

Congress and painting such a rosy picture of the company? Did you 

review all the financial information being presented to Members of 

Congress, Department of Energy, and OMB, and did you discuss it 

with Mr. Harrison? 

Mr. STOVER. On the advice of my counsel, I invoke the privilege 

afforded by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and I 

respectfully decline to answer any questions. 

Mr. STEARNS. My time has expired. We will now go to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, who is recognized for a minute and 

a half. I am sorry, we recognize—I think what we are going to do 

is go 5 minutes on this side, and then 5 minutes on their side. So, 

Mr. Barton, you are recognized for a minute and a half. 

28 

Mr. BARTON. Before my time starts, could I inquire of the chair 

if the witnesses were given an opportunity to give an opening 

statement? They didn’t, but were they offered that? 

Mr. STEARNS. No, they were not. 

Mr. BARTON. They were not offered an opportunity? 

Mr. STEARNS. They are certainly welcome the opportunity to 

speak today. 

Mr. BARTON. I would ask unanimous consent that we give them 

the opportunity to give a statement if either of them wishes to. 

Ms. DEGETTE. I don’t have an objection. 

Mr. BARTON. Normally we give witnesses an opportunity to make 

a statement. 

Mr. STEARNS. It is my understanding, Mr. Barton, that when you 

are taking the Fifth, there is no opportunity for opening statements. 

The gentlelady. 

Ms. DEGETTE. If the gentleman will yield, we were—the way this 

subcommittee has operated for, as you know, Mr. Chairman Emeritus, for the last number of years is when witnesses appear to take 

the Fifth, they generally don’t give an opening statement, but I 

would certainly have no objection if either of these witnesses decided to give one. 

Mr. BARTON. I just think we should give them that opportunity 

to show that we are fair and balanced, as they say. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Barton, we are told by their counsel that met 

with our counsel, they did not wish to give an opening statement, 

and that is what we are hearing from their counsel. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, we were also told that they were going to answer questions. 

Mr. STEARNS. Well, I think this is a fine point, but I think judging from the counsel’s reaction here, they do not wish to give opening statements, and I think if you look at their nodding heads, I 

think that should be apparent to you they do not wish to give opening statements. 

Do you wish to give an opening statement? 

Mr. BARTON. I wish to ask questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STEARNS. Go ahead and give your—excuse me, ask your 

questions, yes. 

Mr. BARTON. I want to ask Mr. Harrison if he thinks the American people who have invested over half a billion dollars deserve to 

know what happened to that money. 

Mr. HARRISON. On the advice of my counsel, I invoke the privilege afforded to me by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, 

and I respectfully decline to answer any questions. 

Mr. BARTON. I want to ask the same question to Mr. Stover. 

Mr. STOVER. On the advice of my counsel, I invoke the privilege 

afforded by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I respectfully decline to answer any question. 

Mr. BARTON. I don’t understand what is self-incriminating about 

a yes or no answer as to whether the American people deserve to 

know what happened to over half a billion dollars of their money, 

but then I am not a defense lawyer, Mr. Chairman. 

I would, secondly, like to know what changed between January 

of 2009, when the Bush administration and DOE rejected the loan 

29 

application, to March of 2009, when the Obama administration reversed course and approved this half a billion dollar loan. Mr. Harrison, would you care to answer that question? 

Mr. HARRISON. On the advice of my counsel, I invoke the privilege afforded to me by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of 

the United States, and I respectfully decline to answer any questions. 

Mr. BARTON. I would like to ask the same question to Mr. Stover. 

Mr. STOVER. On the advice of counsel, I invoke the privilege afforded by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I respectfully decline to answer any questions. 

Mr. BARTON. Again, Mr. Chairman, I am puzzled by the assertion of a right against self-incrimination, which the only obvious 

thing that changed is the occupant in the White House. And that 

is certainly not illegal for the American people to decide to put a 

new President in the White House. 

I have got time for one more question. 

Is it not true, Mr. Harrison, that the former CEO and other investors of Solyndra met frequently with officials in the Obama 

White House? 

Mr. HARRISON. On the advice of my counsel, I invoke the privilege afforded to me by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of 

the United States, and I respectfully decline to answer any questions. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. BARTON. I would like Mr. Stover to be given an opportunity 

to answer that question. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Stover, answer the question. 

Mr. STOVER. On the advice of my counsel, I invoke the privilege 

afforded by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I respectfully decline to answer the question. 

Mr. BARTON. Again, Mr. Chairman, I see nothing that is incriminating about people going to see folks in the White House. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. BARTON. I will say this, Mr. Chairman. 

I hope on a bipartisan basis we get to the bottom of this. I hope 

our staffs look at the constitutionality of invoking a broad privilege 

when in fact there doesn’t appear to be any reason for these gentlemen not to answer the questions of the subcommittee. 

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. 

And the gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 1 minute. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

To Mr. Harrison and Mr. Stover, did you or someone on 

Solyndra’s behalf discuss with investor Mr. Kaiser of the perilous 

financial position before February 23, 2011, when the DOE and 

OMB agreed to subordinate the United States’ position to recover 

funds in a bankruptcy to investors like Mr. Kaiser? 

Mr. Harrison. 

Mr. HARRISON. On the advice of my counsel, I invoke the privilege afforded to me by the Fifth Amendment of the United States 

Constitution, and I respectfully decline to answer any questions. 

Mr. TERRY. Mr. Stover. 

30 

Mr. STOVER. On the advice of my counsel, I invoke the privilege 

afforded by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I respectfully decline to answer the question. 

Mr. TERRY. Yield back. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman yields back. 

The gentlelady, the ranking member, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Gentlemen, based on the answers that you have 

given to the other members of this committee, Mr. Harrison, I 

would like to ask you first, it is my understanding that upon the 

advice of counsel, you intend to exercise your Fifth Amendment 

right to not answer any questions on any subject put to you by this 

committee today. Is that correct? 

Mr. HARRISON. Yes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Stover, I am going to ask you the same question. Based on your responses to the questions asked to you by the 

other members of this committee, it is your intention, based on the 

advice of your counsel, that you do not intend to answer any questions based on exercise of your Fifth Amendment right. Is that correct? 

Mr. STOVER. Yes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Both of you gentlemen, I will just say these are 

important constitutional rights that we all treasure. And while we 

are frustrated today, particularly because you told a number of us 

in August that the company was strong, that it was doing well, and 

this was only 5 weeks before the bankruptcy—we would like to get 

to the bottom of that—we have the utmost respect for the United 

States Constitution. 

And so, therefore, based on that, I will decline to ask you any 

further questions today. 

However, Mr. Chairman, as I said in my opening statement, I 

would be hopeful that these witnesses, once their legal issues are 

cleared up and based upon the advice of their counsel, they will 

voluntarily come back and answer all of the questions put to them 

by both sides of this committee. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will just ask the other members on 

my side if they have any questions for these witnesses at this time. 

OK. 

Mr. Chairman, in that case, we will yield back the first 5 minutes and reserve our second 5 minutes. 

Mr. STEARNS. All right. I understand then you are yielding back 

you’re a little over 3 minutes, and you will get another 5 minutes. 

At this point, we will go to our side, and recognize for 1 minute 

the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy, for 1 minute. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

To both witnesses, in this question, I am not asking you or compelling you to be a witness against yourself, nor am I depriving you 

of life, liberty or property without due process of law. This question 

is not of a criminal basis or anything else, but it is important. 

What is your plan to pay back the taxpayers the $535 million you 

owe them, and when will you pay it back? 

Mr. Harrison. 

Mr. HARRISON. On the advice of my counsel, I invoke the privilege afforded to me by the Fifth Amendment of the United States 

Constitution, and I respectfully decline to answer any questions. 

31 

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Stover. 

Mr. STOVER. On the advice of my counsel, I invoke the privilege 

afforded by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I respectfully decline to answer any questions. 

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. 

And now we recognize Dr. Burgess, the gentleman from Texas, 

for 1 minute. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, thank gentlemen for being here. 

A question for both of you, Mr. Harrison and Mr. Stover. In today’s New York Times article about this problem, administration 

officials lay blame for Solyndra’s problems on part of the global collapse. Some lawmakers on Capitol Hill question whether the firm’s 

executives have engaged in a coverup of their precarious financial 

condition. An aide to a top White House official, Valerie Jarrett, 

was met with three times to push for loans. Would you be willing 

to provide to this committee communications between yourselves or 

your senior executives with members of the West Wing of the 

White House, specifically Ms. Jarrett, Carol Browner, and Rahm 

Emanuel, or their staffs? 

Mr. HARRISON. On the advice of my counsel, I invoke the privilege afforded to me by the Fifth Amendment of the United States 

Constitution, and I respectfully decline to answer any questions. 

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Stover, same question. 

Mr. STOVER. On the advice of my counsel, I invoke the privilege 

afforded by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I respectfully decline to answer any questions. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentlelady from Tennessee is recognized for 1 minute. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And to both Mr. Harrison and Mr. Stover, what we would like 

to know is, who was the first in your company to realize that you 

were not going to be profitable? And when you became aware, was 

this discussed at a board meeting? And were DOE staff members 

present? Were White House employees or administration appointees present for such board meetings? And prior to your bankruptcy filing and your awareness of your financial straits, did you 

issue bonuses to your senior management, your leadership team, or 

your board? And was this discussed as an agenda item in a board 

meeting? 

Mr. HARRISON. On the advice of my counsel, I invoke the privilege afforded to me by the Fifth Amendment of the United States 

Constitution, and I respectfully decline to answer any questions. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Stover? 

Mr. STOVER. On advice of my counsel, I invoke the privilege afforded by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I respectfully decline to answer the question. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Yield back. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentlelady yields back. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, is recognized for 1 

minute. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, I would like to know what role you all played in the 

subordination and whether or not your company or agents of your 

32 

company came up with the legal theory that allowed subordination, 

in direct conflict with what the statute passed by this Congress 

says. So if each of you could answer that, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. HARRISON. On the advice of my counsel, I invoke the privilege afforded to me by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and I respectfully decline to answer any questions. 

Mr. STOVER. On advice of my counsel, I invoke the privilege afforded by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I respectfully decline to answer the question. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. STEARNS. Yield back. All right. 

When I did my questions, we had 1 minute left on our side. 

And I will ask this question for Mr. Harrison. In relation to 

Solyndra’s February 2011 restructuring agreement with DOE, did 

anyone from DOE or OMB ever once discuss with you the issue 

that subordinating taxpayers to Solyndra’s primary investors was 

a violation of the law? 

Mr. Harrison? 

Mr. HARRISON. On the advice of my counsel, I invoke the privilege afforded to me by the Fifth Amendment of the United States 

Constitution, and I respectfully decline to answer any questions. 

Mr. STEARNS. All right. We have completed our questions on this 

side, and we recognize the minority for 5 minutes. 

The ranking member, Mr. Waxman, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The chairman could have easily have asked a few questions to 

ascertain whether the Fifth Amendment was going to be asserted. 

That is consistent with other situations in which we faced witnesses invoking their Fifth Amendment rights. 

But what we have instead heard today is a line of questions that 

seem designed to create catchy sound bites rather than establish 

a clear record regarding the witnesses’ intent to assert their constitutional rights. And these questions constitute witness badgering 

that is both unseemly and inconsistent with a long line of precedent under which courts have recognized that protections of the 

Fifth Amendment would be meaningless if prosecutors could require criminal defendants to repeatedly assert their privilege in the 

face of incriminating questions. 

According to a Supreme Court ruling, it is considered prosecutorial misconduct when the government calls witnesses in a conscious and flagrant attempt to build its case out of inferences arising from the use of testimonial privilege. And a Federal appeals 

court has written that misconduct may yet arise if the prosecution 

continues to question a witness once her consistent refusal, legitimate or otherwise, has become apparent. 

So I just want to take this moment to assert the fact that I think 

it is unseemly and inappropriate for members to be asking questions that we know you will not answer. You do have a privilege 

under the U.S. Constitution not to give us testimony. 

Should you answer any of these questions, you may well then 

have waived your rights. So, therefore, it seems to me when members ask questions, like, when are you going to pay back the 

money, when did you tell the White House this information, when 

did you tell your board about it, when did you subordinate the 

33 

loans from others, that, to me, is an improper line of questioning. 

They are sound bites. They are attempts not to get real answers. 

I think our committee is better than this. 

This is an important inquiry. We must find out what happened 

to ensure that similar companies do not suffer the same fate. And 

let’s not put our desire for media attention above our duty to conduct fair and balanced investigations into matters of national importance. 

I yield back the time. 

Mr. BARTON. Would the distinguished former chairman yield for 

a question to himself? 

Mr. WAXMAN. Yes, certainly. I will not take the Fifth Amendment. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. Good. I was told that you appeared on the 

Today Show this morning and said that the committee deserved to 

have the right to ask questions and that you wanted to ask questions. Was I told that erroneously? 

Mr. WAXMAN. You were told that erroneously. I did not appear 

on the Today Show. I came to this hearing directly from home. But 

I have told the press, and I have told everyone else that has asked 

me that I—in fact, I requested these witnesses be brought to our 

committee because I do have questions I would like to ask them. 

And I think we are entitled to get answers to these questions. 

But we do have the Constitution of the United States. And there 

may be other ways we can elicit some of the information. And I am 

willing to work—excuse me, it is my time. 

Mr. BARTON. It is your time. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I am willing to work with the chairman of the committee and the members of this committee to pursue other ways to 

get the information. 

But if they have asserted the Fifth Amendment, there is nothing 

else we can do. And to badger them with questions that are simply 

sound bites for the press does not strike me as a fair way, or a balanced way, for the committee to conduct its business. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman yields back the balance of his time? 

Mr. WAXMAN. I do. 

Mr. STEARNS. I would point out to the ranking member that this 

format today was agreed to by your side, the ranking member. Ms. 

DeGette and I both—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. If the gentleman will yield—— 

Mr. STEARNS. Sure. 

Ms. DEGETTE [continuing]. Just because I agreed to the format 

doesn’t mean I agreed to the witnesses being badgered by sound 

bite questions. 

Mr. STEARNS. No, no, I understand. But I am just saying, the format we did. I just point that out. Let me move to close here. 

Mr. Harrison, will you invoke your Fifth Amendment rights in 

response to all questions here today? 

Mr. HARRISON. Yes. 

Mr. STEARNS. Then you are excused from the witness table at 

this time, but I advise you that you remain subject to the process 

of the committee, and that if the committee’s needs are such, then 

we may recall you. You may leave. 

34 

Mr. Stover, let me be clear, Mr. Stover, are you refusing to answer the questions on the basis of the protections afforded to you 

under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution? Yes or no? 

Mr. STOVER. Yes. 

Mr. STEARNS. Can the press step down a little bit so we can see 

each other? Do you want me to repeat the question for you? Let me 

be clear, are you refusing to answer the questions on the basis of 

the protections afforded to you under the Fifth Amendment to the 

United States Constitution? 

Mr. STOVER. Yes. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Stover, will you invoke your Fifth Amendment 

rights in response to all of the questions here today? 

Mr. STOVER. Yes. 

Mr. STEARNS. Then you are excused from the witness table at 

this time, but I advise you that you remain subject to the process 

of the committee, and that if the committee’s need is such, then we 

may recall you. 

And with that, my colleagues, I ask unanimous consent to enter 

the document binder and majority supplemental memo. 

Ms. DEGETTE. No objection. 

Mr. STEARNS. No objection. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

I thank the members for coming today and for the questions. I 

am sorry that Solyndra executives were unable to provide any answers. Nonetheless, the committee’s investigation will continue to 

go forward. 

The committee sent three document requests this week, one to 

the Department of Energy seeking their communications with the 

White House on Solyndra, and two to Solyndra’s investors, Argonaut and Madrone. We are continuing to get documents from the 

Department of Energy and the White House about their involvement in the guarantee. We will get to the bottom of what the administration understood about Solyndra’s financial position and 

why they continued to believe Solyndra was a good bet for $535 

million in taxpayers’ money, even though DOE and OMB staff 

raised repeated concerns during their reviews about the very same 

financial problems that resulted in Solyndra’s bankruptcy 2 years 

later. 

We will also press forward in trying to understand the political 

and time pressures that may have pushed this loan out the door 

before it was ready for prime time. And despite Mr. Harrison’s and 

Mr. Stover’s inability to answer questions today, we will determine 

whether Solyndra played any part in the government’s failure to 

accurately assess the risks this deal presented to the government 

and the United States taxpayers. This hearing—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. STEARNS. Yes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. If you will yield. 

Mr. STEARNS. I will yield. 

Ms. DEGETTE. The chairman has stated about the continuing 

document requests that are outstanding. I am wondering if the 

chairman has reviewed the request that Mr. Waxman and I have 

made about having general hearings about our policies and incentives about whether U.S. manufacturers can compete in the global 

35 

clean energy market, and also the request that Mr. Waxman and 

I had made to obtain the testimony of the representatives of Argonaut and Madrone, the two private equity companies that invested 

in Solyndra, so we can get a more clear picture from that angle. 

Mr. STEARNS. We are taking both your suggestions under advisement. We think they are very good suggestions. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. 

Mr. STEARNS. With that, the hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:15 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

36 


73857.008
37 


73857.009
38 


73857.010
39 


73857.011
40 


73857.012
41 


73857.013
42 


73857.014
43 


73857.015
44 


73857.016
45 


73857.017
46 


73857.018
47 


73857.019
48 


73857.020
49 


73857.021
50 

Æ 


73857.022