You're watching...
Rep. Tim Murphy, (R-Pa.), on why he is questioning the legality of the loan to the bankrupt solar-panel company.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
A half hour from now.
-- Solyndra bankruptcy while the fallout continues as you know yesterday energy secretary Steven issue faced tough questions on Capitol Hill.
Republican congressman -- asked -- -- it was even legal to get Solyndra a half billion dollar loan in the first place was less.
If there's specific.
Wording in any law that says you can don't have to phone move -- the law that says you can't give the money -- can't make it.
All right congressman Murphy joins us now from Capitol Hill -- and welcome to the program.
I'm pretty accurate what you satisfied.
With secretary choose response on the legality of giving the money to Solyndra the first place not at all because the lowest.
Pretty clear it says no guarantees to be made unless the secretary determines there is a reasonable prospect -- repayment of principal and interest.
And it was pretty clear that there was information within cylinder with the Department of Energy within treasury within OMB that says this company is in trouble.
Now think about this -- -- you do talk a lot about investments if you're gonna make that kind of investment -- someone else's money.
Do you make of that kind of investment you want to question -- that you want -- seek information and what secretary -- kept telling us as he -- no he didn't know he -- know.
Then when other people start telling you there are problems.
Listen and when other people tell you the only way they're gonna give more money to this faltering company is if you'll lose and they win and it's time to walk away and with -- that it became pretty clear to me from what secretary was saying.
That they didn't think that there is any chance this company was gonna pay anything back and that's when it.
Breaks the law -- I was watching that the secretary's performance.
And I -- he came back as strongly as he could be given some pretty sharp edge question from you and others that the impression I got was.
This man is an academic.
And that that is where he is truly comfortable.
In the theoretical realm.
But he finds himself in the position of running America's energy industry and I think he was somewhat uncomfortable.
In that role even though that is the role he's -- Well when you when you're dealing with that the questions of the -- loss of investments he could handle that that's an economic question.
When you talk about -- actuality of following the law I think this is where his testimony fell apart.
It was rushed it was -- reckless and it was perhaps political.
He would talk about the importance of having these jobs importance of competing with China the importance of solar industry.
That's not what the law is about and what I was asking him as when the law says you can't give money if you don't think they're gonna pay it back.
Where is the law that says you can -- pass this law and he couldn't answer that question.
Well if you're not satisfied with his response on the legality issue.
When you take it from now.
Well one of the problems is it would be important to have.
The attorney general raised questions and basically say the contracts are -- I believe they are but that's not gonna and I -- -- -- that's not gonna happen well.
I think this is where congress itself has to raise more questions about this mean I I've also check to see with a private attorneys -- someone else who could bring suit against American government.
On this on the legality of these loans and haven't heard that way I stay tuned for that issue as well.
But unfortunate -- secretary Chu told us is this money may be going I think this is a lesson force and other things.
But that any time the government gets involved any loan program perhaps Larry Summers -- said.
The US government is is a quote -- on boat venture capitalists we had to pay attention to that.
Most of things that are critical for existence of American energy infrastructure is one thing but dealing with this as a way of satisfying someone's interest.
To develop some companies perhaps for political reasons.
That has to end because those are our earmarks and we agree that those are gonna work.
Congressman -- -- harsh question a separate issue yesterday joining us this morning Republican Pennsylvania thanks so much appreciate -- being with us thank you --
