The House of Representatives is investigating whether the Obama Administration official charged with overseeing bailout proceedings committed perjury during his testimony on June 22nd.

Ron Bloom, a former union activist, serves as Assistant to the President for Manufacturing Policy. He has been responsible for overseeing the bailouts of Chrysler and General Motors — bailouts from which unions benefited greatly.

On June 22nd, Bloom was asked by the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform if he ever said he, “did this (the bailouts) all for the unions”. Under oath, Bloom repeatedly and strongly denied he ever said it.

But two independent sources claim he did say just that.

The first comes from a 2009 article written by David Shepardson, Washington bureau chief for the Detroit News. The article, which the United Auto Workers proudly copied and posted (PDF), says:

“Rattner praised the team’s intensity and focus and said the group was among the best he had ever worked with,” Shepardson reported. “Bloom, the former adviser to the United Steelworkers, joked that he ‘did this all for the unions.’”

The second source is Steven Rattner, an American financier and former Obama Administration adviser who played a pivotal role in the auto bailouts. Rattner was present at the dinner in question, and he has now published a book.

The book, entitled Overhaul: An Insider’s Account of the Obama Administration’s Emergency Rescue of the Auto Industry, says:

Such celebrations, I reminded my colleagues, are standard on Wall Street at the successful close of a deal. But in those victories, the objective is private gain. This victory was different. I choked up as I spoke about our commitment to quality. “I’ve worked with a lot of talented people in my life but never with a group smarter or more dedicated than Team Auto,” I said. And I thanked my colleagues for the enormous sacrifices that each had made. “In this deal, in this incarnation,” I said, “you have epitomized what it means to serve your country.”

Fortunately, after I spoke, Ron Bloom was there to lighten the mood. “I did this all for the unions,” he jokingly declared. Everyone laughed and the war stories began to fly…

Two individual sources published contemporary accounts claiming Bloom said he did it all for the unions. They even report the same exact words.

The writers claim Bloom was joking. And he may well have been. But the problem isn’t whether he did it for unions — it’s whether he lied under oath about whether he said the words at all.

During his June 22nd testimony, Bloom was asked by Congressman Dan Burton of Indiana about the report of his remarks. Here’s what was said:

Rep. Burton: Well, did you say this at a dinner? There was a dinner and it was reported by David Shepardson, Washington correspondent for the Detroit News. At a farewell dinner of the Auto Task Force held in the restaurant Rosa Mexicano in late July 2009 that you allegedly said “I did this all for the unions.”

Mr. Bloom: No I did not say that.

Rep. Burton: You didn’t say that?

Mr. Bloom: No sir.

Rep. Burton: So, you were misquoted?

Mr. Bloom: That’s correct.

Rep. Burton: Well, I’m going to call that guy up and ask him if you said that. You know that you are under oath here?

Mr. Bloom: I’m fully aware.

Rep. Burton: You made no comment like that at all?

Mr. Bloom: No sir.

Bloom didn’t say he made the remarks but was joking. He said he didn’t make the remarks at all. He said he was misquoted and repeatedly denied ever uttering the remark — jokingly or otherwise.

And there’s more. Because ABC News picked up on the story and apparently asked the White House for a comment. The White House directed reporter Mary Bruce to Rattner’s book — the one which claims Bloom made the remark.

The White House’s apparent defense is that Bloom meant the statement to be a joke and that his words were taken out of context. Fine. That lets him off the hook for admitting to union favoritism.

But it doesn’t change the fact that, if he really did make the remark, he lied to Congress under oath. He wasn’t asked if the comment was made in a serious manner. He was asked if it was made at all. Here it is again:

Rep. Burton: You didn’t say that?

Mr. Bloom: No sir…

Rep. Burton: You made no comment like that at all?

Mr. Bloom: No sir.

Neither question was qualified with “in a serious manner”. The Congressman simply asked Bloom if he made the comment “at all”. Bloom repeatedly said no.

If Bloom did make the comment, as two contemporary sources — one of them a former Obama aide — said, then it would seem he lied to Congress. What happens then? We’ll cross that bridge when we get to it.

Congressman Darrell Issa, who chairs the oversight committee, has given Bloom an opportunity to “clarify” his remarks — that is, change the record to reflect the truth and avoid charges. We’ll see if Bloom takes him up on the offer.