[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.''

                          ____________________