[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 123 (Thursday, September 13, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5934-H5939]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6213, NO MORE SOLYNDRAS ACT, AND 
      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 779 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 779

         Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 6213) to limit further taxpayer exposure from 
     the loan guarantee program established under title XVII of 
     the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed 90 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to 
     consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
     under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     112-31. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No 
     amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be in order except those printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
     order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
         Sec. 2.  It shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of September 20, 2012, or September 21, 2012, 
     for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend 
     the rules, as though under clause 1 of rule XV.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman, my friend from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 779 provides for a 
structured rule for consideration of H.R. 6213. This rule provides for 
the discussion and opportunities for Members of the minority and the 
majority to participate in this debate.
  I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. The 
underlying legislation ensures that all American taxpayers will never 
again be forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars because of this 
administration's politically motivated risky bets.
  H.R. 6213 draws on the lessons learned from the failed Department of 
Energy Loan Guarantee Program, which invested $535 million into a solar 
energy company named Solyndra. Unfortunately, Solyndra went bankrupt, 
leaving hardworking Americans with a check for over half a billion 
dollars.
  Solyndra has become synonymous with the Obama administration's 
reckless spending programs that have done nothing to create the jobs 
our country so desperately needs, nor those that had been promised by 
the President of the United States and the Democratic Party. Despite 
warnings that the company was unsustainable and would surely fail, the 
administration was blinded by their political agenda and committed over 
half a billion dollars in taxpayer dollars to a privately held company.
  In fact, during a 2011 restructuring of the loan, the administration 
placed private investors ahead of taxpayers when it came to 
reimbursement in the event of bankruptcy. Given these practices, it's 
no wonder that our current President has created budget deficits in 
excess of $1 trillion each year he has served as President.
  In addition to ensuring that the Federal Government does not throw 
taxpayer dollars after the investments, H.R. 6213 also highlights the 
need of the Federal Government to stop propping up failed companies 
which cannot support themselves in the open market. The Federal 
Government should not guarantee hundreds of millions of dollars in 
taxpayer-backed loans to companies that do not have a business model 
that supports sufficient private investment. The administration should 
not pretend to be a venture capitalist with taxpayers' money.
  In testimony before the Rules Committee yesterday, Congressman Ed 
Whitfield, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy

[[Page H5935]]

and Power, testified that the DOE loan guarantee programs spent $15 
billion, but only created 1,175 jobs.

                              {time}  1230

  That means that each job created cost taxpayers $12.8 million. These 
statistics demonstrate what House Republicans have been saying for 
years--this country cannot tax and spend its way to prosperity. 
Instead, we must encourage the free enterprise system by preventing 
over-regulation and promoting pro-growth policies, including tax 
policies that do not push jobs overseas, that create a better free 
enterprise system, that create not just jobs but also careers for 
Americans. And they should be designed to incentivize private 
investment, which is known, Mr. Speaker, as the free enterprise system.
  Ultimately, the No More Solyndras Act puts an end to an ineffective 
government program, protects taxpayers from financing the 
administration's wish list of projects, and establishes necessary 
oversight to hold executive branch officials accountable for their 
actions.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on 
the underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas, my friend Mr. 
Sessions, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this structured 
rule. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have brought up yet another 
closed process in what was supposed to be a more open and democratic 
House. After 2 years of broken promises, we shouldn't be surprised by 
this action. And we shouldn't be surprised that the Republicans are 
bringing up this overtly political bill just 55 days before election. 
H.R. 6213, the No More Solyndras Act, is just political theater. It's a 
bill that's going nowhere. We know the Senate won't consider it. The 
only thing it does is give the Republicans another talking point to use 
on the campaign trail.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle are trying to make it seem 
like there was a big conspiracy to inappropriately give money to 
Solyndra, a company that was trying to manufacture solar panels here in 
the United States. They claim that there was a political effort to 
award Solyndra funds in an improper, and possibly illegal, way. And in 
doing so, they are attacking a Department of Energy loan guarantee 
program that allows private investors to invest billions of dollars in 
order to create thousands of jobs here in America.
  The Republican response to a company that went bankrupt after 
receiving Federal loans--a company that was manufacturing alternative-
energy products here in the United States--was to begin investigations 
that turned into political witch hunts. And those investigations appear 
to have led us to this point by consideration of this bill that 
purports to end the loan guarantee program altogether. Of course, the 
reality is that those investigations have really been used as 
ammunition on the campaign trail.
  But what the Republicans claim they're doing today and what they're 
really doing are two different things. They say that they're 
eliminating the loan guarantee program, getting rid of it completely. 
But what this bill really does is bar the Department of Energy from 
considering new applications submitted after December 31, 2011. That 
leaves $34 billion in the pipeline for applications for the Department 
of Energy loan guarantee program that were submitted before December 
31, 2011. And there's no deadline on when these applications must be 
approved.
  Not only that, but most of the available loan guarantee funding is 
for fossil fuel and nuclear projects. That's right, Republicans are 
claiming to end this loan guarantee program but are still allowing it 
to spend tens of billions of dollars. And they are still picking and 
choosing the winners and losers by putting an artificial end date on 
the application submissions. The result will be billions more in loan 
guarantees for projects dealing with nuclear and fossil fuels like coal 
and oil and much less for wind, solar, and hydro projects.
  America should be about innovation, about creating new things. We're 
the country that put a man on the Moon. We're the country that created 
the car, airplane, and iPad. We should be fostering, not stifling, 
innovation, especially in energy like wind, solar, and hydro. Yet the 
Republican leadership is showing, once again, that political victory is 
more important than American success; that winning this election is 
more important than fostering American manufacturing and leadership in 
areas like alternative energy.
  Mr. Speaker, this is just another example of how this Republican 
leadership likes to talk the talk but not walk the walk. In this case, 
they say they don't like the loan guarantee program, but they want 
their own pet industries to be able to use it. It's another example of 
how their rhetoric doesn't match up with their actions.

  But we've seen this hypocrisy for years now. This is the same 
Republican Party that opposed the stimulus plan, but requested and 
touted funding from that same stimulus plan. In fact, Republican 
Members in this House have requested loan guarantees for businesses 
they support, including those in the nuclear industry; but they oppose 
this program for alternative-energy businesses that want to manufacture 
in America. And this is the flip-flopping that kind of makes my head 
spin.
  It's clear that my Republican friends don't let the facts get in the 
way of their political argument. It's a fact that this loan guarantee 
program is a success. For example, this loan program has ultimately 
supported 40 projects that help keep 60,000 people employed during this 
economic downturn alone. It's also a fact that the Solyndra bankruptcy 
represented a fraction of the entire loan guarantee program. In fact, 
loans and loan guarantee programs only cost taxpayers 94 cents for 
every $100 invested. That's a pretty good return on investment.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Republicans that Congress needs a 
robust oversight program that examines the executive branch and ensures 
that they are not overstepping their bounds. It's ironic that these 
Republicans are conducting a vigorous oversight plan of President 
Obama, but simply looked the other way when it came to the oversight of 
the Bush administration.
  But there's oversight and then there's overreach. Republicans looked 
into this issue, they held hearings, and conducted an investigation. 
And despite their claims of political manipulation, there is simply no 
evidence of such manipulation. Don't take my word for it. Bloomberg 
Business Week reported that there was ``no evidence of wrongdoing.'' 
And The Washington Post reported: ``The records do not establish that 
anyone pressured the Energy Department to approve the Solyndra loan to 
benefit political contractors.''
  Mr. Speaker, we all know what this is. This is an election year 
stunt, political theater that is more appropriate for the campaign 
trail rather than the House of Representatives. It's a bill that 
supporters claim will do something that it simply will not do. And this 
closed process is, once again, breaking Speaker Boehner's promise of a 
more open House.
  This is a bad bill, it's a bad rule, and I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on the bill and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I just would like to close with one observation. We have 
just returned from a recess. If the rumor mill is true, we will only be 
in session for 8 days before the election. I'm hearing that we're going 
to probably give away the first week in October. And given the fact 
that we're here such a short time, one would think that this would be 
an opportunity to come together and to pass legislation that both sides 
can agree on--legislation that might, in fact, help stimulate economic 
growth; might, in fact, help put people back to work; might address 
some of the real challenges that the American people are facing. We 
don't have to agree on everything to agree on something. And that 
something we agree on, we ought to able to come together and pass it.
  Yet what we're doing during these 8 days is debating hot-button 
issues and bills that are going nowhere. This is a hot-button issue. 
They will be debating another hot-button issue later. Hot button, hot 
button, hot button. Never any legislation that has any real meaning in 
the lives of the American people.

[[Page H5936]]

  Bring the President's jobs bill to the floor. Let us have that 
debate. Let us be able to have a vote on whether or not we ought to 
invest in our economy and invest in our people. My Republican friends 
are squandering this opportunity. I think one thing is clear, and I 
think it's evident by the low esteem that the Congress is now held in 
by the American people: the American people want us to work on their 
behalf. And I understand the lust in this place for political power and 
winning elections and winning elections. I used to think that good 
government was good politics.
  But what we are doing here for these 8 days, with the exception of 
passing a continuing resolution, which is kicking the can down the road 
on a whole bunch of other budgetary issues, what we're doing these 8 
days is nothing meaningful, nothing that matters to anybody. And I just 
think that that's a sad commentary on the leadership of this House.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1240

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I know that our Democrat friends think it's absolutely nothing to 
lose half a billion dollars that a government made a decision on. But 
what they really don't like is when we bring that up, when we say part 
of the job of being a Member of Congress as a policy body is to look at 
the mistakes that were made. We certainly have looked at mistakes that 
Republicans and Democrats, administrations and others, have made. But 
to ignore an issue would be a mistake.
  This is not just Solyndra. It was the process of a political agenda 
that did not, could not pass the smell test and even make it out in the 
real world. It was a political agenda that was so wanted by an 
administration that they gave lots of money, not just half a billion 
here, but to other companies.
  You know, today's legislation certainly highlights Solyndra as a 
failure in the DOE, Department of Energy's loan program, but it should 
be mentioned that there were other companies, not just Solyndra.
  It's really a political process that said, Let's go do this thing 
whether it makes sense or not, whether it makes money. The companies 
went bankrupt.
  Part of this comes from you've got a lot of people in the 
administration that wouldn't even recognize a business plan if they saw 
one. They do recognize taxpayer dollars, plenty of those that were made 
available by this excessive spending. But accountability is now what 
Democrats don't like when we're saying let's look at what happened, 
what materialized.
  So Solyndra is not just a one-time or one-company failure of an 
otherwise what would be called a successful program. It's not. This 
simply became the poster child, and we believe that we shouldn't repeat 
this failure. We believe we should effectively talk about it on the 
floor of the House of Representatives. We should take some bit of time. 
We're not here beating anybody up. You never even heard me mention 
names behind the administration or who made these decisions or who 
pushed it. We're not trying to do that.
  We're simply trying to say that we believe half a billion dollars, 
and a review of that, should become available in the light of day, to 
not just Members of Congress; but we should vote on it and say we drew 
a conclusion with some issues.
  So we believe any objective evaluation of the facts reveals some 
issues of Federal dollars of a plan that should be stopped, has 
stopped, but that we should at least tell what the results were. That's 
what we're doing here today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, you know what, one of the things that 
Speaker Boehner promised was a more open House and this would be a 
place where we could actually deliberate and various points of view 
would be heard.
  I want to now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Green), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on 
Environment and Economy whose amendment was not made in order, so he 
will not have an opportunity to debate it here on the floor.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Thank you for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, Members, the original law that this bill amends today 
was actually created, the loan program, was in the Energy Policy Act of 
2005, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Republican 
President. The law does need to have minor reforms, but this bill goes 
way too far.
  The majority had the opportunity in our committee of Energy and 
Commerce to work in a bipartisan fashion to actually fix the problems 
with the loan guarantee program. I offered an amendment to the Rules 
Committee that had been supported by Republicans in our committee, but 
not a majority of the Republicans, to fix the problems with the program 
and find middle ground that would be suitable to both Democrats and 
Republicans alike.
  But the majority chose a different path. They decided to forge ahead 
with a partisan messaging bill that stands no chance of becoming law 
even when it passes the House today. So despite the name, this bill 
will not prevent another Solyndra. It's the worst of election-year 
politics.
  We had a chance to work together, something the American people want 
to see; and one of the things we were sent here to do was fix a broken 
program. Instead, we're playing more politics one more time.
  The bill is bad policy. It doesn't do what conservatives want to do, 
so the Heritage Foundation opposes it. It doesn't do what the liberals 
want to do. It eliminates a well-balanced, bipartisan agreement struck 
years ago, so it isn't what moderates want to do. It's legislating 
without accountability.
  The majority doesn't care that it's bad policy because it will never 
become law.
  Instead, I urge my colleagues to find the bipartisanship. Let's take 
this opportunity to fix the problem that we see and craft a bipartisan 
bill. This is a chance to show our country that Congress can do things.
  One of the reasons Congress has a 10 percent approval rating is we're 
not legislating. We're messaging. This is probably the worst example of 
it. We're talking past each other. This is a chance to show our country 
that Congress can do things. Instead, this partisan circus helps 
confirm the belief that Congress is broken, and it's working against 
the interest of the American people.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and support a bipartisan effort to 
really make sure there are no more Solyndras.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to go to the report. Let's see what the report out of 
the Energy and Commerce Committee said. I am quoting what would be on 
page 5:

       However, the Bush administration did not approve any loan 
     guarantees under the program. This was due partly to the fact 
     that the DOE office implementing the program was slow in 
     being set up, and that program funding only became available 
     in 2007. But even after the Bush DOE had the program up and 
     running, it ran into difficulties finding applicants whose 
     energy projects are meritorious.

  In other words, they could not find somebody who is asking for the 
loan who could present a good business plan of not just profit and 
loss, but where it would fit in the marketplace to even be considered 
successful. This is the reason why the Bush administration and 
Republicans did not do that because they could see failure in the 
marketplace written all over it even as early as 2007.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me again repeat for my colleagues what 
Bloomberg Business Week reported, and I quote again: ``There was no 
evidence of any wrongdoing.'' The Washington Post reported: ``The 
records do not establish that anyone pressured the Energy Department to 
approve the Solyndra loan to benefit political contributors.
  I mean, you know, it's clear what's going on here.
  Again, bringing this bill, a bill that's going nowhere--we heard 
about the bridges to nowhere; this is the legislation to nowhere--I 
think is bad enough, but then bringing it up under a closed process.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts, the distinguished ranking member on 
the Committee on Natural Resources,

[[Page H5937]]

had three amendments. All three of them were denied by the Rules 
Committee, including a Buy America provision. What a radical idea that 
we should make it in America and we should buy it in America. That 
radical amendment was denied by the Rules Committee. It's hard to 
believe.
  With that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, in the history of this whole program, it was 
started for the nuclear industry. Pete Domenici, 2005. Why? Because 
there hadn't been a new nuclear power plant built in 30 years out in 
the free market so they needed the Federal Government to come in and 
prop it up on crutches. That's the only way it would work.
  So when President Obama took over, he said, Well, maybe we should do 
something for solar as well. Of course, the coal industry, the oil 
industry, the nuclear industry, they recoiled in fear that there would 
actually be competition in the marketplace. When one solar company got 
in trouble, the Republicans pounced on solar. They pounced on wind. 
They pounced. That's why, by the way, the Republicans are going to 
allow the wind tax breaks to expire this year, but they're going to 
keep all of the oil tax breaks on the books.
  So here we are today and they have something called the No More 
Solyndras Act. Ah. Except for the $88 billion that they're going to 
grandfather in in terms of the application date that they have 
selected.

                              {time}  1250

  So, who qualifies for that? Well, $76.5 billion would be the nuclear 
industry, $11.9 billion would be the coal industry. Ah, I get it now. 
It's not the No More Solyndras Act; it's the ``Only $88.4 Billion More 
for Nuclear and Coal No More Solyndras Act of 2012.'' It's just the 
same kind of tilted playing field that the Republicans have always had. 
Nuclear, oil, coal, great. Wind and solar finally getting going--12,000 
new megawatts of wind installed in the United States this year; 3,200 
megawatts of solar installed in the United States this year--that puts 
the fear of the marketplace in the coal and the nuclear and the oil 
industry brain. So that's why we're out here with this ``kill solar and 
save nuclear and coal'' with this incredible amount of money.
  Now, as the gentleman from Massachusetts said, I had an amendment 
that I requested the Rules Committee put in place, and that is that if 
your company last year lost $540 million or more, you could not qualify 
for a loan guarantee. Remember, Solyndra lost $538 million, so I picked 
$540 million. And if your company is on the verge of being delisted by 
the New York Stock Exchange and has already reached junk bond status 
with S&P's and Moody's, come on, you cannot qualify. I mean, come on. 
We're not having Federal taxpayer money go to companies on the verge of 
being delisted and that have already reached junk bond status.
  They all voted ``no'' in the committee. When I had my amendment put 
up before the Rules Committee, they rejected it. Now, why did they 
reject it? Because the United States Enrichment Corporation lost $540 
million last year; it's on the verge of being delisted on the stock 
exchange; it's reached junk bond status; but yet nuclear will qualify. 
So I said, well, we can't invest in that kind of a company.
  As the gentleman from Massachusetts said, the same thing is true for 
buying American. If we're going to have these loan guarantees, let's at 
least make sure that they are American jobs. They wouldn't put that 
amendment in order as well.
  This whole issue here is basically one of this favored oil-above-all 
agenda, not all of the above--not when you say tax breaks for oil 
companies continue and wind companies die; not when you have loan 
guarantees that continue on for nuclear and coal, but not for wind, not 
for solar. It's just so transparent. It's just arithmetic, ladies and 
gentlemen. Solyndra loses 538, the Enrichment Corporation--nuclear--
loses 540. The arithmetic is pretty simple: They both should not 
qualify. But not these guys, no, no.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. MARKEY. Not these guys, oh, no--no, no, no, because it's not 
marketplace. There's no rhyme or reason to it until you start to think 
about what has always been their agenda. That has always been the 
fossil fuel industry agenda.
  I would abolish the entire program. You want to abolish this program? 
Abolish it. Put the vote out here, I'll vote for it. Get rid of the 
loan guarantee program, then let solar and wind and nuclear and coal 
and oil all compete in the free marketplace for private capital 
investment. You want to know what that would do? It would put the fear 
of Adam Smith in the heart of the nuclear industry because they would 
receive no private investment, none. It takes the Federal Government 
providing a crutch. So it then requires the Republican Party to take 
away the loan guarantees for the competition. Well, they're giving the 
loan guarantees, Federal taxpayer loan guarantees, to industries that 
otherwise could not get any money in the private sector. The United 
States Enrichment Corporation can't get any private sector investment. 
Nuclear power industry, this loan guarantee program--two for $8 billion 
for a program that is already $1 billion over the two Vogtle plants in 
Georgia. The whole thing is bad arithmetic for the American taxpayer.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we're now well into the political 
extremism that we see many times that exhibits itself not just here on 
the floor of the House of Representatives but really all across this 
country--those people that want gasoline to rise substantially because 
they really don't like gasoline. They really don't like the 
underpinning of how this country uses the energy that we have. Whether 
it's natural gas, they attack natural gas. If it's nuclear--which is a 
non-emitting source of pollution--they attack that. This crowd that 
really doesn't like free enterprise and what I believe is the heartland 
of this country, manufacturing, which has really taken off as a result 
of effective use of natural resources in this country through natural 
gas and the availability of nuclear power and the availability of oil, 
which fuels our cars to where we can use the resources that were given 
us effectively.
  What they want to do is they want to tax these industries higher so 
that prices go up, so that consumers have to pay a lot more money. What 
they forget is that the cars that we fuel, the electricity that we need 
is the cleanest and the best here in America. The way these are 
produced are American jobs. The way they're consumed is about American 
jobs. The way that consumers pay for them and pay for these advantages 
is American jobs. And here we're looking at how half a billion dollars 
worth of taxpayer money was put into an effort that not only not ever 
got off the ground, it quickly went into bankruptcy because it did not 
meet the marketplace challenges.
  I'm not opposed to competition; I think we stand for competition. But 
don't push a narrow environmentalist policy, go to the White House, go 
to the Department of Energy and try and fund these on taxpayer dollars 
only to see that, whoops, we made a mistake, and then act like, whoops, 
we don't want anybody to know.
  All we're trying to suggest today is that Republicans do believe in 
American jobs. We do believe in American industry. We do believe in the 
energy industry. We believe in effective use of resources because we're 
trying to keep jobs here. Their narrow, political, environmentalist 
policy is what will diminish American jobs, it will diminish our 
ability to effectively use the resources that we have in this country, 
and it will put us in a circumstance--for instance, with the Keystone 
pipeline--where we could use energy from a friendly neighbor to fuel 
American needs at a good price and avoid what may happen if we get into 
a circumstance overseas in the Middle East where we would be held 
hostage, held hostage by those that have the energy that we need, when 
we could be having it not only close to home, but in our own home, 
energy made in America.
  So, Republicans, look, all we're trying to say is a half a billion 
dollars that was wasted, somebody ought to recognize that we shouldn't 
be doing that. That's what Republicans are doing here today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H5938]]

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just respond by saying when the 
Republicans talk about jobs, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Let 
me go back to what we were talking about earlier with Mr. Markey.
  Mr. Markey had an amendment--let me read it. It would prevent 
guarantees from being granted unless the applicant certifies that at 
least 75 percent of materials and components required for construction, 
manufacturing, or operations are produced in the United States of 
America. Any facility at which construction, manufacturing, or 
operations are to be carried out must also be located in the United 
States of America. This amendment is not even allowed to be debated on 
this House floor. The Republicans in the Rules Committee said: 
Absolutely not. Absolutely not.
  So, if we're going to be talking about jobs, I mean, maybe we're here 
about different jobs. I'm talking about jobs in America; maybe my 
friends are talking about creating more jobs overseas. We need more 
jobs here. And if you're serious about that, why wouldn't you allow 
that amendment to be brought up and debated on the House floor?
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. This bill ought to be renamed the ``No More Solyndras, 
But More Money for Nuclear White Elephants Loan Program.''
  My friends on the other side of the aisle like to talk about the free 
enterprise system, but I'm sure that you're aware that Wall Street 
won't invest in nuclear power. The nukes can't get money from the free 
enterprise system, so they want government to bail them out.
  This bill claims to reduce wasteful spending on energy projects, but 
it's actually an attack on renewable energy. The real effect is laid 
bare by the effective date of the bill, which grandfathers the worst of 
the worst of the worst energy boondoggles.

                              {time}  1300

  Specifically, it allows nuclear power loan guarantee projects to 
proceed, even though some create exposure for the Federal Government of 
about 15 times the exposure created by Solyndra--and these programs, 
these nuclear loan programs, are more likely to fail.
  One of the biggest loan guarantees for nuclear, not even necessary. 
This is not my assessment. It's the assessment of Kevin Marsh, the 
President of South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, which is attempting 
to build a new nuclear power plant. He said, on a call to analysts and 
investors:
  We're confident in our ability to finance this project without a loan 
guarantee. It could be in the $8 to $10 billion range.
  So the conflict here is, generally, Wall Street isn't investing. But 
you get a group of investors that think they can, but are they 
leveraging against the hope of government involvement? I don't know.
  Truth is nuclear power plants are simply not viable without massive 
government subsidies, which eclipse subsidies for renewable energies by 
orders of magnitude.
  The Congressional Budget Office has had this to say about nuclear 
loan guarantees:

       The CBO considers the risk of default on such loan 
     guarantees to be very high--well above 50 percent.

  Dale Klein, former Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
cautioned that nuclear plants will not move off the blackboard and into 
construction, not as long as natural gas remains as cheap and plentiful 
as it is today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. KUCINICH. An article opposing the bill, by Autumn Hanna and Henry 
Sokolski in the National Review Online, states:

       The total number of projects this bill grandfathers isn't 
     publicly available. Par for the course with this highly 
     secretive program. We know it's a lot. Our research points to 
     nearly 100 projects that claim to have applied.

  If this was really about being fiscally responsible with taxpayers' 
money, we'd be targeting the projects that have the highest probability 
of failing and carry the highest price tag and preclude them. But the 
bill does the opposite.
  What we should be doing is continuing our efforts to invest in 
renewables, understanding some of them may not work, but that's the 
future. It's cleaner. It's safety. It protects the globe. That's where 
the jobs of tomorrow are.
  We have to stop China from eating our lunch on these alternative 
energy projects. We have to reclaim this for America. Bring the jobs 
here. Create the jobs here.
  The money's there. Don't go giving it to nuclear. Nuclear is dead in 
the water unless government tries to resurrect it by giving away 
billions of dollars in taxpayers' money that will never be recovered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I think it's very obvious that what 
Republicans are trying to do is to keep American jobs. We're trying to 
utilize the free enterprise system, the natural resources that we have 
in America--clean natural gas, the abundance of other power that we 
have, including coal, including nuclear--opportunities to keep America 
strong and keep jobs here, and that's why we're really opposed to the 
loan guarantees and the things which might take on additional debt and 
risk by the government. But, more importantly, if it can't be funded 
within the free enterprise system, then it can't stand on its own.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McClintock), one of my colleagues.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill ends the title XVII loan guarantees that 
produced Solyndra and so many other alternate energy scams that cost 
Americans hundreds of millions of dollars while the politically 
connected perpetrators of these scams walked away wealthy men and 
women. But this measure does still put taxpayers on the hook to loan 
out billions of dollars more to at least 50 additional shady, alternate 
energy schemes that had been submitted under the same title prior to 
January 1. So there will be more Solyndras under this bill.
  I'd offered an amendment to pull the plug on the applications, but I 
was told, Don't bother; the Rules Committee won't allow the amendment 
to be brought to the floor.
  So I support the bill, but I do agree with my friend from Ohio that 
the title, ``No More Solyndras Act,'' is a bit misleading. I would 
suggest an alternative, the ``50 More Solyndras and Then We'll Stop 
Wasting Your Money, Really, We Promise, Act.''
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman who just 
spoke for pointing out how bad this rule is. He's on the other side of 
the aisle, and even though I disagree with the amendment he had, he 
ought to have been able to offer it to the floor. I hope that he will 
join with us in opposing this rule because I don't think his leadership 
will get the message if he rewards bad behavior by giving them a vote.
  At this point, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
  Mr. FATTAH. I thank the gentleman.
  I'm opposed to the rule, I'm opposed to the bill, but I'm really 
opposed to the thinking behind this.
  This is like a Back to the Future or the Flat Earth Society or 
something. I don't know how we would have a space program if one 
failure stopped the whole show. I don't know how--we would never. I 
mean, Michael Jordan was kicked off his high school basketball team, 
but he eventually learned how to put the ball in the basket.
  The notion that, as the greatest Nation on Earth, we're going to cede 
to others alternative energy programs, that somehow we're unwilling to 
go through what is necessary to be successful in this field, doesn't 
make any sense.
  Now, President Bush signed this into law. It's a great program. In 
fact, James Rogers, who's the CEO of Duke Energy, said just a few days 
ago that, in terms of energy, America is so much better off because of 
this administration's all-of-the-above strategy. For the first time in 
30 years, we've got nuclear plants that have been licensed. We have 
natural gas. We've got oil. We have renewables.
  I've supported these loan guarantee programs. And like any loan 
program,

[[Page H5939]]

you might have some loans that perform and some loans that don't 
perform. The vast majority of these loans perform very, very well, and 
America is better off for it.
  I was at the Israeli Embassy last night speaking to a group of 
scientists. They've been so far ahead of us on renewable energy it's a 
shame. We have seen what Germany's done on wind.
  This party that is in the majority here, that wants to do away with 
the wind energy credit, I don't know what the notion here is that 
somehow we, as a country, are not prepared to pay the price for 
progress. We have not won every battle in wars that we've been in, but 
we've won the war.
  And so this a company in which things, the numbers didn't add up for 
us. It's like one of our rockets or satellites not performing properly. 
But the head of NASA says that we're not in a business in which we 
cannot take risks. We have to take risks. And when it comes to energy, 
our country has to be prepared to take risks.
  Now, it was Albert Einstein who said we cannot use the same level of 
thinking to solve problems that we used to create these problems.
  This country and our status as the leading Nation in the world 
requires us to take risks. And if this majority is so unimpressed with 
the ability of Americans and Americans to innovate and to compete in 
the renewable sector like others around the world who are also getting 
help from their governments, that is unfortunate. But, for me, I 
believe that America has to take risks. We're going to lose, we're 
going to win, but at the end of the day, as we learn and go forward, it 
will allow us to continue to be number one.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I have no additional 
speakers and reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  We ought to have a debate in this Chamber on energy, on an energy 
policy, whether or not we should invest in innovation, whether or not 
we should invest in renewable, green, clean energy. I believe we 
should.
  My friends on the other side believe not just in the status quo, they 
believe in going backwards. They believe in investing, not in new 
technologies, but in the old technologies.

                              {time}  1310

  But we should have that debate here.
  This bill really is not that debate, because this bill is a political 
stunt. It is not anything real. It is not anything that is going 
anywhere. This is just politics as usual, and that's what makes this so 
frustrating.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm going to end where I began in my opening, which is 
to say we're only here for a few days. I mean, I've never been part of 
a Congress that has worked less than this Congress and that has 
produced less than this Congress. Today's Roll Call has a great piece: 
``Congress on Pace to be the Least Productive.'' Is that what my 
friends on the other side of the aisle are aspiring to--to be known as 
the least productive Congress?
  We're back for these few days. We ought to do something meaningful 
for the American people. We ought to be debating a jobs bill. We ought 
to bring the President's jobs bill to the floor. If you don't want to 
vote for it, vote against it, but at least we'd be doing something of 
substance. We ought to be extending tax breaks for middle-income 
Americans. Why would you leave town without making sure that middle-
income Americans continue to get their tax breaks?
  We ought to have a responsible farm bill passed and signed into law. 
As we're running out of time, we're told that's probably not going to 
happen at all. We ought to be talking about legislation that will 
actually strengthen this country, that will help improve the quality of 
education and give more access to education for our young people.
  We are doing none of those things. We are squandering this 
opportunity. With the exception of passing a continuing resolution, 
which is tantamount to kicking the can down the road, these 8 days that 
we have been back in session have been useless. They have just been 
about politics. That is why the American people are so sick and tired 
of this Congress. That is why the approval rating is so low. They want 
us to come to Washington to legislate and deliberate on issues that 
will make a positive difference in their lives. Instead, what we have 
is the same old, same old--politics as usual. There has to be some 
common ground between Republicans and Democrats on energy. Let's find 
that common ground and move forward. Enough with the political stunts. 
It is time to start doing the people's business, and this is not it.
  So I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to vote against this, again, 
restrictive rule that denies a multitude of amendments, including an 
amendment that would make sure the jobs that we are talking about are 
in America. Buy American. What is so wrong with even debating that? 
We're not even given that opportunity. So vote against this restrictive 
rule, and vote against the underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, obviously, we can see that today's legislation answers 
the question. It ends the debate about Solyndra. Taxpayers know the 
committee did its work. It held a Rules Committee hearing. Half a 
billion dollars was lost by Solyndra. We're not down here jumping up 
and down. We haven't even raised our voices. We simply said that we 
think that a better process could have taken place, and they're arguing 
we never should have even had this on the floor--that we don't need any 
feedback, that everybody already knows. Here is what they know.
  We lost half a billion dollars by one company. At least two others 
had the same outcome where they did not produce anything. They went 
belly up--bankrupt. We just think that the administration--government--
is really not in the business and shouldn't be in the business--despite 
what we've heard--of pushing the envelope. Let's go out and invest 
whether it makes sense or not.
  Losing money is still a bad proposition. Republicans think it's a bad 
proposition. There have been lots of arguments today that the 
government did the right thing, that this administration did the right 
thing. I think that the facts of the case say that half a billion 
dollars in a process that didn't work--we need to hear the feedback, 
and we need to close the books on it. The rule is here to do exactly 
that--to place on the floor the opportunity for us to debate now the 
facts of the case, which is exactly what will happen.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________