Matt Cartwright

So my question is if what you do is you examine the experience at Fisker and then you ramp that into your general opinions and conclusions about the validity and the appropriateness of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and…

Even though you were not yet employed by The Heritage Foundation in 2007, it is the case that The Heritage Foundation itself was critical of this bill that President Bush signed into law in 2007.

It seems to me you sort of morph into a general attack on the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 creation of these loan guarantee programs, correct?

I assure you that I speak on behalf of this entire panel that we are way more interested in true answers than fast answers.

We think it is probably improper that we read about them in the press before we get them.

The Antiquities Act is an important tool and I am glad that this Subcommittee is shining a light on the process of protecting Federal lands.

There has been considerable emphasis on the timber potential in our Forests but our National Forests are more than timber factories.

Unfortunately, Congress did not take into account the harm to businesses and individuals as a result of what I have called this ridiculous sequestration.

The Administration did not decide to impose across-the-board cuts to spending at Government agencies. It was Congress that did that, using Congress' power of the purse.

Moreover, the CR put forth by the Republican leadership this week would further slash funding to areas such as highway safety to below the levels agreed upon just last in MAP-21.

The cuts to the Department of Education and Transportation each measure about $2 billion.

Unfortunately, implementation of these recommendations is going to be all the more difficult because the testimony from the Inspectors General Tighe and Scovel come in the midst of yet another manufactured fiscal crisis.

The implementation of recommendations from our inspectors general can serve to decrease waste and ensure that the Federal Government is spending the taxpayers' money as efficiently as possible.

I believe we are totally cooperative with all the interviews they have requested and all of their written questions.

I appreciate very much the opportunity to address that point.

Congress also required that Treasury prohibit golden parachutes, or exorbitant departure payments, to senior executives.

Okay. And that is what we want, because these are companies that we need to succeed not only because they are employing the middle class people that work there, but also because we need to get back our bailout money.

So, in essence, their reward is the success of the company that they are running.

One thing that we have talked about is the elimination of bonuses as executive compensation, the elimination of golden parachutes as executive compensation.

What I want to know, what I really want to establish here is this the oversight panel, and the thing that I really care about is whether the law is being followed.

We held our noses because it cost so much money, so much federal taxpayer money indebted us so deeply to do that, but it turned out to be a good gamble because we have recovered, as Ms. Geoghegan has said, 93 percent of this money.

Well, I think it is fairly clear that Treasury has upheld the law that Congress passed on limiting executive compensation of companies receiving assistance from TARP.

Like most Americans, I was troubled to learn how the structure of compensation packages on Wall Street helped to create incentives for taking the unnecessary and excessive risks that led to the financial crisis in the first place.

Sequestration is going to and it's designed to impose across-the-board spending cuts to an economy that is still slowly recovering.

I will be working with the GAO to find the best possible way to coordinate the various adaptation reports.