[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 124 (Friday, September 14, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H6012-H6024]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NO MORE SOLYNDRAS ACT
The Committee resumed its sitting.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I'd just remind my friend from California
that the Department of Justice tells us that there is still an active
criminal investigation as to the Solyndra matter.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo), a member
of the committee.
Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to come down to support this piece
of legislation. It's important to America and to the taxpayers to
protect them. I want to thank Chairman Stearns and Chairman Upton for
letting me participate in this important investigation.
Just yesterday, two facts that I think support us completely in
passing this legislation. Yesterday, that conservative jewel, The New
York Times, reported that Mr. Spinner, who was critical to pushing this
loan guarantee through when the Obama administration was inclined to
reject it but kept pushing and whose wife was counsel to the company,
was reported by The New York Times to be the number 10 bundler for this
administration.
Also yesterday, we had a hearing in which we saw that America has the
opportunity to become energy independent within the next decade if the
Federal Government will just get out of the way and stop picking
winners and losers as we have done with these Department of Energy loan
guarantees for far too long. I'm confident that we can move away from
this program. I'd urge all of my colleagues to support it.
The conservative groups of the American Conservative Union, AFP,
Americans for Tax Reform, Heritage Action, Let Freedom Ring, and the
National Taxpayers Union have all submitted letters in support of this
legislation.
It's time to end this loan guarantee program, and we should do it
today.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time each side has
on the debate?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 9 minutes remaining. The
gentleman from Michigan has 16\3/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. WAXMAN. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I will yield 3 minutes to the
chairman of the Science Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I, of course, rise in support of H.R. 6213.
This bill makes more important changes to better protect taxpayer
funds spent under the Department of Energy's title XVII loan guarantee
authority. I thank Chairman Upton for his good work and his committee.
The Science, Space, and Technology Committee has jurisdiction over
the commercial application of energy technology. One purpose of the
title XVII loan guarantee program is to move energy technologies from
research and development to commercial application. As part of our
oversight responsibility for this program, we examined it on numerous
occasions, including earlier this year as part of a hearing in which we
received testimony from Energy Secretary Steven Chu. The poster child
for this poor judgment is Solyndra, which President Obama famously
touted as a ``true engine of economic growth'' for the United States.
Most Americans are familiar with Solyndra's story, in which the
Department of Energy gambled half a billion taxpayer dollars to support
a failing solar company whose leading investors, I'm sorry to say, were
major fundraisers and supporters of our President. Less well known is
that the DOE made 25 other gambles under the program's section 1705
authority, staking a total of approximately $16 billion of American
taxpayer money on what they call green energy companies with risky
business models similar to that of Solyndra. I am also sorry to say
that many of these companies also have ties to the current
administration through investors that are major donors, bundlers, and
advocates.
If more of these companies fail, the Department of Energy made clear
that it could restructure loan agreements in the same manner that it
handled Solyndra, placing political supporters and private investors at
the front of the line while leaving taxpayers holding the bag. This
legislation would absolutely prevent that from happening again by
requiring that taxpayer dollars are not subordinate to private finance
should more bankruptcies result from this program.
Further, the bill seeks to limit taxpayer risk by prohibiting DOE
from making new loan guarantee awards for projects from applications
submitted after December 31, 2011.
These are necessary fixes to a troubled program, and I urge Members
to support the underlying legislation.
[[Page H6013]]
I appreciate the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Again, Mr.
Chairman, thank you for working with the Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology to further improve the bill in advance of it being
brought to the floor.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire through the Chair how many
speakers there are on the other side of the aisle?
Mr. UPTON. We have two speakers that are here, and we've got a couple
that are in the queue that may or may not make it.
Mr. WAXMAN. I continue to reserve my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady, my good
friend from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Chairman Upton, for yielding me time and
bringing this important bill to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, the Obama administration has failed the American people
by squandering half a billion of our hard-earned tax dollars on costly,
unproven projects. This legislation puts the brakes on the Obama
administration's habit of trying to play the role of venture capitalist
with the taxpayers' money.
We need to stop the inept largesse of Big Government bureaucrats that
prompted Solyndra's ex-CEO, Chris Gronet, to write that ``The Bank of
Washington continues to help us.'' That outrageous statement serves as
a shining example of the disregard Solyndra had for American taxpayers
and the fact that they believed our government would let them get away
with it.
This legislation is needed to protect against the politically
charged, reckless spending binges that stream from this administration.
The record-breaking spending and historical deficits that will burden
future generations courtesy of this administration need to end in order
to strengthen our economy and build for a brighter future.
We need an all-of-the-above energy policy to achieve energy security,
but it needs to be a responsible plan, a plan that keeps our fiscal
priorities in order and provides free market solutions without
unnecessary, job-killing government burdens.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
{time} 1030
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
this legislation. I first want to commend Chairman Upton and especially
my longtime friend, Chairman Stearns, for bringing this important
legislation to the floor this morning.
Mr. Chairman, I have read and heard for many years that almost 80
percent of small businesses fail within the first 5 years. Thousands of
small businesses, many thousands, have failed over the last 10 or 20
years. Many of those would have made it if government had given them
$100,000. Most of them would have succeeded or survived if the
government had given them $1 million.
The government gave Solyndra $535 million, over half a billion
dollars, and yet, they squandered it and failed, as we've heard today,
in about 2 years. What a ridiculous scandal this is. And I'm grateful
to Chairman Stearns for shedding so much light on this. And yet,
unfortunately, it's only the tip of a very big iceberg.
Our friends on the other side frequently attack the oil industry on
their subsidies; yet no industry in this Nation has received nearly as
many subsidies, loans, or tax breaks as has the solar energy over the
years. And yet the solar energy provides, even after all of these
massive subsidies and loans and tax breaks, a little less than one
percent of our total energy.
The government should not be picking winners and losers. I have
nothing against solar energy if it can stand on its own feet, but it
certainly cannot do so at this time. And so I rise in strong support
for this legislation.
But I rise mainly to commend Chairman Stearns, with whom I've served
for so many years. Unfortunately, he will not be returning in the next
Congress, and I think this is a tremendous loss for this Nation. I've
worked with him on many things. I have not seen any Member or known any
Member of this Congress who has been more conscientious, who has worked
harder, and who has tried to study legislation any more than he has.
And I want to especially commend him.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to point out, as I speak under our time, that the way I heard
the last speaker, he can't be accurate in his statement that we have
spent more money on wind and solar than any other source of energy.
When you look at the tax breaks that the oil companies have been
getting for year after year after year, we spend far more money through
the tax system for the oil industry than we are for wind and solar.
In 2005, the Congress adopted the loan guarantee program--2005. That
was when President Bush was president. And this loan guarantee program
was supposed to be there to help energy projects. Most of the loan
guarantees people were thinking about at that time were the nuclear
energy loans to help those projects.
When President Obama took office, he wanted to accomplish two goals.
He wanted us to move in a different direction to level the playing
field, not just put more money in the hands of the oil and coal
companies, but to give an incentive for the state-of-the-art projects
in the area of wind and solar and other renewable sources of energy so
that we could have a more diverse portfolio of sources of energy so
that we wouldn't have all of our eggs in the basket of the oil and coal
industries, and especially in the area of oil where we're so dependent
on other countries to give us that oil. We're so dependent on oil that
we're adding to the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change.
So, in the stimulus bill, in 2009, President Obama wanted to use this
loan guarantee program and enhance it to move in a different direction
in the energy area. But he also wanted to create new jobs. That was
what the stimulus bill was all about, creating jobs for people right
away.
Let me point out that the projects being built as a result of this
legislation, are state-of-the-art, groundbreaking projects that would
not be built without this program. And I want to give a good example.
The Ivanpah concentrated solar power facility is being completed in
the California desert. It will be the largest facility of its kind in
the world. When complete, it will have three, 450-foot towers that
collect solar energy from tens of thousands of mirrors called
heliostats. In a matter of months, this facility will begin sending
clean, renewable power to the electric grid. It is an amazing
achievement.
The Republicans keep saying that this whole program has created just
1,100 jobs. And then they take that 1,100, and they talk about how much
money has been spent, and then they say it's X number of dollars per
job. But this one project puts the lie to that statement because it's
employing not 1,100, but 2,100 construction workers.
Don't construction worker jobs count? We need more of them.
As a CEO who invested $300 million in the project put it:
This project never would have happened without the Federal
Government's support. There's just no private sector
financing for a cutting-edge technology project. There are
other solar thermal projects out there, but none of this
magnitude, and this would be considered first of a kind in
the financing world.
Now, let's look at this jobs claim that the Republicans have been
throwing around. They talk about how this is not creating jobs, but
they're ignoring 13,000 construction jobs, pretending that providing a
loan to a company is the same thing as just spending the money. And
then we lose it forever.
But, you know, these are loans. They don't take into consideration
the fact that loans get paid back, and most of the money has been used
for successful programs. They are working on absurd assumptions.
Independent experts reviewing the loan portfolio have made it clear
that DOE is likely to be repaid the vast majority of the funds it has
loaned out. So I support the loan guarantee program.
I don't support this bill because I don't think we ought to end it.
But this bill does not end the loan guarantee program. It continues it
for 30-something billion dollars--$34 billion. $34
[[Page H6014]]
billion. They want to continue the program because they will then have
a choice, through this program, to fund those solar energy projects and
other projects that already have applications. But they won't be able
to consider anything else that might produce new breakthroughs, might
produce more jobs, might produce the future for this country in the
energy area, which is the future for our economy.
So I just want people to understand: this is all a sham. The
Republicans are just trying to put out propaganda using Solyndra.
They've been dancing on the grave of Solyndra for so long. Enough is
enough. Our country needs to move forward in this area.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Latham).
Mr. LATHAM. I thank the chairman for the opportunity to speak today.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support for H.R. 6213, the No
More Solyndras Act. I'm proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill,
which will protect American taxpayers from losses under failed,
unaccountable Federal loan guarantee programs.
The bill will end the controversial loan program created in the
failed stimulus bill, under which the Obama administration provided an
ill-advised $535 million loan guarantee to the solar company Solyndra,
which subsequently went bankrupt.
The legislation would also enforce new accountability standards for
applications that have already been accepted under the program.
{time} 1040
I understand the desire to do something to help American businesses
succeed, but allowing freewheeling, government-knows-best bureaucrats
to put billions of taxpayer dollars at risk with no accountability is
not the way to do it.
Let's be clear, Mr. Chairman. The government should not be in the
business of picking winners and losers. It's time to end wasteful
government spending, to protect taxpayer dollars, and to empower the
private sector over government. With that, I urge my colleagues to
support this bill.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I might just say we are prepared to close.
If the gentleman from California is going to be the final speaker and
is prepared to close, we can get to the amendments.
Mr. WAXMAN. I have another speaker.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from California should be made aware that he
has 3 minutes total remaining in his time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), a very important member of our
committee.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank our ranking member for allowing me
to speak.
Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee's
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, I have been involved in the
investigation of the Solyndra loan for several months.
During the investigation, I learned that the Department of Energy
made a mistake, and I join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in
expressing my frustration that such a mistake could have happened. I
was angered even more to find out that the taxpayers' investment would
be paid back after the investments of outside investors. I believed we
explicitly outlawed this in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The
Department of Energy did what other administrations have done--they
went lawyer shopping to find a legal opinion that allowed them to do
what they wanted.
This shouldn't have happened. Early on, it appeared the best way to
make sure there would be no more Solyndras was to close this loophole,
something I believed there would have been bipartisan support to do.
Instead, my Republican friends--smelling blood in the water--decided to
take a different approach. They are pursuing more political theater,
virtually ensuring that the loan guarantee program will continue to be
broken. Worse yet, the bill doesn't even accomplish what they want to
do, so their allies, like the Heritage Foundation, oppose it.
When we go home this weekend, we will once again be confronted with
frustrated constituents who will be asking us, Why can't you work
together in Washington? After seeing this bill pass on a mostly party-
line vote, what are we supposed to tell them--that we were faced with
the opportunity to cut government waste, to close a loophole and to
protect the interest of the taxpayers but that we didn't do it?
We are passing a bill that will never become law. The problems we
identified in the Solyndra investigation will continue to exist, and we
will be leaving our constituents on the hook for future Solyndras. I
urge my colleagues to vote against the bill. It is bad policy and
undoes a bipartisan compromise from 2005. Instead, let's work together
to find common ground and pass a bill that will fix the problems
without the politics.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. UPTON. How much time do I have remaining on this side?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan has 9 minutes remaining.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time that I
control to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, in a recent editorial by
The Wall Street Journal, dated September 11, 2012, entitled, ``China's
Solyndra Economy,'' the owner of a solar panel company in China was
unable to repay $3 billion in a bank loan that was guaranteed for his
solar panel company. Do you know what happened? He leaped from a sixth
floor building because he couldn't repay it.
This editorial outlines an unfailing description of all of these
different solar panel companies in China that could not repay their
loan guarantees. In fact, this summer, the New York Stock Exchange-
listed company LDK Solar, which is the world's second largest
polysilicon solar wafer producer, defaulted on $95 million owed to over
20 suppliers. The company lost $600 million in just the fourth quarter
of 2011 and another $200 million in the first quarter of 2012, and it
has already shed 10,000 jobs.
It goes on in this article to point out that the Chinese are doing
the wrong thing--they're picking winners and losers--and these people
who are losing are the people who can't pay back their loan guarantees.
Some people in Washington seem to feel that we should compete with
China. We have this China envy. In fact, this is what the President
said:
I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to
China because we refuse to make the same commitment here.
Now, given what this editorial says and what happened in China, I
would think the President of the United States would have to rethink
his position. So many in Washington have developed this serious case of
China envy, seeing it as an exemplar case of how to run an economy. In
fact, the Chinese, the Beijing mandarins, are no better at picking
winners and losers, and are just as prone to blowing money as we are
here in the United States with these beltway boondoggles. So, if people
are concerned about this program and don't think this legislation is
necessary, just take a few moments to read this editorial, which
outlines the problems with solar panels in China.
I would say to my distinguished ranking member from Colorado (Ms.
DeGette) that she and I both know the mission of our Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee is to extirpate--to root out--waste, fraud,
and abuse. If it happens anywhere, we should step forward, and that's
what we did in the Solyndra investigation. We attempted to understand
what the problem was in order to come to grips with what happened. It
took us 18 months. It took us almost 8 months to get back the emails
from our subpoenas back in November. We were systematic, and we tried
to do it without a huge amount of political rhetoric, and I think we
accomplished that. The ultimate result of this investigation is the No
More Solyndras Act, H.R. 6213. What this bill does is to basically
answer some fundamental questions, and it takes the lessons that we
learned from this investigation and puts them into this bill.
I reach out to my Democrat colleagues on this. The gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gene Green) was on the floor just recently, and he indicated
he also agreed with us about the subordination. If I understood what he
said, he
[[Page H6015]]
said it was wrong for the administration to subordinate in violation of
the law. In fact, I thought I'd take a few moments and, perhaps,
actually read what the law says in dealing with subordination. It's
section 1702, Terms and Conditions, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
These are the exact words that, I believe, Mr. Green, Democrat from
Texas, agrees with, that the administration should not have
subordinated taxpayer money.
In the paragraph dealing with subordination--these are the exact
words, and I'll read this carefully--``the obligation shall be subject
to the condition that the obligation is not subordinate to other
financing.'' That seems crystal clear. Yet, the Department of Energy,
after talking to lawyers outside of the DOE who indicated they couldn't
subordinate, still parsed the legal language so that they could.
It's very disturbing--and I say this honestly--that David Frantz, the
executive director of the loan guarantee program, under oath, said he
wanted to continue to subordinate loan guarantees. Now, that's an
absolute fact--under oath. The DOE still has a senior loan officer who
wants to subordinate. So how in the world could we not pass this
legislation and allow the DOE to continue to subordinate and push
taxpayers behind--what?--hedge funds? What financial instruments are
they going to allow them to subordinate to? He wouldn't elucidate.
So the bottom line here is that the administration still wants to
subordinate. That's why I tell everybody on the Democrats' side that
you have to--and should--vote for this bill because, in the end, you're
going to support David Frantz, the executive director of the loan
guarantee program, who wants to continue to subordinate.
Now, here are the key lessons learned--and I'm going to do a colloquy
with myself, Mr. Chairman. I think they'll answer the questions the way
I want, but I'll answer them the right way.
{time} 1050
Did the administration ignore several red flags raised by the
Department of Energy and OMB about Solyndra's financial condition in
the market for products? Yes.
Did the Department of Energy fail to consult with Treasury prior to
issuing a conditional commitment to Solyndra as required by the Energy
Policy Act of 2005? Yes.
Did the administration's desire to highlight the stimulus result in
DOE pushing the Solyndra loan guarantee out the door? Yes.
Did the Department of Energy fail to adequately monitor the loan
guarantee as Solyndra's financial condition simply deteriorated in
2010? Absolutely, yes.
Did the DOE subordinate its interest in the loan guarantee to two
Solyndra investors, which was contrary to the Energy Policy Act
prohibition on subordination? Absolutely, yes.
Did Treasury play any role in reviewing the restructuring when DOE
was moving forward on Solyndra? The answer to that is ``no.''
Definitely no. They did not. In fact, numerous times through email,
Treasury showed that they wanted to consult with DOE.
Did DOE consult with the Department of Justice about the
subordination? You would think if they were going to parse the legal
language on something that was in violation of the Energy Policy Act,
section 1702, Terms and Conditions, you'd think they would go to the
Department of Justice and say, ``What do you think of our parsed
language?'' No, they didn't. They decided not to consult with Justice.
In the end, the items that I mention, the key lessons I learned from
this investigation show demonstratively that this bill is absolutely
required. Each of the seven areas I outlined and gave you definitive
answers, each of these answers is included in this bill. And based upon
what we see in China and what we see happening in the solar industry,
we should not risk taxpayers' loans for any more of these loan
guarantees if it's going to endanger taxpayers' money.
I'll just conclude by again reminding my colleagues of the
mismanagement and the poor executive oversight by Secretary Chu back in
2011. He said, ``We are confident we can repay the loans.'' He was
wrong, and that's why this bill is needed.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
[From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 11, 2012]
China's Solyndra Economy
(By Patrick Chovanec)
On Aug. 3, the owner of Chengxing Solar Company leapt from
the sixth floor of his office building in Jinhua, China. Li
Fei killed himself after his company was unable to repay a $3
million bank loan it had guaranteed for another Chinese solar
company that defaulted. One local financial newspaper called
Li's suicide ``a sign of the imminent collapse facing the
Chinese photovoltaic industry'' due to overcapacity and
mounting debts.
President Barack Obama has held up China's investments in
green energy and high-speed rail as examples of the kind of
state-led industrial policy that America should be emulating.
The real lesson is precisely the opposite. State subsidies
have spawned dozens of Chinese Solyndras that are now on the
verge of collapse.
Unveiled in 2010, Beijing's 12th Five-Year Plan identified
solar and wind power and electric automobiles as ``strategic
emerging industries'' that would receive substantial state
support. Investors piled into the favored sectors, confident
the government's backing would guarantee success. Barely two
years later, all three industries are in dire straits.
This summer, the NYSE-listed LDK Solar, the world's second
largest polysilicon solar wafer producer, defaulted on $95
billion owed to over 20 suppliers. The company lost $589
million in the fourth quarter of 2011 and another $185
million in the first quarter of 2012, and has shed nearly
10,000 jobs. The government in LDK's home province of Jiangxi
scrambled to pledge $315 million in public bailout funds,
terrified that any further defaults could pull down hundreds
of local companies.
Chinese solar companies blame many of their woes on the
antidumping tariffs recently imposed by the U.S. and Europe.
The real problem, however, is rampant overinvestment driven
largely by subsidies. Since 2010, the price of polysilicon
wafers used to make solar cells has dropped 73%, according to
Maxim Group, while the price of solar cells has fallen 68%
and the price of solar modules 57%. At these prices, even
low-cost Chinese producers are finding it impossible to break
even.
Wind power is seeing similar overcapacity. China's top wind
turbine manufacturers, Goldwind and Sinovel, saw their
earnings plummet by 83% and 96% respectively in the first
half of 2012, year-on-year. Domestic wind farm operators
Huaneng and Datang saw profits plunge 63% and 76%,
respectively, due to low capacity utilization. China's
national electricity regulator, SERC, reported that 53% of
the wind power generated in Inner Mongolia province in the
first half of this year was wasted. One analyst told China
Securities Journal that ``40-50% of wind power projects are
left idle,'' with many not even connected to the grid.
A few years ago, Shenzhen-based BYD (short for ``Build Your
Dreams'') was a media darling that brought in Warren Buffett
as an investor. It was going to make China the dominant
player in electric automobiles. Despite gorging on green
energy subsidies, BYD sold barely 8,000 hybrids and 400 fully
electric cars last year, while hemorrhaging cash on an ill-
fated solar venture. Company profits for the first half of
2012 plunged 94% year-on-year.
China's high-speed rail ambitions put the Ministry of
Railways so deeply in debt that by the end of last year it
was forced to halt all construction and ask Beijing for a
$126 billion bailout. Central authorities agreed to give it
$31.5 billion to pay its state-owned suppliers and avoid an
outright default, and had to issue a blanket guarantee on its
bonds to help it raise more. While a handful of high-traffic
lines, such as the Shanghai-Beijing route, have some prospect
of breaking even, Prof. Zhao Jian of Beijing Jiaotong
University compared the rest of the network to ``a 160-story
luxury hotel where only 11 stories are used and the occupancy
rate of those floors is below 50%.''
China's Railway Ministry racked up $1.4 billion in losses
for the first six months of this year, and an internal audit
has uncovered dangerous defects due to lax construction on 12
new lines, which will have to be repaired at the cost of
billions more. Minister Liu Zhijun, the architect of China's
high-speed rail system, was fired in February 2011 and will
soon be prosecuted on corruption charges that reportedly
include embezzling some $120 million. One of his lieutenants,
the deputy chief engineer, is alleged to have funneled $2.8
billion into an offshore bank account.
Many in Washington have developed a serious case of China-
envy, seeing it as an exemplar of how to run an economy. In
fact, Beijing's mandarins are no better at picking winners,
and just as prone to blow money on boondoggles, as their
Beltway counterparts.
In his State of the Union address earlier this year,
President Obama declared, ``I will not cede the wind or solar
or battery industry to China. . . because we refuse to make
the same commitment here.'' Given what's really happening in
China, he may want to think again.
Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chair, here we go again! Republicans have spent
18 months and millions of taxpayer dollars looking into the Obama
Administration's energy loan guarantee to Solyndra. The Oversight
Subcommittee has held 7 hearings on Solyndra in
[[Page H6016]]
2011. And now they propose another Anti-Obama bill, based not on facts
but on politics.
These are the facts:
The energy loan program was created under the Bush administration,
and President Bush's Department of Energy invited Solyndra to fully
apply for a loan guarantee.
Solyndra was praised as a successful, innovative company both before
and after it received the loan guarantee.
Solyndra was just one of 30 companies in a portfolio that was
expected to support more than 60,000 jobs.
After more than a year of costly investigations, House Republicans
have ``turned up no evidence of wrong doing.''
President Obama's investment in clean energy is paying off, creating
jobs around the country.
Despite these facts, the Republicans are determined to waste
taxpayers' money on bad bills that will set bad precedents. No one has
refuted that there are needed improvements to the program. Independent
findings have stated that DOE is already implementing recommendations
to improve the program. Introducing legislation like the ``No More
Solyndra Act'' is unnecessary and it not only penalizes potentially
good programs because of one bad incident, it can kill the kind of
innovation in energy that we need. This is especially true for
districts like mine with one of the highest if not the highest energy
costs at 45 cents per kilowatt. We need the innovation that the DOE
program provides and this bill would kill.
It is important that the federal government play a prominent role in
promoting energy efficiency. This bill which restricts the ability of
the Department of Energy to provide competitive loan guarantees to
alternative energy businesses to support innovation is not a solution
to challenges DOE has had with the energy loan guarantee but another
attack on the administration. These loan guarantees are important to
the development of a strong clean energy industry and jobs it would
create.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, today, I am voting in favor of H.R. 6213.
First and foremost, the American taxpayer should not take a backseat to
venture capitalists. This bill ensures that any loan default falls
first on the company's investors and remaining assets instead of on the
taxpayer.
The Department of Energy's loan guarantee program needs better
oversight to protect taxpayers from the financial risks of emerging
technologies in a competitive and volatile energy market.
I am also concerned that the loan guarantee program, which was
created under the Bush administration in 2005, heavily favors thermal
industries--including coal. This money would be better spent on
innovative, cutting-edge technologies that will reduce our reliance on
fossil fuels, cut greenhouse gases responsible for global warming, and
make the United States more energy independent.
Limited federal dollars should go to creating high-wage, high-tech
jobs that can't be exported--they should not be used to subsidize the
largest energy companies that have benefited from billions of dollars
in taxpayer subsidies and decades of federal support.
That's why I am also voting for Representative Waxman's amendment.
H.R. 6213 allows DOE to use its existing authority to award $34 billion
in loan guarantees to projects on the Republican-deemed ``winners'
list.'' This is a list of 50 or so applications that were submitted to
DOE prior to the end of 2011. More than three-quarters of the
applications are from the nuclear and coal industries.
By voting in favor of Representative Waxman's amendment, I support
allowing DOE to consider new applications until the remaining loan
guarantee dollars are exhausted. This will create a level playing field
for all technologies including renewables like wind, solar, and
biomass.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6213, the
``No More Solyndras Act.'' This hyper-partisan legislation would
prevent Department of Energy loan guarantees for the most promising
energy technologies and commit our country to the technologies of the
past.
American renewable energy is thriving, with many success stories
demonstrating the value of continuing the Loan Guarantee Program.
One example is Prologis, a company that received a partial loan
guarantee of $1.4 billion through the 1705 program to complete Project
Amp, an effort to install solar panels at 750 buildings across the
country which will add reliable energy to our electric grid. The
project will employ more than 1,000 workers nationwide, including in my
home state of Illinois, and have the capacity to power 90,000 homes
once completed.
Another promising example is First Solar, an Arizona-based company
that has partnered with leading private investors--including Berkshire
Hathaway--to finance and build a 290-MW solar power plant. That project
is supported by a DOE loan guarantee and will soon be providing clean,
renewable electricity for the taxpayers who helped fund it.
All told, the DOE's existing loan guarantees will put 60,000
Americans to work and will prevent millions of tons of CO2 from being
emitted into our air. H.R. 6213 could prevent the next Prologis or
First Solar from taking off, and it would put our country at an
incredible disadvantage compared to China, Germany, and a number of
other countries that are making substantial investments in clean
energy.
Solyndra has been used as a red herring to attack DOE loan guarantees
and thus undermine America's commitment to clean energy. But H.R. 6213
would not end the DOE Loan Guarantee Program. It would restrict DOE
loan guarantees to proposals submitted before 2012. That would not save
taxpayers a dime, but it would prevent the most promising technological
advances from receiving consideration for DOE loan guarantees.
There is of course a trade-off in investing in nascent technologies.
Sometimes it won't work out. But as the demand for energy rises,
emerging technologies in the United States will need our support to
compete with China, whose solar industry received $30 billion in
government subsidies in 2010. Because of the Loan Guarantee Programs,
U.S. investment in clean energy edged China last year, but if we
abandon our commitment to investment in the most promising renewable
energy technologies, we will again fall behind. That would be a
reckless and irreversible decision.
We owe it to the next generation to foster the investment that will
make American energy production the envy of the world over the next
century. We will not accomplish that goal by clinging to the
technologies of the past. We must dedicate ourselves to the goal of
energy independence, which is impossible without our support of
emerging energy technologies.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chair, the bill before the House is not a serious
effort at legislating. Instead, once again, the Republican Majority is
using Floor time to try and score political points.
Let's be honest about what's going on here. The legislation should
include a disclaimer: ``This bill supports the partisan, political
interests of House Republicans, who approve this message.''
Seldom has the nation faced such a backlog of serious problems, yet
the Republican Leadership squanders time on political messaging bills
like this one.
Double standard. Every year the taxpayers shell out $4 billion in
unjustified subsidies to the Big 5 oil companies. Two years ago, BP's
Deep Water Horizon well spilled millions of barrels of oil into the
Gulf of Mexico. Do Republicans come to the Floor with a ``No More BP
Spills'' bill? Do they take away the unjustified subsidies to Big Oil?
No.
Two years ago in my home state of Michigan, the Embridge oil pipeline
spilled 800,000 gallons of heavy crude and fouled the Kalamazoo River.
Do House Republicans come to the Floor with a ``No More Embridge
Pipeline Spills'' bill? No. Instead they work to rush through the
permitting on the Keystone pipeline.
Hypocrisy. Republicans like to decry clean energy grants and loan
guarantee programs when many House Republicans, including several
Committee Chairmen and their party's nominee for vice president, have
themselves written to the Obama Administration to express support for
taxpayer support for projects that benefit companies in their states.
Let's be clear. The bill before the House is not about improving U.S.
energy policy or creating jobs.
Instead of wasting time on a bill that will never become law, we need
to invest in renewable energy, and take the steps necessary to allow
United States companies to compete with those in China and other
nations to supply the world's growing demand for wind turbines, solar
panels, and advanced batteries.
We should renew and expand the 48C Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax
Credit that supports American-made clean energy manufacturing. By any
measure, 48C was wildly successful. Republicans should join us in
extending it.
We should also renew without delay the Renewable Energy Production
Tax Credit, which has spurred clean, renewable, domestically-produced
wind energy across the country--and the jobs that go with it. American
jobs are on the line here. 37,000 jobs will be lost next year if the
credit is allowed to expire.
It is time for congressional Republicans to stop their political
games and get to work on legislation to spur investment, expand clean
energy manufacturing, and put Americans back to work.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 6213,
the No More Solyndras Act, as I believe it serves as a critical step in
correcting the glaring missteps of the Department of Energy's failed
loan guarantee program. Through a lack of due diligence, and apparent
political pressure, the Obama Administration risked tax dollars in
companies whose failures should have been foreseeable. Congress must
learn from these
[[Page H6017]]
mistakes and ensure that future tax dollars are not wasted.
I am greatly troubled that several of the initial recipients of the
section 1705 loan guarantee program have declared bankruptcy. The most
high profile of these was Solyndra, the California solar company that
received $535 million in loan guarantees, but DOE also bet wrong by
supporting Beacon Power, Ener 1, and Abound Solar. After Solyndra's
failure, Congress investigated how DOE was awarding its money. We found
that DOE ignored obvious deficiencies in these companies' business
structures and rushed much of the decision making process in the name
of political expedience. To put it bluntly, DOE attempted to pick
winners and losers and it failed miserably.
When news of this reckless use of tax dollars became public, my
constituents were rightfully outraged. In a time of record debt, DOE's
gambling with tax dollars on shaky companies is indefensible. The
American people expect more from their government. However, in an
apparent disregard for its history of failures, DOE is insisting that
it will continue to consider loan guarantees, putting millions more tax
dollars at risk.
The No More Solyndras Act takes the necessary steps to protect the
American taxpayer. By sunsetting DOE's loan guarantee authority, we are
shielding taxpayers from future losses associated with these risky
loans. Further, greater transparency and ensuring no subordination of
tax dollars are important to providing taxpayer protection. While I
would like for more aggressive legislation that would end the loan
guarantee program altogether, I believe the No More Solyndras Act is
needed to begin correcting the flaws of the DOE program.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, printed in the bill, it shall be
in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the 5-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.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 6213
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``No More Solyndras Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) President Obama took office amidst a weak economy and
high unemployment, yet he remained committed to advancing an
expansive ``green jobs'' agenda that received substantial
funding with the passage of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009, commonly known as the stimulus
package.
(2) The stimulus package allocated $90 billion to various
green energy programs, and related appropriations provided
$47 billion for loan guarantees authorized under title XVII
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16511 et seq.).
(3) Such title XVII authorized the Secretary of Energy to
issue loan guarantees for projects that avoid, reduce, or
sequester air pollutants or greenhouse gases and employ new
or significantly improved technologies compared with
commercial technologies in service at the time the guarantee
is issued.
(4) Loan guarantees issued under such title XVII were
required to provide a reasonable prospect of repayment and
were expressly required to be subject to the condition that
the obligation is not subordinate to other financing.
(5) The stimulus package expanded such title XVII by adding
section 1705 to include projects that use commercial
technology for renewable energy systems, electric power
transmission systems, and leading-edge biofuels projects and
by appropriating $6,000,000,000 in funding to pay the credit
subsidy costs for section 1705 loan guarantees for projects
that commence construction no later than September 30, 2011.
(6) The Department of Energy, since the enactment of the
stimulus package, has issued loan guarantees under such title
XVII for 28 projects totaling $15,100,000,000 under the
section 1705 program, and, according to the Government
Accountability Office, issued conditional loan guarantees for
four projects totaling $4,400,000,000 under the section 1705
program and four projects totaling $10,600,000,000 under the
section 1703 program.
(7) Three of the first five companies that received section
1705 loan guarantees for their projects, Solyndra, Inc.,
Beacon Power Corporation, and Abound Solar, Inc., have
declared bankruptcy.
(8) The bankruptcy of the first section 1705 loan guarantee
recipient, Solyndra, Inc., could result in a loss to
taxpayers of over $530,000,000.
(9) The investigation of the Solyndra loan guarantee by the
Committee on Energy and Commerce has demonstrated that the
review in 2009 of the Solyndra application by the Department
of Energy and the Office of Management and Budget was driven
by politics and ideology and divorced from economic reality
where the Department of Energy ignored concerns about the
company's financial condition and market for its products.
(10) Despite an express provision in such title XVII
prohibiting subordination of the United States taxpayers'
financial interest, the Department of Energy restructured the
Solyndra loan guarantee in February 2011, resulting in the
taxpayers losing priority to Solyndra's investors in the
event of a default.
(11) The Inspector General of the Department of the
Treasury concluded that it was unclear whether the Department
of Energy's consultation requirement with the Secretary of
the Treasury on the Solyndra loan guarantee was met; that the
consultation that did occur was rushed with the Department of
the Treasury expressing that ``the train really has left the
station on this deal''; and that no documentation was
retained as to how the Department of the Treasury's serious
concerns with the loan guarantee were addressed.
(12) The Government Accountability Office concluded that
the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program under title
XVII has treated applicants inconsistently; that the
Department of Energy did not follow its own process for
reviewing applications and documenting its analysis and
decisions, increasing the likelihood of taxpayer exposure to
financial risk from a default; and that the Department of
Energy's absence of adequate documentation made it difficult
for the Department to defend its decisions on loan guarantees
as sound and fair.
(13) A memorandum prepared for the President dated October
25, 2010, from Carol Browner, Ron Klain, and Larry Summers,
principal advisors to the President, noted the risk presented
by loan guarantee projects because most of the projects had
little ``skin in the game'' from private investors.
(14) A January 2012 report conducted at the request of the
Chief of Staff to the President concluded that the portfolio
of projects the Department of Energy included in the loan
program were higher risk investments that private capital
markets do not generally invest in.
(15) The Department of Energy's section 1705 program has
expired but the Department of Energy has announced that it
will continue to consider applications for loan guarantees
under the section 1703 program.
(16) The Department of Energy has approximately
$34,000,000,000 in remaining lending authority to issue new
loan guarantees under the section 1703 program.
SEC. 3. SUNSET.
(a) No New Applications.--The Secretary of Energy shall not
issue any new loan guarantee pursuant to title XVII of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16511 et seq.) for any
application submitted to the Department of Energy after
December 31, 2011.
(b) Pending Applications.--With respect to any application
submitted pursuant to section 1703 or 1705 of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 before December 31, 2011:
(1) No guarantee shall be made until the Secretary of the
Treasury has provided to the Secretary of Energy a written
analysis of the financial terms and conditions of the
proposed loan guarantee, pursuant to section 1702(a) of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16512(a)).
(2) The Secretary of the Treasury shall transmit the
written analysis required under paragraph (1) to the
Secretary of Energy not later than 30 days after receiving
the proposal from the Secretary of Energy.
(3) Before making a guarantee under such title XVII, the
Secretary of Energy shall take into consideration the written
analysis made by the Secretary of the Treasury under
paragraph (1).
(4) If the Secretary of Energy makes a guarantee that is
not consistent with the written analysis provided by the
Secretary of the Treasury under paragraph (1), not later than
30 days after making such guarantee the Secretary of Energy
shall transmit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and
the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate a written explanation of any material
inconsistencies.
(c) Transparency.--
(1) Reports to congress.--Not later than 60 days after
making a guarantee as provided in subsection (b), the
Secretary of Energy shall transmit to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce and the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report that
includes information regarding--
(A) the review and decisionmaking process utilized by the
Secretary in making the guarantee;
(B) the terms of the guarantee;
(C) the recipient; and
(D) the technology and project for which the loan guarantee
will be used.
(2) Protecting confidential business information.--A report
under paragraph (1) shall provide all relevant information,
but the Secretary shall take all necessary steps to protect
confidential business information with respect to the
recipient of the loan guarantee and the technology used.
SEC. 4. RESTRUCTURING OF LOAN GUARANTEES.
With respect to any restructuring of the terms of a loan
guarantee issued pursuant to title XVII of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005, the Secretary of Energy shall consult with the
Secretary of the Treasury regarding any restructuring of the
terms and conditions of the loan guarantee, including any
deviations from the financial terms of the loan guarantee.
[[Page H6018]]
SEC. 5. RESTATING THE PROHIBITION ON SUBORDINATION.
Section 1702(d)(3) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42
U.S.C. 16512(d)(3)) is amended by striking ``is not
subordinate'' and inserting ``, including any reorganization,
restructuring, or termination thereof, shall not at any time
be subordinate''.
SEC. 6. ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS AND CIVIL PENALTIES.
(a) In General.--Any Federal official who is responsible
for the issuance of a loan guarantee under title XVII of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 in a manner that violates the
requirements of such title or of this Act shall be--
(1) subject to appropriate administrative discipline
provided for under title 5 of the United States Code, or any
other applicable Federal law, including, when circumstances
warrant, suspension from duty without pay or removal from
office; and
(2) personally liable for a civil penalty in an amount of
at least $10,000 but not more than $50,000 for each
violation.
(b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``Federal official'' means--
(1) an individual serving in a position in level I, II,
III, IV, or V of the Executive Schedule, as provided in
subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code;
and
(2) an individual serving in a Senior Executive Service
position, as provided in subchapter II of chapter 31 of title
5, United States Code.
SEC. 7. GAO STUDY OF FEDERAL SUBSIDIES IN ENERGY MARKETS.
(a) In General.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a
study of the Federal subsidies in energy markets provided
from fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2012.
(b) Focus.--The study required under subsection (a) shall
have particular focus on Federal subsidies in energy markets
provided in support of--
(1) electricity production, transmission, and consumption;
(2) transportation fuels and infrastructure;
(3) energy-related research and development; and
(4) facilities that manufacture energy-related components.
(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the Senate a report that describes the results
of the study conducted under subsection (a), including an
identification and quantification of--
(1) costs to the United States Treasury;
(2) impacts on United States energy security;
(3) impacts on electricity prices, including any potential
negative pricing impact on wholesale electricity markets;
(4) impacts on transportation fuel prices;
(5) impacts on private energy-related industries not
benefitting from Federal subsidies in energy markets;
(6) any Federal subsidies in energy markets that are
provided to foreign persons or corporations; and
(7) subsidies and direct financial interest any of the 15
foreign countries with the largest gross domestic product are
providing to support energy markets in their respective
countries.
(d) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``Federal subsidies'' means Federal grants, direct loans,
loan guarantees, and tax credits, and other programmatic
activities targeted at energy markets and related sectors,
relating to specific energy technologies.
The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in House Report 112-
668. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in
the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered
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.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. DeGette
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
House Report 112-668.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 2, after line 21, insert the following new paragraph:
(6) The Department of Energy estimates that projects funded
under the title XVII program are expected to create 60,000
jobs.
Page 3, lines 13 through 21, amend paragraph (9) to read as
follows:
(9) An investigation by the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigation of the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the
House of Representatives determined that the Solyndra loan
determination was based on the best professional judgment of
career Department of Energy and Office of Management and
Budget officials, without political or ideological
interference from Obama Administration political appointees
or career officials.
Page 3, lines 22 through 24, strike ``Despite an express''
and all that follows through ``financial interest,'' and
insert ``Title XVII provides that taxpayer interests cannot
be subordinated in the origination of a loan, but does not
state whether subordination is allowed during restructuring
of a loan. The Department of Energy General Counsel
determined that in such cases subordination was allowed under
the law, and''.
Page 4, after line 14, insert the following new paragraph:
(12) Department of the Treasury officials testified before
the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives on
October 14, 2011, and stated that their consultation on the
Solyndra loan guarantee was not rushed. In interviews
conducted by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives, Office of Management and Budget officials
indicated that their review of the Solyndra loan, and the
review of Department of Energy officials, was thorough,
complete, and fair, and based on reasonable economic
assumptions about the company's future.
Page 5, line 12, insert ``This report found that the
portfolio of projects under title XVII was strong, performing
within the risk confines established by the Congress, and
would cost the Government $2,000,000,000 less than initially
expected.'' after ``generally invest in.''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 779, the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. DeGette) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, sadly, this deeply flawed legislation we
are considering today is the result of a political investigation, not a
fact-based investigation. The majority has ignored the benefits of the
DOE loan program and has consistently ignored evidence uncovered in the
investigation that contradicts their predetermined view of events. All
you have to do is look at the six pages of partisan findings at the
beginning of the bill as proof that this is really just a witch hunt.
What my amendment does is it at least attempts to fix the most
egregious parts of the false and misleading legislative findings so
that at least the record will attempt to be clear and honest.
The first findings I deal with in my amendment are these findings in
paragraph 9 that say:
The review in 2009 of the Solyndra application by the
Department of Energy and OMB was ``driven by politics and
ideology, and divorced from economic reality where the
Department of Energy ignored concerns about the company's
financial condition and market for its products.''
That is so blatantly partisan. Our committee's oversight work found
that the Solyndra loan determination was based on thorough, unbiased,
and fair analysis of DOE and OMB officials without political or
ideological influence from Obama administration political appointees or
from career officials.
These findings also ignore the fact that each and every one of the 20
witnesses we questioned in interviews and in hearings told us
unequivocally there was no political influence on this loan guarantee,
that no corners were cut in the review, and that all decisions were
made purely on the merits. Shame on the majority for just putting this
blatantly false allegation in these findings.
Mr. Chairman, there are also other findings in the legislation that
are inaccurate and should be removed. The findings state that the DOE
acted illegally in subordinating the Solyndra loan, and Chairman
Stearns talked quite a bit about this in his closing remarks on the
substance of the bill. But when looking at the facts, this is simply
not the case. What the law says is in the initial granting of the loan
guarantee, the government position shall not be subordinated, but DOE's
general counsel carefully analyzed the law and determined that
subordination in the restructuring would be allowed legally. This
opinion was supported by others in the administration, and by outside
experts consulted as part of the committee investigation.
Chairman Stearns talks about talking to independent lawyers who said
that the subordination was not legal. Sadly, he refused to call any of
those lawyers to testify before our committee. Furthermore, he refused
to call the lawyers at the Department of Energy or DOJ who had said
subordination was legal, despite repeated requests by myself and
Chairman Waxman that they should come in.
Here's my question: If subordination was already illegal as the
majority claims, why are we considering legislation that makes it
illegal? Why doesn't
[[Page H6019]]
the Department of Justice just go and prosecute these people? It just
doesn't make sense. That's why my amendment also replaces the
misleading findings about subordination with an honest set of facts.
Mr. Chairman, the findings also ignore the important successes of
title XVII and the ATVM loan programs. In total, the DOE loan programs
are creating 60,000 jobs and saving nearly 300 million gallons of
gasoline a year. The title XVII and ATVM programs have supported six
power generation projects that are already complete and nine projects
that are sending power to the electricity grid. The program is funding
one of the world's largest wind farms; the world's largest concentrated
solar generation project; the world's largest photovoltaic solar power
plant, as we heard from Mr. Waxman; and the Nation's first two all-
electric vehicle manufacturing facilities. The programs have allowed
private investors to come off the sidelines to invest tens of billions
of dollars and create thousands of jobs.
Now, several of my friends on the other side of the aisle, including
Chairman Stearns, and my dear friend from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield),
said we should just cede leadership in this to other countries. If
other countries like China are investing money, well, too bad for us;
we should cede the leadership in solar to them.
I do not think this is the right place for the U.S. to go. For that
reason, I believe my amendment should be adopted. Let's have the
findings of fact be accurate. Vote ``yes'' on the DeGette amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, there are three components to her
amendment. The first one is so surprising that she would make this
claim that the title XVII program created 60,000 new jobs. Of course,
if you go to the Department of Energy's own Web site and you add up the
actual number of the permanent jobs in that program, the number is
1,174, according to DOE's own Web site.
{time} 1100
How could she possibly come down here and say 60,000 jobs because she
includes the ATVM program, which is not part of title XVII, the
Advanced Technology Vehicle Program.
First of all, anybody that votes for her amendment supports voting
for something that is patently false, patently wrong.
The second portion of her amendment is based upon the fact that she
thinks that the decision to loan Solyndra taxpayer money was based upon
personal judgment. But throughout all of the emails we received, we
show, whether it was OMB or Department of Treasury or even the
Department of Energy, they all showed that this program was not going
to make it.
Then the last portion of her amendment, which is really the heart, I
think, of what her amendment is trying to do, she is saying that the
counsel for the Department of Energy determined it was satisfactory to
subordinate taxpayers. This is contrary to what I read earlier, Mr.
Chairman, which clearly shows it's in violation of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005. You cannot subordinate taxpayers.
In fact, even while they were doing this--I want to read you an email
between OMB staff regarding Solyndra and this shows the optics of the
whole thing. This email is between OMB staff regarding Solyndra:
While the company may avoid default with restructuring--vis-&-vis
subordination--there's also a good chance it will not. At that point
additional funds will have been put at risk. Recoveries may be lower
and questions will be asked.
So, the bottom line is even after they parsed the language illegally,
it was clear from the OMB that they weren't going to make it. So the
Department of Energy's legal analysis was a post facto to try to
subordinate to make this survive for political reasons.
Why did they want to make Solyndra succeed? Because it was a poster
child. It was the one that the President has touted, Vice President
Biden touted. They went out there and said we have to make this
continue to work, all the while the subordination was illegal.
Now, OMB's Treasury staff believed the DOE had stretched the language
of the Energy Policy Act beyond the limits when it agreed to
subordinate it. The email I read to you and also further emails I could
elicit, which we don't have time for, will show that OMB and Treasury
believed that the Department of Energy was wrong in parsing the
language to do this. DOE made a questionable, tortured determination of
the law in order to justify a decision they had already made.
We want to stop that. That's why this No More Solyndras bill is
required. They say that the Treasury consultation was not rushed.
The Treasury Department's own inspector general found that the
consultation was rushed, and the cause was a press release that DOE
wanted to issue to tout the Solyndra loan guarantee. We don't want that
to happen again. Treasury wasn't brought in; a collapse of the credit
committee and credit review board that had approved the conditional
amendment. Treasury was given 1 day to review the deal, subordination
of $535 million. Treasury own's emails that were produced to the
committee said that the staff felt jammed.
Mr. Chairman, I think the long and short of it is when you look at
the DeGette amendment, it's clear that this has been repudiated by the
18-month investigation. It shows the information that she has in here
is incorrect, is patently wrong.
I would say in conclusion to all my colleagues who are listening,
subordination of taxpayers' money should stop. If we don't pass this
bill, David Frantz, senior loan officer at the Department of Energy,
will continue to subordinate.
If you believe in subordination, then you vote against this bill. But
if you believe the taxpayers should be protected and taxpayers should
not be put at risk, and if they are at risk, they should have the first
opportunity to get their money back in a bankruptcy, then you should
vote for our bill, No More Solyndras, and you should vote against the
DeGette amendment.
Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 10 seconds
remaining.
Mr. STEARNS. I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Waxman
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
House Report 112-668.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 5, line 23, through page 6, line 2, strike subsection
(a) (and redesignate the subsequent subsections accordingly).
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 779, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, House Republicans have repeatedly claimed
that this bill will terminate the Loan Guarantee Program. No more
Solyndras, no more loan guarantees, but that's not true.
Let's be clear. This bill does not terminate the Loan Guarantee
Program. It doesn't phase it out, it doesn't end it, it doesn't sunset
it, it leaves it in place. It allows the Department of Energy to use
its existing authority to issue $34 billion in new loan guarantees.
DOE could issue those loans tomorrow, they can do it next year, they
can do it 20 years from now. This bill creates no end date for this
program.
After lambasting this Bush-era program for more than a year, House
Republicans are leaving it in place to
[[Page H6020]]
issue tens of billions of dollars more in loan guarantees, and that's a
fact. Here's what the Republican bill actually does. It arbitrarily
picks winners and losers by prohibiting DOE from considering any
application for a loan guarantee submitted after December 31, 2011.
When you say those are the only guarantees that can be considered, it
creates winners, and anything else is a loser, because it can't even be
considered.
There are 50 projects that are eligible for loan guarantees. Everyone
else, no matter how groundbreaking or promising the technology, loses.
Under the Republican bill, we're still going to have a loan guarantee
program issuing tens of billions of dollars of guarantees. The only
question is whether the latest technologies can be considered.
Under the Republican bill, no breakthrough technologies can be looked
at to compete with the older technologies that submitted applications
by the end of September 2011.
That makes no sense. Does anyone believe that there are no new ideas
out there that would be worth considering in the years to come? Of
course not. Let's allow the best projects to compete for the funding.
Now, one of our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle said,
well, it's only fair to let those applications that are pending be
considered. Why is it only fair? We don't owe them any money. We don't
owe them a loan guarantee.
If you wanted to end the loan guarantee program, you should end the
loan guarantee program. What is unfair is to say that those are the
only ones that can be considered.
Renewable energy is a critical part what we need to reduce our carbon
pollution and prevent unchecked climate change and the disasters that
come with it. Breakthroughs in renewable energy are occurring on a
steady basis. These breakthroughs promise greater efficiency at lower
prices, and yet this legislation walks away from technological
breakthroughs in renewable energy by prohibiting DOE from even
considering them.
Suppose the technological breakthrough is not in renewables. Suppose
the application is for a coal plant with carbon capture and storage.
What a breakthrough that would be? Coal could be continued to be used
without further concern about harm to the environment. Coal is
ubiquitous. It's already available, and we could use it without harm.
Yet, a loan guarantee for such a possible technology would not be
able to be considered. Suppose it was for a next-generation nuclear
plant, and they wanted to submit an application. They can't under the
Republican bill.
{time} 1110
So my amendment eliminates the arbitrary provision that prevents DOE
from considering any application submitted after 2011. It keeps all the
other provisions of the bill, even ones I disagree with; but it would
ensure the DOE can use its remaining funds to provide loan guarantees
to the best, most innovative energy projects.
I want to be clear. My amendment does not increase or decrease the
amount of loan guarantees that can be awarded under this program. If my
amendment fails, DOE will still have $34 billion to award in loan
guarantees, should it choose to. If my amendment passes, it will still
be the same amount of money.
I urge support for the amendment.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. STEARNS. My colleagues, this amendment would allow the title XVII
loan guarantee program to go on, continue indefinitely. The committee's
18-month investigation made one thing, I think, absolutely clear: the
title XVII loan guarantee program must be eliminated. The No More
Solyndras Act accomplishes this goal. It's wholly supported by the
Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee and by the full committee. We
support an all-of-the-above national energy policy that embraces a
diverse range of traditional and alternative energy resources, but we
don't support the Federal Government playing venture capitalist with
taxpayer money.
The gentleman from California mentions innovation. I would submit to
him that the iPhone, the iPad, and the iPod all came without the
government picking winners and losers. The government has a role in
fostering the development of new energy technologies, but primarily
through research and development. The committee's investigation made
clear that the government should not be in the business of picking
winners and losers. And like the editorial that I put into the Record
earlier from The Wall Street Journal, China is in the same fix as we
are, and a lot of their solar panel companies are going bankrupt. The
government needs to get out of the loan guarantee business altogether,
and that's why we need to pass this bill.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Murphy).
Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. White House adviser Larry Summers said it
best. When one of Solyndra's own investors was astonished to learn his
startup firm qualified for this massive DOE earmark, Summers replied
the government is a ``crappy venture capitalist.'' Nearly 3 years later
and $1 billion in losses to taxpayers later, isn't it clear the
Department of Energy loan program has failed?
Many of us want our country to implement a comprehensive, successful
energy-independence strategy that uses clean coal, nuclear, clean
natural gas, and other sources. That's why Chairman Upton's bill
included an amendment I authored to have the GAO examine the kind of
subsidies and assistance foreign governments give to their energy
companies. But after an 18-month investigation by the committee, the
truth is the current loan program, as it stands, cannot be salvaged. We
found that the loopholes created in this program by thwarting the
letter and spirit of the law have shaken its foundation.
Solyndra was rushed, reckless, and political. It was rushed because
the entire stimulus loan program was built to get money out the door
quickly. The law originally said they had to pay it back, complete the
projects, and the taxpayers had to be paid back first. These taxpayer
safety nets were removed. Second, it was reckless. Officials at OMB,
DOE, Treasury, and outside investment professionals all warned that
Solyndra was doomed to fail. Even Solyndra employees questioned its
longevity. Finally, it was political. Campaign bundler George Kaiser
made 16 visits to the White House about Solyndra. This committee
uncovered emails between Kaiser and White House officials on Solyndra.
There were internal deliberations about how the White House could mask
the bad news of Solyndra's bankruptcy.
Those are the facts. It's time to turn out the lights on Solyndra and
this DOE loan guarantee program. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment
and support for the bill.
Mr. STEARNS. How much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. STEARNS. In an ideal world, the government would never really
have gone down this road to create these loan guarantee programs in the
first place. I think all of us realize that. While eliminating the
program outright is admittedly appealing, and I think a lot of us on
this side of the aisle want to do that, we must be mindful of the fact
that applicants in the queue have already invested significant time and
financial resources towards simply securing their loan guarantee, and
they have really narrowed their financing options also in reliance of
the existence of this program.
So the question would be, when we thought about this: Is it fair to
change the rules in the middle of the game? We're the United States
Government. We hear all the time that the government changes the rules.
We should be striving to reduce risk caused by the Federal Government,
not create it. That's why I said in my statement here that we have to
be mindful of the fact so many applicants have already committed
themselves and put their time in.
But I think we can learn from this Solyndra debacle. And based upon
this amendment by Mr. Waxman, I think we realize that in the end that
the No More Solyndras Act tackles all the points that he's concerned
about.
[[Page H6021]]
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Waxman amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Waxman).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be
postponed.
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments printed in House Report 112-668 on which
further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Ms. DeGette of Colorado.
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Waxman of California.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. DeGette
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 169,
noes 238, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 581]
AYES--169
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--238
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hochul
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--22
Ackerman
Akin
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Broun (GA)
Coble
Gutierrez
Heinrich
Herger
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
LaTourette
Mack
Poe (TX)
Reyes
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Speier
Sullivan
Towns
{time} 1139
Messrs. CAMPBELL and WEBSTER changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Messrs. SHULER and OWENS changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Waxman
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 170,
noes 231, not voting 28, as follows:
[Roll No. 582]
AYES--170
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Lamborn
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Neal
[[Page H6022]]
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--231
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hochul
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--28
Ackerman
Akin
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Broun (GA)
Coble
Gerlach
Gohmert
Gutierrez
Heinrich
Herger
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Latham
LaTourette
Mack
Napolitano
Peterson
Poe (TX)
Reyes
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Speier
Sullivan
Towns
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1143
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Womack) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration 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, and,
pursuant to House Resolution 779, he reported the bill back to the
House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. MARKEY. I am opposed to the bill in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Markey moves to recommit the bill H.R. 6213 to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendments:
Page 7, after line 6, insert the following new paragraph:
(5) Buy america requirement to create jobs.-- No guarantee
shall be made pursuant to an application unless the applicant
certifies to the Secretary of Energy that--
(A) at least 75 percent of the materials and components
required for construction, manufacturing, or operations to be
carried out under the part of the project for which the
guarantee is applicable will be produced in the United
States, unless the Secretary has waived the applicability of
this subparagraph based on a determination that it is not
feasible to source specific components domestically; and
(B) any project for which the guarantee is applicable will
be located in the United States.
At the end of the bill, add the following new subsection:
SEC. 8. CREATING AMERICAN JOBS WITH THE WIND ENERGY
PRODUCTION TAX CREDIT.
Section 3(a) shall only have the force and effect of law
for such period of time as the credit allowed under section
45 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is in effect for
facilities described in subsection (d)(1) of such section 45.
{time} 1150
Mr. MARKEY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
to dispense with the reading of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to level
the playing field for wind energy and for the guarantee of American
jobs coming out of this No More Solyndras Act. This is the final
amendment to this bill. It will not kill the bill. It will not send the
bill back to committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed
to final passage, as amended.
My motion will ensure that we will only give tens of billions of
dollars worth of loan guarantees that are authorized under this No More
Solyndras Act as long as we will also avoid raising taxes on the wind
industry by $4 billion a year, which is what is going to happen if we
allow the production tax credit to expire at the end of this year.
What is already happening in the wind industry? Well, ladies and
gentlemen, the wind industry says that we are going to lose 40,000 jobs
next year in the wind industry. What has already happened in the last 2
months? Jobs are already being lost in this country because the
Republicans are allowing the production tax credit for wind to expire
even as they authorize these tens of billions of dollars of new
projects for nuclear, for coal. We're not saying that wind should be
treated separately, specially. All we want is equal treatment for
wind--equal treatment.
What's happening in Iowa? Last month, Clipper Wind Company lost 174
jobs in Iowa--gone. Last week, Gamesa, with 165 jobs in Pennsylvania--
gone. This past Tuesday, Molded Fiber Glass in South Dakota, with 92
jobs in the wind industry--gone. By this time next year, 40,000 jobs in
the wind industry--gone. There are 1,700 jobs already gone, and we are
on our way to 40,000 jobs lost in the wind industry. That's part one of
this amendment.
What is the second part of the amendment? The second part says, if
the Republicans are going to authorize
[[Page H6023]]
these tens of billions of loan guarantees in this No More Solyndras
Act, then 75 percent of all of the equipment made under these loan
guarantees is to be made here in America and with American workers
making that equipment under their bill. If we are going to be doing
this, make it in America, and 75 percent of all the equipment should
come from our country.
Why is this amendment even necessary? Well, when the Ryan budget came
out here on the House floor in February of 2011, one month after they
took over, the Ryan budget cut clean energy by 90 percent. What
happened in April out here on the House floor? They cut wind and solar
by $17 billion and kept in all of the money for nuclear and coal.
That's not a level playing field. That's going after wind. That's going
after solar. In this bill, what do they do? Basically, what they say is
they can keep in $88.5 billion for nuclear and for coal loan
guarantees, but for wind and solar, we're sorry.
What we are saying in this amendment is let's have a level playing
field. Let's make sure that wind is given the opportunity to flourish
in the marketplace. Let's not tilt the playing field so that wind is a
guaranteed loser in Iowa, in Pennsylvania, in Colorado, in States all
across this country which are right now facing a 40,000 job loss.
That's what this is all about. Don't give $4 billion a year to the oil
industry and say that it can't be touched and at the same time cut $4
billion from the wind industry, which is an industry that created
12,000 new megawatts of electricity in our country this year.
So this amendment is very simple. It says keep the $4 billion for the
wind industry so that we don't lose 40,000 wind jobs in the next 6
months in State after State after State in our country--States that are
already beginning to see those losses--and let's make sure that 75
percent of all of the equipment that's made under this loan guarantee
program is made by American workers here in the United States. Vote
``yes'' for this recommittal motion. Make it here in America.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion
to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. UPTON. I will be brief.
I would just note that the projects contemplated under title XVII
aren't your usual run-of-the-mill, brick and mortar construction
projects. Usually, they are advanced energy projects that require
highly specialized equipment, complex components, and they aren't
always available domestically. Extending the wind tax credit will be,
in fact, part of the larger debate that the House will have as we look
at all of the expiring tax provisions, and I certainly look for Mr.
Markey's support as we look to extend all of those later on,
particularly for his good folks in the State of Massachusetts.
This has been a very long and extensive investigation, and I will
tell you that Cliff Stearns, the chairman of our Oversight
Subcommittee, has done a very good job as we have tried to get to the
very bottom of this mess. It is our job--that of every one of us here--
to look wherever we can to find fraud and abuse and mismanagement in
any Federal program, to identify it, and then come back and fix it so
that it cannot happen again. No more Solyndras. That's what this bill
does. It is a credit to the investigatory team and to Mr. Stearns'
leadership. We need to defeat this motion to recommit and pass the
bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 175,
noes 234, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 583]
AYES--175
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bonamici
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--234
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hochul
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
[[Page H6024]]
NOT VOTING--20
Ackerman
Akin
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Broun (GA)
Coble
Goodlatte
Heinrich
Herger
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
LaTourette
Mack
Poe (TX)
Ross (AR)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Speier
Towns
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1212
Messrs. CONYERS and MEEKS changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 245,
noes 161, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 584]
AYES--245
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Culberson
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hochul
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--161
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop (NY)
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--23
Ackerman
Akin
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Broun (GA)
Coble
Goodlatte
Graves (MO)
Heinrich
Herger
Higgins
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
LaTourette
Mack
Meeks
Poe (TX)
Ross (AR)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Speier
Towns
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1219
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 584, I was
inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Stated against:
Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chair, earlier today I missed rollcall vote 584, on
final passage of H.R. 6213. Had I been present, I would have voted
``no.''
____________________